Luther's Works App
Reformation Writings

Part 2 - 1/3

Reformation Writings Part 2 - 1/3

This page is under construction and what you see and read is the first step or the beginning of a process to get the best responsive websites for mobile phones and devices, which until now (2024) has not been created yet with Lutheran writings and books.

The main reason to publication of step one (or version 0.1.0) is the search functionality that can be used to searching for words or phrases (to find where Luther was writing it and reference to it).

Part 2 - 1/3

Dr. Martin Luther's

Complete Writings,

published by

Dr. Joh. Georg Walch.

Eighteenth volume.

Reformation Writings.

Disputes with the papists.

New revised stereotype edition.

St. Louis, Mo.

Concordia Lutheran Publishing House (M. C. Barthel, Agent).

1888.

** Dr. Martin Luther's**

Reformation Writings.

Second part.

Dogmatic-polemical writings.

Against the Papists.

Newly published by the Ministry of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod

of Missouri, Ohio and other States.

St. Louis, Mo.

Concordia Lutheran Publishing House (M. C. Barthel, Agent).

1888.

Foreword.

The 18th volume of Walch's edition of Luther, the first part of Luther's polemical writings, which contains the controversial writings exchanged with the papists from the years 1516 to 1525, is presented here in a new edition. This work took a lot of time and effort for the person who did it, Prof. Hoppe. Most of the mentioned writings were originally written in Latin, and the old translations were in great need of correction. The latter have therefore also been exactly revised according to the original and almost all have been replaced by new translations. The latter also applies to Luther's well-known writing De servo arbitrio, "that free will is nothing". It was first the intention to retain the old version of Justus Jonas, and Prof. Zucker in Fort Wayne, at his request, took the grateful trouble to add notes to it, in which the translation errors were corrected.

provided. However, since Justus Jonas not only occasionally missed the meaning of the Latin expression, but delivered more a free paraphrase than a translation and added his own additions to Luther's words throughout, it finally seemed more beneficial to give this so important writing of Luther to the readers in a literal translation. And that is what has been done here. The historical introduction, which gives an account of the origin of the writings printed in this volume and thus at the same time contains an important piece of Reformation history, is also a completely new work, in which, in addition to the old material, the more recent research has also been utilized.

The order of Walch is, on the whole and in general, apart from a few changes, about which more details are noted in the introduction, in this volume of our new Luther edition, as in the previously published ones, fixed.

VI Foreword.

The first volume has been published. Recently, in a German ecclesiastical journal, in the review of the 22nd volume, our edition was reproached for being based on Walch's work. We admit that Walch's division into volumes and within the various volumes of the compilation of the individual writings has some deficiencies and shortcomings. As far as the present 18th volume is concerned, one would be inclined, if one wanted to arrange Luther's writings here anew, independently, to drop the distinction and separation between the writings that are directed against certain persons and those that only concern doctrine. One would, for example, place the writings on indulgences in the 19th volume alongside the writings in which Tetzel and Prierias are opposed; one would prefer to include here some of the documents on the Reformation collected in the previous volumes; one would perhaps make a different selection from the opposing writings; in the end, one would even consider whether one should include the omissions of Luther's opponents, and so on. What primarily determined those who almost a decade ago decided on this new edition of Luther's works to use the old Walch edition as a basis, was the fact that the latter had a kind of house right in

The Lutheran Church has acquired that in most theological and Christian writings that are read in our circles, the passages that are quoted from Luther are cited according to Walch. A thorough dislocation of Walch's classification and order would make it rather difficult for readers who have the new Luther edition in hand to compare those citations with the original. However, they will find Walch's numbering of the pages in regular order also in our edition. Incidentally, the factual order of Luther's polemical writings in Walch's edition, according to which first the controversy over scholasticism, then that over indulgences, then that over the authority of the pope, etc. is considered, is in our opinion far more useful for the reading and study of these writings of Luther than the strict chronological order in the Erlangen edition, by which the similar is torn apart. And which reader of Luther's writings, who really uses Luther's works, will be able to make friends with the method of the Weimar edition, in which one finds doctrinal writings, controversial writings, sermons, catechetical, exegetical treatises colorfully thrown together? Finally, the order in which Luther's writings are printed is not too important. What one can do with

Foreword. VII

In accordance with the original intention, the inaccuracy of the translations, the incompleteness of the historical material in the introductions, which is rightly cited against the old Walch edition, has been improved as much as possible in this "revised" edition of ours, in the present 18th volume, just as in the previous volumes.

Luther's controversial writings, first of all those from the first decade of the Reformation, are herewith given to Lutheran preachers and Lutheran Christians anew and urgently recommended for reading and study. Among Luther's writings, these are truly not of secondary importance, but are among those of the first rank. As high and incomparable as Luther stands as a preacher, as a catechist, as an exegete, he is first and foremost the reformer of the church. And especially his polemical writings find testimony and monument of the great work and struggle of the Reformation. If you first carefully read through the writings of Luther contained in this volume one after the other, it will probably take some effort to work your way through the jumble of papist lies, antics, and foolishness that Luther had to deal with. But this effort will be richly rewarded when he now sees how the light shines out of the darkness, how the bright glow

The first time, Luther's writings are a testimony to the gospel of God's free grace to Erasmus with a joy of faith and a certainty of victory that is seldom found, and he calls out to the Pharisaic world as if with the voice of a herald. That these writings are highly conducive to the knowledge and discernment of pure doctrine, no one will deny. But they also serve for edification. Let no one say that such controversial writings are unedifying. The consolation of God tastes sweetest in the midst of conflict. Whoever has only experienced something in his soul of the hot struggle and opposition in which Luther stood, whoever has ever had to deal with satanic lies and doubts, reaches with both hands for the consolation of the divine word, of divine grace, of which precisely Luther's present writings are dripping. Luther's controversial writings, which at first take us back to the distant past, are contemporary. The papist lies, against which Luther testified and fought, are in general the powerful errors of this last time in which we live, which has dawned with the revelation of the Antichrist. The devil can not

VIII Foreword.

stronger trump card than the one he has played through the pope in Rome, his governor on earth, the child of perdition, only that he gives the old lie a different color and shape at another time. We must be careful in our time that the old Roman leaven, as scholasticism, authority of reason, authority of man, Pelagian, synergistic heresy, Judaism, pagan abominations with Christian nimbus, does not find its way into our church. And Luther, the victor over the Antichrist, has sharpened the weapons with which we can strike at the heart of those enemies of divine grace and probity and deal them a mortal blow. And not

Luther's polemical writings are only useful to theologians for teaching and defense, for fortification in the truth; no, every believing Christian who is accustomed to reading books of spiritual content can understand what Luther has written here quite well and, when he reads it, will become all the more joyful and certain of his faith.

May God, who has given to Christianity of the last days this chosen armament, Dr. M. Luther, grant grace that through the voice of the Reformer, which sounds in our ears especially in the present writings, Luther's spirit and mind, and that is Christ's spirit, may be preserved and increased among us!

St. Louis, on Reformation Day, 1888.

G. Stöckhardt.

** Introduction**

to

first section of Luther's polemical writings against the papists.

The three preceding volumes in Walch's old edition, namely the 15th, 16th and 17th, contain the documents belonging to the history of the Reformation in two sections: in the first, those that concern the actual Reformation, or what happened with the papists; in the second, those that belong to the disputes with the sacramentarians and reformers. Now follow, in the 18th, 19th and 20th volumes, the controversial writings themselves, also in two divisions, which correspond with the earlier ones. These writings are not ordered by time, but by subject. The first section contains those writings that were exchanged with the persons with whom Luther had to enter into a dispute; the second section contains those writings that do not refer to disputing persons, but only to doctrine. The latter are arranged according to the various matters they concern.

In order to avoid a new arrangement, which would have caused great difficulties and would not have turned out any better than Walch's, we have retained the old order. Only in individual pieces we were urged by the results of recent research to make a change. For example, we have prefixed the chapter containing the controversial writings exchanged with Tetzel.

which concerns Silvester Prierias, because the dispute with Prierias, as Walch (Introduction p. 19) assumes, was not the earlier one, but the one with Tetzel. We have also combined the first two chapters of the old edition into one, because in both chapters it is the same persons against whom Luther is arguing. Also the arrangement of individual pieces had to be changed here and there. The "Discussion of Two Propositions in the Heidelberg Disputation" (Walch, old edition, vol. XVIII, 18 f.) and "The Explanation of the Sixth Thesis" of the same disputation (Walch, old edition, vol. XVIII, 29-40, listed as "The Other Question") necessarily had to be assigned to the "Heidelberg Disputation. On the other hand, "Die dritte Quästion" (Walch, old edition, Vol. XVIII, 40-56), which, as Walch did not know, contains "the disputation of N. Bartholomäus Bernhardt from Feldkirch on man's ability and will without grace," had to be separated from the connection in which it had previously stood in all editions except the Weimar one, and placed in first place as the earliest writing. No. 46 of the old edition, "Eck's 13 Theses against Luther and Carlstadt," had to be placed before "Carlstadt's Theses against Eck," as it was earlier in time; likewise, "The Proof of the Barefoot Monks at Weimar" had to precede "Luther's Letters to Wolfgang Stein," because the latter, with reference to the "Luther's Theses against Luther," had to be placed before "Luther's Letters to Wolfgang Stein.

2 Introduction.

is written on it. Such occurrences are accounted for everywhere in the appropriate place.

We have not considered it necessary to designate those pieces with a consecutive number, to which Walch has only referred in this volume, but only those that are really included here. Thus, although the old edition has thirteen chapters with 91 numbers, but our edition only twelve chapters with 68 numbers, everything is included in our edition that was in the old. Omitted from this new edition is only No. 64 of the old edition, "Simon Hessens, päbstlichen Protonotarii, Ursachen, warum Luthers Bücher verdammt worden" ("Simon Hesse's, Papal Protonotarii, Reasons why Luther's books have been condemned"), partly because this writing has nothing to do with Luther's dispute against Latomus, partly because it did not seem to us to deserve a place in Luther's works, which is to be looked up in the following introduction sub VIII. Newly added to this volume, however, is No. 28, Luther's answer to Dungersheim's fifth letter, which is offered here for the first time in German translation.

I. Luther's Controversial Writings Against the Semi-Pelagian School Theologians,

the advocates of free will and followers of Aristotle, in part even before the Reformation.

This main section consists, apart from the letters of Luther (No. 2, 4 and 5 in this volume), essentially of three writings, namely: a. Question about man's ability and will without grace (No. 1); b. Disputation against scholastic theology, held by Franz Günther (No. 3), and c. The Heidelberg Disputation with its subsections (No. 7). The fragment of one of Luther's lectures (No. 6) does not really belong here; the necessary has been said about it in the first notes No. 1. Therefore, we consider here only the three all-given writings.

a. Question about man's ability and will without grace,

disputirt von N. Bartholomäus Bernhardt aus Feldkirch, im September 1516.- The theses, as we see from Luther's letter to Joh. Lang in October 1516 (Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 552), were not posed by Luther himself, but by N. Bernhardt, after he had heard from Luther's mouth the frightening heresies of the papist theologians. Also with regard to the explanations of the theses, we have to assume, according to the cited letter, that they were not written by Luther himself, but by Bernhardt. This much is certain, however, that both the theses and their execution can be traced back to Luther. Luther himself took an active part in the defense of the theses.

"If one reads through this entire writing with attention" (so says Walch in his introduction to this volume, p. 14, § 4), "one will see that Luther already at that time attacked the papacy at its heart and to a certain extent made a beginning of the Reformation, or at least gave a clear prelude to it. This he did precisely by attacking with much emphasis the most noble teachings of the Roman Church, of the natural ability to convert and to live piously, of the merit of good works and of trust in them. It is easy to consider that this must have caused a great stir at the time and did not remain without opposition." Even in Wittenberg, where Luther's views were known, they caused general astonishment. One contradicted ibm, also in Wittenberg, especially the followers of the scholastic direction (among them still Carlstadt, Stehelin rc.); then one feared also for the reputation of the university. Amsdorf sent them to Erfurt, omitting the caption that contained the place and persons of the disputation, to see what impression they would make in the scholarly circles there. The opposition there was much greater than in Wittenberg, as Luther's friend Johann Lang, who was the Augustinian prior there and a teacher at the university there, had told him.

The occasion for this disputation itself was, as Luther mentions in the letter cited, the following: Luther had the semipelagia-

Introduction. . 3

He attacked the scholastic errors of free will, sin, etc. not only on the chair in his lectures, but also publicly in the pulpit in his sermons. Here belong, for example, the "Sermon on one's own wisdom and will" on St. Stephen's Day 1514 (St. Louis edition, vol. XII, 1682); the "Sermon on trusting in one's own merit" on the 10th Sunday after Trinity 1516 (St. Louis edition, Vol. X, 1284); the "Sermon on the Chief Sins of Those Who Boast of Their Meritorious Works and Imagined Holiness" on the 11th Sunday after Trinity in 1516 (Vol. X, 1288), and others. He had thereby incurred the displeasure and opposition of the scholastic theologians. Therefore, Bartholomäus Bernhardt, a student of Luther and teacher at the University of Wittenberg, put forward these theses to defend Luther's teaching and to "shut up those yappers". Through this disputation Bernhardt acquired the dignity of a Sententiarius. 1) He later became professor of theology at Wittenberg, in 1518 Rector of the University there, and in December 1518 was appointed pastor and provost in Kemberg. However, he did not take up this position until the spring of 1519.

The disputation consists of three main theses, each of which in turn results in three consequential theses, and was exceptionally held under Luther's chairmanship (instead of Carlstadt's, who would have been entitled to it as dean of the theological faculty), probably in September 1516.

b. Disputation against scholastic theology, held by Franz Günther from Nordhausen. - In the later Middle Ages, Aristotle dominated the whole of theology, and his reputation was in constant ascendancy until Luther's time. "Aristotle had (so says Walch, Einl. p. 12, tz 2) attained such high esteem that he was worshipped like a god, his teachings blindly followed.

  1. This dignity was the next higher after that of the Baccalaureus. A Baccalaureus "pro dikliis) had to read about the Bible; the higher-ranking Sententiarius about the sentences of Peter Lombardus. From this one can see that among the scholastic theologians the holy scripture was respected less than their own scholastic stuff (cf. St. Louis edition, vol. X, B39, Z 144).

and considered what God said in His words to be nothing. Luther recognized this philosophical abomination and therefore, for conscience' sake, could not remain silent about it. He well saw how especially Aristotle's moral doctrine could by no means stand with true Christianity, and he made a correct judgment when he said (in our disputation, thesis 41): "Almost the whole moral doctrine of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. Should the. Gospel to prevail, Aristotle had to be put out of the way. Therefore, on August 21, 1517, it was decided to hold a disputation against the philosophy of Aristotle, which was taught by the scholastic theologians. Luther immediately sent the theses to Erfurt through Otto Beckmann to his friend Johann Lang (see No. 4) in order to find out what the position in Erfurt would be, and he also offered to come and discuss it publicly. No use was made of this offer, but the old men, grayed in scholasticism, spoke very unfavorably of Luther: he was too presumptuous, too lofty in his assertions, too easily condemned the opinions of others. 2) In Wittenberg, however, the theses were generally applauded, and when Franz Günther of Nordhausen defended them on Sept. 4, 1517, in order to attain the dignity of a baccalaureate, he received the same "uno consensu dominorum.

c. Disputation, held in Heidelberg, against scholastic theology and philosophy. - Staupitz had called the General Chapter of the Augustinians to Heidelberg on April 25 (Jubilate) 1518. Luther was also required to attend. At the public disputation to be held on this occasion, Luther had submitted 40 theses against scholastic theology and philosophy, namely 28 theological and 12 philosophical. These were defended under his chairmanship by a young monk, Leonhard Beyer. The hatred and enmity of his scholastic opponents against him had become so great that he was

  1. Luther's letter to Joh. Lang, Nov. 11, 1517. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 484.

4- Introduction.

He was generally discouraged from going to the chapter in Heidelberg because they feared for his life. (Cf. Luther's letter to Joh. Lang in Erfurt of March 21, 1518, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 3). Nevertheless, Luther left Wittenberg on foot on April 9 and arrived in Heidelberg on about April 21.

The disputation was held on April 26, but not in the university auditorium, which the professors would not allow, but in the Augustinian monastery, about which the university had no say. Walch in his introduction, p. 15, says: "There was a large attendance of students, citizens and courtiers. The interjections were made not only by learned monks, but also by the public teachers of theology, so that they remained quite within bounds, without the last and youngest becoming somewhat violent and saying: if the peasants should hear and understand what Luther was saying with the responder, they would stone such, at which the listeners laughed, as this Luther himself tells us. (In the letter to Spalatin, May 18, 1518, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, annex, no. 7). God showed him many mercies in this, so that he could not present and defend the truth without blessing. The then court preacher of Count Palatine Frederick, Martin Bucer, had mostly transcribed what had been presented and subsequently informed Beatus Rhenanus of it in a letter, in which he praised Luther for having shown great amenity and long-suffering in disputing, for not having followed either Scotus' or Paul's disputing rules, and for having astonished everyone with his short answers taken from Scripture. Count Palatine Wolfgang also commemorated this disputation very praiseworthily and wrote to Elector Frederick of Saxony: "Luther has kept himself so skillfully with his disputations that he has not made a small praise to your university. He also received great praise from many learned people. In addition to Bucer, the audience included Johann Brenz, Erh. Schnepf, Theobald Billicanus and others, who stayed in Heidelberg at that time for the sake of their studies and later became respected and great scholars of God. They

admired Luther's skill, and after the disputation was over, they discussed with him some points which they had not sufficiently grasped, and received further instruction from him."

The content of the theological theses is directed against the errors of the Roman Church concerning free will, grace, faith, justification and good works; the 12 philosophical theses, however, are directed against Aristotle and his philosophy.

II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. 1)

Johann Tetzel (or Tezel, Detzel, Thizell, etc.) was born in Leipzig, according to some in 1454, according to others in 1459. His father was the goldsmith Hans Dietze. In the register of Leipzig he registered himself in 1482 as Johannes Tezelius de Lipsia. He had a sister living in Pirna, which is often mentioned as his birthplace. On September 14, 1487, he was awarded a doctorate in philosophy, and in 1489 he was initiated into the Dominican monastery in Leipzig, that is, he was accepted into the order. There he not only had his permanent residence for a long time, but also until his death the place from which he left and to which he returned. We know almost nothing about his studies; only that Wimpina had a great influence on him. He is said to have had a good mind, popular eloquence, a good memory and a friendly demeanor, and to have been able to gain great favor with the common man. He did not use his beautiful gifts in the service of God, but to serve the pope, to which his pandering for indulgences sufficiently testifies. Tetzel died during the Leipzig disputation, as a contemporary (Sebastian Fröschel) relates, "on the day when Luther began to disputate against the pope", on August 7, 1519, and was buried on August 12 in Leipzig. The main cause of his death is said to have been that he had been heart-broken by the fact that in

  1. In this presentation we have used the monograph of Dr. Ferd. Körner: "Tezel, der Ablaßprediger" (1880). used.

Introduction. 5

Luther was accused of embezzlement by the Fugger witnesses, accused of immorality before all eyes, threatened with papal wrath, while he had previously been highly respected as a preacher of indulgences, influential as subcommisfar general of the Cardinal of Mainz, endowed with great powers as an inquisitor and feared by all. Therefore, shortly before his end, Luther wrote him a letter of consolation. 1)

Although the Franciscan Order disdained to have a hand in the business of indulgences, the most respected ecclesiastical prince in Germany, Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Magdeburg and Administrator of the Bishopric of Halberstadt, 2) did not hesitate, by means of a considerable sum of money (10,000 ducats), to induce the pope to transfer the indulgence business to him for eight years, on condition that he, as indulgence commissioner, should receive half of what was raised by the indulgence trade, allegedly for the building of St. Peter's Church in Rome. Peter's Church in Rome, would be raised. For the pallium of the archbishopric of Mainz 3) Albrecht had to pay the pope twenty thousand ducats, i.e. a total of thirty thousand ducats, with the addition of the aforementioned ten thousand ducats, which he had promised to pay to the Roman chamber on August 1, 1514, "with the express provision that these shall in no way be deducted from the half due to His Holiness. 4) For the payment of this sum

  1. Cf. Luther, Preface to the First Volume of the Collection of His Latin Works. Jena edition (1579), second page of the penultimate leaf.
  2. On August 30, 1513, he was elected Archbishop of Magdeburg, and on September 9 of the same year he was postulated Administrator of the Bishopric of Halberstadt. The pallium for both bishoprics was granted to him in Rome on December 7, 1513. Cf. Körner "Tetzel,
  3. After the death of Archbishop Uriel, which occurred on February 9, 1514, Albrecht let the cathedral chapter know that he would pay for the pallium from his own funds if he were appointed to the vacated see. Thereupon he was appointed, solemnly received in Mainz on November 8, and, after the pallium had arrived on December 2, enthroned on the 22nd of the same month. Cf. Körner, p. 44.
  4. Cf. the Supplication of the Archbishop of Mainz to the Pope in Körner, p. 47.

Albrecht borrowed twenty-one thousand ducats from the Fuggers in Augsburg. In order to secure the Fuggers with regard to their loan, in the first months of 1517, the archbishop and his co-commissioner, the Guardian of the Franciscans in Mainz, issued the following decree to the sub-commissioners: "According to strict papal orders, the indulgence box should only be opened in the presence of the procurator of the Fuggers, and half of the income for the pope, the other half for the archbishop, should be handed over to him for the repayment of his debt. Three notarial instruments are to be recorded about it, one for the Fuggers, one for the Archbishop, one for the Guardian." 5) Soon thereafter, Leo X appointed two more supercommissars for the indulgences, namely Arcimboldi of Milan in December 1514, mostly for the northern countries, and the Franciscan general Forli for Italy and Switzerland. Albrecht was assigned other specific intervening lands for his part. He, as commissar-in-chief, appointed Tetzel as his subcommissar; Tetzel was appointed inquisitor of the heretic court by Cajetan in 1509. However, in the letter of indulgence issued at Crichow on May 19, 1515 (Löscher's Reformation Acts, Vol. I, 391), Tetzel describes himself as the "most holy priest of God through the provision of the most holy Father in Christ, Pope Leo X., the highest priest of God, his vicar on the whole earth, as well as of the Holy Roman See," and the Guardian of the Friars Minor of St. Francis as his co-commissioner and colleague; both are probably to be regarded as a boast, which he used, as it is in his nature, to give himself a higher reputation.

In the last years of the 15th century Tetzel had been ordained priest and now began his spiritual activity, but not preaching in the service of actual pastoral care, but preaching in the service of indulgences, which particularly appealed to him and in which he achieved great fame. In this he soon showed a restless striving, a skill and a high degree of popular devotion.

  1. Ibidem, p. 98.

ß Introduction.

He was so eloquent that he distinguished himself before many preachers of indulgences and his collections often yielded a rich harvest. As early as 1502, Naymund Peraldus took him into his service as a grace preacher, when he preached indulgences in Germany and northern Europe for the war against Turks and Tartars, and since 1504 he preached indulgences for the Teutonic Order, first with Baumhauer. Then we meet him in the years 1505 and 1506 in his hometown Leipzig as Subcommissarius of the Jubilee against the Russians in Liefland, together with Hermann Ronnenberger; further in Freiberg, Dresden, Pirna, Leipzig and Zwickau in 1507. In this stay in Zwickau falls the story that Tetzel transformed the Roman satirist Juvenal into a saint, and held a feast in his honor to collect money for a feast. 1) In all these places, as usual, he was honorably caught up. Likewise in Annaberg, where we meet him in 1508. Then he went to Upper Lusatia and preached the Epiphany in Bautzen and in St. Peter's Church in Görlitz, especially supported by the Franciscans there. About this stay in Görlitz we have the interesting and valuable testimony of a contemporary of Tetzel, M. Johann Hass, syndicus and from 1536 to 1544 mayor of Görlitz, who had also heard him preach. In his "Görlitz Annals" from 1509 to 1542, it says: "In 1509, a Roman grace was established here, by the German Lords in Liefland, to resist the unbelievers, and was led by Johannes Tetzel, a monk of the Order of Preachers. He was a strong man in body, eloquent in speech and very bold, quite learned and of ambiguous character in life. He said: He would be more than the mother of God for forgiveness and retention of sin; as soon as the penny was thrown into the basin and rang, as soon as the soul, for which it was laid, led to heaven; he would be a heretic master; all who

  1. Cf. Tentzel, "Historischer Bericht von Anfang und Fortgang der Reformation," p. 108 ff; Herzog, Zwickauer Chronik II, 169. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 443, no. 92. - Because of the magnificent catching up, cf. Walch, ibid. col. 441, no. 90.

against his sermon and the indulgence, he wanted to have their heads cut off, and so, expelled bloody into hell, let the heretics burn, so that the smoke should rise over the walls. And of the thurstigen sd. i. bold] and undoubtedly unchristian words and opinions exceedingly much, as those say who have heard him more than I." Whoever intercedes for his father, for him and for the deceased, no longer needs to remember him in intercession, he is certainly blessed. Many, especially the "young matrons", would have thrown in or solved letters of mercy for a quarter of a Rhenish florin, later still "baß feyler" i.e., more reasonable. "But this custom he is said to have had, so the people now deposited, he went to the basin and shabe] his pocket full of gold, put." We know for certain that Tetzel was in Annaberg a second time in July and September 1509, still under the chief commissar for Liefland, Arcimbold, and collecting for the. Order of the Teutonic Knights. Because on July 26 the Annenmarkt was held, which took place for the first time in this year, Tetzel received the order to exhibit the Red Cross the day before, in order to market something substantial for his purpose under the company of the incitement to devotion, which he also completely succeeded in, because "at the inauguration of the Annenmarkt he made a great stir and brilliant business. 2) There, as Myconius reports as an ear witness, he had preached, "if one quickly put in and redeemed grace and indulgences, then all the mountains around St. Annaberg would become vain solid silver". 3) At the end of 1509, he crossed the Rhine upstream, possibly even from Cologne to Switzerland, reported to his superior in Constance, and passed through Swabia to Strasbourg in Alsace in January 1510. After his return, we meet Tetzel for the third time in Annaberg, where he proclaimed indulgences from March to July 1510 and sold butter letters for the benefit of the Peteuskirche construction. His stay lasted until after the second Annenmarkt, that is, until after July 26.

  1. Manitius, Einführung der Reformation in Annaberg. 1840. S. 47.
  2. Cf. Tentzel, Historical Report, p. 126.

Introduction. 7

In 1510, the following event took place: Frederick Mecum 1) had heard from Tetzel's mouth around Pentecost 1510: "He would soon take down his red cross, close the open door of heaven, and probably never would Roman grace return to Germany like this, and eternal life and the forgiveness of sins could be obtained for so little. Therefore, everyone should hurry to save his soul: now is the pleasant time, now is the day of salvation!" He had also read on the church doors that, according to the will of the Holy Father, the letters of indulgence should from now on be given to all at a reduced price, to the poor for God's sake for free. Concerned for his soul and thirsting for mercy, the eighteen-year-old youth goes to Tetzel's apartment, finds no access to the high commissioner himself, but presents his request in Latin to the priests and confessors in the antechamber, to obtain the indulgence of his sins for free (gratis) for the sake of his great poverty. The priests return the message that no one can be given indulgences or benefit from them unless he gives a helping hand, that is, pays. Repeated representations to Tetzel were of no avail, just as the priests' insistence that Myconius pay only one penny, only six pennies, which they wanted to give him as a gift, did nothing for the pious student, who only asked for God's free grace. The result of this process was that, after long consultations with his teacher and compatriot Andreas Staffelstein and hard struggles with himself, the man, who was worried about his salvation, first sought peace and quiet in the Franciscan monastery in Annaberg on July 14, 1510, until he finally found it in God's words through the Lutheran teachings. - From all this, it is clear that Tetzel, as well as his superiors whom he served, did not belong to the

  1. Friedrich Mecum or Myconius, born at Lichtenfels am Main on December 26, 1491, from 1504 to 1510 student of the Latin school at Annaberg, then Franciscan, 1524 first Protestant preacher in Gotha; died there as General Superintendent on April 7, 1546. He had heard Tetzel so often and devoutly that he could recite whole sermons of Tetzel, even imitating voice and gestures. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 447, no. 98.

The only thing that the Pope and Cardinal Albrecht cared about was the plight of the souls and the salvation of Christ's lambs, but, like them, they were only looking for monetary gain.

Very little is known with certainty about Tetzel's life from August 1510 until the end of 1514. There is some evidence that he lived in Nuremberg and Ulm around 1512, but here under Conrad Kraft's strong resistance, and from there went to Innsbruck, where he was convicted of adultery and sentenced by Emperor Maximilian I. to be put to death by sackcloth. He is said to have been set free by the Elector Frederick the Wise, who was present at the time, and then sent to Leipzig for life imprisonment, but to have been set free again after intercession after a few years. This fact is completely certain, 2) only the determination of the time has its difficulty.

Around Christmas 1514 we see Tetzel, doing his old business, again in Zwickau. There, under Arcimbold, he proclaimed the indulgence for St. Peter's Church in Rome, no longer for the Teutonic Order in Liefland, with good and abundant success. At the end of the proclamation, as his contemporary M. Joh. Petrejus, in the preface to the Roman booklet of indulgences, lit. d 3. 4, tells, 3) he preached, in order to give the local priests something to talk about, about a soul whimpering at night in the churchyard and pleading for salvation. Whoever would not be diligent in sacrifice to redeem the poor soul from its torment must be an adulterer or adulteress.

In 1515, we do not know of any significant activity of Tetzel in the indulgence trade; from this year, we only know of the indulgence letter issued in Crichow, near Weißenfels, already mentioned. His service for Arcimbold still existed in name, but was in the process of expiring, that for

  1. Cf. Luther's writing "Wider Hans Wurst". Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1703, § 96 ; Tentzel, Historischer Bericht, p. 106; KseksrulorI, Hist. Imtü., lüd. I, 866t. 7, § 7, Xctüitio u; Matthesius, St. Louiser Ausg., p. 15.
  2. Cf. Tentzel, Historischer Bericht, p. 108; Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 442, no. 91.

8 Introduction.

Albrecht was in the beginning, but because the agreement with the pope was not yet completely arranged, since he had not yet obtained the free right of disposal regarding his half, he could not yet eagerly pursue the trade in indulgences. The same was true in 1516, from which we have only one letter of indulgence, dated Wurzen, April 24, 1516, and a letter of indulgence or more correctly a letter of communication, issued by the prior of the Dominican monastery in Leipzig, which Tetzel also signed. In this year Staupitz was together with Link and Luther for the visitation of the Augustinian monastery in Grimma. There Staupitz received a letter from his relatives in Müglenz near Würzen with the report of Tetzel's doings in Wurzen, whereupon Luther exclaimed full of indignation: "Now I will make a hole for the timpani, if God wills it. 1)

When in 1517 Archbishop Albrecht started his sale of indulgences with greater vigor, Tetzel also began to proceed with renewed zeal. He did not suspect that he would bring about the end of the sale of indulgences and, according to God's counsel, break the way for the right divine teaching about sin, forgiveness of sin and grace, about satisfaction, redemption and reconciliation through Christ.

Early in 1517, Tetzel set out from Leipzig and appeared for the fourth time in the abundant Annaberg around Lätare 1517 and was busy there the following week with the indulgence trade, which was the reason for the founding of the Lätare market there. Towards the middle of the year, he went to Magdeburg and Halle, partly to stop all other indulgences for eight years in favor of the indulgences transferred to him, and partly to pursue his St. Peter's Church indulgences in both cities. Arriving in Magdeburg in the first half of June, he exploited the rich city and its surroundings, took, as the Magdeburg chronicler Rathmann reports, a lot of money away with him, and a Franciscan, who already at that time dared to pursue his nonsensical

  1. Grimmaische Chronik von Crell bei Lorenz, Historische Beschreibung von Grimma, p. 1317 f. (Körner p. 67.)

He threatened to contradict his claims with fire and sword as an inquisitor. 2) Thereupon he moved to Halle and preached his indulgence in St. Martin's Chapel. Probably in July and August he "did his trade, although not without grumbling of the nobility and many citizens in Naumburg and Zeitz and the surrounding area". 3)

After Elector Joachim of Brandenburg had permitted the sale of indulgences in his lands by decree of September 16, 1517, Tetzel immediately appeared in the Mark. On October 5, 1517, he appeared in Berlin as the general subcommissar of Archbishop Albrecht, subsequently confirmed by him in a decree of December 13, 1517, and of the Franciscan guardian in Mainz, the provincial of the Minorites, Alexander Molitor. Before the month of October was over, he preached in Zerbst and Jüterbock, where the first clash between him and Luther began. Many people from Wittenberg had also bought letters of indulgence in Jüterbock and Zerbst and went to Luther for confession. They confessed adultery, fornication, usury and other sins against the seventh commandment, but would not refrain from such sins; and because they would neither repent nor amend, Luther would not absolve them. When the confessors invoked the indulgence bought by Tetzel, Luther would not turn to it, but held out to them the saying (Luc. 13:5), "If you do not amend your ways, you will all perish." Then they went back to Tetzel in Jüterbock and complained to him that the Augustinian monk did not want to give anything for the letters of indulgence. Tetzel was very angry about this, raged, scolded and maledicted horribly on the preaching chair and threatened the heretic masters. And to frighten even more, he had a fire lit in the marketplace several times a week to indicate that he had orders from the pope to burn the heretics who opposed the Most Holy One, the pope, and his Most Holy Indulgence. 4)

  1. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 445, no. 95.
  2. Müller, Reformation History of Zeitz, p. 10 (Körner p. 73).
  3. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 471, no. 107.

Introduction. 9

The pope and his commissars of indulgences, high and low, were not concerned with the salvation of souls, but only with the monetary gain that accrued to them from the sale of indulgences. Therefore, while even according to the teachings of the Roman Church, only those who had confessed in true contrition were forgiven their sins in the sacrament of penance through the absolution of the priest, and only temporal punishments and pardons lay upon the absolver, which were imposed by the priest, and these could be remitted through the clemency of the church: These sellers of indulgences kept silent to the people about the difference between the guilt of sin and the punishment of sin, and preached to them in the most shameless manner that through indulgences they could virtually acquire beatitude for themselves and their dead, and only in the rarest of cases was the sale of indulgence slips inquired about whether the purchaser had really confessed in true repentance. And who could know? ^1^) Among the scholars of the theological schools, however, there was a dispute as to whether the pope, by virtue of the power vested in him in Peter (via zurisdictionis), grants indulgences even in purgatory, or only intercessionally (per suffragium), that is, by virtue of the petition made in the name of the church that the Lord grant indulgences to the departed.

Without requiring a repentant attitude, the extraordinary indulgence proclaimed by Tetzel for the construction of St. Peter's Church in Rome granted the right to choose one's own confessor, who could absolve one's transgressions, the absolution of which was otherwise reserved for bishops and popes. Likewise, without prior confession being required, one was assured participation in all the spiritual goods of the Church, its prayers, masses, etc., only on the basis of a monetary payment, thus, since the sacrifice of the Mass was a repetition of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, even in the merits of Christ. Finally, these gifts could also be given to the poor souls in Purgatory. 2)

  1. Kolde, "Martin Luther," p. 131.
  2. Cf. Kolde, I. c. S. 133.

Against this Luther began to testify modestly, first in his sermon on the 10th Sunday after Trinity 1516 3): "For who seeks the salvation of souls through it indulgences and not rather the money in their bags? This is quite clear from the way it is administered. For nowhere do the commissaries and their servants preach anything but that they extol the indulgence and incite the people to give. There you cannot hear anyone teaching the people what indulgences are, when they give, when they no longer give, but how much they should give, and they leave the people in such ignorance in uncertainty, so that they think they will be blessed immediately if only they have obtained this indulgence. For grace is not given, at least in itself, by which anyone can become righteous or justified, but only a remission of the penance and the satisfaction imposed. If this is remitted, it does not follow that he who dies in this way immediately flies to heaven. But the foolish people, and that is to say the greater part of them, who are thus deceived, believe that through the plenary indulgence all sin is so taken away that they immediately fly to heaven, and they continue to sin with impunity, and their conscience becomes all the more evil" (aggravat so vinculis conscientiae).

Another testimony of Luther against indulgences, which has been preserved for us, is found in his sermon on the day before the consecration of the church on October 31, 1516 4): "But this vice of self-righteousness is especially prevalent in our time, where the people are led to this vice by seducers, liars (fabulatores) 2c, since they should rather be dissuaded from it. Such people are those who preach indulgences, of whom I will say a few things for the sake of example, and because many have desired it. For I have already spoken more about this, especially since this pretense of indulgences is at the door, so that I may be excused, but you may be excused from the danger of a

  1. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 917 ff. (There is the wrong year 1518.) Weim. Ausg., vol. I, 65.
  2. Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 929 ff. (with the year 1517); Weim. Ausg., vol. I, 94.

10 Introduction.

false sense". Then he testifies that the intention of the pope is right and true, and that the words of those who trumpet indulgences in this way may also be true in a certain sense, but that some things are not spoken according to the truth or are not understood correctly. Therefore, in order to counter false notions of indulgences, he uses the example of Zacchaeus to explain the essence of right repentance, which proves to be that one would much rather take the punishment upon oneself than avoid it. He closes the sermon with the words: "Therefore see how dangerous is the preaching of indulgences, which takes away grace and teaches to flee from satisfaction and punishment, so that it is to be feared that it is the powerful effect of error, which the apostle preached before 1 Thess. 2, 11. For how is it possible (qua facilitate) that true repentance and such an easy and plentiful indulgence can be preached at the same time and at once, since true repentance demands a strict fulfillment and this indulgence slackens too much? Or shall we make the excuse that the same is to be understood only of the repentance of the perfect, and so it is not necessary to bring men to perfect repentance? But why then do the harlots and publicans begin with this repentance? Rather, all are to be exhorted to this true repentance."

We still have an excellent testimony of Luther against indulgences at the end of the sermon on St. Matthew's Day, February 24, 1517: 1) "Also just the abundant granting of indulgences promotes servile righteousness to a high degree, because by the same nothing is effected but that the people learn to fear, flee and detest the punishment of sins, but not also the sins. Therefore, there is no fruit of indulgences at all, but a great certainty and carelessness (licentia) in sinning, in such a way that, if the punishment of sins were not feared, no one would even wish to have this indulgence in vain, whereas

  1. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XII, 1762, and again Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 944.

Rather, the people should be exhorted to love the punishment and take up the cross. And God would have me be lenient in saying that indulgences perhaps rightly have their name for this reason, because induIgere is as much as to permit, and indulgence is impunity, a permission to sin and a freedom to nullify the cross of Christ. Or if indulgences were to be allowed, they should be given only to the weak in faith, so that those who strive to attain meekness and humility would not be offended, as the Lord says here. For he says here that it is not through indulgences, but through meekness and humility that the rest of souls is found. But meekness only takes place in punishment and in the cross, from which that indulgence frees us and teaches us to abhor it, and causes us to become meek and humble in no matter, that is, never to obtain true indulgence, nor to come to Christ. Oh about the dangers of our time! O over the sleeping priests! O more than Egyptian darkness! How safe we are in all our very worst evils!"

While Luther was thus testifying more and more clearly against the indulgence, Tetzel began to do his mischief more and more in the immediate vicinity of Wittenberg. But let us leave it to Luther himself to report on this: "When many people from Wittenberg ran after the indulgences to Jüterbock and Zerbst 2c, and I (as truly as my Lord Christ has redeemed me) knew nothing about what the indulgences were, as no one did not know: I began to preach that one could do something better that would be more certain, neither to cancel the indulgences. I had also preached such a sermon here from the castle, against indulgences, and earned Duke Frederick's bad grace with it, because he also loved his monastery very much. 3) Now that I come to the right cause of the Lutheran noise, I let,

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII. 1704 ff. § 97-106. The truthfulness of this report could not be denied even by Luther's fiercest opponents, e.g. Maimburg. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 457, no. 102 ; Kseksndork, Ilist. Dutlu, I4N. I, x". 12, seot. 6.
  2. Duke Frederick had a great interest in indulgences because the All Saints Church in Wittenberg was endowed with an indulgence for a hundred years. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 474, no. 111.

Introduction. 11

I let everything go as it went. However, I am faced with how Tetzel would have preached horrible, terrible articles, which I will name several this time, namely:

"He would have such grace and authority from the Pope, if one had weakened and impregnated the Blessed Virgin Mary, God's Mother, he could forgive it, where he puts into the box what is due.

"Item, the red indulgence cross with the Pope's coat of arms, erected in the churches, would be as powerful as the cross of Christ. If St. Peter were here now, he would not have greater grace or power, neither would he.

"Item, he did not want to booty exchange in heaven with St. Peter: for he would have saved more souls with indulgences, neither St. Peter with his preaching.

"Item, if one puts money into the box for a soul in purgatory, as soon as the penny falls to the ground and clinks, lead the soul out to heaven.

"Item, the grace of indulgence would be the very grace by which man is reconciled to God.

"Item, it would not be necessary to have repentance nor sorrow or penance for sin, if one bought (I should say, redeemed) indulgences or letters of indulgence, and also sold future sin. And he did a great deal of this, and was all about money.

"But at that time I did not know to whom such money should go: there went out a booklet 1), quite splendid under the bishop of Magdeburg's coat of arms, in which such articles some were commanded to preach to the quaestors. Then it came about that Bishop Albrecht had hired this Tetzel, because he was a great clamant, ... and sent this great bag thresher into the countries; he also grazed on it, that it began to fall with heaps into the boxes, to jump, to ring. But he did not forget himself. Nevertheless, the pope had kept his hand in the order that half of it should fall to the building of St. Peter's Church in Rome. So the journeymen went up with joy and great hope to strike the bags.

  1. Des Erzbischofs zu Mainz und Magdeburg summarische Instruction für die Untercommifsarien. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 370, No. 72.

and to thresh. Such, I say, I did not know at that time.

"Then I wrote a letter^2^ ) with the Propositionibus the 95 Theses to the bishop of Magdeburg, admonishing and asking him to put a stop to Tetzel, and to prevent such an unskillful thing from being preached, so that an unpleasantness would arise from it; this was due to him as an archbishop. I can still post the same letter, but I did not receive an answer. Similarly, I also wrote to the bishop of Brandenburg as an ordinarius, to whom I had a very gracious bishop in a hurry. He replied that I was attacking the power of the church and would make trouble for myself; he advised me to let it go. I can well imagine that they both thought that the Pope would be much too powerful for me, such a miserable beggar.

Nevertheless, although the most powerful church leader in Germany, even the Pope in Rome, were the instigators and main promoters of the indulgence faith, on October 31, 1517, the day before All Saints' Day, Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Declaration of the Power of Indulgences (No. 8 in this volume) on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg. There was no opposition to these theses. The number of theses was originally not a continuous one, but they were divided into four groups; the first three comprised 25 theses each, the fourth 20. They were originally written in Latin, but were soon translated into German by Justus Jonas. Although Luther was still deeply involved in papist doctrine at the time, as he himself admits in the preface to his Disputations or Propositions against Indulgences, the Papacy, and the Sophists' Doctrine 2c. ^3^), the theses already contain beautiful testimonies of evangelical truth, especially of right repentance, justification and forgiveness of sins. However, he still acknowledges the sovereignty of the pope, leaves purgatory unchanged, denies the great power that indulgences have in the Roman church, and also denies that the pope is the only one who has the power to grant indulgences.

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 479, no. 114.
  2. Jen. Ausg., 2. Auflage, Bd. I, fol. 4; Walch, alte Ausg., Bd. XI V, 470. The year 1516 there is of course wrong, because the collection of disputations belongs to a later time.

12 Introduction.

He even said: "Whoever speaks against the truth of the papal indulgence is a curse and a reprobate. Only gradually, by the grace of God, did he come to know the full truth.

The protestation, which usually follows the theses in the editions, does not belong to it. The necessary information about it has already been given in the note on p. 80.

Luther's theses, as he himself says,^1^ ) "almost ran through all of Germany in two weeks: for all the world complained about indulgences, especially about Tetzel's article. And because all bishops and doctors kept silent, and no one wanted to tie the cat's bells (for the heretics, the order of preachers, had chased all the world into fear with fire, and Tetzel himself had also driven in some priests who had revolted against his impudent preaching), Luther was praised as a doctor, that someone had once come who would intervene. The fame was not dear to me, because (as I said) I did not know myself what the indulgence was, and the song wanted to become too high for my voice.

However, the theses did not remain without manifold opposition. "Everyone," Luther continues, "wanted to knight me; they wrote and shouted against me as much as a pen could stir. But I hoped that the pope would protect me, for I had so guarded and armed my disputation with scripture and papal decrees that I was sure the pope would condemn Tetzel and bless me; I also wrote him the resolution^2^ ) with a humble scripture, and such my book pleased many cardinals and bishops very well. For at that time I was better papal, neither Mainz and Heinz themselves have ever been, nor may they ever be, and the papal filths clearly stood there, that the quaestors could not release the souls from purgatory with indulgences. But while I was waiting for the blessing from Rome, thunder and lightning came upon me; I had to be the sheep that gave water to the wolf.

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1706, § 107.
  2. i.e. the "Explanations on the Disputation on the Power of Indulgences". The letter to Pope Leo X is found in Walch, old edition, vol.

had clouded; Tetzel went out free, I had to let myself be eaten."

Above all, Tetzel did not remain silent, but wanted to become a knight of Luther, but at the same time he also wanted to obtain for himself the dignities of a licentiate and a doctor of theology at Frankfurt on the Oder. Because he himself did not possess the necessary scholarship, he had Conrad Wimpina (^3^ ) in Frankfurt prepare theses that went out under his name.

Tetzel's first disputation (No. 9 in this volume) contains 106 counter-theses against Luther's theses. It was held in Frankfurt on the Oder, not in December 1517, as was previously assumed, but on January 21, 1518. That Tetzel disputed the first set of theses on this day is clear from the testimony of Abraham Scultetus in annalbus evangel. renov. ann. Christ. 1517 p. 24, where he says: "At Frankfurt on the Oder, Tetzel opposes Luther's theses, which were written by Doctor Conrad Wimpina, in which he compares the pope to Peter, and the cross erected by the pope to the cross of Christ. Three hundred monks were present at this disputation." This refers, without any doubt, to the 105th and 106th Thefe of the first disputation. About the time of this disputation pro licentiatu the fact that so many monks were present gives us complete certainty. For Wolfgang Jobst in the description of the city of Frankfurt on the Oder,

  1. That not Tetzel, but Wimpina was the author of the theses issued under Tetzel's name is attested so often and by such important authorities that it is beyond all doubt. Already Luther in his letter to Johann Lang, March 21, 1518 (Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 3, § 4), says: "Wimpina is named by all as the author of the same, and I consider it certain that it is so." In the Latin Jena edition of 1564, edited by Amsdorf, is written ?orn. I, toi. 5 in the margin: "The author of the two following disputations, which some erroneously attribute to Johann Tetzel; is I). Conrad Wimpina have been." Likewise there toi. 7 b the second disputation is signed: ^uators D. Oouruclo Virapinu. Likewise in the annals of the University of Greifswalde from that time; by Chyträus, von Wesfenberg, Hermes, Kahnis, Holzhausen, Köstlin it is unanimously testified that Wimpina wrote the theses to the scientifically too poorly educated Tetzel and also acknowledged them as his work. Wimpina included the first disputation in his unaospUalaeosis as his own work.

Introduction. 13

Cap. 5, p. 17, reports that in 1518, the holy evening before Agnes' Day (Agnes is January 21), a convent of 300 monks was held in Frankfurt on the Oder for the disputation; the following day the disputation took place. During the disputation, a young student, Johann Knipstrow, later superintendent general in Western Pomerania and professor of theology at Greifswalde, raised objections and attacked Tetzel and his president so sharply that they were unable to do anything against him, but had to leave him the honor of victory according to the judgment of all reasonable and impartial men. This not only caused him great envy, but also gave rise to such persecution that he was brought to Pyritz in prison and put into a monastery. 1)

The second disputation (No. 10 in this volume) contains 50 theses on the power of the pope. Almost without exception, it has been wrongly postponed to January 21, 1518 (the day of the first disputation); perhaps it was never held. Only at the end of his "presentation" against Luther's sermon on indulgences and grace (Col. 294 in this volume) does he announce that he will cause "some other doctrine and position" to go out, which he intends to dispute in the high school at Frankfurt. In any case, this will refer to the second series of theses. The exact determination of the time for the issue of Tetzel's second series of theses has a significant difficulty. For we find in Kolde page 376 the statement: "Since Carlstadt already knows the 47th and 48th thesis of the second series on May 14 (Olearii scrinium antiqu., p. 27), it must already have been issued at the beginning of May." However, we were urged by a twofold testimony of Luther to assign the "presentation" of Tetzel, which, as just mentioned, seems to precede the issuance of the second series of theses, to the end of the month of May, about which what has been said about No. 13 can be seen further down in this introduction. This time determination is undoubtedly correct; uncertainty, on the other hand, occurs only with respect to the issue of the second series of theses. In order to also take into account the time specification of Olearius, we want to

  1. Cf. Löscher's Reformation Acta, vol. II, 8 f.

We can assume that Tetzel already started to hand out the already existing copies of the second series of theses at the beginning of May, when he was still busy with the publication of the "Vorlegung", in which he indicates the departure of the "other doctrine and position". We are not inclined, with Körner (p. 111), to interpret Tetzel's words (Col. 294 in this volume): "Thus I, Brother Johann Tetzel, of the Order of Preachers, am caused to let some other doctrines and positions go forth, which I also intend to dispute in the laudable school at Frankfurt an der Oder and to keep Christian by means of divine help", as referring to another namely, a third disputation by Tetzel, which was intended by Tetzel but did not take place. Therefore, we assume that the public going out of the second disputation took place in the course of May 1518. Even the words of Tetzel: "I will cause to go out", can quite well be understood by what already takes place as a present.

From the conclusion of Luther's "Freedom of Sermon" 2c (in this volume Col. 310) we see that the second series of theses, which is undoubtedly mentioned there, had not yet been discussed in June.

Both of Tetzel's disputations are written in Latin and translated by us into German. In the first disputation, the teachings on indulgences and penance, which Luther had attacked and said that they even taught against the opinion of the pope, were presented in the harshest form as good ecclesiastical. Only occasionally are brief justifications added; in most of the theses, however, Luther's propositions are briefly described as error, sacrilege, and blasphemy, without any refutation. In the second disputation, the authority of the pope is raised above all charges; it extends over the general church, the concilia, and all Christians; in the church, one must be guided solely by the teachings of the pope, and he alone has the power to interpret the holy scriptures as he pleases; all statutes in matters of faith that the apostolic see has decided are to be counted among the Christian and true articles, whether or not they are already contained in the Canon of the Holy Scriptures.

14 Introduction.

The Bible would not have been found. Luther had no part in the fact that Tetzel's theses were burned in the marketplace by the students of Wittenberg; indeed, he did not even know about it, as he wrote to Johann Laug on March 21, 1518, and to Jodocus in Erfurt on May 9, 1518.

It was not Tetzel's opposition that prompted Luther to write explanations and proofs for his theses, but since he had posted them for public disputation, he must have been ready to defend them already at that time, on October 31, 1517, and therefore had already drafted something like this. When his theses became more and more widespread and were often not understood and misinterpreted, he decided to publish the "Explanations of the Disputation on the Power of Indulgences" (no. 11 in this volume). 11 in this volume) and turned for permission to do so to his Ordinary, the Bishop Hieronymus Scultetus of Brandenburg, who was responsible for the supervision of the University of Wittenberg, in a letter at the beginning of February (February 6 or 13; not May 22^1)^ ) 1518. On March 5, as he writes to Scheurl under this date,^2^ ) he still had no answer. Since Luther had meanwhile let his sermon on indulgences and grace go out, the bishop feared that the explanations would soon follow without his consent; therefore, in March 1518 (not already "in November or at the latest Deceyrber" 1517, as Köstlin, Vol. I, 177, assumes), he sent the abbot of the monastery at Lehnin to Luther^3^ ) and asked him to postpone the publication of the explanations for a while. Luther promised to do so, but was soon released from his promise before Easter 1518,^4^ ).

On May 15, Luther had returned from his trip to Heidelberg, and probably immediately afterwards he put the finishing touches to his

  1. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 498.
  2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 589.
  3. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 1. This letter is to be placed at the end of March 1518, cf. Erl. Briefw.
  4. Without date. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 585. In De Wette I, 75, with the wrong date: in November 1517, instead of shortly before Easter 1518. Cf. Weim. Edition I, 523.

Explanations. On May 30, he sent them in handwriting to Staupitz, with a note to the latter^5^ ) and to Pope Leo X,^2^ ) for forwarding to the latter. They must have arrived in Rome in the second half of June, and Prierias already knew about them when writing his dialogue. On June 4, the writing is already under the press; on July 10, only six sheets were ready; on August 21, it could be sent. ^6^) Instead of finding a protector in the pope, as Luther had foreseen, Rome rather thought of poison and assassination to get rid of the hated witness of divine truth, and his summons there to answer for himself is to be seen as a direct consequence of this writing. His friends, on the other hand, were wonderfully strengthened in their faith by this writing, as we can gather from Spalatin's letter to Luther of September 5, 1518, where he says: "For the declaration of your theses on indulgences, I give you eternal thanks." ^7^)

That Luther's "Sermon on Indulgences and Grace" (No. 12 in this volume) is not to be set at the same time as the 95 Theses, thus also cannot have been held on October 31, 1517,^8^ ) of which we are completely convinced by what Kolde has contributed in his "Martin Luther" p. 375 f.. From the year 1517 there is no print available, as the Weimar edition Vol. I, 242 testifies, although there were many questions about it in the learned world; there is also none, since this sermon appeared only in the year 1518, namely in the time between March 5 and early April. On March 5, Luther wrote to Scheurl: "If the Lord should give me the necessary leisure, then I wish to publish a German booklet 'von der Kraft des Ablasses, 9) in order to explain those quite indefinite 95 theses.

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 507 and 492.
  2. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 528.
  3. Burkhardt, D. M. Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 12.
  4. According to this, the relevant sentence in our note on Col. 270 of this volume is to be corrected, namely: that the sermon cannot have been delivered already on October 31, 1517, and that it first appeared in print in March 1518, not in February, as Köstlin assumes, as will be shown shortly.
  5. De Wette I, 95 erroneously refers to Luther's "freedom of the sermon" 2c. Edition, Vol. I, 238 thinks that our sermon is hardly meant.

Introduction. 15

suppress." In Tetzel's second set of theses, which was issued at the beginning of May (cf. Kolde, "Luther," p. 376), reference is made to this sermon in the 50th thesis. There is no doubt in the sermon a great advance over the theses. What Luther still whispers into the ear of his friend in February, he preaches publicly in the Sermon. On February 15 he writes to Spalatin^1^ ): "Secondly, about the power of indulgences, what they are capable of: this matter is still in doubt, and my disputation wavers back and forth under slander. But I will tell you two things, first to you alone and to our friends, until the matter is published: It seems to me that in indulgences nowadays there is only a mockery of souls, and that it is of no use at all except to those who are sleepy and lazy in the way of Christ." But in the sermon he says in the 14th article, "Indulgences are allowed for the sake of imperfect and slothful Christians," and at the end of the 16th article, "Let the slothful and sleepy Christians loose indulgences." We find confirmation of the time we have given in Tetzel's refutation, which says that Luther's sermon on indulgences and grace went out in the last fasts. The Lent began in 1518 with February 17; Easter fell on April 4; therefore, according to this testimony, we also have to look for the writing and publication of the sermon between March 5 and April 4. ^2^) The main reason for placing our sermon already in the year 1517 was the wrong dating of Luther's letter to Spalatin, which is to be placed in the last days of March 1518, but

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, annex, no. 4.
  2. Accordingly, the treatise which Archbishop Albrecht, as he writes to his councilors on December 13, 1517, received at the same time as the Conclusions (the 95 theses), "concerning the sacred Negotium Indulgentiarum", cannot be our sermon, but another, for example the Sermo de Indulgentiis, of October 31, 1516, which we have already mentioned above. (Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 929). It may be the same sermon that Tetzel publicly burned at the time of the first disputation at Frankfurt, along with the theses, according to Melanchthon's testimony, in Luther's life, in his works, Wittb. Ausg., vol. XII, fot. 476. (Cf. Körner, p. 112.) In Latin it is: propositiones Lutheri et concionem de indulgentiis. In the Weimar edition, Vol. I, 94, however, it has the superscription: Sermo de indulgentiis.

has been provided with the date "November 1517" until the latest time. ^3^) Already in the year 1771 the following writing appeared in Neustadt an der Oder: Walther, Beweis, dass Luthers Sermon von Ablaß und Gnade nicht 1517, sondern 1518 ausgegangen. Also Kapp, in the collection of some writings belonging to the papal indulgence, p. 304 ff, expressed his doubt about the correctness of the year 1517 already in 1721. ^4^) The Weimar edition, Vol. I, 239, assumes that the sermon was delivered on October 31, 1517, and that the last section was added only in 1518, under the impression of the slander and heresy that Luther experienced from his opponents since the beginning of 1518. The Wittenberg edition, vol. 7, fol. 1, also places the sermon in the year 1518; likewise the Latin Jenaer, Tom. I, fol. 11b.

Tetzel sought to refute this sermon on indulgences and grace in his own writing under the title: "Submission, made by Brother Johann Tetzel" 2c (No. 13 in this volume.) Luther reports on this in his letter of June 4, 1518 to Spalatin^5^ ): "Johannes Tetzel has also published a German booklet against my German Sermon, which is an excellent witness and herald of his ignorance, to which I will add light, so that everyone will know what it is like, not how he would like to view his booklet." From this it is clear, which is also generally assumed, that Tetzel's refutation came out toward the end of May 1518. This is confirmed by another letter of the same date to Johann Lang^6^ ): "Against my German Sermon, that Tetzel has published his antics, against which I, too, am again preparing my barrel; God grant that no little jar may come of it." In this writing, Tetzel defends indulgences and attaches to them such force that not only the punishment imposed by the Church, but also the punishment required by divine justice, can be achieved.

  1. Thus Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. I; De Wette I, 70. The correct date in Köstlin I, 787; Kolde p. 375; Weim. Ausg. I, 523.
  2. Cf. Löscher's Reformation Acta, vol. II, p. 10.
  3. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 593.
  4. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 595.

16 Introduction.

would be annulled. The practice of good works is not hindered by indulgences, but rather promoted, because the works become more meritorious than others through the grace of Christ, which is obtained through indulgences.

From the words we have just quoted from the letter to Lang, it seems that Luther had already started his refutation of Tetzel's "presentation" on the day mentioned0. Still in the same month the same appeared under the title "Freedom i.e., salvation of the Sermon on Papal Indulgences and Grace" 2c (No. 14 in this volume.) In this writing he upholds everything that he had asserted both in the theses and in the sermon on indulgences and grace, proves that the pope cannot remit the penance that God demands of us humans, and maintains the opinion that indulgences cannot redeem souls from purgatory. Finally, Luther also defends his Elector against the venomous attacks that Tetzel had allowed himself in his second disputation in the 47th and 48th thesis, as if he were protecting the heretics and their false teachings, and thereby clearly indicates that he is not afraid of Tetzel's threats.

III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias.

The second opponent of Luther was a high official of the Pope in Rome, the Dominican Silvester Mazolini of Prierio, 2) Magister of the Holy Apostolic Palace, to whom it was incumbent ex officio to exercise censorship over all books published anywhere and the doctrine contained therein; at the same time, as he himself states, he was the supreme heresy judge over the city of Rome and over the whole world. He called himself Prierias from his birthplace

  1. On June 4, 1518. At the beginning of July, the same appeared already in the second edition. Cf. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 203.
  2. This is what he calls himself in the superscription of the first book of his Drruta, arAurüsnta ste.vs juriäieu st irrskruMdili vsritats rornauas soelssias voutiüois: psr sxirninna saorarum littsrarum prorsssorsm, kratrsm KUvsstrum Llsxolimnü krisriatsm vrciipis prasäieatoruiL vitas rsZutaris, rrmKistrum saeri xalatii axostslioi.

Prierio near Montferrat in Italy, where he is said to have been born in 1460. At the age of fifteen he entered the Dominican Order in Genoa and from his youth diligently studied Aristotelian philosophy and Thomistic theology, as whose supporter and representative he appears in his writings against Luther. He was considered one of the best preachers and professors and was therefore called by the Council of Venice to the Academy of Padua to read there about theology, and from there he went to Rome in 1511 as a professor of theology. Under Leo X, who ascended the papal chair in 1513, Prierias was appointed maxister sacri palatii, and remained in this dignity until the end of his life (probably 1523). Some also say (Erl. Briefw. 1,164) that he became general of the Dominicans.

Prierias has published quite a number of writings. Philosophical ones are, for example: Sphaera. Jo. de Sacrobosoo, De secundis intontionibus, Malleus Scotistarum; on theological among others: Aurea rosa (or, as Löscher has the title, rosa Silvestrina), a Latin postilion on the Sunday and feast day gospels of the whole year, which was to consist of roses of the explanations of all ancient teachers, Summa Summarum and especially his Conflatum ex angelico dootore sancto Thoma, ex

editione et cum commentariis, in four volumes. Rome 1519.

Luther's 95 Theses did not reach Rome until the end of December 1517 (Erl. Briefw. I, 353), but did not receive much attention there, for we read in Seckendorf (Hist. Luth, lib. I, p. 40, § 31, Additio) that when Silvester Prierias had shown to Pope Leo X some heretical articles on indulgences published by Luther through print, Leo had replied to those present: "Brother Martin is a very good head, and these are monastic disputes." Soon, however, the matter began to be taken more seriously, and already on February 3, 1518, Leo gave the order to Gabriel Venetus, promagister of the Augustinian Hermits, who at that time administered the office of a general of the order, to appease Luther

  1. Colomesius reports this in his Particularities p. 321 f. from the Lanäslli Ni8torÜ8 trnZiels from the preface to the 25th amendment of the third part.

Introduction. 17

and to smother the flame that had just been kindled. 1) But before we hear that he had done something in relation to Luther, Prierias had already published his first writing against Luther for the protection of the papal chair, namely his Dialogue (No. 15 in this volume), in which he went through almost all of Luther's theses on his standard of faith, St. Thomas. The full title of this writing is: Reverendi patris fratris Silvestri Prieriatis, ordinis praedicatorum, et sacrae Theologiae Professoris celeberrimi, sacrique Palatii Apostolici Magistri, in prae- sumptuosas Martini Lutheri Conclusiones de potestate Papae Dialogus. This writing he finished in three days, as he says in his letter to the pope. It appeared in the second half of June 1518. 2) In it, Luther is treated by Prierias quite contemptuously and from above; he calls him a heretic, an arch-heretic, a villain, a devil, an ignorant man, a blasphemer, a son of a dog, and threatens him several times very understandably with the stake and that he should be forced to renounce his heresy. He exalts the power of the pope and the Roman church above all measure:

  1. The letter is found in Peter Bembus, lid. XVI, No. 18.
  2. Misled by the wrong dating of three different letters of Luther to Spalatin, all previous editions, with the exception of the Weimar edition, have moved the writings of Prierias to the wrong time, and also confused the different writings of the same with each other. These letters are dated January 7 and 14, 1519 (Erl. Briefw. I, 345. 349) and early June 1520 (De Wette I, 452), but were all dated 1518. The first two referred to the dialogue, while they deal with the replica; the third, however, which speaks of the epitome, was understood to refer to the replica. Therefore, Seckendorf, who cites the third letter as being from December 15, 1518 (nist. Imtü., lid. I, 866t. 15, § 30), mixes the replica and the epitome with each other, while the Erlangen edition (opx. var. ar^. I, 343) even mixes the dialogue with the epitome. Although Walch has incorrect dates for all of Prierias' writings, he has been able to distinguish between them, since he recognized that the third letter belongs to the year 1520 (Cinl. zum XVIII. Bd., p. 24 f., note 6.) and has arranged it accordingly in the XXI. volume, Col. 723. The first letter is in Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 586, the second: vol. XV, appendix, no. V, both with wrong year. Also in De Wette I, 83 ff. is the same error; likewise in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, vol. II, p. 12, but this vol. Ill, p. 900 assumes approximately correctly that the epitome may have appeared at the beginning of the year 1520.

The church remits the punishment imposed by God; the testimony of the Roman church and the pope are greater than that of Scripture; the pope, as secular king, can impose monetary taxes; the Roman church and the pope are not guilty of giving reasons and can restrain with secular arms those who hold opinions different from theirs; the pope is the highest authority in spiritual and secular matters. The Roman church and the pope are not obliged to give reasons, and can restrain with the secular arm those who hold opinions different from theirs; the pope is the supreme authority in spiritual and secular matters; the Roman church and the pope, if he is pope, cannot fail in their pronouncements; He who does not hold to the teaching of the Roman church and of the pope as the infallible rule of faith, from which the holy Scriptures themselves take their credit, is a heretic; he who says that the Roman church cannot justly do what it really does, except by preaching and dispensing indulgences, is a heretic. Yes, in refuting Luther's 27th thesis, he says: "The preacher who maintains that a soul imprisoned in purgatory will be led out at the moment when the perfect indulgence has been granted, that is, when the gold florin has been thrown into the basin, is not preaching humanity, but the pure and catholic truth. But thou teachest the opposite; if thou persist in it, see well, according to what has been said before, what thou deservest by censuring an act and doctrine of the holy Roman Church." This refers to what Luther says in the Table Talks, 3) Cap. 54, § 20: "How Silvester Prierias, the master of the holy palace, wanted to frighten me with this flash of lightning when he said: Whoever doubts a word or work of the Roman church is a heretic. At that time I was still weak. I did not want to attack the pope. I honored such reasons." The word: "You are a heretic" in the mouth of the highest heretic judge in the whole world was, however, a frightening flash. Nevertheless, Luther was neither intimidated nor deterred by it, trusting in God, whose cause it was, to freely testify to the truth.

Luther received the dialogue in early August 1518, if not earlier (Weim. Ausg. I, 645).

  1. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 1363.

18 Introduction.

He spent two days on the answer. The title of Luther's answer to the dialogue (No. 16 in this volume) is: Ad Dialogum Silvestri Prieratis, Magistri Palatii, de potestate Papae Responsio F. Martini Luther Augustinensis, Wittenbergae. On August 8, 1) Luther wrote to Spalatin that he was working on the refutation of the Dialogue; on August 21: the Dialogue and his answer to it would be printed at Leipzig (by Melchior Lotther) at the same time, and on the last of August he sent his answer to the Dialogue to Spalatin. Already on September 16, Luther wrote to Joh. Lang that all copies of the first edition of the Dialogue had been sold, because the Dominicans, the friars of Prieria, were buying them up to suppress them, but Lotther was printing others.

Although the time that Luther spent on the refutation was only very short, 2) in his answer the wrong opinions of his opponent are quite thoroughly laid down, which was not at all difficult, since Prierias' dialogue, as Walch notes, not without divine providence turned out so badly that even the author's own co-religionists were quite badly satisfied with it. For Sforza Pallavicini (historia concilii Tridentini, lid. I, cap. 6, § 3, p. 9) says: Prierias badly refuted Luther by opposing him nothing but the papal prestige, and Paul Sarpi (hist. conc. Trid., lib. I, p. 9 sq.) makes the same remark. Yes, the pope himself rebuked Silvester, 3) that he had written so childishly, and gave him a good wiper (rabuffo), because instead of three days he should rather have spent three months on the reply. Erasmus also wrote to Cardinal Campegius (lib. XIV epistol, p. 449): What Silvester wrote against Luther, I do not hear from anyone, even from those who rejected Luther's

  1. In the letter of August 8, it is also reported that this lovely man (Prierias), who was his opponent, was also appointed to him by the pope as a judge, as can be seen from the citation (which Luther received on August 7, Lrl. vsr. arA. II, 359). The other judge was the bishop of Ascoli and auditor of the apostolic chamber, Hieronymus Ghinucci.
  2. Two days. Cf. De Wette, vol. 1,135.
  3. Scheurl, Briefbuch, Vol. II, p. 71, Bries Christoph Scheurls an Luther vom 20. December 1518.

enemies are, approve. 4) In his answer, Luther rejects outright what Prierias had said about the omniscience of the Roman Church and the sovereignty of the pope: a pope and a concilium could err; if everything that a pope decides and does should be valid, then abominable and monstrous things would have to be counted against praiseworthy deeds; one must be guided only by what is said and prescribed in the divine and canonical books.

The reply of Prierias to Luther's answer, his replica (No. 17 in this volume), was probably already written at the beginning of November 1518, 5) as the Weimar edition, Vol. II, p. 48, concludes from the words: "But how sharply you have proven your things by the attracted Clementine, you shall see next" (Replica § 16), in which it finds an allusion to the new Decretal of Leo X of November 9, 1518. Luther received this writing probably still in the last days of the year 1518 through Wenceslaus Link, as we can conclude from Christoph Scheurl's letter to him, dated January 1, 1519, 6) and sent it from Leipzig to Spalatin on January 7, 1519, when he rested there on his return journey from the first conversation with Miltitz at Altenburg. In mid-January 1519

  1. Erasmus writes in 1527 to a Spanish theologian, a doctor of the Sorbonne (Seckendorf, Hist. Imtü., lib. I, 866t. 15, § 31, ndditio) in the 71st letter of the 19th book: "Silvester Prierias has answered schern Luther's so skillfully that even the pope has imposed silence on him." Now, however, Prierias had his dialogue followed by the replica as early as November 1518, and at the end of 1519 by his Epitome, which was followed after July 21, 1520, by the main work (of which the Epitome is the third book), Lrrntn st ar^umEnta Martini Imt6ri8 6t6., or the three books d6 snridioa 6t irr6trnAudiIi V6ritat6 rornanÄ6 666I68M6 romanic;n6 xontiÜ6i8. This book was first sold in Germany in 1521 during the Diet of Worms. (Cf. the second note to No. 18 in this volume.) Therefore, the order of the pope to Prierias not to write further about this religious controversy could not have been given soon after the dialogue or the replica, but only after the complete failure of the main work of Prierias (about 1521). The pope himself honored it with his protective inscription (on the back of the title) and allowed the papal coat of arms to be placed on the title.
  2. De Wette, vol. I, 454, note 2, thinks that the replica was published only in 1519. Burkhardt, p. II, however, places it in the first half of September 1518.
  3. Scheurl, Briefbuch, vol. II, p. 81.

Introduction. 19

Luther reprinted the replica, only with a small mocking preface by Luther on the title. The title of this writing is: Replica F. Silvestri Prieriatis, sacri Palatii apostolici Magistri, ad F. Mar- tinum Luther Ordinis Eremitarum. This writing is so weak that one did not want to believe that Silvester had written it, but thought that it was one of the sort of the obscurantists who played Silvester; therefore the Wittenbergers judged that Luther should not answer it. The tone that Silvester strikes against Luther in this writing is very different from the one he had used in his dialogue. Whereas in the Dialogue he had thundered down on Luther as the supreme judge of heresy, in the Replica he assumes the mien of a paternally benevolent friend. He gives himself the appearance of having brought Luthern back on the right path by saying right at the beginning of the writing: "Because at the first superficial perusal I perceived with the greatest joy that your spirit rejects the pope and that the thesis which I had called heretical is revoked, my heart has been so open towards you and is so taken in by sweet love that now nothing else was able to disturb me." At the end of the scripture, however, he says: "If you continue on the path you have taken, I believe that you will also hear Christ speaking in me, and perhaps you will have no more faithful friend than Silvester, of whom you are now so afraid." He describes the repeated threat of burning at the stake as a joke he had allowed himself. In the entire reply, he seeks to justify himself only against what he considers to be Luther's personal attacks; what Luther has brought up against the content of his diallogue, he wants to reject later. It is still remarkable that, because Luther had called him a right Thomist and Aristotelian, this becomes an opportunity for him to call Thomas "the light of the world". And to say of Aristotle "that the whole of nature admires him and that his truth is brighter than the sun; in his writings no falsehood has yet been found. Luther speaks his verdict on the

Replica from a letter to Christoph Scheurl of January 13, 1519: "To the antics of Silvester, if they originate otherwise from Silvester, it seems to us quite unworthy to answer, for they are childish and effeminate and nothing but lamentations of his pain."

Now a longer pause occurred. Rumors began to circulate that Prierias was silent, but Brother Cyprian of Paris would write against Luther by the pope's order, as Luther reported to Spalatin on October 13, 1519. At the end of the year 1519 (Panzer, Annalen, VIII, 224) Prierias' Epitome (No. 18 in this volume) appeared in Perugia, a short epitome and at the same time the third book of the great work, which Prierias had meanwhile written and was still writing against Luther. Until now, the erroneous opinion has been widespread that Prierias never finished the larger work, of which the Epitome is a draft and short summary. This larger work actually appeared after July 21, 1520, and was sold in Germany during the Diet of Worms, April 1521 (Tischreden, Cap. 80, § 13). Luther had received it shortly before April 1, 1521, through Wenceslaus Link, as we can see from the epilogue to his writing against Catharinus (No. 61 in this volume; De Wette, Vol. I, 585). There he writes: "To the Silvester, however, which you have sent me in the meantime, I answer nothing else than what I answered earlier to his reply. For apart from the title, on which he boasts that Martin Luther's errors and grounds of proof are discussed and destroyed (trita) 2c, he accomplishes nothing." (Cf. our note on § 313 of Paper No. 61.) It is quite unmistakable that Luther attracts the title of "Errata et argumenta . . . trita." Namely, the title of this book published in Rome is: Errata et argumenta Martini Luteris recitata, detecta, repulsa et copiosissime trita: per Fratrem Silvestrum Prieriatem, Magistrum sacri Palatii. Below the papal coat of arms. Without indication of place and time. It contains three books de juridica et irrefragabili veritate romanae ecclesiae romanique pontificis, the third of which is our epitome from-

20 Introduction.

makes. 268 folio leaves, in quarto. After that the epitome on ten unfolded leaves, signed AA to AA 5. Before fol. 1 six unfolded leaves, on which first (on the back of the title) is a papal prohibition of reprinting, under threat of punishment of ban and 2000 ducats, dated July 21, 1520. This writing of the pope also gives the work of Prierias the testimony that it is written "according to the faith" (canonice). Then follows a letter to Pope Leo of June 10, 1519, and finally a letter to the reader, followed by a list of 17 printing errors. At the end of the whole work we find the indication: Romae per Antonium Bladis de Asula impressus die. 27. Martii. Millesimo quingentesimo vigesimo, sedente Leone. X. Pont. Max. Anno ejus Octavo. The 15th and 16th chapters of the second book are, as Prierias says at the beginning of the 15th chapter, Lol. 221, were added only after he had already put the finishing touches to the work, indeed, after it had already been given to the printers in progress, because only then had he received Luther's explanation of the 13th thesis against Eck and some other small works of his, "in which," says Prierias, "he raises a very great clamor against the supremacy of the pope with great impudence." To this great work Luther, as he had said, gave the same answer as to the replica, namely, no answer. The title of the Epitome alone is: De juridica et irrefragabili veritate romanae ecclesiae romanique pontificis, liber tertius: index quidem longissimus, sed brevissimum epithoma. So also for the main work the epitome is printed first and in such a way that it could be sold as a separate quintern even on its own. Luther received this epitome about the beginning of June 1520 and immediately sent it to Spalatin (De Wette I, 452. Walch XXI, 723) with the words: "I send you Silvester's epitome, which he himself calls epitoma, the man who understands no Greek and is a cook in Latin" (lati- nocoquus). 1) In the epitome, which

  1. This is an allusion to the witty, deliberate misprint that the Basel authorities allowed themselves in their collections of Luther's works of October 1518 and March 1520 with the title of the dialogue, i.e.

contains all the chapter headings and the main points of the larger work, the most frightening heresies are presented, especially about the power of the pope: An undoubted pope cannot be legally deposed, even if he leads whole peoples in droves to the devil with him; the decisions of the pope are to be obeyed under the penalty of eternal and temporal death; the pope is an infallible judge of truth; a council without the pope can err, not with the pope; the Scriptures draw their power from the pope. Because this scripture was also of such poor quality, Luther did not consider it necessary to oppose it with a proper answer (just as he did not later with the main work), but considered that it contained its refutation in itself, in which every reasonable and honest person must agree with him. He therefore provided the writing only with a preface and postscript and short notes added in the margin and had it printed in Wittenberg in June 1520. On June 13, he wrote to Spalatin that it was under press, and on June 25, that it would be ready tomorrow. In the preface he wrote: "This booklet is filled from head to toe with so many and great blasphemies that one would think it was published in the middle of hell by the devil himself. If in Rome, with the knowledge of the Pope and the Cardinals (which I hope is not the case), they think and teach in this way, then I declare with this writing that the true Antichrist sits in the temple of God and reigns in that Babel clothed in purple in Rome, and that the Roman court is the school of Satan. Prierias makes us a god out of every, even a godless pope, and states that the power of the Holy Scripture, that is, the power of the Word of God, which is God Himself, depends on the reputation of this man, even if he were godless. . . The glory of the Roman Church has fallen so low that it not only produces this heretical, blasphemous, diabolical, infernal poison in itself, but it also produces the same poison in itself.

lich: MaMrl, i.e. cook of the sacred palace, instead of sdri. Cf. Luther's letter to Staupitz of February 20, 1519, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 31 and the letter of the same date to Wmbald Pirkheimer, De Wette, vol. VI, 13.

Introduction. 21

but also spreads it throughout the world. Away now with all those who boast that the Roman Church has never been tainted with any heresy! This certain Silvester goes incomparably far beyond Arius, Manichaeus, Pelagius and all other heretics."

Just as exaggerated as Prierias, the Dominican Johannes Annius or, as he is also called, Nannis or Nannius, had already spoken of the sovereignty of the pope in a work published in Genoa in 1480. He is said to have been born in Viterbo around 1432, became a teacher of theology, was held in great esteem by the popes Sixtus IV and Alexander VI, so that he also received the dignity of a magister of the papal palace, but held this position only for a few years, for he died on November 13, 1502. For his time he was a very learned man, understood Latin, Greek and also the Oriental languages. He is best known for having published works under the name of old writers, thus belonging to the group of learned frauds 1), which is admitted even by most Dominicans. Nevertheless, they try to justify this. The title of the above mentioned work is: De futuris Christianorum triumphis in Tureas et Saracenos ad Sixtum papam IV. et reges, principes et senatus christianos. Quarto. It has three parts. The first two contain an interpretation of the Revelation of John. In them it is prophesied that the Turkish empire will soon fall and that the Latin Church will obtain a glorious victory over it, and that the papacy will be exalted beyond all measure. Christ, the Lamb, he says, and his governor, the pope, are, according to divine right, the king over all kings or a temporal ruler over this world, and therefore the emperor Constantine is obliged to be the king of the world.

  1. Cf. Altamura in Bibliotheeu Domini"., p. 223; Jakob Quetif and Jak. Echard in Keriptor. ordin. pndiout,, Dom. II, p. 4; Niceron in Msrnoiros x>onr 86I-vir L I'Nistoiro des Nonnnos illust. dank in röpubli^no des lettros. Dorn. XI, x>. I and Dorn. XX, p. I; Peter Bayle in the critical and historical dictionary, Th. Ill, p. 458; Paul Colomesius in innig, ob llispuniu oriontul., p. 9; Bure. Gotth. Struv, Dissertatio de doetis irnpostor., § 18 ff. and Nie. Here. Gundling in the Historie der Gelahrten, Th. II, x>. 2103.

Being to cede the city of Rome to Pope Silvester. Luther took this treatise on the papal monarchy out of the work and had it printed in the Epitome, provided with a very sharp, but quite excellent and clearly convincing epilogue against the lying and usurped power of the pope (No. 19 in this volume). According to Walch's procedures, we have omitted the treatise itself and have limited ourselves to reproducing Luther's epilogue in a new translation.

IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim.

Among Luther's opponents was Hieronymus Dungersheim. He was born in 1465 at Ochsenfurt in Würzburg, therefore he is also called D. Ochsenfurt or, as he himself writes, Ochsenfart. At the beginning of the 16th century, he accompanied Cardinal Raymund Peraldus, Bishop of Gurck, as a preacher of indulgences on his journey through Saxony, became a preacher at St. Mary's Church in Zwickau in 1501 and stood there until 1504. His successor was Sylvius Egranus, who had a dispute with Dungersheim in 1518 about the three men of St. Anne and the three Marys conceived with them. 2) In 1504 he visited the universities of Bologna, Siena, Rome and Cologne and in 1506 he returned to Leipzig, where he remained as professor of theology until his death (March 2, 1540). He was also Collegiate of the great Prince's College and CanonicuS at Zeitz. The collection of his writings, in which he also included Luther's letters to him, appeared in 1531, in quarto, at Leipzig, in both Latin and German. We have given the title of the Latin edition in Cap. IV. (Col. 463 in this volume) at Dungersheims Streite, that of the German is: Etliche Büchlein 1). Hieronymi Dungersheim von Ochsenfart against Luther. The first part of this is the letter between him and Luther.

  1. Cf. Tischreden. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1346, Cap. 53, § 3, and Walch, Old Edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 42.

22 Introduction.

(No. 20 to 28 in this volume). Furthermore, it also contains the dialogue which Dungersheim had published as his first writing against Luther, as an answer to Luther's fifth and last letter. He announced to Luther in his sixth letter that he would have this dialogue printed, to which he received no reply. The title is: Dialogus ad Martinum Lutherani pro responsione ad im- pertinentem quandam ipsius epistolam supra positam, veluti collocutoris vice intermixtam, datus per Hieronymum supradictum. In addition, the content of the collection concerns what Luther had said about the 1st letter to the Corinthians of both forms of Holy Communion in the interpretation of the 7th Cap. and what he wrote of the sin against the Holy Spirit 2c. The aforementioned fifth letter of Luther is translated by us from Seidemann's Luther Letters and is included here for the first time in the collection of Luther's writings.

The correspondence between Dungersheim and Luther was started by the former, probably to get out of Luther in favor of Eck (since the Leipzig disputation was imminent) what his main reasons were regarding the supremacy of the Roman pope. In his letter to Spalatin 1) of January 14, 1520, Luther describes him as a scheming man, inclined to circulate false rumors: "Who had also fabricated that Eck was killed in order to spy on us; a man who cannot keep peace nor leave others in peace; ready to do harm everywhere, quite a wretched man, but yet powerless." Dungersheim's letters are long and rambling, without probative value, because he bases himself on the pseudo-isidoric Decretals, decisions of the Conciliar (real and false) and sayings of the Church Fathers (also real and false), Luther's answers, on the other hand, are short and concise, based not on human but on divine testimonies. Although Luther did not hold back at all in freely expressing his opinion about the supremacy of the pope, especially in the second answer, the-

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, appendix, no. 4.

Luther said that the same was not out of divine but only out of human right, so he observed such caution that Dungersheim did not get out of him what he wanted. Luther rather pointed out that at the upcoming disputation all this would come up and Dungersheim would get the answer he was looking for.

Since in Dungersheim's collection, from which these letters are taken, neither year nor date is added, only the year 1519 is certain with regard to the time determination; the dates are only, albeit very probable, conjectures. In our edition, each of the letters is preceded by a short summary of its contents; therefore, it is not necessary to go into further detail here.

At the time when the fourth chapter of this volume, Luther's dispute with Dungersheim, was printed, the second volume of the Erlangen "Briefwechsel" was not yet in our hands. Therefore, we add the following here. Letters No. 26 and 27 (Col. 528 ff. in this volume) can be found in the Erlanger "Briefwechsel", Vol. II, p. 133 ff. with the time determination given by us. The fifth letter of Dungersheim can be found there, vol. II, pp. 141-154, in which the passage Phil. 2, 6. is treated once again in a comprehensive manner. Dungersheim seeks to refute individual statements in Luther's last letter and especially to prove the supremacy of the pope. This letter is moved there to the middle of September. Luther's answer to this fifth letter (No. 28, Col. 530 in this volume) is found in the Erlangen "Briefwechsel", Vol. II, p. 162, and is also assigned to the month of September. We have inserted the time "middle of September 1519" after Seidemann, "Lutherbriefe", p. 7. Finally, the Erlangen "Briefwechsel" also brings the sixth letter of Dungersheim to Luther (September or October 1519), vol. II, p. 166 f. and p. 168-180 the dialogue, by which Dungersheim wants to refute Luther's last letter. Even if these latter writings of Dungersheim had been in our hands earlier, we would not have considered it worth the effort to translate them and include them in our edition,

Introduction. 23

because we are convinced that for the readers of Walch's edition the counter-writings against Luther added by Walch himself are completely sufficient. Therefore, we have limited ourselves to adding Luther's last letter, with which he answers Dungersheim's fifth letter, and through which he, for his part, puts an end to the dispute with Dungersheim. This is, as said, in our edition for the first time in German translation.

V. Luther's dispute with Eck.

One of the most important opponents with whom Luther had to fight for the truth was D. Johann Eck. His real name was Maier, but he was called Eck after his birthplace, the village of Eck an der Günz in the Bavarian district of Ottobeuren, where he was born on November 13, 1486. 1) Twelve years old, he entered the University of Heidelberg in 1498 and one year later the University of Tübingen, where he received the degree of magister artium in January 1501. In October 1501 he went to Cologne, where he attended theological lectures; from there, because of the plague, he went to Freiburg in Breisgau in June 1502, where he continued his theological studies and also studied law. He had already practiced dispute resolution in Cologne and continued this in Freiburg. On October 15, 1505, he became a baccalaureate of theology; in 1508 he was ordained a priest in Strasbourg. In 1509 he became a licentiate and in 1510 a doctor of theology at Ingolstadt, where he began his theological lectures in November 1510. In 1515 he lectured in Bologna, and in 1516 in Vienna. At this time Eck was already highly regarded as one of the most excellent theologians, and in 1517 he became pro-chancellor of the University of Ingolstadt. He also became a canon in the Eichstädt high chapter and an inquisitor in Bavaria and Franconia. In April 1517, at the instigation of the Nuremberg jurist Scheurl, Eck 2) began a friendly correspondence with the following

  1. Wiedemann, D. Johann Eck. Regensburg 1865. p. 3.
  2. Cf. Christoph Scheurls Briefbuch, von Soden und Kuaake, vol. II, p. 12, Burkhard, D. M. Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 5.

with Luther. But after Luther had published his 95 theses, this learned and skilful, but exceedingly vain man felt urged, already at the beginning of the year 1518, to break off the lovely blossoming relationship of friendship without warning and from behind, by sending out his "obelisks" 3) against Luther in January or February 1518, in which he fought Luther's 31 theses. 4) As he himself states, he had written these "notes on 18 theses of Luther" (so Eck reckons) at the request of Bishop Gabriel von Eyb of Eichstädt. These obelisks were not printed in the beginning, but were distributed in copies in many ways. Luther received a copy of them through the mediation of D. Wenceslaus Link in Nuremberg. In this writing, which is full of invective, Luther is called a heretic, a Bohemian, a despiser of the pope, and the like; Llither countered it as early as March 1518 with his "Asterisks" (No. 29 in this volume), which initially did not go out in print, but only in manuscript. Only several years after Eck's death, which occurred on February 10, 1543 in Ingolstadt, were both Eck's obelisks and Luther's asterisms printed in the first Latin volume of the Wittenberg edition of Luther's works (1545). Eck soon realized that he had gone too far in his writing and would have liked to reverse his letter. He therefore addressed a letter of apology to Carlstadt (5) in order to obtain that he would not allow anything to go to press against him, which, as he had heard, was to happen. But he was too late with this, because Carlstadt had already published his writing against Eck, as he reported to him in his answer 6), in which he also duly chastises the falsehood with which Eck had acted against Luther.

A picture of Eck is presented to us by Petrus Mosellanus in a letter, which

  1. These are contained in No. 29 of this volume, therefore not specially printed in this volume.
  2. Cf. Luther's letter to Joh. Sylvius Egranus, preacher in Zwickau, March 24, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 42.
  3. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 957.
  4. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 958.

24 Introduction.

he wrote to Julius von Pflug on December 6, 1519, about the disputation in Leipzig 1): "Eck is of tall stature, with a firm, four-skinned body. He has a full and quite German voice, which is supported by a very strong chest, so that it could suffice not only for an actor, but also for a herald, but more rough than clear. Therefore, he lacks much in bringing about the natural sweetness of Roman speech, which is praised so much in Fabius and Cicero; mouth and eyes, even the whole expression of his face (vultus) are of such a kind that one could rather take him for a butcher or a pirate 2) than for a theologian. As for his mental gifts, he has an excellent memory; if he had had an equally good mind, he would have been a masterpiece of nature in every respect. This man lacks the ability to see something quickly, he lacks the sharpness of judgment, without which all other gifts are in vain. And this is the cause that, when he disputes, he brings together so many reasons, so many testimonies of Scripture, so many sayings of writers, without any selection at all, and does not notice how most of it has no probative force, how, if it is rightly understood in its place, it does not serve the matter at hand, or even how badly testified (xxxxxxxx) or forcibly drawn (sophistica) it is. For his intention is only that, by citing a great heap of testimonies, he should deceive the listeners, most of whom are not perceptive, and make them think that he has won the victory. In addition, there is an unbelievable impudence, which he conceals with admirable cunning. For if he notices that he has fallen into his opponent's nets, he immediately directs the discussion to something else. Sometimes, however, he also puts the opponent's opinion into other words and passes them off as his own, but stamps the opponent's

1)' Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1423, 810. Löscher, Ref.-Acta, vol, III, 248.

  1. In Latin Carem militern, a Carian soldier. The coast of Caria was a headquarters of pirates.

The author, however, is not a man, but a man who has a peripatetic confidence of knowledge and who expresses the parasitic craft. Only that the latter pretended to be ignorant and decided nothing, but this one claims to have a peripatetic confidence of knowledge, and expresses the parasitic craft. Behold, here you have the faithful image of Apelles, because even if not an artist, as the latter was, yet one who does not lack effort and diligence."

After Eck's first attack on the Theses on Indulgences, Luther fought the real main feud with Eck in Leipzig. A series of disputes exchanged between Luther and Eck follows the Leipzig disputation. And the most important point of contention is the question of the supremacy of the pope.

A part of the treatises that belong here precedes the Leipzig Disputation. As far as it is useful for their understanding, we want to remember the preliminary negotiations and preparations for the Leipzig Disputation. Walch brings the relevant documents in part in the 15th volume.

First, it was Carlstadt who, as already mentioned, took up the dispute with Eck anew. Put in armor by Eck's obelisks, he published 405 defense propositions for the Holy Scriptures and for the Wittenbergers (No. 30 in this volume) at the beginning of May 1518, which were to form the basis of a series of disputations to be held under his chairmanship. The first 100 theses refer to the authority of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. The following three sections, which (with the addition of Luther's three theses) contain 112 theses, defend Luther's first, second, and twentieth (or fifth) thesis on indulgences against Eck's obelisk. Theses 213-262 deal with free will; 263-287 with the damnation of undone children; 288-324 with predestination and free will; 325-379 are directed against individual pieces of Tetzel's two disputations. The last 26 theses deal again with free will. The title of the original is: D. Andreae Carolstatini doctoris et archi- diaconi Wittenbergensis CCCLXX et apolo- geticae conclusiones pro sacris litteris et Wit-.

Introduction. 25

tenbergönsiduL ete. In reality, there were 379 theses, with an appendix of 26 sentences, making a total of 405. Luther was away at the time, in Heidelberg, and knew nothing of this action of his colleague.

Eck, who would have liked to avoid another clash with the Wittenbergers, as the aforementioned letter to Carlstadt of May 28 proves, nevertheless felt compelled by Carlstadt's attack to reply. His counter-theses appeared on August 14, 1518, under the inscription: am 14. Sluguft 1518 unter ber 2Iuffd)rift: Defensio Joannis Eckii contra amarulentas D. Andreae Boden- etein Carolstatini invectiones. In this writing he proposed a disputation and designated as arbitration court the apostolic see or the universities of Rome, Paris, Cologne. In his theses he discussed the concepts of repentance, sin, freedom.

Carlstadt answered this in his defense against Eck's monomachy (No. 31 in this volume), which is titled: Defensio Andreae Carolostadii adversus eximii D. Joannis Eckii monomachiam. Here, too, he emphatically emphasized the scriptural doctrine of the complete lack of freedom of the human will. At the same time, he offered to submit his writing to the judgment of the Roman See, the universities of Rome, Paris, Cologne, yes, to the judgment of all who had studied the older church fathers up to St. Bernard, but declared the Holy Scriptures to be the final authority. He was also prepared to dispute with Eck "on condition that the arguments and answers of both sides be dictated to reliable notaries". On September 14, this writing was completed, but it did not reach the public until October.

Around this time, in October 1518, Eck visited Luther, who had to answer to Cajetan, in his hostel in Augsburg and discussed with him the prospect of a disputation. Luther rejected the places mentioned by Eck, such as Cologne and even more distant universities, and for his part suggested Erfurt or Leipzig, to which the former also agreed.

Carlstadt then agreed to this agreement and left Eck the choice between Erfurt and Leipzig. Eck decided

for Leipzig. In December, both the Wittenbergers and Eck turned to the theological faculty in Leipzig and requested permission for a disputation. This led to lengthy negotiations between the theological faculty and the chancellor of the University of Leipzig, Bishop Adolf of Merseburg, both of whom were reluctant to allow the dispute to be fought out in their own city, and Duke George of Saxony, who expected only honor for his state university from such a disputation between learned men.

Before anything had been decided about the time and place of the disputation, Eck published a disputation note in 1518, on December 29, with 12 theses, which he wanted to defend against Carlstadt in Leipzig, together with a letter to Matthäus Lang, coadjutor in Salzburg. Eleven theses referred to indulgences and the questions connected with indulgences. The 12th thesis brought a new matter, namely a defense of papal supremacy against a remark by Luther in the explanation of the 22nd thesis on indulgences, "that the Roman Church at the time of St. Gregory was not yet set above other churches, at least not above the Greek.

In anticipation of the disputation, Luther had not suspected such a public attack by Eck. On January 7, 1519, he informed Eck of the Leipzigers' negative response. It was not until the end of January 1519 that Eck's latest writing came into his hands. Above all, he was surprised that Eck, instead of attacking Carlstadt, was attacking him.

He writes about this to Sylv. Egranus at Zwickau, 1) February 2, 1519: "Our Eck, requested by me in Augsburg that he meet with our Carlstadt in Leipzig to settle the dispute, has finally complied. But listen to this man's game: he takes my theses and bites them most furiously, and he leaves the one he is dealing with lying there; you would think he wanted to put on a carnival play. I am therefore forced to engage in battle with man for the sake of my indulgences. He is the most unfortunate creature of the world.

  1. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 30.

26 Introduction.

Vanity. He is holding out the prospect of a quarrel after Easter. There are people who claim that it is instigated by the Dominicans. But let the will of the Lord be done!"

To John Lang 1) Luther wrote, February 3: "Our corner fights new battles against me, and I will have to do with the grace of Christ what I have thought of for a long time, namely to come out in a serious writing against the Roman serpents (lernas). For until now I have only played and joked about the Roman cause, although it pains them exceedingly, as if it were most bitterly serious."

In a letter from Luther to Spalatin 2) dated February 7, it says: "By the way, our corner, this vain creature, has published a note that he wants to dispute against Carlstadt after Easter in Leipzig. And now, in silly dishonesty, in order to satisfy the envy he has long felt against me, he falls upon me and my writings; he names a completely different contender than the one against whom he actually sets out.

And in a letter to Scheurl 3) of February 20: "Our Eck, who until now knew how to hide his rage against me, has finally dropped the mask. Just see what kind of person he is. But God Himself in the midst of the gods knows what He wants to make of this tragedy. Neither Eck will do himself, nor I, any service in this. It seems to me that God's counsel is going out here. I have often said that up to now I have only been playing; now, at last, against the pope and the Roman arrogance, we must get serious."

As soon as Luther read Eck's theses, he in turn drew up 12 counter-theses and published them together with a letter to Carlstadt. On February 7, he sent a copy of the first printing to Spalatin. He no longer considered himself bound by the agreement he had made with Miltitz in January to let his cause rest if his opponent remained silent, because his opponent was making a new noise.

It now followed blow after blow. On March 14, 1519, Eck ordered a second disputation.

  1. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 43.
  2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 620.
  3. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 622.

note with the title: Disputatio et excusatio Domini Johannis Eccii adversus criminationes F. Martini Lutter ordinis Eremitarum. This writing has two parts. The first part is a letter to two prelates, Abbot Caspar of Wessobrunn and Provost Johann of Posting, in Walch's old edition, Vol. XV, 969. The second part is the disputation note, which we include in this volume under the title: Eck's thirteen theses against Luther and Carlstadt (No. 32). In the letter, he explains why his attack is directed more at Luther than at Carlstadt, since Carlstadt is only Luther's champion, and now, in contrast to Carlstadt, he adds another thesis about free will. This henceforth takes the seventh place, and that weighty last thesis of the supremacy of the pope is now considered the thirteenth.

Carlstadt replied in 17 theses, which he published on April 26 under the title Conclusiones Carolostadii ooutra D. louuuom Loeum Dipsino 27. lluuii tuouäas. They are included in this volume (No. 33) under the title: Carlstadt Thesen wider Eck für die Disputation zu Leipzig. Eck had set June 27 as the starting date for the disputation.

Luther responded in May with 13 counter-theses, titled: Disputatio et excusatio F. Martini Luther adversus criminationes D. Johannis Eccii. We bring them (No. 34) under the title: Luthers dreizehn Thesen wider Eck. On May 16, he sent them to his friend Lang (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 34). The preface to these theses, full of biting ridicule, is Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 974.

Even before the disputation began, around mid-June 1519, the "more serious writing" against the Roman Hydra that had been promised in the letter to Lang of February 3 appeared. On June 6, Luther wrote about this to Johann Lang 4): "I now give out my reasons of proof about the so spiteful -13th thesis, for the sake of envy, which aims at my not being admitted to responsibility in Leipzig." The title of this

  1. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 45.

Introduction. 27

The text is: Resolutio Lutheriana super propo- |-sitione sua decima tertia de potestate papae. The second edition, which appeared after August 18, 1519, adds to it: per autorsm locupletata. We bring it (in No. 35) under the title: Luthers Erläuterung über seine dreizehnte Thesis von der Gewalt des Pabstes (vermehrt durch den Verfasser). What is introduced in the old Walch edition, Vol. XVIII, 930, No. 50 under the title "Luthers Vorrede zur völligen Ausgabe seiner Resolutionen" (Luther's preface to the complete edition of his resolutions) is the preface to the "Erläuterung der 13. These". Because this writing appeared before the Leipzig Disputation, we have prefixed it to Luther's explanations of all theses, which were published later. With holy zeal and great earnestness and perspicacity he refutes here the opposing assertion that the pope, according to divine right, has supremacy over the whole church, from Scripture and from testimonies of the first church. At the same time we find here a clear, genuinely evangelical argument about the nature of the church and the ecclesiastical office. That the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to the church as a whole is already clearly taught.

The serious will of Duke George had finally ensured that the Leipzig disputation would take place. On June 27, the disputation was to begin according to his order. Several days before, both parties were present. Luther appeared accompanied by Carlstadt. In the escort letter, which Duke George had issued to Carlstadt on June 10, were also included "those whom he would bring with him". On June 26, Eck and Carlstadt agreed on the terms of the disputation. Carlstadt insisted that the negotiations be transcribed by notaries and agreed that these transcripts should be submitted to theological arbitrators and only then be made public. Only on July 4 Luther also signed these conditions, but with the addition that the acts would not be sent to the Roman Curia, and with the maintenance of his appeal to a general concilium. On July 14, they finally agreed on the University of Erfurt as arbitration court.

From June 27 to July 3, Eck and Carlstadt debated with each other about the free will of man. From July 4 to 14 the main battle took place between Luther and Eck. The main point of contention was the supremacy of the pope. Purgatory, indulgences, penance, absolution were discussed more in passing. The course of the disputation is described by Walch in the 15th volume under the documents belonging to the history of the Reformation. Therefore, we refrain from a more detailed description of it here.

Because Eck then claimed victory with bombastic words, Luther decided to publish a new document, the Explanations of his Theses Discussed in Leipzig (No. 36 in this volume), with a letter to Georg Spalatin of August 15, 1519, which is found in the 15th volume of Walch's old edition, Col. 1356 ff. In it, he first gives an overview of the proceedings of the Leipzig negotiations and highlights Eck's mischievous way of fighting. Then he lets follow a detailed, thorough defense of those 13 sentences and thus brings the truths defended at Leipzig from a firm, appropriate expression.

The answer to this was a "Reinigungsschrift" addressed to Caspar Schatzgeyer, Guardian of the Franciscan monastery at Nuremberg: Expurgatio loan. Eckii Theologi Ingolstadici adversus criminationes F. Martini Lutter Vuittenbergen. ordinis heremitarum. The letter is dated September 2, 1519. In the old edition, which we have, a letter from Johannes Cellarius, professor of Hebrew in Leipzig, to Wolfgang Fabricius Capito in Basel, about the course of the Leipzig disputation, is sent in advance. The date of this letter is July 31, 1519, Our edition does not name the printer or the place of printing. Wiedemanu in his writing "Eck" brings p. 505 the title of the same and says p. 506: "This writing is of great rarity. Already Löscher could not obtain a copy." Therefore Löscher (Ref.-Acta III, 804) also says erroneously.

  1. "In the edition available to us: Gaspari LaltLZsir. Wiedemann writes it "Schatzger".

28 Introduction.

the writing was addressed to the University of Ingolstadt. Here, Eck contradicts Luther's letter of his "Explanations" to Spalatin in 31 points, and denies in particular that he had admitted to Carlstadt that free will, before grace makes it alive, only works for sins. Luther, however, maintains this assertion in an open missive to Eck, aä ckod. Lecium opwtolk super expurgatione LeemuL, from early November, upright?).

The correspondence between various persons of both parts following the Leipzig disputation has been assigned by Walch to the 15th volume.

Finally, it should be mentioned that also Silvester Prierias in his writing Lrrmu et arzumenta. Nailini Imtoris etc. in the last chapter, Silvester Prierias also tried his hand at Luther's 13th thesis. Although this argument also vividly illustrates the mendacious argumentation of the papal theologians, especially in favor of the Roman primacy, we must, for the sake of space, refrain from including it in the present correspondence.

Luther's enemies claimed that he had changed much in his teaching and seemed to become proud because Luther had not published anything against them for a long time, since he was overloaded with business. Therefore, during the Diet of Augsburg, when he was staying at the fortress of Coburg, he wrote against the papists, to which he gave the title: A Recantation from Purgatory. To all our descendants, Martinus Luther. (No. 37 in this volume.) In a letter to Wenceslaus Link at Nuremberg, dated July 20, 1530, he writes that he wanted to give his opponents, who "out of boredom and because they had nothing to do" raged and cried out against him, cause to rage and cry. Their lies about Purgatory are now in the press in Wittenberg. The title of the writing is meant ironically. In it, he shows that the doctrine of Purgatory has no basis in the Holy Scriptures, but that the great god Mammon, who makes of the Holy Scriptures what he wills, invented this doctrine, and in order to

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, 1388.

For the sake of money it would be received, because that is also the God of the right vigils masses for souls; without money no vigil is held. At the end of the scripture Luther says: "For you should see that if Mammon were my God, that I could give enough of twelve thousand drachmas [2 Marc. 12, 43. ff.), I would convert all sophists and heretics in one day, and abolish not only purgatory, but the whole papacy, before a moon passes. Therefore, my doctrine lacks nothing except the divinity of the great god Mammon; if I had that, it would not be heresy nor error, but the dear pure truth. But now it is erroneous and heretical. Why? Because it is poor. Poverty is my error and heresy." This writing was very sensitive to the papal clergy assembled at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg.

Against this writing, Eck wrote a "refutation" in German language, in order to maintain the purgatory from the holy scripture and to knight Luther again. An excerpt from it we share in No. 38 of this volume, where in the note to the headline the exact title has been given and the description of the original edition. The letter is addressed to the Cärdinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, and bears the date: September 2, 1530. The writing itself has two parts. In the first part, he seeks to prove that Luther is in contradiction with himself "and that his aygne geschrifft makes him a lugner," and therefore lists the passages from Luther's first writings in which he asserted and admitted Purgatory. In the second part, he endeavors to refute what Luther said in his writing with regard to the scriptural passages with which the papists want to prove Purgatory. Eck had already written four books on Purgatory against Luther, which were published under the title: I)o pur^atorio eontr" Imäckorum in the second part of his works, p. 42.

In this volume, Eck once again confronts us as a fighter against Luther, but not on his own behalf, but as a defender of the cause that Luther had taken hard with him.

Introduction. 29

Hieronymus Emser, in his "Answer for Hieronymus Emser" (No. 39 in this volume). The full Latin title of this writing has already been given in the note to the superscription of No. 39. We have left the text under this section, where Walch had placed it, but in order to avoid repetitions, we will discuss it further only in the introduction to Emser's writings. An allusion to the Canonicus Bernhard Adelmann contained by Eck in this writing became the occasion for the counter-writing written by Oekolampad: Eunoniei inäaeü ImtbsrsniZ) about which the necessary has already been said in the last note to No. 39. Wiedemann "Eck" says p. 140: "Eck considered Adelmann to be the actual author and it would soon have come to blows between the two in Augsburg. This writing attacked Eck in the lifeblood, and he himself confessed that no refutation had hurt him so in the innermost part of his soul as this one." Wiedemann, a Catholic theologian, wisely does not state what the content of this writing was, what in it could have touched Eck in his heart blood. This writing is written in a moderate tone and contains a simple testimony that they, the unlearned canonists, prefer to follow Luther rather than Eck, because Luther has raised the Holy Scriptures again and was the first to attack and put down indulgences, teaches the Lord Christ in his sermons, and leads an innocent and good life, whereby the opinion they have received from Luther is affirmed and confirmed. Eck, on the other hand, calls the divine teaching presented by Luther, who has the spirit of the apostles, error and heresy, and fights tooth and nail against the revealed truth. "There you have recently," it says, "of what shape we are Lutheran or Martinic: insofar as D. Martinus is a friend of the Gospel and of Christian liberty, we are of his part; if you are also thus done and sent, we are also dependent on you." This may have particularly annoyed the vain Eck, however, that he was reproached for having to impose his writings on the printers, while he was not the only one who had to do so.

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1513.

Luther's books, because they contain the truth, they steal more than they steal; Eck's writings are seldom printed for the second time. Luther's writings, on the other hand, were printed several times and in various printing houses. Towards the end it says: "No booklet has gone out from you so small that would not either have the grossest barbarity and indecency in Latin in it, or else that would not be full of errors." Wiedemann finishes this serious, evangelical testimony of Christ to salvation with the few words we have mentioned, while he immediately follows it with the worthless farce, Eccius aeolutus, in an excerpt that takes up more than six full pages.

VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne, Louvain and Paris.

After the disputation in Leipzig, contrary to Eck's expectations, the respect and affection for Luther increased. Therefore, Eck made every effort to incite both the Roman court and the theological faculties against Luther and to persuade them to condemn his teachings. He succeeded first among the theologians of Cologne, especially through Hoogstraten, a sworn enemy of Lutheran doctrine. In February 1519, Johann Frobenius in Basel published a volume containing a collection of Luther's writings, along with a preface in which Luther is highly praised. The theologians at Louvain sent this book to those at Cologne, with the request that they would place their doubts about it. On August 29, 2) 1519, the Cologne theologians pronounced their verdict of condemnation on it. They called Luther's errors: that he disparaged the meritorious works of men, perverted the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, destroyed the Sacrament of Penance with harmful teachings, introduced perverse counsel from confession, abolished all pardon, and reduced the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church by heretical teachings.

  1. Thus Walch in the introduction to the 18th volume, p. 69; in contrast, in the 15th volume, where the verdammungsuriheil is communicated, August 30, 1519; but the signature "st again from August 29.

30 Introduction.

half, this book, as harmful to the community of believers, is to be taken away, its use forbidden", it is to be forbidden and publicly burned with fire, but Luther is to be urged to a public retraction. 1)

A similar verdict of condemnation 2) was passed by the theologians of Louvain on November 7, 1519, and sent to Bishop Adrian of Tortosa, who had formerly been professor of theology in Louvain, then informator to Emperor Carl V and minister in Spain, and finally became pope. The latter answered on December 4, 1519, in a letter, 3) in which he praised the zeal of the theologians of Louvain and expressed his astonishment that Luther had been allowed to spread his errors everywhere. Luther responded to the two condemnatory verdicts in March 1520 by writing 4): Oomlvmnatio clootrinulw librorum Nurtiui Imtb. per guosckam maZi8trc>8 no8trv8 4wvuiücu8c8 ot OuloVI6N868 kaota. U68P0N8IO IwOwriank uck oumiom oomlvmnuuonow. It is addressed to the O. Christoph Blank. The timing is given to us by Luther's letter to Spalatin 5) of March 19, 1520, in which it says: "I send you the Löwen and Cologne asses, to whom I already answer in print (por tvpus)." A description of the proceedings of the University of Louvain, which came out in 1520 under the title: ireuckvmiao I,ovuuien8i8 contra Imtberum, is found in the 15th volume, Col. 1582.

At the disputation in Leipzig, Luther had united with Eck to the effect that the universities of Erfurt and Paris should fill the judgment on the disputation. Because the latter, on March 17, 1517, had not shied away from a writing: Appellutio univer8itat!8 knri8ien8i8, of the decrees of the pope and treaties with the king to a future council, so Luther had the good confidence in her that she would not let herself be held back from testifying to the truth for fear of the pope.

  1. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, ff.
  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, I'>U2 ff. 3) Walch, old edition, > vol. XV, I5U6 ff. 4) Walch, old edition, M. XV, t5W ff. 5) Walch, old > edition, vol. XXI, 682.

In this, however, his hopes were deceived. Although the Parisians, like the University of Erfurt, did not pass judgment on the disputation, they did extract a number of sentences from several of Luther's writings, especially from the "Babylonian Captivity," and on April 15, 1521, described them as erroneous and heretical. They published their verdict under the title: votcrminatio rbeoloZicao t'acultatw karwionsio 8upcr ckoetrina Imtberana, hnctoniw per eam vwa. Luther himself translated this writing into German and provided it with a preface and an epilogue, under the title: Ein Urtheil der Theologen zu Paris über die Lehre D. Luthers. Ein Gegen Urtheil D. Luthers (No. 40 in this volume), after he had received it in July 1521 at the Wartburg. Even before that, Melanchthon, in Luther's absence, had had it printed in Latin, accompanied by a "Schutzrede Philipp Melanchthon wider dasselbe Urtheil der Pariser Theologen für D. Martin Luther" (No. 41 in this volume), which Luther himself also translated from Latin and added to his edition. 6) In this protective pamphlet, Melanchthon reproaches them for how stubbornly they clung to their useless pagan art of school theology and claimed that it was necessary for Christianity. They did not call Luther a heretic because he taught against the Holy Scriptures, but because he deviated from the high schools, the Fathers and the Councils; but they would not admit that Luther was against the Fathers and the Councils. For in the main point about free will and grace, with which Luther has the most to do, Augustine agrees with him and all those who adhere to it. There is also no old concilium that would have condemned Luther's teaching. But in recent times there have been several papal councils in which not Christ's but the Antichrist's doctrine was confirmed.

  1. In a letter to Nie. plerbellius of November 1, 1521 (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 71), Vuther writes: "Pbilipp asked for me a Vertheidigungsfchrift against the Parisians, which I translated; this sUebersetzungf has also appeared."

Introduction. 31

The Sorbonne is not the Christian church which must listen to Luther, because it does not teach God's word, but its own dreams and foolish, nasty articles. Their articles, which are naked and without Scripture and without rational reason, do not accuse Luther, but condemn him. Luther, however, desires to be instructed from the holy Scriptures. From this they should state the reason and cause of their judgment.

This protective speech by Melanchthon is followed by a "joke about the verdict of damnation passed by the stupid and godless Sorbonne" (No. 42 in this volume). The Latin title is already given in the note to the title. This writing, which belongs to the year 1521, is a satire against the Parisian theologians, in which both their proceedings against Luther and their scholastic mode of expression are ridiculed. Whether Luther himself or someone else was the author is unknown. The writing is written in the name of the Parisian theologians, as a defense against Melanchthon's protective speech, in three books. In the first, a number of sentences are drawn from Melanchthon's writing and described as angry, disrespectful, scornful, foolish, mocking, false, insulting, erroneous, sacrilegious, godless, unchristian 2c. In the second book, it is explained why the Sorbonne wrote what it wanted, without giving the reason, namely that the holy apostles would have done the same, Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 15. In the third book, the rules of the Sorbonne are given, according to which the holy scripture is to be understood. They come to the following: The holy scripture is dark, and one should not believe it, if it is quoted plainly, without interpretation. But the explanation should be taken from the Sorbonne, which alone is clear, must be believed and accepted.

In addition to the writings that have already been named in this volume Col. 932, two others belong to this chapter that are included in the appendix of the 19th volume, No. 20 and 21, namely Luther's Preface on Melanchthon's Responsibility, 1543, and Luther's Disputation against 32 Articles of the Theologians at Louvain, 1545.

VII Luther's dispute with Alveld.

Among the first opponents of Luther was also Augustin from Alfeld, therefore usually called Alveld, 1) Franciscan (Minorite, gray monk, barefoot), Lector of the Holy Scriptures in the monastery at Leipzig. Nothing else is known of his circumstances. He wrote many books against Luther, especially for the defense and preservation of the Roman See, therefore Luther called him a Romanist. His writings are rich in invective and blasphemy, but poor in content, for he understood little or nothing; everything that might be worth mentioning in his writings he took from Eck's or Emser's books. For this reason, even his own brothers forbade him to write books, as we can see from his letter to Carl von Miltitz 2). It says there: "I do not want it to be hidden from you that my fathers undertake to command me" that I should not write any more in the matter of faith. If you can, and because you can, provide me with the grace of the apostolic chair, so that I may freely do what I can in this matter; but in such a way that my fathers cannot suspect that this plot originates from me, but rather that your care has taken this into consideration entirely of its own accord." On May 8, 1520, Alveld sent this letter to Miltitz 3) together with his first book against Luther. Already on May 5, 1520, Luther wrote about it to Spalatin. It has the title: 8upvr spo8tolio" 8vcke, an vickolieet ckivino sitjuro, neone, nnguo pontikex, gui paps, ckiei oooprus e8t, juro ckivino in es, vrae8ickoat, von pnrum Inullnncknm ex 8aero dibliorum onnono ckeelaratinnem. Luther himself did not want to deal with the answer to this writing, but entrusted 4) the same to his friar and famulus Joh. Lonicer, 5) to whom he gave some recordings of his work.

  1. Cf. Kolde, Martin Luther, p. 250.
  2. Cyprian, Nützliche Urkunden zur Reformationgeschichte, vol. 2, INI.
  3. Cf. Seidemann, "Miltitz," p. 23.
  4. Cf. Luther's letters to Spalatin of May 8 and 13, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 03 and vol. XXI, 602.
  5. On Lonicer, see Walch, old edition, vol. VII, preface, p. 16, note.

32 Introduction.

The author prepared a set of notes for Alveld, which he was to use as a basis for his work. Luther's verdict on Alveld's writing is as follows: "I have never seen, heard, or read a book that is so tasteless and foolish in all its syllables: in short, I lack the expressions with which it could be judged. The title of Loniker's reply is: Contra Homanistum k. ^.uZustinum ^Ivsläisnssm, kranciscanum lüpsicum, canonis biblici Publicum lictorsm ot tortorem. Wittenberg, 1520, addressed to Caspar Güttel. On May 13, Luther had given Lonicer his notes (De Wette, vol. I, 448), and on June 1 it was ready in print. (De Wette, Vol. I, 451.) The conclusion of this writing reads thus: "Fools should be made to listen to the Kolde. For if Alveld were such a man, who could comprehend something, both for the sake of his intellect and his erudition, Luther himself, my highly admired teacher, according to the importance of the matter, would have written against him. 1) But since he is busy with better things, he did not want to expound (pbilosoplwri) his knowledge in vain before an ass, who understands it only if one also shouts ya." Another of Alveld's writings: I-ibsIIum, guo ostsnäsre conatur, ckivino zurs Institutum boc esse, ut totius ecclesins caput romanus sit pontiksx, manufactured D. Johann Doltzsche 3) from Feldkirchen, Domherr (canonicus) zu Wittenberg, by his counter writing: Conkutatio inepti et impii libclli b'. ^uZustini illvslä, kVanciscani I-ipsici, pro O. Nartino I-utb. Wittenberg, 1520. Against this, a Franciscan at Magdeburg, Johann Fritzhans, 3) took Alveld's side.

  1. Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of May 3, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 692.
  2. Cf. Seckendorf, lli "t. I.utb., lik. I, p. 283. 800t. 57, ii 160, ^
  3. . 2: .lolnmm" /loürillL lDoltzsche) kolckIririOionsi". Ibid, liii. I, p. 116, 30, 1:

<< gni 3oUanncs ciiotu" a Ve/c/k-

eunoiutuis tVitlouliorxcnsis ot prokossor tlioolo^ins orut, a 8I,mIuno ulicnlu voiuinsi.

Ibidem, p. 99, 2nd column: IloltsoOinm is a Drucksebler instead of Holtsckinm. Walch in the old edition, p. 73 of the introduction, asked Johann Veltkirchen for another person taken as Job. Doltzsche, lind therefore knows nickt to explain how Elias Frick in Seckendorfs Historie des Lutherthums, p. 584, comes to attach this writing to Johann Dolsche.

  1. Ueber Fritzkians vergleiche Seckendorf, Hist. Dutk., Ud. I, p 240, 8oet. 55, K 139; and p 24", Xcick. 2.

In a small writing: Lpistola exbortatori" kratris äobannis kritrbans aä kratrem ^. uxustiuum Mveläiauum, kranciscanum, ne terreatur ot eonturbetur conkutatione kratris ckob. Veltlcirckon, guia se ipso inäiAna, guuw sit oontumeliosk. But Fritzhans did not remain long among the ranks of Luther's opponents. In 1523 he was expelled by his friars and came to Wittenberg as a follower of Luther's teachings.

Alveld was tireless in producing and publishing new books against Luther. On August 3, 1520, Luther wrote to Johann Voigt in Magdeburg: "The Leipzig donkey writes many books against me." 4) Therefore Luther also calls him 5) the "book writer at Leipzig, who would also be worthy of a cardinal's hat with his corners", and 6) him together with another, perhaps Rubens 7): "the two paper molesters at Leipzig". In July 1520 he published his Tractatus äs comwunious sub utragus spscie, guantum aä laicos. 8) About this writing Luther writes to Spalatin July 22, 1520 9): "The donkey at Leipzig has let a new roar be heard against me, which is full of invective, from the Communion under both forms, and will also write against my German writing from the Pabst." Furthermore, Alveld published: JInIaZma Optimum, contra inlirmitatsm äuorum virorum, kratris stob. Iwnicsri, tbcoior?8tas, st kratris Martini I-utbsri. Later (perhaps in January 1523^10)^ ) Luther mentioned this writing in a letter to Joh. Brismann: "Thus one writes swords, another syrup, another plaster" (Malagmata). He also published writings in German: "Ein Sermon von der sacramentlichen Beicht, ob dieselbe den sterblichen Menschen zu der Seligkeit gäntzlich von Nöthen, oder nicht noth".

  1. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 710, where an ugly misprint has remained: "der Wittenb. Esel". Likewise vol. XV, appendix, no. 64.
  2. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 1440, §3.
  3. Walch, old edition, vol. V, 456, 868.
  4. Cf. Eol. 1208, am. 2. Auck elsewhere Luther puts this worthy pair together. See Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 781,85.
  5. Cf. Seidemann. "Miltitz," p. 28.
  6. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 727, 8 3.
  7. Cf. De Wette, vol. II, 287; Walch, old ed. Vol. XIX, 673.

Introduction. 33

1521; "Ein gar fruchtbar und nutzbarlich Büchlein von dem päbstlichen Stuhle und von St. Peter." Likewise: ^ssortio in oantivum: salvo reZill," Leipzig 1527, an explanation of the song with which one pays idolatrous reverence to the Virgin Mary in the Papacy, and many other books. 1)

All of Alveld's writings are miserable, meager, simple works of art, which is why Luther answered him with only one writing to his many books, and Walch has only included Alveld's small letter to Luther (No. 43 in this volume), in which he announces the feud to Luther. Alveld is said to have given rise to the vehement and mocking writing that some, around the year 1520, used in Luther's affairs from both sides, for despite his very weak evidence, Alveld acted with immoderate self-confidence and showered Luther with an abundance of the choicest rudeness. 2)

Luther's writing against Alveld has the title: Vom Pabstthum zu Rom, wider den hochberühmten Romanisten zu Leipzig. (No. 44 in this volume.) It will have gone out at the end of June 1520, because on May 31, 1520, Luther writes to Spalatin 3): "I have finished the German writing against Alveld's ass; it is already growing under the press," and on June 25 he writes to the same 4): "Tomorrow Silvester (the epitome of Prierias with Luther's preface and epilogue) and the German Romanist in print will be ready." About this writing Luther writes to Spalatin 5) (beginning of June, 1520): "I will attack (inveimr) Alveld's donkey in such a way that I am not unaware of the Roman pope, and I will not give anything to either of them. For the material requires this with necessity. Finally, the secrets of the

  1. These are listed in von der Hardt's ^nto skrnpll. I.uOit-r., toi". Il, r>. 41 and 60; Cyprian, Nützliche Urkunden zur Resorm.-Gesch., Th. 2, p. 157; D. Hofmann, Reform.-Historie der Stadt und Universität Leipzig, 8.147; Innocent News 1718, p. 930, and 1'udrioiun oontikol. 4,utkeran., p. 726.
  2. Kolde, "Martin Luther," p. 251.
  3. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 695.

4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 7W.

  1. Walch, old edition, "d. XXI, 724. De Wette, "d. 1,451.

Antichrist will be revealed. For in this way they force themselves out and do not want to be hidden any longer. In this scripture Luther proves quite splendidly that the supremacy of the pope does not come from divine but from human order. If the pope and the Romans were to confirm all bishops and priests free of charge, without money, and provide all churches with good preachers, and if they were to insist that this came to them from divine order, they themselves would insist that it was not divine order. Now, however, since Mainz alone, for example, has had to buy the episcopal mantle eight times from Rome, each time for thirty thousand florins, not to mention other innumerable bishoprics, prelatures and fiefdoms, it must be divine order that no bishop should be without Roman authority. The Christian Church is the assembly of all believers in Christ on earth, therefore it does not make anyone a heretic if he is not under the pope, but "not believing rightly" makes heretics. In Christianity, even on earth, there is no head other than Christ, who also has no governor on earth. Therefore the Christian Church is not bound to Rome, but, as far as the world is, is gathered together in One Faith, spiritually and not bodily. The gospel, baptism and the Lord's Supper are the signs by which one can outwardly notice where the church is. The rock on which the church is built is not Peter nor his authority (which he does not have), but Christ and faith alone, which the gates of hell are not able to overcome. "Pasture" does not mean to sit on top, to rule and to have power, but before Christ commands Peter to pasture, he asks him three times if he loves him. Only the one who loves Christ, who is obedient to him, will also feed Christ's sheep with the Gospel. Although the pope has come to such supremacy without divine counsel, yes, out of God's wrathful counsel, to the plague of the world, Luther does not want us to resist the pope, but to bear such authority with all patience, as if the Turk were over us. But Luther stipulates two things: People are not to set new articles of faith as if those

34 Introduction.

Luther wants to receive everything that the pope sets, does, and does in such a way that he first judges it according to the Holy Scriptures.

For the characterization of Alveld, Walch has also included the sentences of Alveld, which were discussed in Weimar in 1522 on the day of Fabian and Sebastian (January 20) (No. 45 in this volume). There are seven of them, which should serve to defend the monastic life and to glorify the Order of the Barefoot. Johann Lang at Erfurt countered these with as many sentences against Alveld's Weimar disputation, which we have reported in No. 46. By these, Alveld's theses are completely set down with evangelical truth.

VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus.

The first writing, which Walch has included in his edition in this section, is the translation of the letter: Limou ÜV88U8, Laoro-sanetas 8oä>8 u.p08toIiLae protonotarius, pontilieis kamiliarw, all Uartinum Imtd. äoot. tdooloZum, 1521. German by Walch under the title: Simon Hessens, päbstlichen Protonotarii, Ursachen, warum Luthers Bücher verdammt worden, 1521. 1) This writing is a satyrical justification of the verdict of condemnation, which the pope had passed on the articles, which Luther for his part upheld in the writing 2): "Grund und Ursach aller Artikel, so durch die römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt worden" Reason and cause of all articles that have been unlawfully condemned by the Roman bull, 1520. It is a mistake that one has thought that Latomus wrote this writing against Luther, and that it was written in earnest. This has already been noted by Walch in his introduction to this volume, p. 77, § 2. Simon Heffus is a fictitious name adopted by the satyr. This writing has nothing to do with Luther's dispute against Latomus. The only place where it is connected with the matter

  1. In the old edition, Col. 1301, the writing is dated December 23, 1520. - In the introduction, p. 77, the title of the German edition is differently "verbrannt" instead of "verdammt".
  2. Walch, alte AuSg., vol. XV, 1752.

of Latomus could be brought together is in the penultimate paragraph: "So you, my Luther, have heard the causes from your Hesse, why those at Cologne and Louvain burned your books because of your aforementioned articles." Of the collective editions, only the Latin Wittenberger, ltom. II, t'vl. 131. That we are dealing with a satyr is irrefutably shown by the words at the end: "For as I sat in the tavern among a bunch of drunks, nothing better occurred to me." In order that the reader may judge for himself, we will put here some of what is brought up to justify the Pope against the articles cited by Luther. All articles of "Grund und Ursach" 2c. are presented in order; however, we only want to give a short summary of the refutation of the first eight articles.

  1. it would destroy the income of the apostolic see, because some sacraments, such as ordination and marriage, are very profitable.
      1. are justly condemned, because they are against Eck, the brave defender of the papal chair and the sharp-sighted maker of the terrible bull. For some articles had to be condemned for the sake of the Roman court, but others for Eck's sake, because without him the bull would not have come into being.

(5) Not only the penance of the scholastics, but also the least part of it, the pardon, had been a rich and profitable realm; the consciences of the simple-minded had to be tormented with the torture of pardon, so that they would obey all the decrees and laws of the pope the sooner.

6 The Pope might not have condemned this article, but Eck, who had traveled such a long way, should have been at his will.

This article is highly detrimental to the Pope's income, and is therefore cursed by the Roman court.

8 The Roman court would prefer that nothing be known except the spiritual rights and commandments of the popes, and had lived quite quietly for many hundred years. From this tranquility

Introduction. 35

Luther had disturbed him by causing people to ponder the innumerable crickets and complaints of scholastic theology, so that now a layman almost wants to know more about matters of faith than those who wear the bishop's hat and show by the costume (the two points on the bishop's hat) that they understand both Testaments.

The foregoing will suffice to form an opinion about this writing. We have not considered it necessary to reprint it.

Jacob Latomus was a native of Cambron in the county of Hainaut (Flanders in Belgium). Because French is spoken there, Luther calls him a Frenchman in the Table Talks 1). He stayed in Paris and later went to Leuven, where he was appointed Doctor of Theology and Canon of St. Peter's Abbey. In the complete edition of his works he is simply called Professor of Theology at Louvain. He died in Louvain on May 29, 1544. 2) His end was a frightening one, for he despaired of the grace of God 3) until his death. In the previously mentioned passage from the Table Talks, Luther gives Latomus the testimony that he was excellent among all his opponents, and Bavarus 4) reports that Luther preferred him to all his opponents, and called all others only croaking frogs in comparison with him.

The works of Latomus were published in Louvain on July 29, 1550 in a folio volume of 214 leaves, edited by his brother's son, who was also named Jakob Latomus. This edition is in our hands. The writings included in this collection are not everywhere the same as the first editions of the same, but, as the younger Latomus notes in the preface, often improved by his grandfather himself. He says: "Here you will find much that has been changed for the better by himself, which in the former

  1. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, p4S. Tischreden, cap. 28, tz 20. - In the Hall manuscript (LindsM I, p. ISOi Latomus is called a Spaniard, because at that time the Netherlands belonged to Spain.
  2. Bretschneider's Corpus Lekormatorum, V, 432.
  3. Seckendorf Hist. Cutk., Uk. Ill, p. 653, soot. 37, 1136.
  4. Dow. I LlS., x. 438.

edition has been read either almost mutilated, or not quite adequately, or not clearly enough expressed." The collection contains 16 writings. 5) Only those for which we have given the time are provided with dates in the letters, for all others the time is missing. They are the following: 1. Contra articulos quosdam Martini Lutheri a Theologis Lovan. damnatos, den lezten December 1520*. 2. Responsio ad libellum a Luthero emissum pro articulis a Theologis Lovaniensibus damnatis. 3. De primatu pontificis adversus Lutherum,* den 25. März 1525. 4. De variis quaestionum generibus, quibus certat Ecclesia intus et foris.-De Ecclesia. 5. de ratione obligandi humanae legis. 6. de confessione secreta, ben 6. silui 1525. 7. ad Helleboron Joannis Oecolainpadii responsio. 8. de fide et operibus, ben 6. 3uni 1530. 9. de Monachorum institutis, votis et horum obligationibus. 10. de trium linguarum et studii theologici ratione dialogus, 1519. 11. pro dialogo de tribus linguis apologia. 12. adversus librum D. Erasini de sarcienda ecclesiae concordia. 13. confutationum adversus Gui- lielmum Tindalum libri tres, ben 12. suni 1542. 14. de matrimonio. 15. de quibusdam articulis in ecclesia controversis (namely: de precibus pro defunctis;^6^ ) de cultu imaginum; de reliquiis sanctorum; de festis; de missa). 16 Disputatio quodlibetica, tribus quaestionibus absoluta.

We are concerned here only with the first writing in which Latomus seeks to justify the procedure of the Löwen theologians, which Walch cites under the following title: ^rticulorum dootriuus F. Martini Lutheri, per tbeoloAOS Dovuuieuses dumnutorum ratio ex suoris litteris, et veteribus traotutoribus, Antwerp 1521, in quarto. In the collection it does not have this title, as can be seen from the above table of contents (oatuloAus). In the text, however, it is found without a title in the form of a letter to Rudolph von Monckedam, licentiate of theology and vice pastor at Gouda (in Holland), dated the last of December 1520. It comprises 53 folio leaves. This is the only writing of the Lato

  1. The index of the book lists 17, but the fourth writing is to be regarded as an introduction to the fifth and forms a whole with it.
  2. Walch gives this as a special writing.

36 Introduction.

Luther replied to it very reluctantly, as he wrote to Melanchthon on May 26, 1521 1) because he was busy with quiet studies, but nevertheless thought it necessary to reply to him himself, even though he was disgusted to even read such a lengthy and poorly written text. His refutation is entitled: ksrioms UtowianLv pro ineolläiuriis I^ovanionoio 8ebols.o 8oplu8tis reääitrre Imtbormna conkutatio. We bring this writing of Luther (No. 47 in this volume) under the title: Luther's Refutation of Latomus' Reasoning for the Murderous Sophists of the School of Louvain. The place and time of writing is given at the end of the letter to Justus Jonas, namely: at the Wartburg, on June 8, 1521. As Latomus was outstanding among Luther's opponents, for he alone sought, as Mathesius 2) says, to refute Luther's doctrine with Scripture, which none of the Roman writers had done before: so also Luther's writing against Latomus is probably the most outstanding of all his controversial writings. In the place cited Mathesius writes: "In this learned book he deals with the letter and spirit, law and gospel, Mosis and JEsu Christ's office, what is sin and grace, and how we are justified and blessed before God through faith in Christ alone, so diligently that, as much as I understand of Christianity, after his other interpretation of the epistle to the Galatians and of the Lord Philippi's epistle to the Romans and his I-ooie oommunibuo, I have read nothing more void and thorough." Seckendorf 3) also gives an extremely accurate judgment: "'It is impossible for God's law to be fulfilled if divine grace does not come to the rescue; and: 'every good work is sin' if God's mercy does not forgive. 4) Yes, we can appeal to the judgment of anyone who is not completely obtuse, or in the highest degree malicious, who has read the refutation, whether or not Luther, though he was not then influenced by any

  1. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 79.
  2. Mathesius, Luther's Life, St. Louis Edition, E.48f.
  3. Hist. I,utk., tik. I, p. 164, soct. 45, ? 101.
  4. The "before" is abbreviated.

Luther, who has been taught by other books than the holy Scriptures, as he reports, has interpreted these two sentences so learnedly, so thoroughly, yes, so divinely (äivine), and has shut the mouths of all opponents so completely that nothing can be raised against it without obvious godlessness or the most wretched sophistry. Truly, this booklet of Luther's shines among the others that were written at that time, like the moon among the lesser stars, and I would like to say that if he had written nothing else in his entire life, he would be equal to the greatest teachers of the church already for the sake of this one. In it he interprets the most important sayings of the prophets and apostles so learnedly, but destroys the interpretations (>108888) of the sophists most strikingly, so that the right sense of the Holy Spirit must become absolutely known to the hearts of those who read godly and attentively."

Very briefly we must also mention a small error, which became the occasion for the papists to call Luther an Arian and to accuse him of having tried to make St. Jerome an Arian as well. For Luther had said from an error of memory 5) that Jerome had desired that the word o>o be abolished, while he had used this speech in reference to the word ü^ras,? On the basis of the following words, the papists have now raised the accusation of Arianism against Luther: "Now if my soul hated the expression, and I did not want to use it, I would not therefore be a heretic. For who would compel me to use this word, if I only hold the thing which was established by Scripture at the Concilium?" It needs no proof for the sincere reader that either only a man of disturbed senses, or a malicious one, could build on this the accusation of Arianism. Incidentally, this passage contested by the papists has absolutely no influence on the doctrines defended by Luther against Latomus, because Luther only refers to this as the "Arianism".

  1. Luther had only the Bible at hand at the Wartburg, but not the writings of the Fathers, as he says himself towards the end of Wider Latomus.

Introduction. 37

The word "sin" was used by the apostle Paul as an example to prove that the sophists had no right to introduce other weakening expressions without and against God's word.

IX. Luther's dispute with Emser.

Eck found a zealous defender and ally in his fight with Luther in Hieronymus Emser. The Leipzig disputation was also the occasion for him to put the Pope's supremacy in its place.

We first acquaint ourselves with the person and the life and work of this overzealous friend of the Pabst and enemy of the Reformation in general.

Hieronymus Einser was born in Ulm on March 26, 1477. In contrast to another Hieronymus Einser, who was born in Ulm, he often called himself "den Elderen". He came from a noble family, which had both on top of the helmet and below in the shield the front of a buck in the coat of arms. In his youth, Emser attended school in Tübingen, where he learned the rudiments of the Greek language from Dionysius Reuchlin, a brother of the famous Johann Reuchlin. According to Erasmus' testimony, he made great progress in the Latin language and poetry. About in the twentieth. In the twentieth year of his life, he turned to Basel and devoted himself to the study of law. However, he was probably also occupied with theology, since he began to study the Hebrew language in 1499. Some insulting verses on the Swiss, which he sent to a fellow student, almost led to his imprisonment. Christoph von Ukenheim, later bishop of Basel, took his side.

Around 1500, Emser became secretary and chaplain to the famous Cardinal Raymund von Gurck, with whom he traveled through Germany and Italy for two years. After a short stay in Strasbourg, he settled in Erfurt, where he became a master and began to teach the Humaniora. According to his pretence, Luther should have been his listener here.

when he explained Sergiuo, a comedy by Johann Reuchlin. From 1504 on, Emser continued his studies and lectures in Leipzig and earned the degree of Baccalaureus of Theology there in 1505. From then on, however, his main subject was canon law. Gottfried Arnold in his Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, p. 531, J. C. Funke in his Reformationshistorie, p. 81, Seckendorf in his Historie des Lutherthums, p. 221, give him as a professor in Leipzig. But there is no evidence for this claim. From 1505 on, he held the position of secretary and orator to Duke George of Saxony for several years. In 1510 he sent him to Bohemia and Rome to promote the canonization of Benno of Meissen. He attributed his recovery from a serious illness to this very saint. From then on, he lived as a private man, partly in Meissen, partly in Dresden, from several fat prebends. Since 1518, he had the title of presbyter.

In a letter to Spalatin of January 14, 1519, the latter comments on his first meeting with Luther in Dresden in 1518: "Together with our Johann Lang 1) and our prior in Dresden Melchior Mirisch, I was almost more coerced than invited by Hieronymus Emser to a small evening drink. I thought I was among friends here, but soon realized that I had been ambushed. There was a little Leipzig magister there, 2) a wretched Thomist, who miraculously let himself think that he knew everything. He, who was full of hatred against me, first received me kindly, but then, when a disputation had arisen, he started at me violently and with shouts. In the meantime, without my knowing it, a mendicant brother of the Dominicans (praedicutorum) was standing outside, listening to everything and bragging (as I heard later) that he had been very indignant and could hardly hold himself not to drive off and spit in my face and defile me with "all"" names of abuse. So much it had

  1. Joh. Lang, prior of the Augustinians at Erfurt, was present as district vicar at the Augustinian Convention in Dresden assembled there.
  2. It was called Weißestadt; cf. Bindseil, Ooltoyuia, 1,152.

38 Introduction.

I tormented the man that I refuted that little magister's Thomas. This is the same man who boasts everywhere to this day that I was so overcome that I could no longer have answered either a Latin or a German word. Because (as it happens) we were also arguing in German in the middle of it, he confidently said, I don't understand a word of Latin. Incidentally, our disputation revolved around the antics of Aristotle and Thomas. I showed that neither Thomas nor all Thomists together had understood even one chapter in Aristotle. At the end, when he boasted mightily, I asked him to explain to me with all the powers of Thomistic learning what it means to fulfill the commandments of God; I said that there was no Thomist who could do this. Then the riffraff, aware of his ignorance, exclaimed: First give food (for that is what the schoolmasters' school fees are called); for what else could he answer, who knew nothing else? Laughing at this lame answer, we parted. Later, the prior of Dresden wrote to me how they had bragged and insulted me, even at the court of the prince Duke George, as an ignorant, arrogant and, I don't know, what other kind of person..... Hieronymus Emser then apologized profusely, and when he came to me the other day in Leipzig, he swore that he had not intended to ambush me. I answered him, however, that I had despised such futile rage, as I still do today. If they are so learned, there are types and paper; they may issue something and show the glory of their splendid erudition."

In 1519, Emser attended the Leipzig Disputation. Seb. Fröschel in the preface to his book von dem Königreich JEsu Christi, Witt. 1566, reports on this: "On Saturday after Corporis Dlnisti, Bock Emser came, Dear Domino, from whence come you. You shall be called k-rroits, who the pious Emser wer. The same Bock Emser came to me and to other young -UaZimrw more, and asked us because of the Uvetoris and the University, that we wanted to stand on the Sunday with the Dr. Ecken, and with him

go to the castle." In a special conversation with him Luther let fall the much disputed remark: "The game was not started in God's name, it will also not end in God's name." This is where the hot scriptural battle begins, which Emser and Luther had with each other.

Of Emser's later life and fate, there is nothing more important to add. He died in Dresden on November 8, 1527. Of his other writings, which he published in abundance, only "Das heilige Leben und Legende des seligen Vaters Bennonis, weiland Bischof zu Meißen. 1517" and his translation of the New Testament, which he worked on from 1523 and in which he both fought and copied Luther.

Emser owes his fame solely to his opponent Luther. In theology, especially in the Scriptures, he was as blind as a heathen. In erudition, skill and agility he was no match for his champion Eck, only equal to him in courage, cunning and deceit. In other respects, too, his character is not flawless. He does not reject Luther's reproach that he lives in concubinage with a Bohemian woman, but declares in his following writing A venatione Duterians, er". 1519, that it is not wrong to find pleasure in a beautiful woman, whether Bohemian or Saxon. In his short self-biography, which he gives in this same writing, he admits that he had often allowed himself to be seduced by common human vices. However, according to God's wonderful counsel, this miserable, ignorant, vain man had to serve to draw the bright light of Luther's teachings out of the Papal darkness.

In 1519, on July 16 and 17, two preachers from Prague, from the party of the Utraquists, who administered Holy Communion in both forms and were otherwise attached to the truth known from John Hus, namely John Poduschka, presbyter at the Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin, and Wenceslaus Rossdalovicky. Provost of the College of St. Charles, by letter to

Introduction. 38

Luther, wished him luck for what he was negotiating in Leipzig. They wished him luck, urged him to remain steadfast, and assured him of their prayers and intercessions. Luther received these letters only on October 3, 1519. Cf. his letter to Spalatin of October 3, 1519. De Wette I, 341. However, the content of these letters had already become known before. In general, however, the partisanship of the Bohemians for Luther, especially the rumor that the Bohemians had implored victory from God for Luther during the Leipzig Disputation, prompted Jerome Emser to write a letter about the Disputation at Leipzig, insofar as the Bohemians were occasionally remembered therein (No. 48 in this volume) (Vv disputations Iüp8ioensi, guantum uck Loemog obiter ckeüexu est Lpistola 8ier6n^mi Lmser) of August 13, 1519. He addressed it to Johann Zack, administrator of the Catholic Church at Prague and provost at Leitmeritz, and gives himself the appearance of having published this letter, partly to strengthen and encourage the Catholic party in Bohemia, partly to convince the other Bohemians who had separated themselves from the Roman Church that they were invoking Luther in vain, since the latter had refused to be the advocate of the Bohemians at the Leipzig disputation. Luther had also asserted the supremacy of the pope over the Bohemians, albeit according to human law, in which latter point he was only right insofar as the election of the pope was based on human law. Especially with the reference to the divine right of the Old Testament high priest, Emser then goes on to justify the divine dignity of the pope.

In his reply "M. Luthers Zusatz zu Einsers Bock" (No. 49 in this volume) i-Vä ^oZooerotem Lmssrianum N. Imtiwri aäämo), end of September 1519, Luther rightly complains about Emser's spitefulness and

  1. Even two years later in his writing "An den Stier zu Wittenberg" Emser claims that it was not a mere pretense, but an honest, sincere intention to act. "But already the circumstance", says Kolde, "Martin Luther", p. 210, "that he gave the otherwise insignificant and little motivirten Bries into the pressure, lied the "treacherous" intention of the author to recognize."

Lying. It is only cunning and falsehood that Emser defends Luther against the Bohemians and protects his orthodoxy. Luther assures that it pleases him if the Bohemians like his teachings. In his defense of the well-known 13th thesis, he particularly highlights the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament priesthood.

Now the so brave (korti88imus) Eck stepped back into the breach. On October 28, 1519, he completed his "Reply for Hieronymus Emser against Luther's mad hunt" in the form of a letter to the Bishop of Meissen, Johann von Schleynitz, which we have already reported in No. 39 of this volume under the dispute with Eck. This writing contains essentially only invective against Luther, a sophistical distortion of his words, and is in this respect characteristic of the way of fighting of the papal theologian. With regard to the main point of contention, Eck refers to his future writing "Von der Oberhoheit Petri."

Emser himself countered Luther in a new writing, "Emser's assertion of his buck of the Lutheran hunt (X venmiono ImtsrikML ^e^oovrotis L88vrtio. Lmser.), in the second half of November 1519. Luther rightly judged this in a letter to Spalatin of November 19, 1519: "Emser finally rages and pours out all his fury. But nothing to the matter." Luther left both of Eck's and Emser's writings unanswered.

The dispute between Emser and Luther entered a new stage two years later, after Luther had published his epoch-making Reformation treatise "An den deutschen Adel, von des christlichen Standes Besserung. Emser, a man addicted to writing and fame, wanted to share in the glory of dampening the Reformation that had begun. Thus, in 1521, he set about editing a larger writing, "Wider das unchristliche Buch Martini Lutheri, Augustiners, an den deutschen Adel ausgegangen, Widerlegung Hieronymi Emsers." This eighteen-sheet work is, as we see at the end, "Completed at Leipzig on the day of Fabiani and Sebastiani Martyrum (20th Ja-.

40 Introduction.

nuar 1521) and printed by Martinum Herbipolensem (Landsberg)." It has the motto: "Hüt dich, der Bock stößt dich" ("Beware, the goat pushes you"), which was the reason for Luther to address his answer "to the goat in Leipzig". Already on January 14, 1521, Luther had news that Emser was occupied with this writing, because on this day he writes to Staupitz: "Emser writes in Leipzig against me in German, at the instigation of Duke George, who rages against me"; and on January 21 he writes to Spalatin: "Emser writes in Leipzig against me with great courage; I despise Murner"; likewise on the same day to Wenceslaus Link: "Emser writes against me, I will confront the beast, for he acts on the orders of his furious Duke George." (Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, nos. 58 and 66.) Here he attacks Luther with a threefold weapon, the sword of the Holy Scriptures, the long spear of the long-standing custom and old conventions of the Christian church, the sword of the interpretation of the holy fathers and teachers. He acknowledges the ruin of the church. He writes: "True it is, and all too rude in the day, that wickedness, dishonor, and vice, in these latter times of ours, have so cruelly prevailed among the clergy and the worldly, the noble and the ignoble, rulers and subjects, man and woman, young and old, that all human trades and dealings have become so utterly translated, mischievous, false, and unfaithful. the fear of God and brotherly love and faithfulness so utterly extinguished, and the world so utterly perverted, that it has never been so bad with any people, Jews, Gentiles, Turks or Tatars in the church, that even where things are not changed by a new serious reformation, the last day must come by necessity." Nevertheless, he subsequently defends all the abuses of the Roman Church that Luther had castigated and, above all, the divine authority and supremacy of the Roman See.

When Luther (probably towards the end of January 1521) received the first sheet 1) of this writing and

  1. Emser's writing weaves only came into Luther's hands towards the middle of February, because on February 17, 1521, he wrote to Spalatin: "Emser has finally spat out his poison for the benefit of his Duke George. I feel compelled to reply to the man, if only to protect his

he declared in a short letter "An den Bock zu Leipzig" 1521 (No. 50 in this volume), which will be published at the end of January, that he knows how to answer and will also speak for the love of truth, even if it is difficult to deal with such an insolent blasphemer and liar. In his answer "To the Bull at Wittenberg" (one sheet, quarto), Emser defended his truthfulness with weak reasons. Although this writing, as well as the following smaller writings, appeared without indication of time and place, two statements made in it give us some clue to determine the time. On page A 2 it says: "But your pompous spirit, which feeds you my quatrains before they come out of the pen, cannot suffer" 2c. Page A 3: "On the other hand, because from this quatern (which has come to you through treason, before I then give my book to day)... you may well decrease" 2c. Both sayings indicate that at the time Luther received the first Quaker, Einser's book "Wider das unchristliche Buch Martini Lutheri, Augustiners, an den deutschen Adel" 2c. was under the press. We assume that this took place between January 20, the day Einser completed it, and February 17, when Luther, as he told Spalatin on that day, had a finished copy in his hands. At the end of the last-mentioned writing, as already mentioned above, it does not say: "Printed and completed on January 20", but: "Completed on January 20 and printed by" 2c. Therefore, perhaps Emser's writing "An den Stier zu Wittenberg" is to be shredded in February, but much more Luther's answer to it, although the same Emser's "Wider das unchristliche Buch" 2c. also still precedes as future, as we can assume from these words: "If your first Sextern in the beginning so grossly narrt, was

ner quite impudent lies. For Murner I can after nicbt, and how could I answer all ^) ?" - Murner's writing "an den grosnnachügsten und durchlauchtigsten Adel teutscher Nation" was already in Luther's hands on January 14, 1521. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, Anbang, no. 20. s

  1. Cf. De Wette 1, !>16 f. In the introduction of De Wetter, the name "Eck" is inadvertently written twice instead of "Emser".

Introduction. 41

will the twenty that follow do? What you write will be a fool's work and blasphemy. In his rebuttal "Auf des Bocks zu Leipzig Antwort" (No. 51 in this volume), Luther demonstrated his embarrassment, especially with an example of Emser: He knew quite well that he, Luther, had had the Leipzig disputation in mind when he made that statement in Leipzig about the game that had not begun in God's name and would not end in God's name. Against his better knowledge and conscience, Emser related this judgment to Luther's work, as if Luther had admitted that he had not begun his cause in God's name. Luther defies this shameful slander with the assurance that his teaching is of God, and that he will answer for it against Eck, Emser, Pabst and all his liars and deceivers, even if strife, rebellion and tumult should be awakened by God's word. "Emsers Duplik auf des Stieres zu Wittenberg wüthende Replik" (three sheets, quarto) concluded this intermediate trade. Also this writing of Emser's is probably still to be assigned to the month of February.

Luther's actual rebuttal followed in March 1521, in the rebuttal: "Antwort auf das überchristliche, übergeistliche und überkünstliche Buch des Bocks Emsers zu Leipzig, nebst ein Anhang an Murner, desselben Gesellen." (No. 52 in this volume). (No. 52 in this volume.) This writing will be meant, since Luther writes to Spalatin on March 6, 1521: "An answer against Emser is in progress"; and on March 29, when sending it to Johann Lang: "You see that I have worked on my ass Emser." And this is now again a classic, Reformation writing. In contrast to the Roman papacy and priesthood, he describes and praises the spiritual priesthood of all believers, and in this context shows the difference between Scripture and custom, between Scripture and the glosses of the fathers, between letter and spirit, law and gospel.

Emser's response to this writing is entitled: "Hieronymi Emsers Quadruplica auf Luthers jüngst gethane Antwurt, seyn refor-

mation." Leipzk 1521. quarto. Seven sheets. This writing must have appeared at the beginning of July 1521, for on July 13 Luther wrote to Melanchthon (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 75): "I will not answer Einser; let someone answer who seems to you to be puffing, such as Amsdorf; but perhaps he is too good to be sullied with such muck." But since no one could be found willing to write against Einsern, Luther finally set out himself, probably not until October 1521, to answer this writing of Emser. Since Emser in this writing mainly dealt with refuting Luther's opinion that according to 1 Petr. 2, 9. all Christians were spiritual and priests, Luther defended this in the small writing: Widerspruch seines Irrthums, erzwungen durch den allerhochgelehrtesten Priester GOttes, Herrn Hieronymum Emser, Vicarium zu Meißen (No. 53 in this volume), which put an end to Luther's dispute with Emser. On November 13, 1521, Emser had completed his rebuttal to this writing in Dresden and had it printed in Leipzig under the title: "Bedingung auff Luters orsten Widerspruch. In it, he attacks Luther's Reformation by saying that it was undertaken with dishonest intentions and praises the blind faith of the charcoal burners, p. D 1b: "The common people do not need great scripture. - They believe what the holy Christian church believes, as the charcoal burner did, so they exist dead and alive." (Waldau, Hier. Einsers Leben und Schriften, p. 48.)

Emser also directed his attack against other writings of Luther, e.g.: "Wider den falsch genannten geistlichen Stand des Pabsts und der Bischöfe" (Walch, old ed., vol. XIX, 836); "Wider den neuen Abgott und alten Teufel, der zu Meißen erhalten soll" (Walch, old ed., vol. XV, 2772); "Von dem Greuel der Stillmeffe" (Walch, old ed., (Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 1459); however, it is not necessary to go into further detail here, partly because Luther no longer answered Emsern, and partly because the relevant writings of Luther are assigned to other volumes in our edition.

42 Introduction.

X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites at Jüterbock.

In order to describe the course of this dispute 1), we go back, as does the Weimar edition, to the two letters which the Lector of the Franciscans in Jüterbock, Bernhard Tappen, addressed to the episcopal vicar, Jakob Gropper, on May 4, 1519, and the following day to the Bishop of Brandenburg, Hieronymus Scultetus. These two letters appeared in print shortly after they were written, under the title:' ^rüouli per kratrcs ^linoro" sie obsorvantia propositi rcvoroiulissimo äomino cpiscopo Lian(louburZvn. contra Imterano". 2) Ucvvrenllo clowino llncol,n Oroppcr revcronäissimi clowini preoulis eeelosiac Lranäcnsiurgon. vicario. benv werito. atguo "empor cliZno in Obristo "empor "ibi oolenllo crater Lerubarllus Dappon orsiinis Llinorum. 6 leaves in quarto, last leaf blank. As the occasion for these letters is given, in the letter to Gropper, this: On April 29, 1519, the Guardian of the Franciscan monastery and Bernhard Tappen brought complaints before the episcopal vicar about certain articles which a new preacher there, Magister Thomas, 3) was supposed to have brought forward in his sermons. Since the vicar did not want to deal with this matter in the absence of the bishop, he requested that this deal be drawn up in writing so that he could present it to the bishop. This was done, and on this occasion other complaints were added to the two documents.

During the last Lent, the Guardian of the Franciscan Monastery summoned M. Franz Günther, preacher at St. Nicolai Church in Jüterbock (the same one who defended the propositions against scholastic theology on September 4, 1517), because it was rumored that he had preached: one needs

  1. Because this has been done (except in the Weim. edition) so far in a quite incorrect way by koscher, Walch, De Wette, Wiedemann and in the Erlangen edition, we have allowed ourselves a little more detail here, since the two writings are "Tappen" in our countries. Both koscher and Walch assure that the letter to the bishop is no longer available.
  2. Here we meet for the first time the designation "Lutheran" for the followers of Luther. (Weim. Ausg.)
  3. Müntzer. Weiln. Vol. II, 821.

not to confess, not to fast, not to invoke the saints, and that the Bohemians were better Christians than we. As witnesses to this trial, Günther had taken with him the prior of the Augustinians at Wittenberg (Conrad Held) and another Augustinian (socium ejusdem), who was also Magister and Lector of Theology. With regard to the articles mentioned, Günther denied that he had preached them. In free conversation about various subjects, however, the Wittenberg lecturer expressed as his conviction that he thought nothing of the general conciliarities, that the pope was not the governor of Christ, nor Peter the prince of the apostles, that the canons were ordered for the sake of the avarice of the pope and the bishops. There were no reserved cases, no evangelical counsels, but everything in the Gospel was commanded. The auricular confession is not of divine right. God demands from every Christian the highest perfection and the observation of the whole Gospel. The Canons taught lasciviousness, avarice and arrogance. Man has no free will and many of the canons are against the Holy Scriptures. It is more to believe a simple peasant who has scripture than the pope or a council that has no scripture. Good works were not necessary; God had commanded man to do the impossible; Christ had earned nothing for himself, but only for us. After heated disputation about these articles, they parted.

Not long after, it was reported to the Franciscans that Günther had said in the presence of the Abbot of Zinna: He had given them a good run for their money, and if they did not humble themselves before him, he would write against them and cite them before the University of Wittenberg. Thereupon he was summoned again and also denied this completely. On this occasion, he was also questioned about the above-mentioned articles. He confessed to seven 4) of them.

Again after a short time, Günther was sued by the provost of the nunnery at St. Mary's before the bishop, because of one of the

  1. Namely to the articles 13. 6. 8. 10. II. 5. 7. in Luther's defense of Wider Eck. (No. 85 in this volume.)

Introduction. 43

He received a sharp reprimand for this. He received a sharp reprimand for this. Therefore he did not preach any more, but let the ole. Thomas (Müntzer), who had recently been expelled from the city of Brunswick, to preach in his place. The latter attacked the Guardian from the pulpit in St. Mary's Church on the first Easter day (April 24). On the second Easter morning Brother Bernhard paid him back in the pulpit, to which M. Thomas replied in the evening service. For the evening service on Easter Tuesday, Brother Bernhard was present as a listener at Oel. Thomas and took up the articles, because of which, as we have seen above, complaints were made to the episcopal vicar. This sermon was also directed against the Father Guardian, who had preached on the morning of the same day about obedience to the Roman Church and the writings of proven teachers, namely Bonaventure and Thomas. Tappen reports, ole. Thomas had said the following: The pope is obliged to hold a council every five years, 1) but now only three have been held in four hundred years; a council can also be held against the will of the pope; the pope is the head of the church because the other bishops allow this; the canonization of Bonaventure and Thomas is invalid because it could only be done by one man, the pope, and not by a general council; the doctrine of the "aforementioned" teachers and other scholastics, they say, is admitted by the Church; even harlots and whoremongers are admitted in states; all bishops are required to visit their subjects annually and examine them on the faith; if this were done, there would be no bats of summons, letters of threat and banishment; these are diabolical writings. In the past, holy fathers were appointed bishops, but now they are tyrants who feast on themselves and do not carry out their office. The bishops are flatterers and seducers of the erring people, call good evil and evil good, understand neither Greek nor Hebrew, "only questen and stink". The

  1. According to the letter to the bishop, >l. Thomas preached this also already on April 19 l keria wrtia "nde octsvas xases) in the St. Nicolai church.

The Gospel has been lying under the bank for more than four hundred years, and a great many still have to put their necks on it so that it will be brought out again.

Luther would not have taken care of this whole matter if Dappen had not written to the bishop of Brandenburg: that because of the teachings and sermons of Luther and other preachers of his sect, one of whom was M. Franz Günther, the most pernicious errors arose, which were dangerous for peace and Christian unity, through which a schism-like schism (guasi seisnmtiLLm seisLUram) had arisen in Jüterbock. Therefore, on May 15, 1519, Luther addressed a letter to the Franciscans at Jüterbock (No. 54 in this volume), in which he defends the doctrine put forward in the sentences recognized by Günther, warns the Franciscans to interfere in doctrinal matters, and threatens them that he will publish their articles in print and bring their ignorance to light by added refutation, if they do not recant and give him back his good name. It was not necessary to have these articles specially printed, because in the complete edition they are only compiled from Luther's writing (No. 55).

For a while, this matter rested; it had probably been pushed into the background by the Leipzig disputation. But when the Bishop of Brandenburg, who had received Dappen's letters in the meantime, passed through Leipzig on his way back from Frankfurt with his Elector Joachim I, he presented them 2) to Eck, who was staying there, for review. In the same frivolous manner with which he had previously passed his obelisks, he also proceeded here. In about two hours 3) he had drawn out sixteen sentences and accompanied them with his annotations in the sense of the Fransciscans. Already on August 15, 1519, Luther had news of this, for on that day he wrote to Spalatin 4): "I hear that he (Eck) has made some annotations...

  1. A printed copy of the same, as Eck says in his response under Article 2.
  2. Eck himself states this in his reply to Luther's next Schrist.
  3. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1373, 8 37.

44 Introduction.

I have made certain articles which have been imposed on me by the restless brethren who seek their destruction, and that he has again described me before the mighty with wonderful love as a Manichaean, Hussite, Viklefite, and I do not know how diverse a heretic." And on August 18 to the same 1): "Eck has handed over to the Bishop of Brandenburg articles, which are morden by him with interpretations, which the brethren at Jüterbock have gathered against me in a lying manner." The bishop himself saw to their dissemination. This caused Luther to write the scripture, which we have added to this volume under No. 55 2): Martin Luther's defense against the malicious judgment of Johann Eck about some articles imposed on him by some brothers. Attached to these are 24 heretical articles drawn from Eck's and the brothers' writings. Of this writing Köstlin says: "Calmly and clearly, though with many a sharp turn against Eck, he sets forth in it what he really teaches, and substantiates it." From its title we see that Luther turned the tables on the obelisk writer and his comrades by calling 24 propositions of Eck and the Franciscans heretical. Already on September 3, 1519, he wrote to Johann Lang, 3) that Melchior Lotther in Leipzig (the Wittenberg presses were too busy) was printing this defense for him. At the same time as the letter to Franz Günther of September 30 (No. 56 in this volume), Luther sent several finished copies. In the same letter he reports, just as in an earlier letter to Spalatin, 4) September 22, that the Provincial of the Franciscans had sent deputies to him with the request not to let this writing appear; he had agreed and had therefore written to Lotther himself. However, it seems that either he waited too long or that the Franciscans could not satisfy Lotther; the document appeared.

  1. Walch, old edition, Dd. XXI, 5.
  2. The Latin title is already given in the note to the caption of No. 55.
  3. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No.35.
  4. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 640 f.

From the latter letter we also see that the Franciscans at Jüterbock were to be transferred for punishment because of their actions against Luther. Whether this had happened, we do not know.

Against Luther's "Vertheidigung" Eck wrote, as he states at the end of the Schrist itself, "in One Day" (it is also after that, says the Weimar edition) his answer: ^cl eriwinutrioem Nartini l-uäers DittenbeiAen. oÜensionem super )uckieio.jiwtissiws kueto: acl urlieulos guosänm por wiuoritss cio observnntis, KevorernliWnuo Lpiseopo LranckenbuiFen. oblatos Lelciunu, responsio. (juia buotmms adu8U8 vst Uar. I-uclerus moclestin Lelciuim ew. 14 leaves in quarto, last page blank. Walch did not know this writing, therefore in the introduction to the 18th volume, p. 100, he pronounces: "as far as one knows, neither Eck nor the Minorites at Jüterbock have responded to this writing of Luther". Both the writing itself and the dedication of it to the jurist, Chancellor Johann Eck, is dated October 19, 1519, from Ingolstadt. At the beginning, he praises the Franciscans "as people of good repute in the whole Christian world because of their godliness and piety"; in his self-justification, however, he mostly puts off the readers to his future work v "r priwatu kotri, and in the discussion of the errors blamed on him by Luther, his main attack consists of the numerous insults he attaches to Luther. The latter did not dignify the writing with a reply.

At the beginning of October 1519, the Franciscans had a convention in Wittenberg, 5) in which they "disputed" about the wound marks of St. Francis and about the glory of their order. The reason for this, as Luther writes in a letter to Staupitz of October 3, 1519 6), was the rumor that Luther had preached against those stigmata. A Franciscan educated at Wittenberg, Baccalaureus Jakob from Zwickau, stood victoriously against the

  1. Thus Walch, old edition, vol. XVIII, introduction p. 100; also Scidcmann: De Wette V I, 662 s. D. Franciscans, while De Wette, Vol. I, 340, lets this assembly be in "Jüterbock".
  2. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 36, § 9 to 11.

Introduction. 45

The two main fighters of St. Franciscus, namely an Erfurtian who had become a magister at the same time as Johann Lang, and Peter from Borna (Fronrinus). Luther did not concern himself further with this.

The Franciscans in Weimar also "attacked the pestilent teacher and his poisoned young men", because at the general assembly (the General Chapter) of the Franciscans in Carpi (near Modena) in Italy at Pentecost (May 19) 1521, they had received the order from the pope to "counteract the rotten Lutheran teaching in a salutary way". They attacked it in such a way that on August 15, 1521, they appealed to the secular arm for its assistance in the writing we have reported under No. 57: "Der Barfüßer zu Weimar Schrift an Chursachsen wider Luther" and asked that "they be given the power to strive, stand and fence against it. The Elector of Saxony's answer to the Franciscans at Weimar (No. 58 in this volume) was drafted by Melanchthon on Frederick the Wise's orders. It is extremely finely written. The "Capitel der Holtzschuchparfüsser zu Waymar" is told that the Elector is always willing to do what is good for the welfare and peace of the church. He will severely punish anyone who disturbs the church; he warns them to restrain their zeal, and promises to assist to the best of his ability those who defend the gospel of Christ in a godly manner.

At the beginning of December of the following year 1522, the Franciscans in Weimar again appeared on the battlefield against Luther's disciple, M. Wolfgang Stein, court preacher of Duke Johann of Saxony, in Weimar. The latter had rejected as an unchristian error the teaching that Holy Communion is a sacrifice. Against this attack on their faith, the Franciscans again seem to have appealed to their authorities for cover, for we see from their letter to Duke John that he summoned both parties before him to settle their matter verbally. However, this measure did not achieve the desired goal, and the duke ordered both parties to present their reasons to him in writing.

lay. The Franciscans did this in the writing we reported in No. 59: Der Barfüßermönche zu Weimar Beweisung, dass das Sacrament ein Opfer sei. Stein sent this writing to Luther with the request to help him refute it. Luther complied with him in the letter to M. Wolfgang Stein (No. 60 in this volume) of December 11, 1522, in which he responds to the silliness that the Minorites put forward in the previous writing. It is obvious that in this letter Luther follows the previous writing step by step, so that it must be the earlier one. That is why we have placed it before the letter. About the then by Wolfg. Stein in a letter of December 20, 1522 1), says that it is not necessary to have it printed, and advises him to let the croaking frogs bark and blaspheme after he has given them an account; he will not silence them "because they are wordbags and completely mouthy.

XI. Luther's dispute with Ambrosius Catharinus.

This opponent of Luther was called Lancellotus Politus before he entered the monastery. 2) He was born in 1487 at Siena in Tuscany, studied jurisprudence, attained the doctorate at the age of sixteen, and then attended the most important academies in Italy and France. After his return, he became a professor of law in Siena and as such, as Cochläus reports, attained great fame in Italy. When he later went to Rome, Pope Leo X included him among the Consistorial Advocates. In 1517 he entered the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) in Florence (eonZroFo-tionis Laneti Uarei äo

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI. 817.
  2. Thus the name is given in the book of Cochlaeus: I>o sx rsonn,4 itoiNrinu ^lurtini Outlicri ju<licnum Irutris ^indrosii CnOmrini I'oliti, Katrin 8<>nonsis, clixnituto I^pimoin, oruNitiono prnm-i'Nontissjini. iicrnmuis suininnsn-rc con-mlcrunNnni, o trilius ojus nporilnis <:<nnpcn<Iic) cxccrsNum. at the end: Xpnct 8. viotnroin prop<) itlnxnntnnn oxon<I<>bnt Franciscus Lcännn vio M. AluNii 1518. page ä. 4d.

46 Introduction.

I'Ivrentin) and received the monastic name Ambrosius Catharinus. In his new state he threw himself with all zeal into theology and placed himself in great esteem at the Roman court. He attended the Council of Trent, became Bishop of Minori, and died on November 8, 1553, as Archbishop of Conza in Naples. As he says in his LxpurZntio käversun "Polonium Dominici n 8oto p. 10, he wrote in 1520 his first writing against Luther, which appeared at the end of the year 1520 1) and in 1521 (as Cochläus says) in second edition in Florence under the title: ^.ck Eurolmu Llnx. Impviatorom ot Uwpuuinruw regem kratris bro8Ü Latdarini, vräimZ pr^ellivatorum, upologio. pro veritato Eatdolicao ot /Xpostolicae llckoi L6 äootriiwu: aäversus impia uo vulcko pvZtikera Nartini Outberi äogmaka. This writing has five books. On February 15, 1521 it arrived in Worms 2) (according to a note of Aleander on the original) and was handed over to the Emperor, to whom it had been sent by the pope, through the mediation of the papal legate Aleander. About March 7, sent by Wenceslaus Link, it came into Luther's hands; for on that day he writes to him 3): "Dear GOD! What a great mishmash of this quite tasteless Thomist Catharinus. I will answer him with little." In the same way he speaks out against Spalatin 4) on the same day: "Finally Ambrosius Catharinus has come from Nuremberg. Dear God! What a tasteless and foolish Thomist! so that he almost kills us at times by laughter, at times by disgust. I will answer him briefly and excite the bile of the welch beast." The Emperor's confessor, Glapio, did not like that Catharinus had written against Luther, 5) and he expressed his fears to Chancellor Brück that nothing good would come out if it came into Doctor Luther's hands. This proved true

  1. Thus Walch in the introduction to the 18th volume; also Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 428.
  2. Cf. Brieger, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Reformation, vol. 1, p. 6 !
  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 60. 4) Walch, old > edition, vol. XV, appendix, Ro. 61.
  1. Förstermann, neues Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Reformation, vol. 1, l. 51 b.

himself. "Immediately," says Kolde, 6) "Luther set to work and wrote with a quick hand an extensive rebuttal, equally powerful by the abundance of ridicule with which he showered the arrogant scholastic, as by the determination with which he tried to expose the unchristianity of the Pabst. The Latin title is already given in the note to the superscription of No. 61 in this volume, where we bring the excellent translation, which Paul Speratus made in 1524, from the Latin original already published on April 1, 1521, under the following title: Martin Luther's Answer to the Book of the Excellent Magister noster, Ll. Ambrosius Catharinus, defender of the exceedingly biting Silvester Prierias with the interpretation of the face of Daniel 8 about the Antichrist. Luther dedicated this writing to Wenceslaus Link, as he says, as punishment for sending him this wretched Thomistic work and not rather throwing it into the water or burning it with fire. Then Luther turns to Catharinus and tells him that he is much too late with the things and questions he deals with. Catharinus accuses him of contradictions in his doctrine of indulgences, of the concilia, and in his dealings with the Louvain. With regard to this, Luther himself confessed that he had not taught correctly about indulgences, about the pope, about the Roman church, about concilia, about universities and the canons, which is why he recanted everything in later books, e.g. in his "Babylonian Captivity" and "Reason and Cause of All Articles" 2c. Now it is no longer a question of "whether the pope is something? Also the second question: "What is the pope?" was already finally concluded by the answer: "He is the Antichrist. Now it was only necessary to bring this answer properly into course and pregnancy, and with that one hoped to be finished shortly. 7) So that Catharinus has not written in vain, then

  1. "Martin Luther," p. 319.
  2. Luther himself, in the epilogue to this writing to Wenceslaus Link, calls it "the other and better part" of the Babylonian prison.

Introduction. 47

Luther wants to deal with this second question again. First, Luther shows that the rock (Matth. 16, 16.) on which the church is built is neither the pope nor the Roman church, nor even Peter, but Christ alone; therefore, the church is spiritual and invisible in its essence. What makes this writing, as well as the one against Alveld "on the papacy at Rome", especially important 1) is the refutation of the objection of the Papists

(§ 54 ff. in the present Scripture): "If the church is entirely spiritual, no one could know where to find anything of it in the world. Therefore we indicate the pope, so that one knows to find the church in a certain place." Luther answers: "The church is not bound to a certain place or person, although it cannot be without a place and person. The visible sign by which the church is recognized, around which all Christians gather, is the service, the Lord's Supper, and most often the Gospel. These three are the Christians' landmarks; where these are in swing, there is a church, there is the unity of the spirit, which we are commanded by God to keep. But where there is no gospel, as with the Papists and Thomists, there is no church, even if they baptize and go to the table of God. The gospel is the only, most certain and noblest sign of the church, much more certain than baptism and the Lord's Supper, for it is by the gospel alone that the church is conceived, formed, nourished, born, led, fed, clothed, adorned, strengthened, armed and preserved: in short, the whole life and being of the church is in the word of God. To preach the Gospel means to teach the faith with a living voice, but not to have and exercise a power of dominion. The pope who preaches the gospel is a successor of Peter; the one who does not is Judas, a betrayer of Christ. But, Luther continues, I do not deny that there is a papist church, nor do I say that the power of the papist church is nothing, for of no one, except of Christ, is there so great and manifold a testimony in the sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as of the pope, his rule, and his authority.

  1. Köstlin, Vol. I, p. 429, draws attention to this.

and violence. Therefore, Luther wants to prove this in the strongest possible way from the holy scripture to please Catharine and the pope. Then Luther interprets the passages in which it is prophesied and taught that the Pope is the Antichrist, especially Daniel Cap. 8. 2 Thess. 2, 3. ff. 2 Tim. 4, 3. ff. 2 Petr. 2, 1. ff. and the letter Jude. Finally, Luther turns back to Wenceslaus Link and says that he was very pleased to show the papists that what the holy scripture says about their prince and head is not denied by him, because by this he fulfilled his promise, which he gave in the "Babylonian Captivity", that a second part of his recantation should follow. He believes that he has fulfilled this perfectly through this interpretation of Daniel. - Catharinus wrote several more writings against Luther, but Luther did not answer him anymore. (De Wette II, 190.)

XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus.

Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam was actually called Gerhard Gerhardsson, 2) but according to the custom of the scholars of that time, he changed his Dutch name into the Latin Desiderius and added the synonymous Greek name Erasmus. He was born in Rotterdam on October 28, 1467, and received his first education in the schools of Utrecht and Deventer. In the latter place the brothers of the common life were his teachers. When he became parentless at the age of fourteen, his relatives urged him to become a monk. After resisting them for five years, he finally entered the Dutch monastery of Stein in 1486. In 1491 he was freed from the monastery by the bishop of Cambray, ordained a priest the following year, and lived in the community of his protector until 1496. Thereafter, he spent time in various places in France, especially in Paris, in the Netherlands, England and Italy, where he studied and had contact with outstanding men.

  1. Cf. Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, 7th ed.

48 Introduction.

From 1509 to 1516 he taught the Greek language at Oxford, whereupon he went to Basel, where he became friends with the learned printer Frobenius, who published his books. For years he wandered from one place to another until he settled in Basel in 1521, where he died on June 12, 1536. He had a great aversion to taking over the administration of an office and refused even the dignity of cardinal. However, he received rich gifts and graces. Of his external appearance it is said 1): "A small blond man, with blue half-closed eyes, full of subtlety of observation, whimsy around the mouth, of somewhat timid attitude; every breath seemed to throw him on."

At the time when Luther began to work, this man was already held in very high esteem because of the merits he had acquired for the promotion of classical studies. His voice also carried great weight in the theological field, because he freely pointed out the evils of the entire Christian life. 2) Luther also recognized both in Erasmus and praised his efforts for science, and that he took the priests and monks to task for their ignorance, but rebuked him, even before the beginning of the Reformation, in a letter to Spalatin from October 19, 1516 (No. 3 in the appendix of this volume), that in the explanation of the apostle Paul, he understood by his own righteousness, or righteousness from works, only the observation of the ceremonial and exemplary laws, and claimed that the apostle did not speak clearly of original sin. In contrast, Luther testifies: The righteousness of works is rather in the works of the ten commandments. But even these, done without faith in Christ, only make people outwardly righteous before men. We do not become truly righteous by acting righteously, but when we are righteous and the person is justified by faith.

  1. Ranke, Teutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, Vol. I, 209.
  2. His writings were very well received and sold like hot cakes, so that sometimes several editions were necessary in one year. The collection of his writings was published in Basel in 1540 by B. Rhenanus in 9 folio volumes, and 1703-1706 by I. Clericus at Lcyden in 10 folio volumes.

If we are pleased with the grace of Christ, we act justly. Likewise, in a letter to Johann Lang of March 1, 1517 (No. 4 in the appendix of this volume), he expresses the fear that Erasmus would not properly promote Christ and the grace of God, because he does not believe the same, but keeps this judgment about Erasmus completely secret, so that it does not have the appearance of strengthening his enviers. Also in a letter to Spalatin of January 10, 1518 (No. 5 in the appendix of this volume), Luther states that there is much in the writings of Erasmus that does not rhyme with the knowledge of Christ. Erasmus wanted only Jerome to be considered a great church teacher and did not allow Augustine to be compared with him. In the treatment of languages, however, Erasmus was extremely learned and astute. Luther, however, does not want to spread this judgment (as he already wrote in the previous letter to Johann Lang), lest Luther's speeches give the enemies of the fine sciences the opportunity to blaspheme them and strengthen their hatred against Erasmus.

From this one can see that Luther saw through Erasmus and made a completely correct judgment about him. Erasmus, on the other hand, did not think that there was a deeper contrast between him and Luther, and wrote to Zwingli, 3) it seemed to him that he had taught almost everything that Luther taught, only not with such sharpness and with avoidance of some dark and strange-seeming things. Yes, it became a general speech, which Erasmus repeatedly states: "Either Luther conforms to Erasmus, or Erasmus to Luther" ("ut Imtlwrus erssmi-

aut Lrasmnb lutlierirat). Erasmus confesses that the Church needed Luther and that he considered him an honest man sent by God to improve the fundamentally corrupt morals of the people, 4) and that Luther reminded many things that could no longer be tolerated. 5) Furthermore

  1. In Huttinz-er in Nist. eccl. secul. X VI, pLrt. II, p. 31.
  2. In the wl ^. tbvrturn, OLrporum prio-.

cinoni.

  1. Lpistol. XXIII, 6.

Introduction. 49

We are told 1) that Erasmus, before any relations were established between him and Luther, had Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (in his letters to Luther of September 4, 1518) give him all kinds of advice on how Luther could successfully oppose the papacy. However, Luther and the cause of the Reformation were indebted to Erasmus because he was the first to republish the Testament of Repentance in Greek, accompanied by a Latin translation in which he boldly improved the Vulgate. 2) There is no doubt that Luther used this edition when he made his translation.

Luther's friends, namely the aforementioned Capito, Carlstadt and Melanchthon, who had already exchanged letters with Erasmus, urged him to write to Erasmus, which would be of great benefit to the cause of the Gospel, because he was the most respected scholar of that time. Luther complied with them and addressed a letter to Erasmus on March 28, 1519 3) (No. 62 in this volume). With the words of highest appreciation he expresses in the same that he and the whole world is indebted to him for his excellent achievements in the field of the beautiful sciences to great thanks, and asks to recognize him as a little brother in Christ. Although it cannot be denied that this letter, according to our present view, is written in somewhat exuberant words, it cannot be overlooked that "it nevertheless fell far short of the language which Erasmus was accustomed to hear and loved to hear from his admirers". 4) It can, as it seems to us, also not alienate anyone that Luther in this first letter, through which he had a friendly

  1. Tentzel, Historical Report, vol. 1, p. 210.
  2. The first edition appeared in Basel in 1516 in folio. Improved editions in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.
  3. According to Walch, Erasmus was in Brabant at the time.
  4. Köstlin, Vol. I, 285. Cf. Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 24, Note 1: He preferred to speak of nothing but his fame, and before every step he took, he anxiously calculated the probable consequences of the same for his reputation.

The first time he wanted to establish a relationship with Erasmus, he did not immediately come out with everything he had on his mind against Erasmus because of his unsatisfactory position on the Gospel, and which he had until then only confided to his two most trusted friends, Spalatin and Lang, under the seal of the deepest secrecy. 5) It would not have been wise to tell "the whole truth" immediately, because the possibility was not excluded that Erasmus would be seized by the spirit of Christ and change his position. 6) Erasmus wrote a friendly reply from Louvain on May 30, 1519 (No. 63 in this volume). In this letter he informs that he suffers from the suspicion that Luther's writings were written with his assistance and that he is the standard-bearer of the Lutheran party; He complains about the hostility and repulsiveness he has to endure from the theologians of Louvain, indicates that in England highly placed people, including the bishop of Liège, have a good opinion of Luther's writings and are favorable to him, and says that he does not take sides in order to be able to benefit the beautiful sciences all the more. Furthermore, he gives Luther the good advice to proceed impetuously, to spare the pope and the kings, to beware of anger, hatred, and greed for honor, and adds: "I do not remind you that you should do this, but that you should constantly do what you do. Finally, he confesses that he has read Luther's explanations of the Psalms a little, and that he likes them -very much. It is easy to see from this that Erasmus had little interest in the main thing, the knowledge of truth and the Gospel. For the sake of this, he did not want to make enemies of anyone, especially the pope and the princes, and did not want to take up a fight for the sake of Christ.

  1. Against Kolde, Luthers Stellung zu Concil und Kirche, p. 59.
  2. For example, on November 5, 1520, Spalatin prian, Nützliche Urkunden, Vol. I, 499) writes: "Dazumal was Erasmus Roterodamus Wohl an Doctor Martinus Lehre", that is, he was very favorable to it.

50 Introduction.

The people of the world are not only the people of the world, but also the people of the world of the future.

Between these two letters, Erasmus wrote a letter from Antwerp to the Elector Frederick of Saxony dated April 14, 1519 (No. 64 in this volume) and the Elector's reply to this letter (No. 65 in this volume) dated May 14, 1519. In the letter, Erasmus asks the Elector to graciously accept the dedication of his newly published biographies of the Roman emperors by Suetonius and other historians. On this occasion, he praises the prince as an excellent promoter of the fine sciences and encourages him to continue in this, especially by supporting talented young men and asserting his prestige as protection against the enemies of the sciences, about whom he complains bitterly. He asks the Elector not to allow Luther, a man of complete moral purity, free even from the suspicion of greed and ambition, to be exposed to the bloodthirsty attacks of his opponents. He does not want to pass judgment on Luther's writings, because he has not yet read them, except in parts; but his books are eagerly read by the best people there. Here we see again that Erasmus was quite indifferent to the cause of the Gospel. He was not concerned with pure doctrine, but "a life worthy of Christ," he says, "is the main thing. He was only interested in the preservation and progress of the cause of the Gospel insofar as he had to fear that the sciences would also be harmed by its impairment, since the enemies of the Gospel and the sciences were the same people. The Elector in his reply accepts the dedication, expresses his joy that Luther's writings are eagerly read by the best people, and that Luther's cause is not condemned by the scholars, and assures that he will not allow Luther to be handed over to the malice of his enemies, not only for the sake of the integrity of Luther's person, but also for the sake of the cause.

In the same year, Erasmus had to thank the Archbishop of Mainz, Albrecht, for a golden ciselirte cup sent to him by Hütten. In his letter of thanks of November 1, 1519, he also took occasion to speak about Luther and his cause. 1) He testified that he had nothing to do with Luther's cause. Luther was completely unknown to him and he had not yet found time to read his books, but only looked at them here and there. If there was something good in it, he had no part in it; if this was not the case, he could not be blamed for it. So much he perceives that just the best people do not take offense at his writings, because they turn a blind eye to many things. He was sorry that Luther's books had been published, and he had resisted their publication with all his strength, 2) because he had feared that it would cause a riot. He mentions that Luther had written him a very Christian letter, to which he had replied occasionally, but in a polite manner, so that he might achieve more through the exhortations he had given in it. He told him that some people there were favorably disposed toward him, so that Luther would be more willing to submit to their judgment; this, however, was misinterpreted to him, Erasmus, as if he favored Luther. He does not dare to judge Luther's spirit; he is neither Luther's accuser, nor his patron, nor to be accused on his account, and it could not be offensive to anyone if he were to weigh him as a good man, for even his enemies admit that, if only he (Erasmus) did not interfere in the matter. It was his opinion that it was Christian to be favorable to Luther at least in the way that

  1. This letter, because it was considered, and rightly so, to be an extremely important testimony to prove the necessity of the Reformation, is preprinted in the Basel collection of Lutberscher writings, which appeared in the month of Inlt 1520 by Adam Petri. The following excerpt is given. The letter comprises folio pages in compressed print.
  2. This will refer to the collections of Luther's writings (October ISIS, February IMS and August 1519) organized by his publisher Johann Frobenius at Basel.

Introduction. 51

If Luther is innocent, one does not want him to be oppressed by the mobs of the wicked; but if he errs, Erasmus wants him to be righted, but not brought to ruin; he wishes that such a heart (peotus illuä), in which one sees certain excellent sparks of evangelical doctrine shining, should not be oppressed, but brought to rights and directed to the preaching of the glory of Christ. Luther was neither reminded nor instructed by theologians he knew, and yet they proclaimed his books heretical before the people without reading them and condemned some of them without understanding them. Luther was condemned as heretical what was recognized as orthodox and godly in the books of Bernard and Augustine. Against this Erasmus had testified and admonished the theologians not to condemn publicly what they had neither read nor understood, not to make such a noise about it 2c. From this friendly reminder, they would have suspected that Luther's books were largely those of Erasmus and made into lions, while he had no part in them, and would have made a great fuss about it. The deep theologians seemed to thirst only for human blood, as if they were executioners, and sought only to have Luther caught and killed. But if they wanted to show themselves as great theologians, they should convert the Jews and others who are far from Christ to Christ and improve the public life (publioos moreg) of the Christians, which is even more corrupt than that of the Turks. But it is quite unreasonable to want to hand over a man to punishment who has put up such things for disputation, about which there has always been disputation in all theological schools, who has submitted himself to the judgment of the Roman See and that of the universities. It is not surprising that a righteous man would not want to entrust himself to the hands of certain people who would like to exterminate him. Above all, one must turn one's attention to the source of this evil. "The world is burdened," Erasmus continues, "with human impositions, burdened with scholastic opinions.

They are the mendicants of the Roman See, but they have grown to such power and quantity that they have become frightening even to the Roman Pontiff and even to the kings. When the pope works in their favor, he is more important to them than God, but in the things that serve against their advantage, he is no more important to them than a dream image. I do not condemn all of them, but most of them are of the kind that, out of their greed for profit and domination, they deliberately ensnare people's consciences. They had already started to preach their news and after that even more impudent doctrine". They talked about indulgences in such a way that even people without understanding could not bear it. Through these and many other such things, the power of the evangelical doctrine gradually disappeared, and it was imminent that, as everything became worse and worse, even the last spark of Christian godliness would have to be extinguished, so that the extinguished love could not be rekindled. The whole religion sank to more than Jewish ceremonialism. This is what good men lament and bemoan, what even theologians who are not monks confess, and what certain monks confess in their private conversations. This, I believe, moved the spirit of Luther, that he first dared to oppose the intolerable insolence of certain people. For how could I expect anything else from one who neither seeks positions of honor nor desires money? I am not disputing the articles that they reproach Luther with at present, but only the manner and the occasion. Luther dared to express his doubts about indulgences, but others had previously made all too outrageous claims about them. He dared to speak quite moderately about the power of the Roman pope, but those before had written about it too immoderately, among them mainly three preacher-monks, Alvarus, 1) Sil-

  1. In Latin ^luarnn. Should "Alveld" perhaps be meant? His first writing against Luther did not come out until 1520, but he had previously published writings of a similar nature. This would be contradicted by the fact that Alveld did not belong to the Dominican Order, but to the Franciscan Order.

52 Introduction.

vester and the Cardinal Sti. Sixti Cajetan. He dared to despise the sayings of Thomas, but the preaching monks almost prefer them to those of the Gospel. He has dared to express some misgivings in matters of confession, but the monks have without ceasing entangled the consciences of men with the same. He dared to partially neglect the scholastic doctrines, but they put too much emphasis on them and nevertheless disagree among themselves about them. Finally, where they change something from time to time, they cut down the old and introduce something new instead. This has tormented godly minds, since they heard that in the schools there is almost no talk of the evangelical doctrine, that those holy scribes who were accepted by the church ages ago are considered obsolete, yes, that in the holy sermons one hears only the least about Christ, but almost everything about the power of the pope and the opinions of the newer ones. Everything they speak (totnm orntioaem), therefore, publicly show greed, ambition and empty pretense. It is, as I believe. To blame, if, for example, Luther also did not write very restrained." Repeatedly, Erasmus warns that he is far from Luther's cause, that he does not have the erudition to defend the writings of another. What he says does not concern the cause of Luther, but only the manner and the danger that also threatens him from the enemies of Luther, who are at the same time the enemies of the fine sciences. Towards the end he says: "I have always taken care that I do not write anything offensive, nothing seditious, nothing contrary to the teachings of Christ, and knowingly I have never become a teacher of error or an author of noise.

As anxiously and fearfully as Erasmus rejects that he has nothing to do with Luther's cause, nor does he want to have anything to do with it, and therefore does not want to pass judgment on it, so that he does not spoil it with anyone or even get into danger, this letter nevertheless offers us a powerful testimony, both for the person of Luther, as well as for the integrity, justice, truth and necessity of his cause. Luther is also

According to the judgment of his enemies, he was an irreproachable, good, righteous man who had not attacked the cause for the sake of honor or money. In him shine excellent sparks of Christian doctrine. He had been induced to oppose the insolence of certain people, then also the human statutes imposed on the whole world, scholastic opinions and the tyranny of the mendicant monks who, out of self-interest, made the pope more than a god, entangled the consciences, spoke intolerably of indulgences. In the high schools there was no talk of evangelical doctrine, the old proven writers of the church were regarded by them as outdated, in the sermons very little was about Christ, almost everything was about the power of the pope and the opinions of the newer ones. If this had continued, the last shred of Christian doctrine and Christian godliness would soon have been extinguished. The whole religion would have sunk into more than Jewish ceremonialism. At the same time, the life of the Christians was publicly such that there could be nothing more shameful, even among the Turks. - What a picture the most respected Roman theologian presents here before our eyes! Should one think it possible that in our days Roman insolence could have risen again so high that it dares to pronounce 1): The last fifty years before the Reformation had been the real heyday of the German people, which had been shattered by the revolutionary Luther?

Luther was rightly very pleased about this letter, as he expresses himself in a letter to Johann Lang 2) from 2tt. January 1520, he was very pleased, and wrote that Erasmus in the same excellently protected him, but in such a way that he gave the appearance, as if he did not take him in Schlitz, in his usual skillful way. At that time, the letter, which had become known to Luthern and others through the indiscretion of Ulrich von Hütten, who had been entrusted with its delivery, 3) was not yet available.

  1. Cf. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 2.
  2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 668, ? 3.
  3. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 286. To Erasmus' great chagrin, this letter would be printed in 1520 by a man from Erfurt for the "readers eager for his judgment on Luther. Id. S. 327.

Introduction. 53

not yet printed. However, this letter had a broad effect in Luther's favor and was received in this sense by all who wished to have a testimony of Erasmus for Luther's cause.

We cannot avoid remembering here a personal meeting of Erasmus with the Elector Frederick of Saxony, about which Spalatin reported in his ^nrmlibus ^alberi. 1) The Elector had been present at the coronation of Emperor Carl V at Aachen and had come with him to Cologne. There he had Erasmus come to him "at his request and insistence" 2) to his inn in the place of the three kings. The Elector would have liked Erasmus to speak "his Dutch German" with him, but Erasmus stuck to his Latin, to which the Elector had Spalatin give him an answer. When he was asked what he thought of Luther's teachings, sermons and writings, Erasmus smacked his lips and said, "Luther sinned in two pieces, namely, that he grabbed the crown of the pope and the belly of the monks." Later, two years before his end, Spalatin says, the Elector thought about it and remarked that "if someone read Erasmus' writings and books for a long time, he would not know where to wait. For there is nothing certain on which no conscience could build either in life or in death. After the conversation, Erasmus went with Spalatin to his inn and wrote down for him several axiomata (short sentences), in which he derived the trade with Luther from hatred of science and tyrannical presumption, declared the men through whom it was carried out to be suspicious personalities, and gave Luther the right to offer himself for a public disputation and submission to unsuspicious judges. 3)

  1. The notes of Spalatin, who was present at the conversation of the Elector with Erasmus, are found in Cyprian's "Nützliche Urkunden zur Erläuterung der ersten Reformationsgeschichte", Vol. I, p. 497 ff.
  2. These words show that Erasmus had sought the audience, not that the Elector had had Erasmus demanded, as Seckendorf, Oi "t. Initk., lib. I, p. 125, § 81 (6) and after him Köstlin, vol. 1, p. 398.
  3. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 398.

"Shortly thereafter," Spalatin continues, "Roterodamus wrote to me with a great request that I send him back his handwriting. For Jerome Aleander, as papal legate, could otherwise bring him to complaint. So fearful 4) was Roterodamus to confess the Christian truth."

Given the complete difference between Luther and Erasmus, both in their personal dispositions and in their position toward the Gospel, it was not to be expected that the friendship between them would be a lasting one, which soon became apparent. Already in a letter addressed to Spalatin on July 6, 1520, Erasmus expressed the wish that 5) Luther would proceed with more moderation, and later he often made such statements, in which Capito, preacher at Basel, who was a close friend of Erasmus, also agreed. We can see this from the letter which Luther addressed to Capito 6) on January 17, 1522, in which he says, among other things: "Our love is ready to die for you, but if the faith is touched, the apple of our eye is touched. You can have the love, that you regard it to all mockery or all honor, but we want the faith and the word to be worshipped by you and to be considered as the holy of holies. With our love take all things for yourselves, but before our faith be ye always in fear." In a letter to Spalatin 7) of September 9, 1521, Luther rejects the advice of Erasmus and Capito that he should exercise moderation and peaceableness, which had probably come to him through Spalatin, and expresses the fear that he will have to deal with one or the other of the two, because Erasmus in all his writings had not the cross but peace in mind, and was far from the right knowledge of faith. It

  1. Erasmus was extremely fearful and concerned about his life and health. He drank only certain wines, which were supposed to be beneficial to health, and was "murder enemy" of fish, because he considered them unhealthy (cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, IW9; Appendix No. II, No. 1544). In order to avoid contagious epidemics, he spared no sacrifice and trembled even as a young man at the name of death.
  2. Cf. Te Weile, Vol. II, p. 49.
  3. Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 662.
  4. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 76.

54 Introduction.

It did not take long for this fear of Luther's to prove well-founded. On May 15, 1522, Luther wrote to Spalatin 1): "Erasmus has finally come out from the bottom of his heart in his collection of letters as an enemy of Luther and his teaching, but with pretense and cunning words he lies that he is a friend. By doing so, he will do tremendous damage to his reputation and name. Eck is better than he, since he openly confesses to be an enemy."

A few days later, May 28, 1522, Luther wrote to Caspar Börner, professor of fine arts at Leipzig (in this volume, appendix, no. 6), probably with the intention that this letter should become known to Erasmus. In this letter, he states that Erasmus knows less about the election of grace than the schools of the sophists. Luther had no reason to fear that Erasmus would overcome him in this piece, nor in the whole epitome of Christian doctrine, because truth was more powerful than eloquence. He would not challenge Erasmus, nor would he soon beat him again, but it did not seem advisable for Erasmus to try the power of his eloquence on him, as it might go badly for him. If Erasmus should get involved in the game, Luther would lie down against him in the spirit of the Lord Christ and would consider his reputation, his name and his favor to be nothing. This letter appeared in the same year, but without Luther's knowledge and will, 2) in Leipzig in print under the title: 3uäioium D. Mart. Imtderi äo Lrn8mo Roterollamo. Lpi8toln aä amioum, also in German, together with the already mentioned letter of Luther to Wolfgang FabriciuS Capito of January 17, 1522. In the editions, another letter of Luther from Erasmus is attached to this letter, which Luther had written out to his son Johannes in 1533 (in this volume attached to No. 6 of the appendix). In a letter to Oekolampad 3) from June 20, 1523

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 781.
  2. Cf. Luther's Bnef to kauSmann of October I, 1523, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 860.
  3. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1381. This letter also became known to Erasmus. Köstlin, vol. I, 690.

Luther said: Erasmus had introduced the languages, but could not treat the Holy Scriptures, therefore his wish was that Erasmus abstain from that, which he was not up to. He had done enough by showing the evil, but he was not able to show the good. Luther noticed the stings of Erasmus everywhere, although he pretended not to be his enemy; therefore Luther also pretended not to notice, although he saw through him more thoroughly than Erasmus believed.

In the meantime, Ulrich von Hütten had vehemently attacked Erasmus, who had disavowed him, 4) in a writing, Lxpo8tui "tio aäversus Lrusmum, to which the latter replied in a very bitter rebuttal, Lpongis. aäversus Lüttem expostulationem. In a letter of October 1, 1523, addressed to Hausmann, Luther reproves this and wishes that neither Hutten's challenge nor Erasmus's vituperative and blasphemous answer had come out, by which he had done great harm to his name and reputation. Luther was also very annoyed that his letters to Börner and Capito, which he had written secretly about Erasmus, had been published, although he did not need to be ashamed of a word in them if he had to defend himself publicly. If Erasmus wrote against him, it would do him no harm, and Luther would not trust him to protect him, for Luther had someone on his side who was able to defend the cause, even if the whole world should rage against him alone. This is what Erasmus calls his persistence in asserting himself. He was far from the understanding of Christian things, which Luther had not yet believed, but had only suspected from time to time. Therefore, Luther does not want to budge if his life is attacked; but if the matter is touched, he will defend it.

Thus, everything came to a head in a public dispute between the two. Erasmus had learned what Luther thought of him. In a new edition of his Epistle to the Galatians, Luther deleted all of the passages in which he had previously

  1. Köstlin, Vol. I, 690.
  2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 860.

Introduction. 55

Erasmus's interpretation with praise. 1) The popes Leo and Hadrian had tried in vain to persuade Erasmus to attack Luther; even a proposed bishopric had not been able to persuade him. Only the persistent request of the King of England, Henry VIII, from whom he enjoyed much favor and honor, even an annual pension, caused him to resign as an open opponent of Luther. It became rumored that Erasmus really wanted to start a fight with Luther. To avert this where possible, Luther wrote to Erasmus, 2) in April 1524 (No. 66 in this volume): He did not address this letter to Erasmus because he had behaved too alienly against the Lutherans, so that his relationship with the papists would not be impaired, and, in order to gain their favor, had sharply bitten and pulled through Luther and his own. Since Erasmus lacked courage, he was not expected to confront the papist monsters freely and confidently, and he was not expected to do anything that exceeded the measure of his strength. God had given him the glorious gift of languages, with which he should serve, since he lacked the heart for the cause of the Gospel, which he could otherwise have done much good with his sharp mind and his eloquence. Luther wrote to him because it was feared that he, prompted by his opponents, would attack the evangelical teachings by publishing books, and that Luther would then be forced to resist him. If Erasmus could neither confess nor dare to assert Luther's cause, he should leave it untouched and wait for his own. It had come to the point that there was already little danger to fear, even though Erasmus was fighting Luther's cause with all his might. Then Luther expresses the heartfelt request that Erasmus be a spectator at the tragedy, but not speak to the enemies and make common cause with them. Above all

  1. Köstlin, Vol. I, 690.
  2. We have taken the time determination from De Wette, Vol. H, 498. DeS Erasmus' answer is dated May 8, 1524 (BurHardt p. 70; Köstlin, vol. t, 690), not May 5, as De Wette states.

Erasmus should not publish any writings against Luther, then Luther would not publish anything against him either.

Luther's warning and request came too late, for Erasmus had already become too deeply involved with the opponents of the gospel and could not turn back. He had long since been working on his treatise against Luther and had even presented a sample of it to the King of England, Henry VIII, in 1523. 3) With a heavy heart he finished his work and in a letter to the king he expressed his fear that after the publication of his writing he would have to be prepared for stoning in Germany. In his reply to Luther of May 8, 1524, he therefore made the statement that their conception of working for the gospel was different, and that he found some things in Luther's behavior objectionable and dangerous to science and religion. Perhaps the gospel would be better served by an Erasmus who wrote against Luther than by the writing of certain foolish followers for him, for whose sake it was not permissible to remain a mere spectator of the tragedy.

The writing with which Erasmus came out against Luther is his Diatribe or Treatise on Free Will (No. 67 in this volume), which appeared in September 1524 in Basel with Johann Frobenius and already became known in Wittenberg in the same month. 4) It is directed against the 36th article of Luther's writing: ^sserrio vmnium artivulorum ^lurtini Imtberi per Lullum I-eonis X. novissimam ckumnutorum. 1520. 5) This article, according to Luther's own translation, reads: "Free will, according to the fall Adä or according to the sin done, is an eitcl name; and if it thut its own (guoä in 86 e8t - so much in it is), it sins mortally." To the choice of just this subject the vain Erasmus may have been prompted by what Luther says in the Latin edition at the end of this article 6): This article, which is the best

g) Köstlin, vol. 1, 691.

  1. Köstlin, Vol. I, 694.
  2. Cf. the note to Z 14 of the diatribe in this volume.
  3. Lrl, opp. vur. srx., vol. V, p. 234 sq.

56 Introduction.

of all and the epitome of our doctrine, "has been almost suppressed and eradicated by all scholastic teachers for more than three hundred years. For none have written for grace, all have written against grace, so that there is no matter of which it would be as necessary to treat it as this. I, too, have often wished to deal with it, setting aside those worthless papist antics and quarrels that do not concern the Church and only serve to destroy it, but by the length of time and by the power of habit (muZnituckino U8U8) the effect of Satan has become so ingrained, and by this error has so dulled the minds of men, that I do not see any people who are able to understand it, much less that they should argue with us. The Holy Scriptures are full of these things, but they are so devastated by our Nebuchadnezzar that not even the outward appearance and the knowledge of the sciences are left, and we need an Ezra who will find new science and restore the Bible to us, which I hope will happen now that the Hebrew and Greek languages are flourishing throughout the world. Amen." Erasmus may well have thought himself to be this Ezra. But his writing shows most clearly how correct Luther's judgment of him had been, that his ability did not go beyond the limits of the fine sciences, and that he had no right knowledge of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, that he also lacked the heart for the cause of the Gospel.

Already the title of this writing reflects the character of Erasmus. 1) He calls it Diatribe, which he translates by collatio, that is, a conversation, a talk, a treatise; he does not dare to expose a doctrine, a firm assertion. In the preface he immediately says that he is not a friend of firm assertions and considers it foolish to make use of them, not only in the doctrine of free will, which would be best not discussed at all, but also in all other Christian doctrines. He would prefer to

  1. Cf. Luther's statement about this in his reply, dol. 1752.

The sceptics' opinion, if it were a matter of the indisputable prestige of the Scriptures and the decisions of the Church. From this one can see how little enthusiasm Erasmus had for his subject, how much he lacked firm faith in the Word, and even how weak was his attachment to the Roman Church, whose faithful son he wanted to be and prove himself to be through this writing. He completely lacked the courage to be a witness. That is why his writing turned out weak beyond all expectations. He does not want to assert anything but firmly and certainly, and for this reason he does not teach anything firmly and certainly, but wavers in his statements from one side to the other, in that he sometimes asserts what he denies, sometimes denies what he asserts. On the one hand, he says that it is unchristian, forward and superfluous to want to know whether our will is effective in matters concerning eternal blessedness; whether it is only suffering in the face of the grace that is active; on the other hand, he says that it is Christian godliness: it is Christian godliness that one exerts oneself with all one's strength, and without the mercy of God the will is not able to do anything, but without giving even the slightest information about what our will does and is able to do and what the mercy of God does, even though, as Luther says in his counter-writing 2), "the question of free will is a main part of the epitome of the whole Christian doctrine, on which the knowledge of ourselves, as well as the knowledge and glory of God, depends, and by which it stands and falls; the other main part, however: "that one may know whether God foreknows something in such a way that it may or may not happen, and whether we do everything out of necessity. "This is the only and highest consolation of Christians in all adversities, to know that God does not lie, but unchangeably does everything; that no one can resist His will, no one can change it or hinder it.

In the beginning of his exposition Erasmus promises to conduct the matter only with canonical writings, but he wants the same to be understood according to the interpretation of the fathers, concilia and popes, because it is not to be believed.

  1. Col. 1689 and 1696.

Introduction. 57

that God had let His Church err for so many centuries in the piece of which Luther claimed it was the main piece of the Protestant doctrine. Luther gratefully accepts the promise of Erasmus, but mostly "ah, that he declares the Holy Scriptures to be dark, because one should first get the light from the Fathers and the Roman See in order to illuminate the Scriptures, which are the light itself, and that those make nothing but darkness who deny that the Scriptures are quite bright and clear.

The explanation of free will which Erasmus gives is this: "Free will is the faculty of the human will according to which man is able either to turn to what leads to eternal bliss or to turn away from it." This definition, as Luther notes in his rebuttal, is quite unclear, nor is it stated in a single word what the "turning", "turning away", and that "which leads to eternal blessedness" are. That which leads to eternal blessedness can be nothing other than God's word and work, which is immeasurably above the power of man, and yet, according to Erasmus, man can turn to it without God's grace and without the action of the Holy Spirit. With such a definition also a Pelagian could declare himself very satisfied; but it is again in contradiction with what Erasmus had said before, that the human will is not able to do anything at all without grace.

In order to prove free will, the Diatribe cites a large number of passages of Scripture, but most of them are of the kind that they contain a command or an injunction to men, concluding that it would be inconsistent to say that God should command men to do something, or injunction them to do something, which they are not capable of doing or keeping, so men could do it. If this conclusion is valid, it would naturally follow: God has commanded that we fear and love Him above all things, so we can do it. Through his scriptural proofs, Erasmus ran himself deeper and deeper into the crudest Pelagianism, so that he

no longer only an effort and endeavor, but the whole power to do everything. 1) The diatribe also makes no distinction between the preached and the hidden God, that is, between the word of God and God Himself, where He has not limited Himself by His word, but has preserved Himself free over all; it does not distinguish between the incarnate God, who offers all that is necessary for blessedness, and the God hidden in His majesty, about whose secret will one should neither inquire nor dispute. Even such sayings that most clearly and strongly testify against free will, Erasmus uses to prove free will, e.g., "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" and "He hath given them power to become the children of God"; for in the former saying Christ testifies that they cannot will what is good, in the latter we are taught that we become the children of God through the power given to us by God, not through free will. On the other hand, Erasmus seeks to invalidate the passages which Luther had cited against free will by pretending that there is a figurative way of speaking in them; but without providing any other proof that there must be figurative speech in these clear, distinct sayings than that these passages would be inconsistent and annoying to reason if they were taken without a picture. "By the same token," says Luther, 2) "you could deny all the articles of faith and say that it is the most absurd thing in the world that God should be man, the Son of a virgin, crucified, seated at the right hand of the Father. It is inconsistent (I say) to believe such things." It is not to be wondered at that Erasmus, who does not want to give his reason captive under the word of God in all humility, but strives to maintain free will in the face of the most decisive sayings of Holy Scripture, such as Rom. 9, 17, continually moves in contradictions. Luther shows this in his answer 3): "Soon the diatribe says that it is

  1. Dgl. Luther's answer, Col. 1791, 1795 and 1802. 2) In his answer, > Col. 1831. > > 3) Col. 1844.

58 Introduction.

a necessity of the consequence, but not of what follows; sometimes it is an ordered or revealed will that can be resisted, sometimes it is a will that God has reserved for His good pleasure, which cannot be resisted. Soon the passages drawn from St. Paul do not serve as proofs, do not speak of the blessedness of men; soon God's foreknowledge brings necessity with it, soon no necessity; soon grace precedes the will so that it wills, accompanies it on its way, gives a happy outcome, soon it does everything as the main cause, soon it works through secondary causes and keeps itself quiet. By these and similar games with words, it accomplishes nothing except that it brings time, and in the meantime takes the matter out of our sight and draws it elsewhere."

Just where the diatribe has brought the matter into the fiercest struggle and stands before the main point of the whole discussion, she pretends not to see it, seeks to escape the difficulty with a few phrases, and, where she should have proved the most, almost always breaks off the speech with such words: "That is enough of that"; "Now I do not want to examine that"; "It is not my intention here"; "Those would say so" and the like, so that one cannot know whether she is speaking for free will or not, and confronts us with an insoluble contradiction just where she should have solved the question, and leaves it to others to settle the matter.

In contrast, Luther asserts that 1) the Holy Apostle Paul decisively declared that divine foreknowledge imposes a necessity upon us, not a necessity of compulsion, but a necessity according to which what God has foreknown must infallibly come to pass, so that, for example, it must infallibly happen at the time foretold by God that Judas betrayed Christ. "Nor is it a difficult question," says Luther, "indeed, nothing is easier even for common sense than that this conclusion is certain, firm, and true: If GOD

  1. Col. 1817.

foreknowledge, then this necessarily comes true if this is assumed from Scripture as a prerequisite that God neither errs nor lacks. I confess that it is a difficult, even an impossible question, if you want to hold both at the same time, both the foreknowledge of God and the freedom of man." The wicked are annoyed by the very clear words of Scripture, which indicate that God's will is fulfilled by necessity on our side, that nothing of freedom or free will is left to them, but everything is based on God's will. Paul, however, "restrains them by commanding them to be silent and to worship the glory of the power and will of God, against whom we have no right; but he has full right against us to do what he wills, and let no injustice be done to us, since he owes us nothing, has received nothing from us, has promised nothing except as much as he wills and pleases him. Reason, too, must confess that this would be a ridiculous God, or more correctly, an idol who foresaw future things in an uncertain way or was mistaken about events. He would be equally ridiculous if he could not and did not do everything and if anything happened without him. If the foreknowledge and the omnipotence of God are admitted, then it follows with contradictory implication that we are not made by ourselves, nor do we live, nor do we do anything, but by his omnipotence. If free will is established contrary to this, God would have to be mistaken in foreknowledge and err in action, which is impossible. Therefore, God's omnipotence and foreknowledge fundamentally annul the doctrine of free will. The Sophists, says Luther, 2) also felt the insurmountable power of this ground of proof, therefore they invented the little fiction of the necessity of the consequence and the necessity of what follows, with which Erasmus also wants to help himself; but in vain. Whoever admits the necessity of the consequence, for example: God knows beforehand that "Judah" will be the betrayer, therefore it will certainly and infallibly happen, can be satisfied with the mere fantasy of the necessity of the consequence.

  1. Col. 1855.

Introduction. 59

The two pieces cannot rhyme: Judas "cannot want to betray" and "it is necessary that Judas wants to betray. For the two pieces cannot rhyme: Judas cannot "want to betray" and "it is necessary that Judas wants to betray.

Towards the end, Erasmus gives the advice in his Diatribe that a very little should be granted to free will. Luther, on the other hand, declares 1) that such a middle position cannot be tolerated, nor would it eliminate the difficulties and inconveniences that one wants to escape by it, unless one, like the Pelagians, wants to ascribe everything to free will. Therefore, one must deny free will and ascribe everything to God, then the Scriptures will not argue with themselves, and the inconvenient things, if not abolished, can be borne.

Erasmus also saved his strongest argument for the end of his writing, namely, that those who say that there is absolutely no free will, but that everything happens through an absolute necessity, that God works everything in everyone, not only good, but also evil, obviously accuse God of cruelty and injustice, thus making Him the cause of evil, also ungodly attributing gross errors (vitium) and imperfection to Him, whereby He would cease to be God. This argument, however, does not apply to Luther, because, as we have already seen, he rejects the necessity of compulsion and holds only to the necessity according to which that which God has foreknown and predestined must infallibly come to pass. With respect to this, Luther has already answered 2) in the most appropriate manner: Since God works, moves and does everything in everyone (1 Cor. 12:6) and since it is part of His omnipotence that without Him nothing happens nor is effective (Eph. 1:19), He also necessarily moves and works in the devil and in the ungodly. But he works in them in such a way as they are themselves and what he finds them, that is, since they are turned away from God and are evil and driven.

I) Col. IML

  1. Col. INI ff.

by the movement of divine omnipotence, they only do what is repugnant to God and evil. By working in evil and through evil, God allows evil to happen, but God cannot act in an evil way, even though He causes evil through evil, because He Himself, as the Good, cannot act in an evil way. But he uses evil tools, which cannot escape the impulse and the movement of his power. The fault lies in the tools. The corruption or turning away of the person of the wicked from God makes that he cannot be moved and driven in a good way. God cannot make His omnipotence stand for the sake of turning away the wicked, but the wicked cannot change his turning away. Thus it happens that he constantly and inevitably sins and errs until he is corrected by the Spirit of God. When it is said of God that he hardens or works evil in us (for to harden is to do evil), let no one think as if he were creating evil in us anew, or that man, who, as the opponents invent, is good or not evil in himself, but whoever wants to understand this in any way, that God works evil in us, that is, through us, must think in such a way that this happens not through the fault of God, but through our own fault. For since we are evil by nature, but God is good, and since He drives us by His effect according to the nature of His omnipotence, He can do nothing else than that He, who is good Himself, does evil through the evil instrument, even though according to His wisdom He uses this evil for His glory and for our salvation".

Such a writing as the Diatribe, in which nothing definite is taught, in which Erasmus wanted to attribute only a little to the free will, but in the execution attaches everything, so that man by his own strength, without needing a redeemer and the divine grace, is able to attain eternal bliss, naturally had to arouse the disgust of Luther. He wrote to Nicolaus Hausmann on November I, 1524 (Appendix, No. 7 in this volume): "It is impossible to describe what disgust I have for the booklet on free will, and yet I have hardly read more than two sheets of it.

60 Introduction.

read. It seems difficult to me to answer such an unlearned book of such a learned man." Nevertheless, Luther decided, as he also wrote to Hausmann on December 12, 1524 (Appendix, No. 8): "to reply to Erasmus, not for his own sake, but for the sake of those who abuse his reputation for their glory against Christ. The execution of this plan, however, was delayed for quite some time, precisely because of Luther's aversion to the diatribe, for it was not until September 28, 1525, that Luther wrote to Spalatin (Appendix, No. 9) and on September 27, 1525, to Hausmann (Appendix, No. 10): "I am now occupied with Erasmus and free will alone and will take pains that I do not allow him to have said anything right, as indeed he has said nothing with reason. Ask the Lord for his help on my behalf, so that his work may proceed swiftly for his glory. Amen."

Luther's answer to Erasmus of Rotterdam that free will is nothing (No. 68 in this volume) appeared in the first edition at Wittenberg by Hans Luft in December 1525 under the title: De servo Arbitrio Uar. Imtbori aä D. Erasmum kowroäEum and has later experienced many. A number of them are mentioned in the first note to No. 68. The first German translation of it was published by Justus Jonas under the German title given above, which we have retained, on November 17, 1526. We have found it necessary to make a new translation.

Just as Erasmus had been quite moderate in his writing, even if here and there with sharp jabs, against Luther, so Luther's answer was written with all moderation and reverence, but he rebuked, where it was necessary, with frankness and seriousness. Luther took great care with spelling and expression in Latin, so Erasmus had the unfounded suspicion that Luther had been helped by Melanchthon and others.

With regard to the choice of the subject that Erasmus had chosen, Luther speaks appreciatively and praisingly: "I

I praise and extol this about you very much, that you alone have attacked the matter itself before all, that is, the brief epitome of the matter, and have not tired me with distant things about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences and similar things, which are rather posies than things with which almost all have hounded me until now, although in vain. But you have recognized the main point and put the knife to the throat, for which I thank you from the bottom of my heart." But Luther also does not hold back with the rebuke that Erasmus says nothing in this great matter that has not already been said, and that he ascribes more to free will and says less about it than the sophists have done so far. The reasons he puts forward are null and void, and therefore it is actually unnecessary to answer them, especially since they are already completely overthrown and destroyed by Melanchthon's insurmountable booklet, 1-ooi eommupos. That Luther nevertheless answers is due to the urging of faithful brothers in Christ, who have countered him that everyone expects this, that the great reputation of Erasmus is not to be despised, and that the truth of Christian doctrine is in danger in the hearts of many. Luther even expresses the hope that the testimony of the Holy Spirit will come with this book through Luther to Erasmus and make him a very dear brother in Christ. Following on from this, at the end of the book he asks very warmly and urgently that Erasmus fulfill what he had promised: he would yield to the one who teaches him better.

With regard to the fact that Erasmus says that he has no pleasure in firm assertions, Luther counters that a Christian must have pleasure in firm assertions or he cannot be a Christian. For we are not dealing here with useless or "unnecessary" things, but with a main part of Christian doctrine. Whoever thinks that it is not necessary to know about free will, and that it has nothing to do with Christ, has a godless opinion. Through the false doctrine of free will, Christ's work of redemption is made obscure, GLT is deprived of its honor, and the gospel is annulled. In matters concerning eternal blessedness, the

Introduction. 61

Christians must not be skeptics, but firm assertors, otherwise the whole religion and godliness would suddenly be denied, or it would be claimed that the whole religion is nothing. In His holy word, God demands certainty of faith, confession, that is, the most certain and firm assertion even to the point of death. The Holy Spirit is not a skeptic and has not written in our hearts doubtful things or opinions, but firm assertions that are more certain and firm than even life and all experience. The words of Erasmus, however, when he says that he gladly submits his reason to the decisions of the church, whether he understands it or not, read as if there were nothing wrong with what is believed by anyone anywhere, if only world peace remains, and as if it were free to speak to anyone because of the danger to life, good reputation, fortune and reputation. The knowledge of what free will is capable of, what it suffers, how it relates to the grace of God, is absolutely necessary for a Christian. He who does not know this is worse than a heathen, for then it must also be unknown and uncertain what God is able to do and does in man. But he who does not know God's works and power does not know God Himself, cannot worship Him, praise Him, give thanks to Him, and cannot serve Him. Therefore, when Erasmus refers to Rom. 11:33, "O what depth of riches," 2c. for the reason that one should not inquire about free will, he cites this saying falsely. For this saying speaks of God, in whom there are indeed many hidden things that we cannot investigate, but not of the word of God, that in it there are some hidden things that we are not to investigate. All things contained in the Holy Scriptures are clearly revealed, although many passages in them are obscure and hidden, not because of the majesty of the things, but because we do not know the words and the art of speaking. But this does not prevent the knowledge of all things in the Scriptures, which are all placed in the brightest light. Although in some places the words are dark, in other places of the Scriptures one and the same thing is always presented in the clearest way. In the Scriptures

Even the most hidden secrets of the highest majesty are no longer in seclusion, but are freely open to the public in the daytime, for Christ has opened our minds so that we can understand the Scriptures, and there is no longer a secret that is still hidden in the Holy Scriptures, which are exceedingly bright and clear: without the Holy Spirit, of course, neither the whole Scriptures nor any part of them can be understood.

In the Diatribe, Erasmus gives no explanation of any question concerning free will; he does not say what it is, what it does, how it behaves, what its parts are, what is opposed to it, what is related to it, what is similar, etc., but only that it is, and that on such grounds of proof that Luther must testify to him that 1) "he had never seen a more paltry book on free will, except for the daintiness of the writing.

To the speech of Erasmus: It is unchristian, impertinent and sacrilegious to say that God knows in advance in such a way that it happens with necessity, Luther replies: "Do you believe that God knows something in advance without wanting it", or wants something that he does not know? But if he knows beforehand what he wills, his will is eternal and unchangeable (because his nature is so); if he wills what he knows beforehand, his knowledge is eternal and unchangeable (because his nature is so). From this follows irrefutably: everything that we do and everything that happens, although it seems to us to happen changeably and accidentally, happens in truth necessarily and unchangeably, if one looks at God's will. For the will of God is powerful and cannot be hindered, since it is the essential power of God Himself, and also wise, so that it cannot be deceived; but since the will is not hindered, neither can His work be hindered, so that it happens in the place, at the time, in the measure according to which He Himself foresees and wills it." "Therefore the Christian faith is completely extinguished, the promises of God and the whole Gospel fall away completely, if

  1. Col. 1690.
  2. Col. 1691 f.

62 Introduction.

and we believe that we do not need to know the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of what must be put into effect. For this is the only and highest comfort of Christians in all adversities, to know that God does not lie, but unchangeably does everything, that no one can resist His will, no one can change or hinder it." While Erasmus wanted to deter presumption with his words, Luther says, he teaches the highest presumption, godlessness and corruption. Therefore, his booklet in this piece is so godless, blasphemous and God-robbing that it has no equal anywhere.

Concerning the advice that Erasmus further gives: that there are some things that are of such a nature that, even if they were true and one could know them, it would not be advisable to reveal them to the ears of all kinds of people, Luther says 1) that everything that is either taught or proven in the holy Scriptures is salutary. If Erasmus counted the matter of free will among those things that should not be taught publicly, he should have followed his own advice and left the Diatribe pending. If Erasmus does not include free will, then he brings up strange things that do not belong to the matter as a useless chatterer (or, as Luther euphemistically says, as a verbose speaker). Luther has already proven that it is necessary to learn the doctrine of free will. God wants the truth to be proclaimed everywhere, at all times, in every way, according to Phil. 1, 18, "that only Christ be proclaimed.

Luther argues against Erasmus' judgment that there can be nothing more useless than to spread this strange thing (pkrrackoxon) in the world: What we do is not done by our free will, but by mere necessity, and that all kinds of godlessness, impenitence and obduracy must follow from this teaching 2): Erasmus here completely loses sight of fear and reverence for God, since he dares to say: there can be nothing more useless than this.

  1. Col. 1698.
  2. Col. 1712 f.

than this word of God. God allows these things to be spoken publicly throughout the world by the apostle Paul in free speech, regardless of the fact that, according to the judgment of Erasmus, godless people fall into despair, hatred and blasphemy. Is it permissible to "interpret, accept or reject God's words as one pleases, depending on whether one sees that the godless people are excited or moved by them"? Previously Erasmus warned against investigating the teachings of Scripture, with misapplication of Rom. 9:20, but at this point, where one has come not to the teachings of Scripture, but to the mysteries of the divine majesty that are to be reverently honored, namely, why God works in this way, he breaks the bars and rushes in. "Why," says Luther, "do you yourself not abstain from the investigation of those things and deter others, since GOD willed that they should be hidden from us and did not express them in Scripture? Here it would have befitted you to put your finger on your mouth, to stand still in awe before what should be hidden, to worship the hidden counsel of the Majesty, and to exclaim with Paul: Yea, dear man, who art thou then that thou wouldest be right with GOD?" The godly are content with the answer 3): "God willed that it be taught publicly, but one must not ask about the cause, but simply worship and give glory to God, that because He alone is just and wise, He does no wrong to anyone, nor can He do anything foolish or sacrilegious, even if it might appear to us to be quite different." There are, however, two main reasons why this must be preached, namely: First, because God can only give His grace to the humble who lament their sin and despair of themselves, man must be brought to the conviction that his blessedness depends entirely on God's good pleasure, counsel, will and works, completely without his powers, endeavors, will and works. Whoever thinks that he is still able to do something with regard to his blessedness, even if it is only a very small thing, remains trusting in himself and relies on his own strength.

  1. Col. 1714.

Introduction. 63

himself on his works. Such a one remains proud in secret and an opponent of God's grace. The humble, however, come to know the promise of grace, call upon God for it and receive it. Second, so that the faith of the godly may be exercised. Faith has to do with things that are not seen, that are hidden. So that faith may take place, it is necessary that everything that is believed be hidden. But it cannot be hidden more deeply than when it is just opposite to how it appears to us, how we feel it and have experienced it. Thus, when God makes alive, He does it by killing, when He justifies, He does it by making guilty, when He leads to heaven, He does it by leading to hell. He hides his eternal goodness and mercy under eternal wrath, his justice under unreasonableness. 1) "This is the highest level of faith," says Luther at the end of his reply to Erasmus' preface, "to believe that he is kind, who makes so few blessed and condemns so many, to believe that he is just, who by his will necessarily condemns us, so that it appears, as Erasmus portrays it, as if he delights in the torments of men and is more worthy of hate than of love. Therefore, if I could in any way understand how God is merciful and just, who shows such anger and inequity, then faith would not be necessary. But now, since this cannot be comprehended, one should have occasion to exercise faith when such things are preached and proclaimed, as when GOD kills, faith is exercised in life in death."

Finally, Luther rejects as unfounded the accusation that the doctrine that what is done by us is not accomplished by free will but by necessity is a harmful doctrine. "If it is proven that our blessedness, quite independent of our powers and counsel, depends solely on God's work, it clearly follows that if God with His work in us is not

  1. L-l. 1716.

There is that everything we do is evil, and we necessarily do what is not fit for salvation. Luther is not talking about the necessity of compulsion, but about the necessity of immutability, that is, the person who does not have the Spirit of God does evil voluntarily and gladly, and cannot refrain from or restrain his desire and will for evil by his own efforts. The will cannot change and turn elsewhere, but if it is resisted, it will only be provoked even more to will, which would not happen if man were free or had a free will. On the other hand, when God works in us, the changed will, gently nudged by the spirit of God, again wants and does the good out of sheer desire and inclination, voluntarily, not forced, so that it cannot be turned away from it by any repugnance, nor can it be overpowered or forced, but it continues to want, gladly do and love the good, just as it had previously wanted, gladly had and loved the evil. Thus the human will is either a prisoner of the devil or of the stronger one who comes over him and takes away his robbery. If the latter takes us away as his robbery, then we are his servants and captives through the Holy Spirit (but this is a royal freedom), that we may will and gladly do what he wills. The "name of free will can belong to no one but the divine Majesty, who can and does "whatever He wills. If, therefore, this name were to be attached to man, it would mean attaching to man also the divinity itself. The name free will, however, in the way Erasmus speaks of the power of free will not being able to do anything without grace, is an empty word, which is retained with danger for the blessedness and for the deception of the believing people.

Because what has been mentioned so far covers almost the entire trade, but other main things have already been explained in the discussion of the diatribe, we will refrain here from further specification of the contents and refer the reader to the book itself.

The book, in which Luther follows the diatribe step by step, has three parts. In the first part, he refutes that, by which

64 Introduction.

Erasmus sought to establish free will, and answers the reasons which he had put forward against Luther; in the second part he defends the sayings against Erasmus which he had invoked; in the third part he proves that God's grace does everything, free will nothing.

Luther always remained firm and consistent with the doctrine he presented in this book and never contradicted or changed it. In 1528, in the great confession of the Lord's Supper, 1) he declares that he intends to persevere with such teaching to the end: "I hereby reject and condemn as vain error all teachings that praise our free will, as they strive against such help and grace of our Savior Jesus Christ. For since apart from Christ death and sin are our masters, and the devil is our god and prince, there can be no strength nor power, no wit nor understanding, so that we might send or strive for righteousness and life, but must be blinded and captive, belonging to the devil and to sins, to do and think what pleases them and is contrary to God with his commandments." Following on from these words, the Concordia Formula 2) says: "In these words, Doctor Luther, of blessed and holy memory, does not give our free will any power to send itself to righteousness or to strive for it, but says that man, blinded and captive, does only the will of the devil and what is contrary to God the Lord. Therefore, there is no cooperation of our will in the conversion of man, and man must be drawn and born again of God, otherwise there is no thought in our hearts that would turn of itself to the holy gospel to accept it. As Doctor Luther also wrote about this trade in the book vo servo arbitrio, that is, about the imprisoned will of man against Erasmum, and elaborated and preserved this matter well and thoroughly, 3) and later in the book vo servo arbitrio.

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XX, 1.376, ? 517.

2! St. Louis edition, p. 4W f.; Müller, p. 3W f.

  1. In Latin here is added: "and dargethan, that this opinion is godly and insurmountable".

of the glorious exposition of the first book of Moses, and especially of the 26th chapter, in so far as there he has also preserved some other disputations introduced by Erasmus, as "bgolutLnevessitaw oto. how he meant and understood such, against all misunderstanding and misrepresentation to the best and most diligent; whereupon we also hereby draw and point others to it.

Towards the end of the second part of his book, Luther testifies to Erasmus that he does not lead the matter in blind zeal, but with right deliberation and that he was not only carried away in the heat of the defense, that he now completely emphasizes free will, while he, as Erasmus falsely ascribes to him, had previously granted it a certain capacity, and Luther refers to his other books for this. It is therefore not a new, strange doctrine that Luther has presented here, but one that he has also consistently asserted in his other books and, as we have seen, he intends to persist in it to the end. Likewise, our fathers in the faith, even in the confession adopted by the Lutheran Church, have testified that in this book Luther has preserved his cause well and thoroughly, that his opinion is godly and unconquerable. In one of his last writings, which he finished only a few months before his death, namely in November 1545, in the treatise on the first book of Moses, Luther 4) still refers to what he had taught in his book "that free will is nothing" and maintains it.

In order to understand a writer correctly, one must first and foremost keep in mind what he intended with his writing, and must not tear individual words and speeches out of their context or even contradict them with the explanations given elsewhere by the author himself. However, these generally valid rules of correct interpretation have seldom been observed with regard to Luther's writing, which is why the most diverse judgments have been made about it.

  1. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. II, 176, § 141.

Introduction. 65

To a large extent, what Luther predicted 1) has come true: "After my death, many will bring forth my books and cite them and will want to prove and confirm all kinds of errors and their own imagination. Now I have written, among other things, that everything is necessary and must happen; but at the same time I have also added that one should look at the God who has revealed Himself, as we sing in the 46th Psalm: "His name is Jesus Christ, the LORD of hosts, and there is no other God," and in many other places. But they will pass by all the places and accept only those where the hidden God is spoken of. - Therefore you who have me now should remember that I have taught these things, namely, that one should not inquire into the provision of the hidden God, but that one should be satisfied with the same provision, which is revealed through the calling and through the ministry of preaching; for there you can be sure of your faith and blessedness, and say, "I believe in the Son of God, who said: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life," John 3:36. Therefore there is no condemnation or wrath in him, but the good pleasure of God the Father. And I have also publicly taught the same in my other books and still teach it with a loud voice. Therefore I will be excused."

It would go too far if we wanted to register here all the different statements of Reformed and Lutheran theologians about Luther's book ve servo eu-bitrio. Lutheran theologians can be divided into three classes according to their position on this book. The first class consists of those who claim that Luther essentially presented the teachings of Calvin. To the second class belong those theologians who absolve Luther of this accusation, but still think that Luther used idioms here that were not to be approved of, or at least misunderstood idioms, and who now try to excuse Luther in every possible way. The third class of Lutheran theologians are

  1. Walch, "St. Louis" Edition, vol. II, 184, ß 162 f.

those who flatly agree with Luther. These last ones are right. Against the former - of whom there were only a few in the old church - we note that only gross misunderstanding can mix Luther's teaching with Calvin's false doctrine. It is precisely the distinction that Luther makes, on the basis of Scripture, between the hidden and the revealed God that speaks against Calvin. With Calvin, the revealed will of God is mere appearance (voluntas si^ni). Luther is also fully serious about the revealed will of God. We recall only such passages as Col. 1795 f.: "Therefore you say rightly: If God does not will death, then it is certainly to be attributed to our will if we are lost. Right, I say, if you should speak of the preached God, for He wants all men to be saved, because He comes to all with the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not admit Him, as it is said in Matth. 23, 37: How often have I wanted to gather Your children and You did not want to." Furthermore Col. 1802: "The incarnate God, I say, is sent to will, to speak, to do, to suffer, to offer all that is necessary for blessedness" 2c. Already above (Introduction, p. 59), words of Luther are quoted in which he explains how he wants this to be understood when he says that God works all things in all. The theologians of the second class have wisely omitted to examine those phrases that were offensive to them according to Scripture, otherwise they would soon have found out that Luther did not speak differently than Scripture speaks. And they have mostly excused or defended Luther with great clumsiness, and by their defense and excuses they have only betrayed that in the matter itself they do not completely agree with Luther, thus also not with Scripture.

The orthodox teachers of the 16th century were unanimous in their support of this writing of Lutber's, and made it their shibboleth, as it were, in the hot battles against the Philippists. Among the statements that were made against the synergists, one can consistently find the one that it is a sign and proof of false doctrine if one says that Luther was mistaken in his book ve servo arbitrio. At the Colloquium in Altenburg in 1568

66 Introduction.

the Saxon theologians declared that they accepted and approved the doctrine of free will as Luther had presented it most thoroughly in his book Ve servo srbitrio, in the interpretation of the first book of Moses and elsewhere; in great zeal they call those who accuse him of recantation murderers, thieves and robbers of the Christian church and of truth. In the preface of the 6orpu8 lioetriu "e otiristiunue, which was printed under the name of Duke Johann Wilhelm at Jena in 1571, it is called a work of Satan that one had blurted out that Luther had revoked, abandoned and denied his doctrine of the servant will.

Finally, we mention two later judgments of Luther about his pamphlet against Erasmus. In 1527, he writes in his "Answer to the King of England's Blasphemous Writings Title": "He also touches with words of shame my booklet written against free will, which Erasmus Roterodamus, the same king's best friend, has had to leave unedited and should still leave unedited, although he has more art and reason in one finger than the king of England with all his clever ones. And I thank not only the king and Erasmo, but also their God and all the devils, that they have published this booklet for me in a right and honest way. Instead of the words "rightly and honestly," the Latin reads "with well-founded proofs from sacred Scripture" (solickw Loripturae "r^umentis). Luther thus testifies that his book cannot be refuted from Scripture. On July 9, 1537, he wrote to Wolfgang Fabricius Capito: "To arrange my books in bundles, I am not at all inclined and sluggish, because I, irritated by a Saturnian hunger 1), rather wish that they would all be devoured. For I recognize none for my right book, except for instance that of the captured will and the catechism."

Luther rightly declares the Scripture ve gervo "rditrio, along with the Catechism, to be his best

  1. The god Saturnus ate most of his children; so Luther would also like to see most of his books destroyed.

Book. It is indeed a theological controversy and doctrinal writing of the first rank. It contains "lightnings and thunderbolts" also against today's disciples of Erasmus, against today's synergists of Lutheran character, who put the decision about blessedness and damnation into the hands of man's free will, who play the same frivolous game with "the grace of God" as Erasmus. But even apart from the actual point of controversy, this writing of Luther's is a true model and a compendium of genuine scriptural theology. What is said here about the principle of theology, the holy Scriptures, clarity, the sole authority of Scripture, about the difference between law and gospel, about sin and grace, the redemption of Christ, about flesh and spirit, the true and the false church, belongs to the best that has ever been taught and written in the church about these things. But this book is not written only for theologians. Every Christian who has reasonably exercised senses can understand it and become glad and certain of his salvation from it. It is a victory and triumph of Christian faith over the wisdom, and especially the sanctimonious wisdom, of this world.

Erasmus was very angry about Luther's book "that free will is nothing", especially about the fact that Luther had accused him of atheism or epicureanism. Therefore, on March 2, 1526, he addressed a letter to the Elector John of Saxony, in which he complained that Luther had offended his good reputation with great lies, and requested that he be punished or at least reminded that he should not again submit to such malice. The Elector informed Luther of this letter and asked for his and his colleagues' advice on what should be done in response. On April 23, 1526, Luther wrote to the Elector John 2): "To Erasmus' writing it seems good to us that E. C. F. G. does not allow himself to be mixed up in the matter, as the Vipera seeks, but answers in such a way: as he himself well knows that E. C. F. G. is in the spiritual matter.

  1. Walch, old edition, vol. XXl, IM.

Introduction. 67

not may nor should be judge; therefore he should have spared E. C. F. G. such request" 2c. Perhaps it could also be added: "if it were a secular matter, he (Erasmus) would have repaid Luther with writing that went out into all the world, as he knows that a greater judge belonged to it than a prince" 2c. Against Luther's book, Erasmus wrote a rebuttal under the title: Hvpsrnspistos äiutribrro näversus servum arbitrium Alartini Imtberi per Lr "8mum kotvroäumum. The first part was published in 1526, the second in 1527?) In it he says that although he wrote against Luther in all modesty, he was more hostile to him than to others. This was not only done by him, but also by others who had contributed to Luther's book. He tries to maintain what he had written against Luther in the Diatribe, but in vain. Luther speaks about it in the Table Talks 3): "He has written against me in his booklet 'Hyperaspistes', in which he wants to defend his book of free will, against which I have written in my book 'Vom knechtischen Willen', which he has not yet published and will never be able to publish for eternity. This I know for certain, and I defy the devil with all his scales, so that he may confute it. For I am certain that it is the immutable truth of God." Erasmus' book was written in an exceedingly bitter and poisonous manner. In a letter to Michael Stiefel, 4) on October 8, 1527, Luther writes: "Erasmus has

  1. The meaning of this addition is: Erasmus has already avenged himself, therefore the matter is no longer under princes, but under God's judgment. In Seckendorf, List. I-utk., tib. I, p. 312, ? 180 at the end, the sense is missed.
  2. In the Leyden edition of the works of Erasmus, the first part is Dona. X, p. 1249, the second p. 1335.
  3. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 124. Tischreden, cap. 37, ? 124.
  4. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1060. Stiefel was, as we see from Leonhard Kaiser's letter to him, on March 9, 1527 in Tollet (Oestreich) in the "Jörgerschen Haus". Cf. Jen. Ausg., vol: III (1556), col. 447 a and 447 d. The woman WolstganaGorgerin is Mrs. Dorothea Jörg", widow of the knight Wolfgang Jörg". Compare D" Wette, vol. VI, p. I3S.

two hyperaspites, or rather hyperaspides, that is, quite poisonous and over-poisonous vipers plotted against me"; and Melanchthon says in a letter to Joachim Camerarius: "Have you ever read anything more bitterly written, Joachim, than the b^peraspists" (Schildträger, Vertheidiger) of Erasmus? He is altogether an adder" (uspis). On October 19, 1527, Luther wrote to Justus Jonas 5): "I wish you luck, best Jonas, because of your recantation, in which you now finally paint your famous Erasmus with his right colors, nnd rightly recognize this adder, which is full of deadly spines, while before you praised him in many respects. I am glad that you have learned so much from reading the One Hyperaspistes and have changed your judgment about him. And when I read this part of your letter to my wife, she immediately said: Has not the dear man become a toad? Lo and behold! She is also pleased that you now have the same opinion with me about Erasmus." Luther left the book of Erasmus unanswered, 6) because it was already sufficiently refuted in Luther's first answer, and wrote nothing else against Erasmus.

Only twice after that, something from Luther's pen concerning Erasmus appeared in print, namely a short preface by Luther to a book by Antonius Corvinn and a reply by Luther to a letter by Amsdorf. In 1533, Erasmus published an interpretation of the 84th Psalm, to which he added advice for the restoration of the unity of the church. This book 7) appeared under the title: Dos. Lrssmi kowroänmi über äs oareionän eeelvsias coneoräin äsguv soäkmckis vpinionum äissiäüs ste. by Nicolaus Faber at Leipzig in October 1533 in octavo. He may have expected success from this, because the Nuremberg religious peace had come about.

  1. Walch, alte Aus", vol. XXI, 1061.
  2. Melanchthon's judgment of Erasmus's new remarks on free will was that they were clever but very unclearly written, and that it was difficult to recognize the author's real opinion. Köstlin, Mart. Luth", Vol. II, p. 141.
  3. It is found, both in "d" Basel" and in the "Leyden edition", in the fifth volume of the works of Erasmus.

68 Introduction.

and a council seemed to be at the door. In this writing, Erasmus tries to put the papal church in the most favorable light possible, without, however, daring to decisively defend the main points of the papal doctrinal concept attacked by Luther. He was completely silent on the primacy of the pope, on the prestige of the Roman Church, on purgatory, on the celibate status of priests, and the like, but nevertheless asserted that everyone who wanted to be blessed had to be in agreement with the Church. Against this, the Hessian theologian (later in Brunswick) Antonius Corvinus published a paper in 1534: Quatenus expeckist vckitam recono Lrssmi äs sureienäu eoelesiuv oonoorckin rationem svgui, tantwper ckum uäpurutur s^noäus, juclioium. At the request of the printer Nicolaus Schirlentz at Wittenberg, Luther wrote a preface to this book of Antonius Corvinus (No. 12 in the appendix of this volume) 1) and said in it that he believed that Erasmus and his disciples might want to advise the cause out of good opinion by such a middle position and mutual concession; but conscience and truth could not suffer such kind of concord. After love, nothing was ever omitted on the part of the Lutherans to maintain or restore harmony. On the other hand, the papists always continue to spill the blood of the Lutherans and to drink it and to persecute them with sword, fire, water and all kinds of fury, solely because they cannot, against their conscience, regard the statutes of men as equal to God's words or even elevate them above God. In faith and doctrine, however, there can be no mutual concession, because the adversaries do not concede anything, defend their errors even more fiercely than before, and even demand things that they disapproved of before Luther's time. We, however, cannot approve of that which is obviously in conflict with the Holy Scriptures. There can be no harmony between Christ and Belial. The papists also boast of the teachings of Christ and do not want to be regarded as having rejected the errors of the

  1. This preface is, but incomplete, once again in Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 316.

Devils teach, but by the fruits the tree is recognized. They always cry church, church, church! and also call the church godless men, who could hold opinions over and against the Scriptures and establish statutes, and that by divine power. Erasmus affirms this speech of theirs and promises everywhere that he wants to follow the church, but teaches nothing but doubtful and uncertain things. A mind that fears God and desires eternal blessedness cannot be satisfied with this, nor can it believe what is obviously taught against the holy scriptures; it cannot be reassured by being told that it must listen to the pope so that peace and harmony may remain. The sheep of Christ want to hear the voice of their shepherd and master; but Erasmus and the papists offer them only the counsel of men and ungodly doctrine of the devil, which is contrary to the Scriptures. Erasmus would do best to leave theology and pursue his eloquence in other things for which he has gifts. Those who cry out that the church believes many articles that are not found in Scripture follow their madness and invent a completely different church, namely the school of Satan.

Erasmus had repeatedly made hostile and malicious attacks on Luther, the Lutherans and the whole Reformation since the publication of Luther's book, and also his followers appeared against Luther, 2) among them Georg Witzel. Since it was rumored that Luther would answer Witzel, Amsdorf wrote to Luther on January 28, 1534 (No. 11a in the appendix of this volume) that Witzel had stolen all that was his from Erasmus, therefore he must be despised. But Erasmus should be answered and painted with the right colors. The epitome of Erasmus' doctrine is: Luther's doctrine is heresy, because it has been condemned by the emperor and the pope, but his is orthodox, because bishops and cardinals, princes and kings send and give him golden cups. Luther answered this in a missive to Amsdorf, probably already in February 1534 (No. 11b in the appendix of this volume), which he wrote to Wit-

  1. Köstlin, Vol. II, p. 141.

Introduction. 69

tenberg published in print. In this publication, Luther wants to publicly warn Christians against Erasmus, after it has become clear that there is no help or hope in him, and therefore relentlessly expresses his judgment of him. Luther accepts Amsdorf's statement that there is nothing in Erasmus' teachings, that he only seeks favor with people, and that he is ignorant and malicious. Otherwise, Luther had already declared him to be a particularly thoughtless and useless babbler, because he seemed to treat sacred and serious matters quite carelessly and even made fun of them; now, however, Luther was inclined to believe that what was said about him by respected and intelligent people was true, that Erasmus was childish. In the Diatribe, the carelessness of Erasmus had already annoyed him, and Luther had therefore insisted that he was not much different from Epicurus, Lucian, or the skeptics. In the Hyperaspistes, however, he answered nothing to the matter itself, only poured out his poison, therefore Luther gave up all hope for his theology from that time on. Through his mockery of the most holy doctrines of faith, it has become obvious that he has nothing to say about the Christian religion.

holds. In his godless catechism, he also tries to make the doctrines of faith suspicious to the youth and to lead them to doubt. It is not necessary to answer such an adder, among all pious and righteous people it has already disproved itself enough. He deliberately uses ambiguous and deceitful words in order to spread the seeds of heresies under the appearance of Christian faith. Every Christian should interpret them against him, as even the laws prescribe that against the one who can speak more clearly, his own words should be interpreted. A Christian should avoid ambiguous words; anyone who even uses them intentionally is worthy of just hatred. Then Luther cites many proofs that Erasmus uses the most shameful ambiguities. Luther wanted to leave such testimony about Erasmus behind so that he would finally be freed from the suspicion that he was Lutheran. Luther wanted all of Erasmus' writings to be banned from the schools.

Where many other testimonies of Luther against Erasmus are to be found in the Table Talks is already indicated in this volume immediately before No. 68.

** Contents of the eighteenth part**

of the

complete writings of Luther, which includes the controversial writings of Luther and his opponents among the popes.

First Section.

Of Luther's writings against the papists with regard to the persons with whom he had to contend.

I. Polemics against the Semi-Pelagian school theologians,

the advocates of free will and followers of Aristotle, in part even before the Reformation.

Column

1 Question about man's ability and will without grace, disputed by M. > Bartholomäus Bernhardt from Feldkirch, Sept. 1516 3 > > 2 Letter of Luther to Johann Lang, 8 Feb. 1517, Against the > Aristotelian Philosophy of the School Theologians 16 > > 3 Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, held by Franz Günther from > Nordhausen, 4 Sept. 1517 18 > > 4 Luther's letter to Johann Lang, Sept. 4, 1517. Luther sends him the > information given in No. 3. Theses 26 > > 5 Luther's letter to Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1517, explaining the 35th > thesis from the disputation in No. 3 28 > > List of some of Luther's writings that have an impact here 30 > > 6. fragment of a lecture by Luther. First quarter of the year 1518 30 > > 7. The Heidelberg Disputation. April 26, 1518. > > a. The theses 36 > > b. Proof of the theses 40 > > c. Explanation of the 6 Thesis 56 > > d. Explanations of two theses (29. and 30.) 68

II Luther's dispute with Tetzel.

  1. disputation explaining the power of indulgence. 3l. Oct. 1517 71 > > 9 First disputation of Johann Tetzel. Jan. 21, 1518 82 > > 10 Second Disputation of Johann Tetzel. May 1518 94 > > 11 Luther's explanations of the disputation on the power of > indulgences. May 30, 1518 100 > > 12 A Sermon on Indulgences and Grace. March 1518 270

Column

13 Tetzel's refutation of Luther's Sermon on Indulgences and Grace. > End of May 1518 275 > > 14 Luther's "Freedom of the Sermon on Indulgences and Grace." End > of June 1518 296

III Luther's dispute with Prierias.

15 Des Silvester Prierias Dialogue on the Violence of the Pope. June > 1518 310 > > 16 Luther's response to the dialogue of Silvester Prierias. August > 1518 344 > > 17 Des Prierias Replica to Luther's Answer. November 1518 412 > > 18 Des Prierias Epitome einer Antwort an Luther, mit Glossen, Vor- und > 'Nachwort von Luther. June 25 1520 422 > > 19 List of some of Luther's writings that have an impact here 455 > > 20 Luther's epilogue to the treatise of John Nannis of Viterbo. 1520 > 456

IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim.

20 Dungersheim's first letter to Luther. Jan. 18, 1519 462 > > 21 Luther's response to Dungersheim's first letter. After Jan. 18, > 1519 470 > > 22 Dungersheim's second letter to Luther. End of Jan. (?) 1519 472 > > 23 Luther's reply to Dungersheim's second letter. Feb. (?) 1519 498 > > 24 Dungersheim's third letter to Luther. March (?) 1519 502 > > 25 Luther's reply to Dungersheim's third letter. March (?) 1519 528 > > 26 Dungersheim's fourth letter to Luther. Early Sept. 1519 528 > > 27 Luther's reply from Dungersheim's fourth letter. Early Sept. 1519 > 530 > > 28 Luther's reply to Dungersheim's fifth letter. Sept. 1519 530 > > List of some of Luther's writings that have an impact here 535

72 Contents of the eighteenth part.

V. Luther's and Carlstadt's dispute with Eck.

Column

29 Luther's asterisks against Eck's obelisks. March 23, 1518.. 536

  1. Carlftadt's defense of the sacred Scriptures. July 1518 590

31 Carlftadt's defense against Eck's monomachy. Sept. 14, 1518 632

Eck's thirteen theses against Luther and Carlstadt. 14 Mar, 1519 712

33 Carlstadt's theses against Eck for the disputation in Leipzig. April 26, 1519 . 714

34 Luther's thirteen theses Wider Eck. Middle of May 1519.... 718

35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis on the Violence of the pope. June 27, 1519 720

Luther's explanations of the theses he disputed in Leipzig. End of August 1519 820

37 Luther's Recantation from Purgatory 1530 874

38 Eck's refutation of Luther's recantation of the Purgatory. Sept. 2, 1530 902

39 Eck's answer for Hieronymus Emser against Luther. 28 October 1519 910

VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne, Louvain and Paris.

  1. judgment of the theologians in Paris on Luther's doctrine with Luther's pre and post-testimony. 1521 932

The first time that the author of the book, Philipp Melanchthon, had written a book on the subject, he had been a member of the editorial board. 1521 960

42: Joke about the verdict of condemnation passed against Luther by the stupid and godless Sorbonne. 1521 980

VII Luther's dispute with Alveld.

43 Alveld's letter to Luther. Early April 1520 1002

44 Luther's writing about the papacy in Rome against the Romanist in Leipzig. June 1520 1002

45 Alveld's Propositions, which were discussed at Weimar on January 20, 1522 1054

46 D. Johann Längs Sätze wider Alveld's Weimarsche Disputation 1054

VIII. Luther's dispute with Solomon.

47 Luther's refutation of Latonius's justification for the murderous sophists of the School at Louvain. June 1521 1056

IX. Luther's dispute with Emser.

48 Letter of Hieronymus Emser on the Disputation in Leipzig to Dr. Johann Zack. 13 Aug. 1519 1202

49 Martin Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. End of Sept. 1519 1212

  1. To the Goat at Leipzig. D. M. Luther. End of January 1521 1250
  2. Ans des Bocks zu Leipzig Reply. O. M. Luther. Feb. 1521 1256
  3. to the super-Christian 2c. Book of Bocks Emser's Reply D. M. Luther. End of March 1521 1270

53 Luther's contradiction of his error forced by Hieronymus Emser. Probably Oct. 1521 1352

X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites at Jüterbock.

Column

Luther's letter to the Franciscans at Jüterbock. May 15, 1519 1362

Luther's defense against the malicious judgment of Johann Eck. September 1519 137g

Luther's report to M. Franz Günther. Sept. 30.

1519 1418

57: The Bardfusser of Weimar's Letter to the Church of Saxony Against Luther. August 15, 1521 1418

58 Des Churfürsten zu wachsen Antwort an die Franciscaner zu Weimar. 1521 1422

59 The barefoot monks in Weimar prove that the sacrament is a sacrifice. Before Dec. 11.

1522 1422

60 Luther's letter to Wolfgang Stein. Dec. 11.

1522 1428

XI. Luther's dispute with Ambrosius Catharinus.

61 Luther's response to the book of Ambrose Catharinus, with the interpretation of Daniel 8, about the Antichrist. April 1521 1434

XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus.

62 Luther's Letter to Erasmus. March 28, 1519... 1582

63 Erasmus's response to Luther's "above" letter. May 30, 1519 1586

64 Letter from Erasmus to the Elector Frederick of Saxony. April 14, 1519 1588

65: Frederick the Elector's reply to the previous letter. May 14, 1519 1594

66 Luther's letter to Erasmus. April 1524 1596

Desiderius Erasmus Diatribe or Treatise on Free Will. Sept. 1524 1600

List of some of Luther's writings belonging to this section 1668

Luther's answer to Erasmus that free will is nothing. December 1525 1668

Appendix.

1 Luther's letter to Johann Lang. May 18, 1517 1968

Luther's letter to Johann Lang. July 16, 1517 1970

Luther's letter to Spalatin. October 19, 1516 1972

4 Luther's letter to Johann Lang. March 1, 1517 1974

Luther's letter to Spalatin. 18 Jan. 1518 1976

Luther's letter to Caspar Börner. May 28, 1522 1978

Luther's Judgment on Erasmus. 1533 1981

Luther's letter to Spalatin. Nov. 1, 1524 1982

Luther's letter to Nicolaus Hausmann. Nov. 17. 1524 1984

9 Luther's Letter to Spalatin. Sept. 28, 1525... 1986

10 Luther's letter to Nicolaus Hausmann. September 27, 1525 1986

  1. a. Nicolaus Amsdorf's letter to Luther. January 28 1534 1988

b. Luther's reply letter to Amsdorf. Feb. 1534 1990

  1. Luther's Preface to the Book of Antonius Corvinus on the Erasmus Proposal for Church Unification. 1534 2006

The writings contained in this eighteenth volume

ordered according to the time sequence.

1516. Columne

Sept. Disputation on man's ability and will without grace 3

Oct. 19 Letter from Luther to Spalatin 1972

1517.

Feb. 8 Luther's letter to Joh. Lang 16

March 1 Letter from Luther to Joh. Lang 1974

May 18 Letter from Luther to Joh. Lang 1968

July 16 Letter from Luther to Joh. Lang 1970

Sept. 4 Disputation against scholastic theology 18

Sept. 4 Letter from Luther to Joh. Lang 26

Oct. 31 Disputation explaining the power of indulgences 71

Nov. 11 Letter Luthersan Spalatin 28

1518.

Jan. 18 Luther's letter to Spalatin 1976

Jan 21 First disputation of Tetzel. 82

March 23 Luther's asterisks against the obelisks of Eck 636

March. A Sermon on Indulgences and Grace 270

First quarter of the year. Fragment of a Lecture by Luther 30

April 26 The Heidelberg Disputation 36

May 30 Luther's Explanations of the Disputation on the Power of Indulgences 100

May Tetzel's second disputation 94

End" May. Tetzel's Refutation of Luther's Sermon on Indulgences and Grace 275

June. Des Silvester Prierias Dialog 310

End of June. Luther's "Free Booklet of the Sermon on Indulgences and Grace" 296

July. Carlstadt's Defense of the Holy Scriptures. 590

August. Luther's Response to the Dialogue of Prierias 344

Sept. 14 Carlstadt's Defense Against Eck's Monomachi" 632

November. Des Prierias Replica 412

1519.Columne

Jan. 18 Dungersheim's first letter to Luther 462

After Jan. 18 Luther's response from it 470

End of Jan. (?) Dungersheim's second letter 472

Feb. (?) Luther's response to it 498

March. (?) Dungersheim's third letter 502

March. (?) Luther's response to this 528

March 14 Ecks 13 theses against Luther and Carlstadt 712

" 28. Luther's Letter to Erasmus 1582

April 14 Letter from Erasmus to Elector Frederick 1588

April 26 Carlstadt's theses Wider Eck for the disputation at Leipzig 714

May 14: Frederick the Elector's reply to Erasmus's letter 1594

May 15 Luther's letter to the Franciscans at Jüterbock 1362

Mid-May. Luther's Thirteen Theses against Eck 718

May 30 Erasmus's reply to Luther's letter 1586

June 27 Luther's Explanation of his Thirteenth Thesis 720

Aug. 13: Einser's letter to Zack about the disputation at Leipzig 1202.

End of Aug. Luther's explanations of his Leipzig Theses 820

Early Sept. Dungersheim's fourth letter 528

Early Sept. Luther's response from it 530

Sept. Luther's response to Dungersheim's fifth letter 530

End of Sept. Luther's addition to Emser's Bock 1212

End of Sept. Luther's defense against Eck's malicious verdict. 1370

Sept. 30 Luther's letter to Franz Günther 1418

Oct. 28 Eck's response for Emser 910

1520.

Early April. Alveld's letter to Luther 1002

June. Luther's Writing on the Papacy Against the Romanists at Leipzig 1002

June 26 Prierias Epitome with Luther's comments, foreword and afterword. 422

No date. Luther's Afterword to the Treatise of Joh. Nannis 456

74 Contents of the eighteenth part arranged in chronological order.

1521. Columne

End of January. Luther's Writing to the Goat in Leipzig 1250

Febr. On the Goat at Leipzig Answer 1256

End of March. To the super-Christian 2c. Book of Bocks Emser's answer 1270

April. Luther's Response to the Book of Ambrose Catharinus 1434

June. Luther's Refutation of the Justification of Latomus 1056

Aug. 15 The Barefoot at Weimar Writ to Chursachsen against Luther 1418

August (?). The Elector of Saxony's answer to it 1422

October. (?) Luther's contradiction of his error forced by Emser 1352

Without date. Judgment of the theologians in Paris with Luther's Pre- and Post-Talk 932

Without date. Phil. Melanchthon's protective speech against the furious verdict of Paris 960

Without date. Joke script about the from the Sorbonne felled Condemnation verdict 980

1522.

Jan. 20 Alveld's sentences, which were discussed at Weimar rst 1054

Without date. D. Joh. longitudinal sentences against Alvelds Weimar Disputation 1054

May 28 Luther's letter to Caspar Börner 1978

Before the 11th Dec. of the Barefoot Monks at Weimar Evidence etc 1422

Dec. 11 Luther's letter to Wolfgang Stein 1428

1524. Columne

April. Luther's letter to Erasmus 1596

Sept. Erasmus's Diatribe on Free Will.... 1600

Nov. 1 Luther's Letter to Spalatin 1982

Nov. 17 Luther's letter to Nic. Hausmann. 1984

1525.

Sept. 27 Luther's letter to Hausmann 1986

Sept. 28 Luther's letter to Spalatin 1986

December. Luther's writing that free will is nothing 1668

1530.

No date. Luther's Recantation from Purgatory 874

Sept. 2. Eck's Refutation of the Recantation from Purgatory Fire. 902

1533.

Without date. Luther's Judgment on Erasmus 1981

1534.

Jan. 28 Amsdorf's letter to Luther 1988 Feb Luther's reply to it. 1990

No date. Luther's Preface to the Book of Corvinus from Erasmus' Proposal for Church Unification 2006

**

Reformation Writings**

Second part:

Dogmatic-polemical writings

A. Against the Papists.

First Section:

With regard to the persons with whom Luther had to engage in controversy.

I. Controversial writings against the semi-Pelagian school theologians,

the advocates of free will and followers of Aristotle, partly even before the beginning of the Reformation, because Aristotle's school theology was the main source of the torn papal heresies.

1. question about man's ability and will without grace,

*disputirt 1516 )

[at Wittenberg, probably in September, by M. Bartholomäus Bernhardi of Feldkirch, under the presidency of Luther, for the attainment of the dignity of Sententiarius, to which he was appointed on Sept. 25, 1516.

was awarded a doctorate].

Translated from the Latin.

Next Friday, at seven o'clock, the following question will be discussed under the chairmanship of the Honorable Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Liberal Arts and Theology:

Can man, created in God's image, keep the commandments of God, his Creator, by his natural powers, or do or think anything good and earn with grace and realize what he has earned?

First thesis.

Man, the soul made in God's image and thus capable of grace, is alone in his natural powers and subjects every creature he uses to vanity; he seeks only what is his own and what is of the flesh.

That man is in the image of God is evident from the saying Genesis 1:27: "God created man in His image"; but that he is in the image of the soul is revealed by St. Augustine in the following words: "Even if a human being is in the image of God, he is in the image of God.

*This writing was, after the occurrence of Löscher's Reformation Acta, erroneously added by Walch and the Erlangen edition as Huaestio III to two other "Quaestions^, the first of which is a fragment of a lecture by Luther, and the second of which forms "an explanation of the sixth thesis of the Heidelberg Disputation. The error came from the fact that the "Innocent News on the I. 1703" had printed these three writings from one manuscript (from the year 1518) and had given them the same title: blart. I.utüsri ijuu "8tioiies et OonLlusiouos 1518.

6 L.v.".i,r "s. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. xrni, "r-44. 7

Although the human spirit is not of the same nature as God, yet in it is the image of God, which is the most glorious of all that there is to seek and to find; for the soul is the most glorious of all that our nature has. But that he is thus capable of the grace of God is denied by St. Augustine, who gives the reason why grace is bestowed on human nature, saying: "For the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ is not bestowed on stone, wood, or cattle; but to him who is in the image of God this grace comes; but not in such a way that his good will can precede grace, or that he gives something beforehand that must be repaid to him. Everything else in this thesis is clear enough. For man without grace is an evil tree and incapable of bearing good fruit or of using the creature for God's glory and praise, which is the ultimate purpose of his creation; and this means subjecting it to vanity, for he seeks only what is his own and what is of the flesh.

First follow-up thesis.

The old man, the greatest vanity and the entire vanity, also makes the other creatures, which are fönst good, vain.

It is clear that the old man is the one who does not love God completely purely, nor does he have a fervent hunger and thirst for Him, but with spirit and mind his satiety.

He is therefore the greatest vanity of vanities, Eccl. 1:2, and all vanity, as it is said in Ps. 39:6: "Verily, all vanity is every man that liveth" according to the Vulgate. But that he also makes the other creatures, which are otherwise good (according to Gen. 1, 31: "And God looked at all that he had made, and behold, it was very good," as well as according to the saying of the apostle, 1 Tim. 4, 4: "All the creature of God is good"), also vain, is taken from that saying of the apostle, Rom. 8, 20: "The creature is subject to vanity without its will." From this it is clear that it becomes evil, vain, and harmful through no fault of its own and from without, because it is esteemed by man in his imagination and erroneous opinion, or in his affection and wrong use, higher than it is in truth. For example, if hay were imagined to be human food, it would be considered better than it really is.

Second follow-up thesis.

The old man is called by the name of flesh; not only because he is led by the carnal evil desire, but (even if he is chaste, wise and righteous) because he is not born again of GOD through the Spirit.

pudlieutav, ex >I8ts., from which it was concluded that they also belonged together in time, and they were all assigned to the year 1516. Our disputation, however, undoubtedly belongs to this year; on the other hand, the tzuaestio II, because it elaborates on one of the Heidelberg theses, can only have been written in 1518. However, the time of the writing of tzuaoxticn I is uncertain. According to the assumption of the "Weimar edition", it is perhaps to be placed in the first quarter of the year 1518, but, since the manuscript is written in 1518, by no means after 1518. According to these "facts" presented by the Weimar edition, we also had to remove this disputation from its previous connection and add tjuaostio II to the Heidelberg disputation. Therefore, we have been forced to change the arrangement of Walcb's "edition" somewhat. - The appendix question of the mode of action of the sacrament of baptism certainly does not belong to this disputation, but is appended to it in the "Innocent News" and may be a contemporaneous record. Therefore, following the Weimar edition, we have left thePiece in its previous place. - Without the explanations, the theses are found in both editions of the kropomtionos I). LIart. I,utkeri, ad initio nc-u "tii ^vanßvlioi traotatae them. of I. 1538; then in the kropomtionon tsioolouicas of 1.1558. In the Gesammt editions they are found in the Latin Wittenberger of 1545 <tom. I, koi. I.u) and in the Latin Jena one (tom. I, tc>I. 1); German in the Leipzig AuSg. <Thl. XVII, p. 142>, as well as in the so-called Hallischer Theil (p. 1). - Together with the explanations, the theses are first found in the aforementioned "Unschuldige Nachrichten" on 1.1703; from it erroneously in Löscher's "Reformations-Acta" <Vol. I, p. 328) and tn the Erlanger Ausg. (varii "r>r. toin. I, p. 235 and 246). The text of these theses is restored in the Weimar edition, vol. I, 142 ff, according to the first edition mentioned above: kropositionev I). ölart. I,utk "ri ete., the text of the explanations after Löscher's "Unschuldige Nachrichten auf daS Jahr 1708." Our translation is made after this edition.

8 L. V. L. I. Lt7-ris. 1. About man's ability and will without grace. Grace. W. XVM, 9

The old man is called flesh, this is evident from the saying Joh. 3, 6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh", and Gal. 5, 17: "The flesh lusts against the Spirit"; Rom. 8, 7: "To be carnally minded is enmity against God". But with this John adds: "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," this whole corollary thesis is clear. Whoever is not born again of the Spirit (be he ever so righteous, chaste and wise in his own eyes and in the eyes of men) is flesh, is carnal, is an old man. All good apart from God is of the flesh, only the uncreated good is of the spirit. Augustine: "But without it (he speaks of the faith that is active through love) even what seem to be good works are turned into sins."

Third follow-up thesis.

Although all unbelievers are vain, since they do no good, not all will suffer the same punishment.

The first part of this thesis can be seen in the following scriptural testimonies: Hab. 2, 4: "The righteous lives by faith"; Hebr. 11, 6: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." The second part is likewise clear from the apostle, Rom. 2:14, 15, where he says: "For as the Gentiles, who have not the law, yet by nature do the work of the law, the same, because they have not the law, are themselves a law unto them, that they may prove that the work of the law is written in their hearts; since their conscience testifieth to them, as also their thoughts, which accuse one another." Augustine treats these words in the 4th book against Julian in the 3rd chapter. He says this about unbelievers, interpreting or explaining them: "If they do not have faith in Christ, they are truly neither righteous nor pleasing to God (for 'without faith it is impossible to please God'), but their thoughts will excuse them in the day of judgment to the extent that they will be punished more tolerably, because they have by nature done what is of the law as well as possible, having written in their hearts the work of the law, which prescribes not to do unto others.

what they themselves did not want to suffer. But in this they sinned, that as men without faith they did not direct their works to the purpose to which they should have directed it. For Fabricius will be punished less than Catilina, not because he was good, but because he was less evil and less godless than Catilina. Fabricius had not true virtues, but he had not departed very much from true virtues." And a little further up he speaks, "Those who are "altogether righteous according to the natural law do not please GOD."

Second thesis.

Man, if the grace of God is excluded, can by no means keep His commandments, nor prepare himself for grace, whether in equity (de congruo) or in merit (de congruo), but he necessarily remains under sin.

The first part of this thesis can be seen in the saying of the apostle, Rom. 13, 10.: "Love is the fulfillment of the law"; and [1 Cor. 8, 1.): "Knowledge inflates, but love corrects," likewise 2 Cor. 3, 6.: "The letter kills, but the spirit makes alive." St. Augustine, acting upon these words, says: "The writing of the law without love puffeth up, it mendeth not." And soon after, "The knowledge of the law, therefore, makes a haughty despiser; but by the gift of love it delights man to be a doer of the law." And in many places he says, "The law is given that grace might be sought; grace is given that the law might be fulfilled."

St. Augustine shows the second part in many places. It will suffice to mention only a few. Joh. 15, 5: "Without me you can do nothing". Likewise Joh. 6, 65.: "No one can come to me, unless it is given to him by my Father." The apostle says [1 Cor. 4, 7.), "For what hast thou that thou hast not received?" and in many other passages of the New and Old Testaments it is irrefutably taught thus; especially by the prophet Ezekiel, where God virtually says that He is not induced by any good merits of men to give them

10 L V.L.I.A"-":. I. Against the femipelagian school theologians. W. xvm,47-". 11

as if they obeyed his commandments, but rather do them good for evil, and do it for his sake and not for theirs. For he says: "Thus says the Lord your God: I will do this to the house of Israel for my holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations" Ezk 36:22. And after many words of the prophet follows v. 32., "These things will I do, not for your sakes, saith the Lord GOD, that ye may know it." From all this St. Augustine, the defender of grace, concludes with the most holy apostle, the preacher of grace, that it does not lie in man's willing or running, but in God's mercy Rom. 9, 16., who only gives punishment that is deserved, but mercy only that is undeserved. Therefore, all merits must cease here, and there can be none that precede grace. Man, then, outside of grace, necessarily remains a child of wrath, for children of God are only those who are driven by the spirit of God.

First follow-up thesis.

The will of man without the grace is not free, but is servile, though not unwillingly.

This is clear from Joh. 8, 34. 1): "He who commits sin is the servant of sin." The will that sins without grace is therefore not free. This is also evident from the words of the holy evangelist John 8:36, where Christ says: "If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." Therefore Augustine says: "What do you oppose to free will, which, to do righteousness, cannot be free until you are a sheep? He, therefore, who makes men sheep, makes also the human will free to the obedience of godliness." Yet he is not unwilling to serve, but serves willingly. This is also clear from Augustine, in the 1st book against the Pelagians, where he says: "Because in good he cannot be free, since liberation has not made him free, but in evil he has a free will for the enjoyment of wickedness.

  1. In the original erroneously Rom. 7.

and he serves a deception, either openly or secretly, or has persuaded himself." Augustine in the 2nd book against Julian: "You want to make man perfect? oh, that you wanted it by the gift of God and not by the free, but rather unfree choice of your own will."

Second follow-up thesis.

Man, when he does as much as is in him, sins, since he can neither will nor think of himself.

This follow-up thesis is clear, because a bad tree can only bear bad fruit, Matth. 7, 17. But man, if grace is excluded, is a bad tree according to St. Augustine in many places. Therefore, no matter what he does, if he uses his reason as he pleases, if he performs, commands, and does actions without the faith that is active through love, he is always sinning. The same is testified by the apostle, Phil. 2, 13: "It is God who works in you both to will and to do, according to His good pleasure." And in another place, 2 Cor. 3:5: "Not that we are able of ourselves to think anything but of ourselves, but that we are able is of GOD." Augustine says: "To think something good is less than to desire it. Though we think all that we desire, we do not desire all that we think." From this he also concludes, "To that which is less, namely, to think something good, we are not competent as of ourselves, but that we are competent is of GOD: and to that which is more, namely, to desire something good, should we be competent of our own free will without divine assistance?" Prov. 16, 1.: Man sets before him well in his heart, but not without GOD's assistance. The apostle speaks [1 Cor. 12, 3.1: "No one deceives JEsum who speaks by the Spirit of GOD; and no one can call JEsum a LORD unless the LORD has likewise put it in him." Here the apostle speaks spiritually, not actually.2) In actual-

  1. At this point Walch complains about a corrupted text that does not make sense. Although the text of the

12L . V.". l, Mf. 1. about man's ability and will without grace. Grace. W. xvvll,"-". 13

But surely the wise man is called the lord who makes known his will and his opinion by the sound of his voice.

Third follow-up thesis.

Since the righteousness of believers is hidden in God, but their sin is evident in themselves, it is true that only the righteous are condemned and sinners and fornicators are blessed.

With regard to the first part this is clear, because the righteousness of the believers comes solely from the imputation of God according to the saying Ps. 32, 2: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity"; and in another Psalm Ps. 121, 2: "My help comes from the Lord." And Hosea 13:9 says, "Israel, thou bringest thyself into trouble, for thy salvation is with me alone." The second part is clear, for another Psalm Ps. 51:5. speaks of a "sin that is always before me," that is, in my eyes I am always a sinner. And the apostle speaks, Col. 3, 3. 4.: "You have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. But when Christ your life shall be manifested, then shall ye also be manifested with him in glory." Consequently, every saint is consciously a sinner, but unconsciously a righteous one; a sinner according to reality, a righteous one according to hope; a sinner in fact, but a righteous one by the imputation of the merciful God. It is therefore true that only the righteous, that is, those who do not impute sin to themselves, but are righteous in their own eyes, are condemned, but the fornicators, who impute their sins to themselves, are fornicators and sinners in their own eyes, but confess their ungodliness before God and pray for forgiveness of it in due time Ps. 32:6, hoping in Him and not in themselves, will be saved. Here also belongs that the Lord said to the priests and scribes Matth. 21, 31.: "Verily I say unto you, the publicans and the harlots

Weimarsche Ausgabe is significantly better than that offered by the Erlanger Ausgab" Opp. vsr. urx. I, 251, it does not seem to us to be quite correct. Instead of vet proprie, perhaps irou propris would be read, which we have assumed.

may well enter the kingdom of heaven sooner than you." Likewise, "I have not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners" Matt. 9:13; "the sick need a physician" Matt. 9:12; "there will be greater joy in heaven over one sinner" 2c. Luc. 15, 7.

Third thesis.

The grace or love that comes to the rescue only in the utmost need is quite inactive and rather not love; unless one understands by the utmost need not the danger of death but the lack of some thing.

This is evident recently from the well-known saying of St. Ambrose: "The grace of the Holy Spirit knows no idle zeal." And that love does not wait for the danger of death, is evident from the commandment of charity: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." There is no man who does not want to be helped before the danger of death; therefore he must also help others before the danger of death according to the saying of the Savior, Matth. 7, 12: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Likewise 1 John 3:17: "If a man have the goods of this world, and see his brother brought to nought, and shut up his heart against him, how doth the love of God abide with him?"

First follow-up thesis.

Christ JEsus, our power, our righteousness, who tests hearts and kidneys, is the only one who investigates and judges our merits.

This corollary thesis is clear from many passages of Scripture; as: 1 Chron. 29, 9; Deut. 8, 2; from the saying Ps. 46, 1: "God is our confidence and strength, a help in the troubles that have befallen us"; also 1 Cor. 1, 30: "Who was made for us by God for wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption"; Ps. 7, 10: "You, righteous God, test hearts and kidneys." The rest is clear from the saying Ecclesiastes 9:1: "There are the righteous and the wise.

14L .v.".l,LN-r". I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. xvm,ss-ss. 15

and their works in the hand of God, yet no man knows either the love or the hate of one whom he has before him."

Second follow-up thesis.

Since all things are possible to him who believes through the power of Christ, it is superstitious to attribute this help to one saint and that to another, according to human arbitrariness.

That all things are possible to him that believeth, our Saviour, Marc. 9, 23, hath spoken outright, likewise Matth. 21, 22: "Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, if ye believe, ye shall receive it." If, therefore, those who believe are able to do all this, so much the more in other cases, since God will be all in all, it is clear that it is superstitious to ascribe this help to one saint and another help to another, as we see fit. Here also belongs the saying 1 Cor. 3, 21. 22.: "All things are yours; whether life or death, whether things present or things to come, all things are yours"; and Rom. 8, 32.: "How should he not give us all things with him?"

The following has no "contextual connection" with the preceding and > can therefore hardly belong to the second sequential thesis. The > following is perhaps the conclusion of the explanation of the third > sequential thesis, which may have read:

Third follow-up thesis.

By omitting the good, man falls under the punishment of damnation. He can escape this only through grace, which alone works all recognition and doing of the good.

... Augustine in the third chapter "Of Grace": "But even that ignorance, which is not found in those who do not want to muck, but in those who, so to say, are simply ignorant, excuses no one in such a way that he should not therefore burn in the eternal fire, if he has not believed because he has not heard at all what he should have believed; but perhaps, that he should be less inclined to

has to burn." 1) Matth. 19, 10. The disciples say: "If the matter of a woman with a man stands thus, it is not good to become married." The Lord answers, "The word does not fast for everyone, but for those to whom it is given." Weish. 8, 21: "No one can be chaste, unless God gives it." Paul, who had said in 2 Tim. 4, 7, "I have fought a good fight," says in another place 1 Cor. 15, 57., "But thanks be to GOD, who has given us the victory." Likewise, after he had said 2 Tim. 4, 7., "I have run the race, kept the faith," elsewhere 1 Cor. 7, 25., "I have obtained mercy from the LORD to be faithful"; and Eph. 2, 10.: "We are his workmanship, created in Christ JEsu unto all good works." Augustine: "It is not that creation by which we have become men, but that of which He spoke who was already man Ps. 51:12: 'Create in me, O God, a pure heart.'" Augustine: "Grace, namely, helps that each one may be a doer of the law, without which grace man under the law is more only a hearer of the law." When the Lord speaks through the mouth of Ezekiel, Cap. 11, 19: "I will take away the stony heart from them, and will give them a heart of flesh," this is not to be understood in such a way that those may live carnally, who nevertheless must live spiritually, but because a stone is without feeling, to which the hard heart is compared with what else, but the feeling flesh, should the gentle heart have been compared?

^2)^ After the foregoing, it is now easy to answer the question.

  1. Also the Weimar critical edition has retained here the corrumpirten text of the old editions. According to Augustinus la. a. O. of the Mauriner edition) this passage must be corrigirt so: .^<-6 ot illa i^noruntia, "zuns non est eoriim, qui wäre nolunt, 8eri eorum, qui tunlzuuiu 8Uniäi<'it<>r nc^c-iunt, noruinem sie vxousut, nt nompitc-rno ixnv nan "rileut, si proptc-res, non croclüiit, quin non auctivit, "wnino czuui crvdcrot, sv, ut initius arltvut. According to this reading we have translated above.
  2. This sentence has the heading in the editions: Third Consequence Thesis.

16 L. V.". I, "1. 1. about man's ability and will without grace. Grace. D. XVM, "1. 17

*Attachment - Question. )

Do all those baptized in Christ receive the effect of the dew equally?

Thesis.

The grace of baptism is ordinarily and always the same, as far as it comes from God and the sacrament. However, it can be unequal fine, as far as it depends on those who act it, on the merit or the nature of the dispenser and the recipient. 1)

To carry out this thesis, I presuppose that the effect of baptism is twofold. The one follows exactly the performed work

  1. In any case, the text of the original is corrumpirt. It reads: quantum "ä ministe"", meritum, passiovein i'drisN vt rvoipientin sudjeeti. According to the given explanations we assume that it should be read: Quantum "ä ministro", m "ritum svu äispositi "nk>m o "nk "rvntis et reeipiontis sudjveti. The doctrine enunciated in this thesis is still papist.

(opus operatum) or the administration of the sacrament, if there is no obstacle, and all merit of devotion on the part of both the dispenser and the recipient is refrained from. The other effect does not follow from the performance of the work, but from the manner of its performance, that is, from the nature or merit of the dispenser or recipient. The former effect of baptism, which follows the work performed, is the actual sacramental effect. Secondly, it should be noted that various causes come together to produce the effects of baptism: the primary active cause, namely, the glorious God Himself; secondly, the meritorious cause, which is the suffering of Christ, from which the sacraments derive their efficacy; thirdly, the constitutional cause of the recipient, and fourthly, the constitutional cause of the dispenser; and according to each of these, the grace conferred in baptism may be different.

**Luther's 2nd letter to Joham Lang, ) Augustinian prior at Erfurt.

From February 8, 1517.

Translated from Latin.

Luther sends a letter to Lang, Wider die aristotelische Philosophie der Schultheologen (Against the Aristotelian Philosophy of the School Theologians), with the request that it be sent to Trutfetter and that his judgment on it be reported to him.

To the venerable Father Johann Lang, Baccalaureus of Theology, Prior > of the Augustinian Hermits at Erfurt, his beloved friend in the > Lord.

JEsus.

Hail. I send, my father, this letter to the excellent Mr. Jodocus [Trutfet

ter] of Eisenach 2), full of questions against logic, philosophy and theology, that is, full of curses lind blasphemies against Aristotle, Porphyrius and the school teachers (sen-

  1. Trutfetter died in December 1519, as Luther thinks, out of grief over the decline of scholasticism. Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of December 7, 1519.

*) This piece is found in Löscher I, 339; after him in Walch vol. XVIII, 56, klrl. var. "rx-. Vol. I, 254 and Weim. Ausgabe Bd. I, 150 attached to the previous disputation, therefore we too have left it here. **) This letter is found in Auris. I, p. 10; Löscher's Reformation Acta, I, p. 805 and De Wette, I, p. 15. All of these have the date of February 8, 1516 according to the manuscript t'oä. (iotlmn. X. 3W; but that the letter belongs to the year 1517 is proved by Erl. Ausg., Briefwechsel I, 85, from the circumstance that Joh. Lang became prior at Erfurt only in May 1516, as well as that Luther in the letter to Joh. Lang of March I, 1517, inquires whether Jodocus Trutsetter does not want to answer him to the sent quaestions, "which" inquiry would hardly be "teschehrn" only a year later.

18 L. "r^s. 1,8-I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. ". xvm, L f. 19

tentiarios), namely the corrupt study of our time. For this is how those will interpret it who have decided that one must not observe silence for five years, like the Pythagoreans, but always and forever, with the dead, believe everything, always listen, and never attack Aristotle or the sentences with even a small reproach and murmur against them. For what should those not believe who have believed Aristotle that it is true what this arch-slander accuses others of, whether it is so inconsistent that an ass and a stone could not be silent about it?

Therefore, I want you to see to it that this letter is faithfully delivered to the very good man, and then find out what he or everyone else thinks of me in this matter and let me know. I wish nothing more than to make this juggler, who has so much fooled the church with the Greek mask, obvious to many and to show his shame to all, if only I had time. I have under hands short explanations about his first book of physics 1) with which I want to renew the story of Aristaeus 2) against this mei-

  1. Of this commentary by Luther on the first book of Aristotle's Physics, nothing is left, but the disputation given in the next number is, as the Weimar edition says, "to be regarded as an outflow of the studies on it".
  2. Aristaeus, son of the god Apollo and Cyrene, bound the sorcerer Proteus while the latter was engaged in all kinds of

new Proteus, the most cunning seducer of highly gifted people, so that if Aristotle had not been flesh, I would not be afraid to claim that he was truly a devil. Part of my cross, and indeed the greatest, is that I have to see how the most gifted brothers, who were born for good studies, spend their lives with this outward pretense and lose their work; and in addition, the universities do not cease to burn and condemn good books, to produce bad ones again, even to dream them up.

I would like Magister Usingen as well as Eisenach to refrain from this work; indeed, to abstain from it completely for once. 3) I have all cupboards full against their expenses, which, as I see, are completely useless; all others would see this, too, if they were not (as I said) bound by an eternal right of silence 4). Be well and pray for me.

From Wittenberg on February 8, 1517.

Brother Martinus Luther, Augustinian.

Figures turned i into wild beasts, fire, water 2c.); alone Aristaeus held him undaunted ever more firmly, until he declared himself defeated. Virgil, Ooorzzion I V, 317 sf.

  1. However, both died as true scholastics and enemies of the Reformation, and Luther's efforts to win them to the truth were unsuccessful.
  2. This refers to what is said above about the Pythagoreans.

*3. disputation against scholastic theology. )

1517.

Held on September 4, 1517 at Wittenberg by Franz Günther from Nordhausen to obtain the dignity of Baccalaureus of the Holy Scriptures under the chairmanship of Martin Luther, Dean of the Theological Faculty.

Translated from the Latin.

The following theses will be publicly defended at a time and place to be determined by Magister Franz Günther of Nordhausen for the attainment of the dignity of a Baccalaureus under the chairmanship of the venerable father Martin Luther, Augustinian, Dean of the Wittenberg theological faculty.

1 To say that Augustine goes too far in what he speaks against the heretics is as much as to say that Augustine lied almost everywhere. - Against the general speech.

  1. it is also as much as to the Pelagians

*) These theses are not found in any single print, but for the first time in the collection of various disputations, which is set in 1520 and came out under the title: InsiMium tkooloxorum, Domini

20 T.V.". l, 31L-3I7. 3. disputation against the scholastic theology. M. xvm,"-". 21

and give all heretics cause to triumph, even concede victory to them.

3 And it is as much as making a mockery of the reputation of all the teachers of the church.

It is therefore true that the man who has become an evil tree can only will and do evil.

It is false that free desire is able to do something according to both opposites; indeed, it is not free at all, but imprisoned. - Against the general opinion.

(6) It is false that the will can by nature be directed according to the right rule of reason. - Against Scotus and Gabriel.

  1. but without the grace of God, he inevitably produces an action that does not correspond to it and is evil.

8 But it does not follow that he is evil by nature, that is, the nature of evil, as the Manichaeans teach.

9 However, it is inherently and inevitably evil and depraved in nature.

It is conceded that the will is not free to turn to everything that is held up to it as good. - Against Scotus and Gabriel.

  1. nor does he have it in his power to want or not to want everything that is held against him.

12 Thus to speak is not against Augustine when he says: "Nothing is so in the power of the will as the will itself."

The conclusion is quite inconsistent: The erring man can love the creature above all, consequently also God. - Against Scotus and Gabriel.

(14) It is not to be wondered at that he can be guided by the erroneous rule of reason and not by the right one.

15 Yes, it is peculiar to him that he can only follow the wrong one and not the right one.

Rather, one should conclude thus: The erring man can love the creature, consequently it is impossible for him to love God.

  1. man cannot by nature want GOD to be GOD; rather, he wants him to be GOD and GOD not to be GOD.
  1. To love God above all things by nature is a fictitious saying, just like the chimera...) - Against the almost general opinion.

19 And the reason of Scotus of a good citizen who loves his state more than himself does not apply.

  1. an act of friendship does not come to nature, but to obliging grace. - Against Gabriel.

In nature, there are only acts of lust against God.

  1. Every act of lust against God is evil and fornication of the spirit.

(23) Nor is it true that the action of desire can be rectified by the virtue of hope. - Against Gabriel.

(24) For hope is not contrary to love, which alone seeks and desires what is of God.

Hope does not come from merit, but from suffering, which cancels out merit. - Against the custom of many.

  1. an act of friendship is not the most perfect way to do what is in it, nor is it the most perfect qualification for the grace of God or the way to turn to God and approach Him.

It is an act of conversion already completed, later in time and nature than grace.

  1. if of the sayings, "Return unto me, and I will return unto you" Zech. 1:3; likewise, "Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you" Jac. 4:8; likewise:
  1. The Chimera is a monster that consisted of a lion in the front, a goat in the middle that breathed fire, and a dragon in the back. Bellerophon killed it.

lartini luitliori, XruZr. lüarolostnäii, kk. Nslaooktkonis et alioruin oonolnsionoü vnrias pro äivinao xrntäav ästensioos "o eorumsnäLtions: eontrn scliolastieoZ st polu^iunon oto. Then they came into the Wittenberg Theses - Collections of 1530 and 1531, which appeared under the title: kropo^itionos a ölnrtino I,otkero sudinäv äisputntao, and into the Baseler Thesm-Sammlung v. I. 1538. In the Gesammt-Ausgaben they are in Latin: in the Wittenberg (tom. I, col. 55), Jena <tom. l, col. 9), Erl. Ausg. opp. int. varii nrx. (I, p. 315), Weim. crit. Ausg. (vol. I, p. 221). Löscher also excluded them from his Reformation Acta. In German, they are found in the so-called Hallischer Theil (p. 87) and in the Leipziger Ausg. (Part XVII, p. 143). The Walch translation is replaced here by a new one.

22 L. V. s. 1,317 f. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. xvm,"-U. 23

"Seek and ye shall find" Matt. 7:7; likewise, "If ye seek me, I will be found of you" Jer. 29:13; and such as say that the one is due to nature, the other to grace, nothing else is asserted than what the Pelagians have said.

The best and infallible preparation and the only qualification for grace is the eternal election and provision of God.

(30) But on the part of man, grace is preceded by nothing but inability, even indignation against grace.

  1. It is the most futile fiction, if it is said that the sentence: An elect can be damned, is true, if one separates the terms in 8c-n8u äivwo, but not, if one takes them together in sensu composito. 1) - Against the scholastics.
  2. Just as little comes out of the statement: The election is necessary according to the necessity of the consequence scon8equentia,6^, but not out of necessity of the following ooWeguvnti. 2)

(33) It is also false that if a man does as much as is in him, he removes the obstacles of grace. - Against some.

In short, nature has neither a right rule of reason, nor even a good will.

  1. it is not true that an insurmountable ignorance excuses altogether from sin-against all scholastics.

For ignorance, which knows nothing about God and itself, nor what good works are, is always insurmountable to nature.

Nature even gloats and necessarily rises inwardly at every work that is apparently and outwardly good.

  1. there is no moral virtue that can be de-
  1. E.g. the sentence: "The sleeping can wake" is correct in !" n^n Nivi8n, since a man can sleep as well as wake, but at different times; only in svn.-ni cvn>i""-ito the sentence is wrong, because who sleeps, cannot wake at the same time.
  2. What God wants must always happen (nocw-üät"" consequentiae), therefore a person chosen by God must necessarily be saved. But that just this person had to be chosen (necessitas conseguontis), there is no necessity for it.

would be neither without pride nor without sadness, that is, without sin.

We are not masters of our actions from beginning to end, but servants. - Against the philosophers.

(40) We do not become righteous by performing righteous acts, but after becoming righteous, we perform righteous acts. - Against the philosophers.

Almost the entire moral doctrine of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. - Against the Scholastics.

It is a misconception that Aristotle's opinion on happiness does not contradict Christian doctrine. - Against the moral teachings.

It is a mistake to claim that no one becomes a theologian without Aristotle. - Against the general speech.

Yes, no one becomes a theologian unless he becomes one without Aristotle.

To say that a theologian who is not a logician is a monstrous heretic is monstrous and heretical speech. - Against the general speech.

In vain, one invents a logic of faith, a substitution, brought about without proper manner of speaking and limits suppositio ineckiutn extrn terminum et numerum. - Against the newer dialecticians.

No syllogistic form holds stitch in statements about divine things. - Against the Cardinal svon Cambray]. 3)

48 It does not follow, however, that the truth of the article of the Trinity contradicts the syllogistic forms. - Against the same and the Cardinal of Cambray.

If a syllogistic form would hold in divine things, one could know the article of the Trinity and would not need to believe it.

In short, the whole of Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light. - Against the Scholastics.

  1. Pierre d'Ailly. In the X. Volume X of the St. Louis edition, p. 191, in the "Other Theological Disputation on the Secret of the Holy Trinity" 2c. Christian Massaeus, who, because he was also from Cambray, had the epithet Cameracensis, but was not a Cardinal and had no significance at all in scholasticism.

24 3 Disputation against scholastic theology. W.xvm.u-ir. 25

  1. it is to be doubted strongly, pb the right mind of the Aristoteles is with the Latins.
  2. it would have been better for the church if PorphyriuS with his universals had never been born to the theologians.

The more common explanations of Aristotle seem to foresee as proven what they should first prove.

  1. For a meritorious action, either the presence of grace is sufficient, or the presence is nothing. - Against Gabriel.
  2. The grace of God is never present in such a way that it is idle, but it is a living, busy and active spirit, and it cannot happen even by God's unlimited omnipotence that there is an act of friendship and the grace of God is not present. - Against Gabriel.
  3. God cannot accept a man without the justifying grace of God. - Against Occam.

This speech is dangerous: the law commands that the fulfillment of the commandment be done in the grace of God. - Against the Cardinal and Gabriel.

From it would follow that "to have the grace of God" is already a new requirement beyond the law.

It would follow from the same that the fulfillment of the commandment could happen without the grace of God.

60 Likewise, it would follow that the grace of God would become even more detestable than the law itself was.

  1. one cannot conclude: the law "must be kept and fulfilled in the grace of God: - Against Gabriel.

(62) Therefore, he who is outside the grace of God constantly sins by not killing, not committing adultery, not stealing.

63 But this follows: he sins by not fulfilling the law spiritually.

(64) Spiritually wise do not kill, do not break marriage, do not steal, who has no anger nor evil desire.

(65) Outside of the grace of God, it is so impossible not to have anger and evil desire that this cannot even be done in grace sufficient for the perfect fulfillment of the Law.

  1. not killing in the work and outwardly, not breaking marriage 2c. is a righteousness of hypocrites.
  2. It is by the grace of God that one has no evil desire nor anger.

Therefore, it is impossible to fulfill the Law in any way without the grace of God.

Yes, it is rather broken even more by nature without the grace of God.

The law, though good, is necessarily evil for the natural will.

Without the grace of God, law and will are two irreconcilable opposites.

What the law wants, the will always does not want, unless it pretends out of fear or love that it wants.

The law is a driver of the will, which alone is overcome by the "child that is born to us" Is. 9:6.

  1. the law makes sin exceedingly sinful Rom. 7, 13., because it irritates and draws the will back from itself.

75 But the grace of God makes righteousness through Jesus Christ exceedingly righteous, because it makes one have pleasure in the law.

Every work of the law without the grace of God appears outwardly as good, but inwardly it is sin. - Against the Scholastics.

The will is always turned away and the hand is turned toward the law of the Lord without the grace of God.

The will, which is turned toward the law without the grace of God, is so only out of consideration for its own advantage.

  1. Cursed are all those who do the works of the law.

Blessed are all those who work works of God's grace.

The chapter Falsas: de poenit. <1i8s. 5, affirms that the works outside of grace are not good; if it is not misunderstood.

  1. not only the ceremonial law is the not good law and the commandments in which one does not live: - Against many teachers.
  2. but also the ten commandments themselves and everything that can only be taught and prescribed internally and externally.

26 L. v.". i, rro s. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. 27

The good law and the one in which one lives is the love of God poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit.

The will of every man would prefer that there be no law and that he be completely free.

The will of every man hates to have a law laid upon him, or desires it to be laid upon him only out of self-love.

Since the law is good, the will that is hostile to it cannot be good.

And from this it is clear and evident that every natural will is unjust and evil.

As a mediator, grace is necessary to reconcile the law with your will.

  1. The grace of God is given to guide the will, so that it does not also err in the love of God. - Against Gabriel.
  2. It is not given in order to bring about acts of love more frequently and easily, but because without it, no act of love is brought about at all. - Against Gabriel.

The proof is irrefutable that love is superfluous when man is naturally able to do an act of friendship. - Against Gabriel.

It is shrewd but wicked subtils malum to say that enjoyment and use are one and the same act. - Against Occam, the Cardinal and Gabriel.

The same is true when it is said that the love of God can exist even with a fierce love for the creature.

To love God is to love oneself and to know nothing except God.

We are required to conform our wills entirely to the will of God. - Against the Cardinal.

  1. Not only what God wants us to want, but in general everything that God wants, we must want.

In all this we do not want to say anything, nor do we believe to have said anything, which would not be in accordance with the Christian church and the church teachers.

*Luther's 4th letter to Johann Lang. )

of September 4, 1517.

Translated from Latin.

Luther sends the theses communicated in the previous number to Johann Lang.

His brother Johann Lang, prior of the Augustinian hermits at > Erfurt, the new licentiate of sacred theology.

JEsus.

Hail. I have sent you through Magister Otto 1) our theses and my interpretation of the ten commandments. 2) However, I had

  1. Otto Beckmann, who had been a teacher at the university in Wittenberg, then went to Erfurt to continue his studies there.
  2. The Weimar edition assumes in vol. I, 39tj, that Luther here refers to a German adaptation of this scripture made by himself, which now no longer exists.

At that time, I did not have so much time to write something about it, because I was informed that he was leaving immediately. By the way, I am waiting very much, beyond measure, tremendously and anxiously to see what opinion you will form about these wonderful sentences of ours; for I really suspect that these sentences will seem strange, even heretical, to your people, while they can only be in accordance with the right doctrine to us.

is available. The translation included in Walch, alte Ausgab", Vol. Ill, 1632-IW5 is improved from the Latin by Zeidler after the Gallic part p. 2-8H.

*) Latin in Aurifaber vol. I, p. 36; Lösrber's Neformations-Acta, vol. I, p. 818; De Wette I, p. 60; Erl. Edition, Briefwechsel, Vol. I, p. 106. The text of the latter is the basis of our translation.

28 4 . letter from Luther to Johann Lang. ". rvm, is 29

Therefore, let me know as soon as possible and, at my request, offer it in the most certain way to my lords and truly venerable fathers of the theological faculty and others to whom it seems good to you, and let them know that I am of course quite willing to come and discuss it publicly, either at the university or in the monastery, so that they may not think that I want to mumble this into a corner, when our university is so small that it could appear as a corner. I have therefore sent you the interpretation of the Ten Commandments in both languages, so that you might, if you wished, preach about them to the people; for this is why I have taught them, as I believe, in an evangelical way.

I believe that you will find the Magister

You also know Johann, the Antonite, teacher at Brieg; he has died, as Magister Johannes Heß, as I believe, will have already reported to you. You have robbed the brother Nicolaus of Antwerp 1) of too much money, therefore we must sue you for extortion, because you are not allowed as much as we are. Farewell.

From Wittenberg, September 4, 1517.

Brother Martinus Luther.

Send back the apostle's letter to the Galatians as soon as possible, because it is the property of the brother Augustin of Cologne.

  1. Nicolaus Jodocus of Antwerp, honored by the University of Leuven with the title of Master, also moved to the University of Erfurt in the following winter semester (according to the Erl. edition).

Luther's 5th letter to Spalatin.

*of November 11, 1517. ) Translated from the Latin.

Luther explains the 35th thesis of the above disputation.

His brother in Christ Georg Spalatin, secretary to the Elector of > Saxony.

JEsus.

Hail. With all my heart and through your kindness, dear Spalatin, I thank our most noble prince, because I have received the cloth. But I also thank you, yes, what do I not have to thank you for? By the way, I wonder what may have happened to him, I say, who told you that Augustine, in his book "On Christian Doctrine", deals with the matter of insurmountable ignorance, while this holy man, in that entire book, deals only with the first and last part of rhetoric, namely the invention and the lecture, for the instruction of the doctrine of the Christian people.

With the ignorance behaves the. The matter is like this: The scholastic teachers have taught until now that there is a twofold ignorance in any matter, especially that which relates to our salvation. One is a deliberate and gross ignorance, when one sees that one acts in such a way that he deliberately and knowingly wants to be ignorant; the other is an insurmountable ignorance, when one acts in such a way that it is not up to him if he does not receive knowledge; and of the former they say that it increases sin, but of the latter that it completely excuses it.

Against this, as you see, I have put my thesis and my opinion is briefly this: By all means every ignorance is insurmountable for us, but no ignorance is insurmountable for the grace of God; for out of ourselves we are able to do nothing, but out of the grace of God we are able to do everything, and the more we strive out of ourselves for wisdom, the more we approach

*) Latin in Aurifaber vol. I, p. 42; Löschers ReformationS-Acta, vol. 1, p. 84V; De Wette, vol. I, p. 74 and Lrl. AuSg., Briefw., vol. I, p. 127.

30 L. Br.-W. 1,128. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. rvill,i7. 31

We are guilty of foolishness, as Solomon says Eccl. 7:24, "I thought I would be wise, but it came from me"; and as the apostle Rom. 1 writes that the Gentiles have done. Therefore it is not true that insurmountable ignorance excuses from sin; otherwise there would be no sin in the world. Be at ease and pray for me.

From Wittenberg, November 11, 1517. Bruder Martin Luther, > Augustinian. > > Other related writings that provide information about Luther's > position on Aristotelian philosophy and theology can be found in the > following places:

a. Letter from Luther to Joh. Lang. End of September or beginning of October 1516. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 552.

(Concerning the disputation of Bartholomäus Bernhardt von Feldkirch in this volume no. 1 about man's ability and will without grace).

b. Letter from Luther to Spalatin. In this volume: Appendix No. 3.

(Against Erasmus' theology of true righteousness that is before GOD).

c. Letter from Luther to Joh. March 1, 1517. In this volume: Appendix No. 4.

(Luther's judgment of the theology of Erasmus.)

d. Luther's letter to Joh. Lang, May 18, 1517. In this volume: Appendix No. 1.

(Luther reports how Aristotle decreases).

e. Letter from Luther to Joh. June 16, 1517. In this volume: Appendix No. 2.

(Luther reports that he prepared some for Aristotle to the disgrace of a master's degree).

f. Luther's letter to Joh. Lang. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 485.

(Luther's Judgment of Aristotle and the Doctrine of the Scholastics. With special reference to the Günther disputation on scholastic theology).

g. Letter from Luther to Staupitz. March 31, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1356.

(About the hatred of the scholastic theologians against Luther in consequence of his appearance against their theology).

h. Letter from Luther to Spalatin. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix no. 10.

(Against the dialectical treatment of theology.)

i. Sermon against the conceit of holiness and merit of works. On the 10th Sunday after Trinity. (There erroneously 11.) Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1284.

k. Sermon on the principal sins expressed in the merit of the works. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 1288.

*6. fragment of a lecture by Luther. )

Probably from the first quarter of the year 1518.

Löscher supplements the beginning of this paper with the

Question: Whether one must despair in sins? and gives as > an answer the > > Sentence (conclusio): One need not despair in tribulations nor in > sins.

The following is translated from the Weimar edition:

Just as impatience, consternation, and sadness are not really and primarily

arises from the multitude of afflictions and adversities, or from the loss of any goods, but rather from a movement of mind which abhors such things and foolishly seeks much happiness and glory: so also despair and spiritual sadness, or the consternation of one's conscience, arises not from the multitude of sins, but rather from the multitude and number of the sins and adversities.

*) About the manuscript from which this writing is taken, time of writing and so on, the necessary information is given in the first note to No. 1 in this volume.

32 L. V. a. 1,23^-238. 6. fragment of a lecture by Luther. W. XVIII, 21-25. 33

good works or from the love of one's own righteousness, which abhors sin but foolishly seeks its own righteousness.

The first is clear from what the prophet says Ps. 5:12: "Let all who trust in you rejoice and be glad in you," namely, all who are believers in Christ share in the sufferings of Christ and have plenty of them. The wicked also have sufferings, but they do not trust in God; only those who know that one must rejoice and be glad do not grieve over the sufferings because of this wisdom of theirs, nor do they become upset or impatient over them, and have no desire for happiness, well-being, and honor. Those who do not know and do not want to know that one must rejoice and be glad in God, become sorrowful, upset and impatient, not because misfortune and affliction come, but because when it comes, they do not set their minds on God, but on happiness and good fortune; therefore they flee and yet cannot escape, because they do not flee what is to be fled. Thus it is said in Isa. 30, 15. 16.: "By being still and hoping you would be strong; but you will not and say, No, but on horses we will flee; therefore you will be fugitives and be put to flight, and your persecutors will overtake you." Therefore, this affliction is caused by the mind's desire for joy and glory; if it did not cling to it so much, it would consider the affliction nothing.

The second is equally clear, because many and great sinners have become blessed, who would not have become blessed if the multitude of sins had caused despair; but the disordered mind looks back, and man desires good in himself at the time of despair, in order to oppose it to the sins that oppress him; and if he then does not find the same, since he does not know that one must flee to the mercy of God, he necessarily despairs. So the unhappy conscience dies and, hurrying to God's judgment, says to itself and disputes with itself: O, who would have done much good now! Oh, who would not have done evil now! Who would have remained pure all the time!

These words are so full of foolishness that none can be greater. What else do they testify but that he does not trust in God but in good works? Because he says that he will and can trust more confidently and cheerfully when he has a multitude of good works and righteousness. For if one trusts in GOD because of good works, then one trusts more in good works than in GOD; and what can there be more terrible and ungodly than this? Such do not say Ps. 5:8, "But I will go into thy house upon thy great goodness," 2c; but, "Upon my great righteousness." For if thou didst or wouldest trust in GOD only because thou didst or wouldest do good, trust so much more when thou hast done sin and evil, lest it be said to us Luc. 8:13., "They believe in thee as long as thou doest good to them, but in time of temptation they fall away." For thus those who have great good and honor suppose themselves to be joyful in GOtte, but they trust more in their own good and honor, as the temptation proves.

It is a terrible wrath to fear, and especially dangerous in our time, because so many who live holy and pious lives think that they trust in God in the strongest possible way, and yet, unconsciously to themselves, they rather trust in their holiness, as the hour of death will prove when they come into the judgment of God, and therefore die all the more confidently, because they are conscious of a good life and trust in God in this. It happens to them as it does to one who wants to set his foot on a log floating in the water; suddenly he falls into the depths: so also the works of those, when they are examined in the judgment of God, will be found to be terrible sins, because they trusted in them and did not, as completely naked sinners, quite sincerely give glory to the mercy of God. Therefore, just as impatience in well-doing is a nullity, so also the confidence found in merit is a nullity, and just as it is useless to have patience in well-doing, so also it is useless to have confidence in merit. For the essence of patience is that

34 L.V.Ä. 1,238-240. . I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. XVIII, 25-29. 35

it is only present in misfortune: so it is also the nature of trust that it is only present in sins, when otherwise the inestimable mercy of God, in order to share Himself with us and to take away our trust in ourselves, has given the law, which has decided everything under sin, in order to have mercy on all Rom. 11, 32.. For where there is no law, there is no sin; where there is no sin, there is no mercy; where there is no mercy, there is no trust; and where there is no trust, there is no salvation. And so the power of sin is the law, but the power of the law is mercy, but the power of mercy is trust, but the power of trust is salvation, but the power of salvation is God through Jesus Christ, For the law works sin, but mercy works and fulfills the law, but trust works mercy, salvation works trust, but God works salvation and everything.

Addition (corollarium).

So it is also in temporal things; for the temporal goods are given to us by God so that through them we may learn to honor, love and trust in God more; through corruption of our minds it happens that we serve and trust in God more heavily and less, yes, we seek God, serve Him, trust in Him more easily and more in misfortune than in prosperity. So it is also in spiritual things that the goods of grace and merits are given by God, so that we may be taught thereby to trust more and more in God; and behold, through the infirmity of our mind, which imagines something about this, it happens that one trusts more heavily and less in Him, yes, does not trust in Him at all, but that it is easier and safer to trust in God in sins than in good and merits. And just as it is dangerous when a person trusts in the good

is left because he does not learn to love God, or yet learns to do so very rarely and with difficulty: so also here it is dangerous if a person is left in great grace and merit until his death, for he will hardly or only very hardly learn to trust in God; indeed, without the Spirit not at all.

But lest anyone should take offense at these words, I add: One interjects: consequently one must sin and refrain from good, or, as was objected to the apostle Rom. 3:8: "Let us do evil, that good may come of it." For when we speak in this way, it seems as if we were giving permission to sin and forbidding good as harmful to salvation. Therefore I answer this, so that this may be rightly understood: Good works are not forbidden, indeed, they are most strongly advised in these words; but only this very carnal mind of ours, which trusts in these works and not in the mere mercy of God, is to be instructed, so that it may know that true hope is nothing but an infused power. With all our good works and efforts, we must seek to obtain such hope from God that we may become worthy of mercy, not that, when we have done these works, we should immediately presume that we have hope in our possession, but that we should know that we must always strive and seek for it. For this is why sin exists, that in sins we may be able to hope; but we may do good works as we please, but we must acknowledge that we are always in sins. But where a good life is not led, it is indeed difficult, but still more difficult for others. Therefore prayer alone remains, so that despair may be overcome on both sides, and hope may fall neither on the left nor on the right, "though a thousand fall on the left, and ten thousand on the right." Ps. 91:7.

36 L. V. a. 1.387. 7 The Heidelberg Disputation. W. Lvm. S7 f. 37

*7th Disputation held at Heidelberg. )

1518.

a. The theses.

Under the presidency of Brother Martin Luther, Master of Sacred Theology, Brother Leonhard Beyer, Master of Philosophy and Liberal Arts, will defend these theses before the Augustinians of this famous city of Heidelberg at the usual place, on April 26, 1518.

From Theology.

Completely suspicious of ourselves according to the advice of the Holy Spirit (Prov. 3, 5.): "Do not rely on your own understanding", we humbly hand over the following unusual sentences to the judgment of all those who wish to attend, so that it may be revealed whether they come from the holy apostle Paul, the most chosen vessel and work, or not.

Christ, as well as from St. Augustine, his most faithful interpreter:

  1. the law of God, the most wholesome teaching of life, cannot promote man to righteousness, but rather hinders him.
  1. Much less can the works of men, which are repeatedly done by the help of the rule of natural reason, as they say, promote this.
  1. although the works of men are always apparent and seem good, it is probable that they are mortal sins.

(4) Although the works of God are always inconsequential and seem bad, they are in fact immortal merits.

  1. the works of men, we speak

*) We have combined the four pieces related to the Heidelberg Disputation, which are separated in Walch's old edition, because especially the explanation of the sixth thesis had not been recognized as belonging to it: 1. They were published first, and only the theological ones, in the Theses Collections already given by us in the first note to No. 3 in this volume. In the complete editions, namely in Latin: Wittenberger (vol. I, col. 54), Jenaer (vol. I, col. 27), Erl. Ausg. (vur. ars. I, p. 387), and finally Weimarsche kritische Ausg. (vol. I, p. 353); the German translation by I. G. Zeidler has been included in the Hallische Theil (p. 120), in the Leipzig edition (vol. XVII, p. 146), and in the old Walch edition, which has been replaced by a new translation in this revised edition. - 2 The 28 theological theses with short proofs. They are first found in Latin in the Wittenberg GesammtAusgabe (vol. I, col. 141), from which they passed into the Latin Jena edition (vol. I, col. 28), from which Löscher printed them in his Reformation Acta (vol. II, p. 47), and the Erl. Ausg. opp. lut. var. urZ. (vol. I, p. 390). The Weimarsche kritische Ausg. brings it in its I. They were also translated into German by Zeidler, whose translation is included in the editions mentioned in 1. - 3 The explanation of the sixth thesis. In the older complete editions, only the last part of it appears, and that as a special writing, in the Latin Wittenberg edition. (Vol. I, col. 196) under the title: Ooutra Koüolastioorurn sententiara with the correct date 1518, in the Latin Jenaer Ausg. (Vol. I, col. 181) under the expanded title: Hxplieutio looi Leelssiustis 7th: Xon 68t sustus in t6rra ete. Oontru Koüolustieornin 86nt6ntia,rn. Under this title, it is included in Löscher's Reform Act (Vol. II, p. 325) and is included as a special document next to the Huu68tio II mentioned in No. 1, Note 1. This is also the case in the later complete editions: German in the Leipz. Ausg., Suppl., p. 18; in the old Walchsche Ausg., Bd. V, Sp. 2364, and Latin in the Erl. Ausg., ox>x>. 6X6Z., XXI, x. 252. As supposedly not yet printed and as Huaestio II, this explanation from an old manuscript from 1.1518 appeared in the "Innocent News for the Year 1703", which we have already discussed sub No. 1 in this volume. Also in the translation of this piece, we followed the Weimar edition, Vol. I, 365 ff. The three pieces discussed above are undisputed and certainly by Luther. But it is different with the explanations of the first two philosophical theses. 4. Already Walch (Einl. p. 17) doubts after Cyprian's processes that they come from Luther. The Weimar edition has omitted them "because nothing speaks for Luther", but against him the external testimony that they are marked in the Gotha manuscript, from which they are taken, with the words: äisxutatio LutUeri HeiäeUrerMs, per Ltikeliuru (namely exxlioutu). They are explanations, not, as the title says, to the 11th and 12th philosophical thesis, but to the first and second. We have retained them because they are in Walch's old edition and could therefore be missed by some.

38 L.v. a.1.387-389. 1. against the semipelagian school theologians. W. XVHI. SS-"1. 39

here of the good ones, as they appear, are not mortal sins in the way that they would be crimes.

6 The works of God, we speak of those that are done through man, are not merits in such a way that they are not also sins.

  1. the works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they were not feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.

(8) Much more are the works of men mortal sins, since they are done without fear in pure and evil certainty.

9 To say that works without Christ are dead but not deadly seems to be a dangerous abandonment of the fear of God.

(10) Yes, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and yet not be a harmful or deadly sin.

(11) Presumption cannot be avoided, nor can there be true hope, unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work.

  1. Then, with God, sins are truly forgivable when they are feared by people as deadly.

Free will after the Fall is a mere name, and by doing as much as is in it, it sins mortally.

14 Free will after the Fall is able to do good through a suffering faculty, but in evil always through an active one.

(15) Even in the state of innocence he could not remain by an active, but only by a suffering capacity, let alone progress in good.

(16) The man who thinks he will attain to grace by doing what is in him adds to sin, so that he becomes doubly guilty.

(17) To speak in this way is not to give cause for despair, but to encourage the effort to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.

(18) It is certain that man must first despair of himself completely in order to be able to obtain the grace of Christ.

  1. not the one who rightly becomes a theologian

who sees the invisible things of God as conceived through what has become.

  1. but who understands the visible and lesser things of God, seen through the cross and suffering.

21 A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil, but a theologian of the cross calls things as they are.

(22) That wisdom, which considers the invisible things of God to be understood from the works, completely inflates, blinds and hardens.

  1. and the law works the wrath of God, kills, curses, makes guilty, judges and condemns everything that is not in Christ.

24 And yet that wisdom is not evil, nor to flee the law; but man without the theology of the cross misuses the best in the worst way.

25 Not he that worketh effectually is righteous, but he that believeth much in Christ without work.

(26) The law says, Do this, and it is never done; grace says, Believe in this, and all is already done.

(27) The work of Christ should properly be called active, and our work should be called active, and thus the active work should be pleasing to God through the grace of the active work.

The love of God does not find, but creates what is lovable to it; the love of man, however, arises from what is lovable to it.

From Philosophy.

If you want to philosophize in Aristotle without danger, you must first become a complete fool in Christ.

(30) Just as no one uses the evil of the fleshly air more than a married man, so no one practices philosophy more than a Christian.

It was easy for Aristotle to assume that the world is eternal, since in his opinion the human soul is mortal.

After one had assumed that there are as many essential forms (formas substantiales) as there are composite things, one should also have necessarily assumed that there are just as many matters.

40 L. V. a. 1,389-391. 7 The Heidelberg Disputation. W. LVIII, 61-63. 41

(33) No thing in the world necessarily becomes anything, but matter necessarily becomes everything that naturally becomes.

If Aristotle had recognized the unlimited power of God, he would also have claimed that it is impossible for matter to exist on its own.

35 There is no thing that is infinite in activity, but according to capacity and matter there are as many as there are composite things; so Aristotle holds.

Aristotle reproves and violates the philosophy of Platonic ideas, which is better than his own.

The imitation of the numbers in the things is asserted in a witty way by Pythagoras, but more witty is the community of the ideas of Plato.

The argument of Aristotle against "the one" of Parmenides leads (one holds this to a Christian's credit) air pranks.

If Anaxagoras, as it seems, has set an infinite in form, he has been the best of the philosophers, also in spite of Aristotle.

In Aristotle, deprivation, matter, form, movable, immovable, activity, capacity 2c all seem to be One Thing.

b. Evidence of the theses,

*which was discussed in the chapter at Heidelberg in the year of our salvation 1518, in the month of May. )

1st thesis.

The Law of God, the most salutary teaching of life, cannot promote man to righteousness, but rather hinders him.

This is clear from the Apostle to the Romans 3:21: "Without the law the righteousness that is before God is revealed." St. Augustine interprets this in his book "Of the Spirit and the Letter": "Without the law, that is, without its being done." And Rom. 5, 20. it says: "The law came in next to it, so that sin might become more powerful." And Cap. 7, v. 9: "But when the commandment came, sin revived." Therefore, in the 8th chapter, the apostle calls the law a law of death and a law of sin. Yes, 2 Cor.-3, 6.: "The letter kills", which St. Augustine understands throughout his whole book "Of the Spirit and the Letter" of every, also the most holy law of God.

2nd thesis.

Much less can the works of men, which are repeatedly done by the help of the rule of natural reason, as they say, promote this.

For since the law of God, which is holy and undefiled, true and just, 2c is given to man by God for help, beyond his natural powers, in order to enlighten and move him to good, and yet the opposite happens, that he becomes more evil, how can he, left to his own powers, be promoted to good without such help? He does less from his own who does not do good even with the help of another. That is why the apostle to the Romans on the 3rd, v. 10 ff., calls all men corrupt and unfit who neither know nor seek God, but all, he says, have gone astray.

3rd thesis.

Although the works of men are always apparent and seem good, it is probable that they are mortal sins.

The works of men seem beautiful, but inwardly they are full of filth, as Christ says of the Pharisees, Match. 23, 27. For they seem good and beautiful to Himself and to others, but God does not judge by appearance, but "tests hearts and kidneys." sPs. 7, 10.] But without grace and faith it is impossible to have a pure heart, like

*) In the original: LLeuso Hluz'o. This is an inaccurate timing, since the disputation took place on April 26.

42 L V. L. 1,391-393. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. XVIII, 63-66. 43

it Apost. 15, 9: "He purified their hearts through faith.

Therefore, the thesis is proved in this way: If the works of righteous men are sins, as the 7th thesis says, much more the works of men who are not yet righteous. But the righteous speak for their works: "Do not go into judgment with your servant, O Lord, for before you no living man is righteous" Ps. 143, 2.. Likewise saith the apostle, Gal. 3:10: "They that deal in the works of the law are under the curse." But the works of men are works of the law, and the curse is not laid on slight venial sins: consequently they are mortal sins. Thirdly, Rom. 2, 21. says: "You teach that one should not steal, and you steal"; which St. Augustine interprets: namely, according to their guilty will, they are thieves, though they outwardly judge and teach other thieves.

4. thesis.

Even though the works of God are always inconformity and seem to be bad, they are immortal merits.

That the works of God are without form is clear from the saying Isa. 53, 2: "He had no form nor beauty"; likewise 1 Sam. 2, 6: "The Lord kills and makes alive, leads into hell and out again." This is understood to mean that the Lord humbles and terrifies us by the law and the sight of our sins, so that we appear to our eyes and the eyes of men as nothing, as foolish and evil, yes, in truth we are so. And in recognizing and confessing this, there is no form nor beauty in us, but we live hidden in God (that is, in the mere trust in His mercy), since we have nothing in us when God asks us but the answer of sin, foolishness, death and hell, according to that saying of the apostle, 2 Cor. 6, 10. 9: 'As those who mourn, but always rejoice; as those who die, and behold, we live.'" And this is what Isaiah Cap. 28, 21. calls "the strange work of God, that he might work his work" according to the Vulgate (i.e., he humbles us in us by making us despair, in order that he may thereby keep us in his mercy).

(To increase our beauty by making us trust), just as it is said in Hab. 3:2: "When you are angry, think again of mercy. Such a man therefore displeases himself in all his works; he sees no beauty, but only his unshape. Yes, he also does outwardly what appears foolish and unshapely to others.

But this deformity arises in us either when God chastises us or when we accuse ourselves, according to the saying 1 Cor. 11, 31.: "For if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged by the Lord." And this is what is said Deut. 32, 36. "The LORD will judge his people, and over his servants he will have mercy." Thus, the undeformed works that God works in us, that is, the humble works done in fear, are truly immortal, for the humility and fear of God is all our merit.

5. thesis.

The works of men, we speak here of the good ones as they appear, are not mortal sins in the way that they would be crimes.

For crimes are such actions that can also be accused before men, such as adultery, theft, murder, slander 2c.; but mortal sins are those that seem good, but are inwardly fruits of an evil root and tree. Thus Augustin in the 4th book against Julian.

6. thesis.

The works of God, we speak of those done through man, are not merits in the way that they are not also sins.

Ecclesiastes, Cap. 7, 21, says: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin." But here it is said by some that the righteous does sin, but not when he does good. To these one answers: If this is what this saying meant to say, why does it waste so many words? Or perhaps the Holy Spirit takes pleasure in much and foolish talk? For this mind would be sufficiently expressed thus: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does not sin"; why does he add: "who does good"?

44 V. a. 1,39S-39S. 7. the Heidelberg Disputation. W. XVM, 6K-SS. 45

do" ? as if another were a righteous man who acts wickedly. For no one but a righteous man acts well. But where he speaks of sins apart from good works, he says thus, Prov. 24:16: "The righteous falls seven times a day." Here he does not say, "The righteous falls seven times a day when he does good." For it is the same thing: Just as when someone strikes with a rusty, rough hatchet, even though the worker is a good craftsman, the hatchet makes only bad, difficult, and unshapely cuts: so also God, when he works through us 2c

7. thesis.

The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they were not feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.

This is clear from the 4th thesis; for to trust in one's work, in regard to which one should have fear, is to give oneself glory and to take God, to whom fear is due in every work. But this is utter perversity, that is, to please oneself, to enjoy oneself in one's works, and to worship oneself as an idol. But this is how he acts who is secure and without fear of God. For if he had fear, he would not be secure, and therefore he would not have pleasure in himself, but his pleasure would be in God.

Secondly, from the saying, Ps. 143, 2: "Do not go into judgment with your servant," and Ps. 32, 5: "I said, I will confess my transgressions to the Lord. 2c But that these are not minor sins is evident from the fact that those say that for minor sins neither confession nor repentance is necessary. If, then, they are mortal sins, and all the saints pray for them, as they say, then the works of the saints are also mortal sins. But the works of the saints are good works, therefore they are meritorious to them only through the fear of a humble confession.

Third, from the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our debts." This is a prayer of the saints, therefore those debts are good works for which they ask. But that they are mortal sins is evident from the following saying Matt. 6:15: "If you do not forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will not forgive you.

lish father also forgive not." Behold, they are such that they would condemn as unforgiven unless one prayed this prayer in truth and forgave others.

Fourth, it is said in Revelation 21:27: "Nothing unclean shall enter into the kingdom of heaven"; but everything that hinders entrance into the kingdom of heaven is mortal sin (or one would have to determine the concept of mortal sin differently); but venial sin hinders because it defiles the soul and cannot exist in the kingdom of heaven: consequently, 2c.

8. thesis.

Rather, the works of men are mortal sins, since they are done without fear in loud and evil certainty.

The necessary conclusion from the previous thesis is clear. For where there is no fear, there is no humility; where there is no humility, there is pride, and there is the wrath and judgment of God: for God resists the proud. Yes, let pride cease, and there will be no more sin anywhere.

9. thesis.

To say that works without Christ are dead but not deadly seems to be a dangerous abandonment of the fear of God.

For in this way people become secure and thereby arrogant, which is dangerous. For in this way, the honor due to God is constantly taken away and transferred to other things, since every effort should be made to give him his honor the sooner the better. Therefore the holy scripture Sir. 5, 8. advises: "Do not tempt to turn to the Lord." For if he offends God who deprives Him of His honor, how much more does he offend Him who continually deprives Him of it and still walks safely in it! But he who is not in Christ or departs from Him deprives Him of His honor, as is well known.

10. thesis.

Yes, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and yet not be a harmful or deadly sin fei.

This I prove: Because the Scripture does not have the way to speak of dead things in such a way that

46 D.v. Ä. 1,395-397. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W.xvm, 6S-71. 47

that which is dead is not deadly; indeed, neither is grammar, which says that dead is more than deadly; for they call a deadly work one that kills; but a deadly work not one that is killed, but one that is not alive. But that which is not living is displeasing to God; as it is written, Prov. 15:8, "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord."

Secondly, the will must necessarily do something with regard to such a dead action, namely, either love it or hate it. He cannot hate it, since he is evil: consequently he loves it: consequently he loves something dead. And so, just in this, he commits an evil act of the will against God, whom he should have loved and glorified in this and in every work.

11. thesis.

Presumption cannot be avoided, nor can there be true hope, unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work.

This is evident from the above 4th thesis; because it is impossible to hope in God if one has not first despaired of all creatures and knows that nothing can avail one except God. But since there is no one who has this pure hope, as we said above, and we thus trust to some extent in the creatures, it is obvious that we must fear God's judgment because of this impurity in everything. And so presumption is to be avoided, not in fact, but in inclination, that is, that it displeases us to stand still trusting in the creature.

12. thesis.

Then, with GOD, the sins are truly forgivable when they are feared by men as deadly.

This is sufficiently clear from what has been said, for as much as we accuse ourselves, so much God excuses, according to the saying: "Confess your iniquity, that you may be justified" and that other Ps. 141, 4.: "Lest my heart incline to the words of wickedness to excuse sins" according to the Vulgate.

13. thesis.

Free will after the Fall is a mere name, and by doing as much as is in it, it sins mortally.

The first part is clear: for the will is a prisoner and servant of sin; not that it fei nothing, but that it is not free, except for evil. Thus it is said in John 8:34, 36, "He that committeth sin is the servant of sin. If therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be justly free." Therefore St. Augustine says in the book "Of the Spirit and the Letter": "The free will without grace can do nothing but sin"; and in the second book against Julian: "You call the will free, but it is rather a subjugated will" 2c, and in innumerable other places.

The second part of the thesis is clear from what has been said above and from the saying of Hos. 13:9: "Israel, you are bringing disaster upon yourself, for your salvation is with me alone" 2c

14. thesis.

After the Fall, free will is able to do good by means of a suffering faculty, but it is always able to do evil by means of an active faculty.

Just as a dead man is able to live only in a suffering way, but to die, while he lives, also in an active way. But the free will is dead, means through those dead, whom the Lord has raised, as the holy teachers say. Moreover, St. Augustine proves this thesis in various places of his writings against the Pelagians.

15. thesis.

Even in the state of innocence he could not remain by an active, but only by a suffering capacity, let alone progress in good.

Since the Magister Sententiarum in the 2nd book, 24th Dist., 1st Cap., cites St. Augustine, he says at the end thus: "By these testimonies it is evidently proved that man at creation received righteousness and a good will, and the help by which he was able to persevere, otherwise he could have been

48 L.V.Ä. 1,397-399. 7. The Heidelberg Disputation. W, xvm, 71-73. 49

it seems as if he had not fallen through his fault." He speaks of the active faculty, which is obviously contrary to Augustine in his book "On Reproof and Grace", where he speaks thus: "He had received the ability if he wanted, but he did not have the will with which he could", understanding here by the "ability" the suffering faculty and by the "will with which he could" the active faculty.

The second part, however, is sufficiently clear from the Magister in the same Distinction.

16. thesis.

The man who thinks he will attain grace by doing what is in him adds to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty.

For it is clear from what has been said that while he does what is in him, he sins and seeks what is his. But if he thinks that by sinning he will become worthy of grace, or will be sent to grace, he adds presumption to it, because he does not believe that sin is sin and evil is evil, which is an exceedingly great sin. Jer. 2:13 says: "My people commit a twofold sin, forsaking me, the living fountain, and making them here and there wells cut out, which are not full of holes, neither do they give water," that is, through sin they are far from me, and yet they presume to do good of themselves.

Now you say, "What shall we do? Shall we walk idly, because we do nothing but sin? I answer, By no means, but when you have heard this, fall down and ask for mercy, and put your hope in Christ, in whom is our salvation, life and resurrection. For this is why we are taught this; this is why the law makes sin known to us, so that, having recognized sin, one may seek and obtain grace. Thus God gives grace to the humble 1 Petr. 5, 5, and he who humbles himself is exalted Matth. 23, 12. The law humbles, grace exalts; the law works fear and wrath, grace hope and mercy. For through the law comes knowledge of sin Rom. 3, 20,

but through the knowledge of sin, humility, and through humility, grace is obtained. Thus, a foreign work of God finally causes his own work, since he makes a sinner to make a righteous one.

17. thesis.

To speak in this way is not to give cause for despair, but to spur the effort to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.

This thesis is clear from what has been said; for since, according to the gospel, the kingdom of heaven is given to children and the humble, Christ also loves them. But humble cannot be those who do not recognize themselves as condemnable and unrighteous sinners. But sin is recognized only by the law. It is obvious that not despair but rather hope is preached when we are told that we are sinners; for this preaching of sin is precisely the preparation for grace, or rather the acknowledgment of sin and faith in such preaching. For then the desire for grace arises when the recognition of sin has arisen; then the sick person seeks the medicine when he recognizes the evil of his illness. Just as, therefore, to tell a sick person of the danger of his disease is not to give him cause for despair or death, but rather to urge him to seek the remedy, so also to say that we are nothing and sin always, by doing what is in us, is not to make people despair (if they are not foolish), but to make them anxious for the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

18. thesis.

It is certain that man must first despair of himself completely in order to be able to obtain the grace of Christ.

For this is what the law wants, that man despairs of himself, since it leads him to hell and makes him poor and shows him to be a sinner in all his works, as the apostle does in Rom. 2 and 3 with the words Rom. 3:9: "We are condemned that we all should be under the law.

50 D- v. a. i, 399 f. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. xvm, 73-76. 51

are sin." But he who does as much as is in him, and believes that he is doing something good, certainly does not consider himself to be nothing, nor does he despair of his strength; indeed, he is so presumptuous that he seeks to obtain grace out of his strength.

19. thesis.

Not the one is rightly called a theologian who sees the invisible things of God as conceived by what has become.

This is evident from those who have been so and yet are called fools by the apostle, Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, divinity, wisdom, justice, goodness 2c; but the knowledge of all these things makes neither worthy nor wise.

20. thesis.

But who understands the visible and lesser things of God, seen through cross and suffering.

The lesser and visible things of God are opposed to the invisible, namely humanity, weakness, foolishness; as the apostle, 1 Cor. 1, 25, calls God's weakness and foolishness. For since men misused the knowledge of God from works, God again wanted to be known from suffering and to reject the wisdom of invisible things by the wisdom of visible things, so that those who did not worship God as He is revealed in His works should worship Him as He is hidden in suffering, as 1 Cor. 1, 21: "Because the world in its wisdom did not know God in His wisdom, it pleased God well to make blessed those who believe in it by foolish preaching"; so that it is now not sufficient and of no use for anyone to know God in His glory and majesty if he does not recognize Him in the lowliness and shame of the cross. Thus he makes the. Wisdom of the wise to shame 2c, as Isaiah says Cap. 45, 15.: "Truly, you are a hidden GOtt."

So also, when Philip spoke after the theology of glory, Joh. 14, 8: "Show us the Father", Christ immediately drew its

He turned back the fleeting thought of seeking God elsewhere and led him to Himself, saying: "Philip, he who sees me sees also my Father. Therefore the true theology and knowledge of God is in the crucified Christ, as it is also said in Joh. 14, 6: "No one comes to the Father, but through me"; and Joh. 10, 9: "I am the door" 2c.

21. thesis.

A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil; but a theologian of the cross calls the matter as it is.

This is clear, for if he does not know Christ, he does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to sufferings, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to foolishness, and in general good to evil. Of this kind are those whom the apostle calls "enemies of the cross of Christ" Phil. 3, 18., especially because they hate the cross and suffering, but sift works and the glory of them, and thus call the good of the cross evil and the evil of the work good. But that one cannot find God except in the cross and suffering has already been said. Therefore, the friends of the cross say that the cross is good and the works are evil, because through the cross the works are destroyed and the old Adam is crucified, who is rather built up through the works. For it is impossible that he should not be puffed up by his good works, who is not first humbled and brought to nothing by suffering and evil, until he knows that he is nothing, and that the works are not his but God's.

22. thesis.

That wisdom, which regards the invisible things of God as comprehended from the works, puffs up completely, blinds and hardens.

This has already been said; because they do not know and hate the cross, they must necessarily love the opposite, namely wisdom, glory, power 2c. Therefore they are more and more blinded and hardened by such love. For it is impossible that the desire could be satisfied by the attainment of that which it desires. For

52 L. V. L. 1,400-E. 7. The Heidelberg Disputation. W. XVIII, 76-78. 53

Just as the love of money increases as money itself increases, so the more the soul drinks, the more it thirsts, as the poet says: "The more they are watered, the more they thirst for water. So it is said in Eccl. 1:8, "The eye never sees enough, and the ear never hears enough." And this is true of all desires.

Therefore, the desire for knowledge is not satisfied by the wisdom one has attained, but is more irritated. So the lust for glory and honor is not satisfied by the honor it has obtained, nor is the lust for dominion satisfied by power and dominion, nor is the lust for praise satisfied by praise 2c; as Christ indicates, John 4:13, when he says, "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again."

So there remains only the one remedy, that one does not cure it by satiating, but by eradicating, that is, that he who wants to become wise does not seek wisdom by going forward, but that he goes backward and becomes a fool in seeking foolishness. Thus, he who wants to become powerful, rich in honors, full of delight, satiated in all things, must rather flee power, honor, pleasure, satiety in all things, than seek them. This is the wisdom that is foolishness to the world.

23. thesis.

And the law works the wrath of God, kills, curses, makes guilty, judges and condemns everything that is not in Christ.

Gal. 3, 13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law"; and there v. 10: "Those who practice the works of the law are under the curse"; and Rom. 4, 15: "The law only causes wrath"; and Rom. 7, 10: "It was found that the commandment was unto death for me, which was given unto life"; Rom. 2, 12: "They that have sinned against the law shall be condemned by the law." Therefore, he who boasts in the law as wise and learned boasts of his shame, his curse, the wrath of God and death, as it says in Rom. 2:23, "Why do you boast in the law?"

24. thesis.

And yet that wisdom is not evil, nor to flee the law; but man without the theology of the cross misuses the best in the worst way.

For the law is holy Rom. 7, 12., and all the gift of God is good 1 Tim. 4, 4.; all that is created is very good, Gen. 1, 31. But, as is said above, he who is not yet destroyed and made nothing by the cross and suffering attributes works and wisdom to himself, but not to God, and so he misuses the gifts of God and defiles them.

But he who is humbled by suffering does not work, but knows that God works in him and does everything. Therefore, whether he works or not, it is the same for him, he neither boasts when he works, nor is he ashamed when God does not work in him; he knows that it is enough for him when he suffers and is brought to ruin by the cross, to be destroyed more and more. And this is what Christ, John 3:7, says: "Ye must be born again." Therefore, if one must be born anew, he must first die and be raised with the Son of Man; to die, I say, means to feel the present death.

25. thesis.

Not he who works much is righteous, but he who believes much in Christ without work.

For righteousness in the sight of God is not attained by frequently repeated actions, as Aristotle taught, but it is infused through faith; for the righteous lives by faith, Rom. 1:17; and Rom. 10:10 says, "If one believes from the heart, he becomes righteous." Therefore I want the "without works" to be understood in this way: not as if the righteous works nothing, but that his works do not bring about his righteousness, but rather his righteousness does the works. For without our works grace and faith are poured in, after which works follow. Thus it is said in Rom. 3, 20: "By the works of the law no flesh is justified in his sight"; and Rom. 3, 28:

54 L.v.s. 1,402-404. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. LVIII, 78-81. 55

"We therefore hold that a man is justified without works of the law, by faith alone," that is, works do nothing for our justification. Then, because he knows that the works he does by such faith are not his but God's, he does not seek to be justified or glorified by them, but seeks God. His righteousness through faith in Christ is sufficient for him, that is, Christ is his wisdom, righteousness 2c, as it is said in 1 Cor. 1:30, but he himself is Christ's instrument.

26. thesis.

The law says, Do this, and it is never done; grace says, Believe in this, and all is already done.

The first part of the thesis is clear from the apostle and his interpreter, St. Augustine, in many places, and above it is sufficiently said that the law rather works wrath and keeps all under the curse. The second part is clear from the same, for faith justifies, and the law (says St. Augustine) commands what faith attains. For so Christ is in us through faith, yes, one with us. But Christ is righteous, and fulfills all the commandments of God, therefore we also fulfill all things through him, since he became ours through faith.

27. thesis.

Correctly, the work of Christ should be called working, and our work should be called worked, and that thus the worked work is pleasing to God through the grace of the working work.

For since Christ dwells in us through faith, he incites us to works through this living faith in his works. For the works that he does are the fulfillment of God's commandments, given to us through faith; when we look at them, we are moved to follow them. Therefore the apostle says Eph. 5:1, "Be ye therefore followers of GOD, as the dear children." Thus the works of mercy are kindled by his works, by which he has made us blessed,

As St. Gregory says: "Every action of Christ is our instruction, yes, it moves us. If his action is in us, it lives through faith, because it attracts us powerfully, according to the saying Hohel. 1, 4: "Draw me after you, and we will run after the smell of your ointments", that is, your works.

28. thesis.

The love of God does not find, but creates what is lovable to it; the love of man, however, arises from what is lovable to it.

The second part is clear and accepted by all philosophers and theologians. For the object is the cause of love, in that, according to Aristotle, all the faculty of the soul is suffering and a matter, and is active only by receiving; that he thus also testifies that his philosophy is contrary to theology, since it seeks in everything what is its own, and rather takes the good than gives it. The first part is clear, because the love of God that lives in man loves sinners, the wicked, fools, and the weak, in order to make them righteous, good, wise, and strong, and so rather flows out and gives the good. For therefore sinners are beautiful because they are loved; not are they loved because they are beautiful. Therefore the love of man flees sinners and the wicked. Thus saith Christ Matt. 9. 13., "I am not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners." And this is the love of the cross, born of the cross, which turns, not where it may find good to enjoy, but where it may dispense good to the poor and needy; for "it is more blessed to give than to receive," saith the apostle [Apost. 20, 35I. That is why Ps. 41:2 says: "Blessed is he who takes care of the needy," since by nature the mind can have nothing to do with what is nothing, namely the poor and needy, but with what is, what is true and good. Therefore he judges according to the appearance and looks at the person of the people and judges according to what is in front of his eyes 2c.

End.

56 L. v. a. i, 240 f. 7. The Heidelberg Disputation. W. xvm, 29-32. 57

c. Explanation of the 6th thesis.

Is the will of man, when it is outside the state of grace, free or rather subservient and captive?

Thesis.

The will of man outside of grace is not free in actions that either oppose or contradict each other, but is necessarily subservient and imprisoned, even though it is free from all compulsion.

In order to prove this thesis, it must first be noted that opposite acts of the will are: Willing and not willing, each of which indicates a certain resolution positivura est. Contradictory actions are willing and not willing, likewise not willing and not not willing; that is, one time he wills, the other time he neither wills nor does not will, but remains undecided and without action. Secondly, it is to be noted that we speak only of the freedom of the will with respect to merit and non-merit; for with respect to other things subordinate to it, I do not deny that the will is free, or considers itself free both with respect to opposite and contradictory things.

On these premises I prove the first part of the thesis, namely, that he is not free in contradictory actions. For if he is free not to choose his will, it follows that he would also be free to guard against every future sin. But this is false, yea, heretical, and contrary to the saying of St. Gregory, "Sin, which is not washed away by penance, by its weight immediately draws to another." But if it is free, it cannot be drawn to another; rather, if it cannot avoid the pull, it is not free. I prove it also by the common saying that the will cannot long subsist without mortal sin apart from grace, therefore not without captivity of its freedom. Finally, I prove it by the saying of the apostle 2 Tim. 2, 26: "That they may again be free.

would break out of the devil's snare, by which they are bound to his will." But the will of the devil is that they should will and do evil.

Second part of the thesis.

That he is not free in opposite actions, I prove by the saying Gen. 8, 21.: "The thinking of the human heart is evil at all times." But if it is at all times inclined to evil, then it is consequently never inclined to good, which is opposed to evil. But that this happens in a free and at the same time necessary way, I prove in this way, that the natural will possesses its willing or unwillingness no less than any natural thing possesses its activity, and that it is no more deprived of its activity than anything else. But it is impossible for volition to be forced and not free; consequently, it is necessarily free and necessarily has free volition. Therefore both are true:

The falling man is not able not to fall and that from his forces.

The falling man is able not to fall, and that from foreign forces.

Thus the will, when it is out of grace or in falling, is not able not to fall and not to will evil from its powers; but it is not able to fall or to refrain from falling by the grace of God. So I leave it with this thesis for a moment, since it is proven.

From this I draw this conclusion:

Since there is no righteous man on earth who does not sin in doing good, the unrighteous man sins much more when he does good.

It is proven by sayings of the Scriptures:

First, by the saying Isa. 64:6: "But now we are all like the unclean, and all our righteousness is like an unclean garment." If righteousness is unclean, how will unrighteousness be? And Eccl. 7:21: "There is not a righteous man upon the earth, which is

58 L!d.'°x?^"örE. I- Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. xvm. 32-37. 59

I delight in the law of God according to the inward man: but I see another law in my members, which opposeth the law in my mind, and taketh me captive to the law of sin"; and Ps. 32:2: "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity." 1)

Corollary:

That the righteous sins even in doing good is clear.

First, from Ecclesiastes 7:21: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin." But here it is said by some that every righteous man sins, but not when he does good. To these one answers: If this is what this saying wanted, why does it waste so many words? Or perhaps the Holy Spirit takes pleasure in much and foolish talk? For this mind would be sufficiently expressed thus: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does not sin"; why does he add: "who does good"; as if another were a righteous man who acts wickedly? For no one but a righteous man acts well. But where he speaks of sins apart from good works, he says thus Prov. 24:16, "The righteous falleth seven times in the day." Here he does not say, "The righteous falleth seven times in the day when he doeth good." For it is a similitude: just as if someone strikes with a rusty and rough hatchet, though the worker is a good workman, yet the hatchet makes only bad, difficult, and unshapely cuts: so also God, when He works through us 2c. 2)

Secondly, from the apostle's saying, Rom. 7:19: "The evil that I do not want, that I do; the good that I want, that I do not," and further on v. 22: "I delight in God's law according to the inwendi-

  1. In the old edition of Walch, a section of two colums is inserted here, which follows later in the original, namely Weim. Ausg. 1,369H- 29-371 Z. 2. In the duplicate of this writing, Walch, old edition, vol. V, 2366 ff. this section is in correct sequence Columne 2371-2373, § 8 and K 9.
  2. This paragraph is already from word to word in the explanation of the 6th dhefe in the previous section.

But I see another law in my members, which is contrary to the law in my mind. Behold, he has both pleasure and displeasure in the law of God; at the same time he wants the good according to the spirit, and yet he does not do it, but the opposite. This opposite is therefore a certain non-will that is always there when there is a will. Through this he acts well, through the other evil. The unwillingness is of the flesh and the willing is of the spirit. Therefore there is as much sin as there is unwillingness, difficulty, necessity, resistance, and as much merit as there is willingness, inclination, freedom, joy; for these two are mixed with each other in all our life and activity. But where there is only non-will, there is also already mortal sin and apostasy; but a whole will is not found in this life. That is why we always sin when we do good, although sometimes less, sometimes more. For this is the reason why there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin. But there is such a righteous man only in heaven. Therefore, just as man is not without this unwillingness, neither does he work without it, and therefore he is not without sin. For how could he work without it, since he cannot live and be without it? So also the Scripture speaks Prov. 20, 9., "Who can say, I am pure in heart?" Likewise Gal. 5, 17: "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. These are contrary to one another, that ye do not do the things that ye would. "2c

Thirdly by the saying Ps. 143, 2.: "Do not go into judgment with your servant, O Lord, for before you no living man is righteous". Here I ask whether such a righteous man, whom one imagines, since he is in fact already in a very glorious merit, is also to be counted among the living? If he is among the living, then he is not righteous. But how would this be possible if he did not sin in this merit of his?

This I prove from reason:

Every one who does less than he ought sins; but every righteous man who does good does less than he ought; hence. The under

60 254-W7. 7. the Heidelberg Disputation. LxvMÄ. 61

I prove the first sentence thus: Everyone who does not do good out of full and perfect love for God does less than he should; but every righteous person is of this kind. I prove the upper sentence by the commandment Deut. 6, 5: "You shall love God, your Lord, with all your heart and with all your might," 2c, of which the Lord says, Matth. 5, 18: "Not the smallest letter shall pass, nor a tittle of the law, until it all be done." Therefore, we must love God with all our strength, or we sin. But the sub-clause that we do not love Him with all our strength has already been proven above, because the non-will in the flesh and in the members hinders this perfection, that not all members or powers love God, but it resists the inner will that wants to love God.

But, say those: God does not demand such a perfect commandment from us. I ask: from whom then does He require it? Perhaps from stone or wood? or from cattle? This is an error; for Rom. 3:19 says: "We know that what the law says, it says to those who are under the law." Therefore it is commanded and required of us. Through this completely wrong interpretation of this saying: God does not require perfection, it came to be said that it is not a sin even if one does not do something in the most perfect love, while God does not require it only because He forgives it; but not because it is permitted and it would not be sin. Otherwise he would have changed his commandment, which is contrary to his own saying, Matth. 5, 18.: "Not the smallest letter will pass, nor a tittle of the law, until it all comes to pass."

Now I make objections to it:

First of all, John says in his canonical epistle 1 John 3:9: "Whoever is born of God does not sin. Likewise, God, Gen. 20, 6, gives Abimelech the testimony that he acted in the simplicity of his heart; consequently, he did not sin. And Ps. 86, 2. says: "Keep my soul, for I am holy"; and what other passages can be drawn here.

I answer, Both are true; for he that is born of GOD sinneth not; and

he sins after all. Or was Paul, Rom. 7, not born of God? Or did John also lie against himself when he said 1 Joh. 1, 8: "If we say we have no sin, we are liars"? For he sins in the same work: because of the will of the flesh; he does not sin: because of the opposite will of the spirit.

Therefore, you say: How then shall we fulfill the law of GOD? I answer: Because we do not fulfill it, therefore we are sinners and disobedient to God. And this is not a venial sin by its nature, for nothing impure will enter the kingdom of heaven Revelation 21:27. Therefore, any sin must also result in condemnation, because Christ says that not even the smallest letter or tittle shall pass away until it all comes to pass. Therefore, St. Augustine, in the 1st book of his Retractations, in the 19th chapter, says quite correctly: "All divine commandments are fulfilled, if what does not happen is forgiven." Consequently, the commandments of GOD are fulfilled, more by GOD forgiving for the sake of His mercy, than by man working through his justice, for the mercy of GOD is greater than the justice of man. This is what those say: GOtt does not require perfection; where they should say: GOtt forgives. But to whom? To those who are sure, and to those who do not believe in that sin? Let this be far from them, but from those who say: Forgive us our debts by acknowledging and hating this evil of theirs out of a sincere heart; as it is also said in Ezk 20:43: "And you will be displeased with all your wickedness that you have done" 2c

This is also what Psalm 32, v. 6. says: "For this all the saints will ask you in due time." If he is a saint, he has no iniquity except that which is forgiven him in sin. For what then does he ask? Of course for the one that is still to be forgiven, because for the forgiven one he rather gives thanks. Then also, if he had wanted to speak of the past, he should not have said, "all saints," but "all sinners will ask you for it." For a saint is one whose iniquities are forgiven, and a saint asks forgiveness for the iniquity. A wun-

62 D-oiw-ex-m. 287-259. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. 63

The prophet does not speak of himself, but of those whom he saw as sanctified and as saints through the forgiveness of their sins. And yet he says that they ask for forgiveness, if it were not to be supposed that the prophet either lies or flatters by naming those saints whose sins are not forgiven; but then he should have said that they ask "to be forgiven" or "for forgiveness of sins.

So:

This is the sweetest mercy of God the Father, that He does not devise, but rather makes sinners blessed, bearing with us in our sins and accepting our lives and works worthy of all condemnation, until He makes us perfect and brings us to perfection. In the meantime, we live under the shelter and shadow of his wings and escape his judgment through his mercy, not through our righteousness.

Therefore, away with these proofs, which are only smoke from men: "One and the same action cannot be accepted and not accepted by God, for then it would follow that it is good and at the same time not good." I answer: Consequently, can man not at the same time fear God's judgment and trust in His mercy? I therefore say that any good action is accepted and not unaccepted, and again that it is not accepted but unaccepted. For it is accepted by pardon, and so is not unaccepted; for he pardons by his mercy what is less worthy of acceptability: but the same act is also unaccepted, that is, sin, inasmuch as it is an act from the wickedness of the flesh. But nevertheless GOD forgives it in this time and requires it both in this time and in the time to come. For there is by no means any action that God accepts unacceptably (such expressions are invented from the human heart), but every one of our actions forgives and requires it.

he spares. But those presume that there could be someone whom he accepts without forgiveness, which is wrong. So when he pardons, he neither accepts nor does not accept, but pardons. And so in our works he accepts his mercy, that is, the face of Job Job 42:8. according to the Vulgate, namely, the righteousness of Christ for us. For this is the mercy seat of GOD, who pardons our works and makes them pardonable, so that what is too little in us we replace with His fullness. For he alone is our righteousness until we are conformed to his image.

Anew I prove:

To the first: Rom. 7, 18.: "In me, that is, in my flesh, dwells nothing good", much less will there be anything good in those who find all flesh and blood. For the apostle speaks in his own person and in the person of all the righteous. If therefore these, doing what is apart from them, and according to grace, do not yet do what they ought, however hard they may strive, how much more will those who, without grace, do what is in them, and do not strive, do the opposite of what they ought! But here again they say: It is true, they do it deficiently, but this deficiency is not sin. I answer: By its nature it is sin; but to those who sigh over it, God does not impute it.

On the other hand by the saying, Gen. 6, 5. Cap. 8, 21.: "All thinking of the human heart is evil from youth." Here he does not speak of "thinking," but of "all thinking," and everything that man thinks is evil, because he seeks what is his, and cannot do otherwise without the grace of God.

Third: 1 Cor. 13, 5 is attributed to love alone that it does not seek what is yours, without which, as the apostle Phil. 2, 21 states, all seek what is theirs, not what is Jesus Christ. But to seek his own is a mortal sin.

To the fourth: Hos. 13, 9. it says: Israel, thou bringest thyself into evil, or thou bringest thyself into evil: for thy salvation is with me alone. He does not say, "Righteousness is yours, but calamity; you bring nothing but calamity upon yourself.

64 L. oxx. SL LXI, 259-262. 7 The Heidelberg Disputation. W. V, 2374-2378. 65

Fifth: "An evil tree cannot bear good fruit" Matth. 7:18.

Sixth, "He that is not with me is against me." [But to be against Christ is a mortal sin, and not to be with Him is to be out of grace.

The seventh: "He that abideth not in me is cast away as a branch, and is withered: and they gather them together, and cast them into the fire, and they burn." John 15:6 Behold, "to be apart from Christ" is to merit the fire, and to wither continually; peradventure by any thing that may be done; which peradventure cannot be understood of venial sins.

Eighth: Were not the foolish virgins rejected Matth. 25, 1. ff., not because they did not work, but because they worked without oil? They did good of themselves, but not of grace, for they sought their own glory; from this vice it is impossible for man to be free without grace.

Ninth: "God rains on the good and the ungrateful" Matth. 5, 45., but ungrateful is the one who does not accept God's goods as received from God, which is a mortal sin, and so the works are necessarily outside of grace.

Tenth: "He who commits sin is the servant of sin" John 8:34. How is it possible for a servant of the devil, a prisoner of sin, to do anything other than sin, which he serves? How can he do a work of light who is in darkness? how can he do the work of a wise man who is a fool? how can he do the work of a healthy man who is sick? and many such things. So all that he does are works of the devil, works of sin, works of darkness and works of foolishness.

To the eleventh: If man's being is under the power of darkness, how not also his working? The tree is under the bondage of the devil and its fruits are denied to be under it!

The twelfth: That saying Ps. 94, 11, which the apostle refers to: "The Lord knows the thoughts of men to be vain," and Ps. 33, 10: "The Lord makes void the counsel of the Gentiles, but rejects the thoughts of the nations, and rejecteth the devices of the

Princes." [Here I ask: Do you understand by the thoughts of men those which man thinks of himself? If so, you hear that they are rejected and not only dead, but also displeasing before the judgment of God. But if they are thoughts that man does not think out of himself but out of an evil inclination, he would not have to call them thoughts of men. It is certain that he understands the thoughts that men produce out of the impulse of their natural reason, otherwise he would have had to call them foolishness. Now God rejects the wisdom of men, how much more the foolishness.

To the thirteenth: Prov. 3:5, "Rely not on thy understanding." This is to be understood either in general or in particular. If in general, then no precept of reason is unrejected and undamned. If in particular, as many think, then sometimes it is permissible to rely on oneself and one's understanding, contrary to this explicit text.

To the fourteenth: If a man can do a good thing of himself without sin, he may therefore justly glory in himself according to the measure of the good that is done by him. So let him say that he is good, wise, and strong, and let the flesh boast before the face of God, contrary to the apostle 1 Cor. 1:31, who expressly says, "He that boasteth, let him boast of the Lord."

To the fifteenth: Ps. 81:13: "I have left them in the stupor of their heart." Behold, this is the penalty of sin, that man is left to his heart, consequently what comes from man's heart is mortal sin. But his heart is also all man's will outside of grace. Otherwise he would have said, "I have left them in the enemy's conceit, to walk after the counsel of the enemy, and not after theirs."

To the sixteenth: Rom. 14, 23: "That which is not of faith is sin", which St/Augustine understands of faith in Christ, although others interpret it of conscience. But faith in Christ is also a good conscience, as Peter says 1 Petr. 3, 21.: "the covenant of a good conscience with God," that is, that it is well related to God.

66 L. oxx. sx. XXI, 262-264. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W. V, 2378-2381. , 67

trusts. Therefore, if a work without faith were not mortal sin, it would follow that Paul was struggling so much with a venial sin there, which is wrong, since no man can live without venial sin. Consequently, everything that does not proceed from faith is mortal sin and condemnable, because it is also against conscience, the conscience, I say, of faith in Christ, because he does not act in trust in Him. For he does not believe that he pleases God in order to earn something with it, and yet he acts in such unbelief and conscience.

To the seventeenth: The position of the sinner would be better than that of the righteous, for the righteous sins in his deeds moderately, and the wicked does not sin. Therefore it is necessary to admit a greater sin than a merely venial one. Likewise, "The righteous fear their works" Job 9:28, according to the Vulgate, how much more are the works of the wicked to be feared! or again, the position of the wicked would be better than that of the righteous, since the latter fears, but the latter is sure.

To the eighteenth: If grace be given to the man that doeth as much as is in him, then might the man know that he is in grace. This is proved: Either man knows that he is doing what is in him, or he does not know. If he knows, then he also knows that he has grace, since they say that grace is given to him who does what is in him. But if he does not know it, this doctrine is in vain, and its consolation ceases; for he may do what he will, but he does not know whether he has done what is in him. Consequently, he always remains in doubt.

To the nineteenth: The question is what kind of work a man does when he does what is in him. If one cannot state one, why does one teach to do what one does not know what it is? But if there is one, let it be stated; and indeed some state as such a work the act: To love God above all things.

Here (to digress a little) I say, first of all, that such teachers do not attribute anything to the grace of God, except that it serves as a certain adornment to our works, not that it can cure the sick.

The grace is not to heal the weak, but to adorn the strong. We can do works, but not adorned ones, and so grace is the most contemptible thing and a gift that is not necessary for our sake, but, as they say, because of the will and purpose of the governor.

But what Christian would want to endure such blasphemy? So Christ died for us in vain, but he suffered for the sake of God's intention; we were not in need of him, but the intention of the one who governs. We could have fulfilled the law, but God was not satisfied with that; He wanted to demand His grace from man over and above the law. And so, not a Pelagius comes again, but a worse blasphemer than Pelagius. Thus we find that GOD is loved by nature above all things, and one is not ashamed to say, "above all things." But I still answer: If the act of loving God is as much as doing as much as there is in Him, then it is still certain that man does not know when he loves, and therefore also not when he does as much as there is in him, or how and what he should do in order to do as much as there is in him: or else, he must be certain with regard to grace, which all deny.

If one were to say: he must strive to do as much as is in him, I answer: Again, I ask whether he knows that he strives and how he strives, and what one should do to strive? If one knows, then again one is certain; but if one does not know, then again the teaching is void. Yes, this effort is either the same as doing what is in it, and the same question returns; or it is something else. Thus man does not do by doing what is in him, but by striving to do what is in him. Therefore, by doing what is in him, he does not yet do what is in him.

To the twentieth: Therefore let us leave such empty words and consult experience. Let each one do what is in him when he is angry, provoked and tempted; yes, let him prepare himself for enlightenment about what he does not know, and let us see whether he attains it. Rather, he works and catches

68 L.oxx. ex. XXI, 26^-266. 7. the Heidelberg Disputation. W. V, 2381-2383. 69

We want to see what he does and what happens.

Twenty-first: If man receives grace by doing as much as is in him, it seems impossible that not everyone, or at least the greatest part of men, will be saved. I ask: If man is wanton, sins 2c, whether man does such a work himself, or another? Of course, he himself. Does he do it from himself and his powers, or from another and from other powers? From himself and his powers. Therefore, when a man sins, he does what is in him. Therefore, on the contrary, when he does what is in him, he sins.

But here one says: I speak of a man and of forces, in so far as they are naturally good, not how he abuses them. I answer: But the natural powers are always abused, because they are sick; the creature is good, but weakened. Nor does it act apart from its diseases, but it acts as afflicted with the disease. Therefore it can act only as a weakened one, even if it is good, just as a rusty axe is an iron, but works only as a rusty one, although it is an iron.

To the twenty-second: So why do we concede an insurmountable evil desire? Do what is in you and have no evil desire. But you cannot. Therefore you do not fulfill the law by nature. But if you do not fulfill this, you will fulfill much less that of love. Likewise: Do what is in

And be not angry with him that offendeth thee. Do what is in you and do not fear danger.

To the twenty-third: Do what is in you and do not be afraid of death. I pray, what man is not afraid, is not fainthearted in death? Who does not flee it? And yet, from the fact that God wants us to suffer it, it is obvious that by nature we love our will more than God's will. For if we loved God's will more, we would gladly submit to death, even consider it a gain, just as we do when our will is done. Therefore, what we speak is fiction. He who hates death (that is, the will of God) or does not love it, loves God less by far than himself, yes, hates him; only we are all of such a kind. Where then is the love of God above all? Behold, we love God no more than our life and our will: what shall I say of hell? Who does not hate it?

The twenty-fourth: The Lord's Prayer itself is already sufficient witness that we are bad workers in our whole life. For imagine one who does what is in him, whether he must pray: Hallowed be thy name; thy will be done; or rather, he is hallowed; he is done? But if he says, Let him be sanctified, he confesses that he is defiled. If he says: be done; so he confesses his disobedience. But if this happens to sons and saints, how much more to the ungodly!

Anno 1518.

d. Explanations of two theses in the Heidelberg Disputation of D. Mart. Luther, 1518.

The two following theses are more theological than philosophical and that is why Luther alone (before the philosophical ones) provided them with explanations. Therefore, the explanations of these two theses are by Dr. M. Luther. 1)

  1. On this untenable evidence of the first editor of this writing, Buddeus, in the supplement volume of Luther's letters, p. 297, rests the assumption that these

Eleventh (29th) thesis.

Whoever wants to philosophize in Aristotle without danger must necessarily first become a complete fool in Christ.

The first reason for this is the saying 1 Cor. 3, 18, where it says: "Which among you are explanations of Luther. They are probably by Michael Stiefel. Cf. the conclusion of the first note to No. 7 in this volume.

70 L. V. a. 1,404 f. I. Against the semipelagian school theologians. W.xvm,i8f. 71

If any man think himself wise, let him be a fool in this world, that he may be wise. The second reason is that knowledge puffs up; therefore, if one does not know that all knowledge belongs to the things that only benefit those who are in grace, the spirit of the knower puffs up completely. For as to those all things work together for good, so to these all things work together for evil. The third reason is that all man's confidence, life, glory, virtue and wisdom is Christ alone; but Christ is hidden in God. Therefore, all that is before the eyes is nothing that man could be presumptuous about. Therefore I say that here "to become a fool" is to know that all knowledge apart from Christ is knowing nothing; therefore to have such a science as if one did not have it, not to take pleasure in it, nor to think that one is something before others; as Jeremiah says Cap. 9, 23. 24. "Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom; but let him that will boast boast that he knows and knows me."

Twelfth (30th) thesis.

Just as no one uses the evil of carnal desire more than a married man, so no one practices philosophy more than a fool, that is, a Christian.

Cause: For just as carnal desire is a perverse desire of pleasure, so philosophy is a perverse desire to know, unless the grace of Christ is present. Not as if philosophy is evil, but because the desire in this respect only cannot be evil to Christians. Yes, all body and soul forces are of the kind that without God's grace, they carry away the good creature in a perverse way. Much more in (the philosophy of) . . 1) without obedience, namely he desires the true in a wrong way, be it for his glory, be it for hatred.

  1. This passage could not be read because the entire page was covered with ink. Buddeus.

II Luther's dispute with Tetzel.

  1. disputation explaining the power of indulgence. *)

Published at Wittenberg on October 31, 1517.

Translated by Justus Jonas.

Out of true love and special diligence (without a single request for vain honor 2c) to bring the truth to light, the venerable Father Mart. Luther, Augustinian at Wittemberg, Master of Liberal Arts and Holy Scripture 2c, by God's grace, will act, dispute, defend and receive the following sayings on indulgences, against Brother Johann Tetzel, Order of Preachers: Please

For this reason, those who are not able to talk to him about it at the present time will do so in writing 2c In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, amen.

  1. since our Master and Lord Jesus Christ says: repent 2c, he wants the whole life of his believers on earth to be a constant or unceasing repentance.

*From the year 1517 itself, three single printings of these theses still exist, two from one folio sheet, and one on four quarto sheets. In all of Luther's collections of theses, these theses are also included, namely in the Wittenberg Theses Collections of 1530, 1531, 1538 and 1558, as well as in the Basel Theses Collection of 1538. From these, they have been transferred to the complete editions of Luther's works, and

72 L.v.a. 1,285-287. 8. disputation on the power of indulgence. W. XVIII, 255-257. 73

  1. and such a word may not yet be understood of the sacrament of penance, that is, of confession and satisfaction, as practiced by the priest's office.

3 However, he does not mean inward repentance alone: indeed, inward repentance is void and not repentance unless it outwardly works all manner of mortification of the flesh.

  1. for this reason, repent and sorrow, that is, true repentance, as long as a man is displeased with himself, that is, until the entrance out of this life into eternal life.

5 The pope does not want nor can he impose some other chastisements, outside of those he has imposed at his pleasure, or according to the canonum, that is, papal statutes.

6 The pope cannot forgive guilt, except in so far as he declares and confirms what has been forgiven by God; or else that he does it in the cases he has reserved for him. Which cases, if they were despised, the debt would remain entirely unremitted or abandoned. 1)

  1. God does not forgive anyone's guilt whom He does not at the same time, well humbled, submit to the priest, His governor.

Canons poenitentiales, that is, the statutes on how to confess and atone, are imposed only on the living; and, according to the same statutes, are not to be imposed on the now dying 2).

(9) Therefore the Holy Spirit does us good in the pope, that the pope always excludes in his decrees or rights the article of death and extreme necessity.

(10) Priests act imprudently and wickedly when they canonize the penance imposed on dying people in purgatory, where they save and keep enough for them to do.

(11) This weed, that the penance or satisfaction imposed by the canons or statutes should be converted into the penance of the purgatory.

  1. I.e. omitted.
  2. I.e. those who are already dying.

or chastisement was sown when the bishops were asleep.

In ancient times, canonicae poenae, that is, penance or satisfaction for sins committed, were imposed not after but before absolution, checking whether the repentance and sorrow were righteous.

  1. the dying do enough for everything by their death or decease, and are dead to the right of canonum or statutes, and thus justly released from the same obligation.
  2. imperfect piety or imperfect love of the one who is about to die necessarily brings great fear; indeed, the less the love, the greater the fear.

(15) This fear and terror is in itself, and the mere fact that I am silent about other things is enough for it to cause the torment and anguish of the purgatory, because it is very close to the fear of despair.

(16) Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to be equally distinguished, as right despair, imperfect or near despair, and safety are distinguished from each other.

It seems that in purgatory, just as fear and terror decrease in souls, so love must also increase in them.

(18) It also seems to be unproven, either by good causes or by Scripture, that the souls in purgatory are out of the state of merit or increase in love.

(19) This also seems to be unproven, that the souls in purgatory are at least all certain of their blessedness and unconcerned, although we are quite certain of it.

20 For this reason, the pope does not mean, nor does he understand, by these words "perfect forgiveness of all chastisements," that all chastisements are forgiven in general, but means only the chastisement that he himself has inflicted.

21 For this reason, the preachers of indulgences, who

The text has been translated into Latin in the Latin Wittenberg (vol. I, toi. 51), Jena (vol. I, toi. 2), and Erlangen editions (o^>p. varii ar^. I, p. 285). The Weimar critical edition has brought the text in Latin according to the Wittenberg original (vol. I, p. 233), but we have retained the good translation of Juftus Jonas, according to which it is cited throughout. This translation is also found in the German Wittenberg (Vol. I, p. 9), Jena (Vol. I, p. 2), Altenburg (Vol. I, p. 14) and Leipzig editions (Vol. XVII, p. I). Löscher's Reformation Acts (vol. I, p. 438) contain both the Latin and the German text.

74L . V. a. 1,287-289. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 257-260. 75

saying that through the pope's indulgence man will be freed from all torment and become blessed.

22 Yes, the pope does not remit any chastisement to the souls in purgatory, which they should have atoned and paid for in this life, according to the Canonum.

(23) Yes, if any forgiveness of all chastisements can be given to anyone, it is certain that it will be given only to the most perfect, that is, to the very few.

24 Therefore the greater part of the people must be deceived by the splendid promise without all distinction, imagined to the common man of paid chastisement.

(25) The same power as the pope has over purgatory, absolutely and in general; so also have every bishop and pastor, in his diocese and parish, in particular, or among his own.

The pope is very careful not to give forgiveness to souls by force of the key (which he does not have), but by help or intercession.

  1. Those preach humanity, who pretend that as soon as the penny is thrown into the box, the soul will leave purgatory.

28 This is certain, as soon as the penny is ringing in the box, that greed and avarice will come, increase and grow; but the help or the intercession of the church is solely in God's will and good pleasure.

Who knows whether all the souls in Purgatory will be redeemed, as it is said to have happened with St. Severino and Paschali?

(30) No one is certain that he has enough true repentance and sorrow; much less can he be certain that he has received complete forgiveness of sins.

(31) As it is rare for one to have true repentance and sorrow, so it is rare for one to have true indulgences, that is, it is very rare to find one.

Those who think they can be sure of their salvation through letters of indulgence will go to the devil together with their masters.

  1. Beware of those who say that the pope's indulgence is the highest and most precious grace of God.

or gift, by which man is reconciled to God.

34 For the grace of indulgence stands only on the chastisement of satisfaction, which has been imposed by men.

(35) Those teach unchristianly who pretend that those who want to release souls from purgatory or letters of confession need neither repentance nor sorrow.

Every Christian who has true repentance and sorrow for his sins has complete forgiveness of chastisement and guilt, which belongs to him even without letters of indulgence.

(37) Every true Christian, living or dead, is partaker of all the goods of Christ and the Church, by God's gift, even without letters of indulgence.

(38) But the pope's forgiveness and dispensation are by no means to be despised. For, as I have said, his forgiveness is a declaration of divine forgiveness.

It is extremely difficult for even the most learned theologians to praise the great wealth of indulgences at the same time as true repentance and suffering before the people.

(40) True repentance and sorrow seek and love punishment; but the mildness 1) of indulgence exempts one from punishment, and from being sorry for it, least of all when occasion arises.

(41) Let papal indulgences be preached carefully, lest the common man falsely think that they are preferred or better regarded than other works of charity.

(42) Christians should be taught that it is not the mind and opinion of the pope that indulgences should be compared to any work of mercy.

(43) Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does better than he who gives indulgences.

(44) For by the work of love charity grows, and man becomes more devout; but by indulgences he does not become better, but only safer and freer from chastisement or punishment.

  1. Christians should be taught that the,
  1. I. e. the abundant communication.
  2. I.e. in something.

76 L. V. a. 1,289-291. 8. disputation on the power of indulgence. W. XVIII, 269-262. 77

If a man sees his neighbor in need and, in spite of this, gives indulgences, he does not give the pope's indulgences, but incurs God's displeasure.

(46) Christians should be taught that if they are not rich, they are obliged to keep what they need for their house, and not to waste it on indulgences.

(47) Christians should be taught that indulgences are free and not commanded.

(48) Christians should be taught that as much as the pope needs devout prayer, he desires it more than money when he grants indulgences.

(49) Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgence is good if they do not put their trust in it, but nothing more harmful if they lose their fear of God.

The Christians should be taught that the pope, knowing the drudgery of the preachers of indulgences, would rather have St. Peter's Cathedral burned to powder than have it built with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

The Christians should be taught that the pope, as he owes, would also distribute his own money to the people, even if St. Peter's Cathedral were to be sold for this purpose, since some preachers of indulgences are now depriving themselves of money.

To be saved by letters of indulgence is a null and false thing, even if the commissary (or bailiff of indulgences), even the pope himself, wanted to pledge his soul for it.

These are enemies of Christ and the Pope, who, because of the preaching of indulgences, completely forbid the preaching of the Word of God in other churches.

It does injustice to the word of God to spend as much or more time preaching indulgences in a sermon as on the word of God.

(55) The opinion of the Pope cannot be otherwise than that if the indulgence (which is the least) is celebrated with one bell, one pomp and ceremonies, that on the other hand and much more the gospel (which is the greatest) should be honored and praised with a hundred bells, a hundred pomps and ceremonies.

The treasures of the church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among the church of Christ.

(57) For the fact that they are not corporeal, temporal goods is evident from the fact that many preachers do not give them up so easily, but gather them up alone.

(58) Nor are the merits of Christ and the saints: for these always work, without the help of the pope, grace to the inward man, and the cross, death and hell to the outward man.

St. Lawrence called the poor who are members of the church the treasures of the church, but he took the word as it was customary in his time.

60 We say with good reason, without sacrilege or levity, that this treasure is the keys of the Church, given to the Church through the merit of Christ.

(61) For it is clear that for the forgiveness of chastisements and reserved cases, only the authority of the pope is sufficient.

The right true treasure of the Church is the holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.

This treasure is the most hostile and detestable. For it makes the first become the last.

(64) But the treasury of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last first.

For this reason, the treasures of the gospel are nets, where rich, wealthy people used to fish.

The treasures of indulgences are the nets with which the riches of men are fished at this time.

The indulgence that preachers proclaim to be the greatest grace is certainly to be considered a great grace, for it bears great profit and enjoyment.

(68) And yet such indulgences are truly the least of graces when compared to the grace of God and the blessedness of the cross.

69 Bishops and pastors are obliged to admit commissaries of the Apostolic Indulgence with all reverence.

70 But much more they are guilty of putting on with eyes and ears that the same

78 D. v. L. i, 2si f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 262-265. 79

Commissars do not preach their own dreams instead of papal command.

Whoever speaks against the truth of the papal indulgence is a curse and a curse.

But if anyone worries or grieves against the indulgence preacher's bold and insolent words, let him be reproved.

How the pope justly strikes with disfavor and banishment those who act in some way to the detriment of indulgences:

He is even more eager to heap disgrace and banishment on those who, under the pretense of indulgence, act to the detriment of holy love and truth.

To think that the pope's indulgences are so great that they can absolve one from sins, even if they have weakened the Mother of God (which is impossible to say), is to be furious and nonsensical.

On the other hand, we say that the pope's indulgence cannot take away the slightest daily sin, as far as the guilt of it is concerned.

It is a blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope to say that St. Peter, if he were now pope, would not be able to give greater indulgences.

  1. against this we say that also this and every pope has greater indulgences, namely the gospel, powers, gifts to make well 2c 1 Cor. 12, 6. 9.

It is blasphemy to say that the cross, gloriously emblazoned with the pope's coat of arms, can do as much as the cross of Christ.

The bishops, pastors and theologians who allow such words to be spoken before the common man will have to give an account for it.

Such insolent and impudent preaching and glorying in indulgences makes it difficult even for scholars to defend the pope's honor and dignity from the same slander, or even from the sharp, cunning questions of the common man.

  1. For example, why does the pope not release all souls from purgatory at the same time, for the sake of the most holy love and because of the highest need of souls, as the most just cause; when he, for the sake of the most perishable money, is building a house for the souls?

St. Peter's Cathedral, countless souls saved, than from the loosest cause?

Item: Why do the funerals and anniversaries of the deceased remain, and why does he not restore, or grant to take again, the beneficia or benefices endowed to the dead, so that it is now unjust to pray for the "redeemed"?

  1. Item: What is this new holiness of God and the Pope, that they allow the wicked and the enemy to redeem a God-fearing and God-loved soul for the sake of money, and yet do not rather, for the sake of the great need of that God-fearing and beloved soul, want to redeem it for free out of love?

Item 85: Why the canons poeniten- tiales that is, the statutes of repentance, now long since in themselves with the deed, and by non-use, 1) are done and dead, nor redeemed with money, by favor of indulgence, as if they were still quite strong and alive?

Item 86: Why does the pope not prefer to build St. Peter's Cathedral from his own money rather than from the money of poor Christians, since his fortune is greater than that of any rich Crassi?

Item 87: What does the pope grant or share his indulgences with those who are already entitled to a plenary pardon and indulgence through perfect contrition?

Item 88: What more good could come to the Church than if the Pope, as he does only once, were to grant this pardon and indulgence to every believer a hundred times a day?

Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls more through indulgences than money, why does he cancel and destroy the letters and indulgences that he gave before, if they are equally powerful?

90 These very pointed arguments of the laymen want to muffle by force alone and not resolve by indicated reason and cause.

  1. In Latin: stnonusu. In the translation of Justus Jonas erroneously: whether they are already still in use.
  2. Although the translation of Jonas: "through the money" is possible, it seems to us more appropriate if the word "through" would be deleted, especially since the word xer before xeounias is not repeated in the original.

80L. v.a.i,2S2f. 8. Disputation of the power of indulgence. W.xvm,265f. 81

means to represent the Church and the Pope to the enemies and to make the Christians unhappy.

Therefore, if indulgences were preached according to the spirit and opinion of the pope, these objections would be easily justified, indeed they would never have occurred.

(92) Therefore let all the preachers go, who say to the church of Christ, Peace, peace; and there is no peace. [Ezek.

13, 10. 16.]

But it must be well with the preachers alone who say to the church of Christ, "Cross, cross! and there is no cross.

  1. Christians should be exhorted to follow their head, Christ, through the cross, death and hell;

95 And so to enter the kingdom of heaven more through much tribulation Acts 14:22 than to be assured of peace through comfort.

*Protestation. )

1519.

I, Martin Luther, Doctor of the Augustinian Order of Hermits at Wittenberg, hereby publicly testify that some theses against the so-called papal indulgences have been published by me. Although up to now neither our praiseworthy university nor any civil or ecclesiastical authority has condemned me, there are, as I have heard, certain rash and impudent people who, as if they understood the matter well and had seen through it thoroughly, are not afraid to declare me a heretic.

I, however, as often before, also now implore everyone by the Christian faith, they should either show me a better way, if such has been revealed to them by God, or else, they should at least submit their opinion to the judgment of God and the church. For I am not so presumptuous as to want my opinion alone to take precedence over all other opinions; but neither am I so unreasonable as to want the divine word to take second place to the fables invented by human reason.

*) First we find this protestation in the Latin Wittenberg edition (tom. I, col. 195 d), where it is placed after Silvester Prieria's Lpitonm rssxonsionis aä Ick. luitlier of 1520 and before the kolisäa aävsrsus ckaeodurn Iloelistraten of 1519 (wrong 1518). Nothing follows from this for the time of writing. In the Jena (torn. I, lol. 5) it is after the 95 Theses, but according to the Jnhaltsverzeichniß of this volume it should be interposed between Xrtieuli 15 a IHalrikus Ninoritanis ckutsrdoeesnsidus and Oontra nialiKiuina t^ooii juäloium, and in its place the Protestation which precedes the Resolutions (explanations of the 95 Theses). Following the procedure of the Jena edition (without taking into account its correction), Löscher, the Erlangen and the old Walch editions also connected it with the 95 Theses, although Walch correctly notes in his historical introduction (p. 36) "that Luther's sentences against indulgences do not include a protestation at all". In the Altenburger and Leipziger Gesammt - editions this protestation is missing completely. The Weimar critical edition brings it in its II. volume, p. 620 after the correction of the Jena edition in connection with Luther's feud with the Jüterbogker Franciscans. Since its time of composition and affiliation is not entirely certain, it has been left in this place in the present edition.

82 L.v.a. 1,296-298. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIH, 266-268. 83

9th First Disputation of Johann Tetzel.*)

Delivered at Frankfurt a. d. Gder to obtain the degree of licentiate of theology, January 21, 1518.

Translated from Latin.

In order that the truth may be revealed and the errors suppressed, as well as the objections against the Catholic truth be resolved by evidence, Brother Johannes Tetzel of the Order of Preachers, the holy theologian Baccalaureus and inquisitor of heresy, will uphold the following theses at the flourishing University of Frankfurt an der Oder: to the praise of God, for the defense of the Catholic faith, and in honor of the Holy Apostolic See.

  1. our Lord Jesus Christ, who wanted to bind all to the sacraments of the new law after his suffering and resurrection,
  2. also wanted to teach them all before his suffering by his most fitting sermon.

(3) Whoever, then, says that Christ, when he preached, "Repent," intended such inward repentance and mortification of the flesh,

4 That he could not also teach or understand the sacrament of penance and its parts, confession and atonement, as obligatory, is mistaken. Yes, it is of no use now, even if the inner chastisement has an effect on the outer mortification, if confession and atonement are not present with the deed or desire.

5 This satisfaction (since God does not allow any offense to be without punishment) is done by a punishment or by something equal to it when God accepts someone.

  1. this is imposed either by the priests at their discretion or according to the canon, or it is also sometimes required by divine justice to be paid here or in purgatory.

(7) Just as no one is obliged to repeat a confession of the same sins, except in a few cases.

  1. and however very useful this would be, neither a religious nor even the pope himself can require anyone to perform it again -:

9 Therefore, even he who is once absolved is not guilty of bearing the external punishment of atonement again for the same sins after it has once been properly fulfilled - to command the opposite is to err;

(10) Although he is guilty, as long as he lives, of suffering inwardly, by deed or conduct, and of always cursing the forgiven sin, also of never being without fear in regard to the atonement of sins.

II. this punishment, imposed for the sake of repented and confessed sins, can be totally remitted by the pope through indulgences,

(12) It may be imposed by him or at the priest's discretion or by a canon, or it may be required by divine justice. To contradict it is to err.

013 But though by indulgence all the punishment due for sins, as it is laid up to avenge them, is remitted in those who are sent for it,

(14) He who thinks that the punishment, which is healing and preventive, is abolished, is mistaken, since the Jubilee year is not ordered by it.

(15) Therefore, no matter how much one is truly and completely loosed through indulgences, and whoever denies that this can happen to those who are sent for it, is mistaken:

(16) Nevertheless, as long as he lives, he must by no means omit the works of atonement, insofar as they serve and are meritorious for the healing of the remnants of sin and the prevention of future sins.

  1. Just as the Mosaic sacraments are powerless elements that neither cancel guilt nor give righteousness:

(18) So also the Jewish priests have neither keys nor signs, and therefore they cannot remit guilt.

  1. but the sacraments of the Christians work

*The two disputations of Tetzel, namely this and the next one, were included in all of Luther's complete editions, namely in Latin in the Wittenberg (toin. I, toi. 93), Jena (tom. I, toi. 12) and Erlangen editions (oxx. tat. varii arZ. I, 296). They appeared in German in the Wittenberg (vol. IX, toi. 13), Jena (vol. I, toi. 7), Altenburg (vol. I, p. 18), and Leipzig collections (vol. XVII, p. 20); they are also found in Latin in Löscher's Reformation Acta (vol. I, p. 504) and in German in Vogel's Leben Tetzels (p. 233).

84 L.v.s. 1,298- 30". 9. first disputation of Tetzel. W. xvm, 268-271. 85

the grace they signify, and therefore make those who receive them righteous;

(20) And the Christian priests have the true sign and key by which they can also cancel the debt,

21 Not only by confirming and explaining what the priests of the old law and the Aronites did with the lepers,

  1. but also by being servants and instruments and distributing it through the sacrament.

(23) Yes, just as God has the keys of authority, Christ has the keys of excellence, so a Christian priest has the keys of ministry.

(24) Therefore, anyone who says that the pope or even the least priest has no authority over guilt except by confirmation and declaration is mistaken.

(25) Yea, he that believeth not that the least Christian priest hath more power over sin than all the synagogue of the Jews did in time past, is mistaken.

(26) Yes, even he who believes that Christ, according to the excellence of his key, by which he did not bind his power to the sacraments, is mistaken,

  1. sins cannot be forgiven and men be saved without priestly confession, confirmation or explanation. -

Although true contempt, or whatever may be declared, prevents the Sacrament, which not infrequently happens with those who repent too late;

  1. and although neither unforeseen death, nor adversity, will save us from the extremely severe revenge that follows -:

(30) Yet one must not despair of such; for the least remorse, which may still occur at the end of life,

  1. Suffices for the forgiveness of sins and the conversion of eternal punishment into temporal punishment.

But when, because of the lack of time, the most dreadful punishments sometimes befall those who have died in this way,

  1. which should be quickly mitigated by the most plenary indulgence, such people act foolishly who advise against the solution of confessionals.
  2. those who have been excommunicated for laying hands on a clergyman, as well as arsonists and incestuous persons, are still subject to punishment not only after absolution, but sometimes also after death:

35 An oath to the latter that they will not do it again, and satisfaction to the latter. Those who deny that this can happen are mistaken.

  1. not by the sleeping bishops, but by the statutes of spiritual law, the priests are commanded to be lenient and affectionate, so that the confessor may rather be punished with little,
  2. which he willingly accepts is sent to purgatory, than that by rejecting this punishment he is sent to hell. Therefore, whoever calls this weed is mistaken.
  3. heretics, schismatics and majesty criminals are excommunicated, condemned and dug up after death.

39 Therefore, anyone who says that the dying pay for everything through death and are no longer bound by the laws of the canons is mistaken.

  1. of the souls to be purified, who pass away in the grace and love that distinguishes the children of the kingdom from the children of perdition, and therefore even more from those of despair,
  2. To say that they are close to despair is a mistake. Rather, they are in the firm hope of attaining salvation.

(42) Whoever says that it is not proven by any evidence, by reason or by Scripture, that the souls in Purgatory are out of the state of merit, is mistaken.

(43) He who also says that it is not proven that they are sure and certain of their blessedness is mistaken. Likewise, when he says,

  1. the souls to be purified are not more certain of their bliss than we are, and we are quite certain of it, he is mistaken.

(45) Whoever says that by plenary indulgence the pope does not mean the remission of all penalties of pardon, but only of those imposed by himself, is mistaken.

(46) That the preachers of indulgences are mistaken when they preach that through the pope's indulgence man can be released from all punishment and become blessed is an error.

It is an error to say that the pope does not remit any punishment to the souls in purgatory that they would have had to atone for in this life according to the canons.

(48) Whoever says that only the most perfect can obtain indulgences and not also the perfect, even those who begin to be more perfect and increase, is mistaken.

(49) Yea, that not only they who have perfect contrition, but also they who have contrition only for fear of punishment, and have atoned by confession, should obtain indulgence, he is mistaken.

  1. whoever believes that this is only the case with quite who-

86 L. v. i, 300-302. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. Lvm, 271-273. 87

The first is that the people who do what the Jubilee year requires are mistaken.

  1. To claim that the pope has no greater or more effective power over purgatory when he distributes the Jubilee year in general, through the way of intercession,
  2. It is a misconception that a bishop or pastor has them in particular in his parish or parish according to type and size.

53 Although the pope does not have the key power over purgatory, he still has the power to turn the Jubilee year to them through the way of intercession.

To deny this power over purgatory, under the figure of the keys, to the pope is to contradict the truth and to err.

The fact that the purified soul goes out means that it takes possession of the vision of God, which cannot be hindered by any interruption.

(56) Therefore, anyone who says that the soul cannot come out faster than the penny on the bottom of the box can ring is mistaken.

It is a mistake that in the published intercessions profit and avarice are sought, and that the effect of purification does not follow.

(58) To doubt whether all souls will be redeemed and whether the redeemed will want to go out of purgatory is a manifest error.

(59) That no one can be certain of obtaining indulgences after a presumed certainty, as far as human weakness allows, even if he has done all that the Jubilee year requires, is an error.

(60) That there are only very few, and not even very many, who obtain indulgences when they act according to the way of the Jubilee year is an error.

(61) That he who is absolved by a plenary indulgence, according to the form of the exhortation, namely, he who has made confession and repented in the right way 2c, cannot be certain of his blessedness, is an error.

(62) It is an error that a person is not reconciled with God through the papal indulgence, if it is obtained correctly according to all forms, namely, if he has true repentance and has made confession.

(63) It is an error to say that the pardon of indulgences is directed only to the penalties of satisfaction imposed by men, and not also to those imposed by the canon or by divine justice.

  1. That it is not a Christian doctrine that those who want to buy confessionals for their friends or the Jubilee Year for the souls in Purgatory can do so without repentance is an error.

(65) That any Christian who is truly broken should have complete forgiveness of guilt and punishment quickly and completely without indulgence is an error.

(66) That every Christian, living or dead, has a share in all goods, insofar as the lawful remission of punishments is concerned, is an error.

(67) That the participation in all goods through love is the same as that which is obtained through the power of the one with whom the bestowal stands is an error.

Again, that the participation in all goods for merit and for the increase of merit is the same as the participation in all goods for satisfaction is an error. The first is that the first is that the second is that the third is that the third is that the fourth is that of the third.

(69) It is a mistake to think that the pope's bequest and bestowal are not to be despised merely because they are a declaration of the divine bequest.

(70) That it is easy for the most learned theologians alone, and not also for the moderately experienced, to extol the great riches of indulgences and at the same time true repentance, is a mistake.

(71) For in place of the sufficient punishments which repentance seeks for the sins remitted, indulgences substitute the sufficient punishments of Christ; but since these do not remit the curative punishments, repentance also has these punishments, which it loves to continue throughout life; he who does not know this is mistaken.

The works of love are more able to merit, but plenary indulgence is more able to do quickly enough and to remit completely. He who does not know or believe this, and teaches the people the one and conceals the other, errs.

The power of plenary indulgences lies more in the fact that they are sufficient, and that they are completely expeditious and individual; but the power of works of charity lies more in the fact that they earn merit and increase grace and glory. Whoever does not believe that the pope wants to have taught the people in this way is mistaken.

(74) Yes, since, according to excess and deficiency, plenary indulgences and the piecemeal (as they are wont to be) works of mercy are different, anyone who teaches the people that the pope did not in any way compare plenary indulgences with the piecemeal (as they are wont to be) works of mercy must be extraordinarily presumptuous and mistaken.

(75) He who gives to the poor and lends to the needy does better in terms of the increase of merit; but he who redeems indulgences does better in terms of the increase of merit.

88 L.v.a. 1,302-304. 9. first disputation of Tetzel. W. xvm, 273-276. 89

Reference to the quicker satisfaction. He who teaches the people otherwise deceives them, and he who thinks that the redemption of indulgences is not also a work of mercy.

(76) Although man first becomes freer from punishment through indulgences, he also becomes better through them, since the work by which indulgences are granted is a work of love, in that he releases them out of inward devotion. Whoever teaches the people otherwise is doubly mistaken.

The spiritual alms are more excellent than the corporal ones, and, since they are done to oneself, better in order; therefore, if someone were in need of indulgences, and he could not help a poor person who was not in extreme need, he would do far better by paying indulgences than by coming to the aid of the poor person (as has been said). He who teaches the opposite is wrong.

(78) According to the difficulty of the works and the sincerity of the love, the merit and the greatness of the merits are usually counted. Therefore he deserves more indulgence who does something out of his necessities than he who does something out of his abundance. Therefore, whoever says that he who earns something in this way sins is doubly mistaken.

(79) Although the solution of indulgences is not commanded, it is nevertheless highly advisable to those who need it; therefore, anyone who says one thing and conceals another deceives the people and errs.

That Leo needs prayer for his person more than others is called guessing; rather, we are required to pray for Pope Leo according to the duty of natural, human and divine law.

And since this is a necessity, he who says that the pope must therefore give indulgences is mistaken.

If one has no faith, devotion, or even trust in indulgences, they are of no use, and indulgences are useless. Anyone who says the opposite is seriously mistaken.

Since what is demanded for indulgences under Leo is quite small in comparison to his predecessors, anyone who claims that Pope Leo built St. Peter's Cathedral with the flesh, skin and bones of his sheep is quite ungodly.

(84) To him who does what is in him, and according to the contents of the bulls, indulgences are useful. And however much one may bark against it, one is mistaken.

(85) Therefore, to say that the trust to be blessed by letters of indulgence is null and void, even if the pope pledged his own soul for them, is to err quite shamefully.

If the least bishop, in case he wants to preach himself or to have preached before him, can impose silence on others,

Thus, to claim that the pope is an enemy of the cross is to err very badly when he wants to proclaim the Jubilee in a similar way.

If the legends of the saints can be read longer than the Gospel on their feasts without injustice, then the preaching of indulgences can continue for a time equal to or longer than the read Gospel. To claim the opposite is to err twice.

It is an error that the pope thinks that if the indulgence is celebrated with one bell, with simple pomp and ceremonies, the gospel should be honored with a hundred bells, a hundred pomps and ceremonies.

It is a misconception that the treasure of the church, from which the pope grants indulgences, is not sufficiently named nor known.

(91) That the treasure of Christ is not the merits of Christ and the saints is an error.

92 And that they worked a completely remitted, that is, abundant, quick and complete satisfaction on the part of God, without the papal grant, is an error.

It is a misconception that the treasure of the Church at the time of St. Lawrence was the poor in the Church.

  1. That the treasure of the church is only the keys of the church, which are given by the merit of Christ, is an error.

(95) That the power of the pope alone is sufficient for the forgiveness of punishments, without a contribution of the treasure of the church, that is, the merits of Christ, is an error.

The gospel, the gift of healing, and the sacraments of forgiveness all have the word grace in common, so to elevate one and degrade the other is to err completely.

(97) That the indulgence which preachers proclaim to be the greatest of all is such in truth, inasmuch as it promotes profit, is an error.

Yes, that the treasures of indulgence are nets through which one now sishes the riches of the people is the most ungodly error.

  1. and since the sin committed against the mother of Christ (however heinous it may be) is less than if it were committed against the Son, which according to Christ's express testimony can be forgiven:

(100) Therefore, whoever says that such a sin could not be resolved by indulgence in those who truly repent, is contrary to the text.

90 L.V.L. 1,304. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 276-278. 91

of the gospel and Christ Himself furious, mad and erroneous.

But to charge the sub-commissaries, as well as the preachers of indulgences, that they could absolve, by virtue of indulgences, the one who (speaking impossibly) would have weakened the ever-virgin Mother of God, is clearer than the sun, that he who thus charges against the revealed truth is driven by hatred and thirsts for the blood of his brethren. 1)

(102) To assert in public theses that the preachers of indulgences, whom one has never heard, speak before the people out of their own conceit and spend more time preaching indulgences than interpreting the gospel, is to spread lies heard from others and fiction as truth, and thereby prove themselves to be gullible and frivolous, and to be perniciously mistaken.

Finally, to state in public theses that the frivolous preaching of the preachers of indulgences has brought things to such a point that it is not easy even for learned men to save their reverence for the pope from the questions of subtle laymen, is to flatter the pope after he has first been disgraced, and to state publicly that all other people are peaceful and that he alone causes confusion, and is thus to err violently.

  1. to cancel guilt belongs to grace in an essential way; to God in an effective and causal way; to a mere man in a distributive way, even if insufficient; to Christ in an effective and causal way.
  1. Roman Catholic defenders of Tetzel, such as Gröne (p. 88), wanted to understand this thesis as if Tetzel said that he and other preachers of indulgences had not led the blasphemous speech about the Holy Virgin, which Luther attacks in his 75th thesis. Only if this 101st thesis stood alone, or if it was torn out of its connection with the two preceding ones, could it give this meaning. From Tetzel's 99th and 100th theses it is irrefutably evident that he does not deny this speech, since in them he asserts anew that a sin against the holy virgin, however heinous, is less than that against the Son and can therefore be forgiven according to Christ's explicit testimony. Whoever therefore denies that such a sin can be taken away by indulgences is furious, mad, and erroneous against the text of the Gospel and Christ Himself. Whoever therefore, he continues in the 101st thesis, contrary to the revealed truth (of the Gospel and of Christ), wants to charge (insuxor) the preachers of indulgences with the injustice that they could absolve the defiler of the holy virgin by virtue of indulgences, is obviously driven by hatred and thirsts for the blood of his brothers, the preachers of indulgences, by portraying them as liars and deceivers and thus inflaming the people to murderous lust against them. - We believe that Tetzel deliberately spoke inaccurately and ambiguously.

enough; the sacraments as instruments. Therefore, anyone who says that in this way the pope cannot solve the slightest venial sin in relation to guilt is mistaken.

Whoever denies that Peter's authority is the same as that of all the governors, and whoever believes that Peter has more authority over indulgences than Leo, does more than err, he blasphemes.

(106) Just as he who worships the cross of Christ, or any other image, as a thing, and not as a sign, by worship, errs: so, although the cross of Christ is in the forefront of many other things, as objects of worship, and is more to be worshipped, yet he who worships it with another worship, and not with the same, as the cross adorned with the papal emblem, commits idolatry, and errs.

The following theses are found only in the Latin Wittenberg edition > (Tom. I, col. 95), from which Löscher took them over into his > Reformation Acta (1,514 ff.). In the other editions they have been > omitted because of their paltry content. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. > XVIII, Vorr. p. 39 and IÄ1. vor. urZ. Vol. I, 295.

To think that bad questions and old wives' conclusions cannot be easily refuted by reasons, but that they must be kept in check by force, is the most unladylike error.

Because they are refuted and quite easily:

Namely, if Christ, according to the unanimous confession of all teachers, cannot use mercy in such a way that he would completely impose his justice, then his governor can do this even less. But this would have to happen as soon as purgatory was to be emptied, without any satisfaction or anything like it having been made beforehand at the time of divine acceptance. No wonder, then, if the pope is not able to do this in an orderly way. But disorderly things are not permissible in the government of the church.

And since the annual feasts of the dead (anniversaria) are not useful, at least not for the discharge of the benefactors, nor are they instituted to be continued after the latter are discharged, but rather they are useful for the consolation of other souls, for the increase of the merit of the living, and for the exaltation of divine honor: who would doubt that even according to the wills of the benefactors the feasts of the dead and days of remembrance must not be interrupted, although the most perfect estate has been obtained for the deceased?

92 deletion. R.-A. I, S1S-5I7. 9. first disputation of Tetzel. . W. XVIII, 278-281. 93

And if the indulgence obtained for the souls in purgatory, by the way of intercession, has its power not at all from the nature of the one who obtains it, but from the devotion of the one who has the power to do so, as well as from the love of the deceased while he was alive, it is a nonsensical question why this is granted to the enemy and not to the soul itself, since the souls in purgatory cannot perform that for which the indulgence is granted.

And since a sufficient repentance, for which the guilt and all punishment is remitted at the same time and completely, is quite rare, but even if it were, the gift for indulgence would not be useless, but would serve to increase the grace of merit and glory: So the fourth question is unreasonable, since even those who are in repentance are given a share in all goods in order to merit through the fellowship of love, but not for the quick, and at the same time complete, satisfaction that comes through the legal grant.

And since the work of pardon based on indulgences (all things being equal) is better than other good works, the one who would buy indulgences a hundred times would not act in vain; rather, he would be saved by the first time, and by the other ninety-nine times, increase in merit, grace and glory would be acquired; to another needy person, it would increase the treasure, and so on. He who does not believe it is a fool; he who does not know it is mistaken.

Even if the canons have been abolished to some extent because of the weakness of penitents, people have by no means obtained greater impunity for sins; indeed, they are joined to the penalties remitted by indulgences: in order to solve this, and not for the sake of the canons, alms are usefully given for the pious work of building St. Peter's Church.

The fact that the pope does not build the church of St. Peter from his own resources is piety, not meagreness, among those who interpret it correctly, so that he can bestow indulgences on those who take part in it because of this pious work, redeem them from punishment and make them blessed. It is also right that the church, which is common to all Christians, should be built up at common expense.

Here you see how these wretched reasons are refuted with easy effort, without any force being used. To think the opposite shows a layman or at least an impudent man. For if the

should be considered a great art to throw out even almost foolish questions, who should not be able to ask easily:

Why God had his own son hanged because of the bite into an apple, since the rights permit this only because of a theft of five ducats? 1)

Why does he who created all things by a word not make us all blessed by a word, even without merit, since he is most merciful and we are most needy?

Why does he allow so much strife, death and murder among Turks, Christians and Jews for the sake of the faith, when he could prevent all mobs, heresies and apostasy with a single wave and word? 2)

Why did he not preserve Adam in the state of innocence, that we might have been so free from all injury in peace, and afterwards in glory, since no harm would have come to him?

Who doubts that such and similar questions could not be raised by any fool, which all the wise men in the world could not answer? E.G.:

Why do the monasteries receive every year from the believers of Christ more than a thousand times a thousand that they obtain from God a salutary state and betterment of the whole world. Yet, the world is not getting better in anything, but worse and worse, and the Christian state is continuously devastated and diminished by the Turks. Or, to go over to more common examples:

Why are the Mieth mules called martyrs for the travelers in Italy and not confessors, since they often bend the knees, kiss the earth', fast and mortify the flesh so that they barely hang on the bones?

Therefore, those who have made confession and are freed through indulgence and repentance are at peace through the removal of all penalties of atonement. To contradict this is to err.

  1. Löscher remarks on this: "Shamefully, the most weighty main pieces of religion are made equal to human trifles and trifles here."
  2. Walch remarks: "It is necessary to note here, because such questions are asked all too often by simple-minded people, that in such a case God would have to deal with people as with cattle, and would only have to pull them all around with bridle and bit, so to speak: which, however, would be an obstacle to the freedom of a reasonable creature and innumerable other most wise intentions of God, and to all those ways by which men must be prepared for a future world for the exercise of their faith and their virtues, and must long for the same: in short, heaven would have to be seen from the world before time, and God's judgments always here on earth."

94 Deletion. R.-A. 1,517. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 281-283. 95

But there still remain remnants of sins, the propensity and ease to relapse, to heal them, so that they do not break out in sins, not 1) require healing punishments, cross and chastisements.

So when indulgence has been obtained in the right way, there is peace, peace from the past penalties of pardon, but there still remains the cross, the cross to prevent the future ones. He who denies this has no understanding, but is mistaken and mad.

  1. Walch's comment: You would think so.

End.

Finally, based on the truth, he submits everything above to the Holy Apostolic See, the supreme judge in matters of faith, the ordinaries of every place and the inquisitors of the heresy court. And so that this submission is not suspicious, he also submits it to the judgment of the four most distinguished high schools of Italy, France and Germany, yes, also to all unsuspected high schools of the German nation, ready to suffer and take upon themselves the judgment of them in any case.

10. second disputation of Johann Tetzel.

For the attainment of the dignity of Doctor of Theology.

Issued in May 1518. Probably never kept. *)

Translated from Latin.

The following theses will be presented by Brother Johannes Tetzel of the Order of Preachers, Baccalareus of Sacred Theology and Inquisitor of the Heresy Court. Theology and Inquisitor of the Court of Heretics, in the University of Frankfurt a. d. Oder, publicly and in a short time on a certain day, which he will also specify in due time, defend and dispute; from which it shall be clearly recognized at the first sight 2) who is to be considered a heretic, schismatic, stiff-necked, obdurate, false spirit, seditionist, slanderer, presumptuous and sacrilegious.

To the praise of God and in honor of the Holy Apostolic See.

In the year of salvation from the Lord. 1517.

  1. The old editions make the following comment on this, which Walch has also included:

Behold, Christian reader, with what insolent presumption, thumping and defiance, brother Tetzel lets himself be heard against D. M., as if he had already slain him and obtained the victory again him by his lying, blasphemous contradictions. The foolish man (as is the way of all heretics and hypocrites) did not think nor worry that he would reveal the foolishness of all sophists and papists by these counterstatements of his, much less that he would cause the Pope's authority, majesty and sovereignty to fall, which he had thought to preserve and exalt with them.

Read his following rebuttals and you will see that the pope is the true antichrist, who is

  1. Christians are to be taught that because in the Church the authority of the Pope is supreme and instituted by God alone, that it cannot be abridged or extended by any mere man, nor by the whole world at once, but by God alone.
  1. Christians are to be taught that they are bound to obey the pope, who has direct jurisdiction over all of them in matters pertaining to the Christian religion and see, if they are in accordance with divine and natural law.

For Br. Tetzel in the following counterclaims freely says that the Pope's authority in the church is the highest, so that he has to command over all Christians, so that his authority is over the general church and concilia. Item, that he alone has authority, and no one else, to interpret the sacred Scriptures of his liking 2c Summa, that he is all, that also his teaching alone is to be heard in the church. And therefore Christ, the only teacher of righteousness and redeemer of the human race, with all that he has commanded and ordered, counts for nothing. Thus, according to Tetzel's counter-sayings, you will find a summary of what you should think of the papacy, namely, that it was founded by the devil, is full of violence and blasphemy, is based on lies, devilish doctrine, human folly and dreams, and that the pope is the real antichrist. 2c More about this and further in the following lies and blasphemy sayings of Br.

*) Cf. Löscher's Reformation Acta I, p. 503 s. Leokonäork, Historia I^utUeranismi, lill. I, 812, paZ. F. Körner in his book "Tetzel, der Ablaßprediger" (Tetzel, the preacher of indulgences) p. 110 refers to Jan. 21, 1518 as the date of the disputation.

96 L. v. L. i, sog-308. 10. Second Disputation of Tetzel. W. xvm, 283-286. 97

  1. Christians are to be taught that the pope is higher than the whole general church and than a concilium according to the power of jurisdiction, and that his statutes must be humbly obeyed.
  2. Christians are to be taught that the pope alone has to decide what belongs to the faith, and that he alone, and no one else, has the power to interpret the meaning of the holy scriptures according to his sense, and that he has to approve and reject all sayings and works of others.

5 Christians are to be taught that the judgment of the pope in what belongs to faith and is necessary for human blessedness cannot be mistaken.

(6) Christians are to be taught that even if the pope errs in faith when he has a wrong opinion about what belongs to faith, it is impossible for him to err in what belongs to faith when he makes a decision in judgment.

  1. Christians are to be taught that one must adhere more to the pronouncements of the Pope in judgment in matters of faith than to the pronouncements of any man, however learned, in opinions which they have from Scripture.

Christians are to be taught that the Pope must be honored by them at all times and in all humility, and not be dishonored.

(9) Christians are to be taught that those who detract from the honor and prestige of the pope are liable to the punishment of blasphemy and the crime of majesty.

  1. Christians are to be taught that those who expose the pope to ridicule and diminishment will be branded with the stain of heresy and excluded from the hope of the Kingdom of Heaven.

(11) Christians are to be taught that those who dishonor the pope will be punished with temporal disgrace and sometimes with ignominious death and dishonorable dishonor.

(12) Christians are to be taught that the keys of the church are not given to the general church, which is called the assembly of all believers, but to Peter and the pope, and in them to all their successors and all future dignitaries praelatis, by transfer of the

same on them.

Christians are to be taught that a plenary indulgence cannot be given by a general council, nor by other prelates of the Church, together or separately, but only by the pope, who is the bridegroom of the universal Church.

(14) Christians are to be taught that no mortal, nor even a general council, but only

the pope, who is to judge Catholic truth by solemn pronouncements, has the power to decide on truth and faith in regard to indulgences.

(15) Christians are to be taught that Catholic truth is called universal truth, and that it must be believed by all believers in Christ, and that it contains nothing false or wrong.

(16) Christians are to be taught that the Church holds many Catholic truths which are not at all contained in the Canon of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in the proper expression of the word.

Christians are to be taught that the Church holds as Catholic truths many things that are not stated in the Canon of the Bible, nor even by the older teachers.

18 Christians are to be taught that all customs in matters of faith established by a decision of the Apostolic See are to be counted among Catholic truths, even if they are not found in the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

(19) Christians are to be taught that what the Doctors of the Church, confirmed by the Church, have definitely taught with regard to what is to be held as the doctrine of the faith and with regard to the refutation of heretics, even if it is not expressly contained in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, is nevertheless to be counted with their such writings among Catholic truths.

20 Christians are to be taught that even if certain truths are not wholly certainly Catholic, they are nonetheless similar to Catholic truth.

  1. Christians are to be taught that all those who claim that the use of the sign of the cross in the churches is not lawful smack of heresy.

(22) Christians are to be taught that those who deliberately doubt the faith are obviously to be considered heretics.

  1. Christians are to be taught that those who have attained holy orders through money can be openly called heretics.

(24) Christians are to be taught that all who misinterpret the Scriptures, and do not do so according to the sense of the Holy Spirit by whom they are written, may justly be called heretics.

(25) Christians are to be taught that he who imposes or follows false and new opinions for the sake of temporal glory must rightly be called a heretic.

98 D. V. L. 1,308-311. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 286-288. 99

Christians are to be taught that all those are rightly called heretics who presume to take from the Roman Church a privilege given by the supreme head of all churches himself.

  1. Christians are to be taught that, following the example of St. Ambrose, they must follow the Holy Roman Church in everything as their master and not their own conceit.

(28) Christians are to be taught that anyone who stubbornly defends his wrong and pernicious opinion against the Catholic rule of faith is to be considered a heretic and declared so by all.

(29) Christians are to be taught that those who teach something as certain, which cannot be proved by reasonable causes, nor even by thorough proof, are to be considered workers of iniquity.

(30) Christians are to be taught that those who once assert what is false are to be held to be false.

  1. Christians are to be taught that those who slander a believer or a respected person are to be considered wrongdoers.

Christians are to be taught that those who write theses which give the hearers cause or occasion to fall, although they are connected with an explanation, because they are put forward unconditionally and without modification, are in truth to be taken for offenders, evil talkers, and those who are offensive to pious ears, because they seem to be favorable to heretical theses.

Christians are to be taught that the assertions of the teachers, which cause division among the people, such as the thesis: A bad prelate or prince should not be obeyed; or: The pope and his bulls should not be believed, are absolutely seditious.

Christians are to be taught that all who hold false opinions and persist in defending them are to be considered heretics.

Christians are to be taught that all who, out of contempt for the divine law, stubbornly persist in error, or invent it, or follow an alien one, and who are more opposed to Catholic truth than willing to submit to it, are simply to be considered heretics.

Christians are to be taught that all who defend the error of others are to be considered not only heretics, but also arch-heretics, because they not only err, but also cause others to err and confirm it.

  1. Christians are to be taught that those who bring up new opinions that are contrary to the Catholic

The first is that they are opposed to the truth, by which they might gain adherents, and who therefore deviate from the general road out of recklessness or perversity - which arises from pride, which is actually a desire for distinction - even if they should not be guided by any motive of any temporal advantage, are nevertheless to be considered heretics without a doubt.

Christians are to be taught that those who adhere to the opinions of teachers who are contrary to Catholic truth, persistently err, and sin by erring, are also to be considered heretics.

Christians are to be taught that those who deny any catholic truth that is spread among all believers with whom they associate as catholic and preached publicly by preachers as the Word of God are to be said to be stiff-necked in their error.

  1. Christians are to be taught that those who deny assertions which they know are contained in sacred Scripture or the declarations of the Church are to be held as obstinate in their heresy.

Christians are to be taught that those who do not recant, nor correct their error, even though they have been lawfully shown that their error is contrary to Catholic truth, are to be considered obstinate in their heresy.

Christians are to be taught that those who err against the Catholic faith and the declaration of the Church and arrogantly refuse to submit to the rebuke and correction of the one to whom it belongs are to be considered obstinate in their error.

Christians are to be taught that those who have been punished for an error that is obviously contrary to the faith and refuse to be taught the truth are in error and are to be declared obstinate in such heresy.

Christians are to be taught that those who declare by word or deed or writing that they do not wish to recant their heretical assertions, even though those to whom it is due to rain or hail curses against such opinions, are to be considered obstinate heretics and are to be shunned by everyone.

(45) Christians are to be taught that those who invent and defend new heresies in defense of heretical wickedness, because they do not want to be corrected and are unwilling to carefully investigate the truth, are simply to be considered obstinate in their heresies.

46 Christians are to be taught that those who are inferior to the pope, if they have any

100 L- V. a. 1,311 f. 10. second disputation of Tetzel. W. XVIII, 288-290. 101

The following are heretics: to establish a heretical statement by pronouncement, and to determine that it is to be upheld; also, to order others to hold this statement to be Catholic, to be heretics, and to be held stiff-necked with all who agree with this declaration of theirs, and to be proclaimed. )

Christians are to be taught that those who have the power to resist heretical wickedness and yet do not, and that by so doing they themselves support heresy and error, are obstinately mistaken. 2)

(48) Christians are to be taught that those who defend the error of heretics and by their violence cause them not to come into the hands of the judge for examination are to be considered banished, and if they do not make amends within a year, they are already to be considered dishonorable, and according to the rules of law they are also to be tormented in a terrible manner with many punishments as a deterrent example for all men.

(49) Christians are to be taught that they should not be moved in their faith concerning the authority of the pope and even indulgences by the boldness of heretics and stiff-necked people; for the merciful Lord and our God would not allow heresies to arise unless the truth of faith emerged all the more gloriously from their emergence.

  1. This thesis is directed against the bishop of Brandenburg, Scultetus, as well as against the superior of the Augustinian hermit order, Staupitz, who had accepted Luther's teachings and are hereby declared stiff-necked heretics.
  2. This and the following thesis are directed against the Elector of Saxony, Luther's sovereign, who protected Luther's person from overt violence.

and we would thereby escape unreasonable childhood: rather, they should remain faithful in regard to the truth preached to them about the pieces of penance and indulgences; through this their steadfastness in said faith will be known and revealed to the whole world that God is pleased with them.

  1. Therefore, those who mainly want to speak of the pieces of repentance, confession with the mouth and satisfaction with works, which are indicated and instituted by God and the Gospel, spread by the apostles, confirmed and held by the general church (and yet contested by the adversary erroneously and unchristianly in his German sermon by so many articles), and fill up notes or books about the plenary indulgence and the power of the Roman pope over the same, or at least preach or dispute about it publicly with an insolent face, or adhere to those who preach and write such things and favor their writings, scatter them among the people and spread them through the whole world, or speak about them insolently and contemptuously in corners or publicly before people: Let them be afraid lest they fall under the foregoing theses, and thereby expose themselves and others to the danger of damnation and severe temporal disgrace. For the animal that comes too close to the mountain is stoned to death. 3)
  1. In the Jena edition of 1564, vol. I, col. 18 d, there is the following note: "These counterclaims, whether or not they went out under brother Tetzel's name, he did not make them himself, but were made by Conrad Wimpina (Kochs, Dootorsra tÜ6oIoZiu6 seüolastl6U6, written at Frankfurt an der Oder, Anno 1517.

*11 Luther's explanations of his disputation on the power of indulgences )

May 30, 1518.

Translated from Latin.

Protestation.

Since this is a theological disputation, I will herewith repeat the protestation common in high schools, in order to soothe the hearts that may have been offended by the mere text of the disputation.

First of all, I testify that I do not want to say or hold anything except what is first of all held in and from the Holy Scriptures, as well as the Church Fathers accepted by the Roman Church and recognized until now, and according to the Canons and Papal Decrees

*) The first original print of this writing appeared in the middle of August 1518 with Joh. Grüneberg in Wittenberg; then in the same year another edition of the same appeared with Melchior Lotther in Leipzig, who published it in the following year.

102 L.v.L.n,i36f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 290-292. 103

and can be held. But inasmuch as something cannot be proved or rejected from them, I only want to hold it as a matter that can be discussed, according to the judgment of reason and experience, while I always reserve the judgment in this to all my superiors.

Only this one thing I add, and I claim according to the right of Christian liberty, that I may take the mere opinions of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, or other scholastics or canonists, when they are set forth without text and proof, according to my good

I know the opinion of certain Thomists who want St. Thomas to be approved by the church in all things. It is sufficiently known how far the reputation of St. Thomas is valid. By this protestation of mine, I believe, it becomes sufficiently clear that I may be mistaken, but I cannot be a heretic, however much those who think or wish otherwise may rage and gnash.

Explanations of the disputation on the power of indulgences.

1st thesis.

Since our Master and Lord Jesus Christ says: Repent 2c, he wants the whole life of his believers on earth to be a constant or unceasing repentance.

I assert this thesis and do not doubt it at all.

But I prove it for the sake of the unlearned: first, from the Greek word itself: that is, repent, which, however, could be translated quite accurately: transmentamini, that is, take on another mind and opinion, become wise again, make a change in the mind and form of the spirit, namely, that you are now heavenly minded, who would have been earthly minded until now; as the apostle speaks, Rom. 12:2, "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind." And it is through this renewing that the transgressor goes into himself and hates his sin. But it is

It is certain that this reawakening or hatred of oneself must take place throughout one's life, according to the saying John 12:25: "Whoever hates his life in this world will receive it for eternal life"; and again Matth. 10:38: "Whoever does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me"; and again Matth. 10:34:. "I have not come to send peace, but a sword"; Match. 5, 4. "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." And Paul to the Romans on the 6th and 8th, as well as in many other places, is called to put to death the flesh as well as the members that are on earth; and Gal. 5:24. he teaches- to crucify the flesh with its vents and desires; and 2 Cor. 6:4, 5. he says, "Let us prove ourselves in great patience, in much fasting. "2c I bring this forward as broadly as if I were dealing with such as do not know our cause.

Therefore I prove the same secondly also

printed it again. It was then first included in the small collection of Luther's Latin writings published by Frobenius in Basel in 1518 and later on several times, and from there it passed with all the attributions into all the complete editions of Luther's writings, namely in Latin into the Wittenbergische (tona. I, toi. 98) and the Jenaische (tom. I, toi. 72), then, without the attribution to Scultetus, into the Erlangen (opp. varii arZ. II, p. 122) and into the Weimar critical edition (vol. I, p. 525); in addition, it is also published in Latin by Löscher in his Reformation Acta (vol. II, p. 183), as well as in a special print that appeared as a jubilee publication of the 200th anniversary of the Reformation in Hamburg in 1717. The Leipzig edition first published it in German after Greif's translation (Vol. XVII, p. 29; the letters at the end of the text, p. 144, after the old translation), from which it passed into Walch's collection (the letters in Vol. XV, pp. 498, 507; the resolutions themselves in this Vol. XVIII). Vol.). The letters alone, without the scripture, are found in Latin in all of Luther's collections of letters, such as Aurifaber (I, 63 f.), de Wette (1,112 f.), Erl, Briefwechsel (1,148 f.); in German in the Wittenberg (vol. IX, toi. 20), Jena (vol. I, toi. 52), and Altenburg editions (vol. I, p. 63). - In the present edition, the new translation is based on the text of the krit. In the current edition, the new translation is based on the text of the critical Weimar edition.

104 A. V. a. II, 137-139. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 292-293. 105

through reason. Since Christ is the teacher of the spirit, not of the letter, and his words are spirit and life, he must necessarily teach such repentance, which is done in the spirit and in truth, but not one that even the most arrogant hypocrites can do outwardly, by disguising their faces during fasting, praying at the corners and trumpeting their alms before them Matth. 6, 16. Such, I say, must Christ teach, which can be practiced in every condition of life; which the king in his purple, the priest in his purity, the prince in his dignity, can do no less than the monk in his customs, and the beggar in his poverty; even as Daniel and his comrades did in the midst of Babylon; for the doctrine of Christ must suit all men and every condition.

Third, we pray and must pray throughout our lives, "Forgive us our trespasses"; consequently, we repent and are displeased with ourselves throughout our lives; unless someone were so foolish as to think that he had to ask for forgiveness of debts only as a pretense. For it is true and not contemptible debts for which we are commanded to pray; for even if they were only venial, we could not be saved if they were not forgiven.

2nd thesis.

And such a word may not yet be understood of the sacrament of penance, that is, of confession and satisfaction, as practiced by the priest's office.

I also claim and prove these:

First, because sacramental penance occurs only at certain times and cannot be done at every moment; otherwise one would have to talk to the priest all the time and do nothing but confess one's sins and perform the penance imposed. Therefore, it cannot be that cross which Christ commands to be taken up; nor is it a mortification of the lusts of the flesh.

Secondly, sacramental penance is only external and presupposes the internal one without

But this is internal and can be without the sacramental one.

Thirdly: The sacramental one can be hypocritical; but this one can only be true and sincere, for if it were not sincere, it would be a hypocritical penance and not the one Christ teaches.

Fourth, sacramental penance has no commandment of Christ, but is established by the popes and the church (at least with respect to its third part, namely, atonement); therefore it can be changed again at the discretion of the church. But the evangelical repentance is divine law, not changeable at any hour, because it is that everlasting sacrifice, which is called a troubled and bruised heart Ps. 51, 19.

Fifth: Here it belongs that the scholastic teachers unanimously distinguish the penitential penance from the sacramental penance, placing the penitential penance as the matter or subject of the sacramental penance.

3rd thesis.

However, he does not want to understand inward repentance alone; indeed, inward repentance is null and void and no repentance if it does not outwardly work all kinds of mortification of the flesh.

I also claim and prove these:

First of all: Rom. 12, 1. the apostle commands us to offer our bodies as a sacrifice that is alive, holy and pleasing to God. And how this is to be done, he explains clearly and extensively in the following, by teaching to be down to the lowly, to serve and love one another, to persevere in prayer, to have patience 2c; as he also 2 Cor. 6, 4. 5. says, "Let us prove ourselves with much patience, in fasting and watching. "2c But Christ also teaches, Matt. 5 and 6, to fast, pray and give alms properly; likewise elsewhere Luc. 11:41, "But give alms of that which is, behold, all is clean unto you."

From this it follows that those three parts of satisfaction: fasting, praying and almsgiving, do not belong to sacramental penance as far as the nature of the acts is concerned, for they are

106 D- v- a. ii, 139-141. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvni, 295-298. 107

They are not part of Christ's commandment, but belong to it in relation to the specific manner and time according to which the church has ordered them, namely, how long one should pray, fast and give, as well as how much and what one should pray, how much and what one should not eat, how much and what one should give. But in so far as they belong to evangelical penance, fasting includes all mortifications of the flesh, without choice of food or variety of clothing; prayer, however, every exercise of the soul, with contemplation, reading, listening and praying; almsgiving, however, every service owed to one's neighbor; That by fasting man may serve himself, by prayer God, and by almsgiving his neighbor; by the first he may overcome carnality and live soberly and chastely, by the second the hope of life and live godly, by the third the lust of the eyes and live righteously in this world. Therefore, all the mortifications of the flesh that the contrite man inflicts upon himself come from inward repentance and are, as it were, its fruit, whether it be watchfulness, labor, want, study, prayer, or avoidance of carnality and pleasures, insofar as they serve to promote the spirit.

Secondly, this is what the Lord himself did, and all his saints with him. So at last he commanded Matt. 5:16, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works." For without doubt, good works are outwardly fruits of repentance and of the Spirit, since the Spirit only gives forth the voice of a turtledove, that is, the groaning of the heart, the root of all good works.

Against these three theses of mine, a certain one, walking in anger and under the lion's skin, has stated and chattered that it is an error to deny that the word penance is also to be understood by the sacrament of penance. First of all, it is not my intention to refute all his statements, which are written in such a silly and ignorant way that it is impossible for me to believe that they are understood both by the one under whose title they are presented Johannes Tetzel and by the one who put them together.

has Conrad Wimpina, which is also immediately clear to everyone who is only somewhat talented and experienced in the Scriptures. However, in order to show them their ignorance (if they can grasp it), I will illuminate this first thesis. I admit that by the name repentance can also be understood the repentance of Judas, also a repentance of God, also a painted one and', as the logicians are wont to say, a repentance taken according to its essence and secondly according to its intention, and therefore also the sacrament of repentance, that is, the satisfaction. Or who denies that not a few theologians have hitherto permitted themselves to falsify almost the whole of Scripture with its brazen distinctions and double meanings, which have only recently been invented, so that we must now read Paulocentonas and Christocentonas 1) for Paul and Christ? But I have spoken here of the original and proper meaning of the word, as Christ gave to this word, or at least John the Baptist, who had no power to institute a sacrament, and yet came to preach the baptism of repentance, when he said, "Thuet Buße" Matth. 3, 2.; 4, 17.. And this word Christ repeated, and so, I believe, it is evident that he did not speak of the Sacrament. But even if their dream were true, let us see what follows from it.

Christ is undoubtedly a divine lawgiver and his teaching is divine law, that is, a law that no power can change or abrogate. But if the repentance taught by Christ in this passage means sacramental repentance, that is, satisfaction, and if the pope can change it and indeed does change it according to his will, then the pope either has divine law in his power, or else he is the most godless adversary against his God, because he nullifies the commandment of God. If those dare to claim this, who for the praise of God, and for the defense of the Catholic faith, and for the honor of the Holy Apostolic See, and for the revelation of the

  1. Perhaps instead of centonas - centones is to be read. Then the sentence would read: that we now have to read for Paul and Christ Paul's lappework and Christ's lappework.

108 D- v. n. 141-143. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvin, 293-301. 109

truth and for the suppression of errors; finally, if those who want to boast of the frightening and inordinately 1) (I would soon have said void) vaunted title of inquisitors of heretical malice, honor the church and defend the faith in this way, what, I ask, is left for the most insane heretics, with which they could blaspheme and revile the pope and the apostolic see? I did not want to declare such people as exorcists 2), but publicly as collectors of heresy. Almost all the theses that the so patient and innocent paper carries around now and then, which is subjected to vanity without its will, are of this kind and so intelligently written. If I wanted to refute them all, an enormous book would be necessary, and almost the entire confusion of the fourth book of the Sentences would have to be dispersed with all those who have written about it. But you, reader, be free and sincere, that you may learn from this one thesis all the others.

4. thesis.

Therefore, repentance and sorrow, that is, true repentance, last as long as a person is displeased with himself, that is, until the entrance out of this life into eternal life.

I also claim and present these:

First: This thesis follows as a sure inference, as it were a corollary thesis, from what has been said; for, if the whole fief is a penance and cross of Christ, not only in the voluntary mortifications, but also in the temptations of the devil, of the world, and of the flesh, yea, even in the persecutions and sufferings, as is evident from what has been said before, from all Scripture, from the example of the Blessed Sacrament itself, and of all the martyrs, it is certain that this cross endureth unto death, and therefore unto the entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

Secondly: This can be seen in other saints as well. St. Augustine had the

  1. In Latin: immaniter-innniter, a play on words which cannot be rendered well in German. Approximately: important - void.
  2. Here is a similar play on words as before: incMsitores - insitores.

He prayed and contemplated them with tears and said: even if a bishop has lived so righteously, he must not leave this world without repentance. So St. Bernard also cried out in his death throes: I have lived shamefully, for I have wasted time; I have nothing but that I know that you, O GOD, will not despise a troubled and bruised heart. [Ps. 51, 19sals

Third: By reason. This cross of repentance must last as long as the apostle speaks, until the sinful body is destroyed Rom. 6, 6., and the old of the first Adam perishes with his image, and the new Adam is perfected after the image of God; but sin remains until death, even though it is diminished daily by the renewing of the spirit from day to day.

Fourth: At least the punishment of death remains in all, as well as the fear of death, which is certainly the highest punishment and with most even more severe than death; not to mention the fear of judgment and hell, as well as the anguish of conscience 2c.

5. thesis.

The pope does not want nor can not issue some other chastisements, outside of those that he has imposed of his liking, or according to the canonum, that is, papal statutes.

I dispute this thesis and humbly request instruction; and as I have asked in the preface, I still ask that whoever can reach out to me and consider my motives.

First, let's put together the different types of punishments that believers can suffer:

The first is the eternal, the hell of the damned; this does not belong here. For it is certain that this is neither in the power of the highest nor in the power of the lowest bishop, as all in the whole Church hold, since it alone God remits through the forgiveness of guilt.

The second punishment is that of the sweeping fire. We will see about this below in the thesis that deals with it; meanwhile, we assume that it is neither in the authority of the pope nor of any man.

110 L. V. E. II, 143-145. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 301-303. 111

The third is the voluntary and evangelical one, of which it is said above that spiritual repentance works it according to that saying, 1 Cor. II, 31: "If we judged ourselves, we would not be judged" by the Lord. It is that cross and mortification through suffering, as in the third thesis above. But since this is commanded by Christ and belongs to the essence of spiritual repentance and is absolutely necessary for salvation, it is in no way in the power of any priest either to increase it or to diminish it. For it does not depend on the will of a man, but on grace and the Spirit; indeed, this punishment is less in the power of the pope than all other punishments, be they called what they will. Even if he can take away the eternal, purifying, chastening at least by prayer to GOD, as he can obtain justifying grace for the sinner, he cannot take it away, not even by prayer. Rather, he must procure and impose it on the sinner, that is, proclaim it to him as imposed, no less than he also procures grace for him; Otherwise he would destroy the cross of Christ, and marry the remnant of the Canaanites to his sons and daughters, and not kill the enemies of God, that is, the sinners, so that they would be eradicated, unless he saw that some, out of too great zeal, were mortifying themselves more than would be beneficial to their salvation and the need of others. In that case, however, he must not let up alone, but must forbid, just as St. Paul says to Timothy: "Drink no more water" 2c (1 Ep. 5, 23.).

The fourth punishment is the chastening and chastening rod of God, of which the 89th Psalm says (v. 31. ff.): "But if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my statutes, I will punish their sin with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues." But that this punishment is beyond the power of the popes, who doubts it? because, as he says, he the Lord inflicts it even on the innocent, Jer. 49:12: "Behold, those who were not guilty of drinking the cup must drink, and thou shalt go unpunished? Thou shalt not go unpunished, but thou must drink also." And by the same prophet

it says Cap. 25, 29. "Behold, in the city which is called by my name I begin to afflict, and ye shall go unpunished? Ye shall not go unpunished." Therefore also St. Peter says in his 1st Epistle, 4, 17.: "It is time for judgment to begin on the house of God; but if first on us, what end will it come to those who do not believe the Gospel of God?" But in the Revelation of John it says 3, 19.: "Whom I love I punish and chastise"; and Hebr. 12', 6.: "But He chastises every son whom He receives." But if the pope wanted to remit this punishment, or if the sinner believed that it would be remitted to him, he would certainly become whoremongers and bastards, as it says in Heb. 12:8: "But if ye be without chastening, which they all have received, then are ye bastards, and not children." For John the Baptist and the greatest saints also suffered this punishment.

But I would admit that some of these punishments for the weak can be lifted by the prayer of the church, such as sickness, indisposition, pestilence, fever; just as St. Jacob taught that one should call the elders of the church and anoint the sick, so that the Lord may cure such a sick person for the sake of the prayer of faith Jac. 5, 14. f.. But why should I persevere long? as if it were doubtful to any Christian that the chastening rod of God could be lifted not by the power of the keys, but only by tears and prayer, and more by the infliction of other punishments than by indulgence; just as the Ninivites, by their penances with which they humbly chastened themselves, deserved to have the rod of doom threatened to them turned away from them. Otherwise, if a priest of the church, whether the highest or the lowest, could remove this punishment by the power of the keys, then let him drive out plague, war, riot, earthquake, conflagration, murder, robbery, as well as Turks and Tartars and other unbelievers, who, as everyone who is not a bad Christian knows, are God's scourge and rod. -For thus says Isaiah, Cap. 10:5: "O woe to Assyria, who is the rod of my wrath, and the hand of the Assyrians is the hand of my fury!

112 D. V. a. II, 145-117. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 304-307. 113

The Turks are in the dark." Although now many, even the great ones in the church, dream of nothing else than war against the Turks; they want to wage war, not against iniquity, but against the rod of iniquity, and thus resist God, who through this rod, as he says, wants to visit even our iniquities, because we do not visit them.

The fifth penalty is the canonical one, that is, the one imposed by the Church. That this is rightfully in the hands of the pope, there is no doubt, but in such a way that (as they say) there is a just cause for its remission and the key does not err. But I would not (according to my presumption) take that just cause so strictly as many are wont to do. For the pious intention of the pope seems to be sufficient, and this should be a sufficiently just cause; nor do I see how an error of the key could occur in this bequest, or, if one occurs, what harm it should do, since the soul is saved after all, even if such penalties were not remitted for error.

More attention should be paid to the fact that the pope does not even remit all canonical punishments in the case of the plenary indulgence, which is clear because he does not remit the entering or forcible entry of certain persons into a monastery, a punishment which is not so rare in the canons; but also no civil or even criminal punishments imposed by civil law, although the legates do this in some places where they are personally present. He therefore seems to remit only those which are imposed in respect of fasting, prayer, almsgiving, and other troubles and exertions, some for seven years, others for more or less. Under this punishment I also understand those which the priest imposes on the church as he sees fit. Now, therefore, watch and instruct me if you can. The first four he cannot remit; what other does he remit than the canonical and arbitrary?

Here the one in the lion's skin again offers me: the punishment is remitted, which is demanded by divine justice or is to be atoned for in purgatory. To this I reply that it is quite shameful to

think that the pope has any power to change divine law and to enact what divine justice has imposed. For he God does not say, "All that I shall bind, you shall loose," but, "All that you shall loose, you shall loose," not, however, all that is bound, you shall loose, but certainly only what is bound by you, not what is bound by me. But they understand it like this: Everything that you loose, whether in heaven or on earth, shall be loosed; whereas Christ added "on earth" in order to limit the key to the earth with diligence, since he knew that it would happen that they would break through all heavens otherwise.

The sixth punishment, which I want to imagine until I am instructed otherwise, is that of which those say that it is necessary according to divine justice, in order to do divine justice enough. But if this punishment is other than the third and fifth (as it must be if it is to be the sixth), it cannot be imagined otherwise than that, where the third and fifth were not sufficient, this very one would be imposed, namely, still more prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; and so it would be different only in degree of extension from the fifth and third. For by it cannot be understood the civil punishment, for this (as has been said) he does not remit, otherwise the letters of indulgence would abolish all the gallows and places of execution by the church. Nor can the canonical punishment be meant, which is actually imposed by the judgment of a court in litigation; for he does not remit the ban, jnterdict, or any ecclesiastical punishments imposed, as experience amply testifies. So there remains only the one of which I said that I only wanted to imagine it. But that such a punishment cannot exist, I am sure of myself: First, it cannot be taught by any testimony, neither from Scripture, nor from the teachers, nor from the canons, nor even by acceptable reason, that such a punishment exists; and it is very inconsistent to teach something in the church, for which neither Scripture, nor canons, nor at least reason can be given.

114 L. v. a. ii, 147-149. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 307-310. 115

Secondly, even if there really were such a penalty, its remission could not be due to the pope, since it is arbitrary and imposed beyond the canons; indeed, not imposed at all, but voluntarily taken upon himself; for it is another than that which is imposed, as was said above in the case of the fifth penalty.

But if you want to say: how then can divine justice be satisfied if the canonical or priestly punishments are not sufficient in some way, I answer: it is gratuitously satisfied by the third and fourth according to the measure that God knows. Nor does one read anywhere that God ever demanded another than the third, sometimes also the fourth, as in the case of David and the children of Israel in the book of Judges and Kings; but almost always He is satisfied with a contrite heart and a punishment of the third kind. And therefore I am surprised at the carelessness of certain people who, in order to get satisfaction, say that Christ absolved that adulteress in the Gospel without satisfaction, but not Mary Magdalene without satisfaction, and therefore one must follow the Lord in this, as he did with Mary, but not as he did with the adulteress; so that without satisfaction no one may be forgiven sin. For he did not even cleanse the lepers without enjoining them to comply with the law and to present themselves to the priest. This, then, is the punishment that divine justice demands for those already mentioned. But I answer this: This adulteress suffered (in my opinion) more punishment and did more satisfaction than Mary Magdalene. For she already suffered death, seeing nothing but the severest judgment; therefore she was tormented in an extraordinary way and suffered far more than Mary, who did not face the judgment of death. Therefore her punishment was of the fourth and third kind, for she bore the agony of death in her contrite heart. Mary Magdalene, however, atoned for the punishments of the third kind; therefore it cannot be taught that her punishment was of another kind, as is clear. But of the lepers I say that they were commanded.

to show himself, not for satisfaction, but for testimony; for the leprosy was not sin, but signified sin; but the showing of sin is not satisfaction, but only seeks the priest's judgment, as is well known.

Secondly, I prove the thesis as follows: To bind and to loose are two equal powers, and refer to the same object; but the pope has no power to bind and to inflict punishment except the canonical or fifth: consequently he can neither loose nor abolish any of them; or we should have to say that these two powers are of unequal extent. Though this be said, yet no man is bound to believe it, for it is not proved by any scripture or canon; whereas here the plain text is, that Christ gave the power to bind on earth, and to loose on earth, measuring and extending both equally.

Thirdly, the Extravagante Quod autem, in the title de poen. et rem, in the fifth book, expressly says that the decree has no validity at all for those to whom it is not given by their own judge, "because no one can be bound or loosed by one who is not his judge." But it is certain that man is not under the jurisdiction of the pope in the penalties of the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth kinds, but only in the fifth, as is clear and will become clearer below.

Inference.

From this it follows that atonement is called sacramental not because it is sufficient for guilt (for the third and fourth punishments are sufficient for guilt), but because it is sufficient for guilt according to the ordinances of the church. For God is most satisfied by a new life 2c. But also by the Scriptures it shall be proved that no satisfaction is required for sins. Here is John the Baptist, who was sent to preach repentance according to God's purpose and counsel, who also said: "Repent" Matth. 3, 2, and again Luc. 3, 8: "See to it, do righteous fruits of repentance.

116 L. V. L. II, 149-151. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 310-312. 117

Repentance"; words which he himself interpreted when the multitudes of the people asked him what they should do, answering them [V. III: "He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, do likewise." Do you not see there that he imposed as repentance nothing else than the fulfillment of God's commandments, and therefore by repentance he did not want to be understood anything else than conversion and change to the new life? But even more clearly [v. 12: "Behold, there came also the publicans . . and said: Master, what shall we do? And he said, Nothing more, but whatsoever is appointed for you, that do." Did he perhaps say to them here, "You must do enough for past sins"? Likewise he said to the men of war v. 14, "Do neither violence nor injustice to any man, and be content with your pay." Did he here impose anything other than the ordinary commandments of God? But if this teacher of repentance, who was appointed by God for this very purpose, did not teach us anything about repentance, then he must have deceived us and did not adequately teach us the duty of repentance.

The second passage is Ezk 18:21: "If the wicked turn from all his sins which he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do right and well, he shall live, and not die." Behold, here he lays nothing upon him but that he do right and well, which must be done throughout life, according to that other saying Ps. 106:3, "Blessed are they that keep the commandment, and do right for ever." Has God deceived us here as well?

The third passage is Micah 6:8: "It is told thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee, to keep the word of God, and to love, and to be humble before thy God." Here you see what God demands of man as satisfaction; indeed, in the preceding He mocks those who want to satisfy by works, saying jM. 6. 7.ft "With what shall I propitiate the Lord? Shall I propitiate him with burnt offerings and calves of the year? Do you think the Lord is pleased with many thousands of rams? Or shall I give my first son for my transgression? or the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" as if to say:

No; for God requires nothing of the kind for sin, but righteousness and mercy and fear, as has been said, that is, a new life.

6. thesis.

The pope cannot forgive guilt, except by declaring and confirming what has been forgiven by God, or by doing so in the cases he has reserved for him. Which cases, if they were disregarded, the guilt would remain entirely unremitted or abandoned. 2)

The first part is so obvious that some have admitted that it is an improper way of speaking that the pope forgives guilt; others, however, said that they do not understand it. But all confess that the guilt is forgiven by God alone, according to that saying of Isa. 43, 25: "I will blot out thy transgression for my own sake, and will not remember thy sins"; and Joh. 1, 29: "Behold, this is the Lamb of God, which bareth the sin of the world"; and Ps. 130, 3. 4: "If thou wilt, O Lord, impute sin; O Lord, who shall stand? For with thee is forgiveness"; and further on (v. 7. 8.), "With the LORD is grace; and much redemption with him; and he will redeem Israel from olleu his sins"; and Ps. 51, 12. "Create in me, O GOD, a clean heart" 2c; as well as many other sayings in Scripture. Also, St. Augustine does not act differently against the Donatists in so many works, except that sins are forgiven by God alone.

The second part is equally clear enough, for he who despises the reserved cases would certainly not be forgiven any debt. "He who despises you," he says, "despises me"; indeed, no one receives forgiveness from God who does not at the same time have reverence for the keys.

Since this thesis is admitted as true by all, it is not necessary to confirm it by my assertion. However, I want to indicate here what moves me, and again I want to confess my ignorance, whether someone might be willing to instruct me and to illuminate this matter more clearly.

  1. I.e. omitted.

148 L. v. a. ii, isi f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvin, 312-315. 119

First of all, in regard to the first part, this way of speaking or this opinion seems to be inauthentic and does not correspond to the evangelical text, since it is said that the pope solves, that is, he declares the debt to be solved or confirms it; for the text does not say: Everything that I will solve in heaven, you shall solve on earth; but on the contrary: Everything that you will solve on earth, I will solve in heaven, or shall be solved in heaven; where the meaning is more that God confirms the solution of the priest, than vice versa. Second, regarding the second part, it is certain that whatever cases the pope solves, God also solves; and no one can be reconciled with God who is not first reconciled, at least in desire, with the Church; nor is the offense to God taken away as long as the offense to the Church remains. But the question is, once one is reconciled to the Church, is he also reconciled to God? The text, however, has it that everything that is solved in the Church should also be solved in heaven; but it does not seem to follow from this that therefore also everything is badly solved in heaven, but certainly only that which is solved in the Church. These two questions are, in my opinion, not of little weight, which is why I will perhaps open my judgment on them a little more expansively in the following thesis.

7. thesis.

God does not forgive anyone's guilt whom He does not at the same time, well humbled, submit to the priest, His governor.

This thesis I assert; also it needs no discussion or proof, since it is confirmed by so large agreement of all. But I still have some doubts about its reasoning; and, first of all, to say my opinion as a fool: because this thesis with the previous one asserts that God does not forgive any guilt before it is forgiven by the priest, at least before the priestly forgiveness is there, or at least desired, as the text clearly reads Matth. 16, 19.: "All that you will bind" 2c; and that saying [Matth. 5, 24.): "Go first and be reconciled with your Lord.

n brother; and then come and offer your gift"; as well as that [Matth. 22, 21.): "Pray to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"; and as it is said in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." In all these sayings forgiveness on earth is first indicated before that in heaven: so it is rightly asked: how this can be possible before the infusion of grace, that is, before the forgiveness of GOD, since, before the grace of GOD has first remitted the guilt, man cannot even have a desire to seek remission and forgiveness? Here I say and hold for it: When GOD begins to justify man, He first condemns him; and whom He wants to build up, He destroys; whom He wants to heal, He strikes; whom He wants to make alive, He kills; as He 1 Sam. 2, 6. 7. and 5 Mos. 32, 39. says, "I kill, and I make alive. "2c But this he does when he smites man, and humbles and terrifies him in the knowledge of himself and his sins, so that he, a wretched sinner, must say Ps. 38:4, "There is nothing wholesome in my body before thy woe, and there is no peace in my bones before my sin." For thus the mountains melt before the face of the Lord; "thus he shooteth his beams, and scattereth them: from thy rebuke, O Lord, from the breath and snort of thy nose" [Ps. 18:15, 16.); thus sinners are turned to hell, and their faces are covered with shame. Such consternation and crushing was often experienced by David, as he confesses with sighs in various psalms.

But salvation begins with this anxiety and fear of conscience; for "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" Ps. 111, 10.. Here the LORD (as Nahum, Cap. 1, 3., says), when he purifies, leaves no one innocent, and in the weather and storm are his ways, and under his feet is thick dust; here his lightnings shine, the earth sees it and trembles [Ps. 97, 4.); here his arrows drive and strike, and the voice of his thunder rolls Ps. 77, 19. 17.; the waters see it and tremble; in short, here GOD works a strange work to work his work

129 L. v. a. ii, 152-ist. 11. explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvin, 3is-3i8. 121

Is. 28, 21., that is, the true contrition of heart and humiliation of spirit, the sacrifice most pleasing to God Ps. 51, 19.; here is the sacrifice, cut in pieces and the skin flayed off, kindled into a burnt offering And here grace (as they say) is poured in, as Isaiah, Cap. 41, 3., says: "he pursues them, and passes through with peace", and 66, 2.: "I look upon the wretched, and the brokenhearted, and the fearful of my word", mid Hezekiah, Is. 38, 16.: "O Lord, of this I live, and the life of my spirit is all in this: for thou hast caused me to sleep, and hast made me to live." But then man knows so little of his justification that he believes himself to be very close to damnation and considers this not a retraction of grace but an outpouring of God's wrath upon him. But blessed is he if he suffers this affliction; for after he has thought himself consumed, he will rise like the morning star. But as long as this miserable consternation of his conscience is present, he has neither peace nor consolation, unless he flees to the power of the church and demands consolation and medicine for his sins and misery, which are uncovered by confession: for he is unable to give himself rest by his own prudence and help; indeed, the sadness would finally be consumed in despair. Here the priest, seeing such humiliation and contrition, trusting in his power given to him to do mercy, should have the most complete confidence, and solve him and declare him solved, and thus give him peace of conscience. The absolver, however, should be careful not to doubt that his sins are forgiven by God, and should be confident about this in his heart; for even if he is uncertain because of the consternation of his conscience (as it usually must be if the repentance is true), he is nevertheless required to calm himself at the pronouncement of the other, not at all because of the dignitary or his authority, but for the sake of the word of Christ, who cannot lie, since he says Matth. 16, 19.: "Everything you will solve on earth" 2c; for faith in this word

will give him the peace of conscience, because according to this word the priest solves. But whoever seeks peace in another way, such as inwardly through experience, certainly seems to be tempting God and wants to have peace in a matter and not in faith. For you will have peace only as far as you believe the word of Him who promised, "All things you will solve. "2c For our peace is Christ, but in faith. But if someone does not believe this word, he may be absolved a million times by the pope himself and confess to the whole world, but he will never come to peace.

This, then, is that exceedingly sweet power for which we must give God our greatest thanks from the bottom of our hearts, that he has given such power to men, which is the only consolation for sinners and wretched consciences, if only they will believe that what Christ promised is true. From this it is now clear what was put forward as a question above, namely, even if the forgiveness of guilt through the infusion of grace takes place before the forgiveness of the priest, this infusion of grace is of such a nature and so hidden under the form of wrath (namely, when "one does not feel his foot," Ps. 77, 20., and "the path under his feet is not visible," Isa. 41, 3. according to the Vulgate), that man is more uncertain about grace, when it is now there, than when it was not there. Therefore, in the usual order, all forgiveness of guilt is only certain to us through the judgment of the priest; and not even through this, if you do not believe Christ, who promised: "All things you will redeem. 2c But as long as it is still uncertain to us, it is also no forgiveness, because it is not yet forgiveness for us; yes, man would have to perish even worse if it were not certain, because he does not believe that forgiveness has been granted to him. Thus Christ said of Mary Magdalene to Simon the leper (Luc. 7:47): "Her sins are forgiven," by which he certainly indicated that grace had already been poured into her; but she did not yet recognize this infusion, there was not yet peace in her bones before her sin.

122 L- V. a. n, 134-156. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 318-321. 123

(Ps. 38:4.) until he turned to her and said, "Your sins are forgiven you, your faith has helped you," namely the faith in which she believed Him who forgave her; therefore follows: "Go in peace." Also that adulteress (Joh. 8, 3. ff.) had her sins forgiven before Christ arose. But she did not yet realize it, because so many accusers stood around her, until she heard the voice of the bridegroom saying, "Woman, hath no man condemned thee? neither do I condemn thee." - And when David had sinned and had been punished by Nathan the prophet on behalf of God s2 Sam. 12, 13.), he would certainly have died on the spot when he exclaimed under the justifying grace working in him, "I have sinned!" (for this is the voice of the righteous who first accuse themselves), ivenn not immediately Nathan, absolving him, as it were, had said, "So also the LORD hath taken away thy sin; thou shalt not die." For why does he add, "thou shalt not die," but for the sole reason that he saw him crushed and utterly perishing in terror of his sins? Hezekiah also [Isa. 38:4. ff.), when he heard that he was to die, would have died, had he not again received comfort from Isaiah, and the sign to go into the temple v. 22.. He believed this, and at the same time obtained peace and forgiveness of sins, as he said v. 17., "Thou hast put all my sins behind thee." And how could the confidence in the mercy of God and the forgiveness of sins have existed among those in the Old Testament, if God had not made it known to them, soon by appearances, soon by inspirations, soon by consuming sacrifices with fire, soon by letting a mist appear and other signs, that all their intentions were pleasing to Him? This is what He now wants to make known through the word and judgment of the priests.

Therefore, God's forgiveness works grace, but the priest's forgiveness works peace, which is also a grace and gift of God, because it is faith in forgiveness and present grace. And of this, in my opinion, I would say it is the one of which our teachers say it will be

This is not the first justifying grace, which must be present in adults before the sacrament, but, as Rom. 1:17 says, "faith in faith," for he who is added must believe. But the baptized must also believe that he has believed rightly and has gone rightly, or he will never have the peace that one can have only from faith. Peter therefore does not solve earlier than Christ, but he only explains and shows the solution; whoever then believes this with confidence, has truly attained peace and forgiveness with God (that is, he becomes certain that he is absolved) not with the certainty of a thing, but with the certainty of faith for the sake of the infallible word of the one who mercifully promised: "All that you will solve" 2c It is also said in Rom. 5, 1: "Now that we have been justified freely by His grace, we have peace with God", by faith, not at all by a thing 2c

Now if this is my opinion right and true, it is not wrong nor improper to say (as those want) that the pope remits guilt; indeed, the remitting of guilt is incomparably better than the remitting of any punishments, although the latter alone is now preached in such a way that they have made the remitting of guilt in the church none at all; while it is just the other way around: For where a man, through the remission of guilt (which he cannot give himself, since no one may believe himself, unless he would rather make two out of one confusion), has come to peace through the given faith in absolution, to him all punishment is no punishment at all. For only the fear of conscience makes punishment burdensome, but the joy of conscience makes punishment desirable.

And we see that this understanding of the key power is still abundant among the people, who seek and accept absolution in simple-minded faith. Some scholars, however, try to give themselves peace through repentance, works and confession, and in doing so do nothing other than fall from one restlessness to another, because they are only concerned about themselves.

124 D. V. L. II, 156-158. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 321-324. 125

and their actions, whereas if they felt uneasiness of conscience, they should believe Christ, who says: "2c But the newer theologians contribute all too much to this anxiety of conscience by treating and teaching the sacrament of penance in such a way that the people learn to trust that they can redeem their sins by their repentance and satisfaction, and this quite vain conceit can have no other effect than to make things worse and worse for the people with the bloody woman in the Gospel, who had spent all her fortune on the physicians. First of all, they should have been taught to believe in Christ, who gives forgiveness for free, and to despair of their own repentance and satisfaction, so that, strengthened by the confidence and joy of the heart over Christ's mercy, they would finally have happily hated sin and been brought to repentance and satisfaction.

But the jurists have also diligently given rise to this torment of conscience by exalting the power of the pope with too much zeal, and have thus brought about that people have held the power of the pope higher and have marveled at it more than they have honored the word of Christ in faith: Whereas the people should have been taught that they should learn not to put their trust in the power of the pope, but in the word of Christ, who gave the promise to the pope, if they wished to be at rest in their consciences. For it is not because the pope gives it that you have something, but if you believe that you will receive it, you have it; you have only as much as you believe because of the promise of Christ.

But if the power of the keys had no such effect on the peace of heart and the forgiveness of guilt, then the indulgence (as some say) would in truth be made small; for what great thing is remitted by the mere remission of punishments, since it behooves Christians to despise even death?

Likewise, why did Christ say John 20:23, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them," but because they are not remitted unto any that believe not that they are remitted unto them by the remission of the priest?

are remitted? Therefore in the words, "To whom ye remit the sins," the power is given, but in the words, "to whom they are remitted," the sinner is called upon to believe in forgiveness; just as also in the words, "All that thou shalt loose," the power is given, but in the words, "shall be loosed," our faith is awakened. For he could have said, "To whom ye remit the punishments or chastisements," if he had wished this to be understood; but he knew that the conscience, already justified by grace, would, in its fear, repel grace again, if he were not helped by faith in the presence of grace through the ministry of the priest; yea, the sin would remain, if he did not believe it was remitted. The forgiveness of sin and the bestowal of grace is not enough, but one must also believe that it is forgiven, and this is the testimony that the Spirit of God gives to our spirit Rom. 8:16, that we are children of God; for to be a child of God is something so mysterious (since one imagines oneself to be an enemy of God) that it cannot be where one does not believe that it is so. Thus the Lord does it wonderfully with his saints, that no one would tolerate the hand of the one who makes him righteous and healthy, if he did not believe that this one made him righteous and healthy; just as a sick person would not believe that the physical physician cuts the sick person with the intention of making him healthy, if good friends did not persuade him.

Therefore, the priest may be the cause without which no forgiveness takes place, or any other, it is all the same to me, if only somehow the truth is established that the priest remits sin and guilt; just as the friends of the sick person are in truth credited with his health, because they brought it about by their persuasion that the sick person believed the cutting physician.

Nor must we think here, "How if the priest were mistaken?" for forgiveness is not based on the priest, but on the word of Christ; therefore, if the priest does it for gain or honor, only ask for forgiveness without hypocrisy and believe.

126 D. v. a. ii, 1S8-I60. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 324-327. 127

Christ, who promises; even if he absolves you only out of frivolity, yet you receive peace from your faith; just as he gives baptism or the Lord's Supper, whether he does it for gain, or out of frivolity, or out of playfulness; your faith receives it completely. Such a great thing is the word of Christ and faith in it.

For we read in the history of the martyrs that a certain actor wanted to be baptized as a joke, even to mock baptism, and while being baptized he was converted and truly baptized by his pagan fellow actors and immediately crowned with martyrdom by them. Similarly, St. Athanasius, as a boy, baptized other boys, whom the Bishop of Alexandria subsequently declared baptized, as can be read in the history of the Church. And St. Cyprian, while rebuking the peace absolution given by a certain Bishop Therapius as one given hastily, nevertheless declared it valid. Therefore, it is by faith that we are justified, and it is by faith that we are brought to peace, not by works, penances, or confession.

Regarding this sixth and seventh thesis, our donkey in the lion's skin triumphs with joy; Yes, even before the victory he sings a song of victory over me and brings out of that puddle of dung scholastic opinions another distinction between a sufficing and avenging punishment and between a healing and ameliorating punishment, just as if one should believe them who dream of such things, although they wisely conceal this distinction from the people, lest the indulgence, or rather the profit, be nullified when the people realize that only such minor and empty avenging (i.e. invented) punishments would sleep.Such small and empty avenging (that is, invented) punishments would be extinguished. Then, in order to show everyone that he does not know what the old or new priesthood is, he again makes an eclipse with words and therefore makes a distinction of the key power into that of authority, primacy and office. Thus even

  1. In the continuation of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius written by Tyrannius (Toranus) Rufinus of Aquileia (d. 410), I. (10th) book, 14th cap.

not even our excellent magisters, the inquisitors of the heretic court and defenders of the Catholic faith, have learned, than what they have sucked from the far-fetched and overriding questions of the fourth book of the sentences. Perhaps they want to say that what Christ will solve in heaven with the keys of supremacy (for on earth he does not solve it himself), that should also be solved in heaven above with God; again, in order for the Pope also to be God, another, higher God must be invented, with whom that is solved which he solved in heaven above with the keys of power. But away with these folly; we know only One kind of keys, namely those given on earth.

That they now introduce: Consequently, whoever says that the priest of the New Testament solves only by confirmation and explanation (for this was the office of the Jewish priesthood) is mistaken. O astuteness of mind and tremendous weight of learning! These are men quite worthy to ferret out heretics and defend the Catholic faith, but against stone and wood! How much more correctly the apostle Paul asserts that the ancient priesthood consisted in judging lepers, in administering justice and cleansing the flesh, in food and drink and clothing and holidays 2c! Thereby the justification in the spirit and the cleansing of the hearts was signified as by an example, which Christ works through the service of the new priesthood in the church. Although, therefore, I have not put forward the sixth thesis from the heart, as I also said there, but because others have the opinion: however, because even the adversaries with all their masters to this day cannot indicate how the priest remits guilt, if they do not want to put forward the heretical but common opinion, according to which it is said: The sacraments of the new law give the justifying grace to those who do not put a bar, since it is impossible that the sacrament can be conferred salutary, except to those who are already faithful, just and worthy (for: "He who goes to the sacrament must believe", and: "Not the sacrament, but faith in the sacra-.

128 v. L. n, 160-162. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 327-330. 129

Therefore, even if the sophists may prattle on as they please, it is more likely that the priest of the new law only declares and confirms (i.e. indicates) God's solution, and with this declaration and his judgment he gives the sinner's conscience peace, and he is guilty of believing his judgment and having peace; just as the priest of the old law is guilty of believing his judgment and having peace. and with this declaration and his judgment he gives rest to the conscience of the sinner, and he is guilty of believing his judgment and having peace; just as the priest of the old law gave rest to those whom he declared clean in body or clothing, while he himself could not make anyone clean, not even himself. For what the former does to the body, the latter does to the conscience, and so the spirit corresponds to the letter and the truth to the example. And now I expect these defenders of the Catholic faith to show how they can explain the power of the keys differently without heretical malice.

8. thesis.

Canones poenitentiales, that is, the statutes on how to confess and atone, are imposed only on the living and, according to the same statutes, are not to be imposed on the now dying 1).

I dispute this thesis, although there are many who wonder that it should be doubtful.

First, it is proved by the saying Rom. 7, 1: "The law rules over man as long as he lives. "2c Since the apostle interprets this of the divine law, much more is it true of the human law, of which it is said there v. 2: "If the man dies, the woman is free from the law of the man." Much more, if he has died, he is free from the law of the living woman. For the apostle concludes from the lesser [to the greater: if the living man is loosed by the death of another, much more the dead man himself, from whom the living man is loosed!

Secondly: Spiritual law, like all other given laws, is bound to the various circumstances of time, place, and persons, dist. XXIX, 2) as everyone be-

  1. I.e. those who are already dying.
  2. In the first part of Gratian's decree.

is known. For of the word of Christ alone it is said Ps. 119, 89. f., "Lord, thy word endureth for ever; thy truth endureth for ever"; and Ps. 111, 3., "His righteousness endureth for ever." But the word and the righteousness of men last but for a time. Therefore, if the circumstances change, the laws also cease; if one does not want to say that after the devastation of a city, the devastated place still owes to do everything that the city did before; which is inconsistent.

Thirdly: If the law compels to dispense and change the law even in the case of the living, if the condition of the law ceases or turns to evil, because (as Pope Leo says) what has been set for the sake of love must not dispute against love, so also certainly must cease what begins to dispute against unity, peace 2c: much more are the laws for the deceased to be abrogated, since here not only the condition of the law ceases, but also the person himself for whom and according to whose circumstances they have been set.

Fourthly, from the words of the law itself, in which are clearly indicated the days and years, the fasting, the vigil, the exercises, the pilgrimages 2c, which obviously belong to this life and have an end through death, where man wanders into a completely different life, since he neither fasts, nor weeps, nor eats, nor sleeps, since he has no body. Therefore, John Gerson dares to condemn the indulgence, which was granted for many thousands of years; so that it is a wonder to me what may have happened to the inquisitors of the heresy court that they did not burn it, even if only after his death, which was against the custom of all courts sstationum] in Rome, but then especially against the practice of Sixtus IV, who granted indulgences so abundantly, so confidently that he himself reminded the prelates of their duty to correct and prevent this, calling such indulgences stupid and superstitious.

Fifth: I prove the thesis by reference to the intention of the legislator of the Canons, who certainly did not even think that such laws would affect the dying on-

130 L. V. Ä. II, 162 f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 330-333. 134

should be put. For imagine if one asked the pope who would give such a law: What kind of people, holy father, do you understand in your law, the living or the dead? What could he answer but: The living, of course; for what can I do with the dead, who are beyond my jurisdiction?

Sixth, a priest of Christ would act quite cruelly if he did not set his brother free as he wished to be done to him; nor is there any reason why he should not do so, since it is in his power.

To the seventh: If the canons remain in regard to penance for the deceased, then, for the same reason, so do all the others. Thus they must keep holidays, feasts, fasts, and vigils, pray the horas canonicas ecclesiastical times of day, eat no eggs, milk, or meat on certain days, but only oil, fish, fruits, vegetables, let them put on black or white garments according to the difference of the days, and other exceedingly heavy burdens with which now the so miserable, but once exceedingly free church of Christ is pressed. For there is no reason at all why only some canons should cease for the sake of time, and not all. If those cease which are good and meritorious for life, why not much more those which hurt, are useless and obstructive? Or do we perhaps want to invent a transformation here, that as they suffer other punishments that are just as valid, so they also do other works that are just as valid, so that one could nevertheless say of them that they read the horas canonicas?

Eighth: In fact, for the physically sick, even if they are not dying, the canons are suspended, both those concerning penance and those concerning morals. For a sick priest is not required to pray and worship, any more than others are required to fast, keep vigil, or abstain from meat, eggs, and milk; and they are not only free, but even forbidden, to do all that they were previously commanded to do in their health. For otherwise they would, 1) since they already have the

  1. I.e., those who impose the canons on the sick.

When the hand of the Lord has touched you, you say: "Why do you persecute me, as well as God, and cannot be satisfied with my flesh (that is, with my sickness)? Job 19:22. Therefore I conclude: the canons are not imposed on the sick, but on the healthy and strong: consequently much less on the deceased, but on the living. Or if the dying or the dead are not free from them, why are not the sick also oppressed and tormented with them? Finally, they are not required to make up for what they have omitted in sickness after they have recovered health; how can it be believed that the canons must be made up for or performed even after death?

But here some say: How, if a healthy person omits the penances imposed on him and confesses it later on his deathbed? Here it seems that such a one must necessarily pay these penances in purgatory, even if no others may or would be imposed on him? I answer: By no means. For by such an omission nothing more has happened than that he has sinned against the commandment of the church, for which he must repent, but not make up for it again and fulfill it for the past, but only for the future. "If the transgression of any commandment were to be made up for, so that none remained, this would have to be done above all with the commandments of God. But it is impossible that e.g. an adultery would not remain such a deed by which one has lost chastity.

Ninth: Any one who undergoes a greater punishment than is inflicted upon him shall, according to equity and the right of nature, be remitted the lesser; but the dying man undergoes the last, heaviest, and greatest of all punishments, that of death: consequently, in view of death, every other punishment must be revoked, since scarcely anyone is strong enough for this One punishment. And again, imagine that before a legislator a dying man voluntarily offered himself for death, would not the legislator immediately withdraw his punishments?

132 L. v.". ii, i[L-165. 11. Explanations of the Disp. of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvm, 333-336. 133

To the tenth: Thus certain doctors, famous in the church, say that a Christian is the richest man, because by a willing death he can pay for everything and immediately fly to heaven; for nothing is greater than a death willingly taken from oneself for God's sake: consequently the canons are reserved in vain in regard to this that is, to death. This opinion is held by William of Paris and Gerson, and they are followed by a crowd that is by no means without understanding.

Eleventh: If death were not sufficient punishment, unless the deceased also suffered the punishments which the canons impose, the punishment of the canons must be greater than the punishment of death, because it lasts beyond death, and thereby injustice must be done to the death of the Christian, of whom it is said Ps. 116:15, "The death of his saints is held worthy before the Lord."

Twelfth: Imagine that a sinner is carried away and, confessing Christ, is martyred before he has satisfied the canons (as we read of the holy martyr Bonifacius), can purgatory stop him from being with Christ? And it would then happen that one would have to pray for a martyr in the church. 1) But every willingly dying person (because we are talking about such a person, i.e. a Christian) also dies according to God's will.

To the thirteenth: Why do not civil laws also remain in force after death, since they too are binding before God and in heaven, not by their own power, but by the power of Christ Matth. 22, 21., and of the apostles Peter [1. Ep. 2, 13. ff.) and Paul Rom. 13, 1. ff., who teach that one must be subject to them from the heart and for the sake of conscience, because it is thus the will of God?

To the fourteenth: The canons cease when a penitent layman changes his state, for example, when he becomes a priest, or when a priest becomes a bishop or a monk; and this

  1. According to the doctrine of the Roman Church, a martyr does not first go to purgatory, but immediately to heaven; therefore, one immediately calls for his intercession, but does not intercede for him.

Cessation happens in this life and should not occur at the change of death? What could be more incongruous?

Fifteenth: Such an opinion, that the canons must be satisfied even after death, has not a single scripture, not a single saying of the canons, nor any acceptable reason in itself, but seems to have arisen solely through the indolence and negligence of the priests, like so many other superstitious things.

To the sixteenth: In addition, we have examples from the ancient fathers, and certainly one Cyprian, probably the strictest observer of church discipline and discipline, who in the 171 letter of the 3rd book, commands that one must give peace to those who are in danger of death, so that they may come to the Lord in peace, after they have made their confession to a priest or deacon, as he says there. But this granting of peace is nothing other than what is now called perfect forgiveness, as is obvious to anyone who looks at it.

Therefore we can conclude that the canons may be imposed only on the living, and even among them only on the healthy and strong, indeed, only on the indolent, who of their own accord do not want to do the better. I would certainly not have elaborated on this so extensively if I did not know that certain people quite stubbornly assert the opposite, which they can in no way prove; for if I had wanted to act with understanding and scholars, I would have been better silent than speaking.

But here someone would like to say: To say so is to make indulgences too small, if only the canonical punishments, and not even all and only for this life, are remitted. Answer: It is better that indulgences be made small than that the cross of Christ be nullified, and it is better that indulgences be considered small than that something be taught in the church that could be accused of fraud to the shame of the church. However, I freely confess and solemnly declare that I care little for indulgences as a remission of punishments (of which those alone boast highly), but exceedingly venerate them as a remission of guilt according to my sense explained above,

134 L. V. a. n, 165-167. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 336-339. 135

I accept and esteem those who consider them nothing at all.

This eighth thesis is countered with a single leaden dagger, namely, that one finds in the laws that also deceased persons were banished, as it is especially testified by the chapter A nobis in the Extravagante de sent. exeom. of the judgment of the ban testifies. How afraid I was that they might also say that they had found that the deceased were subject to severe punishments and pardons! But it is good that they only said that the deceased are excommunicated; so no one denies that even the deceased are absolved. But what has this absolution to do with the remission of punishments? Is this the so astute dialectic, without which, according to their doctrine, no one can become a theologian? Perhaps it contains in a fifth figure 1) the following conclusion: "Someone is absolved from the ban, consequently the punishments are remitted to him, with which he should have done enough." Why, then, do they still grant indulgences so abundantly back and forth, if the one absolved of sin also has the remission of the punishments immediately? But if there is still a satisfaction left for the absolver, how can the absolution be of use to the deceased or take away the punishment? Therefore, this conclusion is worthless, that just as the ban extends to the deceased, so does the remission of punishments. Yes, as the jurists themselves say: "The excommunication of the deceased brings no harm to the deceased, just as absolution brings him no benefit, but all this happens only to frighten us; only that one does not pray for such a one in public. Therefore, such a person suffers no more from such an excommunication than a house or garment suffers if it were excommunicated; and again, nothing more is helped by absolution. But I will finally stop refuting such drivel, which contradicts itself, especially since there is nothing in it but scholastic opinions, which are neither found in Scripture nor in the

  1. This is an impossible one, because in logic there are only four figures, i.e. types of conclusion.

Church Fathers, nor are they founded in the Canons. For he Tetzel always presupposes as proven what he must first prove, or, if he does not do so, then he babbles these words like an evil woman: He is mistaken; he is racing; he is out of his mind; it is an error; that is to err. For in these words he wants to reveal wherein lies the epitome of his wisdom and learning.

9. thesis.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit does us good in the pope, that the pope always excludes in his decrees or rights the article of death and extreme necessity.

This thesis is more a proof of the previous one. For it is certain that if the pope wants to exclude cases of temporal need, he wants this much more in the case of eternal need, which man faces through death, while the sick or lawfully incapacitated person is only held by a temporal incapacity. Yes, even if the pope did not exclude necessity, it would still have to be understood as exempted, since necessity has no command. But death is the most extreme necessity and the last and greatest obstacle of all.

10. thesis.

The priests act imprudently and wickedly, who save and keep the penance imposed on dying people in purgatory, where they have enough to do.

This thesis also obviously follows from the eighth thesis; and there are certainly some who are surprised that such things happen by priests. But it does happen. Since this is as much as obeying the canons more than the call of God, and preferring the inferior works of the canons to the value of the death of Christians, which is held to be exceedingly worthy, I do not know whether those who are biased by such an opinion have the right guide of faith.

Secondly: It is well known and frequently occurs with excellent teachers in the Church: when God Himself has a man in the middle of the

136 v- a. ii, 167-169. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 339-341. 137

If the works of ecclesiastical obedience lead to rapture or special enlightenment, then the person is obliged to refrain from the work, to abandon obedience to the church and to obey God more than men Apost. 5, 29. Yes, they even say that in the horis canonicis one must, against the commandment of the church, let go of the attention to the words, if one would be granted a heavenly enlightenment and movement. If, therefore, the laws of the church are already suspended in such a call, how much more must this not take place in such a great call and rapture, namely, death? Or should one follow the great multitude of fools who are so attached to their ceremonial works that for their sake they often put aside the obvious obedience to God and man and still believe to have done right, if they only performed those, but never the others.

Thirdly: Then the Church would certainly be quite ungodly against God, if she were to retain in her lower jurisdiction the one whom God already calls before His supreme court. Or when does the pope tolerate that a defendant should be detained by the law and the rights of the lower court of a bishop or prelate, after he has already been demanded to stand before his court? or does he demand from his subordinates what he as a man does not concede to his GOD, who is above him? So a man closes his hand to God, and a man should not be able to close it to another? That is far away. But certainly, if he imposes the canons on the dying, it is clear that he judges and punishes him according to his jurisdiction.

These, therefore, are almost twenty reasons which have induced me, (as I hope) not presumptuously, to doubt this object of canonical punishments, while on the opposing side no scripture, no canon, no reason, not even the general custom of the Church, but only the abuse of some is found.

11. thesis.

This weed, that the penance or satisfaction, so by the canons or statutes

The first seed was sown while the bishops were asleep, and the second seed was sown while the bishops were asleep.

Here I ask that no one may believe that I am slandering the reverend bishops by saying that they have slept. These are not my words, but the words of the Gospel, except that the name "bishops" is not written there, but "people" Matth. 13, 25. But it is certain that by "people" the superiors and leaders of the church are meant, because one would have to take by a figurative way of speaking of each spirit and mind over his body 1). Therefore, at least the popes of the Church do not teach this, because (as I said) we have no canon about this, no provision from them, from which this could be taught. Therefore, some teachers of canon law labor in vain when they endeavor to show of what kind those years, days, and quadragens in purgatory are, since in truth there are none, or at least it cannot be proved; but the error comes from this, they pay no attention to the fact that the canons are given only for the time of this life and bind only on earth; just as someone who changes the city, thereby also changes the city rights at the same time. But if he still has obligations, he is compelled to satisfy them before any change is made. Therefore, nothing may be imposed on the dying, nor may they be sent to purgatory with the rest of their penance (as Gerson claims in one place), but they should rather be instructed (as he teaches more correctly in another place) to submit to death steadfastly and willingly according to God's will.

Here we must also pay attention to that fiction and reprehensible sophistry, so that they, like little children with larvae, want to frighten us, since they say: because the priest does not know the measure of repentance necessary for absolution, and therefore perhaps does not impose such a great satisfaction as divine justice requires: therefore it is necessary-

  1. In Latin: super eorpus suuru. The meaning may be well: more than his body.

138 L. v. a. ii, i69-i7i. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 311-344. 139

The Lord's will is necessary to do enough for this too, either through his own work or through indulgences.

First of all, we see here how their mere words are oracles without any proof, while the prophet says Amos 3:7: "The Lord does nothing, but reveals his secret to the prophets, his servants." Nor is it credible, since he is our God who teaches us what is useful, as he speaks through the prophet, that he should not have revealed this demand of his justice to us anywhere.

On the other hand, I do not know whether those who speak in this way want to make God into a usurer or a merchant who will not let us off anything for nothing unless, as it were, he is given satisfaction as a price for it. Or do they perhaps want us to bargain with the justice of God over our sins, before which no man is justified?

Thirdly: If this is really so, why does the pope absolve completely, since he neither knows the measure of repentance, nor can he himself complete the imperfection of repentance, but perfect repentance does not need his absolution? Nor has he any power of a different kind from that of another priest, but only of a different extent, in that he absolves the sins of all, but the others only of some; and as much absolution as these can absolve of some, so much can he absolve of all; and nothing more: otherwise the church would be a thing consisting of powers of different kinds.

Fourthly, the first church did not know the measure of repentance and the weight of spirits, but nevertheless it completely remitted sins after the completion of repentance, which, according to our opponents, it could not know if it was sufficient.

Fifthly, another dream comes from the fact that they base the forgiveness of sins not on faith and the word of the merciful Christ, but on the work of the running man; for they invent that a perfect remission can be given only to those who have perfect repentance, of which there is none in this life, and yet they concede to the pope that he can give it also to those who have only imperfect repentance.

Sixth: If the justice of God demands something, it is already beyond the power of the church, which has nothing to change in what God wants or imposes. For still the saying stands firm Is. 46, 10.: "My counsel standeth, and I do all that I please."

In the same way, what others say that the canonical punishments are an explanation of the punishments required by divine justice is refuted. For in the first place this is not proved, consequently it can just as easily be despised. If he declares sGOtt], it is impossible for the Church to remit them, for she did not impose them; but declares that they are imposed by GOD, or they are forced to say that the word of Christ must be so placed: All that I shall bind, thou shalt loose.

12. thesis.

In ancient times, canonicae poenae, that is, penance or satisfaction for sins committed, were imposed not after, but before absolution, checking whether the repentance and sorrow would be righteous.

This 12th thesis again proves the 8th thesis, for the canonical punishments are so temporal that they have absolution itself at their end. But since every dying person must be absolved (under the same conditions), it is clear that not only may no punishments be imposed, but also that those imposed, as well as those which should be imposed, must be remitted. If this ancient custom of the Church had been maintained hitherto, this error would not have arisen. Now, however, when absolution precedes punishment, they have come to the point where, to disgrace absolution, they send people to death without absolving them, and commit a kind of monstrosity by not absolving by absolving and binding the absolved again with the same word.

First of all, this thesis is proved precisely from the custom of solemn penance, as described in the Canons, and of which one still has an example or a remaining trace in the penance in the case of the homicide.

140 L. v. Ä. II, I7I-I73. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 344-347. 141

For why do they absolve the living from punishment here and not refer him to other penances to be made in his life, while they are so strict with the dying?

On the other hand, St. Jerome wrote that his Fabiola was absolved; St. Ambrose absolved his Theodosius; and finally, this is read more frequently in none other than in the glorious martyr Cyprian in the third book of his letters; likewise in the history of the church and in the historia tripartita. Likewise, in Dionysius^1)^ , in his Constitution of the Church, the state of the penitents and energumenes is described^2)^ . In all of these we see that sinners were not accepted for grace and absolution until after they had done penance.

Thirdly: Christ also did not absolve Mary Magdalene and the adulteress until after tears, anointing, and an exceedingly violent and humble affliction.

Fourthly, we read in Genesis 44 that Joseph attacked his brothers with many tests to find out whether their attitude toward him and Benjamin was sincere; when he had found this out, he made himself known to them and received them with favor.

13. thesis.

The dying do enough for everything by their death or decease, and are dead to the right of the canonum or statutes, and thus are fairly released from the same obligation.

This thesis forms the conclusion of the preceding and is clear enough. For it would be a rather strange thing if the dying were to be detached from all works, things, laws, people, and also from the laws of God Himself, namely, where almsgiving, prayer, fasting, the cross, work are commanded, and everything that can be done with the body; finally, from the works of holy love towards the neighbor (which alone never comes to an end), and it should only be from all things the canons, of which

  1. the Areopagite; cf. Walch, St. Louis ed,
  1. The possessed recommended to the church for intercession.

it could not be solved! Then a Christian would be more miserable than all the heathen, because even in death the laws of the living would still torment him, while he is rather of such a nature that he must be free even among the dead through Christ in whom he lives.

Let us then sum up the conclusion to see how many people are remitted punishments by indulgences. Six kinds of people seem to me to be excluded from needing indulgences: 1) the dead or dying; 2) the sick; 3) the lawfully prevented; 4) those who have not committed serious crimes; 5) those who have committed crimes, but not public ones; 6) those who do something better. Let us now also prove this and make it at least probable.

First, what may be most striking, namely, that indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, such as adultery, murder, usury, fornication, drunkenness, sedition, 2c; for if such sinners remained secret, they would not seem to belong under the canons. First, because the canons require public penances, and the church has no right to judge secret things externally. Secondly, because a secret sin, as it may not be punished publicly, so it need not be remitted publicly; but indulgences are public indulgences, and, as is clear, are given in view of the Church; indeed, there are some who believe that there is some difference between indulgences given in public penalties and those given privately in the court of conscience. Thirdly, by secret sins the Church is not offended, but only by public ones; therefore they are not urged to public penance, to make good the aversions, and to rebuild what they have pulled down. Fourth, even now the jurists do not condemn those who are public criminals, but only those who are known by law, while they tolerate those who are known by deed. And this opinion I certainly do not reject, and it does not seem to me to be erroneous; since it is not lawful for anyone to judge, condemn, or condemn another, however he may have sinned.

142L . V. E. II, 173 f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 347-350. 143

If he has no power or right to judge him, lest it be said to him Rom. 14:4, "Who art thou to judge a strange servant?" Nevertheless, the neglect of love is to be blamed, both in the prelates and in the subordinates, that they let those who are known by deed so freely, and do not see to it that they are also known by right, according to that commandment of Christ, "Tell it to the church; if he does not hear the church," 2c Matt. 18:17.

Secondly: I believe that it is obvious to all that canonical punishments are imposed only for crimes: consequently, the indulgence (if it is remission of the canons) is useful only to criminals. Therefore, those who lead an ordinary life, which is not led without venial sins, have no need of indulgences, especially because no punishment may be imposed for venial sins, indeed, people are not even required to confess them: much less do they need to buy indulgences. Otherwise, the canonical penalties would necessarily have to be borne by all at all times, since no one (as said) lives without venial sin.

And I want to say even more: not even for every mortal sin one needs to redeem indulgences. This I prove thus: No one is sure whether he is not always living in mortal sins because of the very secret vice of pride; if, therefore, canonical punishments stood for every mortal sin, the whole life of the faithful, above the evangelical cross, would be nothing else but also a torture with the canonical punishments; therefore, one would have to continually redeem indulgences and do nothing else. If this is not true, it is obvious that indulgences are only for sins that are punished by the canons; but no sins can be punished by the canons except certain and manifest crimes, or, if I am pressed hard, at least only those that are certain to be grave mortal sins, as I have said about adultery, theft, murder 2c, i.e. publicly known works. Therefore, consent to any mortal sin does not belong among the canonical punishments, neither to impute it nor to exempt it, nor a word of mouth,

if it does not become the occasion for the future work, as is also clear from the words of the Canons.

Thirdly: Nor are the canons so laid down for crimes that they should not cease if someone does a better work, for example, if he enters a monastery, or devotes himself to the service of the poor and sick, or suffers for the sake of Christ, or dies according to God's will, or does something of the sort or greater than this. It is clear that for such people the canonical punishments cease and that even indulgences are of no use to them. Therefore, they are imposed only on the lazy who repent coldly, that is, on the tender sinners; therefore, it seems that indulgences are actually granted only to the hard and to those who do not want to suffer.

Fourthly, in the case of those who, for a just cause, are prevented from bearing the penalties, there is no doubt that they are to be understood as if they were not imposed upon them. For example, if a person is imprisoned by the Turks or infidels, or is a slave of some lord whom he is bound to obey according to the precepts of the Gospel, or to perform the service he owes, or to serve his wife and children by working with his hands and earning a living, he who is prevented by such things is not guilty of letting them go; rather, he is guilty of doing them, and of omitting the canons and obeying God. Therefore, he does not need the remission of them, because he was not in a position that they could have been imposed on him.

Fifthly: The Canons do not impose anything on the sick, therefore only the healthy person is considered and the one who does not belong to the number of those who say: "The hand of the Lord has touched me" Job 19:21, because these do not deserve the imposition of punishments, but to be visited and comforted, according to Christ's saying: "I have been sick and you have not visited me" Matth. 25:43. Otherwise it would have to be said also to the popes, "For they persecute whom thou hast smitten, and increase still the pain of my wounds" [Ps. 69, 27. according to the Vulgate); and as it is said in Job 19, 22.

144 D. V. a. n, 174-176. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. XVIII, 3S0-353. 145

means: "Why do you persecute me as God does?) Consequently, the indulgence is not necessary for them either.

Sixthly, it is finally the same with those who have died and are now dying, of whom it has already been said.

So you see how many Christians there are for whom indulgences are neither necessary nor useful. However, in order to finally conclude this matter and to put it to rest with its own sword, I will return to the thesis.

It is certain among all in the church that in the struggle for death and at the occurrence of death every priest is the pope, and consequently also absolves the dying of everything, and even if a priest is lacking, the desire of the dying is certainly sufficient; therefore he is also absolved of everything in which he can be absolved by the pope: consequently the indulgence seems to confer nothing at all on the dead, since everything that can be absolved is absolved in death. From this it is at the same time evident that the difference in the gradations and laws is to be understood only by the living and the healthy. Therefore, indulgences are only useful to obviously criminal people who are not hindered in living, healthy and strong, and who do not want to do better works. If I am in error here, refer me to whoever can and should know.

But if you ask: From what punishments, then, are the souls redeemed, or what punishments do they suffer in purgatory, if they do not suffer anything that corresponds to that which is ordered in the spiritual right? then I answer: If I knew that, what need did I have to dispute and ask? I am not so experienced that I know what God does with the departed souls, like those abundant soul redeemers who say everything with such certainty as if it were impossible that they were human. To this difficulty is added that there are teachers who think that souls suffer nothing from the fire, but only in the fire, so that the fire is not a tormentor, but only the prison of the

  1. The preachers of indulgences put these sayings into the mouths of the souls in purgatory against their living relatives who did not pay indulgences for them.

Souls is. Therefore, here again I get into an extremely doubtful and controversial matter and present what I have understood of it.

14. thesis.

Imperfect piety or imperfect love on the part of the one who is now to die necessarily brings with it great fear; indeed, how much less the love is, so much the greater is the fear.

This is clear from the saying 1 John 4:18: "Fear is not in love, but perfect love casteth out fear: for fear hath torment." If then perfect love casts out fear, it is necessary that imperfect love should not cast out fear, and therefore there should be fear in imperfect love. But where is this perfect love? and (to digress a little) who is without fear of death, judgment and hell? because even in a still so holy man there are remnants of the old man and of sin, and the children of Israel cannot completely destroy the Jebusites, Cananites and other heathens in this time, there still remains the trace of the old Adam. But this old nature is error, evil desire, wrath, fear, wavering [[spes]{.underline}], despair, evil conscience, terror of death 2c; for these are pieces of the old and carnal man; but they decrease more and more in the new man, but are not entirely eradicated until he also is eradicated by death; as the apostle says 2 Cor. 4:16., "Though our outward man decay, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." Therefore these evils of the remnants of the old nature are not taken away by indulgence, nor even by the repentance begun, but only the beginning is made with them, and by increasing they are taken away more and more. This is the health of the spirit, nothing other than faith or love in Christ.

Having thus presented this, the thesis is sufficiently clear; for if a man is precipitated by death before he has perfect love, which casts out fear, he necessarily dies with fear and terror until

146 L. V. a. II, 176-178. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 353-385. 147

love becomes perfect and casts out that fear. But this fear is precisely the evil conscience that trembles because of the lack of faith. For no conscience is more afraid than that which either lacks faith or is imperfect. For so also saith the apostle Heb. 9:14, that the blood of Christ cleanseth our conscience from dead works; and again, Heb. 10:22: "Sprinkled in our hearts, and loosed from an evil conscience in full faith."

In short, if I can prove that the cause of terror and fear is unbelief, and that faith, on the other hand, is the cause of security, then I think it is proven at the same time that the one who dies in an imperfect faith is necessarily afraid and terrified. But that unbelief is really the cause of terror, despair and condemnation, we read several times in the Gospel: first, when Peter calls the Lord to depart from him, he says: "For I am a sinful man" Luc. 5, 8; second, when he began to sink in the sea because of his little faith Matth. 14:30; thirdly, when the disciples wanted to cry out in consternation, because they thought Christ was a ghost when He walked on the sea; fourthly, when they were quite disturbed and thought they saw a ghost when Christ entered them with the doors closed. In all these cases it is shown that unbelief is the cause of fear and terror; consequently, all consternation comes from unbelief, all certainty from trust in God, and trust from love; for it is necessary that the one in whom you put your trust should please you.

15. thesis.

This fear and terror is in itself and only that I am silent about another thing is enough for it to cause the purgatory torment and agony, because it is very close to the fear of despair.

I speak nothing of the fire and of the place of the sweep-fire; not because I deny it, but because it is another disputation, and not begun by me now; next, because I know not where the place of the sweep-fire is, though

St. Thomas believes that he is under the earth. However, I stick to the opinion of St. Augustine, namely, that the whereabouts of the souls are hidden and far from our knowledge. This I say, lest the heretic Picardus think that he has obtained from me the concession that there is no purgatory, because I confess that its place is unknown; or that the Roman Church is mistaken, because it does not reject the opinion of St. Thomas. I am quite sure that there is a purgatory; and I do not care much what the heretics may say, since already a thousand and some hundred years ago St. Augustine, in the 9th book of his Confessions, prays and asks for intercession for his father and mother, and also his holy mother (as he writes there), when she was dying, wished that she might be remembered at the altar of the Lord; but he reports that this was also done by St. Ambrose. Even if there had been no purgatory in the time of the apostles (as the disgusting Picardus haughtily boasts), is it necessary to believe a heretic who was born only recently, barely fifty years ago, and to claim that the faith of so many centuries has been false? especially since he himself does nothing but say: I do not believe it; and has thus proved all his things and refuted all our things, as if wood and stone did not believe either. But this in its place and time.

Therefore, it is admitted that there is terror in souls; now I prove that this very thing is a punishment, and the greatest punishment of the purgatory.

First, all admit that the punishments of purgatory and hell are the same, and only differ as to eternity. But the Scriptures describe as the punishments of hell: consternation, terror, horror, flight, as it is said in the 1st Psalm, v. 4. "But such are not the wicked; but as chaff which the wind scattereth." But also in Job and Isaiah, and in many other passages, the wicked are compared to chaff and dust, swept away and scattered by the whirlwind, by which Scripture, of course, describes the terrifying flight of the damned

148 v- a- n, 178-180. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvm, 355-358. 149

is the term used. Likewise in the 2nd Psalm, v. 5: "He will speak to them in his wrath, and with his fury he will terrify them"; and Isaiah 28:16: "He who trusts in him will not be put to shame," that is, he will not hurry, nor be dismayed, nor flee in dismay and fear; by which he means that those who do not believe will be put to shame and tremble. Prov. 1, 33: "He who obeys me will remain safe and have enough and will fear no evil." And Ps. 112:7: "If a plague will come, he will not fear." For in these and other passages of Holy Scripture, terror, horror, fear, trembling are called the punishment of the wicked, insuring the opposite of the pious. Finally also St. Jacob, 2, 19. speaks that the devils believe and tremble; and 5 Mos. 28, 65. f. clearly states that the punishment of the ungodly is horror, saying: "The Lord will give you a trembling heart" 2c For if this horror were not, neither death nor hell nor any punishment would be burdensome, just as it is said in the Song of Songs 8, 6., "Love is strong as death, and zeal is firm as hell"; which was abundantly shown in the martyrs, so much so that the Holy Spirit says of the wicked in the 14th Psalm, v. 5. "There they trembled with fear, because there was no fear" according to the Vulgate; and Prov. 28, 1. "The wicked flieth, and no man hunteth him: but the righteous is confident as a young lion," and will be without terror. For why else does one man fear death and be grieved, and another despise it, but because he who has no confidence in righteousness in his heart fears where he ought not to fear?

On the other hand: 2 Thess. 1, 8. f. it says: "Those who do not believe in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ will suffer pain, eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from His glorious power"; because God alone with the face of His power torments and tortures them, since He is unbearable to them: therefore they will flee, but not escape, but will be seized under fear. Thus it is also said in the Book of Wisdom 6, 6.: "It will come upon you very horribly and shortly"; and in the

21st Psalm v. 10: "You will make them like a furnace of fire when you look into it." Where else would that word Hos. 10:8 come from: "O mountains, fall upon us, and ye hills, cover us"? and that Is. 2:10: "Go into the rock, and hide thyself in the earth from the fear of the Lord, and from his glorious majesty"? and that in Job 14:13: "Oh that thou wouldest cover me in hell, and hide me till thy wrath be turned away"? It is clear, therefore, that from the face of the Lord comes their greatest punishment, in that they are put to shame by their exceedingly vile uncleanness, in comparison with such great purity.

Thirdly: The Church also sings and groans in the person of souls in the 6th Psalm v. 3. f., "My bones are troubled, and my soul is greatly afraid"; and in the 116th Psalm v. 3., "Ropes of death had encompassed me, and fear of hell had struck me." That is why the most common prayer is that we wish them rest, understanding that they are restless. But the punishments do not cause restlessness, as is evident among the martyrs and steadfast men; but the terror and flight from the punishments, which comes from the weakness of trust in God. As each one believes, so happens to him; and the punishments and everything else occur to him just as he himself is. Therefore, nothing upsets the righteous, whatever happens to him, as it says in Prov. 12, 21; and again, the wicked are frightened by a rushing leaf [Deut. 26, 36Z; and Isa. 57, 20. f. it says: "The wicked are like an impetuous sea that cannot be still and whose waves throw up muck and mire. The wicked have no peace, says God the Lord."

Fourthly: Some have already tasted these punishments, namely hell, in this life: consequently, one must assume all the more that they will be imposed on the deceased in purgatory. For David speaks from experience Ps. 94, 17: "If the Lord had not helped me, my soul would have been in hell," and again Ps. 88, 4: "My soul is full of sorrow, and my life is near hell.

150 L.v.a.ii.isa f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvin, 358-mi. 151

whose passage Ps. 141, 7.: "Our bones are scattered unto hell"; and Ps. 28, 1.: "I am like them that go to hell"; and again Ps. 71, 20.: "Thou sufferest me to know many and great fears, and makest me alive again, and bringest me up out of the depth of the earth." But Hezekiah says Isa. 38, 10.: "In the half of my days I must go to the gates of hell"; and further on Isa. 38, 13.: "Like a lion he broke all my bones", which surely can only be understood as caused by an unbearable terror.

Fifth: How many are there who still today taste these punishments! For even Johannes Tauler in his German sermons, what does he teach but the sufferings of such punishments, of which he also gives several examples? I know that this teacher is unknown to the theological schools and therefore perhaps despised; but I have found in him (although he is written entirely in the language of the Germans) more solid and pure theology than is or can be found in all scholastic teachers of all universities in their sentences.

But also I know a man who affirmed to have suffered these punishments often, indeed only for a very short period, but nevertheless so great and infernal that no tongue can pronounce them, no pen describe them, nor anyone who has not experienced them can believe them; so that if they had been brought to completion or had lasted for half an hour, yes, even only the tenth part of an hour, he would have had to perish completely and all his bones would have been turned into ashes. Here God appears terribly angry and with him also the whole creature at the same time. There is no escape, no comfort, neither inwardly nor outwardly, but accusation in all things. Then one cries the verse Ps. 31, 23., "I am cast out of thy sight"; and dare not even speak Ps. 6, 2., "O Lord, punish me not in thy wrath." At such a moment the soul (strange to say) cannot believe that it could ever be redeemed; it only feels that the punishment is not yet full. However, it the soul is eternal and it cannot consider it temporal; there remains only a mere desire for

There is nothing left for her but a frightening groan, but she does not know where to get help. Here the soul is stretched out with Christ so that one would like to count all its bones, and there is not a corner in it that is not filled with the most bitter bitterness, with terror, trembling and sadness, and all this of eternal duration. And to give an example to some extent: When a sphere passes over a straight line, although every point of the line which is touched bears the whole sphere, yet it does not embrace the whole sphere: so also the soul in its point, when it is touched by the eternal overflow which passes over, feels and drinks nothing but eternal punishment; but it is not lasting; for it passes over again. If, therefore, this punishment of hell already befalls the living, that is, this unbearable horror against which no consolation can be found, how much more does the punishment of the souls in purgatory seem to be such a punishment, but a lasting one! And this is the inner fire, which is much more terrible than the outer. But if anyone should not believe this, we will not argue about it; but this at least we have proved, that those preachers of indulgences speak too boldly of many things, which they either do not know, or of which they doubt. For in this, those who have experienced it are more to be believed than those who are inexperienced.

Sixthly, there is the image of the Church, which sings: "Deliver them from the lion's mouth, lest hell devour them"; 1) likewise: "From the gate of hell"; 2) by these words it certainly seems to be indicated that the souls are already, as it were, in the gate and entrance of damnation and in the beginning of hell, which I have called being close to despair; and I believe the words of the Church are not in vain.

16. thesis.

Hell, purgatory and heaven seem to be equally distinguished from each other, as right despair, imperfect or near despair and safety are distinguished from each other.

  1. From the so-called Offertory Chant in the Mass of the Dead.
  2. From the funeral rite.

452 n V. II. 181-183. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 361-364. 153

Whoever believes the two previous theses to be true, easily admits this one as well; Yes, since we believe that in heaven there is peace, joy, and security in the light of God, while in hell there is despair, pain, and frightful escape in the utter darkness, 1) but purgatory may be the middle between the two, so that it is closer to hell than to heaven (because they do not have joy and peace, nay, enjoy anything of heaven, since it is assumed that the punishment is the same as that of hell, only different in duration): it is sufficiently clear from this that also in purgatory there is despair, escape, terror and pain. But when I mentioned despair, I added "near", because this despair once comes to an end. Otherwise, the soul really feels nothing but despair as long as it is in it; not that it despairs, but because it is in such confusion and consternation of horror that it does not feel that it hopes. But the Spirit helps there, as much as possible, her weakness by representing her with inexpressible groaning Rom. 8, 26.. So it also happens with those who are challenged in this life that they do not know whether they hope or despair; indeed, it seems to them as if they despaired, only a sighing for help remains. From this sign, not they themselves, but others recognize that they still hope. But I do not want to speak more extensively about this matter, which is completely hidden, lest the indulgence sellers also reproach me for speaking without proof, although I do not, like them, assert what I do not know, but only dispute and ask, and maintain that their imagined certainty is doubtful, even null and void.

17. thesis.

It seems as if in purgatory, just as fear and terror decrease in the souls, so love must also grow and increase in them.

This thesis, too, is based on the three preceding theses; however, we shall

  1. Here the Weimar edition, probably erroneously, offers ssrvirs instead of 8L6vir6, as the Erl. Ausg. has.

and (as we have begun) set three kinds of departing souls. The first kind are those who are completely empty of faith (that is, the damned): these must necessarily be seized with the greatest terror and despair at death, according to the saying Ps. 140:12: "Evil will seize the godless man at his fall" [according to the Vulgate); and again Ps. 34:22: "The sinner's death is exceedingly evil"; namely, because they have no trust in God, wrath seizes them. The second kind are those souls who are completely and perfectly in faith (that is, the blessed): these must necessarily be placed in the highest security and joy at death according to the saying [Ps. 37:24.), "If the righteous fall, he perisheth not, for the Lord putteth His hand under him"; and again Ps. 116:15., "The death of His saints is held worthy in the sight of the Lord"; and again Wis. 4:7., "The righteous, when he is hurried over by death, is in rest." The reason of both is because the wicked finds what he feared; but he always feared death and punishment. But the righteous, having had enough of this life, longed most of all to be dissolved, therefore he also receives what he desired. The former did not bring his days to the half Ps. 55, 24; the latter still extends his living beyond the set goal; therefore what the former abhors, the latter seeks, both are animated by a completely different striving; what is the greatest abhorrence to the one, that is the highest joy and profit to the other. The third kind of souls are those who are imperfect in faith and differ in many ways between perfect faith and no faith. I believe that no one denies that some souls depart in imperfect faith; nevertheless, we will prove it more extensively later. Therefore, since the imperfection of faith is nothing other than the imperfect new life in the spirit, while there is still a remnant of the old life in the flesh and of the old Adam (for if he were perfect, he would not fear punishment, nor would he reluctantly die or depart with earthly love for this life), it seems clear that it is necessary for the souls to not only have the

154 L. V. a. II, 183-185. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 364-367. 155

The first thing is to take away the punishments, but also to add the perfection of the new life and to take away the remnant of the old man (that is, the love of life and the fear of death and judgment); for the punishment (if it were possible), however much might be taken away, the soul would not be made whole by this removal, just as in this life no one becomes better by the removal of the punishments alone, but by the bestowal of grace and the removal of sin; therefore sin, that is, the imperfection of faith, hope, and love, must also first be taken away.

Secondly: No punishment is overcome by fleeing or fearing it; for the proverb is true, "He that feareth hell shall enter into it"; yea, even "He that is afraid of the hoar frost, upon him shall the snow fall," Job 6:16.; that is, it shall befall him even more than he feared. Every punishment is only increased and strengthened by the fear of it, just as it is diminished and weakened by love. But if the punishment is overcome, if one loves it and gladly takes it upon himself, then no punishment is burdensome as long as it is overcome: therefore punishments and death are not burdensome to him who loves them, but sweet, for they are overcome by love and the spirit; on the other hand, they are burdensome to him who fears them, for they prevail over him by fear and the letter. Therefore, if purgatory torments souls and terror is burdensome to them, it is evident that they lack love and the spirit of freedom, while the letter and fear are there; and this lack of love I call the imperfect health of the spirit. But since no one will enter the kingdom of heaven without perfect health, I finally conclude that it is necessary for them that love and health be increased, as that fear be diminished.

Should anyone deny or disbelieve this, and claim that the souls there are perfect in the life of the spirit and only atone for what they owed in punishments from before, I answer first: Let them also prove their opinion, which I also deny;

and I am sure that they will prove their case either by none, or by all too weak reasons. On the other hand: I ask whether they deny the above-mentioned threefold kind of departing souls. If they admit the third kind, let them reply to the foregoing, how the pusillanimity of spirit and fear can be taken away, since the perfect man, like God his Father, fears nothing, is able to do everything, tolerates everything, delights and delights in everything. - If they do not admit it, but think that faith is completed in death, and that only the penalties remain to be paid, and that this is the whole of purgatory, namely, the accounting for the penalties owed, then I will continue to recommend my opinion in addition to the very strong and indissoluble reason for proof that I have already given, namely, that they cannot prove their opinion by any scriptural passage, by any reason. For this is also the practice of those who are presumptuous and adhere to other opinions.

To the first: To what does God want to condemn the perfect in spirit? To satisfaction? On the contrary: above all satisfaction is the satisfaction of love; for even God Himself does not aim at anything else with the punishments than that love may become perfect. For love (if the apostle is not lying) covers the multitude of sins. But it was presupposed that those already have the perfect love.

On the other hand: God is most satisfied by the will, where he does not find the ability, as the whole church holds with St. Augustine. But those who have perfect love necessarily have such a will, and yet, for lack of life, they do not have the ability, therefore they necessarily do abundantly enough by the mere will.

Thirdly: Such perfected ones give to God all that they owe, because they owe nothing more than that they give themselves completely with the innermost will: for God demands nothing more from man than that he give himself completely, as he says Prov. 23, 26.: "Give me, my son, your heart"; yes, by the punishments he forces man that he give himself completely to

156 a. ii, 185-187. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 367-370. 157

present. When this is done, how do punishments remain? What do they force you to do?

Fourth: Imagine a soul that has perfect faith and love in death, which perhaps should have fasted for seven more days or atoned for some other canonical punishment. Here, then, God is so cruel that He would forgive a soul that thirsts for Him in the highest love and loves Him most fiercely above all else, that has completely forgiven its neighbor for everything and has most strongly desired that everything be forgiven for it as well, who therefore deserves forgiveness from God and from men (for this is the nature of the soul that dies in healthy love): here, I say, does not GOD remit those seven days because of the highest love and humility towards Him and the neighbor, which is the highest among all alms; since He speaks in the Gospel Luc. 11, 41., all things are forgiven and are pure to those who do not give alms from their heart but only from their abundance, and to the servant Matth. 18, 26. ff., who only asked and did nothing but promise, the Lord forgave the whole debt by also freely giving the promise: and God does not even consider in this matter that He is yet so willing to grant such to the living who are not in danger of death, but with those who are dying and are beset by the highest danger, is He so hard to forgive such small things of such great love? who will believe this? or in what way will they persuade us of this? Therefore let them either desist from preaching their things so confidently, or give them better reasons and refute this what I have said. In the meantime, let us hold that the souls in purgatory suffer in punishment not for the sake of mere punishment, but rather because of the lack of love, because here they have not wanted to make an effort to reach perfection; or, if they are perfect, that through love all punishments are overcome and they are free from them. Nor do I have such thoughts about the goodness of God that, in view of perfect and eternal love, he should not remit a punishment of very short duration to some, who, even for the sake of a little love, remits eternal punishment to all without distinction, and that he who often in life, for the sake of a work, should not suffer the punishment of eternal punishment.

He will forgive all punishments because of the love he has begun, but he should not remit some punishments once in death for the sake of all the works of perfected love. But this is disputable; for "God is wonderful in His saints" Ps. 68:36. We would do better to leave such doubtful things and present other more certain teachings to the people. God has the power over them that he need not act according to this or that opinion; for they are not subject to our, but to his judgment, because he can punish even there without cause, in order to show thereby the glory of his grace, as he did to Job and Paul.

Fifthly, I argue for the thesis: If purgatory is only a place of punishment, why is it not called "punishment fire" instead of purgatory? Because the nature and meaning of the word necessarily implies a certain purification, which can only be understood by the remnants of the old nature and sin, whereby those are impure who have prevented the purity of faith by the inclination to the earthly. But should they (as they are ready to make distinctions) also here use a new double meaning, and say that purification is here the same as payment, so that the souls are then called purified when the penalties are paid; then I answer: this is as easily despised as it is proved. If they also do not want to consider that the meaning of the word extends to the cleansing of faults, then that may be, I do not want to argue; but that is shown that both are doubtful, which is why one of these meanings is spread among the people in a wrong way with so much certainty, especially since not even the nature of the word agrees with their opinion.

The sixth: Gregory's statement in the chapter Qualis in the 25th Distinction also refers to this, where it says that in the future life not only punishments, but also debts, namely venial debts, will be remitted, as he gives examples there. But the redemption of the debt does not take place without the confiscation of grace, and the terror of death is a venial sin among the saints, but not a small one.

158 L. v. Ä. ii, 187-189. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 370-373. 159

18. thesis.

It also seems to be unproven, either by good causes or by Scripture, that the souls in Purgatory are out of the state of merit or increase in love.

This is my strongest evidence against the opposite opinion, namely that it is taught without any proof. Ours, on the other hand, is certainly based at least on the scriptural saying that no fear is cast out without the addition of grace, which alone is cast out by perfect love 1 John 4:18. But this thesis precedes the grounds of proof of those who might say against me, "they are out of the state of merit, therefore the three preceding theses are false." But I, to continue, as I have begun to say and dispute my opinion without asserting anything, say: If purgatory is only a place for the payment of punishments, and the souls therein are impure in their disposition (as I think), nor are they purified from this fault, then purgatory would be the same as hell; for hell is where punishment is with a lasting guilt; but in the souls of purgatory there is guilt, namely fear of punishment and want of love, whereas the righteous, according to Isa. 8, 13. should fear nothing but God alone: consequently they sin without ceasing as long as they shun punishment and seek rest. I prove this by saying that they seek their own more than the will of God, which is contrary to love. If they love GOD, they love Him with the love of lust (that is, with a faulty love), while even in their punishments they should love and glorify GOD and steadfastly endure. And in order to assert something for once among the many thorns of controversy, I freely confess that I believe no soul will be delivered from the punishments of purgatory for the sake of its fear until it casts off fear and begins to love the will of God in such punishment, and loves the will of God more than it fears the punishment; yes, even loves the will of God alone, but holds the punishment in low esteem, or even loves it in the will of God. For one must love righteousness before one can be blessed; but the

Justice is God, who works this punishment. Furthermore, there is the saying of Christ Matth. 10, 38: "Whoever does not take up his cross (that is, carries it willingly and gladly) and follows me, is not worthy of me"; but the cross of the souls is that punishment. Since this is so, and I believe it to be quite true, let anyone who is able tell me how this love of punishment can be exchanged for fear without a new infusion of grace. I confess that I do not know, for it would be said that purgatory has no fear of punishment and is not similar to hell in this respect; but then we pray in vain for those of whom we hear that they want and love their punishment without fear.

Secondly, I prove that love increases in them. The apostle says Rom. 8, 28: "To those who love God, all things serve for the best"; but by this best can only be understood the increase of the good, which they already possess: consequently also purgatory increases the good of love for God. Yes, it increases it most of all, because just as "zeal is firm as hell" Hell 8:6, so it still loves even in such great adversity; just as the furnace proves gold Prov. 27:21, so also punishment proves love.

Thirdly, "Virtue is made perfect in weakness" 2 Cor. 12:9. For all punishment, when love is present, is wholesome and useful; for the most delicious and fruitful love suffers nothing unfruitful in itself; but in purgatory is the greatest weakness: consequently it most perfects love.

Fourthly: On the way there cannot possibly be a standstill; but the way of God is the love striving towards God: consequently the souls must necessarily either go forward, as is evident, or go backward from the love of God, since they are not yet at the goal and in the seeing.

Fifth: Any persistence of the creature is impossible if it does not continually receive more and more; hence also some astute people say that the preservation of a thing is a continual creation of it. But to create means: to make perpetually new, as is also the case with the streams, the rays, and the

160 D. v. a. ii, i89-i9i. 11. explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 373-375. 161

It is obvious in the warmth and the cold, especially when they are outside their origin. Therefore, the spiritual warmth, that is, the love for God, in the souls also requires constant preservation (until they are swallowed up in their divine origin) and thus also an increase, even if it were true that they were perfect, although being outside of God and not yet having come to Him and being perfect are contradictory things.

But it is worth the effort to see by what motives they are led to deny the souls the state of merit, or by what they want to prove this denial.

The first is the common saying of St. Augustine: "Here all merit is earned, after death none": consequently, they say, purgatory is not a place where one can earn anything.

I answer: St. Augustine and the other fathers, who have said similar things, speak on the basis and according to the use of Scripture, which expresses itself much more strongly in this sense; e.g. Gal. 6, 10: "Let us do good while we have time"; and Christ speaks, Joh. 9:4: "The night cometh, when no man can work"; and the apostle Revelation 14:13: "Their works follow them"; and the clearest passage is Heb. 9:27: "It is appointed unto all men once to die, and after this the judgment"; and then the end. Gal. 6:7: "What a man has sown, that shall he also reap." Likewise 2 Cor. 5:10, "We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that every man may receive after he hath done in life, whether it be good or bad"; and many others, which are quite as if after death there were only judgment at all, to receive after one hath done, that is, deserved, according to the saying of Ecclesiastes 11:3, "Whithersoever the tree falleth, there shall it lie."

But all this is equally opposed to the whole of purgatory, for it puts no middle state between the dead who are damned and those who are blessed. If, therefore, notwithstanding this, purgatory is justly defended, it may also be defended that grace is multiplied to them, and that not

The fact that it is said that merit is acquired only here is contrary to this, because he does not speak of purgatory, just as those sayings speak nothing of purgatory, but only of heaven and hell: consequently, purgatory is omitted in both cases. Therefore, those words of Augustine are not to be referred to purgatory: All merit is here, not there, that is, not in heaven or in hell. Finally, according to St. Augustine, merit is also accomplished here, by which man is worthy to be helped in purgatory through intercession. Otherwise he has no merit either in heaven or in hell, by which he deserves to be helped there. But there he had purgatory in mind, but here not at all.

If, however, any disputant should wish to assert that the scriptural passages just quoted are not at all opposed to purgatory, because they could be maintained by the assumption of a double judgment - that of a double retribution after death, namely, a temporal one, which belongs to purgatory, and an eternal one, which belongs to hell, and thus the one reaps purgatory, the other hell, just as the one's works follow him into purgatory, the other into hell: I answer to this: If one speaks in this way, these sayings, together with purgatory, are rather destroyed than saved by such a violent and arbitrary double meaning, since one part of the double meaning can never be proven. Also, in my judgment, I consider it unlawful and a thoroughly reprehensible custom, as it has been held by some, to divide the simple meaning of the Scriptures into a double meaning and doubtful meaning. For it is more correct to say: this passage does not speak of this; than that one makes the attempt to understand it of two things, and thereby leaves it in no respect certain; for "the covering is too short," says Isaiah 28, 20., it cannot cover on both sides, and, as one usually says: one should not adorn one altar by exposing another. Therefore it must be said: that man reaps there what he has sown here is to be understood of the present and future life. The word "harvest

162 L. v. a. ii, 191-193. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 375-373. 163

The only thing we can do is to leave it in the meaning in which Scripture uses it, namely in the meaning of the future and general judgment, without attaching a double meaning to it according to our arbitrariness and distorting it. And so these passages of Scripture dispute in nothing against purgatory, not by the subtlety of the double meaning, but by the opinion that they abolish it altogether. In the same way it is with that, "Here is all merit, there none." How else would I have had to rack my brains, if I had also wanted to take the merit in a double sense, namely, after death there is no merit of this time, but one makes oneself well deserved in that state, and Augustine speaks of the former: but I have not wanted.

But what do they say to the saying of Ecclesiastes 11:3: "If the tree falls, let it fall at noon or at midnight, on which place it falls, there it will lie"? if they understand death differently by the fall. If, then, midnight is hell and noon is heaven, where do those who enter purgatory fall? Towards noon, they will say, but ambiguously. But what do they want to say to this: "there he will lie", "there he will stay"? so they will never come out of purgatory? Is the abiding here also supposed to be ambiguous, temporal and eternal? It is therefore clear that this saying goes precisely against purgatory, yes, even by assuming a double sense one would make hell out of purgatory. It cannot therefore be resolved, unless one says (as I have said) that it does not speak of purgatory at all, as little as the: "This is the book of the birth of Jesus Christ" Matth. 1, 1.

19. thesis.

This also seems to be unproven, that the souls in purgatory are at least all certain and unconcerned about their blessedness, although we are already quite certain about it.

For we, believing that no soul will enter purgatory unless it is among the number to be saved, are certain of its blessedness, as we are certain of the salvation of the

The elect are certain. Although I do not want to argue too much if one should claim that they are certain, I say that they are not all certain, but because the whole business of the souls in purgatory is very hidden, I explain this thesis more by indicating my opinion than by proving it.

First, from the foregoing: If the punishment of the purgatory is that horror and dread of damnation and hell, but all horror makes the heart dismayed, uncertain, helpless and helpless, and all the more so the more violent and unconscionable it is (but the horror of souls is exceedingly violent and quite unconscionable, as is said above, and Christ says Luc. 21, 35.: "Like a snare that day will come,"' and the apostle 2 Petr. 3, 10.; 1 Thess. 5, 2.: "The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night"): therefore it is very probable that they do not know from dismay in which state they are, whether damned or blessed; yes, it seems to them as if they were already going to damnation and leading to hell Ps. 28, 1., and as if they were already in the gates of hell, as Hezekiah says Isa. 38, 10.. But also 1 Sam. 2, 6. says: "The LORD leads to hell and out again." Therefore they feel nothing else than that their damnation is imminent, only that they do not yet feel that the gates of hell are closed behind them, and they do not yet cease to ask for help and to long for it, even though it is nowhere in sight. For this is how those speak who have experienced it. Let us take a simile. If someone were to enter the judgment of death without courage, for example, if he were to fall into the hands of murderers who threaten him with death from all sides, although they have decided only to frighten him, not to kill him: they are sure that he will remain alive, but he himself sees nothing but instant death, and for this very reason is already in death. Only this is left to him, that he is not yet dead, and can still be delivered from death; but he does not know whence (for he sees that they can, but will not), so he differs almost in nothing from a dead man: so it seems to be also with the horror of eternal death, because they feel that from all sides nothing else can be done for them.

164 L.v.a.11, i93f. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvin, 373-331. 165

than the threat of eternal death. Thus the church sings for them: "From the gates of hell snatch their souls and deliver them from the lion's jaws, lest hell devour them." 2c They have only so much knowledge that God could redeem them, but it seems to them as if He does not want to. The damned, on the other hand, immediately add blasphemies to this evil, but those only lamentations and inexpressible sighing, because the spirit helps them up. For here the spirit floats on the water, since it is dark on the deep Gen. 1, 2. But this has been dealt with in more detail above.

Secondly: One reads many examples in which one finds that some souls have confessed this uncertainty of their state, for they appeared as going to the judgment before which they were summoned, as is said by St. Vincent 2c. Again, one reads many examples in which they confessed their certainty. To this I say: First, I have asserted that not all of them are certain. Secondly, according to the foregoing, it is perhaps better to say that they were not certain, but out of too great a longing for help, as if they were certain, demanded that they should be helped more quickly; so that they wished it more, and fearfully presupposed that they were certain, than that they knew it; as it is also said of the devils in the Gospel, that they knew that he was the Christian Ma2c. 5, 7; that is, they strongly suspected it, as the gloss 1) says. For so it happens naturally with every fear and fright that one strongly assumes that things could get better with us again, while there is more a desire to get better than a hope or knowledge; just as in the devils it was more a desire to know than knowledge. For the knowledge of blessedness is not frightened and trembles, but trusts and endures everything most steadfastly.

Here they say:

But how is it then with the special dishes, of which one says and Inno-

  1. This refers to the Glossa ordinaria In Vivlia, a short continuous commentary on the entire Holy Scripture, the general manual of exegesis in the following Middle Ages, by Walafried Strabo, Scholasticus at Fulda, since 842 Abbot at Reichenau, died 849.

centius testifies that everyone has to pass it at his death? For man seems to become certain of his fate by the same. I answer: It does not follow that he becomes certain, even if there is a special judgment. It can happen that the deceased man is judged, even accused, and yet the verdict is postponed and not revealed to him. But the wretched soul, under the accusation of the conscience, the assault of the devils and the threatening wrath of God, would do nothing else but tremble before the judgment, which it awaits with horror every moment, as it also does at bodily death and is threatened in the 5th book of Moses, 28, 65 ff. and your life will float before you ... In the morning you will say: Oh, that I would live to see the evening! In the evening thou shalt say, Oh that I might live to see the morning!" So there, too, eternal death will rage with similar terror and torment the soul with dreadful horror. This opinion is not at all contrary to the truth, because the Lord makes a distinction between one who is guilty of judgment, one who is guilty of counsel, and one who is guilty of hell, that is, between the accused, the convicted, and the condemned. But even excellent teachers dare to say, more from knowledge than from hearsay, that some souls, trembling for their lives, have been carried away by God through death and have been so rejected that they do not know until the end of the world whether they are damned or will be saved. And if the story of that monk is true, who was dying and, since he was condemned for the sin of fornication, already blasphemed God, but then recovered, then it is sufficiently clear that the judgment and the accusation of hell can torment the soul without the final verdict having already been pronounced. Here also belongs what St. Gregory tells in a homily about a young man whom a dragon wanted to devour in death.

This therefore, from the whole trade of the punishments of the purgatory, I set up as probable, for this moved first of all by the

166 L. v. a. ii, 194-196. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. ' W. xvm, 381-384. 167

The second is that the Scriptures assign this punishment to the damned; the third is that the whole Church says that the punishments of purgatory are the same as those of hell; and so I believe that this opinion of ours is well founded in the Scriptures. But the expounders of indulgences seem to imagine the punishments of souls as if they were inflicted from without and were entirely external, but did not arise from within the conscience; as if God only took away the punishments from them, while the opposite is more correct, that He rather takes away the souls from the punishments, as it is written Ps. 81, 7.: "He relieved their shoulder from the burden"; He does not say: He relieved the burden from their shoulder. And again Isa. 43:2., "If thou pass through the fire, the flame shall not hurt thee." In what way can it not harm? Only in such a way that it gives confidence and trust to the heart, so that it is not afraid of the fire; but not that there is no fire when he has to go through it. Therefore, the discharge of the back from' the burden only happens in such a way that the fear of the soul is healed and it is comforted, as it is also said above that no punishment is overcome by the fear of it, but by love and contempt. But the indulgence does not abolish the fear, yes, it causes it, as much as there is in it, by putting the punishments to be abated as a hateful thing, as it were. God, however, intended to have children who would be fearless, secure and excellent for all eternity and in a perfect way, who should absolutely fear nothing, but by trusting in His grace overcome and despise everything, even considering punishment and death as a game. He hates the other cowards, who are disturbed by the fear of all things, even by the rustling of a flying leaf.

Again, one objects:

If souls gladly bear their punishments, why do we pray for them? I answer: If they did not gladly bear them, they would certainly be damned; but should they not therefore desire prayers for themselves? since the apostle also desired Col. 4:3 to be prayed for, that he might be saved from the unbelievers.

We are not afraid to pray for the souls, even if they do not wish to be prayed for, but it would be our duty to pity them and help them with prayer, just as we help everyone else, even if they do not wish to be prayed for. Even if the souls did not wish for prayers, it would still be our duty to have pity on their distress and to come to their aid with prayer, as well as to anyone else, no matter how steadfastly he bore his suffering. Then, since the souls are not so much tormented by the present punishment as by the horror of the impending and threatening destruction, it is not to be wondered at if they desire intercession, that they may persevere and not slacken in their trust, since they are (as said) uncertain about their condition and fear not so much the punishments of hell as the hatred of God which is in hell, as it is said Ps. 6, 6., "In death thou art not remembered: who will thank thee in hell?" And so it is clear that they suffer not for fear of punishment, but for love of righteousness, as said above. For they fear more that they should not praise and love GOD more (which would happen in hell) than that they should suffer. And to this so holy, but also very fearful desire, the whole Church rightly comes to their aid as much as it is able, especially since God also wants them to

would be helped by the church.

And here we will finally conclude this so dark and doubtful discussion about the punishments of souls. If someone can come up with something better than this, I do not envy him; only let him do it based on better passages of the Holy Scriptures, not clouded by the smoke of human opinions.

  1. thesis.

Therefore, by these words "perfect forgiveness of all chastisements," the pope does not mean that all chastisements are forgiven in general, but means only the chastisements that he himself has inflicted.

I dispute about this thesis, but I do not assert it stubbornly yet. My reasons are these:

The first is taken from what was said in the 5th thesis: that through the key-

168 a. ii, 196-198. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 384-387. 169

Therefore, this thesis is a consequence of that one, and with the denial of that one, this one is also denied.

The second reason is taken from the language of the pope himself, since he says: "From the imposed penances we graciously exempt"; consequently, he does not exempt those that are not imposed by him or by the canons. Nor, I believe, should we be much concerned here with the arbitrary fiction of some who say that if the pope does not add this clause concerning the penances imposed, it is simply to be understood as the remission of all penalties. I could say: And if it is not added, it is added as a necessary clause that belongs to the essence of the wording, or let them prove what they say by some text.

The third reason: I now come to a very common, but the strongest reason for proof and ask: With which teachers do you want to prove that through the keys also other than the canonical punishments are taken away? Then they show me Antoninus, Petrus de Palude, Augustinus of Ancona and Capreolus. Then, too, the summist Angelus cites his Franciscus of Mayron, who exalts the release of indulgences so highly that he does not hesitate to call it even meritorious, if it pleased Christ: just as if these men were of the kind and so great that what occurs to them should immediately be counted among the articles of faith. But those are more to be blamed who, to our shame and unjustly to those, put forward as assertions what those in their pious striving only suppose, disregarding altogether the apostle's faithful admonition, "Test all things, keep the best" 1 Thess. 5:21; much more foolish than the Pythagoreans: for these asserted only what Pythagoras had said; but these also what those doubted. But we want to go back to the origin and source of these little streams, namely to St. Thomas and Bonaventure; for from these they have partly taken theirs, partly added from theirs. So these are holy men and quite important in reputation! But since

they also assume more than they assert, for St. Bonaventure also confesses that it is a thoroughly doubtful and quite uncertain matter: is it not clear then that nothing can be proven from them either? See for yourself if they cite any text or scripture? Nor is it any wonder that they assert nothing. For since this matter would be an article of faith if it were decided, it is not for the teachers to decide anything in it, but his article of faith must even be left undecided until it is decided by the judgment of a general council alone, and not even the pope has the right to presumptuously determine anything certain in matters concerning the faith, but only the preachers of indulgences. They are allowed to do whatever they want. But they all have one reason for their opinion, which Panormitanus also gives in the chapter Quod autem, in the 5th book de poenit. et remiss, namely this: To say that the indulgence only remits the canonical punishments would be to degrade the indulgence too much. So, in order that indulgences should not be held in low esteem, one would rather invent what one does not know, whereas there would be no danger to souls if indulgences were nothing, let alone little, whereas it is the greatest misery to preach inventions and illusions to souls, even if indulgences were very useful. So much consideration is not given to the salvation of souls; but only so that it may not appear that we have not taught the best, we labor more for the honor of our word, though it is an unnecessary one, than for the faith of the simple people entrusted to us, which alone is necessary.

But before answering St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, it seems to me worth the trouble to enumerate the various opinions about indulgences, lest it appear that I am the first or only one who has doubted them.

The gloss on the chapter Quod autem, book 5. de poenit. et remiss. which gives an explanation of the efficacy and power of indulgences, begins thus: "What value such indulgences have is an old complaint and still quite doubtful."

170 L v. a. ii. 198-300. ii. Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvin, 337-39." 171

Some say that it is useful in relation to God, but not in relation to the Church; because if a man dies without mortal sin, when penance has not yet been done, he feels the penalties of purgatory less according to the measure of the indulgence he has received; but the Church does not remit satisfaction to a living man for this reason. This opinion is condemned by Panormitanus there, and I consider his condemnation right.

Others say that it is useful with regard to penance, inasmuch as it is imposed here too much and out of prudence, that is, only with regard to punishments, which he the pope has not imposed according to measure, but out of prudence more than the sin deserved. This opinion is to be condemned even more than the former.

Others say that it is useful in relation to God and the church, but the one who slackens complains with the satisfaction for him. This too is inconsistent.

Others say that it is used for the remission of the penance that was omitted due to negligence. Panormitanus, condemning this opinion, says that it rewards negligence. But in my judgment this opinion is not entirely false, for in truth all penances are remitted, even those omitted through negligence, if one is only displeased with the negligence; indeed, penances not omitted through negligence and those yet to be paid are also remitted.

Others say that it works in relation to the remission of the penance imposed, if only the priest who imposed the penance permits the substitution of the penance with the indulgence. This opinion is good and, as far as the matter is concerned, true; only that it limits the power of the one who grants the indulgence. For it is true that the indulgence remits the penances imposed, but it does not require the consent of him who imposed them.

The sixth opinion which Panormitanus adduces, besides the five set forth in the aforesaid gloss, is that it is useful, as the words read, both in relation to GOD and in relation to the penance here imposed, an opinion which, he says, is also held by Gottfried, Hostiensis, and John Andrew.

I also share it, as it lies and reads in the words. But I do not follow everyone's understanding, especially because of the word "in relation to God". If by this they understand that punishments imposed by God are also remitted, whether here or in Purgatory, besides those imposed by the Church or the Canons, I do not consider them to be true, except with the restriction that the punishments of Purgatory, without the power of the keys, are remitted by mere repentance. Therefore, if someone is completely contrite, I believe that he is absolved from purgatory with respect to God, but with respect to the punishments of this time I say that this has no validity, as has been said above in the 5th thesis. For one cannot even name the punishment that is to be believed to be absolved in relation to GOD. Therefore, I would say that this "in relation to GOD" is not to be understood of penalties imposed by GOD, but of those imposed by the Church, so that the opinion is: this remission of penances imposed by the Church is valid before GOD as well as before the Church, therefore that GOD confirms this remission to His Church according to the saying: "All that thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." He does not say: Everything that you will solve on earth, other things shall be solved in heaven; but: The very things that you solve, I will also consider solved. For with this, God wants to subject people to the priest, which would not happen if we did not know that God approves of what is done by the priest.

So you can see that everything is still based on opinions. But then, as for what Angelus states in his Francis Mayron, that indulgences also work for the increase of grace and glory, he does not take into account that indulgences are not the performance of good works, but the remission of good works for the sake of another lesser work. For though a good work for the sake of which indulgence is given is meritorious, yet indulgence is not meritorious, since a work done by itself would be no less meritorious, perhaps more. The indulgence, however, taken by itself, is much more deserving of the forgiveness.

172 D. v. L. ii, 20Ü-202. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvm, 390-393. 173

The reason for this is that it is a remittal of good works. Therefore, since in any questionable matter anyone is allowed to dispute and contradict, I also say that in this matter I differ from St. Thomas and Bonaventure until they prove theirs better and resolve ours. For, apart from opinions, I see nothing that they prove, not even a canon; while I have cited so many scriptural sayings for my part in the 5th thesis above. And now, that I also do not speak without canons, see here.

The fourth reason is: In the chapter Cum ex eo, 33 Book 5, de poenit. et remiss. it is said: "By indulgences, penitential satisfaction is deprived of its power." Even if the pope said this word more out of pain than out of favor, the teachers of canon law take it as it reads. Consequently, if penitential satisfaction is deprived of its force, it is clear that only canonical punishment is remitted, since penitential satisfaction is nothing other than the third part of ecclesiastical or sacramental penance. For as far as the evangelical atonement is concerned, it is none of the church's business, as shown above.

If anyone should object to me that the pope does not deny that other punishments also lose their force, but only asserts and does not speak in such a way that he excludes when he says: The satisfaction in penance loses its force, then I answer: So prove that he also remits others and does not speak in an exclusionary way. If you do not do this, then I prove with the chapter Cum ex eo that he speaks in an exclusionary way. For in it he says that the alms-givers are not allowed to present anything to the people other than what is contained in their letters. But in no apostolic epistle is anything else contained than the remission of sacramental pardon, as the pope himself says: "The pardon in penance loses its power by indulgence, if it is dispensed without distinction and superfluously." Yes, with this word the pope restricts indulgences even more strictly; for if mere superfluous indulgences deprive sacramental pardon of its power, then the modest and just indulgence loses its power.

The same is true of the indulgence, which does not even have the force of penitential satisfaction, much less of any other punishment. But this is not my business nor my office, let the teachers of canon law see to it.

21. thesis.

Therefore, the preachers of indulgences are mistaken who say that through the pope's indulgence man is freed from all torment and becomes blessed.

I certainly assert and prove this thesis.

For there remains at least the third, that is, the evangelical punishment, yes, also the fifth, namely, death and sickness, and for many the very greatest punishment, namely, horror of death, anguish of conscience, weakness of faith, and pusillanimity of spirit: punishments which, compared with those remitted by indulgence, are like reality against the shadow. But it is also not the will of the pope that they should speak their fables so sacrilegiously and with impunity, as is evident from the chapter Cum ex eo.

But if they should say: We also do not say that these punishments are taken away by the indulgence; then I answer: Why then do you not instruct the people so that they know which punishments you remit, but shout that all punishments are remitted, which one is only obliged to atone for his sins before God and the church? How can the people know from themselves what you speak so darkly and liberally?

22. thesis.

Yes, the pope does not inflict any chastisement on the souls in purgatory, which they should have atoned for and paid for in this life, according to the Canonum.

This I assert no further than the eighth, from which it flows as a corollary, because the canons concerning penance do not extend over into the other life. For every temporal punishment is transformed into the punishment of death; nay, it is annulled for the sake of the punishment of death, and must be annulled. Yes, imagine (to speak more broadly of this) the Roman

174 L. V. a. H, 202-204. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 393-396. 175

If the canonical punishments were as they were at the time of St. Gregory, when they were not yet above other churches, at least not above those of Greece, then it would be quite obvious that the canonical punishments did not obligate the Greeks, just as they do not now obligate those who, as Christians, are not subject to the pope, as in Turkey, Tartary and Livonia. Therefore, they do not need an indulgence from these punishments set in the Canons, but only those who belong to the sphere of the Roman Church. So if they do not oblige these living, how much less the dead, who are under no church!

23. thesis.

Yes, if any forgiveness of all chastisement can be given to anyone, it is certain that it will be given only to the most perfect, that is, to the very few.

This thesis I understand from the punishments of all kinds and so I assert it. For there is no doubt that the remission of penance can be given to anyone, as has been well said. Yes, I intensify this thesis and say: the remission of all punishments can by no means be given to anyone, be he the most perfect or imperfect. This I prove: for even if God does not give the most perfect the chastisement, or the fourth kind of punishment, at least to all and always, there still remains the third, namely the evangelical one; yes, also the fourth, namely death and the punishments that lead to and belong to death. For even if God could make all perfect in grace, perhaps without punishment, He has not decided to do so, but He wants to conform all to the image of His Son, that is, to the cross Rom. 8:29. But what need is there of many words? However gloriously one may exalt the remission of punishments. Dear, what can this do for him who has death and the horror of death and judgment before his eyes? If every other remission were preached to him, and yet it were not granted that these should be remitted, I do not know whether he would receive the slightest comfort. Therefore

Only notice the horror of death and hell, and you will not care for any remission of punishment, whether you like it or not. And so the indulgence becomes worthless not by our effort, but by the necessity of the thing, because it does not take away the fear of death.

24. thesis.

Therefore the greater part of the people must be deceived by the splendid promise without any distinction, imagined to the common man by paid chastisement.

I also maintain this thesis and know that it is true. For I myself have heard many say that they had no other understanding than that they lead to heaven through indulgences without any punishment. No wonder, when they write, read and shout in such a way that one immediately goes to heaven when he has obtained indulgence and dies before he falls into sin again. All this they speak as if there were only real sins, as if the tinder left behind were no uncleanness, no hindrance, no means to stop his entrance into the kingdom of heaven; whereas if he is not healthy himself, it is impossible to enter heaven, even if there were no iniquity; for nothing unclean will enter there Revelation 21:27. Therefore the horror of death, because it is a defect of tinder and sin, in itself prevents entrance into the kingdom of heaven. For he who does not like to die obeys the call of God only reluctantly, and in so far he does not do the will of God, as he does not like to die. But so great is the sin he commits, so great is his disobedience to the will of God. Therefore, such a one who, after all indulgences, does not still sin in death, is very rare; except for those who desire to be dissolved, and desire death. Therefore, in order not to disagree with them completely, I say: if someone has perfect repentance, that is, hates himself and his life and loves death most, he will immediately go to heaven after the punishments have been remitted to him; but how many this will be, just see.

176 2- V. a. II, 204-206. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 396-399. 177

2S. Thesis.

The same power as the pope has over purgatory, absolutely and in general; so also have every bishop and pastor, in his diocese and parish, in particular, or among his own.

This is the blasphemy for which I am considered a thousand times worthy of death, namely according to the judgment of the indulgence preachers, not to say money cutters. But before I proceed to the proof of this thesis, I want to say a few words about my intention.

First of all, I say again that I am disputing here, not with regard to the opinion I intend by these words (for this I maintain steadfastly because the whole church holds it), but with regard to the words themselves. Then I also ask my opponents to have patience with my pain, by which I am tormented, since I hear that what is never written and established is preached in the church of Christ. For we read that formerly it seemed very dangerous to the fathers to teach anything beyond the heavenly prescription, as Hilarius says. And St. Spiridion, bishop of Cyprus, held so strictly to this rule, that he interrupted the speech of him who had used but one ambiguous Greek word, "Lift up thy bed of sleep, and go home," which he had said, instead of, "Lift up thy bed of rest, or bed, and go home" Matt. 9:6.; rebuking him in a matter which yet had not changed the sense. And I believe that they owe me, with the greatest right, the indulgence of my pain, since, without ever being asked or reminded of it, we are forced to endure their presumption, according to which it gives them pleasure to preach what torments us when we hear it.

I do not say or act this because I would be so impudently presumptuous as to believe that I should be counted among the scholars of the church, much less among those to whom it belongs to decide or reject this. Oh, that I would be worthy to become the last member of the church! but that is the only thing I have to deal with: Since there are men in the church who are both very learned and very holy, the wickedness of our time is so great.

that even such great men cannot come to the aid of the Church. For what scholarship and godly zeal can do today has been sufficiently demonstrated by the unhappy end 1) of these most learned and holy men, who under Julius II strove to reform the Church through a concilium called together for this emergency. There are others here and there, of whom I know, very good and learned bishops; but the example of a few silences very many. "It is a very evil time" (as the prophet Amos 5, 13. says), "therefore the wise man must be silent at the same time." Finally, we have just now a very good pope, Leo X, whose sincerity and erudition are a joy to all the righteous who hear of it. But what can this one so amiable man do in so great a confusion of things? He would truly be worthy to have become pope in a better time, or to have had better times for his papal government. In our time we are worthy to have such people as Julius II and Alexander VI as popes, or some other cruel people like Mezentius, as the poets have invented them. For today even Rome itself, yes, Rome of all laughs at the good ones the most; for in which part of the Christian world does one play one's game against the popes more ruthlessly than in this true Babel, in Rome? But enough of that. Since the church, in addition to innumerable private persons, also has the most learned people on its chairs, I, too, should have preferred to remain silent if I had wanted to be considered wise according to their example. But it is better that the truth should be told even by fools, by children, by drunkards, than that it should be entirely concealed, so that the confidence of the learned and wise may be more lively when they hear that at last we, the ignorant rabble, are crying out because of the too great mischief, as Christ says Luc. 19:40., "Where these shall hold their peace, the stones shall cry out."

Having said this, I come to the thesis, and will treat the same, first according to their opinion, and secondly according to the words or opinion of others.

  1. Here Savonarola will be meant mainly.

178 D- a. ii, 206-208. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 399-402. 179

So I do not speak in this thesis of the judicial power, which I deny below in the soon following thesis and have already denied above in the 22nd and 8th thesis. For they have taken this violence from these words; a violence of which I say, as I have said: the church only establishes the first part of this question, and I will very gladly follow. In the meantime, the sacrilegious claimants of their dreams may desist. I doubt and dispute whether they have a judicial power over purgatory. And as far as I read and see so far, I hold the negative opinion and am ready to hold the affirmative one after the church has so decided.

But here I speak of the power of property, not of right; of the power to act, not to command; so that the meaning is: The pope has no power over purgatory, as also no other bishop; but if he has one, then he certainly has such a power, in which also those who are under him take part. But this is the one according to which the pope and every individual Christian can intercede, pray, fast 2c for the departed souls, the pope in general, a bishop in particular, a Christian for his own person. Therefore, it is evident that the thesis is quite true. For just as the pope prays for souls together with the whole church (as is done on All Souls' Day), so can any bishop do the same with his diocese (as is done on the so-called common days), and a pastor in his parish (as is done at funeral services and on anniversaries), and any Christian in his devotions. Either, then, one denies that intercession is a help [[intercessionem]{.underline}] for souls, or one admits that any ecclesiastical dignitary can intercede with his subjects for souls. I therefore do not consider this as doubtful as those brazen speeches about the jurisdiction of the Church over Purgatory.

26. thesis.

The pope does very well that he does not give forgiveness to the souls by force of the key (which he does not have), but by help, or intercession.

I do not consider it necessary to explain again what I am disputing or what I am claiming; but since in our time the heretics are so enraged that they try to make even the most Christian orthodox heretics by force, it will be advisable to give an explanation of every single syllable. For I cannot easily see what John Pico of Mirandola, Laurentius Valla, Peter of Ravenna, John Vesalia, and lately John Reuchlin and Jacob of Staples have done otherwise, that in their good opinion they have been forced against their will to have an evil opinion, except that perhaps (as I said) they have omitted to attach an explanation to the individual syllables: so great is the tyranny of children and wimps in the church today. Therefore, I declare anew that I will do two things in this thesis, namely: first, dispute about the key power over purgatory and prove the negative opinion, until another better proves the affirmative one; and second, make inquiries about that way of intercession.

I prove the first one like this:

First, with that well-known reason of proof of Hostiensis, namely: if the keys extended to Purgatory, they could make Purgatory empty, and the pope would be cruel if he did not make Purgatory empty.

They resolve this proof thus: The pope can, but must not make it empty unless there is a just and reasonable cause, lest he act sacrilegiously against divine justice. This cold and sleepy excuse they would hardly make, I think, if they did not either not even pay attention to what they are talking about, or thought they were talking among sea calves snoring in the deepest sleep. Thus it happens that from one silly sentence several follow immediately; and, as the saying goes: A lie needs seven lies to appear as true.

Therefore, this reason for proof could hardly have been more strongly corroborated than by such an objection. For, we ask, what has this reasonable cause for a na-.

180 ii- 208 f. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 402-405. 181

Who? But it is known that indulgences are given for the war against the unbelievers, or for the building of a church, or otherwise because of a general need of this life. But none of these causes is so great that love is not greater, more just, and more reasonable. If, therefore, divine justice is not offended when, for the sake of the bodies or goods of the faithful, or for the sake of inanimate buildings, or for the sake of some short use of this transitory life, as many indulgences are given as one wills (even if you include all in this number, so that purgatory would also be emptied in this way), how much more can it not be offended if, for the sake of holy love, all were redeemed! Divine justice would have to be inequitable or even melancholy to be more favorable to the love shown to the body and money of the living than to the love shown to so needy souls; especially since it is such a great thing to help souls that the faithful, for their sake, would rather serve the Turks and allow themselves to be physically killed than that the souls should not be redeemed. Now, if the pope redeems countless souls for the sake of the lesser, and thereby perhaps all souls, why not also for the sake of the greater, that is, for the sake of love? Here, however, because they are so cornered, I would like to advise them to say that there can be no reasonable cause, so that they can safely escape this objection. And so the pope could do it, as far as he is concerned, but he cannot do it, as far as the cause is concerned, because there cannot be one.

Secondly: The manner of speaking of the pope himself proves the same; for therein is spoken of imposed penances. But it is evident that he gives only as much as he expresses, and in the manner in which he expresses it; so that as a bishop remits forty, a cardinal a hundred days of the penances imposed, so the pope completely remits all the days of these imposed penances; but no key has imposed penalties of purgatory. But here a very fond dreamer fo: when the pope says: "We give indulgence from all sins with regard to the penances imposed", the penances imposed by the priest is

But if he says, "We give indulgence from all sins repented of and confessed," the forgotten or unconscious ones are not remitted; but if he says, "We give indulgence from all sins," the soul flies to heaven when he dies: and so it is in the hand of the pope to make blessed whom he will. O frenzy! Behold this great speaker, how he asserts so surely, as if he were making a divine pronouncement! If I say to him, I pray thee, how shall I prove it, when I am called to give an account of this faith? Perhaps he will invent other new lies to corroborate these former great lies with still greater ones. O unhappy Christians, who are forced to listen to everything that even the silliest people like to talk about! as if we did not have the Scriptures themselves, which according to Christ's commandment we should teach the people in order to give them their measure of wheat, but not a mixture of burdocks and thistles. Among other frightful things which this lovely writer invents here is also this, that he dares to persuade us that it is in the hand of the pope to remit or not to remit the unconscious or forgotten sins; as if the whole church did not know that after every solution of the pope nevertheless every believer must say Ps. 19, 13.: "Who can realize how often he falls short? forgive me the hidden shortcomings"; and that we must also fear with Job 9, 28. for our good works, lest they be found out with God as terrible sins. But the Key of the Church does not know whether good works are evil before God or not, nor does he judge them, much less remit them. Secondly, his dream arises from the troublesome and useless art of confession, even of plunging souls into despair and ruin, by which we have been taught until now to count the sands, that is, to investigate, collect and weigh the individual sins in order to bring about repentance. When we do this, it happens that by considering the past we stir up the old lusts or hatreds again, and while we repent of the past we sin anew. Or

182 L. V. L. II, 2VS-211. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 405-407. 183

At least, if the best repentance arises, it is only a violent, sad, and merely made-up one, which is only feigned out of fear of the punishments. For in this way, we are taught, sins would be repented of, that is, we would be urged to do something impossible or even worse; since true repentance must begin with the goodness and benefits of God, especially with the wounds of Christ, so that man first comes to the realization of his ingratitude in view of the goodness of God, and from this to the hatred of himself and the love of the goodness of God: Then the tears will flow and he will hate himself from the heart, but without despair; then he will also hate sin, not for the sake of punishment, but by looking at the goodness of God. When he looks at that, he is saved from despair and is brought to hate himself ardently, yet with joy. If there is true repentance for one sin, it will be for all of them at the same time. Thus it is said in Rom. 2:4: "Knowest thou not that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" O how many do not know this, St. Paul, even the teachers of others! Thus we read 4 Mos. 21, 9. that the children of Israel were not delivered from the fiery serpents by the sight of them and the terror of them, but rather that they turned their eyes away from them and directed them to the brazen serpent, that is, Christ. In the same way Ex. 14, 10. 22., when they saw the Egyptians, they were terrified; but when they turned their backs on them and went through the sea, they were saved. So also our sins are to be considered more in the wounded Christ than in our conscience. For there they are dead, here they are alive. Otherwise, if one had to keep their torture chamber, it would happen that if someone were suddenly surprised by death, he could not be saved, because he would not have time to collect all his sins. But they do have something they say here.

Therefore, in the words of that inventor, in every papal decree, especially those that are made publicly and before the Church (as is the case with indulgences), this clause "must be accepted by the people who are on

The sins, whether forgotten or unconscious, must be understood in the context of the "penances" imposed. Because these do not belong before the court of the church.

But this sea of speeches (as it seems to me) arose from a certain carelessness with which one regarded the origin of indulgences. For at the time when the penitential canons were still in force, it was a great thing to give four days; later they began to give a hundred, then a thousand days, finally many thousands of days and years, yes, hundreds and thousands of years. For in this way, with the indulgence, the generosity gradually became greater and greater. Then one began to remit the seventh part of all sins, then the third part, in more recent times half, and so one came to the complete remission of all sins; as can still be seen from the stations of the city of Rome 1). Now if in the first stages the imposed penance is understood, the same must certainly be understood in the case of the perfect remission.

Thirdly, again, the manner of speaking of the pope, when he says: "intercessionally." For the way of intercession must be different from the way of power. If, then, we are to believe the pope (as we must) more than those and ourselves, it is clear that it is intercession, not power, that can do something about purgatory. It is safer for me to keep it with the pope than with those. The pope, however, does not arrogate to himself the power, but ascribes to himself the intercession. And I am very surprised at the audacity with which they presume to preach more of the indulgence than is contained in the letter of the pope, contrary to the express prohibition of the chapter Cum ex eo, since only the manner of intercession is contained therein. But if they understand it in this way, then the pope has

  1. The seven main churches of Rome were called the stations, because during pilgrimages and processions people stopped there to pray for a while. Through this stop at each of these churches, one obtained an indulgence (station indulgence, iuciulMutius swtiouurius). The station indulgence was finally granted by the popes without the need to come to Rome, because the pope dispensed with the pilgrimage to Rome and changed the prayer to be performed at the station into a simple prayer that could be prayed in his parish church or at home.

184 D. v. L. ii, 211-213. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 407-410. 185

Although he does not have the power of jurisdiction over purgatory, he does have the power of the keys to turn intercessions to it. Here I also say that no one denies this; the power to direct intercessions, to grant pardons, to offer sacrifices of praise to God is definitely in the hands of the pope. But whether this power belongs to the pope alone in such a way that the other bishops do not also possess it, as stated in the previous thesis, or what I do not yet understand in this kind of granting, I will say in the second part of this thesis. However, let us continue with the first part.

Fourthly, and most powerfully, Christ speaks not in ambiguous, but in clear, manifest, round words Matt. 16:19., "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." He did not add "on earth" for nothing. Otherwise, if he had not wished to limit the power of the keys, it would have been sufficient if he had said, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose shall be loosed." Either, then, Christ must have used superfluous words like a babbler, or else the power of the keys applies only on earth. But, dear God, how the superstition of some is at hand, who in these words want to ascribe a power to the Pope without his knowledge and will, where he himself only ascribes an intercession! And when they noticed that these words of Christ strongly opposed them and refuted their error, they did not cease to protect their error and set up their opinion according to the unadulterated words of Christ; but on the contrary, they adapt his words to their corrupt sense and pervert them by saying: This "on earth" can be referred in two ways: in one way to him who solves; in the other way to that which is solved; and in the first way Christ must be understood, namely, thus: All that Peter solved while he was on earth shall also be solved in heaven. Probably they wanted that if he would also solve the devil (provided that he was on earth as the solver), then he should also be solved in heaven.

be solved. For he who says "all that" and adds nothing to restrict it, surely indicates that everything can be solved. I do not know with what words I should counter this crude and senseless superstition, yes, this Vermeffenheit. The one who has raised this would be worthy of having a man like Jerome vent his displeasure and eloquence on him, so that such an impudent violence and falsification of the holy words of Christ would be duly punished. And, to pass over grammar altogether, which alone could have instructed them that this opinion of theirs could not stand by these words (but they follow more a new dialectic than the right grammar): they seem to have gone so far in their cleverness as to think that Christ might have feared that one day such a Peter or pope would arise who, even if he were dead, would still want to bind and loose, and therefore he would have been moved into the necessity of forestalling such an outlandish ambition and tyranny of deceased popes and preventing them from wanting to bind or loose when they were no longer alive and on earth. And perhaps (that we also mock such worthy interpreters of the Scriptures) Christ also feared, not without cause, that it might happen one day that a dead pope would bind something that his living successor would loose. Then a great confusion could arise in heaven and Christ would not know from fear whose office of these two he should confirm, since he would have presumptuously entrusted both with the same office, without adding: "on earth", so that the dead one would be kept in check. For if this is not their prudence, what do they heat up, what do they labor to prove that the "on earth" refers to the solver? Behold! o indeed a golden work of a golden teacher, and worthy of golden letters altogether, and, lest anything be not golden, it must be taught to golden disciples, namely, to such of whom it is said Ps. 135:15 f., "The idols of the heathen are silver and gold; they have eyes, and see not. "2c Straightway they walk contrary to Christ. For Christ therefore added "on earth".

186 L.v.a. II, 213-215. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 410-413. 187

so that the pope, who can only be on earth, does not take the liberty of binding or loosening that which is not on earth; as if he had wanted to forestall, as it were with diligence, the despicable flatterers of our time and put a stop to them, since they begin to hand over the kingdom of the dead to the pope against his will, yes, despite his resistance. Such would have been called theologians by St. Jerome in his zeal, that is, people out of whom God speaks, namely such a God of whom Virgil tells that he gives the soothsayers a great frenzy. But still we want to act against them.

First of all, if in this sense the keys loosen the deceased, then they also bind, for to both words is added "on earth," since it says: "All that you will bind on earth." Consequently, here too we must distinguish with the same diligence and acuteness as in the case of loosing, and refer to "on earth" in two ways: first, that it belongs to him who binds, and secondly, to that which is bound; so that they must make us conclude that the pope can bind under the earth in purgatory, only we must see to it (with the help of physicians, of course) that he does this during his lifetime and while he is still on earth; for as a deceased he could not bind. Since this first part of the words of Christ does not tolerate such a distortion and violent mockery, as they themselves claim, as much as they lack judgment, with what forehead do they then dare to do such violence to the other part, since this is written in all parts according to the same pattern [[schemate]{.underline}]? Unless, perhaps, they should be allowed, according to their habit, to speak unambiguously and ambiguously, to conclude ambiguously and fraudulently, as and where they please. So they may say that "on earth" in the first part refers to what is to be bound, but in the second part to what is to be loosed, since according to their praiseworthy habit they have done even greater wondrous things against the holy scriptures.

Therefore, since all deny that the keys can bind in purgatory, it is necessary to deny that they can loosen, since these keys can be used to bind.

Both powers are equal and given by Christ to his church in the same way. This opinion is held by some, who are not the worst jurists; but whether they are more understanding than the others, let them see.

Secondly: This opinion is also refuted by the contrast itself. For just as "in heaven" refers to that which is to be loosed in heaven, so "on earth" must refer to that which is to be loosed on earth; and again, if "in heaven" refers to that which is bound, so "on earth" must also refer to that which is bound. Therefore Christ did not say, as it were, with diligence, "I will loose it in heaven," but "it shall be loosed in heaven"; so that if any one by the first word, viz: "All that thou shalt loose on earth" should seek to bring out an unfounded false understanding, he would hereafter be silenced, and not permitted to refer these words to that which is to be loosed; for what is loosed in heaven must certainly be understood to be loosed on earth, not by the person loosing it; and so also what is bound in heaven must be understood, not by the person binding it, but by that which is bound on earth, or at least by both.

Thirdly, if the key extends to purgatory, why do they struggle in vain and not take away the word intercession? Why do they not persuade the priest to say that he loosens and binds by virtue of his power and authority rather than by intercession? For all that he will loosen (only he must be careful that he is not dead) shall be loosed. Why then does he hold the word intercession against us, by which no man understands a power, but all understand by it a mediation? Yes, we should do even more and ask the pope to remove purgatory completely from the world. For if the keys of the church extend so far, even only with regard to loosening, then the whole of purgatory is in his hands. I prove it thus: He gives a perfect release to all who are in it, secondly, he gives the same release to all dying Christians, and it will be certain that no one will remain in it, no one will enter it.

188 L. v. a. ii, 215-2i7. 11, Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 413-iie. 189

but all will go out and purgatory will cease. But he may do this, and there is the most just cause, namely love, which is to be sought through everything, over everything, in everything. Nor need we fear that divine justice will take offense at love, to which it rather urges us itself. When this is done, let us do away with the whole service for the deceased, which nowadays is only very tiresome and neglected, and turn it into festive services.

Fourth and last: If the punishment of the sweeping fire is a chastening and punishing one, as shown above in the 5th thesis, then it is certain that it cannot be solved by the power of the keys; but that it is no other, I believe, is sufficiently clear from the sufficient classification of the punishments.

Therefore, the first part of this thesis is clear and thus the whole thesis is confirmed as sufficiently probable, that not jurisdiction but intercession enters Purgatory.

The second, namely the manner of intercession, was not established by me, so that it should be investigated, nor is it necessary for my theses to know what and how it is: but, in order to avoid the appearance of wanting to hide in a corner, I want to declare myself voluntarily about it, although I could have justifiably passed it over; but always with the reservation of my protestation that it is not my business, but that of the pope, yes, perhaps of an ecclesiastical council, to determine what manner this is. It is only my business to investigate and dispute, and to indicate by reasons given what I understand or do not yet understand.

Thus intercession is offered to the souls in a twofold way: First, through the deed itself and through the present death ministry, as it takes place when the priest prays with the people, fasts, sacrifices and does other named works for named souls. About this intercession there is no doubt that it has a great benefit and redeems the souls according to what God thinks good and they deserve, as St. Augustine says. I have spoken of this above in the previous

The thesis that a bishop in particular has such a power as the pope has in general, that is, not to have jurisdiction, but to intercede in relation to purgatory. It is not about this way here, as is known.

Secondly, it is bestowed without a service or work, but it is pronounced by mere judicial pronouncement in writing or orally; and this also from two treasures.

The first is the treasure of the triumphant church, that is, the merit of Christ and his saints, who have earned more than they owed; and this, they say, is left to the church to be rewarded and balanced here.

The second is the treasure of the contending Church, as there are the merits, the good works of the living Christians, which the pope should have in his hand in order to dispose of them, be it for the satisfaction of the penitent, be it for the intercession for the deceased, or also for the praise and glorification of God. Thus, I have also taught and written in the past that the pope has in his power the merits of the contending church in three ways: first, to offer them up to God for the satisfaction of others; second, for the intercession of souls; third, for the glorification of God. And of this spiritual power, if it is true, I firmly believe that the bishops also have it in their dioceses; or if I am mistaken, set me right whoever can. How else could those brotherhoods exist without error, in which higher and lower prelates communicate their works and labors to one another? Likewise also the monasteries and orders, the hospitals and parishes. For this can only be understood as true if in such a way the work of one is sufficient for the other, intercedes and glorifies God.

That's why I say:

Although I do not see how these merits of the contending church are in the hands of the pope, in the meantime I will respectfully believe this until his own Gordius unties this knot. But the reasons why I do not understand it are these:

190 L.v.a. n,2i7-2ig. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 4is-4i9. 191

First, if he sacrifices the works of the living for the living, I do not see how it can be a remission by grace and not rather a real and proper satisfaction and payment to the last penny. For even if he to whom the indulgence is granted does not work, others work for him and do enough. For then that will happen which everyone persistently denies, namely that the bestower of indulgences burdens himself with the pardon; for in reality the pope would then not indulge, but do enough, namely through his subordinates.

Secondly, the keys of the church would not do anything other than what is already done in the church, even without the keys. For according to the law of love, each one is obliged to pray for each one; and the apostle says Gal. 6:2, "Bear one another's burdens, and you will fulfill the law of Christ."

Thirdly, the name indulgence contradicts this opinion; for it must necessarily denote a remission, that is, a forbearance, that one need not do what one is supposed to do, but not impose it on another, or declare it to be imposed; so that the indulgence extinguishes the debt altogether, but does not pay it through another. Therefore, it seems to me that the mere power of the keys without this treasure is sufficient for the indulgence; especially since only the canonical, but not the evangelical pardon is remitted; or one would have to say here again what is said above about the remission of the debt, namely, that he the pope also thus remits the penalties through this treasure, that is, he declares that it happens what already happens anyway, namely, that the church is sufficient for him to whom the penalty is remitted. In this way, St. Augustine says that no one is awakened except those whom the unity of the Church awakens, as he says is exemplified in the widow. But there still remains the first and second reason, that it is then rather a satisfaction than a bequest, it is declared or given.

Fourth, this treasure of the contending church works more the grace of the Spirit than remission of the penalties, and seems even to be treated disdainfully when it is used to remission of the

The remittance of punishments is the least of the gifts in the Church, which can also be given to the wicked and by the mere force of the keys, as is evident.

I say to the other:

I do not see how or what happens when the pope applies this treasure to intercede for the deceased. The causes are these:

First: He again does not seem to do more than what already happens in reality. For the entire church already prays and prays for the deceased; unless one assumes here again that he does this in an explanatory manner. Nor do I see how what is said about the Mass, that it is more useful when it is celebrated for one person by the priest than when it is celebrated for all without any attention, stands in the way of this. I confess that I believe this to be true. But the pope, as the supreme and universal priest of all, can certainly administer only in general; indeed, he must do so, even without a letter of indulgence.

Secondly: Since only canonical punishments are remitted by indulgences, I cannot see what should be remitted to the souls, since the canons do not bind them. Finally, in death they are absolved from them, since at the hour of death every priest is a pope. Likewise, no soul suffers in purgatory for crimes and mortal sins, but only for venial sins, as the chapter Qualis in the 25th Distinction testifies. But the canons are not imposed for venial, even for secret mortal sins, but only for known crimes, as said above. Now tell me, who can, how the indulgence comes to their aid, that is, the remission of the canons? Unless not only indulgences are granted, but even given to them for superfluous prudence (as the deceased tend to be absolved in the presence of the Church), and in addition to the indulgences they also receive the grant of the merits of the Church. But then, surely, the indulgence does not become an intercession, but it is given to the souls with the intercession, as it were, as a second gift, that is, it is declared to be given, or bestowed.

192 D- v. L. ii, 219-221. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 410-422. 193

I say for the third:

I will talk about the treasure of the merits of Christ and the saints, which is used for the remission of punishments, in the 58th thesis below.

So you see how everything is very dark and doubtful, and therefore very dangerous to teach. Only one thing I say and see, that the pope in the Clementines, Cap. Abusionibus, de poen. 'et remiss, seems to condemn this opinion that souls may be saved by indulgences, when he says: "They draw souls, as they mendaciously affirm, out of purgatory"; where the interpretation to the word "mendaciously" says: "for they are reserved to the judgment of GOD," and for this the Cap. Qualis in the 25th Distinction; and it seems to me to be quite right. For when souls are redeemed through intercession, it does not necessarily follow that they immediately depart; it is not one and the same: to intercede and to redeem or to liberate. Therefore I have right insight in so far as I see that indulgences and intercession through the merits of the church are two quite different things, which can be given one without the other, and one with the other. For the indulgence, the mere power of the keys is sufficient without the addition of that treasure, which, however, can also be added or given alone. The treasure, given alone, makes the goods partaker, as has been said above. If this were true and certain, it would follow that indulgences, in so far as they are indulgences, are of no use to souls except that they are absolved before the church, that is, they are declared absolved; or, if they were useful, it would not be by their own power, but by another gift attached to them, namely, the merits of the church. This donation is again to be distinguished from the general donation, by which in fact the church already comes to the aid of souls with the same the merits without the pope's donation; and one must see what value it has. But one must also leave the effort to others to investigate, who have not yet tired themselves in such great doubtful things.

Now one objects:

First, it is said that a magister in Paris, in his disputation, held that the pope had power over purgatory, and that the pope, when he learned of it, gave him, after his death, the decree which he had asserted, recommending it, as it were.

I answer: I do not care what the pope likes or dislikes. He is a human being like others. There have been many popes who have liked not only errors and vices, but even the most hideous things. I hear the pope as pope, that is, as he speaks in the canons and speaks according to the canons or makes a decision with a concilium; but not when he speaks according to his head, so that I am not perhaps forced to say, with some who recognize Christ badly, that the horrible blood deeds of Julius the Second against the Christian people were good deeds that he, as a faithful shepherd, did for the sheep of Christ.

On the other hand: St. Bonaventure, in the 20th Distinction of the 4th Book, says that one should not resist impetuously if someone claims that the Pope has power over Purgatory.

I answer: first, the reputation of St. Bonaventure is not enough for me in this matter; secondly, if the pope has assured it, it is not necessary to resist him; thirdly, Bonaventure says right, because, explaining himself, he adds: "if only it is established by a clear saying of Scripture or by a reasonable proof": alone this evident proof is not yet present.

Here, however, one objects:

First, Sixtus IV is said to have determined that that manner of intercession in no way diminishes the perfection of indulgences.

I answer: First, if someone wanted to be stubborn, he could say: Prove what you say, best father! especially since it is not up to the pope alone to issue new articles of faith, but only to judge according to the established ones and to decide questions of faith. Here, however, would be a new article of faith: consequently, the decision belongs to

194 L.v.a. II, 221-223. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 422-425. 195

The pope is much more concerned about it before a general council than about the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin, especially since there is no danger for the souls here, but a great danger there. Otherwise, the faith of the whole church, since the pope is a man and can err in faith and morals, would be in constant danger if it were necessary to believe as true everything that seemed good to him.

Secondly, even if the pope were to hold with a large part of the church in one way or another, and even if he were not mistaken, it is not yet a sin or heresy to hold the opposite, especially in a matter that is not necessary to salvation, until a general council has rejected the one and confirmed the other. This is proved, not to mention many things, by the fact that the Roman Church, even with the general council of Basle and almost the whole Church, assumes that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin; and yet those who hold the opposite are not heretics, because the other part has not yet been rejected.

Thirdly, I say that I have not yet found this decision of Sixtus good; but this I have found good, that the indulgences are given intercessionally to the deceased; from which it does not yet follow that therefore also the souls lead out to whom this way is given.

Fourth: I cannot be the interpreter of someone else's statement, much less of the pope's. Therefore, until he interprets himself, we want to have our opinion by defending such an unknown statement for the sake of honor. It can be understood in two ways. First, the manner of intercession does not diminish the perfection of the indulgence, that is, although the indulgence may be given not by the manner of indulgence but by the manner of intercession, nevertheless, by such intercession and use, the souls for whom it is used are led out completely; and so they go out not by being loosed but by being used for them. I do not hold this opinion, but those hold that it is said so. Secondly: The way of intercession does not diminish the perfection of indulgence, that is, the granting of indulgences.

The way indulgences are granted through intercession allows them to be what they are, namely, plenary indulgences, and does not deprive them of what they are by nature; only they do not act as indulgences, but as intercessions. And this opinion I admit and add: If this intercessory grant diminishes nothing in the indulgence, much less does it increase it in anything. From this it follows that souls do not go out by this way. And so are the words; for it is not said, This way of intercession perfectly redeems the souls; but, It does not diminish the perfection of the indulgence, namely, that the indulgence, though perfect, yet works only as much as the intercession can work, and no more.

Again, one objects:

The apostolic formula of absolution is: "By remitting to you the penalties of purgatory, insofar as the keys of the Holy Mother, the Church, extend"; and this formula is observed by the confessors poenitentiari of the pope, even in Rome.

I answer: First, this is not pertinent, because it is a formula of absolution for the living and the dying, but not a formula for granting indulgences to those who have already died.

Secondly: Nevertheless, in order to seek the truth, I say: that since these words are put darkly and doubtfully, he cannot err in faith who holds the opposite of what is thought to be understood. For why is this formula so fearfully put? Why does it say, as if doubting, "insofar as the keys extend"? This fearful appendage is suspicious to me. I am not guilty of firmly believing what he himself does not dare to say firmly. Why does he only add here and not elsewhere: "insofar as the keys extend"? Do we not yet see here how vigilant Christ is in his church, that he does not allow even those who want to err to err? If only we ourselves would not fall into error by not heeding his admonition!

Thirdly, I say, as before, that even if the pope were not mistaken here with his confessors, they are not heretics,

196 L.v.a. II, 223-225. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. XVIII, 425-428. 197

who deny or disbelieve his understanding, until either party is confirmed or rejected by the verdict of a general council. For thus, although they have adorned the feast of the Conception with indulgences, as if it were a fixed matter of faith, they do not condemn or bind those who do not seek the solution by such indulgences. Therefore, however much indulgences may be given, it is not necessary to believe this formula to be true until the church decides it. And here you see again how necessary a legitimate and universal concilium is. But I fear that our time is not worth giving us such, but rather that God sends us strong errors 2 Thess. 2, 11, by which we are deceived as we deserve.

27. thesis.

They preach humanity, pretending that as soon as the penny is thrown into the box, the soul will leave purgatory.

They preach humanity, that is, nothingness and lies according to that saying Ps. 116:11: "All men are liars"; and again Ps. 39:6: "As nothing are all men." And this sentence, in my opinion, does not need proof; but it is proved by the following thesis; for the intercession of the Church accomplishes something only according to the will of GOD and the merit of the soul. Therefore, even if their opinion were true that it benefits by the way of intercession, it does not follow that they go out immediately.

First, it is not the intercession, but the hearing of the intercession and its acceptance that liberates, since they are not liberated by the prayer of the Church, but by the action of GOD.

Secondly, by nature God acts in such a way that He hears quickly, but hesitates to give, as is evident from the prayers and teachings of all the saints, so that He may test their constancy. Therefore, intercession and the answer and fulfillment of it are far from each other.

Thirdly, this very thing is said in a new way, against the prohibition of the Canon, that nothing should be said beyond what is contained in the letter. That is why they do not speak.

what is God's and the Church's, that is, truth, but their own, that is, lies.

Fourth, 1): There is no difference between one who knowingly speaks falsely and one who asserts something as certain which he does not know as certain. For even he who speaks the truth sometimes lies. But they know that what they have already said is uncertain to them, and yet they affirm it to be as certain as a gospel; for they cannot prove by any saying or reason that it is certain.

Fifthly: Then that intercession would be better at the service of a stranger, and that accidentally, than of themselves; since it does not benefit him who does it so much as the other for whom it is done; yes, that is peripatetic: I therefore pass it over; especially since they do not dispense with admitting that the intercession benefits not the one who works, but the soul. 2c I, too, could ridicule and mock these fables, just as they also mock the truth with them; but I refrain from doing so, in order to avoid the appearance of wanting to set up a doctrine of faith rather than a matter of dispute.

28. thesis.

It is certain, as soon as the penny rings in the box, that greed and avarice will come, increase and grow; but the help or the intercession of the church stands alone in God's will and good pleasure.

It is strange that they do not also preach with such zeal and clamor the exceeding salvific gospel of Christ. This circumstance makes the trade suspicious, that they seem to think more of gain than of godliness; unless perhaps they might be justly excused by not knowing the gospel of Christ. Therefore, since indulgences have no godliness, no merit, no commandment, but only a certain undue liberty, though the work by which they are discharged is a godly one, they are not to be suspected.

  1. Here have all the expenses: Fifth and in the following § Sixth. The Weimar krit. The Weimar critical edition notes that a section of the manuscript may have been omitted by mistake when the first edition was printed.

198 L. V. L. II, 225-227. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 428-431. 199

It seems to promote profit rather than godliness, since it is practiced so excessively and alone that the gospel, as a lesser thing, is hardly read.

This I prove firstly: because the intercession of the Church is not the jurisdiction of the Pope, nor is it in his hands that it be accepted by God, but only that he may offer it; even if their opinion that souls are saved by it were correct. .

-On the other hand: It would be false the generally accepted opinion of St. Augustine that the intercessions benefit only those who deserve to be benefited by them; because they would benefit the one whom they should benefit only by the power of the pope, but not by the merit of the soul.

Third, it is contrary to the nature and meaning of the word to say that it is in the power of the pope to redeem through intercession. For no matter how excellent a work may be, if it is transformed into intercession, it no longer works as a work, but as intercession. Rather, the hearing of intercession redeems. Either they speak of the thing itself with other names, and then they deceive even worse, or they speak of their thing with the actual word, then their opinion cannot exist, because the word intercession contradicts the meaning and the understanding of a force.

Fourthly, then there would be no difference between intercession and force but in the word; in reality they would be the same; for they work the same without any other requirement than the will of the pope. Why, then, does one not keep silent about intercession and stop urging us to understand something different by intercession than by force?

Here, dear reader, I declare once again that I speak of such intercession as if there really was such a thing; for I have already stated my opinion above that I doubt, even do not see, whether and how there is or can be such a thing. I say this so that no one may imagine that I am contradicting myself by asserting here, as it were, the intercession that I almost denied before.

29. thesis.

Who knows if all the souls in Purgatory will be redeemed, as it is said to have happened with St. Severino and Paschali?

I have not read any credible scripture about these two. But I have heard that they could have been liberated by their merits if they had wanted to be content with a lesser glory; therefore, they would rather endure than have the glory of seeing diminished. But in this each one believes what he wants; I do not care. For I have not denied that the souls in purgatory also suffer other punishments than those mentioned above. But I did not want them to be led out, even after their remission, until they had also been made completely healthy in grace; however, it could be the case that some did not want to be redeemed out of excessive love for God. From this it becomes probable that Paul and Moses could have wanted them to be banished and separated from God for eternity Rom. 9, 3; 2 Mos. 32, 32. If they were willing to do such a thing in life, it seems impossible to deny that it could also happen to the deceased, about which one can see in Tauler's sermons an example of a virgin who did the same.

30. thesis.

No one is certain that he has true repentance and sorrow enough; much less can he be certain that he has received complete forgiveness of sins.

This I say according to the opinion of those who want you to believe that repentance is necessary for the remission of punishments, and do not see how much they make everything uncertain. And the thesis is quite evident: for the first part they all assert; but the second is a necessary consequence. In my judgment, however, a certain remission of the penalties, namely, the canonical ones, can take place even if someone were not worthy nor had remorse; for remorse, much less the certainty of remorse, is not required for the remission of the penalties; because the remission takes place even if the penalties are not due.

200 D. v. ii, 227 f. II. explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 431-431. 201

It would be granted for fictitious things, since it is based on the mere power of the pope. But if they wish, as has been said above, to remit other punishments than for crimes, namely, for all and every mortal sin, they bring about, by intending to make the indulgence exceedingly great, that there is no indulgence. For if it is uncertain, it is not even indulgence; but it is uncertain if it is based on the conscience of him who is to be absolved, and not on the power of the keys, and especially if it is based on repentance of all mortal sins, and not only of the manifest crimes, since no one is certain that he is without mortal sin. But he can be certain that he is without crime, that is, without a sin for which he could be accused before the Church, as said above. Therefore, I deny that this thesis is true if I speak according to my sense. But I have set it up to show those the insipidness of their grandiloquence with which they magnify indulgences.

31. thesis.

Just as it is rare for one to have true repentance and sorrow, it is also rare for one to have true indulgences, that is, it is very rare to find one.

Again, I speak here in their opinion, so that they may see the presumption, yes, the contradiction of their unbridled preaching. For while they cry out that indulgences benefit so many, and yet confess that there are only a few who walk on the narrow way, they do not even blush and pay no attention to what they say. But it is no wonder. For they have not taken upon themselves the office of teaching repentance and the narrow way. I therefore state my opinion that although only a few have repented, yet many, yes, all in the whole church can be free from the penalties of the canons by abrogation of these canons, as they are now in truth.

32. thesis.

They will go to the devil together with their masters who think that they can be sure of their salvation through letters of indulgence.

I assert and prove this thesis.

Thus it is said in Jer. 17:5: "Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and taketh flesh for his arm." For we have no other assurance of our salvation than in Jesus Christ alone, "Neither is there any other name given among men, whereby we must be saved," Apost. 15, 11. 4, 12.. Therefore, away with the confidence in dead letters, in the name of indulgence, in the name of intercession.

Secondly, as I have said, the letters and indulgences confer nothing at all of beatitude, but take away only the penalties, and only the canonical ones, and not even all of them. Oh, that the earth and all that is on it would sigh and weep with me over the deception of the Christian people, who everywhere regard indulgences as nothing other than salutary and useful for the fruit of the Spirit! And no wonder, since the obvious truth of the matter is not presented to them. O wretched Christians, who cannot be assured of their blessedness either in their merits or in their good conscience! They are taught to put their trust in written paper and sealing wax! Why should I not speak thus? I ask, what more is bestowed there? No repentance, no faith, no grace, but only penalties of the external man set up by the canons. And to digress a little: I myself have heard many who, having paid money and solved a letter, put all their trust in it. For so they must have either heard it (as they said), or (as I honorably believe) they must have understood that the preachers of indulgences so teach. I do not blame here, as I am not allowed to, since I have not heard the indulgence preachers. They may wash themselves whiter than snow; for all I care, they can do it. In any case, the ears of the people, which are so unwashed, are to be punished that they hear what they say as bringing salvation only as bringing destruction, for they say: "First of all, dear brethren, believe in Christ and trust in him, and repent, take up your cross, follow Christ, put to death your members, learn not to be afraid of punishment and death; but above all, have love among one another.

202 L.v.a. II, 228-231. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 434-437. 203

Serve one another even if indulgences are not granted, come to the aid of the poor and needy first. So when they recite such and similar godly, god-fearing and holy things to them, the unintelligent people, perverted by a new miracle, hear quite different things, namely the following: "O you unintelligent and unfeeling people, almost similar to animals, who do not accept such a great wealth of graces! Behold, heaven is now open everywhere! If you do not enter now, when will you ever enter? Behold, so many souls you can redeem! O hard, hard and careless people! For twelve pennies you can pull out your father, and you are so ungrateful that you do not come to the aid of your father in such great chastisement? I am truly excused on the day of judgment, but you are the more accused for neglecting such a great salvation. I tell you, if you had only One skirt, you should take it off and sell it to obtain such great graces." But then, when one comes to those who speak against grace, since those preach only loud blessings and even overflow with them: the people stand trembling, fearing that the heavens will fall and the earth will open up, and hearing that punishments worse than the infernal ones are threatened to them, so that it may be true that where those curse, God blesses by their cursing, and where they bless, God curses. For how else could it happen that those speak such entirely different things than these hear? Who can understand this? Dear, whence this false appearance in the words? But I do not believe everything that the people say they have heard here and there, otherwise I would have to consider the sermons of those heretical, godless and blasphemous. I do not believe that it is true that one of them forbade the solemn burial of the deceased and the invitation of the priests to it, but rather that they should put in the box if they wanted to hold funerals, masses and death festivals. The people also invented this. I do not believe that fairy tale full of lies that has been told by anyone, namely, that in one place, I do not know how many thousands (if I remember correctly, three or five

thousand) souls had been redeemed by this indulgence, among which only three had been condemned because they had deducted something from the indulgence tax. No one said this, but while they were reciting the passion of Christ, the people heard such things, or later fabricated that they had heard them. I do not believe it to be true that here and there they gave the carters or innkeepers or others who served them four, five or as many souls as they liked instead of payment. I do not believe that they should have shouted in the pulpits, after they had poured out their exhortations with a fierce roar that the people should put in: Put in, put in, put in! (for this word, the people fictionalized, was the head, tail, indeed, body, and almost the whole sermon); then, in order that the apostolic preachers may teach the matter not only by words but also by their example, they descend and go first to the box in the sight of all, teasing and enticing the simple-minded and foolish people, so as to suck out their marrow completely; they therefore insert with solemn gesture and loud ringing, and are then surprised if all the others do not rain all their money into it, smiling at those who insert, being displeased at those who fail to do so.. I do not say that this is a fair with souls and a privileged trade. I am only displeased with the people who, in their crudeness, interpret such godly endeavors not as a sham of avarice but as greed driven to frenzy. But it seems to me that the people would like to be excused, since they had to receive from these new spirits either a new attitude or an error, since they were formerly more accustomed to hearing what belongs to love and humility. But if I wanted to make a list of all the frightening rumors, a new volume would be necessary. In my opinion, however, even if indulgences were necessary and salutary, because they have now become such a great abuse and offence, this alone would be sufficient reason for their complete abolition, lest, if they were allowed to remain in force any longer, the preachers of them should at last be destroyed by love.

204 V- a- H' 231 f. 11. Explanations d. Disp.'von d. Kraft d. Ablasses. W. XVIII, 437-140. 205

to the money still come completely from senses. I really believe that they did not say everything that is said from time to time; but at least they should have punished the people in this and expressed themselves more clearly, or, what would have been even better, they should have spoken modestly about the indulgence according to the canons.

  1. thesis.

One should be very careful and cautious of those who say that the pope's indulgence is the highest and most valuable grace or gift of God, through which man is reconciled with God.

I should have called them pernicious heretics. For what is more ungodly and heretical than to say that the indulgence of the pope is the grace of reconciliation with God? But in order to suppress my displeasure, I rather want to think that they did not say or establish such things out of malice or with will, but out of mere ignorance and lack of learned education and understanding; although there is also presumption in this, that as such unlearned people they did not rather do the work of an ox-servant than take on the business of instructing the souls of Christ. Let us now hear this ox-servant grunt his words, for so it is said in his booklet, 1) after dividing indulgences into four principal graces and many other lesser ones: "The first principal grace is the perfect remission of all sins, above which grace nothing greater can be called, so that through it sinful man, deprived of divine grace, obtains perfect remission and God's grace anew." So far that one. I pray you, what scum of heretics ever spoke so heretically? From this passage alone learn how it is that the people hear such ungodly things, while those say that they teach the most holy things. Oh, if only the zeal and eloquence of St. Jerome were here! I am ashamed of such a great presumption, that this washer should

  1. The summary instruction of the Archbishop of Mainz as Commissary General of Indulgences. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, 370 ff. 383 ff.

has not shied away from publishing such a booklet in the face of four famous and nearby universities, as if the clever minds there had been completely turned into stinking mushrooms. I am deceived that our neighboring heretics, the Picards, have finally got an opportunity to justly accuse the Roman Church when they hear that such things are taught in it. But that the silly author of the booklet did not say this out of malice, but only out of ignorance, can be seen from the fact that he says: "By it (that is, the first grace, the complete remission) man obtains complete remission." What then does this mean, "By complete remission he obtains complete remission, and by the grace of GOD he obtains the grace of GOD"? Is he then dreaming in a fever or is he suffering from madness? But pay attention to the heretical sense. He wants to say of this first grace that nothing greater can be called than it, and that man who is deprived of grace attains it. It is clear that this can only be understood by the justifying grace of the Spirit, and that he himself did not understand it otherwise. Otherwise this would not have taken place, that nothing greater can be called. But even if he spoke differently of the justifying grace, he would speak ungodly enough, since God alone is that beyond which nothing greater can be called. For St. Augustine does not speak as the latter does, but among the created gifts, he says, there is nothing greater than love. But here he mixes the grace of God and the grace of the pope in one word into one lump, as a writer worthy of such an opinion or such an error.

It follows in the same book: "By this remission of sins, the punishments which he would have to atone for in purgatory because of insulting the divine majesty are also completely remitted to him, and the punishments of the aforementioned purgatory are completely erased. Here we have heard a Delphic oracle saying that he who does not know everything is absolutely uncertain about nothing: of the power of the keys over purgatory he makes a certain statement. But we have dealt with enough of this above.

206 L.v. a.11,232-234. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 440-443. 207

It follows there: "And even if, in order to deserve such a grace, nothing worthy enough can be raised to repay it, therefore, because God's gift and grace cannot be estimated" 2c. There you see how he again calls that a gift And inestimable grace of GOD, which the pope enacts! This man is worthy to teach the churches, that is, the whorehouses of the heretics. After he had carefully dressed up this grace for trade and fair with these words, he immediately dresses his Mercurius again in the garb of Jupiter, so that no one would notice that he was seeking profit, unless he had no more sense than himself. He allows him to give it to the poor for free, but only if they have first tried everywhere to collect the money from good patrons (as he says), so that the begging brothers can get money without the permission of their superiors; for with this master of lies 1) the remission of self-invented punishment is much better than salutary obedience. But since nowhere a way was open to scrape money together to redeem that grace (that is, to buy redimsro anew, not as if those were selling, but because the all too great similarity of the matter compels them to misuse the word): only then does he say: "for the kingdom of heaven shall not be more open to the rich than to the poor"; again, he wants heaven to be open through indulgence. But I restrain my pen, lest it rage against them according to merit. Let it be enough that I have indicated to the faithful that the perverseness of their speeches is connected with such outstanding ignorance and clumsiness (as is befitting) that the lid fits the vessel very well.

34. thesis.

For the grace of indulgence looks only at the chastisement of satisfaction, which has been imposed by men.

This thesis is exceedingly clear from the 5th and 20th theses.

1)?86li6o1u8 in a comedy by Plautus.

35. thesis.

Those teach unchristianly who pretend that those who want to release souls from purgatory or confessional letters do not need repentance or suffering.

Dear, why do they give people this delay to their danger? And what is the use of preaching such things to them, but to seek money and not the salvation of souls, even if it were true? but now that it is ungodly and false, it is much more to be rejected. However, I have also admitted above that the punishments could also be remitted to those who are without repentance, which they deny. Here again I believe that what those claim must be denied. And indeed I have the same judgment of the letters of confession as of the penalties, namely, that for both no repentance is necessary, either as to the solution of them or as to their use, which they deny, and likewise also as to the remission of the penalties, since the remission of the penalties forms a part of the letter of confession. But with regard to the redemption of souls, I am of a completely different opinion, and demand that they prove their statements. I at least believe that I must see something quite different in the redemption of souls than in the remission of punishments, since man receives good in the remission of punishments, but does good in the redemption of souls. But the wicked can receive good, but in no way do good; and God cannot please the work of him who does not please himself, as it is said in Genesis 4:4. "The LORD looked graciously on Abel and his sacrifice." Then it is contrary to the Scriptures for a man to have mercy on another's soul first, and first to take the mote out of his brother's eye as the beam out of his own; and altogether for a slave of the devil to redeem a daughter of God, and that by God Himself. It is ridiculous that an enemy should use himself for a friend of the King. I ask, what is this madness? In order to make great the remission of a very small punishment, which is useless for salvation, they diminish the sins whose atonement alone would make great. If this is not heretical, ill-sounding, annoying, offensive to godly ears, what else is there that can be done with this monstrous

208 a. ii, 234-236. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 443-446. 209

What could be called by the name of the heretic? Or do the inquisitors of heretic wickedness want to persecute and tire the orthodox and orthodox opinions under this pretext, so that they alone are free to introduce heaps of heresies with impunity and arbitrarily?

But they say that this solution is not based on the work of the solver, but on the merit of the one to be redeemed. Answer: Who said this? How do you prove it? Why then is not the soul to be redeemed freed by its own merit without the work of a redeemer? But then the desired money would not grow for the salvation of souls. Why, then, do we not call upon Turks and Jews to put in their money with us also, not, of course, for the sake of our avarice, but for the salvation of souls? For the fact that they are not baptized does not seem to stand in the way, since here only the money of the one who gives is needed, but by no means the soul of the one who is lost. For this giving is based only on the soul to be saved. I believe that if even a donkey put in gold, he could also redeem; for if any ability were required, grace would necessarily be required, since a Christian who is a sinner displeases God more than any unbeliever, and even the donkey's clumsy nature does not disgrace him as much as the Christian's ungodliness.

Secondly: I have said that it is possible to give letters of confession to sinners, as well as remissions of punishments, but I have not said this, that they should be encouraged, nor even that they should be permitted to redeem such, as they teach ungodly and cruel. This I prove: -

First, every teaching of Christ is an exhortation to repentance, and is intended that men should turn from the devil the sooner the better, as Jesus Sirach says 5:8, "Do not delay to turn to the Lord"; and the Lord himself Matth. 25, 13: "Watch, for you know neither the day nor the hour"; and Paul Heb. 4, 11: "Let us hasten to enter into this rest"; and Peter 2. Ep. 3, 11. f.: "If then all these things shall pass away, how shall ye be skillful with holy

walk and be godly, that ye may hasten to the future of the day?" 2c But this they taught, because they were anxious, not how to gather money, but how to make souls blessed. But those, as if they were quite sure, grant them a miserable delay and leave them, as much as is in them, in danger of eternal death; so that I do not know whether they can be acquitted of the murder of souls by such a beginning. For it is not the blessedness of him who gives that is sought here, but the gift of him who is lost; since, if they were good shepherds of souls and true Christians, they should strive with all diligence to lead the sinner to the fear of God, to the fright of sin, and should not desist with weeping, supplications, admonitions, punishments, until they had won the soul of the brother. If he who would remain wicked continued to give money, they should hurl it in his face and say with the apostle 2 Cor. 12:14, "I seek not thine own, but thee"; and again Acts 8:20, "That thou mayest be damned with thy money," and should turn from him in disgust. Thus, thus they would act rightly.

But let this be far from our Mercurius: "Rather this we will do; if sinners come trusting in able mediators (that is, in money) even against the command of Christ and all the apostles, let them be like one of us, as being able to do all that we can, even to save souls, though they perish without delay, and we also laugh at them and rejoice surely in their gift. This is love for Christ's people and our brothers. Thus we care for their souls, that they may know that we have the last, that is, no pity at all, over their sins."

36. thesis.

Every Christian who has true repentance and sorrow for his sins has complete forgiveness of pain and guilt, which belongs to him even without letters of indulgence.

Otherwise, those who did not have such a letter would be in danger, which is wrong, since the indulgence

240 D. V. a. II, 236-238. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 446-^49. 211

The covenants are neither commanded nor advised, but are free. Also, those who do not care about them do not sin and are therefore not in danger for their salvation. This is evident from the fact that such people are already on the path of God's commandments, and in case such a dispensation would not be given to them, it would still be due to them, as the pope says. But here comes the hair-trigger mind of some who say: this would be true if the canons were punishments imposed only by the pope; but now they are explanations of the punishments imposed by God. Thus it behooves those to speak who have once resolved to pursue the truth with unceasing hatred.

First of all, they proclaim, as if from divine revelation, that God requires a punishment for sins that is sufficient, namely, a punishment other than the evangelical cross (that is, fasting, work, vigilance), also other than the chastening one: for they do not understand these punishments by it, because they cannot deny that these are remitted only by God.

On the other hand, they add to this monstrosity a greater one, namely, that the canons declare that the punishment is imposed. Consequently, the pope has only to declare, but never to interpret, nor to remit. Otherwise, contrary to the words of Christ, they would teach us thus: "All things that I shall bind, thou shalt loose."

37. thesis.

Every true Christian, living or dead, is a partaker of all the goods of Christ and the Church, from God's gift, even without letters of indulgence.

It is impossible to be a Christian without having Christ; but if a man has Christ, he has with him all things that are Christ's. For thus saith the holy apostle, Rom. 13:14: "Draw ye on the Lord Jesus Christ"; and Rom. 8:32: "How shall he not with him give us all things?" and 1 Cor. 3:21 ff."All things are yours, whether it be Cephas or Paul, whether it be life or death"; and 1 Cor. 12:27: "Ye are members, every man according to his part"; and in other places 1 Cor. 10:17, where he describes that we should

that all in Christ are one body, one bread, one member of another. And in the Song of Songs it says 2:16: "My friend is mine and I am his"; for through faith in Christ the Christian becomes One Spirit and One with Christ. For Gen. 2:24, "Two shall be one flesh," which is a great mystery in Christ and the church Eph. 5:31 ff. Since, then, the Spirit of Christ is in Christians, through whom they become brothers, joint heirs, members of the body and fellow citizens of Christ, how would it be possible that there should be no participation in all the goods of Christ? for Christ, too, has all that is His from the same Spirit. Thus it is through the inestimable riches of the mercy of God the Father that the Christian can boast and confidently assume all things in Christ; namely, that righteousness, power, patience, humility, and all the merits of Christ are also his through the unity of the Spirit out of faith in him; again, that all his sins are already no longer his, but Christ's through the same unity, in which all will also be swallowed up. And this is the certain confidence of Christians and the joyfulness of our conscience, that through faith our sins become no longer ours, but Christ's, on whom God cast the sins of us all Isa. 53:12, and who bore all our sins Isa. 53:6; he is the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world John 1:29; again, that all righteousness of Christ becomes ours. For he lays his hand upon us, and it is well with us; and he spreadeth out his mantle, and covereth us, as the most blessed Redeemer for ever and ever, Amen.

But since this so sweet participation and this pleasant exchange is only through faith, which man can neither give nor take away, I think it is sufficiently clear that this participation is not given by the power of the keys or by the granting of a letter of indulgence, but rather that it is given before and without it by God alone; just as the remission before the remission, the absolution before the absolution: so the participation before the participation.

What is it, then, that the pope, by his bestowal, is making part of? I answer:

212 v. a. 11,238-240. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 449-452. 213

Those should say, as is said above in the 6th thesis of the decree, that it makes partial in a declarative way. For I confess, how they can say otherwise, I cannot see. I will state my opinion in the following thesis.

38. thesis.

But the pope's forgiveness and healing is not to be despised. For, as I have said, his forgiveness is a declaration of divine forgiveness.

Not as if this explanation, which takes place through the public letters of indulgence, were necessary (for that which takes place in private confession is sufficient), but that it is not to be despised, for through it the privately made explanation is also made known and confirmed to the church. For in this way, I believe, it must be understood; whoever has something better, let him say it. For I do not see what this public announcement is supposed to accomplish. But, although I do not deny that this thesis, as I believe, has been accepted by all, I have said above in the 6th thesis that I do not like this way of speaking, that the pope does nothing else than that he declares or confirms the divine decree or dispensation. For, first, this makes the keys of the church all too small; indeed, it to a certain extent nullifies the word of Christ, where he says Matt. 16:19, "All that thou shalt redeem," 2c; for a "declaration" is all too little said. Secondly, because everything will be uncertain to the one to whom the declaration is given, although his redemption and reconciliation will be certain to others, or to the church, outwardly, before his eyes.

Therefore, as I have said above about the remission of guilt, so I will say about the sharing of goods, until I am taught better, namely: just as the sinner after sin trusts only with great difficulty in the mercy of God, so much does the sin that weighs heavily on him by its burden force him to despair, and he thinks much more easily of the wrath of God than of his mercy; so before sin he thinks more easily of mercy than of wrath. For man does everything wrong: he fears, since there is nothing to fear.

He is presumptuous, since he should not be presumptuous, but fearful, namely, of sin. An example of this is shown to us superfluously in the resurrection of Christ, where it took many reasons of proof for him to resurrect himself in the hearts of his disciples. After all, the first proclamation was made by women and was considered by them to be a madness; so the first trust also seems soft to the sinner, and he thinks that he cannot believe it, or that he can hardly believe it. So it is much more difficult to have confidence that one is partaker of the goods of Christ, that is, unspeakable goods, so that one is partaker of the divine nature, as St. Peter speaks 2 Ep. 1, 4. The greatness of the goods also causes distrust, namely, that not only such great evils are remitted, but also such great goods are bestowed, that he should be a child of God, an heir of the kingdom of heaven, a brother of Christ, a comrade of angels, a lord of the world. I pray you, how can he believe this to be true who, crushed by the bite of his sin, even by the burden of it, is carried away to hell? Here, then, the judgment of the keys is necessary, so that man may not believe himself, but rather believe the key, that is, the priest. And it is all the same to me whether he who holds the key is unlearned or reckless. For I believe not for the priest's sake, nor for his power, but for the word of him that said, and is not a liar, "All things thou shalt loose. "2c For the key cannot err with those who believe this word; but it errs only with those who do not believe that this absolution is strong. For just imagine (even if it were impossible or happened by chance): if someone does not have sufficient repentance, or if he thinks he does not have it, and yet believes with all confidence the one who absolves him that he is absolved (I mean in this way according to my confidence), then this very belief causes him to be absolved in truth, because he believes in the one who said: "All things thou shalt solve. "2c But faith in Christ always justifies, just as if a clumsy, careless, or ignorant priest baptized you. To this comes

214 D. V. a. II, 240-242. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 4S2-455. 215.

Even if you do not consider yourself sufficiently repentant (for you cannot and should not rely on yourself), but if you nevertheless believe him who said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," I tell you that this faith in his word causes you to be baptized in truth, whatever your repentance may be. Therefore faith is necessary everywhere. You have as much as you believe. And so I understand what our teachers say, that the sacraments are effective signs of grace, not because they happen (as St. Augustine says), but because they are believed, as above. So also here: absolution is effective, not because it happens, it may be given by whom it will, he errs or errs not; but because it is believed. And this faith cannot be hindered even by the reservation of cases, because it would be obvious and despised. Therefore I say that a man, when he is in sin, is so tormented and troubled by his conscience that he rather believes, in his own opinion, that he is guilty of all evil; and such a man is certainly nearest to justification and has the beginning of grace. Therefore, he must go to the consolation of the keys, so that he may be calmed by the priest's sentence, obtain peace, and gain the confidence of sharing in all the goods of Christ and the church. But if someone does not believe that this participation has come to him through the office of the priest, or if he doubts it, he will be deceived not by the error of the key, but by his unbelief, and will do great harm to his soul, and do injustice and the greatest dishonor to God and his word. Therefore it would be much better for him not to go to absolution if he does not believe that he will be absolved, than to go without faith; for he only goes hypocritically and gets judgment, just as if he received baptism or the sacrament of bread hypocritically. Therefore repentance is not as necessary as faith. For faith in absolution receives incomparably more than the fervency of repentance.

And we let go of this faith, and most of us just struggle with how to make repentance right in order to make people

To teach them to be confident that their sins are forgiven when they feel that they are completely broken, that is, never to be confident, but to work more and more toward despair, while according to the prophet we are not to hope in our repentance, but in his word; for he does not say, "Remember me, your servant, my repentance, in which you let me hope"; but, "Remember your word, in which you let me hope" Ps. 119, 49.; and again v. 81., "I hope in thy word" (worse, not in our work), and again, "My soul waiteth, and I hope in his word," 2c Ps. 130, 5.; and as it is Ps. 51, 6. according to the Hebrew, "In thee only have I sinned, therefore thou wilt justify me by thy word." Therefore neither sacrament nor priest justifies you, but faith in the word of Christ through the priest and his office. What is it to you if the Lord should speak through an ass or a donkey, if you only hear his word, on which you can hope and believe?

This is how I would understand what our scholastic teachers say, that the sacraments of the church are given to us for practice, that is, as priceless gifts, so to speak, in which we have a reason to believe and become righteous. For once the word of the Lord was precious in the days of Saul 1 Sam. 3:1, but now his word resounds to you even through the most careless, wicked and unlearned men. Look at the word and let go of the person's shell; if he errs here or does not err, you do not err if you believe. If I err here and speak without understanding, lead me in the right way who understands.

From this it will follow that the well-known three truths of John Gerson, which have long since passed into all books and ears, must be wisely understood, namely, that a man should not trust that he is in the state of blessedness because he can say that he has repented of his sins, but rather look at whether he desires the sacrament of absolution in such a way that he believes he is absolved when he has received it. For this means receiving the sacrament in desire, that is, in faith in the word,

216 L. V. a. II, 242-244. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. XVIII, 485-458. 217

that you either really hear or long to hear. Beware, therefore, that you do not even trust in any way in your repentance, but only in the mere word of your best and most faithful Savior JEsu Christ; your heart can deceive you, He cannot deceive you, you may now have or demand Him. Since this is the case (and may God grant that I am not a false spirit and false preacher with the prophet Micah Mich. 2, 11.), it is to be feared that many souls will be lost through those completely unlearned criers of works and repentance: First, because they do not teach faith in the Word, but only repentance, and this is still quite weak; Second, because they are so easily willing to give absolutions and make such appointments, as if everyone everywhere had this faith, and do not examine whom or why they absolve.

Therefore, when absolving, it is not so necessary to say, "Are you sorry for your sins?" as it is to say, "Do you believe that you can be absolved by me?" as Christ said to the blind, "Do you believe that I can do these things to you?" "All things are possible to him that believeth" Marc. 9, 23.. For this faith certainly proves itself most in those who, driven by terrors of conscience, rather feel their unbelief; but in those who do not feel such misery, I do not know whether the keys are comforting to them, since only those deserve to be comforted who bear sorrow, and only he deserves to be encouraged to believe that his sins are forgiven him, who trembles for fear that they may be kept from him.

And that I finally put an end to it, this opinion of mine (I believe) does not diminish the power of the keys, as I am accused of doing, but brings them back from a false honor and tyrannical reverence to the reverence due to them, which is connected with love. For it is no wonder that the keys come into contempt when they are offered with false honors, that is, only with terror, if they are to accept them; whereas, recognizing their exceedingly salutary benefits, he would have to be a stone or block who does not accept them with

tears to kiss and embrace him. Why then do we magnify the pope for their sake and present him as a frightening man? The keys are not his, but rather mine, given to me, for my salvation, for my comfort, given to me for peace and rest! The pope is a servant and my servant in regard to the keys; he does not need them as pope, but I do. But the flatterers turn everything on the popes, raise in it not our comfort, but only their power, and frighten us with the very thing with which they should comfort us most. So much is everything wrong nowadays, and we do not yet believe that these times are unhappy, in which such an abuse is of the best things that have been turned into the worst for us. Therefore, I do not entirely uphold this thesis as it stands, but largely deny it.

39. thesis.

It is extremely difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to praise the great wealth of indulgences at the same time as true repentance and suffering before the people.

The reason for this thesis lies in the following thesis.

40. thesis.

True repentance and sorrow seek and love punishment; but the weariness 1) of indulgence absolves one from punishment, and that one becomes grudging to it, least of all when occasion arises.

Take a truly penitent and you will see that he seeks revenge on himself so eagerly because he has offended God that he compels you to have pity on him, yes, that it becomes necessary to resist him, lest he corrupt himself, as we have often read and seen happen. And St. Jerome writes that his Paula was like that; and he also writes it of himself. No punishment is enough for such people, so that they call heaven and earth and God Himself against themselves with the lost son,

  1. I. e. the abundant communication.

218 L.v.a. II, 244-246. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 458-461. 219

as did David when he said 2 Sam. 24, 17: I pray thee, "let thine hand be against me and against my father's house. Therefore, I believe I was right in saying that canonical penances are imposed only on those who, either as lazy people, did not want to do better, or at least so that the sincerity of their repentance might be investigated. Therefore it is evident how difficult it is even for the learned to find the middle road between hatred and love of punishments, that they teach to hate them in such a way that they nevertheless persuade people to love the punishments above all. But for the unlearned, since nothing is difficult for them, there is nothing to prevent that even this should not be easy for them. The gospel, it is true, teaches neither to flee nor to abate punishments, but to seek and to love them; for it teaches the spirit of liberty and the fear of God to the contempt of all punishments. But it is much more profitable and beneficial for the purse of the indulgence merchants that the people fear the punishments and create the spirit of the world and fear in the letter and in bondage, hearing that it is such a terrible thing about some canonical punishments that they are taught that they can only be avoided with such great zeal, with such great effort, with such great pomp, with such great ceremonies, as it is not even taught that the gospel must be loved.

One objects:

What do you say about the pilgrimages to Rome, Jerusalem, St. James, Aachen, Trier and many other regions and places for indulgences, as well as those granted at the dedications of churches?

I answer:

These pilgrimages happen for many reasons, but rarely for the right reason.

The first is the most common, which is the curiosity to see and hear the strange and unknown. This frivolity comes from the disgust and sluggishness in worship, which is neglected in one's own church. Otherwise, one would find incomparably better indulgences at home than in all the places already mentioned together; one would also have Christ and the saints closer, if one did not so foolishly

would be to prefer wood and stone to the poor and to one's neighbor, whom one should serve in love or also provide for one's own family.

The second cause is bearable, namely, for the sake of indulgence. For since indulgences are free, not commanded, and therefore of no merit, those who really go on pilgrimage only for the sake of indulgences deserve nothing at all. But they are justly made fools of, because they miss Christ and their neighbor at home, in order to consume ten times more outside, without fruit or merit. Therefore, whoever stays at home and thinks about the saying: "Love also covers the multitude of sins" 1 Petr. 4:8, and those others: "But give alms from that which is there; behold, all is clean for you" Luc. 11:41, would do far better, yes, even better, than if he brought home all the indulgences from Jerusalem and Rome. But it is not pleasing to be so wise, therefore we are also given over to the lusts of our hearts.

The third cause is that of woe and toil for his sin; but of this I believe it seldom occurs, at least by itself. For he could also grieve and work himself off at home, if he only sought trouble; but if he does it, it is nothing bad, indeed, something good.

The fourth cause is honorable, namely, when it is done out of special devotion for the honor of the saints, for the glorification of God and for his own edification; as St. Lucia went on pilgrimage to St. Agatha, and many holy fathers visited Rome; the outcome has proved that they did not do it out of presumption.

Therefore, it pleases me that in these bestowals also the vows of such pilgrimages are transformed into other good works, and oh that it were done without remuneration!

41. thesis.

The papal indulgence should be preached carefully, so that the common man does not mistakenly think that it is preferred to the other works of charity, or that it is better respected.

I would speak thus to the people: Behold, dear brethren, you must know that there are three ar-.

220 L. V. a. II, 246-248. II. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 461-463. 221

There are many good works that can be done by spending money. First and foremost, when someone gives to the poor or lends to his neighbor in need, and in general comes to the aid of those who suffer in any need. This work is to be done in such a way that church buildings are to be interrupted and sacrifices to sacred vessels and church decorations are to be omitted. When this has been done and there are no more needy people, the second thing to do is to contribute first to the construction of our churches, hospitals and buildings for the general benefit. But when this has also been done, only then can you give in the third place, if you wish, also for the solution of indulgences; for to the first work we have the commandment of Christ, but to the last no commandment.

Do you say: By such preaching little money would be collected by indulgences; I answer, I think so. But why should this be surprising, since the popes do not seek money through indulgences, but rather the salvation of souls, as is evident from the indulgences they give at the dedication of churches and altars? Therefore, with their indulgences, they by no means want to prevent better things, but rather to promote love.

I freely say that whoever teaches the people otherwise and perverts this order is not a teacher but a deceiver of the people; only that the people, for their sins, sometimes deserve not to hear the truth preached rightly.

42. thesis.

Christians should be taught that it is not the mind and opinion of the pope that indulgences should be compared to any work of mercy.

I understand the Pope as I said above, as it reads, as a public person, that is, as he speaks to us through the canons. For there are no canons that state that the dignity of indulgences is to be compared with the works of mercy.

But the thesis is clear: because a commandment of God is infinitely higher in dignity than that,

  1. I.e. in something.

which is also permitted by a man and is not offered in any way; since there is merit, but here none. .

Here one objects: But the indulgence is redeemed by a godly work, namely by a contribution to a church building or to the redemption of the prisoners: consequently it is meritorious.

I answer: I am not speaking of the work, but of the indulgence; for that work could have been done without the indulgence, for it is not necessarily bound to the indulgence. But the indulgence, which is given without work, gives nothing, but only takes away; but the work without indulgence gives something; for there we receive what is ours, here we give. And therefore the flesh is served there, the spirit here; and, in short, nature is satisfied there, grace here; therefore indulgences, taken by themselves, are not to be compared with a work of mercy. Likewise, a work without indulgence is much purer than with indulgence; and indulgence is a kind of fault in the work, because it receives its reward, nay, more than its reward. Therefore, people would act more holy if they merely gave contributions, and not for the sake of indulgences, not because indulgences are bad and harmful, but because the perverse abuse is harmful; in that they would not do such a work if the indulgence were not, and so the purpose of such a work becomes the indulgence, indeed, man himself, who seeks what is his, while he should do the work for God's sake and for nothing, and not accept the indulgence otherwise than it is given to him for nothing, not for his contribution, so that he may not buy the indulgence and those may not sell it: For it must be a gratuitous gift on both sides, or it is manifest simony and the most shameful bargaining. But who says this to the people? when is it said: Put in for nothing and I will lend you for nothing?

Likewise, it is to be feared that by that perversion of order a great idolatry will be nourished in the church. For if the people are taught that they should put in to escape the penalties (which I hope does not happen, though perhaps many understand it that way), then it is clear that they are

222 D. V. a. II, 248-250. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 463-466. 223

not contribute for the sake of God, and the fear of punishment or punishment itself is their idol to which they sacrifice. But if it should happen in this way, then such an evil would, as it were, arise in the church as was once the case with the pagan Romans, when they sacrificed to fever and other disfavored and harming deities, so that they would not suffer harm. Therefore, one should watch for the people here and hardly entrust such doubtful and dangerous dealings to the most learned men.

43. thesis.

Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does better than to redeem indulgences.

I state this thesis for the sake of the unintelligent, because it is sufficiently obvious from the foregoing. But I am not the first or only one who holds this thesis with its two preceding and following ones, but all and the whole church hold it, only that the people never get to hear it. Perhaps they fear that they will be too quick to understand such a revelatory and thorough truth. For even St. Bonaventure and all the others, when in discussing this subject they make to themselves the objection, "consequently the other good works are to be omitted," answer unanimously: Not at all; but the other good works are better with regard to the attainment of the essential reward. So the thesis is clear, since this is said by those who claim that indulgences are a treasure of the merits of Christ and the Church.

44. thesis.

For by the work of love, love grows and man becomes more devout; but by indulgences he does not become better, but only more secure and free from chastisement or punishment.

This is clear. For here only a remission of the punishments is given, and the indulgence is not able to do more than that it takes away the punishments, as also all admit. But the removal of the punishment does not make good or better in love.

45. thesis.

Christians are to be taught that he who sees his neighbor suffer and, despite this, obtains indulgences, does not obtain the pope's indulgences, but incurs God's displeasure.

For he perverts the order given above, and John acts against it 1 Ep. 3:17: "If a man see his brother die, and shut up his heart against him, how doth the love of God abide with him?" Our sophists, however, interpret this "dying" from the extreme case of need, namely, never or only very seldom to give love the opportunity to show itself active; while they, however, if they were in need, wanted to be helped, not in the extreme need, but in the first need; but they want to help others when they have already exhaled their souls. Truly beautiful theologians and Christians who do not do to people what they would like to be done to them.

46. thesis. 1)

Christians should be taught that indulgence is a free thing, and not commanded.

I have said enough above about the fact that indulgences belong to the number of things that are permitted, but not to those that are pious, as also in the Old Covenant the letter of parting Deut. 24, 1. ff., the sacrifice of zeal Deut. 5, 15., and in the New Covenant the disputes and court cases for the sake of the weak, yes, "for the sake of your hardness of heart", as Christ speaks Matth. 19, 8.. And everyone who does this is more tolerated than praised; indeed, as the gloss says in the 5th book of poen. et rem.: Quod autem also many others would do better to make amends themselves and not to redeem indulgences; since only criminals need to redeem such indulgences.

47. thesis.

Christians should be taught that if they are not rich, they should keep what they need for their house and not waste it on indulgences.

  1. In these explanations, Luther rearranged the 46th and 47th thesis. In the 95 Theses, the one counted here as the 46th thesis is the 47th; and vice versa.

224 D- V- a- II. 250-282. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvm, 466-469. 225

For the apostle says 1 Tim. 5:8, "If any man provide not for his own, especially for his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than a heathen." But there are many who have neither bread to eat nor a good garment to put on, and yet, seduced by the noise and clamor of the preachers of indulgences, deceive themselves and throw themselves into extreme poverty in order to increase the wealth of those.

48. thesis.

Christians should be taught that as much as the pope needs devout prayer, he desires it more than money when he grants indulgences.

Our masters, the courtesans of the Roman court, who know well how things are, would laugh at this thesis; but it is certain that above all the pope must desire prayer from his subjects, as St. Paul often desired it from his own. And this is a much more just cause for granting indulgences than if a thousand magnificent churches were built, so that the pope, besieged rather than surrounded by so many monsters of devils and godless men, can only err to the greatest detriment of the whole church; especially when he likes to hear that pernicious voice of his sirens: "It is not to be supposed that the highest of the high is mistaken"; or also that saying: "All given rights lie in the shrine of his heart." - It is indeed assumed that he does not err, but it is questioned whether this assumption is good; and it is indeed in the shrine of his heart that all his rights lie, but it is questioned whether this heart is also good. For it is precisely for this that one should take care through prayer. But this is what St. Bernard wrote most gloriously to Pope Eugenius in his booklet "On Contemplation".

49. thesis.

Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgence is good, as long as one does not put one's trust in it; on the other hand, there is nothing more harmful than losing the fear of God through it.

Therefore, look at the danger: indulgences are preached to the people precisely against the

Truth of the cross and fear of God; for they are granted freedom from punishment, then certainty of forgiveness of sins. And it seems to be an obvious sign that the indulgences preached with such boastfulness are not from God, because the people are more willing to accept and observe them than even the holy gospel of God, so that the truth is proven: What comes from God, the world dislikes; another comes in his own name, and it accepts him John 5:43. And the cause of the error is the teachers of such fables themselves, who preach them more diligently and with more pomp than the gospel; further, that they preach to all what is only for a few. For, as has been made abundantly clear above, indulgence is remission, deliverance, concession and indulgence, and true letting go (if we take the strict meaning of the word), that is, soft concessions for pampered, cold, hard Christians, that is, more for Gibeonites, water-carriers and slaves than for princes and children of Israel.

But I prove the thesis:

If the works of love for those who do them diligently are of such a nature that no one can trust or be sure of them (since even the exceedingly holy Job fears for all his works Job 9:28, and Ps. 112:1: "Blessed is he who fears the Lord," likewise Prov. 28:14: "Blessed is he that feareth all things"): how much more is the indulgence, as incomparably inferior to these works, more than to be received with fear, and in it we are to put less than the least confidence, that is, absolutely none! The saint fears to work and suffer less than he ought; and where will there be a sinner who is remitted to do less than he could do? And as far as I know our preachers of the pandemonium and disturbers of the senses, they make of the work of indulgences a trade that creeps in darkness Ps. 91:6, and a powerful effect of error 2 Thess. 2:11, in that by means of it they persuade all men to trust in it, when it belongs to only a few, namely (as I have said) to the cold and weak. See here, whether it is not afterwards due to the infusion of the Holy Spirit.

226 L.V.Ä.H, 252-254. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 46S-472. 227

The reason for this is that they call it by their own testimony "a trade of St. Peter", "a trade of the Holy Spirit", in order to confess themselves, as it were, that they are traders and hold simonistic fairs.

But that I have said he is good, I understand thus, not to all, but only to the old man and the snoring workers; therefore, because it is better that the punishments should be remitted to them than that they should bear them unwillingly. But if, in order to prevent a greater evil, their will has been granted to them, let them not surely enjoy it, nor trust in it, but grieve and fear all the more that they are such as must be left in a lesser evil for the sake of a greater evil; seeing how even those fear who in the most zealous way advance in good. That is why I have said that indulgences are quite harmful when people rejoice without fear in such unboundedness.

50. thesis.

Christians should be taught that the pope, knowing the drudgery of the indulgence preachers, would rather that St. Peter's Cathedral should be discredited to powder than that it should be built with the skin, flesh and bone of his sheep.

For so our mighty hunters, after they have imposed a sum of money on every Christian class, finally also teach the women to go begging, even against the will of their husbands, and call the beggar brothers to gather money from somewhere, even against the will of their superiors; so that there is no one at all who still has a penny left who does not give it here. Finally it has come to the point that they ask the people to sell their skirts themselves or to borrow money from somewhere, which is said to have really happened. But I am of the opinion, because indulgences are the very worst of all goods of the church and should only be given to the very worst people in the church, then neither meritorious nor useful, but mostly quite harmful, if people do not stand in fear: that such a teaching is worth cursing and that it is contrary to the commandments of God. For the woman must

The religious must be under the control of the man and do nothing without his will, even if it would be meritorious, much less go begging for indulgences, which she may not even need. Furthermore, the religious must keep their obedience, even if they could attain the crown of martyrdom elsewhere; and the pope never intends the opposite, but his false interpreters. Another may vent his displeasure, I hold back. Only this I say: My dear reader, notice at least from this whether they do not seek with their pernicious sermons that they want to make the people believe as if in indulgences the blessedness and true grace of God exists. How else could they recommend it so urgently that they nullify all meritorious works and the commandments of God for its sake? And yet they are so few heretics that they pride themselves on being persecutors of heretics.

Is this what the pope wants, that for the sake of stone and wood the people entrusted to his care are flayed to the skin; yes, that they are slaughtered by these murderers and thieves (as Christ says Jn. 10:1) through pernicious teachings and plunged into ruin? Then it would be still better to have that emperor who said, "It behooves a good shepherd to shear his sheep, but not to pull the wool over their ears." 1) But these do not merely pull the skin over their ears, but devour them body and soul. Verily, "an open grave is their throat, with their tongues. "2c Ps. 5:10.

51. thesis.

Christians should be taught that the pope, as he owes, would also hand out his own money to the people, even if St. Peter's Cathedral were to be sold for this purpose, which some preachers of indulgences are now depriving themselves of money.

Thus St. Ambrose had the chalices melted down to ransom the prisoners, and St. Paulinus of Nola gave himself up as a prisoner for his own; and just for this purpose

  1. Emperor Tiberius. Sueton. Tib. 32. (Weim. A.)

228 v-ii, 284-256. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xviii, 472-475. 229

the Church has the gold, as it is taken in the decrees from the same Ambrose. But now, dear God, how many are those who carry trees, yes, leaves into the forest and drops into the sea, that is, their pennies into that money bag, which draws its profit, that I use the words of St. Jerome, from the religion of the whole world.

52. thesis.

To be blessed by letters of indulgence is a vain and untruthful thing, even if the commissary (or bailiff of indulgences), or even the pope himself, wanted to pledge his soul for it.

Also this monstrous doctrine they dare to present without all shyness, in order to take away the fear of God from men and to bring them to the wrath of God through indulgences, against the saying of the wise man Sir. 5, 5.: "Do not be so sure whether your sin is not yet punished"; and again Ps. 19, 13.: "Who can realize how often he falls short?" Yet they say, "We by no means abrogate the fear of GOD." If security obtained by indulgences can stand with the fear of GOD, then in truth you do not abrogate it, but the people who take the letters of indulgence, which you extol with such great oaths. If it fears that the letter will not be sufficient before God, how can this boastful promise of security stand as true? But if it has confidence that it is sufficient, how can it be afraid? Cursed be all such speech in eternity, which persuades to safety and confidence on or by any other thing than the mere mercy of God, which is Christ! All the saints not only fear, but also say with trepidation, "Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant" Ps. 143, 2.; and thou wilt bring them into his judgment as sure men by thy letters? Therefore I believe that the fairy tale that has been invented against their unbridled abyss of lies is not entirely without truth, namely: a deceased man once came to hell with a letter of indulgence and demanded freedom by virtue of it. Then a devil came and while he was reading it,

wax and paper had been consumed under his hands (before the great heat of the fire) and he had dragged him with him into the abyss.

53. thesis.

These are enemies of Christ and the Pope who, because of the preaching of indulgences, completely forbid the preaching of the Word of God in other churches.

For it is the office and the attitude of the pope that he wants above all, always and everywhere, that the word of God be preached; as he knows that it is commanded to him by Christ. So how can we believe that he contradicts Christ and himself? But our preachers of indulgences are subject to this, as well as to everything.

54. thesis.

It does injustice to the word of God if one spends as much or more time preaching indulgences in a sermon than on the word of God.

This is sufficiently evident from the dignity of the Word of God, indeed, from its necessity, while the word of indulgence is neither necessary nor of much use.

55. thesis.

The Pabst's opinion cannot be otherwise than that if the indulgence (which is the least) is celebrated with one bell, one pomp and ceremonies, that, on the other hand, and much more, the gospel (which is the greatest) should be honored and praised with a hundred bells, a hundred pomps and ceremonies.

For in the church nothing should be handled with greater care than the holy gospel, since the church has nothing more precious and more salvific. That is why it is the only work which the Lord has so often repeated to his disciples. Paul also says 1 Cor. 1:17 that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Finally, Christ commands that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper should only be celebrated in remembrance of Him Luc. 22, 19; and Paul says 1 Cor. 11, 26: "As often as I have been baptized, I have been baptized.

230 L. V. a. II, 256-2W. II. Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVHI, 475^78. 231

When ye eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall proclaim the death of the Lord. For it is better to omit the Sacrament than not to proclaim the Gospel; and the Church has decreed that no Mass may be celebrated without the Gospel being read. Therefore, with God the Gospel is of higher value than the Mass, for without the Gospel man does not live in the spirit, but he does live without the Mass. For man lives by every word that goes through the mouth of God Matth. 4, 4, as the Lord Himself teaches more extensively in John 6. Then the mass refreshes those who are already in the body of Christ; but the gospel is the sword of the Spirit, consumes the flesh, divides the behemoth, takes away the armor of the strong, and increases the body of the church. The Mass benefits only those who are already alive, but the Gospel benefits all. Therefore, in the first church, those who were possessed and those who had been instructed in the beginnings of Christianity were allowed to remain until after the Gospel, whereupon they were dismissed by those who belonged to the mass and enjoyed the body there; and even now, the laws allow the banished to remain in the mass until after the Gospel. Just as John went before Christ, so the Gospel goes before the Mass. The Gospel bows down and humbles; the Mass gives grace to the humbled. They would do better, therefore, if they forbade the mass.

But what a glorious spectacle do you think it must be for the devils when sometimes the givers of indulgences who are themselves most in need of indulgences (namely, as Simonists and those addicted to the Canons) give indulgences to those who have no need of indulgences at all?

56. thesis.

The treasures of the church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among the church of Christ.

Thus I have deserved death for the second time. Therefore, after I have long asserted many things that are so obvious that there is no need for protest.

so now once again we have to dispute, and therefore I have to protest with this last protestation in this disputation. So I dispute here and seek the truth, let it be witness, reader, let it be witness, listener, let it be witness even the inquisitor of the heretic court.

57. thesis.

For it is evident that these are not temporal goods, so that many preachers do not easily give them away, but gather them up alone.

That is clear enough from experience.

58. thesis.

Nor are the merits of Christ and the saints: for these always work, without the help of the pope, grace to the inward man, and the cross, death and hell to the outward man.

The subject of this thesis is all too deeply ingrained in almost all teachers, and sits in their innermost being; therefore I must prove my thesis all the more widely and strongly, and this I will do confidently:

First of all, of the merits of the saints.

They say, in fact, that the saints have worked in this life beyond their due, namely, superfluous works, which have not yet been rewarded, but have flowed into the treasury of the Church, with which now, through indulgences, a worthy compensation takes place 2c And so they pretend that the saints have done enough for us. Against this I conclude as follows:

To the first: Consequently indulgences are not indulgences; which I prove by this, because they are not a gracious remission, but the granting of an alien satisfaction, and here all that has been explained above with regard to the treasure of the contending church takes place; for then by the power of the keys only a certain transmission of works is effected, but nothing is redeemed which is contrary to the word of Christ: "All things that thou shalt redeem.

232 "- n> 25s-26o. 11, Explanations d. Disp. von d. Kraft d. Ablasses. W. xvm, 478-481. 233

For if there really are works of the saints in the church in such a way, the Holy Spirit certainly does not allow them to lie idle, but they actually come to the aid of all those whom they can help.

Secondly: No works of the saints have gone unrewarded, for, as all think, God rewards abundantly; and Paul says Rom. 8:18, "Sufferings for this time are not worthy of the glory that is to be revealed in us. "2c

Thirdly: No saint has sufficiently fulfilled the commandments of God in this life, therefore they have done nothing superfluous. Therefore, they have also left nothing that could be distributed as indulgences. The conclusion, I believe, is sufficiently clear; but I prove the upper proposition in such a way that it cannot be doubted, but must be believed in such a way that its antithesis is heretical. First, by the saying of Christ Luc. 17:10, "When ye have done all that ye are commanded, say, We are unprofitable servants." But by a useless servant is understood one who has done under, not over, his duty; unless one follows the dreams of certain people in bad taste, who gossip that Christ said this of his own out of humility, but not in truth, thereby making Christ a liar, so that they may remain truthful. Secondly, by Matt. 25:9, because the wise virgins did not want to share any of their oil for fear that it would break. Third, Paul says in 1 Cor. 3:8, "Each one will receive his reward according to his work"; he does not say "according to someone else's work. Fourth, Gal. 6:4 f., it is said, Every man must give account for himself; and again 2 Cor. 5:10, "That every man may receive after he hath acted in the life of his body." Fifth, every saint is a debtor to God to love Him as much as he can, yes, more than he can; but none has done this, nor can do it. Sixth, the saints, with their most perfect works, namely, death, martyrdom, and suffering, do no more than they owe; indeed, they do what they owe, and even that they hardly do; consequently they have much

less in other works than they were guilty of. Seventh, since I provide so many reasons for proof, but they do not provide one either for their opinion, but rather mere talk, without scripture, without teachers or reasons of reason, we can, indeed, must completely deviate from their opinion. But these may be my proofs.

Now I prove the same with sayings of the holy fathers. First, with the well-known saying of St. Augustine: "All saints need to pray: Forgive us our trespasses; even if they have done good, because Christ exempted no one when he taught us to pray"; but those who confess their trespasses certainly have nothing superfluous. Secondly, by Psalm 32:2: "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity;" and further on (v. 6.), "For this shall all the saints pray thee." Jerome, in his Dialogue against the Pelagians, interprets this verse splendidly, saying, "How can he be a saint who prays for his ungodliness? Again, but if he be ungodly, he is not holy 2c Therefore the saints, by prayer and confession of their ungodliness, merit that sin be not imputed to them." Third, St. Augustine, in the 1st book of his Retractations, says: "All commandments are fulfilled when that which is not fulfilled is forgiven." In fact, there he treats the question: whether the saints have perfectly fulfilled the commandments, and he denies this, saying that it happens more by forgiveness of God than by fulfillment on the part of man. Fourth, he says in the 9th book of his Confessions: "Woe to the life of men, however praiseworthy, if it is judged with the exclusion of mercy." Behold, even the saints need mercy in their whole life! Here also belongs what Job says 9, 15., "Though I be right, yet must I plead with my judge." How, then, can those have superfluity for others who have not enough for themselves? Fifth, St. Augustine, in the 2nd book against Julian, lists ten ancient church fathers for this opinion, namely Hilarius, Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Irenaeus, Olympius,

234 L.v.a. ii. 260-262. ii. Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 481-484. 235

Rheticius, Innocenz, and relies on their reputation, proving that no saint is without sin in this life, according to 1 John 1:8: "If we say we have no sin" 2c Likewise also in his book "Of Nature and Grace."

From this and from many other things that would be too much to enumerate here, I conclude that the saints have no merits that are superfluous to them, with which they could come to the aid of us lazy ones; and to be bold for once, I solemnly declare that I have no doubt about what I have now said, but am ready to suffer fire and death for it, and claim that everyone is a heretic who holds the opposite.

But even if I were to admit the impossible, namely, that the saints really had superfluous merits, I do not know whether the church would be doing a worthy work by using such precious merits so badly, namely, for the solution of punishments; since the solution of punishments is the worst gift the church has and should be given only to the worst, as has often been said. But the punishments of the martyrs and saints should rather be an example that one should bear the punishments. For so we pray when we celebrate their feasts, "that we may also imitate the virtue of suffering." Likewise, the church as a mother does not seem to act godly when she indulges, but when she chastises and restrains, as is clear in the case of banishment and church punishments, which punishments she does not indulge in at all, but rather imposes, especially when she is most concerned for her children. But if she does remit them, she does so, as it were, because she despairs and fears that something worse might come of it. Since, then, the remission of punishments is such a poor gift, and the violence of the keys alone is sufficient for it, it would certainly not seem to be done with slight disrespect to the so glorious efforts of the saints, if it were assigned to the snorers. St. Augustine spoke much better about it in his sermon on the martyrs: "The feasts of the martyrs are (not decrees, but) calls to the

Sufferings of martyrdom, that we may not be displeased to imitate that which we delight to celebrate."

Now this part proves that the merits of the saints cannot be a treasure for us, since they are only a lack for the saints themselves; unless someone would believe that they are a treasure for us in that way, not because they are superfluous, but because it is the communion of the saints, each one working for the other, as one member for the other; but this they did in their lifetime, and if they did it now, it would be by intercession for us, rather than by the power of the keys.

But here I hear from afar the perceptive objection of certain people: It is true, they say, the saints have not been without sin in this life, but these were venial sins; nevertheless they have done more than they were guilty of. It is indeed difficult to deal with these exceedingly stupid people in this matter; but I say briefly: this is their venial sin, that they do less than they are guilty of; but not that which they alone invent as a venial sin, namely laughter, a frivolous word or thought. This is indeed a venial sin, but a great venial one. But a good work, done in the best way, is also a venial sin, as stated above from St. Augustine: Then the commandments are fulfilled, if what is not fulfilled is forgiven, which happens in every good work, because there too, as the Lord's Prayer teaches, forgiveness is always to be asked. But this requires another disputation, about which will be dealt with elsewhere. Therefore, St. Bonaventure, when he claimed that man can be without venial sin, was badly mistaken, the holy man.

Of the second, namely, of the merit of Christ.

That this is not the treasure of indulgences, I dispute; but that it is a treasure of the church, only a heretic can deny, since Christ is the ransom and the redeemer of the world, and therefore really and only the one treasure of the church. But that it is also the treasure of indulgences, I deny, until I have

236 D.V.L. II, 262-264. II. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvin, 484-487. 237

I will be proven wrong, and the reasons why I deny it are as follows:

To the first: This cannot be proved (as I have often said) by any scriptural passages, nor can it be shown by rational reasons, and even those who are of this opinion do not prove it, but simply tell it, as is known to all. But I have said before that if one makes an assertion in the church for which one can give neither a reason nor a sentence, this exposes the church to ridicule by its enemies and heretics, since according to the apostle Peter we are required to give account to everyone who demands a reason for the hope that is in us 1 Pet. 3:15; and Paul wants a bishop to be powerful also to punish the gainsayers through sound doctrine Tit. 1:9. Here, however, there is so little evidence that, if today the Roman Church were to decide in favor of the asserting part, the same danger would remain, namely, that no other reason could be given than because it so pleased the pope and the Roman Church. But what is the use of this reason if we are urged by those who do not follow the Roman Church, as by the heretics, the Picards? They will not ask whether it is the will of the pope and the Roman church, but according to sayings or probable reasons; and at least I have almost my only intention in this whole matter.

Secondly: All the reasons of proof that have been given of the treasure of the contending Church and the merits of the saints apply here in a higher degree, namely: First, that then the indulgence is not an indulgence, but a transfer of other people's works to others and a real and legitimate pardon; because we do what we do through another. But by indulgences (as the Canon says in the 5th book de poen..et rem. ©ap. Cum ex eo) "the pardon required in penance is invalidated"; he does not say "is transferred," but "is invalidated." Secondly, that then the keys of the church do nothing, and are in truth made small, because they do not loose, but transfer what is bound to another. But it is ungodly,

To say that the key does not solve; but if it solves, it takes away the whole. Thirdly, that the merits of Christ in fact work the same without the key; for they cannot be idle. Fourthly, that then a very great disrespect would be shown to the merits of Christ if they were used only for the remission of a punishment, since through them he himself has become an example for all martyrs. It would therefore be contrary to the nature of Christ's merits that they should serve the lazy and indolent, since they also spur on the zealous. For, as has already been said, the remission of punishment is the least of all.

Thirdly, you are to answer the contradiction: St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, and those who follow them, consistently and unanimously say that good works are better than indulgences, as has been well said above. Let this then be true. Likewise, through indulgences the merits of Christ are bestowed and presented. Let this also be true, because all teachers also constantly maintain this opinion. Likewise, the merits of Christ are incomparably better than our good works: indeed, they alone are good. Let this also be true.

Here I conclude and make the conclusion: Blessed is he who does not abandon his good works and seeks only the works of Christ, that is, indulgences, since it would be the ultimate thesis of all blasphemies to prefer his good works to the works of Christ. So either the works of Christ are not the treasure of indulgences, or he is arrogant as a wretched man who does not abandon all commandments, even the divine ones, and seeks indulgences alone, that is, the merits of Christ. But against this, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure say that indulgences are not commanded, even worse than good works: therefore, indulgences are not the works of Christ, and yet they are at the same time and once for all the works of Christ.

But they will perhaps answer me, perceptive as they are, with Aristotelian distinctions: It is true, the merits of Christ, taken in a simple way, are better than our works; but so they are not indulgences, or rather, they are not so conferred by indulgences; but they are so con-

238 D.v.a.n,Mi f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 487-^89. 239

They are taken as they are alone, as those who do enough for the punishments, and in this way they are also applied. 1) I answer: Prove what you say. How? if I did not want to believe you, since you are telling unproven things? I am commanded to test the spirits whether they are of God (1 John 4:1). Secondly, where is what was said above: that the merits would be distributed through indulgences because they were not yet rewarded, but because they had done something that they did not owe? Are such merits, then, so small that they should receive no other reward than that they should be satisfactions for other lazy people? Then I conclude thus: The superfluous works are the noblest and most perfect of all. Do you admit this? Yes. And such are not rewarded to the martyrs or saints, but given to the lazy and snoring? And so the saints are rewarded according to their lesser works and merits, because they leave the more perfect ones to others? I pray thee, who can be so senseless? So Saint Catherine did not receive anything for her martyrdom and virginity, but left it to the Church and was content with the reward of her prayer, vigilance and other good works? But if you say that they were rewarded for this and at the same time also left it to them, where then is what was said that there were certain merits which were not yet rewarded? Seest thou not that it is nothing, to speak without ground of proof, and to counsel in darkness?

If it is ungodly to say that the superfluous works, or what the saints have done more than they owed, are so small and not rewarded to them, how much more is it ungodly to make the works of Christ, which are all superfluous, so small! Therefore to exalt indulgences in this way, and yet to lower them again below our works, is to blaspheme Christ and his saints in their merits; unless it be done erroneously and not willingly.

To the fourth: I take again the reason of proof which the gloss de poem. st rsm. gives in the chapter Quod autem, namely: If.

  1. Cf. Löscher, Reformation Acta II, 476.

indulgence is the remission of all punishments, man no longer needs to fast or do good. This is not refuted by the fact that this remission is uncertain, but rather the keys of the church are blasphemed, although almost all scholastic teachers come to its aid for this opinion. But the saying, "Man knows not whether he is worthy of love or hate," is to be understood of the future end; for he who believes now knows not whether he will persevere in faith to the end. Therefore, Ecclesiastes 9:2 immediately adds: "Man knoweth not whether he be worthy to love or to hate, but all things are uncertain for the future" according to the Vulgate; for he said in the preceding: "There are the righteous and their works in God's hand. "2c But do they make the remission of guilt uncertain, much more also that of punishment; for if guilt remains, punishment must necessarily remain also; as the same gloss says that by remission is understood when through repentance (rather through faith in the keys) sin is entirely blotted out. What then is the indulgence? an uncertain gift? Let it be far, far from the Church of Christ, indeed from the keys, that such an ungodly deception should take place. For then, in truth, indulgences would be (as some say) an ungodly deception of the faithful. One comes to such an error if one wants to be justified more by his works and his righteousness than by faith. That is why we teach only about repentance, when we teach best, but nothing about faith in the keys, which should be taught most of all. But this has been spoken of more extensively above. Either, then, indulgences are not the treasure of the saints' merits, or it follows very well that he who has obtained indulgences must rest from his good works for sins.

Secondly, this refutation is ungodly against Christ, because if Christ's merits are granted to me through indulgence, and I still consider it uncertain whether my sins are forgiven, I must therefore still work for their remission. Then it follows that I doubt whether the merits of Christ, which are granted to me by the indulgence of Christ, can be forgiven.

240 V. Ä. II, 26S-267. 11 Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 489-tS2. 241

are sufficient for the forgiveness of sins. What is more curse-worthy than such doubt? But if I do not doubt, but believe that they are sufficient, I act completely ungodly if I consider my works better than the indulgence, that is, than the works of Christ given to me. For if I could receive only one work, yes, only the millionth part of the smallest work of Christ alone, I am sure of eternal redemption. Let us, therefore, cease to work our works for our sins, and let us do nothing but redeem indulgences, for in them we obtain not one work, but all the merits of Christ, and not only his, but also those of all the saints. Since, therefore, the merits of Christ cannot be compared with ours in any respect of excellence, either they are not the treasure of indulgences, or indulgences must be preferred to all the works of all the commandments of God; or else the greatest dishonor and blasphemy would befall the merits of Christ. Then see what it is that they add to this treasure, as if the merits of Christ alone were not enough, the merits of the saints, as well as the merits of the church in conflict.

But you say, "Did St. Thomas err so much with the others? Is the pope and the whole church, which thinks so, in error? Or do you alone, as the first and only one, have the right opinion?

I answer, first of all, that I am not the only one, but the truth is with me, as well as many other men, namely, those who have doubted and still doubt what the indulgence is worth; nor do they sin with this doubt, since it is only remission of punishments, without which someone can nevertheless be saved, whether he believes them or not, whether he obtains them or not.

Secondly, the pope is also for me; for although he grants indulgences, he nowhere says that they are from the treasury of the merits of Christ and the Church; indeed, since he declares himself in the 5th book äs poen. st rsm. in chapter 6um sx so, he says that they are mitigation of the satisfaction in penance; but a mitigation is not a granting of the pardon.

service of Christ, but only a taking away of punishment.

Thirdly: And the whole church is for me, because the church is absolutely of the same opinion with the pope and holds for it, like the pope. But what opinion the pope has, has already been said.

Fourth: And though St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales are excellent men, with their pupils Antoninus, Peter de Palude, Augustine of Ancona, besides the teachers of ecclesiastical law, who all follow them, yet it is right to prefer to them first the truth and then the prestige of the pope and the church. Nor is it to be wondered at that so great men have erred in this. For, tell me dear, in how many ways do even the scholastics accuse St. Thomas of having erred! Yes, what is more, how many universities, how many of the most perceptive minds in them, how many of the most strenuous efforts of gifted people have been working on the One Aristotle for more than 300 years now, and yet they still not only do not understand Aristotle, but they scatter an erroneous and fictitious understanding of him almost throughout the whole Church; although, even if they understood him, they would not have gained anything of special glorious wisdom, especially in the books of Aristotle, which they use most, in which he himself, according to his own testimony in Aulus Gellius in 4. Cap. of the 20th book and that of Gregory of Nazianzus in his sermon against the Arians he is only invented as a mere word artist and word brawler. I might be considered impudent, impudent and presumptuous here; and oh, that I only had time and leisure, so that I could give an account of this presumption of mine and make my words credible! perhaps I could bring about that mau would not regard this opinion of mine as unfounded. I would not try to bring Aristotle into agreement with Plato and others, which John Pico of Mirandola undertook, but paint Aristotle with his own colors, as is rightly painted by one who is a word artist by profession (as Gregory of Nazianzus says), and a verse artist by profession.

242 L.v.a. II, 267-269. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. LVIII, 492-495. 243

mocking gifted people. If, then, God allowed such a fog and darkness to prevail for such a long time among such high learned people, how can we still so surely have pleasure in ourselves, and not rather (as befits Christians) consider everything that is ours to be suspect, so that Christ alone may be the light, the righteousness, the truth, the wisdom, and all our good?

Since those holy men saw how unlearned or such people who had not recognized Christ held Aristotle in such high esteem and esteem, they, as they were of humble disposition, also followed out of pious simplicity and, since they had fallen into error, they became a cause of so many confusions, opinions, questions and errors for others, as we now see them before our eyes in the scholastic teachers. And we were worthy, because we forsook Christ, that he also forsook us and gave us up even through his elect into the danger of error and endless toil, as he says in Ezekiel, 14, 9.And there v. 4: "If he comes to the prophet to ask me through him, then I, the Lord, will answer him as he deserves with his great idolatry. Therefore everything is to be read and received with fear and judgment, also what is taught by great and holy men, according to the saying of the apostle 1 Thess. 5, 21.: "Test everything and keep what is good"; and that of John 1 Ep. 4, 1.: "Test the spirits, whether they are of God." But he who disregards such counsel and relies on men, like those who say, "I would rather err with such great men than be right with you"; he is worthy to be disregarded and left in the lurch by the counsel consilmw also. For he who despises the counsel of the spirit, why should he not rightly be despised by the spirit of the counsel? This is what happened with the indulgences. When the holy people saw how the mob exalted the indulgence so high (as the mob is always in the habit of judging Paris and Midas), and did not want to believe that it was so small, they began to make even an honorable

and precious foundation for him to invent, since they found no other, nor was there one anywhere.

Let us therefore return to the matter in hand and examine the merit of Christ and prove that it is not the treasure of indulgences. Now follows as a foundation for this

Fifthly, no one is given the grace of repentance without at the same time being given the merits of Christ. Consequently, before indulgence he already has the treasure of Christ's merits; and if he did not have it, indulgence would be of no use to him either, according to their own opinion (for such high thoughts they have of the remission of punishments). For through repentance man enters again into grace with Christ, 1) just as the prodigal son came again into grace with his father, who says Luc. 15:31, "All that is mine is thine"; and as it is said in Isa. 9:6, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given"; and again, Rom. 8:32, "How shall he not with him give us all things?"

Sixth, otherwise those who are worse would be the more blessed in the church. For it has already been said that indulgences are of use only to criminals, and to them should the treasure of Christ's merits be given? But it should not be given to children, virgins, and innocents, to whom it is most due, indeed, who alone have it? But this reason of proof is of little value to those who believe that all punishments are taken away, even that no indulgence can be given to sinners without repentance, which I do not believe.

Lastly, a proof that the thesis itself brings, namely: the merits of Christ and his saints work their double work, namely their own and foreign, even without the pope. The own, which is grace, righteousness, truth, patience, gentleness in the spirit of a chosen man, because the righteousness of Christ and his merit justifies and remits sins, like John

  1. In Latin: kioutLIinsproäiZnsenmOtirikto xatrs sno, qui dioit. The words enm OUristo will probably be disguised. We have taken it as if it said: rsdit in Aratinm "um OUristo, sieut etc..

244 V. a. II. 26S-271. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. XVIII, 495-198. 245

says 1, 29.: "Behold, this is God's Lamb, who bears the sin of the world"; and Isa. 43, 24. s. it is said: "Thou hast made me labor in thy sins, and hast given me trouble in thy iniquities; I, I blot out thy transgression for my own sake, and remember not thy sin." But he blots them out by the merit of his suffering; and in such a way I would admit that the merits of Christ are, as it were, a treasure, not of the Church, but of God the Father; for he obtains for us remission of the debt by effectual intercession with God. Thus he speaks figuratively in Job, "Him will I look upon"; and the apostle says Heb. 12:24, that the blood of Christ speaks better than Abel's; for Abel's blood cries out for vengeance and wrath, but the blood of Christ cries out for mercy and represents us. The foreign work (for that is what Isaiah 28:21 calls it) is the cross, toil, all kinds of punishments, and finally death and hell in the flesh, so that the sinful body may cease, here members who are on earth may be killed, and sinners may be turned to hell. For every one that is baptized and regenerated in Christ is prepared for punishment, for the cross, for death many times over, that he may be esteemed as a sheep for the slaughter, and be slain daily Ps. 44:23., even as the Psalm saith Ps. 38:18., "For I am made for sorrows, and my pain is ever before me." Thus, we must be conformed to the image of the Son of God, so that whoever does not take up his cross and follow Him is not worthy of it, even if he were full of all indulgences.

From this, then, see if not, since the scholastic, that is, the fooling (for this is the meaning of the word in Greek) theology has taken its beginning, the theology of the cross has been destroyed and everything has been completely reversed? A theologian of the cross (that is, one who speaks of the crucified and hidden God) teaches that punishment, the cross and death are the most precious treasure of all and the most holy relics, which the Lord Himself has consecrated and blessed to this theology not only by touching it with His most holy flesh, but also by embracing it with His above all holy and divine will, and has left it here for us, as the one that in truth is to be

are to be kissed, sought and embraced. Yes, blessed and blessed is he whom God deems worthy to be given such relic treasures of Christ; or rather, who recognizes that they are given to him. For to whom are they not presented? As St. James says 1, 2., "My dear brethren, consider it vain joy when ye fall into many a temptation." For not all have this grace and honor of receiving these treasures, but only the most elect children of GOD. Many go on pilgrimages to Rome and other holy places to see the skirt of Christ, the bones of martyrs, the places and traces of saints, which we do not want to condemn, but which we blaspheme, that we do not see the true relics, namely the Cross and the Passion, which sanctified the bones and relics of the martyrs and made them worthy of such great veneration, so that not only, when they are offered to us at home, we do not want to accept them, but also reject them with all our strength and pursue them from place to place; while with the greatest thirst and constant tears we should ask God that such delicious relics of Christ, which are the holiest of all, be given to us, as it were as a gift of God's chosen children. Thus also the 16th Psalm in Hebrew has the superscription Michtham, by which one can understand, as it were, an excellent golden small gift, because in it only the suffering of Christ is sung about; and the 80th Psalm is headed: A testimony of Assaph, by which the scholars rather want to understand an amusement of Assaph, or a delightful gift of Assaph; and yet a song of the cross sounds in it.

Yes, so sacred are such relics and so precious are these treasures that, while the others can be kept in earthen vessels or most honorably in gold, silver, precious stone and silk, these, on the other hand, can only be kept in heavenly, living, sensible, immortal, pure, holy containers, that is, in the hearts of the faithful, which are incomparably more precious than all gold and precious stone. But now the people lack so much faith in which to venerate such relics.

246 L. V. a. II, 271-273. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 498-501. 247

The fact that even some popes have been the authors and leaders not only to reject these relics, but even to persecute them, so much so that they wanted to devour the Turks, and afterwards even to banish (excommunicare) the Christians to a worse damnation than that of hell, than to slacken only a farthing of their circulation, let alone to suffer any injustice to their name or body. And yet they have nevertheless opened the floodgates of heaven and flooded down treasures of indulgences and merits of Christ, so that also by this flood of sin the whole Christian world is almost ruined, if my faith does not deceive me. But a theologian of glory (that is, one who does not know the crucified and hidden God with the apostle alone, but with the pagans sees and speaks of the glorious God, the invisible essence of him out of visible things, how he is omnipresent and omnipotent) learns from Aristotle that the object of the will is good, and that good is lovable, but evil is hateful, therefore God is the highest good and is to be loved in the highest degree. And therefore he deviates from a theologian of the cross and declares that the treasure of Christ is a redemption and solution of punishments, as the worst and most hateful things. On the other hand, the theologian of the cross, the treasure of Christ is the imposition of punishments and the obligation to the same, as the best and most lovable things. And yet the latter still takes money for his treasure; this, although it is offered for free, is not worthy of a glance, but is still pursued at last.

But who shall be judge between these two, that we may know whom to hear? Behold, thus says Isaiah 66:4: "Therefore I will choose that which they mock"; and 1 Cor. 1:27. it says: "What is weak in the sight of the world, that God has chosen to put to shame what is strong." 2c If we accept this judgment as true, it only remains for us to confess that, if we want to speak the truth, the treasures of indulgences are the greatest harm of all, if they are understood in the way they are trumpeted, namely, that they are the remission of all punishments, not the remission of the punishments of the world.

merely canonical; since there is no greater harm than that the image of the Son of God should be taken away from men and they should be deprived of priceless treasures, of which St. Agnes boasted in joyful and blessed exaltation, calling them beautiful, gleaming gems and ornaments, precious jewels 2c

59. thesis.

St. Lawrence called the poor, who are members of the Church, the protectors of the Church; but he took the word as it was customary in his time.

This is sufficiently clear to those who have seen the legend of St. Lawrence. Then the word is not in use now to refer to the poor people as the treasures of the Church, but it is called the patrimony of Christ and St. Peter, which a certain chaff, 1) but without kernel, of Constantine gave to the Church. Therefore, where God speaks to Christ in the 2nd Psalm v. 8: "Cry unto me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the end of the world for thy possession," the cities and the land from morning till evening must be understood. Otherwise, if someone should speak differently in our time about things of the church and spiritual things, he would seem to us like someone who speaks a foreign language, even though St. Laurence called this property of the church wealth, but not the only one.

60. thesis.

We say with good reason, without sacrilege or levity, that this treasure are the keys of the Church, given to the Church through the merit of Christ.

If this merit were also called the treasure of indulgences, namely the power of the keys, the mind would be clear. For no one doubts that what is given to the Church is given to her through the merit of Christ.

  1. Probably an allusion to the 96th Distinction of ecclesiastical law, Cap. 14, OouZtuutluus, which deals with the false donation of Constantius. The same has the superscription palea - chaff. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2486.

248 D V. a. II. 273-275. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 501-504. 249

61. thesis.

For it is clear that for the remission of the chastisement, and reserved cases, only the pope's power is enough.

This is proven by the way the pope himself speaks, in that he never thought of the merits of Christ when binding or loosing, but he only speaks: out of the fullness of power, according to certain knowledge and on his own initiative.

Secondly, from the common opinion of all who prove that indulgences are given by virtue of words, since Christ says: "All that thou shalt redeem. "2 This word, they think, would be without power if it did not grant power. Therefore they also hold that power alone is sufficient, but they do not prove the treasure by any saying, but rather cite this saying as sufficient, which is, after all, of mere power, but not of a grant of merit.

Thirdly: Otherwise, a grant of merit would also have to be assumed in the case of other bonds and solutions, namely when, by virtue of his priestly office, he excommunicates, absolves, ordains, expels from the order, makes laws, abolishes laws, enjoins, forbids, exempts from the law, converts it, interprets it. For in all these things action is taken by virtue of this word: "All that thou shalt redeem. "2c If, therefore, no grant of merit is necessary in this, but the mere power of the keys is sufficient, how much more in the remission of canonical penalties! since such a remission is nothing else than an absolution of penalties. Indeed, if anywhere a conferral of Christ's merits takes place, it must happen most of all in the absolution of a banished person; for there the sinner is reconciled to the Church and again declared to be partaker of the goods of Christ and the Church. There is, therefore, no reason at all why the word, "All that thou shalt redeem," 2c, should include the treasure of Christ in indulgences, and not also in all other solutions, since it is the same saying, the same words, and the same sense in it.

Fourth: If the loosening by the key at the conferring of indulgence is a

If there is an opening and abundant distribution of the treasure of the church, then, by virtue of the opposition, binding must entail a gathering and enclosure of this treasure; for opposing powers also have opposing works. But nowhere and never is it customary to collect or enclose this treasure; and yet, if there is a solution and rich distribution, it is necessary that there should also be a collection, since both are given to the church, and not given in vain or in a void manner. Consequently, just as by binding is understood: to make one a debtor without collecting the treasure, without really taking anything from him, so also by redeeming must be understood: to make one free without really distributing a treasure,

62. thesis.

The right true treasure of the Church is the holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.

The Gospel of God is unknown to a large part of the Church, therefore we must speak of it more broadly. For Christ left nothing in the world but his gospel alone. That is why he gave his appointed servants nothing but pounds, cents, money, and pennies, so that by these words, which mean treasures, he might show that it the gospel was the real true treasure. And Paul says that he gathers treasures for his children 2 Cor. 12:14; and Christ calls it a treasure hidden in the field Matt. 13:44; and the very fact that it is hidden makes it at the same time despised.

But the gospel according to the apostle, Rom. 1, 1. 3. f., is a sermon about the Son of God, who became man, who was given to us without our merit for salvation and peace. It is the word of salvation, the word of grace, the word of comfort, the word of joy, the voice of the bridegroom and the bride, the good word, the word of peace, as Isaiah 52:7 says: "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the messengers who proclaim peace, preach good, proclaim salvation." But the law is

250 L. V. a. 11, 275-277. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII. 504-507. 251

the word of destruction, the word of wrath, the word of sorrow, the word of pain, the voice of the judge and the accused, the word of trouble, the word of cursing. For according to the apostle, the law is the power of sin [1 Cor. 15:56,1, the law only inflicts wrath Rom. 4:15., it is a law of death Rom. 7:13.; for from the law we have nothing but an evil conscience, a troubled heart, a quivering breast at the sight of our sins, which the law shows and yet does not take away, and which even we cannot take away. Thus to the captives, the sorrowful, and the utterly despairing, the light of the gospel comes, saying, "Fear not" Isa. 35:4; "Comfort, comfort my people" Isa. 40:1; "Comfort the fainthearted" 1 Thess. 5:14; "Behold, there is your God!" Isa. 40, 9.; "Behold, this is GOD's Lamb, which bareth the sin of the world" Jn. 1, 29.; behold, he alone hath fulfilled the law for you, "whom of GOD is made unto you for righteousness, for sanctification, for wisdom, and for redemption" to all them that believe on him 1 Cor. 1, 30.. When the sinful conscience hears this sweetest tidings, it revives and rejoices in joyful leaping and full of confidence, and. it is no longer frightened either by death, or by the many punishments related to death, or by hell. Therefore, those who are still afraid of the punishments have not yet heard Christ, nor the voice of the gospel, but rather the voice of Moses.

Therefore, the true glory of God flows from this gospel, in that we are taught that the law is fulfilled and will be fulfilled not by our works, but by the grace of God who has mercy on us in Christ, not by works, but by faith, not by giving something to God, but by receiving everything from Christ and becoming partakers of it, in the fullness of which we all participate and receive. But more about this elsewhere.

63. thesis.

This treasure is cheaply the most hostile and most detestable. For it makes the first become the last.

For the gospel destroys all that is anything; it puts to shame that which is strong, it puts to shame that which is wise, and makes them nothing, weak, foolish; for it teaches humility and cross. Thus it is said in the 9th Psalm v. 6., "Thou reproachest the heathen, and destroyest the wicked; their name thou destroyest for ever and ever." But before this guideline of the cross all those shrink back who have pleasure in earthly things and in their own, and say, "This is a hard saying" John 6:60. Therefore it is no wonder that this speech of Christ is completely hated by those who want to be something, who want to be wise and powerful in front of themselves and the people and think themselves to be the first.

64. thesis.

But the treasure of indulgences is the most acceptable, because it makes the first from the last.

He teaches us to be afraid of punishments; indeed, he makes us free from punishments, which is only due to the righteous. For no one needs indulgence but a servant of punishments, that is, one who does not trample them underfoot, ruling over them in proud contempt, but is oppressed by them and flees from them as a child from the shadows of night and darkness; and yet they are set free, while even the righteous are subject to many a punishment.

65. thesis.

Therefore, the treasures of the gospel are nets, where the rich wealthy people were fished in the past.

For thus saith the apostle 2 Cor. 12:14, "I seek not yours, but you"; and Christ Matt. 4:19, "I will make you fishers of men." For the sweet word attracts the will; yea, it makes man surrender his will to Christ. That is why St. Peter speaks as he is depicted as a fisherman in Rome:

Ecclesain pro rmvs rsAo, midi ellmLtL wuuäi 8unt inure, 8eripturue retiu, pisei8 üoino.

(In German: I steer the church instead of my ship, the countries of the world are my sea, the Scriptures are my net, the fish is man).

252 n. 277-279. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. xvm, so7-sio. 253

66. thesis.

But the treasures of indulgence are the nets with which the riches of men are fished at this time.

This, I believe, is clear from what has been said; for by the remission of punishments man is not made better, nor is he drawn more to GOD (for this is done by the word of Christ alone), since there are more words of a man who gives deliverance and indulgence than of one who catches and binds. For if they catch anything, it is certainly only the money, but souls they do not catch. Not as if I wanted to condemn this business of raising money; indeed, in my judgment, God's providence in this business seems to provide that at least in this life he still rewards it with some money, so that nothing remains unrewarded; since it is the least among the gifts and offices of the church and not worthy to be crowned in the life to come. But in the past, the decrees were in vain.

67. thesis.

The indulgence that preachers proclaim to be the greatest grace is certainly to be considered a great grace, for it bears great profit and enjoyment.

For this is how bold ignorance subjects itself, that it calls the greatest what is the least, and then the judgment and the ability to understand it rightly is left to the people, so that they should believe out of error that God's grace is given here. For they do not explain it, lest they be compelled to contradict themselves, or lest they be found liars, because they have called that which is small great.

68. thesis.

And yet, such indulgences are truly the least of graces, when compared to the grace of God and the blessedness of the cross.

Yes, compared to the grace of God it is null and void, since it is rather the opposite of the grace of God.

The grace of God works in part; nevertheless, he was borne for the sake of the indolent and lazy, as this is evident from what has been said.

69. thesis.

It is the duty of bishops and pastors to admit commissaries of apostolic indulgences with all reverence.

Because one has to give way to the papal reputation in everything with reverence. For Rom. 13, 2. "Whoever sets himself against the authorities resists God's order, but those who resist (God) will receive judgment upon themselves." And the Lord himself says Luc. 10, 16., "He that despiseth you despiseth me." Therefore, in small things no less than in great, one must give way to violence. Hence it is that even if the pope passes unjust judgments, one must nevertheless fear them and, as Emperor Carl says, "bear all that he imposes, however heavy it may be"; as we also see from experience that this is also done by the church, which today is certainly pressed by innumerable burdens and yet bears them godly and humbly, calmly. But this is to be understood in such a way that no one gets a false conscience, as if the unjust decisions were to be feared because they had to be recognized as just by those who have to fear them, since the pope himself says that some are bound by the church who are not bound before God, and he forces them to bear this binding. However, such binding does not harm them, because it is only a punishment and must be feared, but it should not give rise to conscience concerns; just as we must also fear God in every other, even worldly, act of violence, and not resist it out of contempt. In the same way, burdens are to be borne, not because they are rightly imposed or are to be approved of, but as a discipline imposed on us by God, which is to be humbly borne. Therefore, unjust decisions and burdens are to be feared not because of this word: "All that you will bind," but because of the general commandment: "Be willing to your adversary while you are still with him on the way.

254 -D.v.".ii,279f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvin, sio-E 255

are" [Matth. 5, 25. Matth. 5, 25; and that other one: "If someone gives you a stroke on your right cheek, offer him the other one as well" Matth. 5, 39; and Rom. 12, 19: "Do not avenge yourselves" 2c For if this were only a counsel (as many even among the theologians seem to assume erroneously), then it would also be allowed to resist the pope in his burdens and unjust decisions with the same freedom as the Turk or other adversaries. But one may by no means oppose anyone, even if one may not approve of their work, lest there be error in the conscience. But this subject, which is very necessary, requires another time and work.

70. thesis.

But much more they owe to watch with eyes and ears that these same commissaries do not preach their own dreams instead of papal command.

It is a very well-established rule of the jurists, namely: The pope acts in all bestowals in such a way that he does not interfere with any other, except where he expressly mentions this and does so from the fullness of his power; as this is also taught by the usage and the manner of speaking of the Roman court. Therefore it is quite certain that when he gives indulgences, they are only indulgences, and are to be of no more value than what they are by their nature; but he allows them to be of what value they are, satisfied that he has given them: for nowhere does he declare their value. This is the order of the pope. But our preachers of indulgences go further, and not only boast publicly in the pulpit that they are popes, while others more properly consider them to be seed-crowns, 1) but also connect with the name the office both of the pope and of the church, and determine us as if from heaven, and proclaim with confidence what indulgences are, yes, very far beyond what they really are and ever could be, as is proved from their own latest book 2).

  1. pappos --- the woolly seedlings flying around in autumn, e.g. of the dandelion.
  2. The summary instruction of the Archbishop of Mainz.

can. The dreams of the same are therefore the bishops guilty to forbid, so that they do not let the wolves enter the sheepfold of Christ, as it is expressly commanded in the 5th book de poen. et rem. Cap. Emu sx so, as well as in the same book in the chapter Abusiouibus in the Clementines, that they should not let the people hear anything but what is contained in their letters.

71. thesis.

Whoever speaks against the truth of the papal indulgence is a curse and malediction.

For although the granting of indulgences is something small in comparison with the grace of God and against the great clamor of those who preach it, yet he acts arrogantly against authority who contradicts. For this reason he is justly condemned; since ecclesiastical obedience is all the more admirable in the lesser matters in which he departs from his senses and humbles himself. But what is the truth concerning indulgences has been discussed enough and is still awaiting the decision of the church; only this is certain, that it is only the remission of temporal punishments, whoever wants it. The remission of penalties, however, is (as I have said) a very small gift that the Church can give, especially when it gives it to those whom it has remitted the debt. But the remission of sins, together with the holy gospel, is the greatest of all; but they do not care so much about it, or at least it is unknown to them.

72. thesis.

But whoever cares or worries against the preacher of indulgences' wanton and insolent words, let him be reproved. .

For such is the condition of Christ's widow, the Holy Church, today, that everything is permitted to all, and especially to the scholastic theologians, among whom one can find those who condemn even true opinions, for no other reason than because they have not flowed from their source; yet they are permitted to assert that GOD does sin, that GOD is the cause of evil, of guilt,

256 V- a. II, 280-282. 11. Explanations of the dispensation of the power of indulgences. W. LVIII, S12-5IS. 257

and many other things. If any poet or orator (as they are called) or any scholar in Greek, Latin or Hebrew would say this, he would have to be the worst of all heretics. But that is a greater pity. If a Christian supplied arms to the Turks, or hindered those traveling to Rome, or violated an apostolic letter, this is so great a crime that no authority is ever given to remit it, though otherwise the utmost authority should be given; but the apostolic see reserves it to itself. So holy did the Church act at that time that, after first observing the commandments of GOD, she would punish even such small things with such great severity. For at that time there was not yet in the church that many-headed monster and that hell of simony, lust, ostentation, murder and the other abominations.

But if these things are punished so severely, with what severity, we believe, must those be punished who sacrifice not to the Turks, but to the devils, and who do not surrender any weapons, but our own, that is, the word of God, since they defile it with their dreams and (as Isaiah is wont to speak) melt it into an idol by their spirit, so that it is not an instrument by which the soul is enticed, but is seduced to false opinions? But this vice is now everywhere so permitted that he must be the most vicious man who does not consider it a virtue and a merit above all merits, it may happen to whom it may. So also St. Jerome complains that the Holy Scriptures are open to all, not for learning, but for tearing. Then, if those who prevent the people going to Rome sin so much, what do those who prevent the people going to heaven do, not only by their corrupt doctrines, but also by their completely corrupt customs? And where will those go who violate not apostolic i.e. papal but divine scriptures? They have the key of knowledge; they themselves do not enter and resist those who want to enter Luc. 11, 52. Are these not greater and worse abominations than those which were read on Maundy Thursday and read in the presence of the Holy Spirit?

be kept? 1) But they are to be read only in heaven and never enacted.

Therefore, those are worthy of blessing who strive to purify the Holy Scriptures and illuminate them from the darkness of opinion and human reason, by which we have almost become Pelagians in opinion and Donatists in deed. But about this another time.

73. thesis.

How the pope justly strikes with disfavor and banishment those who act in some way to the detriment of indulgences:

Again I say here, as before (whatever the personal attitude of the pope may be): one must humbly yield to the power of the keys and be favorable to it, but in no way presumptuously strive against it; for it is God's power, which, whether it is used rightly or abusively, must be feared like every other work of God; but it even more so.

74. thesis.

So much more does he seek to heap disgrace and banishment on people who, under the pretense of indulgence, act to the detriment of holy love and truth.

For however much authority is to be honored, we must not be so cowardly that we should not reject or resist its abuse. For all saints have also upheld the temporal power, which the apostle Rom. 13, 1. ff. also calls God's power, even in the midst of the punishments and torments it inflicted upon them; but nevertheless they persistently detested its abuse, and did not maintain it because those had used the power rightly through persecution, but left them the conscience of the evil deed, and through death drew the testimony and confession of their innocence; as also St. Peter says 1 Ep. 4, 15.: "No one suffers as a thief" 2c So also

  1. In äis 606NL6 - on Green Thursday; which are included in the Night Meal Bull and condemned as heresies therein. (Weimar edition)

258 L.v.a. II, 282-284. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 515-518. 259

anyone whom the church or the pope deprives of the fellowship of the faithful without cause must tolerate this and not condemn the violence; but he must not fear it in such a way that he approves of it as if it were benevolent, but rather die in banishment. For he is banished only by an error of the key; but if he would approve this error by desiring absolution, he would err still worse. He honors and carries the key, but does not approve of the error.

Therefore, those who preach indulgences in such a way that they want them to be regarded as God's grace are to be banished, for this is contrary to truth and love, in which alone this grace consists. And it would be much better if there were no indulgences anywhere, than that such opinions were sown among the people; since without indulgences we can be Christians, but with such opinions we can only be heretics. It is certain, however, that the pope believes or must want that mutual love and mercy are first among the people, and that the other commandments of God are on his mind, and so he grants indulgences. But now he is deceived, because love and mercy and faith are almost extinct, not merely cold among us. For if he knew this, he would leave the indulgences in place, and thus ensure that the people would first return to mutual love. Thus I testify by the Lord Jesus that the people for the most part (others think universally) do not know that the works of love are better than indulgences; rather, they believe that they can do nothing better than to redeem indulgences; and with this heretical and pernicious opinion, they have no one to punish them or to instruct them faithfully, but rather, through these ostentatious praises, they are virtually induced to do so.

75. thesis.

To think that the pope's indulgence is so great that it can absolve one from sins, even if (to speak impossibly) it has weakened the Mother of God, is to be furious and nonsensical.

I am compelled to call those who put forward such an opinion nonsensical, and we must ask the Holy Virgin for forgiveness.

  1. that we are forced to say and think such things; but there was no other way open to avoid this necessity. I do not know on what devil's impulse it happened that the people everywhere spread such a rumor, may it really have been said that way, or may it have been understood that way by the people. I, however, although it was steadfastly asserted by many and respected people that it was preached in this way in many places, rather wondered about it than believed it, but thought that they must have heard it wrong. Therefore, in this thesis I did not want to rebuke any preacher, but to admonish the people who have begun to take such things into their heads, which perhaps no one would have said; for whether they have said it or not, I am not interested in it until I have certainty about it. But that quite abominable opinion, may it come from where it will, had to be rejected and condemned with disgust. But it was no wonder that something like that was understood by the people, since they heard how, for the sake of the greatness of the graces, great and quite horrible sins are, as it were, regarded as quite small.

The right and evangelical preaching is to make the sins as great as possible, so that man may come to fear and to a right repentance. Finally, what is the use of thundering about with such exaggerations for the sake of a very small remission of punishments, of raising indulgences, and of scarcely protesting for the sake of the most salutary wisdom of the cross? Yes, how should this not harm the simple-minded people, who are accustomed to value the word only according to how great a gesture and effort it is preached with? But the gospel is preached with no pomp and circumstance, and indulgences with all possible pomp and circumstance, so that the people may think the gospel is nothing and indulgences everything.

It is to be wondered at, while they presume to cry out murder, robbery, pleasure of all kinds, blasphemies against the Virgin Mary and God as trifling things that could be remitted by this indulgence, why they do not also cry out that those

  1. This is still papistic.

260 V. a. II. 284-286. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, SI8-S2I. 261

lesser things would be enacted that are reserved in the Bull of the Supper? "The pope does not remit them." See, then, if he does not also remit, or at least does not remit so easily, those things which are much more serious than these.

76. thesis.

On the other hand, we say that the pope's indulgence cannot take away the slightest daily sin, as far as the guilt of it is concerned.

I would not have needed this diminution if I had not wanted to make the opinion in the previous thesis detestable. It is obvious, however, that no guilt is remitted except by God. Therefore, even those great sins are not remitted by conferred powers (facultates), but only declared to be remitted, and the punishment for them remitted; I say this according to their view, but mine is stated clearly enough above. But here I should have dwelt on venial sin, which is nowadays so little esteemed as if it were almost no sin at all, and I fear to the great ruin of many who snore securely in their sins and do not see that they are committing gross sins. I must confess: as long as I have read the scholastic teachers, I have never understood what and how great a venial sin would be; whether they themselves understand it, I do not know. This I say briefly: whoever does not constantly fear and act as if he were full of mortal sins will hardly ever be blessed; for the Scripture says Ps. 143:2, "O Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant." For not merely venial sins, as they are now everywhere called, but even good works cannot bear God's judgment, but need pardoning mercy, for it is not said, Go not into judgment with thine enemy; but, With thy servant and thy child that serveth thee. This fear, then, should teach us to sigh for and trust in the mercy of God; where it is lacking, we begin to trust more in our conscience than in God's mercy, not being aware of any gross sin that we should have committed; and such will fall into a terrible judgment.

77. thesis.

To say that St. Peter, if he were now pope, would not be able to give greater indulgences is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

78. thesis.

Against this we say that also this and every pope has greater indulgences, namely the gospel, powers, gifts to make well 2c 1 Cor. 12, 6. 9.

For under the power and obedience of the pope are all those who have such gifts in the church, whom he can send wherever he pleases, if he himself did not personally have these gifts; not to say that the Bull Coena Domini has not yet been abated with its cases. The pope's grace would be even greater if he gave all these gifts free of charge to Christians in need of them; then, if by abolishing the burdensome canons he restored the freedom of the Christian people and nullified the tyranny of those in offices and of the extortioners of money. But this is perhaps not in his power; "for the enemy has gained the upper hand" Klagel. 1, 16., "and she who was a queen in the lands must now serve" Klagel. 1, 1.. The right of the Lord will keep the victory Ps. 118, 16, if we are worthy to gain it.

79. thesis.

To say that the cross, gloriously emblazoned with the pope's emblem, can do as much as the cross of Christ is blasphemy.

Who does not see here how impudent these people are? What should they not dare to do, who dare to do such things? Should the souls redeemed with the blood of Christ be entrusted to them? The cross of Christ makes the whole world alive by killing sin, this cross with the emblem grants the remission of some punishments; and so the eternal and the temporal punishments are the same? But what shall I go through all the abominations that follow from such speeches, which even heaven could not bear to see brought forward?

262 L. V. a. II, 286-288. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, PP21-824. 263

80. thesis.

The bishops, pastors and theologians who allow such words to be spoken before the common man will have to give an account for it.

But one is afraid of the power of the church; moreover, nowadays, the sight and insults against the Roman see are punished with a twofold sword: but may one keep silent about it? "Fear not them which kill the body, and may not kill the soul" Matt. 10:28. "Whoever confesses me before men, I will confess him before my heavenly Father" Matth. 10, 32. But about this I have to wonder exceedingly, who may have invented this gloss first, that the two swords mean, the one a spiritual (but not, as the apostle calls it, namely, the sword of the spirit, the word of GOD Eph. 6,17.), the other one a material one i.e. an iron one, in order to make the pope as one armed with twofold violence not a kind father, but as it were a terrible tyrant, in whom we see nothing but violence on all sides.

And this is the so faithful gloss on the decrees of the Fathers, in which weapons are so strictly forbidden to the clergy. Here, see if the angry God, seeing how we preferred to understand an iron instead of the sword of the Spirit and the Gospel, did not do us justice by giving us the sword we wanted and taking away the one we did not want, so that nowhere in the world has the slaughter of war been more cruel than among the Christians, again hardly neglecting the Holy Scriptures more than among the Christians. Behold, there thou hast the sword which thou hast willed! O a gloss worthy of hell! And yet we are so of stone that we do not notice the wrath of God. Dear, why does not this exceedingly amiable clever head also interpret the two keys with equal perspicacity, that the one gives the riches of the world, but the other the riches of heaven? and indeed of the one the opinion is clear enough, for, as the preachers of indulgences say, it continually opens the

But he could not understand the other in this way, for he knew that the gorge in the church was all too eager for riches. It is not beneficial to the church and the inheritance of Christ to squander the riches of the world with the same generosity as the riches of heaven. Therefore, the one key must be the key of knowledge, if it were added to this: The one sword is the sword of knowledge, one would speak apostolically. "In all this the wrath of the Lord is not yet abated, his hand is still stretched out" Isa. 9, 21., namely, because it is a wonderfully burdensome thing to meditate on the holy Scriptures, wherewith, if we were equipped with them, we could (as the apostle says) "disturb the suggestions and every high thing that rises up against the knowledge of God" 2 Cor. 10, 5.A shorter way for this trouble pleases us, that we do not destroy the heresies or errors, but burn the heretics and erring ones, namely, guided by the better advice of Cato than that of Scipio, when it was about the destruction of Carthage; yes, we do this against the will of the Spirit, who writes that in the land of promise therefore Jebusites and Cananites remained, so that the children of Israel might learn to wage war and have training in warfare. If St. Jerome does not deceive me, I believe that this is exemplified by the battles with the heretics; but surely the apostle must be credible where he says 1 Cor. 11:19., "There must be bands." But we, "By no means; but the heretics must be burned, and so the root with the fruit, yea, the tares with the wheat be rooted out." What do we say to this? We can only say with tears to the Lord (Ps. 119, 137.: "Lord, you are just and right is your judgment!" For what else do we deserve? And I mention this also for this reason, lest the Picards, our neighbors, the heretics, an unfortunate people who rejoice in the Roman stench, like the Pharisee over the publican, but do not bear compassion, - lest, I say, these should think that we do not know our vices and stains, and inordinately pride themselves against our

264 D- ii> Ws-290. 11. Explanations of the disp. of the power of indulgences. W. xvm, 524-527. 265

We would have raised ourselves to misery if we had seemed to conceal and approve of it. We know, alas, our case and grieve over it; but we do not flee, as the heretics do, and leave the half-dead lying, as if we feared to defile ourselves in foreign sins. In this nonsensical fear, they are so afraid that they are not ashamed to boast about it, they flee because of it, lest they be defiled. That is how great their love is. But we stand by the church all the more faithfully, the more miserable it lies, and hasten to it with weeping, pleading, exhorting and imploring. For this is what love wants, that one should bear another's burdens, not as the love of heretics does, which only seeks another's advantage in order to be borne and to endure nothing burdensome from the sins of others. If Christ and his saints had wanted to act this way, who would have been saved?

81. thesis.

Such insolent and impudent preaching and glorying in indulgences makes it difficult even for scholars to defend the pope's honor and dignity from the same slander, or even from the sharp, cunning questions of the common man.

Although my friends have long been calling me a heretic, ungodly and blasphemer, because I do not accept the Church of Christ and the Holy Scriptures in the Catholic sense, I believe, based on my conscience, that they are wrong, but that I love the Church of Christ and its adornment. "But it is the Lord who judges me, whether I am aware of anything" 1 Cor. 4:4, and therefore I have been impelled to expose all these theses, because I saw that some were infected by false opinions, others laughed at them in the taverns, and had the holy priesthood of the church in open derision, prompted by the insolence, so great beyond measure, with which indulgences were preached. The lay people should not have been further provoked to hate the priests, since for many years now they have been annoyed by our avarice and exceedingly shameful customs, and have honored the clergy (alas! only out of fear of punishment).

82. thesis.

Why does the pope not release all souls from purgatory at the same time, for the sake of the most holy love and because of the highest need of souls, as the most just cause; when he redeems countless souls for the sake of the most perishable money, for the building of St. Peter's Cathedral, than for the most unjust cause?

This question is not raised by the pope, but by the indulgence-seekers; for, as said above, nowhere does one read a decree of the pope on this matter; therefore let those answer to this question who have raised it. I would answer all such questions in one word, as far as it can be done to the honor of the popes, namely: that no one instructs them about the true facts, and it often happens that they also make evil concessions to those whom they report evil.

83. thesis.

Item: Why do the funerals and anniversaries of the deceased remain, and why does he not restore, or grant to be taken again, the benefices or benefices endowed to the dead, so that it is now unjust to pray for the redeemed?

I know that many have labored with me over this question and, though we made many excuses, we labored in vain. We also said that when souls come out, the death ministries established for this purpose are now for the glorification of God, as it happens when children and infants die. Everyone tried to explain it differently, but no one was satisfied. At last I began to argue about it and to deny the truth of their speeches in order to find out from scholars what the answer should be.

84. thesis.

Item: What is this new holiness of God and the Pope, that they grant the ungodly and the enemy for the sake of money to redeem a God-fearing soul that is loved by God, and yet they do not want rather, for the sake of

266 L. v. a. ii, 290-2S2. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 527-530. 267

For the sake of the great need of that God-fearing and beloved soul, redeem it in vain out of love?

85. thesis.

Item: Why the Canones poenitentiales, that is, the statutes of repentance, have long since been in themselves, by deed and by disuse, done and dead, nor redeemed with money, by favor of indulgence, as if they were still quite vigorous and alive?

86. thesis.

Item: Why does the pope not prefer to build St. Peter's Cathedral with his own money rather than with the money of poor Christians, since his wealth is greater than that of any rich Crassi?

To these and similar questions I say: It is not our business to judge the will of the pope, but only to bear it, even if it were sometimes quite unreasonable, as I have said above. But he and the preachers of indulgences should be reminded that the people should not be given such an open opportunity to speak, as Eli the priest once did, when the people blasphemed the Lord's grain offering because of his sons 1 Sam. 2:17. If, however, it was ever the pope's intention to build St. Peter's Church with so much money, and not rather the intention of those who abuse his benevolence for their own gain, then it is not necessary to indicate in writing what people everywhere are saying about this building. God grant that I not 1) lie: this extortion cannot continue well for much longer.

87. thesis.

Item: What does the pope grant or share his indulgences with those who are already entitled to a plenary pardon and indulgence through perfect contrition?

This question comes from the fact that many, even legal scholars, say they do not know what the forgiveness of guilt through the keys is; about which I gave my opinion above.

  1. In the original: Ilt msntiar. Probably it should be called ut no" rnsntlnr after all.

88. thesis.

Item: What more good could happen to the Church than if the Pope, as he does only once, so a hundred times a day gave this forgiveness and indulgence to every believer?

Here come wonderful things. Some invent a common treasure, which is increased by indulgences; and therefore, if a man receives plenary indulgences seven times a day, as can happen in Rome, the more goods he will obtain. These contradict themselves, since according to them indulgences are the expenditure of treasure, and therefore not collection. Others again think that the sins are remitted, as it can happen with the division of a coherent body into infinity, as the wood is divided into still divisible pieces. Thus the sins are remitted and are still further remittable, although they become smaller and smaller. I confess that I do not know what to say.

89. thesis.

Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls more through indulgences than money, why does he cancel and destroy the letters and indulgences that he gave before, if they are equally powerful?

This burns and displeases most of all, and I confess, with a great deal of pretense; for this abrogation is the only cause why indulgences are held in low esteem. Therefore, although I cannot deny that everything the pope does is to be borne, it pains me that I cannot prove that it is the best; although if I had to speak in regard to the pope's disposition without the income of the wage-servants, I would say that one must assume the best about the same, and would speak briefly and with confidence. The Church needs a reformation, which is not the work of one man, the Pope, nor of many, the Cardinals, as both the last Concilium proved, but of the whole world, yes, of God alone. But the time for this reformation knows only

  1. In Jonas' German: "durchs". Cf. note 2, col. 79.

268 V- ru II, 292 f. 11. Explanations of the Dispensation of the Power of Indulgences. W. XVIII, 539-533. 269

the one who created the time. However, we cannot deny such obvious damages. The keys are misused and have to serve the ambition of honor and money; and the whirlpool has got a violent movement; it is not up to us to stop it. Our misdeeds respond against us, and each one's own word is a burden.

90. thesis.

To dampen these very pointed arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by indicated reason and cause, is to represent the Church and the Pope to the enemies in ridicule and to make the Christians unhappy.

For by trying to keep the people in check through terror, evil becomes worse. How much more right it would be if we were taught to recognize this wrath of God, to pray for the Church and to endure such things in the hope of a future reformation, than that, while we want such obvious vices to be forcibly regarded as virtues, we should stir up more anger, since God would not allow men alone to rule in the Church if we did not deserve to be plagued; he would give us shepherds according to his heart, who, instead of indulgence, would give us our fee of wheat in due time. Now, even if there are good shepherds, they cannot come to their office, so great is the fierce anger of the Lord.

91. thesis.

Therefore, if the indulgence were preached according to the spirit and opinion of the pope, these objections would be easily justified, indeed they would never have occurred.

Why is this? For if indulgences, as they are, had been preached only as a remission of punishments, not as meritorious and inferior to good works to be held, no man would ever have entertained any misgivings about them; but now that they exalt them too high, they arouse irresolvable misgivings to their own degradation. For the mind of the pope can be no other than that indulgences are indulgences.

92. thesis.

Let all the preachers therefore go, which say unto the church of Christ, Peace, peace; and there is no peace. Ezek. 13:10, 16.

93. thesis.

But it must be well with those preachers alone who say to the church of Christ: Cross, cross! and is no cross.

94. thesis.

Christians should be exhorted to follow their head, Christ, through the cross, death and hell;

95. thesis.

And so more to enter the kingdom of heaven through much tribulation Acts 14:22, than that they might be assured of peace through comfort.

Enough has been said above about the cross and punishment; nowadays a rare sermon.

To the sincere and learned reader.

Not for you, learned and sincere reader, keep this writing edited (but what is this reminder necessary for?), as if I feared it would seem Ciceronian to you; you have elsewhere what you can read according to your taste; I had to deal with the likes of me our things, that is, coarse and uneducated things. So it was decided in heaven; and I would not have dared to invoke the name of the pope with these my water bubbles, if I had not seen how my friends trusted most in the terror of him, and then, because it is the pope's special office, to prove a debtor to the wise and the unwise, the Greek and the un-Greek. Farewell.

In the year of the Lord 1518.

270 Erl. 27,4 f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 533 f. 271

*12 A sermon on measure and grace. )

1518.

A Sermon on Indulgences and Grace by the Worthy Doctor Martinus Luther, Augustinian at Wittenberg.

First, you should know that some new teachers, such as Magister Sententiarum, St. Thomas, and their followers, give repentance three parts, namely repentance, confession, and atonement, and although this distinction, in their opinion, is hardly or not at all found in the holy Scriptures, nor in the old holy Christian teachers, we will leave it that way and speak according to their way.

Secondly, they say: Indulgence does not take away the first or second part, i.e. repentance or confession, but the third, namely satisfaction.

Thirdly: The satisfaction is further divided into three parts, i.e. praying, fasting, almsgiving, so that praying means all kinds of works proper to the soul, such as reading, reading, listening to God's word, preaching, teaching, and the like; fasting means all kinds of works of mortification of the flesh, such as watching, working, sleeping hard, clothing, etc.; almsgiving means all kinds of good works of love and mercy toward one's neighbor.

4th Fourthly, there is no doubt in all of them that the indulgence accepts the same works of atonement for sin, or that it is imposed; for if it should accept all the same works, there would be no good thing left for us to do.

5th To the fifth: has been at many a

great and still undecided Opiny opinion, whether the indulgence also accepts something more than such imposed good works, namely, whether it also takes away the chastisement that the divine justice demands for sin.

(6) Sixthly, I leave their opiny unrejected at the mark. This I say, that it cannot be proved from any Scripture that divine justice desires or demands any chastisement or satisfaction from the sinner, but only his heartfelt and true repentance or conversion, with the intention of bearing the cross of Christ for the sake of it, and to perform the above-mentioned works (also not imposed by anyone); for thus he speaks through Ezekiel Ezek 18:21, 33:14-16: "If the sinner repents and does right, I will remember his sin no more." Item, so he himself absolved all those: Mary Magdalene, the gout-breaker, the adulteress 2c, and I would like to hear who is to prove otherwise, regardless of the fact that some doctors thought so.

  1. The seventh: One finds that God punishes some according to His justice, or by chastisement brings them to repentance, as in the 88th Psalm Ps. 89:31-34: "If His children sin, I will punish their sin with a rod, but I will not turn away My mercy from them." But this chastisement is in no one's power to abate,

*) Of this sermon, 13 different individual editions are known from the 1.1518 alone, which were published in Wittenberg, Leipzig, Nuremberg, Augsburg and Basel, 5 individual editions from the 1.1519 and 4 from the 1.1520. It was then included in "Mancherlei Büchlein und Tractätlein Dr. M. Luthers" 2c from the 1.1520 and passed into all complete editions: in the Wittenberg edition it is vol. VII, col. I; in the Jenaer Bd. I, fol. 58; in the Altenburger Bd. I, p. 56; in the Leipziger Bd. XVII, p. 119; in the Erlanger Bd. 27, p. 4, and in the Weimarsche kritische Ausgabe Bd. I, p. 243. Löscher also included it in his Reformation Acta, Bd. I, p. 469. This sermon, which Luther probably delivered in the chapel of the Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg on the day of the posting of the theses, was not published in print until February 1518. Frobenius in Basel in October 1518, from where it was published in the Latin volumes of the Wittenberg edition (vol. I, col. 58), in the Latin Jena edition (vol. I, fol. II) and in the Erlangen edition (oxx. Int. vnrü arg. I, p. 326).

272 -Erl. 27,5-7. 12. a sermon on indulgences and grace. W. XVIII, 534-537. 273

for God alone; indeed, he will not leave them, but promises to put them on.

Eighth: Therefore, no name can be given to this punishment, nor does anyone know what it is, if it is not this punishment, nor the good works mentioned above.

  1. To the ninth: I say that even if the Christian church today decides and declares that indulgences are more acceptable than works of pardon, it would still be a thousand times better that no Christian man should cancel or desire indulgences, but rather that they should do works and suffer penance; for indulgences are nothing else, nor can they be, than indulgences of good works and salutary penance, which should be chosen more cheaply than abandoned, 1) although some of the new preachers have invented two kinds of penance: medicativas, satisfactorias, that is, some chastisements for satisfaction, some for correction. But we have more liberty to despise (praise God!) such and such chatter than they have to invent; for all chastisements, indeed everything that God lays out, is better and beneficial to Christians.

(10) The tenth: This is nothing said, that the chastisement and works are too much, that man cannot accomplish them for the shortness of his life, therefore indulgences are necessary for him. I answer that there is no reason for this and that it is a pure poem; for God and the holy church do not put on anyone more than he is able to bear, as St. Paul also says that God does not allow anyone to be tempted more than he is able to bear, and it is not a little disgraceful for Christianity that it is blamed for putting on more than we are able to bear.

Eleventh: Although the penances, set in spiritual law, are now still such that for every mortal sin seven years' penance would be imposed, yet Christianity should leave them set and not impose them further than they are to be borne by anyone. Much less, now that they are not, should one take care that more is imposed than anyone can well bear.

Twelfth: It is said that the

  1. D. i. let stand in line.

The sinner should be sent to purgatory or indulgence with the rest of the punishment, but more things are said without reason and probation.

Thirteenth: It is a great error for anyone to think that he will do enough for his sins, when God always forgives them freely out of inestimable grace, desiring nothing in return but to live well for them. Christianity demands something, so it may and should let up on it and not impose anything heavy or unbearable.

  1. fourteenth: Indulgences are allowed for the sake of imperfect and slothful Christians, who do not wish to practice prudence in good works or to be unmerciful without suffering; for indulgences do not promote anyone to the better, but tolerate and allow to their imperfections. Therefore one should not speak against indulgences, but one should also not speak to them.
  1. The fifteenth: Much safer and better 2) would he do who gives to the building of St. Peter's or whatever else is called for the sake of God, than to take indulgences for it; for it is dangerous that he gives such a gift for the sake of indulgences and not for the sake of God.

Sixteenth: Much better is the work done to a poor man than that given for building, also much better than the indulgence given for it; for, as I said, it is better a good work done than much indulged; but indulgence is indulgence of many good works, or is nothing indulged.

(17) Yea, that I may instruct you aright, take heed: You shall give before all things (neither St. Peter's building nor indulgences considered) to your nearest poor, if you want to give something. But if it comes to pass that there is no longer anyone in need of help in your city (which, God willing, shall never happen), then you shall give as you wish to the churches, altars, ornaments and chalices that are in your city. And if this is no longer necessary, then first of all, if you wish, you may give to the building of St. Peter's or elsewhere. But you should not do this for the sake of indulgences, because St. Paul says

  1. In the Orig.: better.

274 Erl.27,7f. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVHI. SS7 f. 275

[1 Tim. 5:8: "He that doeth not well to his own household is no Christian, and worse than a heathen:" and hold them harmless, that whosoever saith otherwise deceiveth thee, or seeketh thy soul in thy bag; and if he found pennies therein, he would rather have them than all souls.

(18) Thou sayest, I will never redeem indulgences. I reply, "I have already said this above, that my will, desire, request and counsel is that no one should redeem indulgences; let the lazy and sleepy Christians redeem indulgences, you go for yourself.

  1. to the seventeenth: Indulgences are not commanded, neither are they counseled, but of the number of things that are allowed and permitted; therefore it is not a work of obedience, nor meritorious, but an extract of obedience. Therefore, though no one should be hindered from redeeming it, yet all Christians should be drawn away from it, and be provoked and strengthened to the works and chastisements that are indulged in.

20 To the eighteenth: Whether souls are drawn out of purgatory through indulgences, I do not know and do not yet believe,

although some new doctors say so; but it is impossible for them to prove it, nor has the church yet decided it: therefore, for several certainties, it is much better that you ask and work for them yourself, for this is more proven and is certain.

  1. to the nineteenth: On these points I have no doubt, and they are sufficiently founded in Scripture; therefore you also should have no doubt, and let Doctores scholasticos be scholasticos; they are all not enough with their opinions that they should fortify a sermon.
  1. Twentiethly, though some call me a heretic, to whom such truth is very harmful in the box, yet I do not esteem such blasphemy great, since this is not done, because some dark brains, who never smelled the Bible, never read the Christian teachers, never understood their own teachers, but decayed much closer in their hole-ridden and torn opinions. For if they had understood them, they would know that no one should blaspheme them unheard and unconquered. But God give them and us right sense. Amen.

*Tetzel's refutation of Luther's "Sermon on Measure and Grace". )

End of May 1518.

Refutation, made by Brother Johann Tetzel, Order of Preachers, heretic, against a presumptuous sermon of twenty erroneous articles, concerning papal indulgences and grace, necessary for all Christian believers to know.

So that the Christian believers, made presumptuous by a sermon of twenty erroneous articles against the parts of the Sacrament of Penance and Truth of Indulgence, and recently published in Lent, went out in print, which sermon title reads thus: "A Sermon of

the indulgence and grace" 2c and starts after this title thus: "To the first you shall know that some new teachers, as Magister Sententiarum" 2c, and ends in the twentieth article thus: "But God give them and us right sense", not to be annoyed and seduced: have I Bru-

*It was first printed by Tetzel in 1518 (4 sheets in quarto) without naming the place of printing, also (according to Vogel's "Life of Tetzel") the original manuscript is still at the University Library in Leipzig. After the original printing, Löscher included it in his "Reformations-Acta" Vol. I, 484, from which it has been transferred to this edition. In addition, it is still published by Kapp in his "Sammlung einiger zum päbstlichen Ablaß gehörigen Schriften".

27613 Tetzel Wider den "Sermon v. Ablaß u. Gnade". W. xvm, 538-541. 277

Johannes Tetzel, Order of Preachers, heretic 2c, has the same sermon of the twenty erroneous articles reprinted with its title, beginning and resolution, and relocates each article of the said sermon with constant ground of the holy Scriptures; as everyone will hereafter judge: notwithstanding that in the nineteenth article of the said sermon it is written: "and let Doctores scholasticos be scholasticos, they are all not enough with their opinions, that they should fasten a sermon"; which words no Christian man shall fret. For if the sermon of the twenty erroneous articles should have any semblance among men, its poet would first have to clear away Doctores scholasticos, who are all in unison with his writings against him. St. Augustine says: "If one wants to argue against the heretics, one does so primarily through auctoritates, that is, in conformity with the holy Scriptures and proven sayings of doctors: as, if one wants to instruct people who believe in Christ, this is done formally through rationes, that is, reasonable cause and doctrine. The heretics know this, if they want to bring a heretical error to the people, therefore they reject beforehand and despise all doctors who publicly write their error against it. As also Wicleff and Johannes Huß did; who Johannes Huß not only considered the atonement for sin, but also the sacramental confession unnecessary and imagined it to the people. For this reason, the holy general council at Costnitz condemned him to the fire.

Because in the above-mentioned erroneous preaching of the twenty articles, such ways are also taken; for the Master of High Saints, together with so many thousands of doctors, many of whom are written in the number of the dear saints, are despised in the erroneous sermon, regardless of the fact that the holy Roman Church holds with them in the three parts of repentance, and does not reprove them, but accepts all of them as reliable; Nor have they ever been heard or proven to have written against the Holy Scriptures and the four Doctors in One Word, but have been recognized as faithful interpreters of the Holy Scriptures and the old Holy Doctors. Therefore, it is to be publicly assumed, and shall also be held by all people of faith in Christ, that these following articles of presumptuous preaching are suspicious, erroneous, completely seductive, and contrary to the holy Christian church; as I then want to prove such a following against each article, with God's help, especially and well-founded. Set this on the knowledge of papal holiness, the entire Christian Church and all universities.

A sermon of the indulgence and grace.

The same first erroneous article reads as follows:

First of all, you should know that some new teachers, such as Magister Sententiarum, St. Thomas, and their followers, give repentance three parts, namely, repentance, confession, and atonement; and although this distinction, in their opinion, is hardly or not at all found in the holy Scriptures, nor in the old holy Christian teachers, we will leave it that way and speak according to their way.

Laying. This erroneous article is so Christianly and consistently mislaid: First, it is erroneous and unfounded, for it indicates that the three parts of repentance are not founded in the holy Scriptures and in the ancient Christian teachers; therein the truth is spared. For the holy Scriptures, the old and new holy doctors, of which there are many thousands, hold that the Almighty God wants restitution and satisfaction for sin. For Christ, our Lord, gives to sinners in the Gospel: "Do the like fruit of repentance"; which is interpreted and understood by all the holy doctors of the whole world as meaning frugal repentance. For this reason, God sent His only Son into the world to make amends for the sins of mankind, regardless of the fact that Adam and Eve repented of them to the fullest, and were therefore cast out of Paradise into repentance. But the fact that the Lord released Mary Magdalene, the adulteress, and the gout-ridden man from all sins, without imposing any penance, does not add anything to the fact that God desires from the sinner only repentance and bearing of the cross; for Christ recognized that the repentance of those now mentioned was sufficient, which He also gave to them Himself, and released them by the power of the key of Excellentiae, that is, the power of Supremacy. But because the priests of men cannot recognize repentance nor give it to them, and have only the key of serviceability: therefore, no matter how highly a man repents of sin and bears the cross, if he despises confession or satisfaction as part of the sacrament of repentance, the chastisement for his sin will never be forgiven him. This is offered by the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.

278 II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W.xviii.sn-sn. 279

The other and third erroneous articles of the Sermon read as follows:

On the other hand, they say: Indulgence does not take away the first or second part, that is, repentance or confession, but the third, that is, satisfaction.

Thirdly: The satisfaction is further divided into three parts, that is, praying, fasting, almsgiving; so that praying means all kinds of works proper to the soul, as reading, reading, listening to God's word, preaching, teaching, and the like; fasting means all kinds of works of mortification of one's flesh, as watching, working, hard bearing, clothing 2c; almsgiving means all kinds of good works of love and mercy toward one's neighbor.

Laying. They are laid in such a Christian way: First, they are both erroneous and quite seductive, for in them the truth is concealed. For in the holy Concilium of Constance it was decided anew: whoever wants to earn indulgences must have confessed to repentance, according to the order of the holy church, or must present it according to the order of the holy church; this is also what all papal indulgence bulls and letters commonly say. Which confession in the first article is implicitly, that is secretly, divided and separated from true repentance, but erroneously. Put this on the knowledge of papal sanctity, all Christian universities and doctors.

The fourth article of the erroneous sermon reads as follows:

Fourthly. It is undoubted in all of them that the indulgence accepts the same works of atonement for the sin guilty or imposed. For if he were to accept all the same works, there would be nothing good left for us to do.

Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: The plenary indulgence takes away the works of atonement, in such a way: whoever is granted plenary indulgence is released from papal authority, so that he is not obliged to do the works of atonement mentioned in the third article, which are imposed on him for repented and confessed sins. And because after perfect forgiveness of sin and chastisement, man is no less challenged by the devil, even to his own flesh and to the world, than before forgiveness; also because evil habits remain in man after forgiveness of sin and chastisement, and quickness to fall again into sin: therefore in order to do Against the devil.

In order to resist the devil, the flesh, and the world, and to curb evil sinful habits, affections, and the quickness to fall into sin again, man must not refrain from penitential works after the perfect forgiveness of sin and torment, which are beneficial to man and a remedy for his spiritual weakness, and also meritorious for eternal life. Nor does any papal or episcopal letter of indulgence state that men, if they deserve indulgence, are henceforth to abstain from good works and satisfaction; which good works we are obliged to do in honor of the eternal God, even if we have not sinned, solely on account of creation; and if we have also done all the good works of all our ability, we are to say: we are useless servants of God. For this reason, this article is quite erroneous, seductive, and invented solely to the detriment of indulgences. Offer this on the recognition of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors. The fifth erroneous article of the sermon reads as follows:

Fifth. There has been a great and still undecided opiny among many, whether the indulgence also accepts something more than such imposed good works, namely, whether it also takes away the punishments that divine justice demands for sin.

Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: First, it is quite erroneous and fraudulent, for plenary indulgence also takes away the chastisement which divine justice requires for sins, if they are repented of and confessed, and not sufficiently imposed by priestly dignity. For papal holiness follows St. Peter in the chair and papal office, and therefore, like St. Peter, has power and authority to absolve all sin. And it is derived from the words of the Lord: "Whatever you unbind on earth, that shall be unbound in heaven. "2c Now, since the pope can forgive all sin, he can also forgive all chastisements of sin through indulgences; for all chastisements that men are obliged to suffer for their sin are first and foremost inflicted on the sinner by God, against whom all mortal sins are. Secondly and subsequently, the chastisement is imposed on the sinner in God's stead by the priestly dignity; the same shall be kept with the highest diligence in impositions of penance according to the divine justice ordained by the chapters of the laws called Canones poe- nitentiales. Therefore, let no one consider it an opinion that indulgences do not diminish the chastisement that divine justice ordains for

280 13- Tetzel against the "Sermon v. Ablaß u. Gnade". W. xvin, 5tt-Z46. 281

The Holy Roman Church holds this to be the custom, as do all Christian doctors, of whom there are many thousands, and who have never been rejected in the article by the Roman Church. Therefore, the article is erroneous and intends to deceive people. This is offered on the recognition of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors.

The sixth erroneous article reads as follows:

Sixthly, I leave their opinion unrejected at the mark. This I say, that it cannot be proved from any Scripture that divine justice desires or requires any chastisement or satisfaction from the sinner, but only his heartfelt and true repentance or conversion, with a resolution to bear the cross of Christ for the sake of it, and to perform the above-mentioned works (also not imposed by anyone); for thus he says through Ezekiel, "If the sinner repents and does right, I will remember his sin no more." Item, so he himself absolved all those, Mary Magdalene, the gout-breaker, the adulteress 2c And would like to hear who should prove it otherwise, regardless of the fact that some doctors have thought so.

Transfer. It is so misrepresented on the basis of sacred Scripture: First, it is quite erroneous, unfounded and seductive, also invented to the detriment of indulgences; for the Scriptures, the Old and New Testaments, indicate that God demands satisfaction for sin. This is found in Deuteronomy 5. B. Mosis at the 25th chapter. Likewise, the ancient holy Christian teachers, especially St. Gregory, in the 32nd Homily, say: "The heavenly Physician, our Lord Jesus Christ, prescribes a vile remedy for every vice. St. Augustine also says: "God has not forbidden anyone to sin, and He mercifully forgives the sins that have been committed, if convenient and necessary satisfaction for the sin is not omitted." God forgave David for his adultery, but he had to suffer war, spurning of his wives, and after repentance and confession, death to his child. David also had great remorse for the sin of counting his people, but he had to repent to God for this sin. For the angel, at God's command, slew him seventy thousand men; as then after

the length of the Book of Kings. Years ago, Wicleff and Johannes Huss, the heretics, used this sixth article to argue that confession and atonement are not necessary, for which reason even in some countries the priest does not impose atonement on those who confess, but tells them: Go and have a will never to sin; which article is false and not to be believed. Put this on the knowledge of papal holiness and the Holy See of Rome, all Christian universities and doctors.

The seventh erroneous article reads as follows:

The seventh: It is true that God punishes some according to His justice, or brings them to repentance through chastisement, as in the eighty-eighth Psalm: "If His children sin, I will punish their sin with a rod, but I will not turn away My mercy from them. But this chastisement is in no one's power to abate, but God's alone; indeed, He will not abate it, but promises to put it away.

Transfer. It is transferred, Christianly therefore: First, it is a chat and mirror fencing. For God, who says: "If my children sin, I will punish their sin with penance, but I will not turn away my mercy from them," has given the perfection of his power to Saint Peter and to any rightly elected pope over the holy church; so that the pope has the power to do all things in the holy church, which are necessary for the holy church and for man's salvation. For this reason, the pope has the power to remit, by means of plenary indulgence, the punishment that God imposes on sinners for their sins, if they have repented and confessed them. That a person is now relieved of the chastisement that God has imposed on him for his sin (if, after repentance and confession, the chastisement and penance imposed by the priest were not enough), serves the person quite well for the bliss of the soul. It is also a great mercy of God that his governor, the pope, releases man from the torment of his sin, as now touched, by means of indulgence. Therefore, the words of David, without their Christian and truthful meaning, are shown in this erroneous article as a remedy. Therefore, this article is to be read with sharp eyes, and not to be presented blindly and darkly, when God says that He will forgive the sin of His children.

282II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. N. xvm, 546-S49. 283

The indulgence does not serve against the same chastisement, but only against the chastisement of sins that have been repented of and confessed. The indulgence does not serve against this chastisement, but only against the chastisement of sins that have been repented of and confessed. For in the Holy Scriptures it is written that God at times chastises men to increase in merit, as Job; at times to preserve virtue, as Saint Paul; at times to punish sin, as Mary the sister of Moses; at times to the glory of God, as he who was born blind; at times to a beginning of eternal future chastisement, as Herod. Such punishment and chastisement of God is solely in God's power to inflict on man; however, the chastisement that God inflicts on man as an indulgence for his sins, if they are repented of and confessed, and not sufficiently acknowledged by the priest, may well be taken away by the pope by means of plenary indulgence. Therefore, this article is erroneous and seductive. Enjoin this on the knowledge of the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.

The eighth erroneous article reads as follows:

Eighth: Therefore, no name can be given to this punishment, nor does anyone know what it is, if it is not this punishment, nor the good works mentioned above.

Transfer. It is thus Christianly transferred: First, it is erroneous; for the chastisement that God's justice inflicts on man for his sin, which is not sufficiently repented of or acknowledged by the priest in confession, is called an avenging of God and worthy fruit of repentance, which is also not satisfied by any repentance alone, but only by important, equal satisfaction, as St. Augustine and all the doctors of Christendom say. What special names this punishment imposed by God will have in Purgatory is known to those who are suffering it now and who will suffer (if they do not go to the devil), who thus miserably deceive the poor believers in Christ. Offer this to the knowledge of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors.

The ninth erroneous article reads as follows:

Ninthly, I say that even if the Christian Church decided and declared > today that indulgences were more acceptable than works of pardon, it > would still be a thousand times better, > > That no Christian man would redeem or desire indulgences, but that > they would rather do the works and suffer the chastisement. For the > indulgence is nothing else, nor may it be, than the remission of good > works and salutary chastisement, which one should choose more cheaply > than to leave; although some of the new preachers have invented two > kinds of chastisement, medicativus et satisfactorius, that is, some > chastisement for satisfaction, some for correction. But we have more > liberty to despise (praise God!) such and such chatter than they have > to invent; for all chastisement, yea, all that God expounds, is better > and beneficial to Christians.

Transfer. It is thus Christianly transferred: It is seductive, for the holy Roman Church holds and decides by its custom and practice that plenary indulgence takes away not only the works of imposed satisfaction from the priest or from the right, but also from God's justice, if the sins are not sufficiently repented of and the satisfaction by the priest in confession is not sufficiently imposed. For St. Augustine says that the customs which God's people or the Christians have in practice and the writings of the ancients are to be regarded as a right, although nothing is said in Scripture about such customs and things in particular. Therefore, by right, the pope, as the Roman see has it in practice, can take away all chastisement, as now touched, by means of plenary indulgence. This erroneous article also indicates that no man should desire indulgences, whether or not they would take away more from man than the penance imposed by the priest or by the right; which words are contrary to Christian truth. For in these words he holds that a man may have indulgences without repentance, thereby also separating indulgences from repentance and the performance of the works for which indulgences are given; which in truth can never be fortified by Christian doctrine. For those who deserve indulgences are in true repentance and love of God, which do not let them remain slothful and idle, but inflame them to serve God and do great, good works in His honor. For it is in the day that Christian, God-fearing, pious people, and not loose and lazy people, earn indulgences with great desire. For this reason, this article is full of venom and, by its presentation, seeks to make people repugnant to indulgences, which are entirely necessary and beneficial to poor sinners. For in the granting of indulgences, the great, free clemency of God appears to us, which is responsible for all the torments that men suffer.

284 13 Tetzel Against the "Sermon on Indulgences and Grace". W. xvm, 549-551. 285

If a person does not repent enough of his sin and the punishment is not sufficiently granted by the priest, he may be amused by the pardon of Jesus, if it is given to him by papal authority as a pardon. It is also Christian to believe that if a person gives alms, prays, visits churches, goes on pilgrimage, fasts, or does other good works that are endowed with indulgences, and does them in the same love of God in which he would do such works if they were not endowed with indulgences, that these works of indulgence are much better and more deserving of men than the others. For this reason, this article is intended to mislead poor people. This is offered by the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.

The tenth erroneous article reads as follows:

The tenth: This is nothing said, that the chastisement and works are too much, that a man cannot accomplish them for the shortness of his life, therefore indulgences are necessary for him. I answer that there is no reason for this and that it is a pure poem; for God and the holy church do not put on anyone more than he is able to bear, just as Saint Paul says that God does not allow anyone to be tempted more than he is able to bear; and it is not a little disgraceful for Christianity that it is blamed for putting on more than we are able to bear.

Laying. So it is transferred in a Christian way: The indulgence is not given only because of the fact that man's life, due to its shortness, cannot accomplish the works of atonement. It is in the day that the greatest sinner with a true, perfect repentance may please God's justice for the chastisement of all his sins (if he does not otherwise despise sacramental confession and atonement): for where the two things are despised, all repentance is nullified and powerless. Therefore, it is untruthfully charged against us subcommissaries and preachers of grace that we revile God and Christianity, saying that God and the Church impose impossible things on man; which words are unintelligible; for indulgences are given at times on account of alms; at times on account of personal labor, as when one accepts the cross against the unbelievers and heretics, builds bridges and mends paths; at times on account of the perilousness of the

The Holy Laws clearly state that those who cross the sea to the Holy Land deserve indulgences. For this reason, the indulgence is not given only because of the shortness of the life of man, for which shortness man should not be able to perform the penance imposed. This is offered by the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.

The eleventh erroneous article reads as follows:

Eleventh: If the penances, set in spiritual law, were now still such that for every mortal sin seven years of penance were imposed, then Christianity should leave them set and not impose them further than they would have to be borne by anyone. Much less, now that they are not, should one take care that more is imposed than anyone can well bear.

Transfer. It is so displaced as an unfounded recital: Although the Canons, according to which penance is imposed, are not in use at present because of human frailty, yet no more power to sin is thereby given to men; nor is sin punished by God's justice with less penance than the Canons hold in them, or chastisement according to them in divine acceptance. For he who does not keep the imposed penance of the canons must suffer something else that God's justice accepts for fruits of penance worthy of the same. The priest, if he absolves the sinner, must not only consider the repentance, if he wants to impose penance on him for repented and confessed sin; but he must also take to heart the measures of penance expressed in the Canonibus poenitentialibus, so that he may not act contrary to divine justice ordered by the Canons, as much as is possible, according to sacred law; and when he has considered the repentance and the imposed satisfaction of rights, he must then impose satisfaction on the sinner in confession. In this way, and not according to their liking, priests have to impose atonement in confession to the sinner for repented sin. This imposition of penance by the priest in confession serves the absolved sinner so that he does not sin if he does not keep the penance for his sin, expressed in rights; however, if the priest imposes too little penance, God will demand excess from man here or in that world. He who teaches men otherwise deceives them. This is offered by the Holy See, all Christian universities and doctors.

286II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, ssi-454. 287

The twelfth erroneous article reads as follows:

To the twelfth: It is said that the sinner should be sent to purgatory or indulgence with the rest of the chastisement, but more things are said without reason and probation.

Laying. It is Christianly misrepresented in such a way: First of all, it is quite erroneous, and is presented without all proof and testimony of the holy Scriptures, and also without all presentation of all legal knowledge, as if its content were contrary to the holy Gospel, although in truth they are separated as day and night. In addition, it is Christian and true to know that the sinner should be sent to purgatory or indulgence with the rest of the punishment. For the holy Christian Church and the community of all old and new doctors hold that God is so merciful as to forgive guilt and sin that He nevertheless remains just not to let them go unpunished. Therefore, if inward repentance is not enough to avenge sin, and outward atonement is not accomplished and completed, then God, who knows the measure and number of sins, will require the excess of repentance and atonement, if man does not accomplish it here, in Purgatory. Also, as Anselmus says in libro: Cur Deus homo?, man can make amends for sin only through good works, which cannot be demanded of man if he had sinned; it is considered that men owe to do the good works of God's commandments from the time of creation, which God also demanded of man if he had not sinned. Therefore, this twelfth article is erroneous and seductive, since atonement must be made in this life or in that world. This is offered by the Holy See and all Christian universities and doctors.

The thirteenth erroneous article reads, as follows:

To the thirteenth: It is a great error for anyone to think that he will do enough for his sins, when God always forgives them in vain, out of inestimable grace, desiring nothing in return but to live well for them. Christianity demands something, so it may and should also slacken the same and not impose anything heavy or untrustworthy.

Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: Firstly, it is unfounded and seductive

For God, together with the Church, desires satisfaction for sin, as shown above in many ways. Thus the old and new doctors of the holy church, of whom there are many thousands, and many of whom are blessed in heaven, all say: how great repentance is, where man spurns confession and satisfaction, repentance alone is of no avail; although for no mortal sin can man satisfy God without the cooperation of Christ's suffering. Where St. Augustine would have been well regarded by the poet of this article, this error would not have come to pass; for St. Augustine says: Nemini enim dedit laxamentum peccandi Deus, quamvis miserando deleat^1^ ) jam facta peccata, si non satisfactio congrua negligatur i.e.: For to no one did God give the right to repent. i.: For God did not give anyone permission to sin, even though He cancels all sins committed out of mercy, if the corresponding satisfaction is not neglected. However, do not consider this erroneous article to be new; for Wicleff and Johannes Huß also held the error, and especially that confession is not necessary, in which the atonement is imposed on man: and for this reason Johannes Huß was burned at Constance by the common council, Wicleff died as a heretic. This is offered by the Holy Papal See, all Christian universities and doctors.

The fourteenth erroneous article reads as follows:

The fourteenth: Indulgences are allowed for the sake of imperfect and slothful Christians, who do not want to exercise themselves boldly in good works, or to be unpleasantly afflicted; for indulgences do not promote anyone to the better, but tolerate or allow to their imperfections, therefore one should not speak against indulgences, but one should also not speak to them.

Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: Even if a man deserves all indulgences, he should not desist from penitential works. Thus says Pope Innocentius. For after the forgiveness of sin and all chastisement by indulgence, there remains in man the inclination to sin again; this man must cultivate by good works. If, even after the forgiveness of sin and pain, he wants to earn much from God and increase his merit, he must not refrain from the painful good works, but rather accept the cross.

  1. Thus, instead of Hunevis (Löscher: quisvis) we have changed äewas, according to Augustin, Lneülr., Cap. 70.
  1. Tetzel Wider den "Sermon V. Ablaß u. Gnade". W. xvm, 554-556. 289

Christ to the end of his life. Indulgences do not take this away; rather, they inflame man to it and make him willing and inclined to do painful good works, and not lazy. For this reason, this article is erroneous and a nonsense, for it indicates that one should not speak against indulgences, which is done in almost all articles; nor should one speak against them, which is publicly against the custom of the holy Roman Church, which has the holy golden year, if it is to occur in Rome, proclaimed and sanctioned a long time before its beginning. The article is also against the custom of all special Christian churches throughout the world, which have papal and their own bishops proclaim indulgences at all times. Item, the cross is accepted by Christians against the heretics and unbelievers also partly because of the plenary indulgence which the crucifiers deserve, for which the people are asked and exhorted with great diligence. Therefore, the last words of this article are displayed Against all truth. This is offered on the recognition of the Holy Roman See and all Christian universities and doctors.

The fifteenth erroneous article reads as follows:

To the fifteenth: It would be much safer and better for him who gives to the building of St. Peter, or whatever else is called, for the sake of God, than to take indulgences for it; for it is dangerous for him to give such a gift for the sake of indulgences and not for the sake of God.

Laying. It is so Christianly misrepresented: First of all, it is bare and naked and invented without any proof of the holy Scriptures, for it indicates in the resolution: that a man would give alms for the sake of indulgences and yet not for the sake of God; just as if one gave alms for the sake of indulgences and yet did not bring glory to God with it; yet the man who gives his alms for indulgences also gives the same for the sake of God; for all indulgences are first given for the sake of God's glory. Therefore, he who gives alms for the sake of indulgences gives it primarily for the sake of God; considered that no one deserves indulgences unless he is truly repentant and in the love of God; and he who does good works out of the love of God arranges them for God and His praise. Therefore, this article is not to be believed by Christian people. Offer this to the knowledge of the Holy Roman See and all Christian universities and doctors.

The sixteenth erroneous article reads as follows:

To the sixteenth: Much better is the work done for a poor man than that which is given for building, also much better than the indulgence given for it. For, as I have said, it is better to have done one good work than to have indulged in many. But indulgence is the remission of many good works, or it is nothing remission.

Yes, that I may instruct you aright, take heed: You shall first of all > (neither St. Peter's building nor indulgence considered) give to your > nearest poor. But if it comes to the point that there is no one in > your city who needs help (which, if God wills, shall never happen), > then you shall give, if you wish, to the churches, altars, ornaments > and chalices that are in your city. And if this is no longer > necessary, then first of all, if you wish, you may give to the > building of St. Peter's or elsewhere. Nor should you do this for the > sake of indulgences, for St. Paul says: "He who does not do good to > his household is not a Christian, and is worse than a pagan"; and > keep it free for this, whoever tells you otherwise, deceives you, or > ever seeks your soul in your bag, and if he found pennies in it, he > would rather have that than all souls. > > Then you say, "I would never grant indulgences in this way. I answer: > I have already said above that my will, desire, request and advice is > that no one should redeem indulgences. Let the lazy and drowsy > Christians redeem indulgences, you go for yourself.

Laying. It is transferred in such a Christian way: First, it is unfounded and quite dark; for in it one thing is touched and another is concealed. For alms, given to a poor man, is better for the increase of the merit of blessedness; but the solution of the plenary indulgence, even of all indulgences, is better for the quick satisfaction of the chastisement of sin. Everyone should also know that the release of indulgences is also a work of mercy; for he who releases indulgences has mercy on his soul and thereby pleases God. Therefore, this article concludes erroneously, saying that the release of indulgences is not a work of mercy, and in the end concludes quite unchristianly that indulgences are a remission of many good works, for it does not substantiate this with any holy scripture. Nor will any ever be found to corroborate this, considering that he who earns indulgences must be in God's love, and where this exists

290II . Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 556-559. 291

in man, from whom many good works and great ones are done. This erroneous article is also contrary to the content of all indulgences and letters, which all commonly indicate that indulgences are given for the purpose of inciting people to repentance and confession and good works. For this reason, this erroneous article is also to be completely despised. This is offered by the Holy Roman See and all Christian universities and doctors.

This article also states that people are being instructed in the wrong doctrine, which is quite contrary to the truth; for in this article it is desired, requested, and advised that no one should grant indulgences, which advice is unprofitable for salvation. The article also says that only lazy and drowsy people should be granted indulgences, with which counsel Christianity is miserably deceived; considering that a man does much better for himself if he earns the indulgences he needs, than if he gives his alms to a poor man, because the same poor man would not be in the article of greatest need; For the alms or good work that a man earns indulgence is just as deserving of eternal life, since it is done out of God's love, as the alms given to a poor man. In addition, since man, through the indulgence he earns by almsgiving, quickly and hurriedly relieves himself of the chastisement he is obliged to suffer for his sin, it is better for him to earn indulgence than to give alms to poor people who are not in the article of final need. The Lord Jesus also says in the eleventh chapter, "Whatever is above measure, give alms of it," meaning to those who are not in the article of last resort; but to those who are in the article of last resort, God gives alms, even of the goods that man needs for the preservation of his nature and state. For this reason, St. Paul is not formally allegorized in this article; for St. Paul says, "He who does not do good to his household is not a Christian and is worse than a pagan." But he does not mean that a man should do good to himself rather than to the members of his household, who are not in the article of last necessity. In almsgiving, too, everyone should keep the order of love, so that he may help himself rather than his relatives, as mentioned above. For this reason, people who believe in Christ should not give credence to the mere, bare, unsubstantiated words of this article, for it is not supported by any consistent proof from the holy Scriptures. This is offered on the recognition of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors.

The seventeenth erroneous article reads as follows:

To the seventeenth: Indulgences are not commanded, nor advised, but of the number of things allowed and permitted; therefore it is not a work of obedience, nor meritorious, but an exaction withdrawal of obedience. Therefore, though no one should be hindered from loosing it, yet all Christians should be drawn away from it, and provoked and strengthened to the works and chastisements that are indulged in.

Laying. It is Christianly transferred in such a way: It is true, it is not commanded to earn indulgences; but it is quite faithfully advised by papal holiness, by the holy sall]common conciliarities, by all the pious prelates of the holy church, who give indulgences on account of the practice of good works, in honor of God and for the good of Christendom, and to man's credit, because he does good works for the sake of indulgences; also for the benefit of man, so that he may be freed from the chastisement he would have to suffer for his sin; as touched upon above. Therefore, indulgences are not of the number of things that are allowed and permitted alone. This article also says that earning indulgences is not a meritorious work, but an extract of obedience, which may be proved in eternity, as little as the other articles all, with some holy scripture. For the works which are graced with indulgences are always better than those which are performed without indulgences, even in the same love. Therefore, this article is against the freedom of the Holy Roman See. For God has commanded the mastery of the things that serve man's blessedness to his governor, the pope, and the papal see. Enjoin this on the knowledge of the Holy Roman See and all Christian universities and doctors.

The eighteenth erroneous article reads, as follows:.

To the eighteenth: Whether souls are drawn out of purgatory by indulgences, I do not know and do not yet believe; although some new doctors say so, but it is impossible for them to prove, nor has the Church yet decided. Therefore, for greater certainty, it is much better that you pray and work for them yourself, for this is more proven and is certain.

Laying. So, it is transferred in a Christian way: First, it is full of guile; for it states that.

292 Tetzel against the "Sermon on Indulgences and Grace". W. xvm, sss-sW. 293

the church has not decided that souls may be redeemed from purgatory through indulgences, since the holy Roman church holds in its custom that souls are redeemed from purgatory through indulgences. There are also many altars, churches and chapels in Rome, where souls are redeemed if masses are held there or other good works are done. This is because the popes have given plenary indulgences in these places to redeem souls who say mass there or do other good works, as is the practice in Rome. The pope and the Roman church would not suffer this redemption of souls in Rome if they were not well founded. For the pope and the See of the Roman Church, even the papal office, do not err in matters concerning faith. Now indulgences also concern faith; for he who does not believe that the pope can grant indulgences and plenary indulgences to the living and the dead, if they are in the love of God, holds that the pope has not received the perfection of authority from the Lord Christ over the believers in Christ, which is contrary to the sacred laws.

This article also reports that some new doctors say that souls can be delivered from purgatory through indulgences, but it is impossible for them to prove it. Therefore it is to be known that the holy new doctors have proven this quite well and have never been condemned by the Holy Roman Church for this reason. Therefore, they must have proven, especially St. Thomas, whose doctrine, concerning faith and the salvation of souls, the popes Urbanus and Innocentius accepted and approved as Christian and proven. Since then, no pope has ever condemned them. Because the doctrine of St. Thomas is now accepted as Christian, this article is suspicious in truth. St. Jerome also says: "Because papal holiness, holding the chair and faith of Peter, accepts his faith as right and good, he who punishes his faith proves to be inexperienced or malicious or a heretic: so he is to be held who punishes St. Thomas as untrustworthy in the doctrine he writes of the Christian faith. This is offered on the recognition of the Holy Papal See and all Christian universities and doctors.

The nineteenth erroneous article reads, as follows:

To the nineteenth: On these points I have no doubt, and are > sufficiently given in Scripture. > > founded. Therefore you should have no doubt and let the Doctores > scholasticos be scholasticos, they are all not enough with their > opinions that they should fortify a sermon.

Laying. It is so Christianly misrepresented: First, it and all the articles touched upon are wholly unfounded in Scripture; for the articles are contrary to the custom of the holy Roman Church and contrary to the teaching of all the new holy Christian teachers. If St. Augustine, together with the other three old holy doctors, had had the enlightenment that the authority of papal sanctity and of the Roman Church over indulgences should thus be despised by erroneous people, they would have been well aware of this with their writings. However, the new holy doctors have experienced and heard that wicked people have spoken, preached and written against the pope and the truth of indulgences. The holy new doctors have challenged this on Christian grounds, and the Holy Roman Church has never punished or condemned them for it. That this article also says that one should let doctores scholasticos remain scholasticos, because they are all not enough with their opinions that they should fortify a sermon: unintelligent people hold the opinion of the holy scholastic doctors, because these same holy doctors discover and are against all new errors; for which reason erroneous people despise them. However, the holy Roman Church, together with the holy common Christianity, unanimously hold that the holy scholastic doctors, by their true salutary doctrine, are able to sufficiently fortify the holy Christian faith against the heretics, in the manner of Christian doctrine, and to do much more preaching. For this reason, they are unfairly and disgracefully despised in this article, against all reason and truth.

Also, the erroneous articles are all indicated according to brevity and obscurity; perhaps because of this, one intends to interpret them as one pleases and in all ways. However, the great annoyance they arouse should have been considered beforehand; for many people will despise the authority and power of papal sanctity and the Holy Roman See because of the articles; the works of sacramental satisfaction will also be omitted; preachers and doctors will no longer be believed; everyone will want to interpret the holy Scriptures as he pleases. Therefore, the holy common Christianity must come into great danger for the souls, because everyone will believe what pleases him. Because the new holy doc-

294II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvni, 562-564. 295

tores, as the erroneous article indicates, should not be considered credible, to whom Christianity has given great faith for many hundreds of years; therefore, this article is quite erroneous. Offer this on the recognition of the Holy Roman See, all Christian universities and doctors.

The twentieth erroneous article reads, As follows:

To the twentieth: Whether some now call me a heretic, to whom such truth is very harmful in the box, I do not respect such blasphemy very much; because some dark brains do not do that, because they never smelled the Bible, never read the Christian teachers, never understood their own teachers, but decayed much closer in their hole-ridden and torn opinions; because, if they had understood them, they would have known that they should blaspheme no one unheard and unconquered. But God give them and us right sense. Amen.

Transfer. It is thus Christian and well-founded: First of all, it is quite erroneous, and requires, without a hole in the brain, to know who is a heretic. Thereby I, Brother Johann Tetzel, of the Order of Preachers, am caused to issue several other doctrines and positions, which I also intend to discuss in the laudable high school at Frankfurt on the Oder and to keep Christian by means of divine help with the appointed day. In which, if one reads this my writing and the positions I have taken before, and the sermon of the twenty erroneous articles, also the positions whose title is: Amore et studio elucidandae veritatis, in which the last proposition thus reads: [[Ac sic magis per multas tribulationes intrare coelum, quam per securitatem pacis confidant,]{.underline} on the other hand, everyone will learn and recognize with an incomplete brain, who is a Haeresiarcha, Haereticus, Schismaticus, Erroneus, Temerarius, Maleso- nans etc., that is, an arch-heretic, a heretic, an apostate, an erring, a sacrilegious, or an unbeliever 2c, in the holy Christian faith or not. From this will also appear who is a fin

ster brain, never smelled the Bible, never read the Christian teachers, never understood his own teachers.

Therefore, in certain confidence of the truth, I offer all my statements and positions, written by me in this matter, upon the knowledge and judgment of Papal Holiness, of the Holy Roman Church, of all Christian universities and doctors without suspicion, with the obligation to suffer all that is conceded, be it dungeon, cane, water and fire, in faithful, Christian brotherly admonition, that no Christian man shall henceforth follow the sermon of the twenty erroneous articles, also the positionibus, which are raised: Dominus et Magister noster Jesus Christus, dicendo: poenitentiam agite etc., and end thus: [[Ac sic magis per multas tribulationes intrare coelum etc.]]{.underline}, Believe, then, that their poet also offers them on the knowledge and judgment of papal sanctity, of the holy Roman Church, and of all Christian unsuspicious universities, and has proved this with works, with certain confidence, that without such offering the sermon of the twenty articles and positions now named will not be preaching and wholesome doctrine, but misleading and perverting men; for Christ himself says, "He that heareth not the church shall be unto thee a heathen and a publican." And if he, from whom the erroneous sermon of the twenty articles was made and proceeded, should set or make anything contrary to this my laying without corroboration of the sacred Scriptures, sacred rights and doctors, or without showing natural sufficient causes and rations; let no Christian man be angry with him, for it would be babbling. And if such a thing would not be offered by him publicly and in writing on the understanding of papal sanctity, the Holy See and unsuspicious universities, then I will not write against it, but consider it unworthy of any answer and transfer. I hereby publicly protest against this.

To God's praise, to man's bliss, and to the glory of the Holy Papal > See.

296 Erl. 27,10 f. 14. freedom of the sermon on indulgences and grace. W. xvm, 564 f. 297

*Luther's defense of his sermon against Tetzel's refutation. )

End of June 1518.

A freedom of the sermon, papal indulgence and grace, Dr. Martin Luther's, against the refutation, so;ur disgrace of his and the same sermon invented.

JEsus.

I, Doctor Martin Luther, Augustinian at Wittenberg, confess that the German Sermon, concerning grace and indulgences, is mine; therefore I have caused and I need to defend it against some misrepresentations 1) or blasphemies, invented in vain. To what skill, it seems, that its poet has had too much time and paper, and has not known how to be better at it, 2) because, attacking the truth with impure words, he would like everyone to know how nothing he understands in Scripture.

And to avoid many words, I let go and command the dear wind (which is also more idle) the remaining forgiven words, like the cardboard flowers 3) and dry leaves, take alone before me his grounds and cornerstones of his burdock construction.

The first reason is that he says that the third part of repentance, satisfaction, is founded in Scripture, namely, in the word of Christ, "Repent, and the kingdom of heaven will be at hand" (Matt. 4:17); and this has been held by many thousands of teachers, some of whom are holy, and the Christian church does not reprove 2c; without saying that they are all to be held like the gospel.

  1. D. i. Refutations.
  2. I.e. without, to get rid of. 3) D. i. poppies.
  1. here I say, so it shall be, that all who blaspheme the Scriptures with their false glosses shall be smitten with their own sword (as Goliath) 1 Sam. 17, 51.; for this true saying of Christ, here falsely introduced, is the very ground and armor of my sermon, and alone enough to disgrace all the blasphemers and revilers. So I prove: Christ's teachings are divine words, therefore it is forbidden, not only to this blasphemer, but also to all angels in heaven Gal. 1, 8, to change a letter of it; because it is written Job 33, 14.: "God Himself does not revoke what He once said"; and in the Psalter 119, 89.: "Your word, Lord, remains forever"; and Matth. 5, 18.: "Not a speck of a least letter shall pass away from the commandment of God, it must all come to pass."
  2. But since the holy father, the pope, walks and puts on repentance and satisfaction, it is evident that this cannot be the repentance which Christ puts on in this word of his, which the holy father, the pope, is more obliged to put on than any Christian; but it must be which the hater Vater Pabst and Church lay up in their word; otherwise the hater Vater Pabst and Church would be destroyers of the divine word. Behold now how these publishers 4) have put on the heilige
  1. D. i. rebuttal.

*) In 1518 itself, as well as in the following years, this manuscript was often printed separately, twice by Joh. Grüneberg in Wittenberg in 1518 and once in 1520; twice by Wolfgang Stöcke in Leipzig; once by Valentin Schumann in Lerpzig, twice by Jobst Gutknecht in Nuremberg; once by Friedr. Peipus in Nuremberg and twice by Jörgen Nadler in Augsburg. - In the complete editions, the writing is in the German Wittenberg collection (vol. IX, toi. 27), in the German Jenaer (vol. I, toi. 59), in the Altenburger (vol. I, p. 58), in the Leipziger (vol. XVII, p. 132), in the Erlanger (vol. 27, p. 10) and finally in the Weimarsche kritische Ausgabe (vol. I, p. 383), whose text the present revised edition has followed. It also went into other works Über, so in Löscher's Reformation Acta (Vol. I, p. 525), Kapp's collection (p. 364) 2c

298 Erl. L7,11-14. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 565-868. 299

They honor the Father with their unchristian flattery by blaming him (yet with great honors and offerings) for breaking God's commandment, saying, "He indulges in the satisfaction that is commanded and laid up in the word of Christ. From this it follows that indulgences are nothing but lies and deceptions, since they presume to forbear and forgive, which they have no power to do.

  1. Secondly, that he introduces so many thousands of teachers, he has not considered them properly, and raised the computational pennies too high, otherwise he would not have found them much above three, namely St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Magister Sententiarum, Alexander de Halis; the others as Antonius, Peter Paluditanus, Augustus Anconanus, Angelus and the like are nothing. Bonaventure, Magister Sententiarum, Alexander de Halis; the others, as Antonius, Petrus Paluditanus, Augustinus Anconanus, Angelus, and the like, are nothing but fathers and followers; besides, there is none among all these who speak or prove that the indulgenced satisfaction is that which Christ commanded. And he that saith otherwise saith his own, with violence and dishonor to them.

(7) Also, great violence and injustice is done to the same holy and worthy teachers by the blasphemers and publishers, that they proclaim as established and well-founded truth what the dear fathers considered and spoke as opinion and uncertain delusion, and in addition, with mere words, without all proof; indeed, they could not have spoken more than opinion, since not with them, but with the common Council, is the authority to finally declare the truth that is spoken without Scripture.

(8) Because such blasphemers of the dear fathers brew their own presumptuous conclusions into one another, it is no wonder that they make us a sod that makes one dread.

9 Thirdly: If so many, and even more thousands, and they, all holy teachers, would have held this or that, they are not valid against a certain saying of the holy scripture, when St. Paul says to the Galatians 1, 8.: "If an angel from heaven or we ourselves preached to you differently than you heard before, let it be to you a thing of confusion." Now if the same teachers had said the same thing (which they do not),

that repentance, commanded in Christ's words, would be put away by indulgences, they should not be believed at all, because the Scripture says: "No one may put away or change God's word.

(10) But the blasphemers seek only this, that by the name of many doctors they may make their false preaching to be believed, whether they also should tear up the Scriptures concerning it. And if a man understands no more of the Scriptures than this blasphemer, it behooves him to abstain from writing his blasphemy, and to learn the gospel aright.

II. The other reason is that both indicate. New and Old Testament that God demands satisfaction for sin, as is found in Deut. 25, 2. 3. St. Gregory also says that Christ prescribes a vile remedy for every vice. Item, since David sinned with adultery and counting people, he had to suffer punishment for it and the repentance was not enough 2 Sam. 12, 14. ff. 24, 12. ff..

12 Here I complain that it is a miserable pity that one must suffer from such a sacrilegious blasphemer, who thus tears up the Scriptures. Oh, if he had only wronged me and called me a heretic, an apostate, a rebel, and according to all the pleasure of his displeasure, I would gladly have it and never become hostile to him, yes, I would kindly plead for him; but this is in no way to suffer, that he does not treat the Scriptures, our comfort, differently, but like a sow treats a sack of horseradish. Let us see this.

  1. To the first he says: Both testaments give that satisfaction is demanded from God, and does not quote a sentence from the New Testament, but only the one from the 25th chapter of the 5th book of Moses of the Old Testament, and thus wants to have made a noise as if it were both testaments. For this the saying of the Old Testament is abrogated in the New Testament by Christ Himself Matth. 5, 38. 39.: "You have heard that it was said" (hear Deut. 19, 21.): "An eye for an eye. But I command you that ye resist not evil, nor him that harmeth you."
  1. also the same saying is not given that God demands satisfaction by it, but rather that the

300 Erl. 27,11-16. 14. freedom of the sermon on indulgences and grace. W. XVIII, 568-570. 301

The New Testament sets a rule how far men should take revenge among themselves, so that they do not do too much, until the New Testament stops the revenge altogether; as clearly St. Augustine says about the same text, and the text itself gives. Now behold, dear man, how this blasphemer introduces the saying not only without understanding, but also against the Gospel; nor do they want to burn all heretics and throb the heavens.

15 Secondly, the saying of St. Gregory. Gregory, which clearly says of the penance taught by Christ, which is a remedy for sin, that whoever was unchaste before should now be chaste; whoever stole before should now be so mild as to give his own 2c: These divine commandments, indicated by Gregory, he drags with his hair, that his rinds crack, to the penance, which the pope can make, and does not consider, that he is not only a heretic, but nonsensical, who thinks, that the hater pope makes chastity, fatigue 2c, that is, the satisfaction taught by Christ, which nevertheless followed from his introduction. Also, the laity know better, who say: Never do is the highest penance. And this is true in the sight of God, who demands no more than the highest penance, that is, never to do it.

(16) Thirdly, I would like to know where St. Augustine says that God demands convenient pardon. And if this is testified to, I say, as before, this same satisfaction is not made up for by any indulgence, but is counted as a penal chastisement imposed by God.

(17) Fourthly, that David was punished for his sin is for me; for I have said in the seventh article of the German Sermon that God lays out the punishment, and no one can take it off. Therefore the Scripture is crucified again, and the punishment of David is drawn into the atonement, which the father Pabst may lay aside. This is man's talk; for the same seventh article plainly declares me to deny the third part of the atonement; not the good works commanded by God, or the sufferings and punishment; but the atonement or satisfaction which the indulgence may make; which, I say, no one will prove from Scripture to be required by God;

but he commands this to the Holy Father and the Church, as he says to St. Peter Matth. 16, 19.: "What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what you loose shall be loosed" 2c

18 The Holy Father Pope has full power, not to do all things, as the harmful flatterers say, which are necessary for man's salvation, because Christ would be excluded by the words, but he has the power to absolve all sins that are confessed; but he does not have the power to fall into God's judgment and counsel, therefore he may not put away chastisements, if God or divine justice interprets them. For he did not say to St. Peter, "What I bind, you shall loose"; but, "What you loose, you shall be loosed." From this it does not follow that my binding is therefore also loose; but your binding is loose. But our publishers have taken away from them the power to judge the Scriptures according to their head. Therefore they do not understand what is inside, but what they want. Can no bishop loose what the pope binds; how then do the harmful flatterers presume to seduce the pope and the church with him in such a way that he refrains from loosening what his God binds, when he has immeasurably less power in God's power than a bishop in his own power?

(19) Therefore, all those who say that through indulgences the chastisement or work of satisfaction imposed by God may be put away are mistaken and deceptive, and want to mix the power of the church with the power of God, and invent new words for us every day, claves excellentiae, claves autoritatis, claves ministrabiles keys of privilege, keys of power, keys of office, as long as they empty all our bags and chests, and then unlock hell and shut heaven.

The third reason that he says: The customs and practices of the church are to be considered a law, because Christianity needs indulgences 2c: "I say that what is true, what is custom and practice in Christianity, is the same as the commandment of the church; but it is understood by the good and not by the evil.

21 Secondly, the Roman Church has

  1. D. i. of the pope.

302 Erl. 27,16-18. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. XVIII, 570-573. 303

The Church has never had in practice that indulgences save souls and redeem sinners from torment or satisfaction, imposed by God; but, as the insolent quaestors want to frighten people like young children, they strive to make their words be God's word and their 1) abuse be the custom of the Christian Church; also the spiritual law says that such sermons are lies; c. c. abusionibus verb. mendaciter. Glo. etc. Compare the gloss to the chapter Abusionibus at the word mendaciter.]{.underline} 2)

(22) The fourth reason: He who gives indulgences does better than he who gives alms to a poor person who is not in dire need. Here watch and let God have mercy on you, that is what the teachers of the Christian people say. Now it is not terrible to hear how the Turks dishonor our church and cross; we have with us a hundred times worse Turks, who so blasphemously destroy the only sanctuary, the Word of God, which sanctifies all things. John, the holy apostle, says: "If a man sees his brother in need or in distress, and shuts up his charity from him, how can the love of God abide in him? 1 John 3:17.

  1. over this text comes this blasphemer and misplaces, yes, injures and puts away over a thousand miles with such a gloss: the dying or need-suffering is to be understood from the last need.

(24) I must be impatient here with displeasure and call out that the gloss has been introduced by the devil, or has fallen out of an unchristian, Jewish, or ever thoughtless mind of someone. If a Christian man should not help another sooner than in the last need, then never ever or in many years not once will the other be helped. Christian love will not be as good as 3) friendship among animals. Oh God! Must your word be mastered in this way? Well, we have more of these little pieces from our dream preachers.

(25) Now let him who follows this publisher beware that he does not feed the

  1. D. i. of the same.
  2. This chapter is the second in the 5th book of the Clementines, title 9.
  3. In the original: thus.

Clothe the hungry, clothe the naked, they come into the last distresses, that their soul runs out and they need his charity no longer. Right, right, such teachers' works should not be worth anything else, except that they happen because they are unnecessary.

(26) Against the damning and seductive gloss, we should know that need or want is called any need or want; just as Christ fetched the donkeys and said, "They are in need of the Lord," that is, he needs them (Matth. 21:3). Therefore one should understand the need, that it remains according to the word of Christ: "If your brother is allowed to borrow, lend to him without any charge" [Luc. 6, 34.). Now borrowing is not the last, nor the middle, but the first need. The need should also be in accordance with the commandment: "Do to others as you would have them do to you" Matth. 7, 12. Now no one wants him to be allowed to come to the last hardships; how then could St. John have allowed them? From Aristotle's quiver flew the gloss, in which they learn necessitatem and other words, only to corrupt the holy scripture.

(27) Above all, brotherly Christian love does not wait until there is need; therefore John punishes them for letting it become need. Further it is to be known that the Scripture says: "Love covers all multitude of sins" [1 Petr. 4, 8. Prov. 10, 12.); and Christ: "What is above you, give alms, and all things are clean" or forgiven [Luc. 11, 41.), and Daniel [4, 24.): "Redeem your sin with alms."

(28) No preacher of grace likes to preach these and similar sayings, nor do they like to hear them preached to the people. For it follows that indulgences are not needed by anyone, and that much better indulgences could be obtained through works of charity and almsgiving; but this would not fill the coffers.

29 These subtle publishers have nevertheless learned so much from Aristotle's distinction that they take it for granted that an alms or good work done to one's neighbor is not properly self-love, and does not seek its own salvation first, but must first redeem indulgences, and thus have mercy on itself first. If Christ is not true God

304 Erl. 27,18-20. 14. freedom of the sermon on indulgences and grace. W. xvm, 573-Z75. 305

I think he would have long since such our theologians let devour the earth.

  1. first: Daniel teaches the king of Babylon, he should solve his sin with alms; so also says the wise man Sirach 3, 33.: "As water extinguishes a burning fire, so alms extinguishes sin" 2c.. To this Christ says: "Give alms, and all is clean unto you." Now there is no nobler way to love oneself and be blessed than to remove sin and make oneself pure; and this is what Christ himself calls almsgiving.

31 To the other: Now watch and hold it against one another. Christ says: Giving alms to one's neighbor takes away sorrow and guilt, and makes all things pure, and this must ever be the very best and first love of oneself and one's blessedness; as now said.

The publishers say: The indulgence takes away only the chastisement; that must ever be the least love of itself, and not necessary nor required; also so much less, as temporal chastisement is less, than guilt of eternal chastisement. Nevertheless, they 1) say without fear and shame that he who follows their doctrine and not Christ's doctrine loves himself properly. For the alms that redeems chastisement and guilt, as Christ says, they put behind the alms that redeems only a little temporal chastisement by indulgence, and is not necessary, nor commanded. These are our dear Christian publishers, who thoroughly introduce the Scriptures; yes, into the abyss of hell with themselves and all who adhere to them.

Third, this is a false love, which first seeks itself in itself. For St. Gregory says that divine love cannot exist in itself, but must reach out to another. And the same loving makes pure; as also St. James 5, 20. says that "love covers all sin." Therefore he that would love himself must go out of himself, and love himself not in himself, but in another; that is, he must hate himself in himself, and suffer himself, and love all others; as Christ teaches us by words and works.

34 Therefore, it is to be feared that whoever ab-

  1. I. e. they may --- they dare.

The people seek only to flee the chastisement, and thus love themselves in it, and give it not for love but for fear. And our preachers of indulgences want to drive the people into fear with their terror and grandstanding of chastisement and indulgences; if they were to drive out chastisement and make it contemptible, if they wanted to preach Christianity, they would also have to admit money.

35 Fourth: Now it is to be noted whether I have rightly introduced the saying of St. Paul in the 16th article, when I said: One should help the neighbor first and then build our churches with us first and at last redeem indulgences. For 2) St. Paul says: "He who does not do good to his fellow men is worse than a heathen", 1 Tim. 5, 8. The publishers should have considered this better, so that they would not be ridiculed with their unchristian and heretical publishing.

The fifth reason is about the altars and churches in Rome, in which souls are redeemed with masses, and the holy popes tolerate this, and in addition St. Thomas confirms in such doctrine of popes 2c Here I say: it is true that in Rome some consider it, and I myself said more than one mass there for the souls. I have repented of the faith 3) because I have learned that there is no proof or confirmation of it, so that one may exist honestly, and even in Rome they do not pay much attention to it.

37 Secondly: Since there is no commandment to believe the same indulgence, nor can there be a commandment that it must be redeemed and sought, therefore there is no merit in it, for where there is no obedience, there is no merit; but where there is no commandment, there is no obedience, - it is better to remain with what is certain and meritorious, to pray for it by good works: Nor am I in any doubt that the mass said for souls is better and more powerful to redeem souls than the indulgences sought by masses.

38 Thirdly: To such great perilous article a Christian publisher should introduce the Scripture, Spiritual Right or Fair Reason. For what is at Rome or otherwise-

  1. In the original: When.
  2. In the original: repent.

306 Erl. 27, so-23. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W. xvm, 578-578. 307

If the church decides that indulgences will save souls, I will not do so, lest I deceive myself and the poor with me. Therefore, if the church decides, I will believe that indulgences save souls; however, I will refrain from the sacrilege, so that I do not deceive myself and the poor souls with me.

39 Also, as said above, spiritual law is a lie, and no priest has ever been subject to it; and it is to be hoped that Christ will not let anyone fall so low as to take it from him, because he himself has taken it from him and reserved it for him, as he says to Petro: "What you loose on earth shall be loosed" Matth. 16, 19. But the souls are no longer on earth. And even though some took it upon themselves to flatter the pope, to drag this saying under the earth as well, they are still God's words and so evident that they have remained and will remain. For they are not only over St. Peter and Paul and all the popes, but also over all the angels, yes, even over the humanity of Christ Himself, when He says: "My words are not My words, but the words of Him who sent Me" John 14:24.

40 Fourthly, that St. Thomas is confirmed, I let it be; but one knows in all universities how far the confirmation extends. Therefore, what the holy father proves with Scripture or reason, I accept: the other I let be his good delusion.

  1. fifth: Is not this true, that the indulgence is of the number of things that belong to blessedness and faith. Therefore, whether the pope tolerates this is not a miracle, so unfortunately! probably greater evil pieces and tricks outside and inside Rome are tolerated.

(42) And that I say more, because the apostle saith, that the things which are lawful are not profitable unto salvation, but those things which are commanded: it followeth that he is sure who regardeth not indulgences at all, and he is uncertain who regardeth indulgences greatly. For the former may easily err in the same, the latter cannot err. For the farther from what is allowed, and nearer to the commandments, the safer beings. For obedience is certain; freedom is dangerous.

  1. D. i. excluded.

The sixth reason: that I reject the Doctores scholasticos unreasonably, as if they were not enough. To fortify a sermon 2c, that I have done, not that I reject them altogether, for they have done theirs; but their opinion: and especially for the sake of the publishers, who think to press me with the same, and yet do not introduce them, since they are tried with Scripture and reason, but since they are most nasty and sickly, as here in the matter of indulgences. For this reason I have said: "with their opinions", to express that I want to have them well with scriptures and reason. For in sermons one should let opinion be opinion and preach the word of God, as God has commanded us through St. Paul, that one should not teach fables, but the Scriptures, inspired from above 1 Tim. 4, 7. 2 Tim. 3, 16..

  1. at the last, when he has grown weary of torturing the Scriptures, or perhaps no longer knew, the weather passes over me, and there I am an arch-heretic, heretic, apostate, erring, sacrilegious, unbeliever 2c To this I answer: God give me and you His grace, Amen.

(45) These publishers are such corrupt disciples that they have not learned all their days what is called heretics in Latin, or heresy in German; and yet they presume to preach Scripture and to distribute heresy. For a heretic is one who does not believe the things that are necessary and commanded to be believed. Since they themselves confess, and it is true, that indulgences are not commanded, nor are they necessary for salvation, it is not possible for anyone to be a heretic, to despise, omit, 2) or to contradict indulgences as he pleases; which I have not done, but have placed only among the good works in his order 3). If then such publishers do not know the Scriptures, do not understand Latin and German, and so blasphemously reproach me, I must feel as if a rough donkey were shouting at me; yes, I am happy and should be sorry that such people call me a pious Christian.

  1. but that he was my cane, dungeon,
  1. In the original: vorlaß.
  2. D. i. order.

308 Erl. L7, 83-25. 14. Freedom of the Sermon on Indulgences and Grace. W. xvm, 578-S8." 309

  1. I poor brother cannot refuse water and fire. However, also for himself, my faithful advice would be to offer himself with modesty to the vine water and to the fire smoking from the roasted geese, which he is better accustomed to.

47 Should not a Christian man be displeased that one should first of all so childishly and mockingly intend to frighten people with bodily fire and death, if it is a terribly serious thing (as in the 49th Psalm) to err in the interpretation of the Scriptures and to deceive people, so that it means hellish fire and eternal death for the same blasphemers? Therefore, whoever has such a hard forehead that he himself is not frightened by such cruel and unmistakable wrath of God, may well keep quiet about frightening others with human wrath in unnecessary matters.

48 However, although this matter does not touch faith, blessedness, need or commandment, and they are so godly and love-loving to burn heretics even in such unnecessary, unheretical matters: so forgive me, my gracious God and Father, that to the mockery of all honor that is not yours, I may also defy one against my Baalites.

  1. Here I am in Wittenberg, Doctor Martinus Luther, Augustinian, and if there is a heretic who is bent on eating iron and tearing rocks, I let him know that he has safe conduct, open gates, free lodging and food in it, through the gracious promise of the laudable and Christian prince, Duke Frederick, Elector of Saxony 2c Thereby also the blasphemers may notice that the same Christian prince is not, as they would like to lie and revile in their last drunken positions 2), the one who, to the detriment of Christian truth, wants to protect me or someone in heretical authority, also in these things, since heresy may never be inside.
  2. he also complains that my sermon brings great offense and contempt to the See of Rome, to the faith, to the sacrament, to the teachers of Scripture 2c I know all this
  1. I.e. offers for exchange.
  2. Namely in the 47th and 48th thesis of Tetzel's second disputation.

not to be understood otherwise, for thus: The sky will still fall today, and will be no old pot tomorrow whole.

51 But to remind the poor people who have a weak and erroneous memory before the great business of the holy indulgence, I say, as before: the indulgence is not commanded, not necessary, and nothing is attached to it for salvation, even if no one respects it, as he himself said and must say.

52 For this reason it is not possible for error or misery to occur in contempt of indulgences; but cruel error may occur in contempt of indulgences, as well as in other free, unbidden indulgences. For there must be trouble in things that are necessary to salvation. Thus it follows that not for the love of souls, but for our honor and benefit, we would like our unnecessary, unbidden words to be understood and called church, pope, scripture, sacrament, teacher, faith, and we alone to be all necessary and commanded things, and without us nothing, and thus our annoyance of all things would be annoyance. So also the Jews were angry with Christ, but he says: "Let them go, they are blind and lead the blind" Matth. 15, 14.

  1. besides, notice that these publishers blaspheme the Scriptures and make God lie in His words, that is, mend and honor Christianity. But that one teaches how indulgences are not necessary to solve, yes, that it is not fair to scam money from poor people: that is to dishonor the church and sacrament and to annoy Christians. I say this so that one may understand their language and the new red forgery.

54 He also wants to urge me to more appearance of his nobility, to offer my sermon on knowledge of papal holiness 2c I say: I do not need any riveting root, I also do not have such big snouts that I do not smell that. But it shall not last long, I will offer my matter, perhaps more than they should like.

55 Now let this be enough, that it is not necessary to burden papal holiness and the Roman See with unnecessary sermons, unless a wooden chair were empty; much less with revealed texts of Scripture, by which the Holy Spirit can be read.

310 Erl. 27, 25. II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. W.Lvm.sso f. 311

whole of Christendom preached and understood with one accord.

  1. his positions, of which he boasts to receive at Frankfurt, of which also the sun and the moon are astonished by the great light of their wisdom, I consider the several parts to be truth, without that I would well suffer that, where it says: docendi sunt Christiani i.e. the Christians are to be taught, that there would be: docendi sunt Quaestores et haere.

ticae pravitatis Inquisitores i.e., the quaestors and judges of heresy are to be taught.

Help, God, the truth alone and no one else, Amen.

I do not presume to fly over the tall firs; neither do I despair, I may crawl over the barren grass.

M. L. 1518.

  1. In the original: flihen.

III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias

on the power of the pope.

*15. of Sylvester Prieria's Dialogue on the Violence of the Pope. )

Second half of June 1518.

Translated from Latin.

The venerable father, the brother Silvester Prierias, from the order of the preachers, the holy theology very famous professor and the holy apostolic palace magister, dialogue about the violence of the pope against the presumptuous theses of Martin Luther.

Letter to Pope Leo X.

To the Most Holy Father Pope Leo X, Brother Silvester Prierias, of the > Order of Preachers and Magister of the Holy Palace, wishes eternal > salvation!

I do not know, most holy Father, if I am ever happier than when I can do something in consideration of and for the sake of Your holiness. There

I believe that it has happened that I have not been able to be captivated by the commentaries on the first part of the second collection (conflati) from St. Thomas, in the editing and elaboration and completion of which I am already more absorbed than merely busy, with such pleasure that I have not been able to complete all the work and my own reflections.

*This writing appeared, without indication of place and time, at any rate in Rome in 1518, was then, without any comment by Luther, printed twice by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig at the instigation of Luther, without indication of the year, and by Siegmund Grimm and Marx Wirsung in Augsburg. It is included in all editions of the Basel collection of Luther's works from 1518, 1519 and 1520, and was included in the complete editions of the

312 L. v. a. i, 345 f. 15 Des Silvester Prierias Dialog. W.xvm.W f. 313

I would have put aside and pushed back in order to oppose, I do not know what kind, Martin Luther, who carries the cops high against truth itself and this holy chair, as a shield to fight for the honor and majesty of this chair and truth. Finally, I also accomplished the work of three days, which I spent on this work, with such joy and cheerfulness of mind that love itself gave me the truth unnoticed and this came to my mind constantly and very quickly.

But I beg Your Holiness to read through this little that I have worked out, among their so great and odious labors and cares.

Do not disdain them, and either correct or completely erase what, according to their gracious judgment, has been said clumsily. For in this way it will happen that after this I will have such confidence as if I were provided with a solid armor, so that I will not fear even Satan in the coming battle; yes, that I would eagerly like to know whether this Martin has an iron nose or a head of iron, so that it could not be crushed. But as soon as he will have brought his foundations to light, if he wants to defend his propositions or reject ours, then I will (God willing) set something greater and more carefully elaborated in motion. Farewell forever, most gracious shepherd.

Letter to Martin Luther.

Brother Silvester von Prierio of the Order of Preachers wishes the > professor of the Holy Scriptures, Martin Luther, the spirit of > humility and truth.

Although I, my dear Martin, because of the long intervening time, am weaned from fighting scientific battles, especially because in the dull age the weakened forces are already cooling, I have nevertheless, excited and almost driven by your words, with which you like a second Dares 1) from everywhere call the fighters to battle, decided to step anew on the now unfamiliar battlefield for the holy apostolic chair as well as for the protection of truth.

  1. Virgil's Aeneid, book S, v. 362 ff.

But since I am not allowed to see the reasons on which the scripture (as they say) published by you is based, and since you yourself have not provided any proof for your theses, and since several of them have both a true and a false meaning, I did not want to argue, especially with you, in any other way than by upholding and defending what is opposed to your false theses, so that you may explain on which grounds you base yourself. And so, by going through and considering these propositions of yours, I now make the beginning of the forthcoming dispute (after invoking the highest and best God) with a dialogue, in which we, who are disputing, talk to each other. Be well and come to your senses.

The German text of the Reformation is the first of Luther's writings, namely the Latin Wittenberg (torn. I, toi. 159), Jena (tom. I, toi. 15) and Erlanger (varii arg. I, p. 344); only Walch, whose translation has been replaced by a new one in this revised edition, has translated it into German. In addition, Löscher has included the Latin text in his Reformation Acta Vol. II, 12. - The Erlangen edition keeps this writing with the one published in Rome in 1520: Lrrutu 6t arAurusnta Llurtini I^utsris rssitatu, ästssta, rspulsa st sopiosissirus tritu: per Iratrsm Lilvsstruiu krisriatsm, rnaMtrum suori pulutii; alone with injustice. The writing which bears this title is rather "the greater, more carefully elaborated" which Prierias promises to deliver in the epistle of his dialogue to the pope Leo X. It contains three books äs jurickisa st irrskraMdili vsrituts rornunus ssslssius, romani^us pontiü[Ls. The third book is precisely the Epitome of Prierias, about which Walch, old edition, Vol. XVIII, Einl. p. 24, conjectured: "Presumably this was supposed to be a draft of a great work that he would have been willing to publish in the future against Lutherum; such, however, did not come to light." This is erroneous, because the above-mentioned writing is really this work. The two in the Erlangen edition var. urZ. I, 343 according to Panzer VIII, 262 and IX, 125 amount to one. In the former place, printer, place and time, which is on the last leaf of the original edition, is given as belonging to the title. The title of this most likely only edition contains nothing more than the above words and Pabst's coat of arms. - The dialogue has been altered by the incorrect dating of two letters from Luther to Spalatin (wrong: from January 7 and 14, 1518 instead of 1519); cf. Erl. Ausg. Briefw. I, p. 353, note 1, erroneously transferred to the year 1517 by all complete editions. Both letters, by the way, do not deal with the dialogue, but with the replica.

314 D.v.a. 1.846-348. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 83-85. 315

*Answer of Magister Silvester of Prierio from the Order of Preachers, the Holy Palace Magister, to the Theses of Magister Martin Luther. )

If I, my dear Martin, want to look at your teaching in the most accurate way, I have to establish a guideline and principles.

The first principle is:

The general church is by its nature the assembly of all believers in Christ for the divine service. But the general church, according to its power (virtualiter), is the Roman church, the head of all churches, and the pope. The Roman Church according to its representation is the College of Cardinals, but according to its power it is the Pope, who is the Head of the Church, but in a different way than Christ.

The second principle:

Just as the general church, when it makes a decision about faith or morals, cannot err, so also a true concilium, which does as much as is in it (to recognize the truth), which I understand to include its head, or finally and finally, even if it may err at first sight, as long as the investigation of the truth is still in progress, even if it has sometimes erred: yet in the end it has known the truth through the Holy Spirit; and likewise neither the Roman Church nor the pope can err when he as pope makes a decision, that is, when he pronounces and does something by virtue of his office, as much as is in him to know the truth.

Third principle:

Anyone who does not adhere to the teaching of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, as the infallible guide of faith from which even the Holy Scriptures derive their force and validity, is a heretic.

Fourth Principle:

The Roman Church can, as by word, so also by action in regard to the faith

and manners. And there is no difference in this, only that words are more convenient than deeds. Therefore, for this reason, custom has acquired the force of law; for the will of a prince is expressed by the deeds of permission or action. And consequently, just as he is a heretic who has an evil opinion concerning a truth of Scripture, so also he is a heretic who has an evil opinion concerning the doctrine and actions of the church, in so far as they relate to faith and morals.

Follow-up Thesis:

Whoever says in regard to indulgences that the Roman Church cannot do what it actually does is a heretic.

Come now, Martin, and bring your theses to the table.

Martin (1. 2. 3): "Since our Master and Lord Jesus Christ says: > Do penance 2c, he wants the whole life of his believers on earth to be > a constant or unceasing penance. And such a word may not yet be > understood of the sacrament of penance, that is, of confession and > satisfaction, which is practiced by the priest's office. However, he > does not mean only inward repentance: indeed, inward repentance is > void and no repentance unless it outwardly works all kinds of > mortification of the flesh.

New Year's Eve. In these words you, Luther, put three theses, and according to the words at least four falsehoods.

The first falsehood is that the Savior commanded something impossible, namely, that the faithful should always have a doing of inward or outward repentance. For when he says, "Do," he is not speaking of inward, habitual repentance, which alone always lasts, but consequently of effective repentance.

*) In the Latin Jena edition, the dialogue is preceded by the following: Godly reader! The preceding and following writings of this Silvester and other similar defenders of the Antichrist we have added to this work with the intention that a testimony of the doctrine, which was presented in the Pabstium, may exist with all posterity. In order that you may see that Luther was awakened and driven by God from the most just and necessary causes, as the first of all in our time to punish the abominable and curse-worthy abominations of Pabstism and to bring to light the old and pure teachings of the Church, as far as God has allowed it. For this greatest good deed of all, praise and glory be to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for ever and ever. Amen,

316 L. V. a. 1,348-S50. 15. Des Silvester Prierias Dialog. W. XVIII, 85-87. 317

inward or outward. For doing is either an action or not without action.

The second is that the word of Christ, who says, "Repent," cannot be understood of sacramental repentance. For repentance is usually taken in three ways: Namely, first, as a certain virtue, the object of which is sin, inasmuch as it is to be corrected; but its action is the sorrow of the will over sin, but it is itself a moral state which produces the said action in relation to the aforesaid object. Secondly, penance is a sacrament, the parts of which are repentance, confession, and satisfaction. Thirdly, it is usually taken for the atonement imposed by the priest, and of all mortification of the flesh. But from any of these three ways, I say, not only can, but must also be understood the aforementioned word of Christ, since he himself has sufficiently commanded to do good.

The third falsehood is in man, that is, in you, namely, that Christ does not intend to speak only of inward repentance. For though it is true in itself, yet in regard to you, who want Christ to signify with these words a repentance in the whole life, it cannot be understood of the outward, since it must be interrupted by sleep and joy, rejoicing with the joyful, and the like. Therefore you can understand it only from the inner repentance; and also not from every one, but from the always present one, because also an inner action of the free will we necessarily interrupt in sleep.

The fourth falsehood is that inward repentance is not repentance if it does not outwardly work all kinds of death to the flesh. Yes, I say that the outward without the inward is none, but the inward alone can make man blessed. However, this statement of yours can also have a true meaning intended by the Savior, namely, that all inward repentance works outwardly all kinds of deaths of the flesh, that is, according to place and time, that is, when, where, and how it is necessary; but this meaning seems to be impossible to you.

Martin (4): "Therefore, repentance and sorrow, that is, true > repentance, last as long as anyone is displeased with himself, that > is, until the entrance out of this into eternal life."

If you, Martin, understand by punishment the outer mortification, what follows from this? That you distinguish punishment in contrast to displeasure with oneself and to inward repentance; but this can only be understood as said, the

That is, according to time and place; otherwise this doctrine is false, impossible and erroneous. Moreover, one can only speak of displeasure with oneself when it refers to the truly penitent; for no one who is under divine grace hates himself, any more than he hates his neighbor, whom he loves just as he loves himself.

Martin (5): "The pope does not want to, nor can he, remit some > other chastisements outside of those that he has imposed at his > pleasure, or according to the canonum, that is, papal statutes."

Silv. Provided that the Church grants by way of indulgence the deliverance of one or more souls from Purgatory, which she cannot do unless she remits the punishment imposed by God; provided also that the Church simply gives plenary indulgence, namely, by remitting all punishments without remembering those imposed, so that the soul, after lawfully obtaining such an indulgence, when it separates from the body, ascends immediately to heaven, according to the declaration of the saints: I say that you, Martin, have a bad opinion about a deed of the Church concerning faith or morals; For, in the possible case that the sinner is held to the punishment imposed on him by the priest, likewise also to that imposed by the canon, and further still, if these do not sufficiently purify him, also, thirdly, to the punishment to be imposed on him by God, then (according to you) in such a case the dying man, who has properly obtained a plenary indulgence, would not immediately go to heaven, although the indulgence was given to him for deliverance from purgatory, and if he were there, he would not be delivered either; and so you have an evil opinion concerning a deed of the church and deviate from the saints. And therefore, in my judgment, this thesis is heretical.

Therefore, St. Thomas also says in the 20th Distinction of the 4th book: This opinion, namely, that the indulgence should have value only for the remission of the punishment imposed by the priest or a canon, is contrary to the privilege given to Peter, that what he remits on earth should also be remitted in heaven. And besides, says St. Thomas, according to this opinion the Church, by granting such indulgences, would harm men more than help them; for by absolving them from the penances imposed, she would consign them to still more severe ones, that is, to those of the purgatory. Thus far St. Thomas. If, however, the indulgence is not perfect, -not even given in respect of a certain (quotam) part of the

318 L. V. a. 1,350-352. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 87-90. 319

If, for example, the third part of the penalties is forgiven and no soul is released from purgatory, then this thesis could have a semblance in that it says "the pope does not want to", because he usually says: "We release from the imposed penances"; but because it adds: "nor can", the thesis is heretical in that it takes away or diminishes the prerogative of Christ given to the church.

Martin (6): "The pope cannot remit guilt, except by declaring and > confirming what has been forgiven by God, or by doing so in the cases > he has reserved for him. Which cases, if they were despised, the debt > would remain wholly undone or unremitted."

Although this thesis has a certain semblance in the case of those who in repentance submit to the keys of the church and are thus justified from guilt, in the case of those who are not completely repentant, who (according to the interpretation of the saints) become repentant through the power of the keys, not only the pope, but also every priest remits sins only in an executive and official manner, that is, by giving the keys and sacraments to the sinners, but they do not remit them out of authority, but this is a matter of a higher power. Therefore, I call this thesis false, and for the sake of dispute, I maintain that it is heretical, even if those who have issued it are not heretics.

Martin (7): "God does not forgive anyone's guilt whom He does > not at the same time, well humbled, submit to the priest, His > governor."

You are, Martin, a leper, for you wear a skin of different colors, spotted with true and false colors, mixing little true with much false; and you make true Beda's saying that there is no such false teaching that does not also mix in something true.

Martin (8): "Canones poenitentiales, that is, the > statutes on how to confess and do penance, are imposed only on the > living; and, according to the same statutes, are not to be imposed on > those who are now i.e., already dying."

Silv. To this statement I say the same, what I have said to the next preceding one.

Martin (9): "Therefore the Holy Spirit does us good in the pope, that > the pope always excludes in his decrees or rights the article of death > and the utmost necessity".

Silv. You speak rightly, but what you say does not belong to the matter, since the pope does not exclude the article of death in relation to the imposition of penance, but in relation to the reservation of absolution.

Martin (10): "The priests act imprudently and wickedly, who save > and keep the penance imposed on dying people poenitentias > canonicas, that is, to purgatory, there to do the same > enough."

You teach rightly, but you allow what you reprove in others. For since you teach that the pope gives only those punishments which are imposed according to his discretion or by the canons, you absolve from these, according to St. Thomas, and lead the souls to the more severe ones of the purgatory.

Martin (11): "This weed, that the penance or satisfaction imposed > by the canons or statutes should be turned into the penance or > chastisement of purgatory, was sown while the bishops were asleep."

Silv. I say, as to the previous.

Martin (12): "In ancient times, canonicae poenae, > that is, penance or satisfaction for sin committed, were imposed not > after, but before, absolution, thereby testing whether the repentance > and sorrow would be righteous."

Even now, in our time, when the penalties are arbitrary, I say that the same thing must take place in every penance, according to the Clementine Dudum "of the burials", where John Andreae also says this, except where it is beyond doubt that the penitent will accept and fulfill the penance to be imposed.

Martin (13): "The dying do enough for everything by their death > or decease, and are dead to the right of the canonum or statutes, and > thus cheaply released from the same requirement."

What you state is true as soon as the punishment is due only according to the canon; but because even that which the canon imposes is required by divine justice, you must deny purgatory.

Martin (14. 15): "Imperfect piety, or imperfect love of him who > is now to die, necessarily brings with it great fear; indeed, how much > less is love, so much more is love.

320 L.v.a. 1,352-354. 15. of Sylvester Prieria's Dialogue. W. XVIII, 90-92. 321

Much the greater is the fear. This fear and terror is in itself, and > only that I am silent about other things is enough for it to cause the > purgatory torment and anguish, because it is very close to the fear of > despair."

In these words, Martin, you put two theses and three falsehoods, and that quite presumptuously. For it is presumptuous to want to decide something out of our own power in these things, to which our natural reason does not suffice, moreover and much more contrary to what belongs to the teaching of faith or of the saints, who have interpreted the holy Scriptures in the same spirit in which they were written. Especially in matters of faith and morals, in which they have taught concordantly; rather, it is not only presumptuous, but also erroneous, not to say heretical, as is clear from the fourth foundation.

The first falsehood, however, which you openly state, is that those who are in purgatory do not know whether they will be saved, which you state even more openly below in your 19th thesis. But I say with St. Thomas, whose doctrine, as far as it relates to faith and morals, is both examined and approved by the guide of faith, the Roman Church, that those who are purified know that they must be freed, otherwise they could not ask us for our intercession, which they often do, as is clear from the book of Gregory's Dialogues.

The second falsehood, however, is that those who are purified should have other than childlike fear. For what they already suffer in the present they do not fear, because fear is because of a future evil, but other evils than those they suffer during their purification they do not fear, knowing that they will pass from these evils to glory, as it is said.

The third falsehood is that this fear alone is enough to constitute the punishment of purgatory, which I declare to be utterly false; for it cannot constitute it, since it is not present, nor in itself alone, otherwise God would be ungodly, because besides this (as you pretend) sufficient punishment He added others, e.g., that the devils were about Him (assistentiae), being bound to a certain place, the delay of the desired glory, and the like.

Martin (16): "Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem equally > distinguished, As right despair, imperfect or near despair, and safety > are distinguished from each other."

It may seem so to you, but it seems to me, together with St. Thomas, that those who are purified have a certain confidence of their blessedness, and therefore do not despair, nor are they even close to despair. But the aforementioned things differ like a perpetual punishment with the hopelessness of coming out and the will to be constantly attached to sin, which belongs to hell, and like a temporal punishment with the hope of coming out and the will to be constantly attached to God, which belongs to purgatory; and like the removal of every punishment and the fulfillment of every natural desire and joy, as it is in heaven.

Martin (17): "It seems as if in Purgatory, just as fear and > terror decrease in souls, so love must also grow and increase in > them."

One committed inconsistency leads to several, says Aristotle. Therefore, Martin, once the servile fear that opposes love had been established, you had to find a way to drive it out, which could not be done more appropriately than by increasing what opposes fear. But I, who follow the footsteps of the saints and not new sayings, say with St. Thomas that he who suffers purgatory is a pilgrim, so to speak, in so far as he is kept back from blessedness, but not as such, therefore he does not grow in love. Otherwise, it would be a blessing for them to be in purgatory for a long time, so that they would emerge all the more perfect and complete.

Martin (18): "It also seems to be unproven, either by good causes > or by Scripture, that the souls in Purgatory are out of the state of > merit or increase in love."

Even if this could not be proved by a statement of Scripture or of the church, which would show this to be necessary (which I do not want to establish or reject at present, since I am answering you extemporaneously and also only what occurs to me), it is nevertheless proved by the testimony of the saints, which brings about a probable proof. But you, who establish such things by your testimony, see that you do not act presumptuously.

Martin (19): "This also seems to be unproven, that the souls in > purgatory are at least all certain of their bliss and unconcerned, > although we are already quite certain of it".

322 L.v. a. 1,354-3S6. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 92-94. 323

This is, as already said, at least in a probable way proven, both from the testimony of the saints and from experience; for they often ask for intercession, as it is manifoldly illuminated by St. Gregory from the Book of Dialogues.

Martin (20): "Therefore the pope does not mean nor understand by > these words 'perfect forgiveness of all chastisements' that all > kinds of chastisements are forgiven in general, but means only the > chastisement which he himself has inflicted."

I will leave aside what the pope intends or does not intend, and say that if there is talk of ability, the pope can, for a reasonable cause, remit all punishment, whether imposed or not, as St. Thomas teaches. But to say the contrary is heretical and contrary to the privilege granted by the Lord to Peter, as has been said.

Martin (21): "Therefore the preachers of indulgences are mistaken > who say that through the pope's indulgence a man is freed from all > torment and becomes blessed".

Silv. I say, as above in the previous thesis, and that you, Martin, who have a sore eye blinded with the very large beam of falsehood, look at the foreign splinter.

Martin (22): "Yes, the pope does not grant any chastisement to > the souls in purgatory, which they should have atoned and paid for in > this life, according to the Canonum."

To deny that the authority of the pope does not extend to the remission of the penalties of purgatory by way of indulgence is as much as to have a bad opinion of the doings and teachings of the church concerning faith and morals, and is therefore heretical.

Martin (23): "Yes, if any forgiveness of all chastisement can be > given to anyone, it is certain that it will be given only to the most > perfect, that is, to the very few."

What you claim to be certain, Martin, is indeed certain, not in truth, as you think, but in falsehood. For indulgences are given not only to the most perfect, but also to the most imperfect, if only they have the grace of God and the love by which they are capable of indulgences, and keep themselves according to the manner of indulgences, whether these be many or few, which alone is known to God. If, however, we make assumptions about the number of those who are blessed or who receive indulgences

and probable reasons, I maintain with probability and without prejudice to the truth of the matter that there are very many, which I conclude on theological grounds, namely, that the keys of the Church make a perfect penitent out of an imperfect penitent. Therefore, anyone who confesses with imperfect contrition obtains perfect contrition and grace, and consequently indulgence and beatitude, if he perseveres. But there are very many who confess at the time of indulgence, when they believe that they are in mortal sin, with imperfect repentance, that is, with imperfect sorrow, which happens when a person would like to have repentance and sorrow, and the grace from God to never sin again. Therefore, all such attain grace and consequently indulgence, unless they would fall again after confession before receiving indulgence. And even if they do not completely fulfill what is prescribed, they still obtain a proportionate part (partem proportionalem) of the indulgence, as St. Thomas teaches. And for the same reason I consider it probable that, although the greater part of Christians do not live in the grace of God, nevertheless the greater part still attain grace in death from God through confession with imperfect repentance; consequently, if they persevere, they also become blessed. And that the Savior says: "Many are called" must be understood in such a way that the whole world is called.

Martin (24) "Therefore the greater part among the people must be > deceived by the splendid promise without all distinction, imagined to > the common man of paid chastisement."

The greater part of the people are not deceived if they confess in imperfect contrition and observe the rest; for this reason, because especially the preachers of indulgences frequently teach that one should not refrain from other pious works for the sake of indulgences, since no one knows for certain whether he has obtained indulgences; likewise, because even if they do not obtain indulgences, they still do a good work that prepares them for salvation.

Martin (25): "The same power as the pope has over purgatory, > absolutely and in general; so also have every bishop and pastor in his > diocese and parish in particular, or among his own."

Silv. With regard to the present subject matter we are discussing, as well as with regard to the granting of gratification by one person to another, there is a multiple difference between the two.

324 L. V. a. 1,3S6-3S8. 15. des Silvester Prierias Dialog. W. XVIII, 94-97. 325

between the pope in the whole church, and a bishop in his diocese and a priest in his parish. The first is according to that opinion which holds that indulgences flow from the treasury of the satisfaction of Christ, but not of the saints, because according to it the pope alone could grant indulgences, just as he alone distributes what is common to the whole church, of which kind the said treasury is. But because I consider this opinion to be a false one, I say that there is another difference, because the pope is the dispenser of an infinite treasure, since he dispenses the satisfaction of Christ, while the others do not, but only the merits of their subordinates. But from this follows another difference, because only the pope gives plenary indulgences, since he alone is certain that the treasure he is able to distribute is sufficient to redeem all punishments. Another difference is that the pope gives out the goods that the others give out, but not vice versa; therefore he limits and restricts the power of the others, not vice versa. But whether a priest can grant indulgences, I will not discuss now.

Martin (26): "The pope does very well not to give forgiveness to > souls by force of the key (which he does not have), but by help or > intercession."

As for indulgences, according to the doctrine of the saints, the pope has the key of jurisdiction also over purgatory; but he does not absolve the souls from the guilt or imputation of punishments, but he apportions to them that by which they can pay their punishment or debt, by apporting and apportioning to them the satisfaction of Christ or others.

Martin (27): "They preach humanity, who pretend that as soon as > the penny is thrown into the box, the soul will leave purgatory.

The preacher who says that a soul imprisoned in purgatory will be led out at the moment when the perfect indulgence has been granted, that is, when the gold florin has been thrown into the basin, is not preaching humanity, but the pure and catholic truth. But you teach the opposite; if you persist in it, then, according to what has been said before, see what you earn by rebuking an action and teaching of the holy Roman church. And a preacher of indulgences who teaches such things is no more reprehensible than a cook who seasons strong food for a stomach in disgust.

Martin (28): "This is certain, as soon as the penny rings in the > box, that profit and avarice come, increase and become greater; but > the shell, or the intercession of the church stands alone in God's > will and pleasure.

It is also certain, Martin, that this thesis is defamatory and comes from a man who sets his mouth against heaven; and it is no less certain that it is erroneous and heretical to say that, where there is a reasonable cause, the pope cannot, according to his will, give more or less of the intercession of one to another, since God has bestowed this upon him.

Martin (29): "Who knows if all the souls in Purgatory will be > redeemed, as it is said to have happened with St. Severino and > Paschali?"

The question of whether the punishment of purgatory is voluntary or not is a matter of many distinctions in the matter of punishment. The doctor angelicus Thomas Aquinas, in the 4th question of his 21st Distinction: Whether the punishment of purgatory is voluntary? makes many distinctions concerning punishment and concludes thus: "In and of itself, no punishment is voluntary, for therein rests the very nature and essence of punishment, that it is contrary to the will, but conditionally or through the assumption of a certain end purpose, punishment may become voluntary, as, for example, someone may want to suffer burning in order to be healed. And this is the case in two ways.

Sometimes we attain some good through the punishment, as is evident from the example of burning, and so the will itself absorbs the punishment, as is evident in the case of satisfaction, which is meritorious in this life. Sometimes, however, no good comes to us through the punishment, but we cannot come to any good without punishment, as is evident in natural death, namely, without it one does not enter the kingdom of heaven, and there the will does not take the punishment upon itself, but endures it, and in regard to this it is called a voluntary one; and so, he says, the punishment of the purgatory is a voluntary one.

From these words of St. Thomas it is clear that those who are in purgatory do not choose this punishment, but patiently endure it when it is inflicted upon them, and yet would gladly be free of it if they could. In addition to this, a soul that is pleasing to God and separated from Him has no greater desire than to see God, since all its will is directed toward this as toward its ultimate goal, even if it suffers patiently according to God's will. Therefore, if she is with God's will

326 L. V. a. 1,35S-360. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 97-99. 327

If she could become free from the punishment that prevents her from seeing, she would rejoice in this to the highest degree, more than any other joy in this world could give us. But to assert the opposite is ridiculous and foolish.

Martin (30): "No one is certain that he has true repentance and > sorrow enough; much less can he be certain whether he has received > perfect forgiveness of sins."

This is true in regard to the living; but the souls that are purified are certain to have the grace of God, and consequently also to obtain indulgences when they are properly granted, especially the plenary ones, by which they are immediately brought from torments to joys.

Martin (31): "As rare is the one who has true repentance and > sorrow; so rare is the one who truly redeems indulgences, that is, it > is very rare to find one."

If you teach rightly, you teach superfluously, since you have already stated the same thing above; indeed, even more so, since you said that only the most perfect attain it, who are rarer than the truly penitent, since among these some are less perfect than others. I also say that the truly penitent are as many as there are not completely penitent who confess, since all of them obtain the grace of God if they do not put any obstacle in the way.

Martin (32): "Those will go to the devil together with their > masters who think they can be sure of their salvation through letters > of indulgence".

Those who think they are safe without good works because of these letters are fools; but those who, from the spiritual benefit of such letters, hope to live and die better and to escape more quickly from the punishments of purgatory, have the right mind, and those who teach in this way teach rightly. But you, Martin, fear more for yourself, that you, puffed up by vain learning, will never come to repentance and will be eternally lost and damned.

Martin (33): "One should be very careful and cautious of those > who say that the pope's indulgence is the highest and most valuable > grace or gift of God, through which man is reconciled to God.

One must be more careful of those who disparage the governor of God unjustly as well as falsely and erroneously. But they speak

(as you report), which speak true, only this reconciliation must be understood inauthentically, as having occurred through removal of the accusation that separated the soul from the clear view of God.

Martin (34): "For the grace of indulgence looks only at the > chastisement of satisfaction imposed by men."

From what has been said, it is already clear how false and erroneous this opinion is, even if only the ability of the pope is mentioned; it is also heretical, as if the pope could not extinguish all punishment through the indulgence.

Martin (35): "Those teach unchristianly who pretend that those > who want to release souls from purgatory or confessional letters need > neither repentance nor suffering."

I do not believe that there is any preacher of indulgences who has taught so foolishly; but in what intention you have such theses, see well. If, however, some teach that even those who are without repentance do not obtain indulgences in vain, because they benefit from the repentance that comes afterward, they do not teach evil in the opinion of several men of understanding, for just as the pope can make or cancel an ordinance from a certain time, so he can also grant indulgences from now on, which are to receive their force in their time.

Martin (36): "Every Christian who has true repentance and sorrow > for his sins has complete forgiveness of chastisement and guilt, which > belongs to him even without letters of indulgence."

If your opinion is that everyone who is due a full remission of punishment receives it, even though he does not have a letter of indulgence, then I will admit that you teach the truth, although nothing is said with it - for that God gives to all what is due to them in equity or in fee, no one has doubted. But if your opinion is (as your words read) that all truly penitent persons are entitled to a complete remission of punishments even without the aforementioned letters, then this is heretical, and you overturn and nullify all penitential canons, also the third part of the sacrament of penance, namely, satisfaction, and all rights that speak of the imposition of a salutary penance, and purgatory; unless you want to say that remission of all punishment and expiation of all punishment are the same thing, which is in bad taste.

Martin (37): "Every true Christian, living or dead, is partaker > of all the goods of Christ and of the Church, from God's gift, even > without letters of indulgence."

328 V. a. 1,360-362. 15. Des Silvester Prierias Dialog. W. XVIII, SS-I02. 329

According to the doctrine of the saints, there are two things in a good work, such as fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, by which the debt of punishment is paid off. One is the merit, which can come to no one but the one who does it, who alone is given the reward due for the work. The other is gratification, which is something other than merit. Therefore, he who gives alms for his father's soul earns merit for himself, but makes amends for his friend in order to redeem the guilt of punishment. For who dares to deny that the alms is to the benefit of both? Thus, when you speak of the works of Christ and the Church in terms of merit, each one, although he is not rewarded for the merit of another, nevertheless, because he is pleasing to GOd, gains something good from the merits of others, e.g. the protection of God, as God remembered Abraham and saved Lot at the time of the destruction of Sodom, or at least the joy that every good man has in the good of others, according to the saying of the Psalmist Ps. 119, 63: "Make me partaker of all those who fear you" 2c. 1) But because this sharing cannot be fully explained in a few words, we leave it out. But when you speak of the same works of Christ and the Church for the sake of satisfaction, I say with St. Thomas that in the absolution of sins, out of God's goodness, through the mediation of Christ's martyrdom, some of the penalty is always remitted, but not the whole penalty, otherwise he who completely fulfilled the penance imposed by the priest or by the canon would go to heaven, even if he had not done God enough, which is heretical; nay, the priest might not even impose anything, except perhaps in the way of a remedy, for the prevention of future sins.

Martin (38): "But the pope's forgiveness and healing is not to > be despised. For, as I have said, his forgiveness is a declaration of > divine forgiveness."

You may understand this of guilt or of punishment, but in both cases you are wrong; for he also remits the guilt by means of dispensations and offices, and in the same way also the punishment by means of indulgences, as has often been said.

  1. Incorrectly cited; according to the Vulgate it reads: I am partaker of all those who fear you, i.e., as Luther correctly translates, "I am with those who fear you".

Martin (39): "It is extremely difficult, even for the most > learned theologian, to praise the great riches of indulgences at the > same time as true repentance and suffering before the people.

After you, Martin, have taught wrongly, you now also begin to disparage both the indulgence preachers and consequently the pope. But what you declare to be difficult, I consider to be impossible for you and your kind, who (with permission) are not instructed in the doctrines of good science, holding two false doctrines that overthrow indulgences. One is that true repentance takes away all punishment, as you seem to imply above; the other is that true repentance always prefers punishment to indulgence, as is evident from the following thesis.

But it is easy for well-informed theologians to explain what you declare to be difficult, by saying that, just as in human affairs, if someone has offended another with damage to honor or property, although out of the offended person's good will the friendship is restored and the debt is repaid, yet the compensation is not always repaid, indeed, most often not even through an action of injustice: so also God wills, when the debt is repaid, according to the general law, that one should make restitution for his sins, so that he who by sinning had yielded to his will more than he should have done, now also suffers contrary to his natural will, according to a foreign (electivu, that is, following his own choice) will; and this is called suffering punishment for the debt.

Martin (40): "True repentance and sorrow seek and love > punishment; but the mildness of indulgences absolves one from > punishment, and that one may become grudged to it, least of all when > occasion for it is forfeited."

This is your main reason for saying that it is difficult to maintain both. But I say with St. Thomas that as long as the suffering of punishment for an offense yields any good, as in this life, since it is meritorious, true repentance loves punishment in order to merit and to protect from sins, but without contempt of indulgence, for both are better than either; But where punishments bring no good, but withhold men from the good of glorification, which cannot be bestowed upon them until they have fully expiated them, there one does not take the punishments upon himself, but only endures them, and it is the most delightful thing of all to souls to be mercifully absolved of them, and so it is in purgatory.

330 D. V. L. 1,362-361 III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 102-104. 331

Martin (41): "Let papal indulgences be preached with caution, lest > the common man falsely think that they are preferred or better > regarded than other works of charity."

Silv. You teach indeed, true; but one must be no less careful not to reject or limit it to the detriment of papal power and the prerogative granted by God to Saint Peter.

Martin (42): "Christians should be taught that it is not the mind and > opinion of the pope that the granting of indulgences should be > comparable to any work of mercy in anything."

But they are also to be taught that the pope is of the opinion that through indulgences he incites the faithful to works of piety, that is, of worship, as well as of mercy, and that it is better to do good and obtain indulgences than to do neither or only one of these two.

Martin (43, 44): "Christians should be taught that he who gives to > the poor, or lends to the needy, does better than to give indulgences. > For by the work of charity charity grows and man becomes more pious; > but by indulgences he does not become better, but only safer and freer > from chastisement or punishment."

They are also to teach that he who can do both is better off. They are also to be taught that though by indulgences man does not become better in his essence, yet by them he becomes concomitantly better; for to spend for the sake of obtaining indulgences for a pious work or otherwise something good is meritorious; therefore, all else being equal, it is better to give alms for the sake of indulgences than actually for the sake of merit; for there are two. Goods, namely, merit and removal of that which hinders and prevents him from glorification, that is, the guilt of punishments; but here is One Good.

Martin (45): "Christians are to be taught that he who sees his > neighbor suffer, and in spite of this redeems indulgences, does not > redeem the pope's indulgences, but invites God's displeasure upon > himself."

Silv. It is also to instruct the writers to write more modestly than you write, because it is not true what you write, since one has to follow a

The poor may refuse alms without sin, which is very common, even if it is refused with a venial sin, but without mortal sin; for by a merely venial sin man does not incur the displeasure of God, since venial sin is not contrary to grace and love, and consequently also not contrary to the friendship which we have with God.

Martin (46): "Christians should be taught that, if they are not rich, > they are obliged to keep what belongs to their necessities for their > house and not to waste it on indulgences.

Silv. You too are to be taught to divide more sufficiently, for the temporal goods of men are inadequately divided into necessities, which one is obliged to keep for his house; namely, those are necessities without which one cannot live, and superfluities; but this, according to St. Thomas, is the sufficient division: Namely, of man's temporal goods, some are necessary to him for his life and for his own, which are called necessary, without which one cannot (sine quibus non) supplement: "live"; but some are necessary to a decent life, which are called necessary, without which one cannot well glue]; and some are neither such nor such, which are called simply superfluous. From the first necessity there is neither indulgence nor almsgiving, unless someone chooses to die by giving for the good of the community. Of the second, men are required to give alms only in cases of extreme necessity; but except in the case mentioned, men can and must, according to the Protestant advice, give a part of this necessity, if it does not constitute an incurable good, but not the whole. Thus it is clear that even he who has nothing superfluous can buy indulgence from a part of what is necessary, without which one cannot love well.]

Martin (47): "Christians are to be taught that the giving of > indulgences is a free thing, and not commanded."

Silv. They are also to be taught, and good sons of the Roman Church, and consequently of God, must teach that a prince may forcibly levy goods from his subjects for the common benefit; but the Roman Pontiff, in possession of the supreme dual spiritual and temporal power, solicits only where he could command, for the building of St. Peter's Church, which is a good of the whole Christian people, and, soliciting, bestows from the treasury entrusted to him.

332 L. V. L. 1.364-366. 15. the sylvester prieria dialogue. W. XVIII, 104-106. 333

Martin (48): "Christians are to be taught that the Pope, as much as he needs devout prayer, so desires it more than money when he grants indulgences. Rather, they are not to be taught in this way, for this would be to deprive them of many good things which they do for the sake of indulgences; but rather they are to be taught that all the faithful, according to the duty of charity, are obliged to pray for the chief shepherd even without indulgences, and that the pope often gives indulgences in order to provoke the faithful to pray for him, as he always does in his chapel. But when he needs money in addition to prayer, he grants indulgences, not for the money, but for the cause for which the money is intended, e.g., for the erection of hospitals and churches. And in doing this, all who are concerned rejoice and congratulate themselves; only you, Martin, reprove in the first building of all Christendom what is praised in the building of other churches. But if you had received from our Lord a good bishopric with a plenary indulgence for the building of your church, you might have been overflowing with sweeter words and would have exalted the indulgence you disparage.

Martin (49): "Christians should be taught that the pope's > indulgence is good, provided one does not put one's trust in it, but > nothing more harmful than if one loses the fear of God through it."

They are also to be taught that reliance on indulgences, if it does not prevent other good works, is not at all harmful, but occasionally beneficial, in that it awakens the soul to thanksgiving. You should also be instructed to be more careful that you do not contradict yourself in a few words, since you sometimes call indulgences useful, sometimes only a sign of divine pardon. These signs are also quite deceptive in your case, since you write that no one is certain whether he has obtained remission of punishments.

Martin (50): "Christians should be taught that the Pope, knowing > the drudgery of the indulgence preachers, would rather that St. > Peter's Cathedral be burned to powder than that it be built with the > skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep."

The Christians are rather to be taught that you unjustly slander the preachers by sowing, against the order of fraternal punishment, such secret things, if there are any (which I hardly believe), into the public over the whole world, while you,

if you had known about it, you should have observed the rule of fraternal punishment, especially because this most innocent pope is so minded that no one should not only not act or live unjustly, but not even improperly.

Martin (51): "Christians should be taught that the pope, as he is guilty, would also distribute his own money to the people, even if St. Peter's Cathedral were to be sold for this purpose. This is not to be taught to the people, because it would be contrary to brotherly love; but if no improvement of the indulgence preachers can be hoped for from the secret exhortation (for this does not happen in the pulpit), then this would have to be reported to the superior whom it concerns, and especially to our Lord Pope, if there really were such, which I can hardly be moved to believe. But even if the indulgence preachers were predatory, they do not extort by force; voluntarily, however, no one would be so foolish as to throw out money for indulgences if he were so poor that one would have to sell St. Peter's Church for his support; therefore, I rather believe that you exaggerate and either imagine or embellish such things.

Martin (52): "To be blessed by letters of indulgence is a null > and false thing, although the commissary (or bailiff of indulgences), > even the pope himself, wanted to pledge his soul for it.

This thesis of yours, and similar ones, are null and void; for no one is so foolish as to stake his salvation on such letters without having the will to repent, either immediately or later on; but you do not seem to speak like a theologian, but like an actor who wants to attract people's ears completely to himself; but see to it that you do not incur curses, ridicule and punishment from divine judgment.

Martin (53): "These are enemies of Christ and the Pope, who, > because of the preaching of indulgences, forbid the word of God to be > preached in other churches altogether."

The ordinary tends to give way to the rare. Thus the annual feast of the saints is kept more solemnly than the all-sabbath feast of the Mother of God or the almost daily feast of the Trinity. Thus, for good reasons, the pope, depending on the time and place, allows any preacher of indulgences to impose silence on the others, so that he, as the inquisitor and ordinarius, may have a

334 D- s. 1,366-368. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 106-109. 335

The more the people come, the greater their support; and this can only be recommended. But to say that they are enemies of the pope, acting with his grace and favor, or even enemies of God, is foolish and ridiculous.

Martin (54): "It does injustice to the word of God to spend as much, > or more, time in a sermon proclaiming indulgences than on the word of > God."

Si lv. I say, as above in the previous thesis, and further, that you speak as if the publication of the indulgence, with the explanations and exhortations that accompany it, is not sowing the word of GOD, which I deny.

Martin (55): "The pope's opinion cannot be otherwise than that if > indulgences (which are the least) are celebrated with one bell, one > pomp and ceremonies, that on the other hand and much more the gospel > (which is the greatest) should be honored and praised with a hundred > bells, a hundred pomps and ceremonies."

I say, as above in the previous thesis, and further, that such theses do not befit a serious theologian; for they are childish and seem to spring from an angry man who lifts up his mouth against heaven and strikes out against the sting.

Martin (56): "The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants > indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among the church > of Christ."

It is no wonder that the people do not know this, since you, who have offered to debate with the whole world, have either not understood this or you have placed yourself in such a way as will be revealed. For these treasures are known and named, not by the light of our reason, but by that of the Holy Spirit, who teaches us through his saints, to whom you do not agree with your testimony, or invent other treasures like yours. The grace (veniLs), or indulgence, has not become known to us from the testimony of Scripture, but through the testimony of the Roman Church and the Roman popes, which is greater. Among them, St. Gregory was the first (according to the testimony of St. Thomas) to give indulgences at the stations of Rome, and the others followed him. This treasure, then, according to the saints, both theologians and canonists, is the merits of Christ and the saints, not in so far as they are merits, but in so far as they are pardons.

Martin (57): "For that they are not bodily, temporal goods, it is > therefore evident that many preachers do not so easily give them away, > but gather them up alone."

You do not teach, Martin, but you speak in a disparaging manner, not only with regard to the preachers, who, as you know, do not do what is theirs, but also with regard to the most innocent pope, and that unjustly, because he would not have done anything wrong or even improper, but especially under the pretext of his reputation.

Martin (58): "Neither are the merits of Christ and the saints: for > these always work, without the pope's help, grace to the inward man, > and the cross, death and hell to the outward man."

Rather, according to the saints, both the theologians and the more famous jurists, they i.e., the treasures of the church are the aforesaid merits of Christ and of the saints, not in so far as they are merits, but in so far as they are satisfactions, superfluous to Christ, but for the saints more than they use. And it is true that the value of these pardons works in us and is applied to us, but not in such a way that through them we are completely freed from all guilt; except in two cases: namely, first, when we are united with them through a full pardon; but secondly, when the pope applies them to us completely through the indulgence. If you think otherwise, you stray from the faith and do not understand the treasure of indulgences.

Martin (59): "St. Laurentius called the poor who are members of the > Church the treasures of the Church; but he took the little word as was > the custom in his time."

Even now you are biting in a hidden way rather than teaching, as if in our times the poor were not the treasures of the pope and of men. I believe, however, that even if the Roman clergy has departed from the original perfection, which I do not deny, you are not the man who could punish unpunishably and who would not have departed from the original godliness of the fathers, which I assume at least especially from the fact that there is (as I believe) no reasonable man who would not have declared you an unjust slanderer. However, God wanted everything else in Rome to be as good as the pious alms, which, to say nothing of everything else, is also indicated by the innumerable amount of poor people, especially in the case of unjust people.

336 L. V. Ä. 1,368-371. 15 Des Silvester Prierias Dialog. W. XVIII, 109-111. 337

Our pious Father, who does not know how to refuse a request to anyone, no matter how distant and ungrateful.

Martin (60. 61): "We say with good reason, without sacrilege or > levity, that this treasure are the keys of the Church, given to the > Church by the merit of Christ. For it is clear that for the > forgiveness of chastisements, and reserved cases, the pope's power > alone is sufficient."

If you can bring me a testimony of any saint who holds with you in this, I will deny that you have taught presumptuously with it; but I believe that you cannot do this. And I do confess that the authority of the pope is sufficient for this, in the same way as the authority of a king for the building of a castle, namely by means of a treasure, which is not the authority itself, but the object of the authority. For since the church gives plenary indulgences out of this treasure, if this treasure were the keys of the church or the keys given to sinners, these would work according to election (cum electione), so that they would not work in sacramental penance, as much as they are able, by absolving from every penalty as from every guilt; or they would always extinguish the penalty entirely; both are false. The first, because in absolving no priest intends it so, but he intends to do the sinner as much good as he can; but the second, because it cancels purgatory; hence the doctor angelicus teaches that by the key a part of the punishment is remitted, but not the whole. This treasure, then, is according to its nature the pardon of Christ and the saints, but according to its effect the key of jurisdiction by which it is dispensed. Therefore, the authority of the pope, through the key of the office (ordinis), can extinguish all guilt, and through the key of jurisdiction, to which it is entitled to remit, all punishment for good cause.

Martin (62): "The right true treasure of the Church is the holy > gospel of the glory and grace of GOD."

You speak true, Martin, and yet you speak of the treasure ambiguously, and just what you have said true, you turn to a bad purpose, as it seems and as it will also be revealed shortly.

Martin (63-66): "This treasure is the most hostile and > detestable. For it makes the first become the last. But the treasure > of indulgences is cheaply the most > > For he makes the first from the last. For this reason the treasures of > the gospel are nets, where in former times the rich and prosperous > people were fished. But the treasures of indulgences are the nets for > fishing the riches of men in the present time." .

If it is the dogs' nature to bite, I fear that your father was a dog, for you seem to be born to bite; moreover, I fear that something evil may happen to you because of your biting speeches and the raising of your mouth against heaven; nor do I see how you can escape the ban for many reasons, and do not believe that you are a man of sound mind, because you have published such through the print.

Martin (67): "The indulgence, which preachers proclaim to be the > greatest grace, is certainly to be taken for great grace; for it bears > great profit and enjoyment."

Silv. Having desisted from the pope, you now blaspheme the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as if indulgences were very useful not for the soul but for the purse, which I would call blasphemy.

Martin (68): "And yet such indulgences are truly the very least > of graces, when held up or compared against the grace of God and the > blessedness of the cross."

Silv. Those who set up indulgences as the greatest grace, which cannot be compared with anything, are to be excused for exaggerating (per hyperboles). But you, who compare it with the grace of Christ, see in what way you may be excused, who call it the least, since there are other graces and other lesser gifts, e.g. the goods of fortune; and I do not think that you could put forward any excuse which would not equally fit the preachers of indulgences: but consequently you bite unjustly.

Martin (69. 70): "Bishops and pastors are obliged to admit > commissaries of the apostolic indulgence with all reverence. But much > more do they owe it to watch with eyes and ears that these same > commissaries do not preach their own dreams instead of papal orders."

Silv. If you, who say such things, had a fair and good attitude, you would have kept silent; but just as the devil shows his arrogance in all his doings, so also you almost in every one of your theses show your wickedness.

338 L.v.L. 1,371 f. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm, 111-114. 339

Martin (71): "Whoever speaks against the truth of papal indulgences, > let him be a curse and damned."

Silv. You are like the one who thinks that he seals and spills in his own light. For you have greatly degraded the truth of indulgences, whether out of ignorance or out of malice, as is evident from what has been said.

Martin (72): "But he who is concerned or troubled against the preacher of indulgences, who speaks boldly and insolently, let him be blessed. Blessed be he, I say, if he is guided by love, by righteousness, by godliness; but whoever, against one who takes too much liberty in speaking, is even more improper in writing, he may be made good by God, but by men he shall be chastised for warning others.

Martin (73. 74): "Just as the pope justly strikes with disfavor and > banishment those who act in some way to the detriment of indulgences, > so much more does he seek to heap disfavor and banishment on those > who, under the appearance of indulgences, act to the detriment of holy > love and virtue.

Our lord, the pope, is considered so virtuous that he does not want his servants to do anything improper; but whether he, as you say, intends to intervene with the ban against those among them who transgress, I think you do not know.

Martin (75): "To think that the pope's indulgences are so great that > they can absolve or absolve one from sins, even if (to speak > impossibly) they have weakened the Mother of God, is to be furious and > nonsensical."

To say that he who has the fullness of the pope's authority to grant indulgences can absolve guilt in this case by the key of the office, and punishment by the key of jurisdiction, is not to be nonsensical, but to have a sound opinion, since he could do the same with Judas and with those who would have killed either the Virgin or Christ if they were still in this life. But you seem to speak like an actor.

Martin (76): "On the other hand, we say that the pope's indulgence > cannot take away the least daily sin, as far as the guilt of it is > concerned.

Silv. Yes, to you he cannot take away A venial sin even in terms of punishment, for according to you he is a mere sign, but not the cause

of remission. But I believe that none of the preachers of indulgences taught that indulgences are used to cancel debts, since it is known even to the most ignorant that the obtaining of indulgences requires the cancellation of debts beforehand, since for this reason even the peasants confess their offenses.

Martin (77): "That one says. St. Peter, if he were now pope, would > not be able to give greater indulgences, is a blasphemy against St. > Peter and the pope."

Although it is believed that St. Peter was holier than any pope who came after him and richer in personal graces, as far as the key of jurisdiction and office is concerned, it is erroneous, not to say heretical, to say that Leo X was inferior to Peter I and could not do everything that the latter could do.

Martin (78): "Against this we say that also this and every pope has > greater indulgences, namely the gospel, powers, gifts to make well 2c, > 1 Cor. 12, 6. 9."

I am afraid that you will bring God's judgment upon your head, since you speak so mockingly to the whole world about such a great pope. Oh, if only you had the virtues that are praised in our Lord!

Martin (79): "To say that the cross, gloriously erected with the > Pabst's coat of arms, is able to do as much as the cross of Christ, > is blasphemy."

Since I have already begun not to believe you, I also do not believe that any preacher of indulgences should have preached this in such a general way, as you relate; although every cross of every material represents the image of Christ in the same way and is to be worshipped in the same way, with the exclusion of the kind of touch, 1) which I do not want to talk about now for the sake of brevity.

Martin (80): "The bishops, pastors and theologians who allow such > words to be spoken before the common man will have to give an account > for it."

You seem to want to justify yourself, Martin, by this, as if you had done right in making indulgences bad against the commandment of our Lord, the Pope, and in belittling the preachers of indulgences, and the Pope Against the commandment of God; but you are

  1. We have taken the reading eoutaetns, which is found in the 1519 edition. The Wittenberg and Jena editions have oouotatns; the Erlangen edition: oontatns.

340 N.V.Ä. 1,372-375. 15. of Sylvester Prieria's Dialogue. W. XVIII, 114-116. 341

In this, you are by no means to be excused because you are a theologian, but rather to be punished, chastised, and forced to renounce all heresy.

Martin (81): "Such insolent and impudent preaching and fame from > the abbot makes it difficult even for scholars to defend the pope's > honor and dignity from the same slander, or indeed from the sharp > cunning of the common man's questions."

Silv. You want to attach something to the pope again under the appearance of the excesses of those who preach indulgences, by attributing questions to the worldly; but well, behold, the reverence and love for the pope will teach me to dissolve your indissoluble things. Begin:

Martin (82): "Namely, why does the pope not release all souls > from purgatory at the same time, for the sake of the most holy love > and because of the highest need of souls, as the most just cause; if > he redeems countless souls for the sake of the most perishable money, > for the building of St. Peter's Cathedral, than for the most unjust > cause?

God, who as the supreme agent directs and turns everything to his ultimate end, therefore he also wants all people to be blessed, would not give anyone the grace by which he is directed to this end and becomes blessed, unless on the part of the one who should receive the grace, a certain readiness for it and the merit of equity (congruitatis) were present, which readiness he wants to have replaced by others in those who cannot have it, as in the children. Nor does Christ, who bore for us the suffering of an infinite satisfaction, want to give it to us in any other way than when we join our insufficient satisfaction to his sufficient and superfluous satisfaction. Therefore, since God, after the punishment of the soul is graciously redeemed by repentance and the keys, at the same time, according to His mercy and justice, lays out for such a soul such a punishment as it has to serve, e.g. For what reason may the pope remit this punishment in whole or in part, to such a great detriment of divine justice, without any merit on the part of such a soul, e.g. alms, or fasting, or a prayer offered for it by itself or by another? Hence it is that all the saints, both theologians and teachers of papal law, require that in the granting of indulgences any

a reason must come to it, and such a reason is everything that serves the glory of God, or the promotion of the common good, or the like. Therefore, it is clear why the pope does not empty purgatory, because not all souls in purgatory have a reasonable reason to mitigate the severity of divine justice. If there were such a reason, it could certainly make it empty, e.g. if complete indulgence were given to all, even to the deceased, who would lend a helping hand in a campaign against the Turks, and every soul in purgatory would have a friend who would use himself for him according to his fault and perfectly. The love of the pope and the need of the souls is not a good reason to neglect divine justice, which God has decreed and holds inviolable, who knows such need and is full of infinite love and deepest mercy. Well now, Martin, and bring many more such questions.

Martin (83): "Item: Why do the funerals and anniversaries of the > deceased remain standing, and why does he not restore, or grant to be > taken again, the beneficia or benefices endowed to the dead, so that > it is now unjust to pray for the redeemed?"

There are two reasons for this. The first is because it is uncertain whether he who lends a helping hand to obtain plenary indulgence for a soul has done as much as is necessary according to his own ability; for he may sometimes do so too sparingly, in which case the soul does not obtain plenary indulgence, but only according to the proportion of what has been done to the whole that should have been done, as St. Thomas teaches. Another reason, however, is that the assistance, though it does not benefit the already redeemed, does benefit others; and this is precisely what the dying intended, who ordered perpetual anniversaries for themselves; since it is not likely that they believed they would remain in purgatory permanently until heaven and earth passed away.

Martin (84): "Item: What is this new holiness of God and the > Pope, that they grant the ungodly and the enemy for the sake of money > to redeem a God-fearing and God-loved soul, and yet do not rather, for > the sake of the great need of this same God-fearing and beloved soul, > want to redeem it for free out of love?"

Silv. What is this new ignorance of yours (to speak with displeasure) that you believe,

342 L.v.g,. 1,375-377. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 116-119. 343

Has God, according to His infinite love (because justice so requires), with knowledge placed a soul in such distress and must now, without any change on the part of God or the soul, lead it out of this distress? Therefore, a cause must first come about, as all saints loudly demand, if God's justice is to be either completely abated or at least mitigated; and this cause must not be given on the part of God (for he is unchangeable), but on the part of the soul.

Martin (85): "Item: Why the Canones poenitentiales, that is, the > statutes of penance, now long since in themselves with the deed and by > disuse done and dead, are still solved with money, by favor of > indulgence, as if they were still quite strong and alive?"

Silv. When your theses came to my attention, Martin, you seemed to me to be learned at first sight; But as I examine your statements more closely, you seem to me to be quite crude, because you do not see that even if these canons find abatement, in so far as according to them it is not necessary to impose penalties on sinners, since nowadays they are all arbitrary, they are not abatement in so far as the imputation with respect to the penalty, which is to be measured according to them, does not remain, except where they perhaps somewhere exceed the measure of divine justice by imposing more than is just; and in respect of this living and binding imputation of punishment they are resolved sums of money. Therefore you must observe as a rule that the Roman Church, as in word, so also in deed, does not err in faith or morals, otherwise you will stray from the path of blessedness.

Martin (86): "Item: Why does the pope not prefer to build St. > Peter's Cathedral with his own money rather than with the money of > poor Christians, since his fortune is greater than that of any rich > Crassi?

Where there is much wealth, there are (according to the testimony of the holy scripture) many who live on it, and perhaps our most holy lord, according to his rank and majesty, is poorer than you, who perhaps would not find time to write this down if you had a small income. But what, in the person of the laity, do you so covertly reproach the pope for taking money from those who freely give it to him, whereas for this common and exceedingly glorious good he could rightly command and demand it as the supreme king in the world, with double power?

Martin (87): "Item: What does the pope grant or share his indulgences > with those who are already entitled to a plenary pardon and indulgence > through perfect contrition?"

Silv. If anyone is tormented by so great a repentance that he cancels the debt for all his sins, the pope remits nothing in the way of punishment; but if you think that all penitents are of that kind, you overturn purgatory and are not a mere heretic, but an arch-heretic, as much as I think so, since I have not yet read anyone who has taught such infamies...,

Martin (88): "Item: What more good could happen to the Church than if > the Pope, as he does only once, so a hundred times a day, gave this > forgiveness and indulgence to every believer?"

Two good things would be done: one is that the faithful would have to repeat as often the cause for the sake of which indulgences are given, e.g. almsgiving or prayer; the other is that every new debt of punishment into which someone would fall again after the indulgence would be remitted.

Martin (89): "Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls more > through indulgences than money, why does he cancel and destroy the > letters and indulgences that he used to give, if they are still > powerful?

He does this so that, just as his predecessors once gave indulgences for buildings of lesser importance, and which perhaps are now already completely or partially finished, he may also grant them for this most glorious building, and for this the devout prayers of the faithful may be gathered.

Martin (90): "To dampen these very pointed arguments of the laity by > force, and not to resolve them by indicated reason and cause, is to > represent the Church and the Pope to the enemies in ridicule, and to > make the Christians unhappy."

The Roman church, which is enclosed in power in the Roman Pontiff, holds in the Pontiff the highest summit of all temporal and spiritual power and can (as the right decides) keep in check with the secular arm those who have once accepted the faith but then harbor evil opinions, and is not required to argue with reasons in order to conquer the insolent. But although the truth is quite obvious, I still want to argue with you with reasons to see what you are doing with your scribblings.

344 L.v.a. i,377. 15. Des Silvester Prierias Dialog. W. xvm,ii9. 345

may. However, the Church (with God's help) takes care to destroy the physical and spiritual enemies who ridicule her.

Martin (91): "Therefore, if the indulgences were preached according to the spirit and opinion of the pope, these objections would be easily justified, indeed they would never have occurred. If the mind of the pope were as you have described it, it would be a badly reported mind and far from the truth, as has become clear and will become even clearer when we will no longer deal with theses but with conclusions (ergotizatio- nibus).

Martin (94. 95): "Christians are to be exhorted to follow their > head, Christ, through cross, death and hell; and thus to enter the > kingdom of heaven through much tribulation rather than to be assured > of peace through comfort."

They are also to be warned to beware of your and your like's teaching, which is neither wholesome nor according to love, but degrading and insulting. The tribulations are indeed chosen by perfect men in this life, if they bring any good, but not in the future, as is proved above from St. Thomas.

This is therefore, Martin, what I have just thought of as an answer to your theses by passing over some trivial things that you talk about at the end. Well then, either refute mine or prove yours. I will do the same in the future. And so that you have a larger field to argue, I will also put forward as an assertion what I have written in the "Silvestrina" 1).

  1. The title is: "Summa Silvestrina oder ausführliche Lehre von den Sünden oder Gewissensfällen, oder auch Summa Summarum", Bologna 1515. 2 volumes. Nothing is known about the writing except the title.

*Luther's answer ) to the dialogue of Silvester Prierias on the power of the pope.

August 1518.

Translated from Latin.

To the venerable Father in Christ Silvester Prierias, of the Order of > Preachers, the very famous Professor of Holy Theology, of the Holy > Apostolic Palace Magister, Br. Martin Luther, Augustinian, wishes > eternal salvation in Christ.

I have received, venerable father, this dialogue of yours, which is really quite Italian and Thomistic. And although you chatter in it that you are as a

old man, weaned from battle, has been driven anew to the fight by my words, you are nevertheless preparing, like that Entellus, to carry off the victory over me, the Dares (as you say), quite without courage. But in this you represent Dares more than Entellus, in that you make great speeches before you have received the matter and put on the victory wreath (as they say) before the victory. Well then, do what you do; may the will of the Lord be done! Fare well.

I pass over your foundations, whose mind I guess more than I grasp, and must now also set up foundations according to your example and process.

The first is the saying of St. Paul 1 Thess. 5:21: "Test everything and keep what is good"; and Gal. 1:8: "Even if an angel from heaven were to give you the gospel, you would not be able to do it.

*This was published by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig in 1.1518 towards the end of August, at the same time as the Dialogue, whereupon it was included in the Basel collections and in the "complete edition" listed in the previous text. The Weim. crit. The Weim. critical edition, after whose text the present translation was made, contains it in Vol. I, 647.

346 L. v. L. ii, 7-s. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xviii, 120-123. 347

preach any other gospel than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed."

The second is the saying of St. Augustine 1) to Jerome: "I have learned to pay this honor only to the books that are called canonical, that I firmly believe of them that none of their authors has erred. But the others, however gifted with great learning and sanctity, I do not believe to be true because they were so believed.

4 The third is the provision in the Clementines, de poen. et rem., Cap. Abusionibus: "The sellers of indulgences are not permitted to preach anything to the people other than what is contained in their letters," which, as you say, is what the church actually does.

If you understand me, then you also understand that with these basics your whole dialogue is thrown to the ground. For in the whole structure of words you bring nothing but mere words, or at the most you reject the mere opinions of St. Thomas, who also (like you) goes along in mere words, without Scripture, without Fathers, without Canons, yes, finally without any reasons. And therefore, according to my right, that is, according to Christian freedom, I reject and deny both you and him at the same time; indeed, the testimony of the first and third foundations compels me to act in this way, and the example of Augustine in the second foundation guides me to do so. For if among jurists the saying is true: "It is shameful for a jurist to speak without a text," see how honorable it is for a theologian to speak without a text (who, after all, is most guilty of all), since the apostle commands him to be "booted up by the legs, as ready to press on with the gospel," and a bishop that e.r be mighty not in human conclusions and opinions, but in sound doctrine, of course that doctrine which he elsewhere calls "inspired by God". For if this counsel had been kept, the Church would now have fewer useless questions and opinions and more Gospel and Christian truth.

  1. In the 82nd of his letters (to Jerome). Augustin repeats the same to Fortunat (in the 148th letter).

Now let's get down to business, and at the same time let's receive our verdict.

To the first. Four falsehoods, you say, I would have put down in my first three theses.

The first is that "the Savior commanded something impossible, namely, that believers should always do a work of inward or outward repentance. For when he says: For when he says, 'Do,' he does not speak of inward repentance as a condition which alone always lasts, and consequently he speaks of inward or outward repentance as a doing. For doing is either an action or yet not without action."

These are your words. Truly yours, that is, so quite scholastic and Thomistic, yes, Aristotelian, that it annoys and disgusts me to refute them. Dear, where do you hear Scripture, Fathers, or Canons here? Next, I wonder that, according to this peripatetic i.e., Aristotelian theology, you did not refer the word "Thut" to the mere internal action. Likewise, how if I now also wanted to use your art and slander you and say: "The whole life" (of which I spoke) is not the same as "at any time" (as you interpret it)? But I still allow it and do not want to deal harshly with you, I want to honor your gray hairs and your dignity. Only the thing itself I want to try to protect. That's why I want to chat with you a little more expansively here, in order to throw your whole dialog over the pile for the second time.

(8) First of all, venerable Father, you are mistaken in the word "repent," as if it denotes an action that you can distinguish from a condition. For "repent" is as much as "repent of your sins," or, as the Latin translator of the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 3, v. 19, 2): repent and be saved 2c For also the Greek xxxxxxxxxx, which is translated "repent", means "repent".

  1. Probably not Cap. 2, v. 38, as the complete editions cite, but Cap. 3, 19, because here it is the word pokniternini that is important; Aat. 2, 38. is not ?o6nit6inini, but kosnitsntiani nMts. In both places, however, is the same word in Greek -uei-a-.

348 L. v. L. ii, 9-ii. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xvm, 123-12s. 349

means "Become of a different mind" or "Go back into your heart and mind".

(9) Secondly, that repentance as a quality, which can neither be understood by you nor taught to the simple people, is not one at all with me, but is invented by you from Aristotle, especially if you understand by it a certain, constant and idle quality in the soul: or teach it from the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Canons or reasons. I do not want (that you know it) you or St. Thomas to be mere masters in these things concerning the soul, which lives and is nourished by the word of God alone, and therefore Christ is its sole master. But I do not hear this one speaking in you, but Aristotle and a man.

(10) Thirdly, you act very wickedly in denying that the Savior has commanded the impossible; but you act even more than very wickedly in daring to call this a falsehood. For this is why we must always pray, "Forgive us our trespasses," because we never do or fulfill the commandments of God. Nor can we fulfill them in this life, as St. Augustine most abundantly testifies against the Donatists and Pelagians. But Paul also complains, Rom. 7, 23, 19, that he is imprisoned in the law of sin and does not do the good that he wants. Likewise also Gal. 5, 17: "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: which are contrary one to another, because ye do not do the things that ye would." This is the enmity that God set between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, that is, between flesh and spirit, between evil desire and love. So that we do not repent and enter into ourselves at all times is a mistake, although it is impossible for it to happen. "For God hath concluded all under sin, that He might have mercy on all" Rom. 11:32, Gal. 3:22.

Fourth: All the teachers of the church agree with me, but none with you. For St. Augustine also says that the whole life of the faithful is a cross and martyrdom; just as Job 7:1 calls man's life on earth a service of war or a trial; and St. Bernard says:

"To stand still in the way of God and not to go on is to go back"; and in another place, "As soon as you begin not to want to improve, you cease to be good." And it is this that in the Psalms the life of the righteous is called a way, a path, not a house or a station, in order to teach that his life is a kind of running and not a station; just as it is also said of Christ, the archetype of all the righteous, "He rejoices like a hero to run the way" Ps. 19:6. But man cannot always run this way, unless his heart be comforted, according to the saying, "If thou comfort my heart, I will run in the way of thy commandments." This is the renewing of the mind Eph. 4, 23., which the apostle Paul does not, like you, omit, but from day to day, from clarity to clarity, wants to have continued in the same image that is in Christ 2 Cor. 3, 18.; but not from us, but rather "as of the Spirit of the Lord" 2c; for the commandment is impossible 2c

Fifthly: In every good work the children of God are driven more than they act themselves, as it is said in Romans 8:14: "Those whom the Spirit of God drives are the children of God. And the works are (according to the judgment of all who have tasted higher theology) the very best that Christ works in us without us, and almost the worst that we, according to Aristotle's very bad teaching, work out of our choice and, as they call it, by means of free will. For it so happens that he fasts best who, absorbed in other better considerations, does not even think that he is fasting; for such a one is farthest away from the desire to eat, but not he who has in mind and resolves to fast. Thus, the one who thinks about holy things, or works hard at what is his profession, by which he withdraws from vices or keeps himself withdrawn, undoubtedly has the truest repentance, if he does it out of love for God and not for his own sake. For this is called living and true repentance only when one separates the spirit from the vices for God's sake and keeps it separated and separates it more and more. But you, because you only know the sacramental and initial

350 D.V.L.II.1I-13. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 126-128. 351

You have invented an impossibility when you hold up repentance before your eyes, the fervor and impetuosity of which cannot last without miracles.

(13) As my second falsehood you say: "The word of Christ, which saith, Repent, cannot be understood of sacramental repentance. That this is a falsehood you prove thus: "In three ways, you say, repentance is used to be called. First, it is a certain virtue, the object of which is sin, inasmuch as it is to be corrected; but its action is the sorrow of the will over sin, and it is itself a moral state, which produces the said action in relation to the aforesaid object. Second, penance is a sacrament whose parts are repentance, confession, and satisfaction. Thirdly, it is usually taken for the penance imposed by the priest and of all mortification of the flesh 2c As far as New Year's Eve."

14 Martin: Dear, is this the terrible battle-strap of the giant Entellus, so that you want to strike down the little brazen Dares? I am sorry and repentant that I have so much disregarded a certain father of your order in our Germany Tetzel, who has also argued against these theses of mine as ridiculously as ludicrously, but nevertheless by far sharper and more learned than you; and if I did not honor your gray hairs, as befits me, truly, I would dismiss this distinction of yours according to dignity.

First, who gave you or St. Thomas this power to divide into three pieces the simplest word of the simplest and only teacher, Christ? Does this mean to interpret the Scriptures, or rather to tear them apart? Dear, with what Scripture, with what Fathers, with what reason will you confirm this distinction? I do not believe Thomas; I deny Silvester, even if he is a master of the palace.

16 Secondly, you again slobber over Aristotelian philosophy from a moral force, from an object, from a self-generated action, as if I had never heard such a thing; furthermore, what is of such a nature that it cannot be taught among the people, nor does it even serve for the understanding of Scripture,

namely outrageous expressions, only invented to feed controversy.

Thirdly, you declare repentance to be a virtue, a pain of the will. Dear, by what power? By your own? What is that to Martin?

Fourthly, the most subtle of all, indeed, the most gigantic battle-strap of Entellus, is that you distinguish repentance of the first kind as a virtue from repentance of the third kind, which you call all killing of the flesh. So repentance as a virtue does not kill the flesh? What then does it do? Does it make the flesh alive, or does it make the flesh live? But that it does not kill the flesh is proved by this very sharp distinction of yours; for repentance of the first kind cannot be repentance of the third kind. I understand this to mean that repentance as a pain of the will, which in truth kills the flesh, does not kill the flesh. If a German said this, I would blame the cold air. Now, since it is said by an Italian who lives under a hot sky, I do not know what to blame, except that I think it is true what you say in your letter, namely, that you are an old man and that you are more absorbed than occupied in the Commentaries of Thomas; indeed, I think you are completely absorbed in them.

(19) Fifthly, you say that the penance of the second kind is also satisfaction; likewise you say that the penance of the third kind is satisfaction. And the penance of the first kind, if it is a pain of the will, it cannot be otherwise than that this pain also works satisfaction. Now I ask you, how much more satisfaction do you want to bring out of us by your distinctions? This I challenge, so that you may again defend this distinction of yours with seven other new invented distinctions, after the manner of the holy scholastic theology, and then say that all these are nevertheless contained in the word of Christ, in order to persuade me that the doctrine of Christ cannot be understood without the distinctions of Thomas and Sylvester.

  1. In the dedication to Pope Leo X, which precedes the dialogue, Prierias uses these expressions.

352 L.v.a. ii. is-15. 16. Luther's response to the Prieria dialogue. W. xvm, 128-130. 353

You must first persuade me to do so, since I hardly believe that Christ cannot be understood without Thomas.

(20) Sixthly, dear one, deliver me from this distress of mine: If the word of Christ can be understood of sacramental penance, especially according to its third part, that is, pardon, but the word of Christ is an unchangeable commandment, how does it happen that the priestly authority changes sacramental pardon by granting indulgences and remitting pardons? Do you not see that either the sacramental pardon is different from that which the pope grants, namely, the ecclesiastical one; or else, if it is the same, that there are then no remissions, and the indulgence is nothing but fraud and fabricated remissions? For man cannot remit what God has commanded and bound.

(21) Seventh, if atonement is included in the penance of the second and third kinds, but both are the atonement imposed by the priest, I ask, how can this distinction exist? For the sacramental satisfaction is no other than that imposed by the priest, and it is also, as you indicate, the same as that meant in the third kind. You must rightly forgive me if I do not grasp this. For I have a head of iron and a nose of iron, 1) that is, an unlearned spirit and incapable of your so high theology, if you will.

You see now how you may claim that the word of Christ not only can but must be understood by any one of these three penances.

  1. About my third falsehood you say: "The third falsehood is in man, that is, in you, that Christ does not intend to speak only of the inner repentance. For this is true in itself; but in regard to thee, who would have Christ signify by these words a repentance in the whole life, it cannot be understood of the outward, since it is by sleeping and rejoicing with the joyful, and the-
  1. Also expressions that Prierias uses in the dedicatory letter to Leo X.

The same must be interrupted. Therefore, you can understand it only from the inner repentance, and also not from every one, but from the always attending one, because also an inner action of the free will we necessarily interrupt in sleep. So much for Silvester."

(23) I believe that this seems to you to be perceptive and unshakable. But I like the fact that you say that the falsity lies in the person, that is, in the appearance and appearance, but in reality it is the strongest truth. Concerning the repentance that must be done throughout life, I have said above that if it is not done throughout life, it should be done throughout life. For this is why we sin, although those who are in grace are not at any moment without both outward and inward repentance; for they sanctify themselves from every defilement of the flesh and spirit, though they do not undertake that torture and fancied hypocrisy.

I am not surprised enough that you openly say that one cannot repent in joy, since repentance is all the purer the more cheerful and willing it is done; for God loves a cheerful giver 2 Cor. 9:7. Dear, rebuke the apostle who commands the Thessalonians 1 Ep. 5, 16., "Be joyful in the Lord always"; and the Psalmist who says Ps. 34, 2., "His praise shall be in my mouth forever."' Say thou, I beseech thee, that they also at times should weep and curse in the LORD. Therefore, we must always rejoice in the LORD, but in us we must always weep. In God we have cause to rejoice, but in us cause to be sad; therefore joy should be in sorrow and sorrow in joy; joy in secret, sorrow in public. But this is not scholastic; therefore I will postpone it to another time.

But that you say that even in sleep the act of repentance is necessarily interrupted, in this I recognize in you the exceedingly excellent Aristotle, as he prattles on in his Moral Doctrine, when he says that the wretched and the happy man differ from each other in nothing throughout half of life; for both sleep at night, that is to say, they

354 L. V. E. II, 15-17. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 130-133. 353

do neither happy nor unhappy things. How can you like true theology, since you are pleased with such a foolish philosopher? Listen to the apostle Paul to the Romans 14:6: "He that eateth, eateth unto the Lord; he that eateth not, eateth not unto the Lord"; and again v. 8: "If we live, we live unto the Lord; if we die, we die unto the Lord." Likewise also to the Corinthians 1 Ep. 6, 19. f., "Ye are not yourselves: for ye are bought with great price." For, I beseech thee, let us imitate and say Col. 3, 17., He that sleepeth, sleepeth unto the Lord; he that watcheth, watcheth unto the Lord. And elsewhere 1 Cor. 10:31., 1) "Ye therefore eat or drink, do it all in the name of JEsu Christ." I believe you will not deny that "to sleep unto the Lord" means as much as to be obedient to God's will; but to be obedient to God's will is surely the best repentance and cleansing from vices. I also believe that he who sleeps also lives; but if he lives, he surely lives to the Lord, as the apostle says here. Likewise, how dare you say that the sleeping believer is without good deeds, since he is most full of good deeds just then, when he lets God quietly act on him and celebrates the Sabbath of the Lord? But I will stop; for I do not know whether Thomistic theology has ever felt anything of such a theology; for it is Pauline, not peripatetic.

(24) Finally, as the fourth falsehood of mine, you state that "inward repentance is not repentance if it does not outwardly work all kinds of death to the flesh. For so I have taught. "Yes," you say, "external repentance without internal repentance is not repentance, but internal repentance alone can make a man blessed."

But you yourself cancel this falsehood of mine and say: "this statement, however, can have a true meaning intended by the Savior, namely, that all inward repentance works outwardly all kinds of deaths of the flesh, that is, according to place and time" 2c Thank you once for defending me. Here we agree to some extent with each other;

  1. The Weimar edition has here, as well as the old Walch edition, erroneously 1 Cor. 1, 10.

alone suddenly you deflect again and say, "But this sense seems impossible to you."

(25) Here I say: to you it seems to be impossible; but to me it is not only possible, but also always in being, to speak peripatetically with you. For all the works of the righteous are penances, that is, changes and renewals from day to day. This is not only possible, but also necessary, unless you belong to the ninety-nine righteous Luc. 15, 7, who do not need repentance, or if you are a companion of the Pharisee, who is not like other people Luc. 18, 11. For we groan continually with the church Ps. 119:176, "I am like a lost and forsaken sheep; seek thy servant," and chirrup like turtledoves with the publican Luc. 18:13, "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner," and fear with Job because of all our works Job 9:28, and say with all the saints, "Forgive us our trespasses," not only with our mouths, but with our hearts and with our deeds. For we act continually in the fear of God; but fear is the beginning of wisdom Ps. 111:10, that is, a change from unwisdom to wisdom, which is the truest repentance. By deed he shows that he has no need of repentance who does not hasten constantly to repentance, says Bernard. But I do not condemn your opinion, since you know no other penance than sacramental, and I do not know how long only it lasts. We are also grieved and confess that we do not do this constant penance as we should; therefore we do penance and yet at the same time not enough penance.

Take this, I beg you, what I have treated here so extensively, in good part, because it was necessary to show you how you do not understand my theses and how in vain you have derived this entire dialogue from such weak principles. I see nothing more in this dialogue that would not already be superfluously refuted by this. But I will. of my own free will continue to deal with you.

(27) Since you say in answer to my fourth proposition that this doctrine is false, impossible, and erroneous, unless by punishment is understood external mortification according to time and place, so.

356 L.v.Ä.n.n f. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xvni, 133-135. 357

is already sufficiently said that external repentance must be a constant one, although it cannot happen with regard to the acts of repentance as understood by you, but it can happen with regard to the acts taught by Christ, that is, such as the Church cannot remit; these are the renewal of the mind from day to day.

So according to your opinion you speak the truth, but you do not prove that my opinion is wrong and impossible. But this I cannot tolerate, that you say that the "hatred of himself," in so far as it concerns the truly penitent, is spoken of inauthentically by me. "For," you say, "no one who is under divine grace hates himself, any more than he hates his neighbor, whom he loves just as he loves himself."

28 I gladly admit that you speak with your own of the hatred of oneself in its most real meaning, if you only admit to me that I speak with the Lord Jesus Christ in a non-real way, when he says Joh. 12, 25., "He that hateth his life in this world shall have it unto life eternal"; and with the apostle, Rom. 15:1, "We ought not to have pleasure in ourselves"; and again 2 Cor. 10:12, "For therefore is no man proficient, that he should praise himself." But you, if you wish to persuade us that the truly penitent love themselves, must necessarily admit that they may also praise themselves as truly praiseworthy, good, just, wise men, and thus please themselves; but this is nothing else than, with the Pharisee, out of frightful haughtiness, not to repent, but to mock God. For this is how you, scholastic theologians, teach your unhappy disciples, namely, to be arrogant and to perish. But this subject is too vast for the matter to be treated now. For the error and ignorance about love has taken over far and wide, especially the scholars.

But I hold thus: a Christian man does not love himself except in God; but in himself he hates himself only, that is, since he himself is lying and void, but God is true, he loves nothing of what he himself desires.

and knows, but seeks everything that is contrary to him. But nothing is opposed to the lie and nothingness but the truth; hence it comes that, since he hates himself and always loves what is opposed to him, he truly loves himself, not in himself, but in the truth, which is opposed to him as a liar. Thus the saints also loved and desired the cross, death, foolishness, shame, and thereby only destroyed themselves; for they made themselves void, that God might be all in all. And this is what Christ said Matth. 10, 39: "Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Therefore, when Christ says Matt. 22:39 that one should love one's neighbor as oneself, he is speaking, in my judgment, of the perverse and unjust love of self, in which man seeks only what is his own; a love that cannot be set right in any other way than by ceasing to seek what is his own, and seeking what is another's. This is the opinion of St. Paul, when he says, Phil. 2:4, "Every man look not to his own, but to that which is another's"; and 1 Cor. 13:5, he says, "Love seeketh not its own." With these words he evidently forbids self-love. Therefore the meaning of the commandment, "Love thy neighbor as thyself!" seems to be this: You love yourself alone and wrongly; but if you would direct such love toward your neighbor, then you would love him rightly. This is evident from the fact that he does not command man to love himself, which he would have done in any case if self-love were good; but he finds self-love and transfers it elsewhere, thus making it right. Oh, one should shed rivers of tears that almost all scholastic teachers know nothing at all about this love, so that instead of holy love they preach only the most abominable selfishness! And they go no higher than that pagan, 1) who said: "Be your own neighbor," which yet another pagan, the poet Terentius, 1) condemned.

29 But that which thou sayest, None that standeth in grace, and is truly penitent,

  1. The herd is Cato. - Terence in his comedy: "^näris," Act 4, Scene 1, v. 10-12.

358 D.v.a. 11,18-20. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVHI, 135-137. 359

hates himself" seems to imply that he who is without grace hates himself, which is contrary to all Scripture, which everywhere abhors those who love themselves, as 2 Tim. 3:2, and also according to another saying Phil. 2:21 all those who seek their own. Therefore also with your masters the inclination to self-interest is condemned, as well as the enjoyment of the creature, the use of God and the abuse of things, the love burning in an evil way 2c. Unless you were moved by the saying Ps. 11, 5. where it says according to the Vulg.: "He who loves iniquity hates his soul", although in the Hebrew it says: "Hate his, namely God's, soul", yet I admit that he hates his soul. But he does this by loving his soul in a very evil way, as St. Augustine interprets the passage John 12:25: Love that he may perish, hate that he may not perish. But perhaps we are only talking at cross-purposes here; I only know that these words are rarely understood according to the truth.

(30) Against my fifth thesis, where I said that indulgences remit only the punishments imposed according to the pleasure of the priest or the canons, you say that I think ill of a fact of the Church and deviate from the saints, therefore my thesis is heretical according to your judgment.

If I ask you here, which then are those saints and which are the facts of the church, I do not see what you want to say to this; unless you would name St. Thomas, but with which I refer you to my first and second basis. For I do not understand how in this word of Christ, All that thou shalt loose 2c, a privilege was given to Peter. For with it no privilege, but a general and unbreakable law has been given, not only to Peter, but in general to all priests and the whole church. Why then do you, with your Thomas, apply this to Peter alone, and in such a way as to call it a privilege? Or if Peter can really, by virtue of this word, solve the penalties of purgatory, why not also every priest? Is this the way to interpret the Gospel?

  1. secondly, that you have two advance

The first, that the Church, by means of indulgences, grants the liberation of a single soul; the second, that the Church simply grants plenary indulgences, so that the soul, separated from the body, immediately goes to heaven, 2c, to which I answer: "Then you see, venerable Father, that these presuppositions of yours are not additions, from you and from a human day. Give reason to this faith and hope. Oh that thou wouldst speak true; rather, far be it from thee to speak true, as if it were in the power of the Church to deliver souls when and how she will!

32 Thirdly: Show me one deed of the church in which it has given deliverance to one or more souls, if you do not want to list the tombs of St. Sebastian, Laurentius and Pudentiana, and other places in Rome. But see what even you Romans think of these places; then with how many fables at least these places have been raised, whatever else they may have had for a beginning. But about this in more detail in my "Explanations". However, I confess that I doubt this matter to this day. And I am therefore not yet a heretic, even if I hold the negative opinion, as long as it is not established by a concilium.

  1. fourth: so says the gloss on the word mendaciter in the Clementine de poen. et rem. Cap. Abusionibus openly states that the souls are therefore not pulled out of purgatory by the indulgence, because they are already subject to the judgment of God. However, I will follow this text of the Decretal (that is, of the pope) or the deed of the Church (as you say), since the Gospel also agrees with it: "All things you shall loose on earth", not "under the earth"; nevertheless, some have made a counter-sanctimonious gloss by force and out of flattery. Nor have I ever seen any bull that would have it otherwise, except that now and then it is said that the souls are redeemed intercessionally; about which see above.

But you, who disputes against me with such pleasure "that joy already gives you the truth", also "with such confidence, that you do not feel afraid of Satan himself".

360 D. ". n> 20-22. 16. Luther's response to the Prieria's dialogue. W. xvm, 137-140. 361

  1. that is to say, especially with insurmountable force, that it is not permissible to think ill of a deed of the church, answer me on one thing: With which church do you and your Thomas people think in the deed of the church of the conception of the holy virgin? With the church of power (virtuali)? or with the church of representation (repraesentativa)? or with the essential (essentiali) 2)? or with that expelled and banished by you, a general conciliar? If, then, it is permissible for you to hold an opinion of the church that is not only not good, but obviously contrary, because you hold an opinion that has not yet been rejected: why should it not be permissible for me to deviate from you in an opinion that is neither decided nor rejected? Especially since you have nothing for yourself but the mere narrative of St. Thomas, but I have the clear text of Clementine and the revealed words of the Gospel, then Gerson, who declared many years after Thomas that in this matter the two opinions are equally probable, furthermore for me some learned and perceptive treatises of some people in Germany, who also condemn your and St. Thomas' opinion.

34 Fifth: That you make the case that when a sinner is held to the punishment imposed by the priest, likewise to that imposed by the canon, and finally to that imposed by God, then it follows from my thesis that one, having obtained plenary indulgence, does not immediately go to heaven or is not delivered from purgatory; and thus I hold evil of a deed of the church and smack of heresy; to this I reply: See to it that you do not have such a good opinion about a deed of the church that you destroy the deeds of God. Therefore, I again put it to you that if a sinner has perfect and true repentance, and therefore all punishments are remitted to him by the act of God, what does the plenary indulgence give to such a one? But if he has no perfect repentance, what use is the plenary indulgence to him?

  1. Words of Prierias in his dedication letter to Leo X.
  2. Luther uses here the same distinction that Prierias had used at the beginning of his dialogue.

Indulgence, since the imperfect love of righteousness still remains with him, and the imperfect hatred of sin? But about it more extensively in the "explanations". For you are a complete Thomist who proves nothing and teaches nothing. Only of the punishments, which love despises, you make many words; of repentance, which loves the punishments, you say almost nothing.

35 To the sixth: I still do not believe that punishments imposed by God are remitted through the keys, and you can see my reasons in the "Explanations"; also you can never prove this; but without proof I absolutely believe nothing. And so that you know my opinion, it seems to me to be the most serious mockery of the church, if we teach things about which we can give no reasons at all. Also, it seems to me that even a deed of the Church is not sufficient here (although a deed of the Church is not present here), because both the pope and a concilium can err, as you will find in the Panormitan'us, who speaks gloriously about the chapter Significasti from the first book of Aes Elect. 3) Therefore, I reject your foundations, in which you distinguished the Church into essential all the faithful, representative the Collegium of the Cardinals, and virtual the Pabsts, as they read, and consider them to be nothing. For they are your dreams, that is, put forward without Scripture and any testimony.

I know the Church by force only in Christ, by representation only in a concilium. Otherwise, if anything that the church does by force (virtualis), that is, the pope, is called a deed of the church, I beg you, what monstrosities in the church would we have to consider well done! Not also the terrible bloodbaths which Julius II inflicted among the Christians? Not also the abominable cruelties of a Boniface VIII in the whole world, which are scourged in all chronicles? about whom the saying is said: "He came in like a fox, ruled like one

  1. In the editions erroneously äe eoust. instead of äs sleet. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 303.

362ii ,2L-24. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm. 140-142. 363

Lion and died like a dog. Do you want to persuade us that we, under the representing church and the church of strength, should venerate all those long intolerable abominations in the church as the most holy deeds of the church? Let not become true what our Germans think of your dialogue, namely, that with this dialogue you did not want to refute Martin as well as to flatter the pope and the College of Cardinals. But if the pope is the church according to power, the cardinals according to representation, the assembly of the faithful according to essence, what do you want to call a general concilium of the church? is it not the church according to power? also not according to representation? and not according to essence? What then is it? perhaps an accidental, word and name church?

36 To the seventh: I reject this new understanding of your Thomas, in which you want to have understood the word of Christ: All that you loose casts 2c, as if Peter could also loose the punishments imposed by God. I ask again: By what power, by what procedure do you draw this understanding from those words? Why does St. Thomas, together with you, not leave the meaning that the Church Fathers, especially Chrysostom to the Hebrews, have recorded, that with these words Christ meant nothing else than that the faithful should not regard Peter's binding and loosing differently than if Christ himself bound and loosed, that is, he confirmed his binding and loosing on earth. But herein it does not lie that Peter could also loose something in heaven or outside the earth. Or why do you not teach that Peter could also bind and inflict punishments imposed by God, since both powers are one and the same? Correct therefore the word of Christ, and teach thus, "Whatsoever I bind in heaven, loose thou on earth." For that this is your mind in the words of Christ is clear. But how tasteless and ungodly it is, I believe you can grasp with your hands. Therefore do what you do. From these words of Christ you will never prove anything else than, "What Peter cannot bind, that he cannot loose"; even though we are guilty of not binding all that he binds.

and loosened, as if God Himself bound and loosened it, so that the unity of His Church, which He established with these words, would remain intact.

(37) As to the eighth, you cite St. Thomas, that in my opinion "the Church, if it granted indulgences in this way, would harm men more than it would help them, for by absolving them from the penances imposed, it would consign them to even more severe ones, namely, to the punishments of the purgatory. So much for St. Thomas."

I answer: St. Thomas or someone else may have said this, but it is none of my business according to my first, second and third basis. It is only an opinion, not yet a definite truth; if I contradict it for the time being, I will therefore not yet be a heretic.

Secondly, I would like to be instructed by St. Thomas according to which dialectic the conclusion holds: the church only remits the imposed penances, consequently it delivers to more severe ones, that is, to the punishments of purgatory. You Thomists are to be severely rebuked for daring to impose on us the opinions and the often false thoughts of this holy man as articles of faith, and you alone see to it that, just as you consider nothing but St. Thomas to be worth reading, so you also want nothing in it to be considered false; in which opinion you have long been arguing against all universities and almost against the whole world.

Thirdly, I consider Thomas' reason to be false, that God still demands punishment from the sinner and does not remit anything without demanding satisfaction. On the other hand, it is true that God does not despise a troubled and crushed spirit Ps. 51:19; and what He remits, He remits completely, except perhaps He would like to impose a chastisement at His discretion, which neither the Church nor Heaven is able to remit. Therefore, when the Church remits imposed penances, it does not remit to more severe ones, because it has no power to remit or not to remit to other punishments. But about this in my "Explanations". Therefore, you unreasonably charge me with diminishing a prerogative of the Church and that

364 n. v. a. ii, 24-26. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xviii, 142-144. 365

this thesis smells of heresy. Rather, see if you do not act ungodly against God, since you, in order to elevate the power of the church through vain flattery, elevate it to the detriment of divine power by conceding to it what is God's alone. Therefore, forgive me, I beg you, if I am as concerned for the defense of the honor and power of God as you are for the elevation of the power of the church; and let us both await the decision and the verdict of the church or a council in this matter.

But I wonder why you choose to call this power of the Church a prerogative, when it is not done, as it seems, to tickle those who boast more of ruling power than of serving love; for a prerogative is not for the service of the commonwealth, but for the advantage of its own possession. And this grace we owe to your scholastic theology, that you have made a common good of the church (the power of the keys)' not a service of many, but a dominion of a few, since you have more your intention on pagan tyranny, than on Christian servitude.

  1. ninth: The same I say to this: that it should follow that souls would be more harmed by plenary indulgences than they would be helped by them, since they would thereby be consigned to heavier punishments. I ask you, what can the Church do to make the soul go to purgatory? She absolves them from their punishments, but she does not relegate them to purgatory; she does what she can. If this is not enough, the fault lies with the departing soul, but not with the absolving church; for it is not the power of the church, but faith that makes pure, blessed, and frees the soul from all evil. But this faith cannot be given by the church.

39 The tenth: Those harm souls who fail to instill in them full confidence in Christ and contempt for punishment, and only frighten them with the greatness of the punishments and make them fainthearted, insofar as they exalt the power of force that can take away such great evils. Let a soul be filled with love

their zeal will be as firm as hell Hell 8:6.

(40) Against my sixth thesis, since I said that guilt cannot be remitted by the power of the keys, because only if they explain and confirm 2c, then I have spread about this subject in detail, as you can see in the "Explanations"; because I also have set up this thesis according to the opinion of others, not according to mine. Your refutation, however, is nothing at all. For you say that, according to the interpretation of the saints (perhaps of St. Thomas), those who are not completely penitent become completely penitent by virtue of the keys, and therefore not only the pope absolves them, but every priest does so in an executive and official manner.

(41) I answer the first, that if there are saints or sinners who speak thus, I ask nothing of them: for I know that they err. I say that it is an error for one who is not completely repentant to become completely repentant by virtue of the keys; for, as the apostle says, "he who wants to come to God must believe" Heb. 11:6. Faith, however, not only makes one perfectly penitent, but also justifies. For it is impossible for anyone to go worthily to the Sacrament who is not already justified and truly and completely repentant. Therefore, the widespread myth of imperfect repentance is a false fiction, and in reality it is nothing; it might be understood as a hypocrisy that makes one more unworthy of the Sacrament. What more can I say? Your dialogue itself also confirms my opinion, which I have long held, namely, that scholastic theology has driven true and pure theology from us. For you see that in this dialogue I do nothing but oppose and punish scholastic theology, that is, the false understanding of Scripture and the sacraments.

Secondly, you yourself are forced to say what everyone on all campuses says, namely, that guilt is remitted by God alone. How, then, can perfect repentance come by virtue of the keys, of which all say that it comes by virtue of God's grace alone?

366 L. V. a. II, 26-28. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 144-147. 367

What is the truth of the matter? See that your refutation is no more heretical than my thesis, even if perhaps the person who refutes it is not a heretic. But if grace alone gives perfect contrition, what do the keys of the Church do but declare or confirm the grace that has already preceded them? Yes, no one comes to the Sacrament without hypocrisy, if grace does not drive him to the Sacrament. Or answer, venerable father, why is the baptized asked before and not after baptism whether he believes? Why is the one who wants to be absolved asked whether he has right repentance of his sins before he is absolved? Or do you again, by a new theology, want to make the object of the Sacrament of Penance not a completely penitent, but a not completely penitent? Consequently, repentance is not the first part of penance, but follows confession? And yet everyone says that confession is nothing without perfect contrition. Or does he perhaps begin to recite his confession only when he is absolved, that is, when he has obtained the sacrament and, through the power of the keys, perfect contrition? If this is the true theology, then my advice would be that every sinner be absolved before he is allowed to confess. And so let us do everything in the wrong order (this is what scholastic theology wants) and absolve even what we do not know. Thank God, or rather, woe to us unfortunates who put such trust in the creature and attribute such power to the keys! But pain and business do not allow us to go through all the errors that have been introduced into this sacrament by human ordinances; it is enough that we have given an impulse to others who are better able to do so. Thus there are four parts of repentance, namely imperfect repentance, confession, perfect repentance, and atonement; so far theology has already advanced with the help of philosophy.

  1. against the seventh thesis, where I said that no one would be pardoned from guilt except the one whom he God had subjected to the priest; which you claimed to be true, yet you did not pass by blamelessly

you have at least sullied me with the reproach that you called me a leper, because I had mixed some truths with falsehoods. Thanks be to you that you acknowledge me once, even if with insult, for true! But I wonder what may have happened to you Thomists that you are of such different opinion. For this thesis of mine is utterly detested by the Thomists and the brothers of your order in Germany. Whether you have a different Thomas in Italy than in Germany, I do not know, if you do not perhaps want to arouse the suspicion in me that neither the Thomists understand Thomas, nor Thomas the Thomists.

44 In the eighth thesis you refer to the seventh, that is, you say that it is true, but mixed with some falsehood, therefore I am a leper and a stain. So I also say, as to the previous thesis: Let the Thomists first agree among themselves and then argue against me; although I am surprised that you do not reject this thesis, since so many are convinced that it is false.

(45) As to the ninth proposition, where I said that in the decrees of the pope the article of death and necessity is always excepted, you think that I have spoken rightly, but not appropriately, or to the matter; for that exception is not understood in relation to the imposition of penance, but in relation to the reservation of cases.

First: Manhu Gen. 16:15? What am I hearing? What you say is too high for me; therefore I cannot answer it. If the pope reserves the imposition of penances even in death, I confess that I do not understand how you can say this of others than those that can be imposed according to the canons (for in the previous thesis you admitted that no canonical penances would be imposed on the dying); Here you say again that the pope does not impose penances); you wanted to understand by this, as below, that only the penances imposed by the priest or by God in the state of necessity are not exempted. But about this I have already said above that it is not within the power of the

368 D. V- a. II. 28-30. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. XVIII, 147-149. 369

Church lies to reserve or remit the punishments imposed by GOD, and the imposition of the priest is purely arbitrary.

But if you have this opinion, then you follow those common tales that the priest, because he is uncertain how much punishment he must impose, therefore cannot solve everything for the dying, but leaves this to the priest. First of all, who would believe that God would require of a dying person any other punishment than that of death? It is said of it that, if one willingly submits to it, it alone is sufficient for the complete remission of all sins and punishments; and this is very true, for "the death of His saints is 'worthy of the Lord'" Ps. 116:15. Secondly, if the priest does not know the magnitude of the punishment to be inflicted, who will make it known to the pope? But, you say, it is said to him: All that you will redeem 2c I answer: Does not every priest also redeem in virtue of the same word? This and the like you say only on opinions and teach in the church of God, what you cannot prove at all.

  1. In the tenth thesis, you accuse me of allowing what I condemn in others, namely, that I condemn souls to purgatory, claiming that only the penances imposed are remitted.

I answer, as above: I do not send them to purgatory, but the justice or severity of God, which can take away the power of the church only through prayer, not through the power of the keys. Then I advise them to die courageously, which will secure them from purgatory more than all the indulgences of all men.

You pass over the eleventh thesis.

47 To the twelfth thesis you say that even now, before absolution, penances are imposed according to the chapter Dudum.

I answer: You have not grasped what I wanted to say, which is also my fault, because I did not express myself clearly enough; but it was not necessary, since I proposed a disputation. My opinion is and was that in former times sinners were not absolved before repentance was fulfilled, which you could have seen from the fact that I added, "thereby to examine whether repentance is righteous.

would be". In our time, when it is only imposed, but not fulfilled before absolution, it cannot be investigated whether repentance is righteous. And would God that this old custom would be reintroduced!

(48) In the thirteenth, you admit that it is true that everything is solved by death, "as soon as the punishment is due only according to the canon. But if the punishment imposed by the canon is also required by divine justice, then you must deny purgatory.

I answer, Whether justice requires it or not, it is no business of the keys of the church, but only of the prayers, as Jacobus says 5:15 that the prayer of the faith of the church will help the sick, and if he has sins upon him, they will be forgiven him.

Secondly: Then the office of the keys would become nothing else than a "business that creeps in the darkness" Ps. 91, 6, because it would then solve without knowing what and how much it solved, which at least seems to me rather tasteless. For one should not make a judgment about a completely unknown thing. For the keys must work a certain and fixed thing. But this has already been sufficiently dealt with above and elsewhere.

Thirdly, it does not follow that I therefore deny purgatory, but only that purgatory cannot be dissolved by means of the keys, as below.

(49) In the four tenths and fifteenths, where I discussed what I considered to be the punishment of the purgatory, namely terror and fear and near despair, you charge me with three falsities and presumption.

I answer first to the presumption. You and St. Thomas are guilty of the same offense as I am; indeed, Thomas most of all, who does nothing else in almost all his writings but disputes and, which is something great, even questions matters of faith and turns faith into an "if?", as you know. Dear, why will you not allow me to argue about such things that are quite doubtful and undecided? Am I the church or more than the church that my disputations are accepted for decisions? But this

370 L- V. a. II, 30 f. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, I49-I5I. 371

is the Thomistic custom, according to which you are used to assert everything, even what you state in a disputing manner or read in Thomas; therefore you also believe that I also assert and do not disputate. But, as you will see in the "Explanations", if I only dispute in any part of my theses, it is mainly in this part; and I dispute in such a way that I believe to have proved my opinion more firmly than your opinion is proved; and yet I do not decide, but await the judgment of the church. Therefore I forgive you for calling me a heretic, since I know that this is the custom of the Thomists, that everyone who does not follow the opinions of Thomas must be a heretic, whether he likes it or not (at least among the Thomists). Now to the other points:

50 "The first falsehood," you say, "is that I openly say that those who are in purgatory do not know whether they will be saved, as I also said in my 19th thesis. But you, with St. Thomas, whose doctrine you call both examined and approved by the guide of the faith, the Roman Church, state that they know that they will become free, otherwise they would not ask for intercession.

I answer: I pass over the matter itself, because I disputire and have said below in the 19th thesis, it is not all certain, if perhaps also some would have this knowledge, about which I have dealt extensively in the "Explanations", if they have reached or will reach your hands. For I believe I have proved and demonstrated that not all know that they will be saved, as many examples of souls going to judgment 2c testify. Only your proofs we want to look at.

First, you introduce the testimony of St. Thomas, whose opinion you call the opinion of the saints, in the plural, perhaps out of deference. And in order that I believe this, you say that it is approved by the Roman Church, the rule of faith. I am surprised that among so many teachers of the church you do not sometimes introduce another or a scriptural text; therefore I again reject both you and Thomas on my second basis.

For Augustine is also accepted by the Church, more than St. Thomas; but Paul most of all, who is my first foundation.

52 Secondly, I wonder what you mean by calling the Roman church the rule of faith. I have always believed that faith is the rule of the Roman church, and of all churches, as the apostle, Gal. 6:16, says: "And as many as walk according to this rule, upon them be peace" 2c Dear one, let yourself flatter the Roman church only in so far as you let her be a disciple of faith, governed by faith, not governing faith. But perhaps this is only a quarrel of words, because you call her so, speaking only inauthentically of a rule of faith, so that according to the faith which the Roman church professes, the faith of all others must be directed. And it is wonderfully satisfying. For I, too, give thanks to Christ that he so preserves this One Church on earth by a tremendous miracle, which alone can prove the truth of our faith, that she has never deviated from the true faith in any of her decrees, 1) and that even the devil, through the terrifying maw of the most depraved morals, could not accomplish so much that the testimony of the canonical books of the Bible would not have remained with her from her beginning, and of the church fathers and interpreters, and the truthful confession of this testimony; although there are perhaps all too many who, for their own part, have no faith at all in these books, nor do they care to read or understand them.

Third: Dear one, consider for yourself this conclusion: souls ask for help, therefore they know that they will be saved. Have you not yourself at times been in danger of death or other distress, not knowing whether you would perish or be saved? If you have been in it, remember, I pray you, how anxiously you sought help and counsel, especially because you had no help and counsel.

  1. According to what follows, this is to be understood from the fact that all decrees, in spite of many errors contained therein, nevertheless hold the canonical books of Holy Scripture as the supreme guide of faith.

372 v.".ii,3i-33. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xvm, 151-154. 373

and, as that poet says, 1) that was your only salvation, to give up all hope of salvation. If you have not been in it, I beg you, believe those who have been in it. Where, then, is your proof: "They seek help, therefore they know that they will be saved"? How if the opposite were true: "They seek help, therefore they do not know whether they will be saved"? So, I say, it can happen that they are frightened in the face of eternal wrath and fear to perish and fall into the eternal depths, and "so that" they do not get in, they ask and seek help. This is what the Church seems to mean when she prays for them, "lest hell devour them"; as well as, "Deliver them from the lion's mouth." See, here the Church confesses that they are already in the jaws of the lion that wants to devour them, and that hell is yawning toward them. But about this more extensively at the indicated place in the "Explanations".

  1. "The second falsity," you say, "is that the souls in the place of purification should fear with other than childlike fear; for fear is because of a future evil. "2c

I answer: With your own sword I strike you: "It is presumption to want to decide something out of our power in such things, which natural reason does not teach us. Put away this presumption of yours, which without testimony you pronounce with such great confidence that there is only a childlike fear in purgatory; for I do not hear Thomas.

55 Secondly: I see that you suffer from the error, as if in this life there could be such a pure childlike fear that no servile fear of punishment would be connected with it, which is not possible according to the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, since every virtue becomes perfect only there, in the fatherland. And this is also the cause of this thesis of mine, that souls have an imperfect love, having mixed the same with the fear of punishments, that is, a servile fear. Or teach me how they can feel pain over the punishment, when

  1. Virgil, A614618, 2nd book, v. 354: Ilna 8ÄI118 vio lis, unUam salutsirt.

they do not fear it and have no aversion to it; unless the explanation of pain, as given by St. Augustine, would be different in purgatory than on earth, since he says: "Pain is an aversion of the mind to the things that happen to us against our will". So do they have pain? But this happens because they do not want to; but if they do not want to, they have a servile fear of punishment. Understand it; I cannot imagine that someone feels pain over the punishment which he does not fear or detest.

56 Thirdly: But how clever it is that you have said that fear takes place only in relation to a future evil, but the souls are in present evils. If you could think or have tasted even a drop of the life to come, you would not say that. There everything is past, everything is present, everything is future. In short, since this is unknown to you, I say this, that the punishment of the purgatory is a fear of the future evil, that is, a terror of damnation, as I have shown above by the example of those who are in danger.

Fourthly, regarding the fact that God would be ungodly if this terror alone were punishment enough and he added other punishments, I ask you to call your Creator more modest, you wretched creature. Is God ungodly because he did not act according to your head, which is filled with Thomistic opinions? Then you do not understand me either; I did not say that this punishment is sufficient, that is, it is the whole punishment that the souls suffer, nor did I discuss other punishments; but I say that this one alone is so great, so severe, that it alone could apply to purgatory, since in it lies every punishment; indeed, other punishments without this one, by themselves, are nothing compared to it, as I said in the "Explanations.

(58) Against the sixteenth thesis, where I called purgatory a near despair, you, on the other hand, set up the certain hope of beatitude in purgatory, and that on the mere testimony of Thomas, wherewith I refer you to my second foundation.

374 L. V. L. II, 33-35. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, I54-I5S. 375

Secondly, I doubt very much whether you know what a certain hope is, since it is your own opinion that man does not know whether he is worthy of love Eccl. 9:1.

Thirdly: I let this thesis go, because it is evident from what has been said above that, although salvation is not yet despairing for those who are dying and in danger, yet their condition is almost equal to despair of salvation; for every fear is, as it were, a piece of despair.

  1. In the seventeenth, where I said that love must consequently increase in souls, you come to me with your most beautiful Aristotle, that where one inconsistency is committed, it would entail several others for me; for it is no less inconsistent that I have established a servile fear in souls than an increase of love. Then you pursue your very good things that suit you and assert the opposite with St. Thomas, for which you (according to your custom) cite nothing but new words, namely, that according to Thomas, souls are pilgrims in a sense, not par excellence. Who then has told you and Thomas that they are pilgrims in a way, not par excellence? Aristotle in his fallacies (Elenchis)? Who has allowed you the presumption (as you call it) to ponder what no reason is sufficient for us, especially not the natural one, since you do not dispute but decide? For instance, your so strong reason, according to which you say: "otherwise it would be a blessing for them to be long in purgatory, so that they might emerge all the more perfect and accomplished"? This conclusion, I believe, can only be made by a Thomist, so much sagacity does it contain. For then it would also follow that it would be a good thing if no saint died, and if the martyrs suffered imprisonment and torture until the last day; for if love can be increased in the state in which they are, it is good that they should remain in it long, that is, that they should always die for Christ, in order to become ever more perfect. So far as thou, who, as thou sayest, followest not new words, but the footsteps of the saints.
  1. the eighteenth thesis where you saw.

You pass over the fact that I insisted on testimonies of Scripture or reason, only that you pretend that through the testimony of the saints (in the plural), that is, of St. Thomas, a probable proof arises.

I admit that it is a probable proof, that is, a doubtful and dialectical one, which one does not necessarily have to agree with in faith. And with this confession of yours I want to bind you, that as often as you cite St. Thomas to me, when he speaks without scripture, without fathers, without church, without reason, you remember that you act as a dialecticus, and not as a theologian, that is, that you only put forward what is probable, but nothing credible. What now? In this way we are already in complete agreement with each other and the disputation has an end; for what you assert I deny. Do you now want us to stop? For you bring nothing further than St. Thomas; only that you still sometimes persecute me with invectives, but everywhere try to make me hateful to the pope. But I will pass over that for a moment.

  1. Passing by the nineteenth thesis, you say the same thing that you said above in the fourteenth and fifteenth theses, to which I also refer you.
  2. Against the twentieth, you say that the pope can remit both the imposed and the unimposed punishment, as St. Thomas teaches; but to say the opposite is heretical and contrary to the prerogative given to Peter.

I answer: I deny it, and the reason for my denial is stated above in the fifth thesis. But I will be a heretic only if I do not hold it even after the church has decided.

In the twenty-first thesis you sting me with invectives; therefore I pass them over.

On the twenty-second, you say the same thing that is refuted above in the fifth thesis. I deny that it is a deed and doctrine of the Church that the penalties of purgatory are remitted by way of indulgence; although I am surprised that you have not approved this thesis, since you have taught and admitted above that souls in purgatory

376 D. V- a. II, 35-37. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. XVIII, 156-159. 377

would not have the canonical penalties, as this thesis of mine says.

In the twenty-third, you repeat with great verbosity what was said above in the sixth thesis about the not complete and the perfect repentance; what I said there, accept as said here. For it is not a theological but an erroneous reason that one who is not completely repentant becomes a completely repentant one by virtue of the keys; then the not complete repentance or that imperfect pain is not the same as wanting to have that pain and the grace of God, but it is either deceitful hypocrisy or the truest beginning of grace; as Augustine says: "The desire for grace is the beginning of grace"; and elsewhere: '"Wanting to be righteous is a great part of righteousness."' Even the apostles remained on this level; Rom. 7, 18. says: "I may will, but I cannot do good." So it is not from incomplete repentance, nor from free will, but from grace that such a desire comes before all power of the keys.

Secondly: I very readily admit what you say, that indulgences can be given even to the most imperfect; nor does this deny my thesis; indeed, I believe that the remission of priestly punishment can be given to the unworthy and unrepentant. But my opinion is that a remission of all punishments, both those imposed by God and those imposed by man, can only be given to the most perfect, indeed, in this life to none; for there remains the punishment of death, the pain of the heart 2c And there is no doubt about this thesis according to the testimony of experience and the opinion of everyone.

(65) On the twenty-fourth proposition, you deny that the people will be deceived if they confess only with not complete repentance 2c I reject this, as said above about not complete repentance.

Secondly: That you add that one must not omit other good works for the sake of indulgences, since no one knows for certain whether he has obtained indulgences, "likewise, because even if they do not obtain indulgences,

but do a pious work that will enable them to salvation"; so I answer:

O miserable protection for indulgences! I pray thee, if it be uncertain whether we shall obtain indulgences, what shall we do? what doest thou teach? The apostle forbids 1 Cor. 9:26 to run into the unknown. These things of yours are quite true with me; yea, with all. Hence it is that with all confidence I persuade men to leave off indulgences and do good to one another, for here they are sure to obtain God's grace, but there they are uncertain whether they will obtain the grace of a man. Here you finally say and hold as I could only have wished; yes, more than I wanted. I, who am accused of being a heretic, an apostate, an erring man, have never spoken, nor wished to speak, so lightly of indulgences. Dear, what is an uncertain gift but no gift? Why, then, are the common people lured with so great an ostentation to a good which is uncertain to them, whereas without ostentation they might be brought to a good which is quite certain? In this way, not the greater part of the people, but the whole people is so badly deceived. What if I had said that?

Secondly, where is the power of the pope, where is the power of the keys, if only uncertain things are worked? Even Christ seems to have given nothing to the Church, since he gave her nothing certain. This is what the church has come to through the study of scholastic theology, that we do not know what has been given to us, and this we confess that we do not know, against the apostle, 1 Cor. 3, 16. But see my "Explanations". There I believe I have at least directed that one can understand what the keys work and what they do not work, and that not uncertainly, but certainly.

Thirdly: Another shred of this bare protection of yours for the wretched indulgence is that people, even if they do not obtain an indulgence, do a pious work 2c I want to suppress what I think here. Rather, see what you are saying and what follows from it. This, however, I will say: Can the people be brought to a pious work in no other way than through the uncertain hope that they will be able to do it?

378L . V. a. II, 37-39. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, IS9-I6I. 379

nce you have the right to indulgences? Tell this to the people and see if you get a farthing for such truth. For who would go to such trouble for an uncertain thing? That is why the preachers of indulgences are not allowed to teach this truth; and yet the greater part of the people should not be deceived? We come to these ungodly fairy tales when we teach people not to trust in God's very certain and clear mercy, but in their own very uncertain righteousnesses, which are nothing.

Fourthly, the indulgence would be more solid for the deceased than for the living, because according to you, it is certainly useful for the deceased, but uncertain for the living, and yet it is used mainly and virtually for the living. But if it is just uncertain, how can they become certain, I beg you, if it is not just indirect? I confess that what was said in the gloss to the Cap. Quod autem in the 5th book, first moved me to doubt the indulgence; and how should I not doubt, since so great patrons, teachers and preachers of the indulgence call me to doubt?

Fifth: See to it that the people, when they are taught to do a pious work for indulgences, do not by that very fact only do an evil work; for if they do a work of this kind, it is no different than if they hoped for indulgences. Here it is evident that in his work he does not have God for his purpose, but the creature, namely, redemption of punishment. Unless it were true what some say, that indulgences are a pious fraud, since the people do a good work for the sake of God and in the hope of pleasing God, lured to it by indulgences.

(70) What you say about the twenty-fifth thesis I do not ask, because it does not belong to the matter. You understand that my thesis speaks of the power of jurisdiction, whose power over purgatory I have denied above and below. I speak of the power to act; and it was certainly not my intention that the readers should be so deceived, but I put it as it occurred to me at the time. The power now is that the pope in general intercession for the deceased with the whole church

prays, the bishop in special intercession, as on the common days, the parish priest on the individual days of the week. So it is the power to pray and intercede; about this elsewhere.

In the twenty-sixth proposition, you say that the Church, according to the saints (that is, according to St. Thomas), has power over purgatory, and this by the granting of the merits of Christ.

I answer, as above: St. Thomas I deny.

In the twenty-seventh, full of zeal in defense of yours, you say that it is not humanity, but the pure and catholic truth that is preached by those who say that the soul leaves purgatory at the very moment when the plenary indulgence is given, for example, as soon as the gold florin is thrown into the basin.

I answer: O the kind gloss! Who does not know that the soul, as soon as enough is done for it, goes out in an instant? Did I fight against that? Who does not believe that? But also this gloss of yours was given afterwards by your brothers in Germany. 1)

73 Secondly: Notice here, and answer here, where you are pressed and the knot is in: whether it is called preaching humanity or God, when one says that the soul goes to heaven through indulgences. Now you prove this again by the deed and doctrine of the Church, that is, with your opinion and that of St. Thomas, and not otherwise; although you do not esteem souls so low as ours, since you say that one gold florin in the basin, but ours say that twelve threes (quatrinos) sthree pennies is enough.

74 Thirdly: Even if it were true that souls are redeemed by indulgences, according to what dialectics have you learned that at the very moment when the indulgence is given for the sake of the soul, enough is done for it? So you counsel in these quite hidden matters, as if you were

  1. Cf. the 55th and 56th thesis in Tetzel's first disputation.

380 L.v.a.n,39f. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xviii, iei-164. 381

all things before you. Could it not be that, while he was depositing the money, an angel, as happened with Tobias Tob. 3, 24. f., brought the memory of this deed before God and then visited the soul and only after some time redeemed it; or something else that we do not know?

(75) Fourthly, you use a very appropriate simile, namely, that such a preacher is like a cook who spices up strong food with random seasonings. Yes, this is exactly what we deplore, that these eaters counterfeit the word of God too much with random things and strange words. Then command those preachers to teach the people to understand their words in this way, and you will see that they become a mockery and a proverb among all the people; for no one has understood it in this way. Therefore I see how much they have pleaded with you to excuse and relieve them to some extent, because they are aware of it, but in vain.

In the twenty-eighth proposition, you call me a slanderer and one who lifts up his mouth against heaven; for God, you say, has granted the priest to distribute intercession according to his will.

I answer: I will not deal with you in vituperation, dear Father. I know that we can bear anything more easily than the truth. By your words avarice cannot be offended, for you do not attack it, but only color and paint it. For I do not deny that the pope can grant intercession, but that intercession should cause the soul to leave purgatory, I deny that until you prove otherwise.

The twenty-ninth thesis you first call my dreams, then you draw from St. Thomas a long speech about the willingly borne punishment, and at the end you say: whoever claims the opposite is foolish and ridiculous.

I answer: I am well content that you should be wise and laugh as long as you will, I may be foolish and ridiculous.

78 Secondly: I have only posed a question; but you, as an excellent Thomist,

cannot even bear (according to your custom) a hint that is contrary to your opinions; yet you prove nothing at all.

79 Thirdly: This distinction of St. Thomas is, in my judgment, quite false, namely, that there is a punishment by which we obtain a good, as in this life; but another by which no good accrues to us, as in natural death and the punishment of the purgatory; for though, as you say, without them we do not attain to a good, yet by them no good accrues to us. I answer, Thus you speak without thought, as if it were necessary to take the word of St. Thomas for a divine saying. Why then does the apostle err when he says Rom. 8:28 that all things are for the good of the saints? Perhaps, however, as you are at hand with distinctions (that is, for tearing up the Scriptures), you will say that all things serve for the best, namely, in this life; for so you are wont to slip, but contrary to Rom. 14:8, "If we die, we die to the Lord"; and contrary to Ps. 116:15, "The death of his saints is held worthy before the Lord." It pains me that such a holy man should have fallen so far as to deny that a good comes to us through death, especially since the holy martyrs attained the highest reward and glory through their martyrdom and death. Therefore, whether an angelic 1) or a human teacher may say this, I confidently declare that it is the most absurd error.

80 Fourthly: In the same sense, I have expressed it as probable, but without asserting anything, that the souls would also be perfected in love through their willing suffering of the punishments of purgatory; for it is necessary that they love and choose the punishments which they believe God inflicts upon them. For this is the will of God, whom they love above all else, or at least strive to love.

To the thirtieth proposition you repeat your old song, that the souls are certain of God's grace and their blessedness 2c; to which I have answered in the above.

  1. Allusion to St. Thomas, who had the epithet Doctor anMliens, angelic teacher.

382 L. v. a. ri, 40-42. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm, I64-I66. 383

To the thirty-first, you say that I am speaking something superfluous, because I already said above in a thesis that only the most perfect obtained indulgences, but here I say that only the "truly penitent obtained them, which are less rare.

I answer: You would have done well if you had left my theses untouched. You go north and they go south; so well do you meet their minds. You dare, my excellent father, to distinguish the most perfect from the truly penitent. Then, what is even more nonsensical, you make the penitent and the not fully penitent one and the same, if they put no obstacle in the way. I have already rejected above these little stories about the obstacle and the not completely repentant, and now I reject them again. They are human fictions, recently invented, without any testimonies or rational reasons. No one repents of his life if he has not been preceded by the grace of faith, as the whole church is of the same opinion. So what is this fictitious repentance of yours that you invent as not complete repentance? Also, no one is so perfect in this life that he does not need repentance, as I said above. But you seem to place repentance outside the church, only among those who are not completely repentant, which is a palpable error.

To the thirty-second thesis, where I taught that no one should put his trust in letters of indulgence, since the Scripture says Jer. 17:5: "Cursed is the man who relies on men," you wanted to defeat one evil in a very astute way, but you ruin yourself by a twofold one.

First, you declare those to be fools who think themselves safe without good works. Why, then, did you say above that one who is not completely penitent, if he obtains the sacrament and indulgences, will immediately go to heaven when he dies, since such a one is absolutely without good works?

84 Then you seem to admit that one can be secure with good works; this is Christian according to you, and Pelagian according to Augustine and Paul, since such works are in fact not such works.

by which we can be sure. It is only through mercy that we are saved, as the apostle says in Titus 3:5: "Not for the works of righteousness which we did, but according to his mercy he saved us.

On the other hand, "But those who from the spiritual benefit of such epistles hope to live and die better 2c hold right, and those who so teach, teach right."

I answer: Only remission of punishments is conferred by the letters and indulgences; do you then think it worthy to be called a spiritual benefit? What good does the soul gain from it? Nothing at all; and yet it is a spiritual benefit? So you play haphazardly with words and names until you have confused everything.

Secondly, how can the hope of living better, that is, of living out of death, come from the remission of punishments? It is a dead thing about the remission of punishments, and so dead that even according to the testimony of your masters it is better to do enough by oneself than that the satisfaction should be remitted by indulgence. But what do I argue with your mere words? The hope of a better life comes from God through His grace. But grace does not work in remissions, but mainly in inflicting punishments, as it is said in 2 Cor. 12, 9. says: "My power is mighty in the weak."

You had nothing to say about the thirty-third thesis, but you wanted to try to make me hateful to the pope, as whose unjust, false and erroneous blasphemer you are blabbering. The obvious sign of one who is abandoned by the truth is anger and indignation.

I answer you once and for all that I honor the authority of the pope, as it is proper, but that I despise both your opinions and your flatteries; therefore I freely declare of this thesis of mine (for I do not dispute about it): the opposite of it is heresy. For it is not in the hand of a man to reconcile man with God, nor can the pope reconcile God with man.

384 L. v. L. ii, 42-44. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xvm, isk-iW. 385

The whole church holds that the Lord gives justifying grace to the Son of God. And there has never been a heretic who would have been so shameful as to teach the opposite.

87 Secondly: In order to assist your preachers of indulgences in every way, you again invent a distinction, according to the praiseworthy custom of the Thomists, and say: "But those who speak (as you report) speak truly, only this reconciliation must be understood inauthentically, as occurring through the removal of the accusation which separated the soul from the clear view of God."

I answer: I am surprised that you do not teach with the same effort that by this reconciliation is understood the Greek or Hebrew alphabet, or something else that is not designated by these letters and syllables. If this arbitrariness, to speak inauthentically, is allowed, why do you fight me? why do you not also imagine with me that I have spoken the truth in some inauthentic sense? Why don't we take up the foolishness of all heresies in one bowl, since their words can become true if they are taken inauthentically? Where is the rule: that a teacher of the church should avoid (as much as possible) every inauthentic way of speaking? and that saying of the wise man Sirach 37, 23.: "He who speaks deceitfully (sophistice) is an abomination" (according to the Vulgate)? I ask you to forgive me, your improper talkers (impropriistae) with you, if we, I and the people, do not understand your words; for we believe that you need words in order that we may understand them, not for our ridicule. Then that should have arisen again which St. Jerome chastised John of Jerusalem, namely, that the priests preach something else, the people hear something else. But you diligently turn the words into an inauthentic meaning, and defend this in such a way that you want to have earned honor with it.

To the thirty-fourth thesis you say it is heretical because it denies that the pope can extinguish all punishment.

I also answer with a distinction: -Heresy is taken once as it is against the mere opinions of the Thomists,

and so the thesis is heretical; the other time, as it is contrary to the teaching of the faith and the Church, and so it is Catholic.

  1. Secondly: I hope you will also grant me, without being asked, that the indulgence does not erase death, nor the numerous dangers of death and innumerable sufferings of this life. But as long as these remain, I beg you, what great thing does the indulgence remit, if it remits only the small temporal gratifications, leaving the punishment of death? But you would like to make an elephant out of a mosquito; would God, not for the love of money! 1)
  1. To the thirty-fifth thesis you say, "I don't think there is an indulgence preacher who would have taught so foolishly."

I answer: Neither do I believe it, but I know it; for it is in the notes of the day that they not only teach it, but also defend it in such a way that they declare the opposite to be error. Therefore I ask the Lord once again that he may first unite the Italian and German Thomas, who are at odds with each other, so that I may know which one I should fight or which one I should give way to.

But you return to your usual evasion, that is, to the improper expression "perhaps," by saying, "But if some do teach in this way, so that even those who are without true repentance do not obtain indulgences in vain (because they will profit by the repentance that comes later), they do not teach evil in the opinion of several wise men."

So this is what Christian preaching means? Why, then, does the Scripture exhort us, the sooner the better, to convert and be converted, and give no confidence in a future repentance, which in the meantime is sure to be postponed? but it teaches us to watch all hours. Whether indulgences are valid for the future or not, I am not concerned about that; but I am concerned that we should

  1. Since Luther repeatedly explains Canaan by negotiator merchant, so he seems to understand here with reference to Gen. 10,16., according to which Amori (^.rnorratzus) was a son of Canaan, by nmor Aruorrsi "money addiction": that he names among the children of Canaan just Amori, may be based in the consonance with araor. (Weim. ed.)

386 L. V. E. 11,44-46. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm, 169-171. 387

For the sake of so small a thing, that is, for the sake of indulgences, the very serious and only necessary thing, that is, repentance, we hold it in such low esteem, we worry so coldly about it, as if it did not seem to concern us at what time it would be granted to the sinner, if only he would redeem the present indulgence, which not only can be postponed without danger, but also need never be redeemed; yet we are so zealous that it should not be postponed. If this is not out of love for money, why are we not equally zealous that the new one not be postponed? Is the real meaning here opposed to this? Everything is so shrewdly thought out for the glory of indulgences, and I am ungodly that I disputes for the grace of God, even if only obtusely.

  1. As for the thirty-sixth thesis, you say that it is heretical, then it also overturns the penitential canons, and nullifies the third part of penance, satisfaction, and all the laws that speak of penance and purgatory. Dear one, add heaven and earth to it, so that you may include everything.

I answer: I hope you will admit to me that it is true what is said by the whole church, namely that man's repentance can be so great that it cancels all guilt and punishment. Secondly, you will admit that those who die willingly solve everything and do enough in the most perfect way. For these, I believe, there is a perfect remission without indulgences and letters, and that I am not a heretic in this, except perhaps among the Thomists.

92 Secondly: That is why I said that forgiveness is also due to those who are not so perfect, because the pope is a servant of the Church: what he can do for the salvation of the faithful, he must do for free, if it is necessary for salvation; if he does not do it, God, I hope, will replace by his mercy what man has neglected through his carelessness.

  1. Finally, on the thirty-seventh thesis, after having abandoned the discussion on the participation in the goods of the Church that you had begun, you say that I am a heretic when I say that it is enough that one does the penance imposed by the priest.

The sinner will go to heaven without the fulfillment of what has been imposed by God, and that the sinner will go to heaven without the fulfillment of what has been imposed by God.

As I said, it is your custom, if it could be called a custom, to get into such a rage that you call one a heretic almost at every second syllable. Nothing but: Heretics, heretics, heretics! the Thomists have learned to say; and yet you do nothing at all but prove that something has been said against your quite cold and bare opinions. Therefore Isaiah seems to me to speak of you Isa. 33:11, "With fire ye conceive, straw ye bear" Vulgate.; and the saying of that heathen: The mountains are crying, a ridiculous mouse will come forth. 1)

(94) First, you have seen from the foregoing that I differ from you in all respects regarding the punishment that God inflicts, based on other grounds. Therefore, everything that you are doing against me is in vain. I deny your foundations and yourself completely, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head, as you have heard from my foundations above.

Secondly: I do not wish to teach, nor to be taught in the church, which, if asked, I could not defend otherwise than by saying, "St. Thomas said so." I am a Christian, not a Pythagorean. 2)

95 To the thirty-eighth proposition, you say that I am in error on both sides, that I may understand it from guilt or from punishment; for the pope does not enact guilt and punishment by explanation, but by authority and by dispensation.

I answer: This is amply refuted above; for already before the office of the pope and before its distribution, the guilt must have been remitted. For your fictitious not complete repentance is not valid.

Secondly: With regard to the punishment imposed by God, the pope does not act in a dispensational or official manner, so that it may be felt. For this belongs before the judgment seat of God, before which the pope has no authority.

  1. Horace, Ars poetiea, v. 139.
  2. To these namely the xxxxx xxx "He (Pythago

ras) said it," as the highest proof.

388 L.v. s,.ii,46-48. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xviii, 171-174. 389

The church has not yet decided the opposite, except for the intercession, as has been said many times.

Finally, on the thirty-ninth thesis, you confidently declare me first to be a perverse teacher, then a slanderer of the indulgence preachers, not to say of the hustlers, 1) as well as of the pope; then you deny that I am instructed in the teachings of good sciences.

I must finally teach my mind and the mind of my reader, so that we know that no one can talk to these Thomas people without hearing invective, accusation and blasphemy at every other word. For you love the sense of your opinion more than a forest donkey loves its young. Let us then hear this glorious bubble of your disputation.

"Two false doctrines," you say, "which overthrow indulgences altogether, you hold. One, that true repentance wipes out all penalties; the other, that true repentance always chooses penalties with preference." The first you combat, and only according to the pattern of "well-instructed theologians," namely, thus: Just as he who offends a man is not received back into friendship without compensation, so also God wills, according to a common law, that compensation for sins be paid after the guilt has been paid off 2c

First, if you were a well-instructed theologian, as you boast, you would know that divine judgment is quite unlike human judgment, and that when God decrees, He decrees the whole thing, which man, because he is not as good as God, does not do. Moreover, Christ taught that we are sons of the Father, who neither repay evil for evil nor demand it, but do good for evil Matth. 5, 44. f.. If the sons must be like this, how much more must the Father himself be like this! Therefore this common law, which you (with your permission I speak so) invent, has only taken place in your opinions. Also, you never read that God has to punish sin with the reservation of the punishment, especially such a punishment,

  1. In Latin, a play on words: vsnialis concerning indulgences, vsualis feil, to have for money.

which the pope could remit; but you have always read the exact opposite, that he has completely remitted guilt and punishment, since he has had enough of chastisement when man serves him completely in a new life. Therefore, the common law, according to which God remits sin, was more learned and correct when he said: "The sacrifice that pleases God is a troubled spirit; you, God, will not despise a troubled and bruised heart" Ps. 51:19. Yea, he precedes with diligence and condemns your opinion and law, saying v. 18., "If thou hadst willed sacrifices, I would give them thee; burnt offerings please thee not." Is. 1, 11. ff. belong here. Ps. 50, 8. Mich. 6, 7. and many other passages of Scripture, but for your opinion not a single one.

  1. secondly: Again, you are eager to make me hateful, accusing me of invalidating and emptying indulgences. This you say (with honor to report) is untrue. For my opinion is this: Since pardon (according to the opinion of all) is better than indulgences, I say that good works, which belong to pardon, are preferable to indulgences, especially since indulgences are neither commanded nor advised, and therefore neither meritorious nor useful for salvation. For where there is no commandment, there is no obedience; but where there is no obedience, there is no merit; and where there is no merit, there is no blessedness. For it is a kind of deliverance and admission, as formerly the bill of divorcement Deut. 24:1, and now the admission of judicial dealings and processes. Therefore I confess that I am grieved that we are so heated to persuade these little things with such great clamor to the mob, which, because it is inclined to liberties without exhortation, should be persuaded with all its strength to better things, that is, to satisfaction itself. But in this way, since the preachers of indulgences well see that their profit would be completely lost, they not only wisely refrain from this persuasion to do better, but they even conceal it with all diligence. Nor does it help much to say, for example, that indulgences do not serve for merit or salvation, but for a quick pardon and expiation of punishment. Well, so be it, nothing destroys.

390 L. V. L. II, 48-50. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 174-176. 391

It comes back to what was said before, that it is still better that the punishments and pardons are not redeemed or remitted, since only the very best works are remitted, namely prayer, fasting and almsgiving. For these are parts of the atonement. If you dare to claim their remission as something good, you will also presume to call that which is nothing the very best. Therefore, let whoever wishes seek indulgence, but people should be exhorted more to the better, that is, to the best works of pardon itself; just as the apostle allows a virgin to marry, but encourages her more to remain a virgin. If you would show me such and such prudent preachers of indulgences, who separate the precious from the petty, there would be nothing left for us to disagree about; but you will be able to show me their few or make some of them liars.

In the fortieth thesis, you try to refute with St. Thomas (for I feared with St. Paul or St. Augustine) my second false doctrine (as you called it above) that true repentance seeks punishments. Paul or Augustine) to refute my second false doctrine (as you called it), namely, that true repentance seeks and loves punishments, and you distinguish double punishments (as you also did above): first, "as long as the suffering of punishment for an offense penetrates some good (as in this life, where it is meritorious), true repentance loves punishments in order to merit and protect itself from sins, but without contempt of indulgence".

I answer: Thank you very much. Did I then want something other than what you say here? Why then did you affirm above that this teaching is false? Is perhaps with you the same thing true and false in different places? I beg you, if you do not want to believe me, then believe once the truth, as Augustine says, which speaks to you through your own mouth, perhaps without your knowledge and will. I admit this splendid refutation of my false doctrine, thereby proving that it is quite true.

You continue, "Because both are better than either. "2c Great GOD, how great is the power of truth, that it protects itself most powerfully through the mouths of those who speak it

belittle! You, who are a theologian educated in good sciences, teach me, I beg you, how these two can coexist: To love and seek penalties and pardons, and at the same time to remit them and seek indulgences. For one of them, as you say, is less without the other, but both are better, that is, that you at the same time do enough and at the same time refrain from doing enough, which is nothing else than, as that poet says, to be unreasonable with reason.

You continue: "But as soon as the punishments bring no good, but hold back from the good of glorification, the punishments are not received. "2c My thesis said nothing about this; it is enough for me that it is quite true even according to your testimony for this life; except that I again lament St. Thomas's misfortune and the miserable fate of his disunity; for this thesis he approves in Italy and condemns in Germany.

100 Secondly: This is a fiction of yours, that the punishments in purgatory shall bring no good. I have stated the opposite above and defended it until the decision of a council.

Thirdly: Your reason is not valid, that even the punishments and works of this life keep you from the good of glorification and yet are accepted; yes, as one of your order, the very learned Doctor Johannes Tauler, said: if heaven were open before you, you would not be allowed to enter it until you had consulted the will of God about going in, so that you would not seek what is yours even in glorification. But far be it from scholastic theology to approve this quite true and quite theological statement.

To the forty-first thesis you say that what I teach is true, and I thank you. You add, however, that indulgences should be no less carefully disapproved of and restricted to the detriment of apostolic power. Here, too, you speak the truth. Yes, it is to be disapproved neither cautiously nor carelessly, but to be allowed, so that

  1. Terence, Eunuchus, Act 1, Scene 1, V. 18.

392 D. V. a. II, 50-82. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. XVIII, 176-178. 393

Let whoever wants to come and get him, but let no one imagine that he has attained something so great that he cannot attain something greater.

In the forty-second and forty-third 1) propositions, you attempt to persuade us that the pope incites us to good works through indulgences, and that a good work with indulgences is better than another alone.

I am of quite a different opinion. One should rather provoke the believer to the satisfaction itself without indulgence (as you had to admit above), that is, to many good works, than to provoke him to only one of them with indulgence, that is, by the remission of many; however, I admit that one can provoke him thus by indulgence, but I say it is incomparably less; therefore my thesis is quite true.

(104) Secondly, it is erroneous that a work with indulgence or indulgence grace is better than without indulgence. For if pardon is many and exceedingly good merits, how can a work with remission of so many merits be better than the many merits themselves? Rather, let us speak with deliberation and Christian freedom. For you cannot say that indulgence is anything other than the remission of pardon; again, you cannot say that pardon is anything other than many good works in fasting, prayer, and almsgiving: therefore, dear one, let it be enough that we allow that by one good work many good works are remitted; we cannot go so far in our exaltation that one should believe that one is better than many.

105 Thirdly: The same is the case with what you go on to say, that "all else being equal, it is better to give alms for the sake of indulgences than actually for the sake of merit"; that is, it seems better to you that man should make himself free from many good works by One Good Work and Merit; I consider this (with your permission) to be erroneous and ungodly. Again and again you set out to treat indulgences not as a kind of permission and deliverance, but as a

  1. The 44th Thesis is also included here, but not specifically mentioned by Luther because Prierias had combined it with the 43rd Thesis.

To make perfection appear. But thou knowest that every indulgence can neither be praised nor encouraged, only that it is not sin, and that it is a consolation of the weak, or rather of the lazy; yea, as that poet 2) hath very truly said, "By liberties we all grow worse." So with indulgences. How can a man become better (by the way, as you say) who by the same becomes less in so many merits? and he is only permitted to be worse: but you still want to persuade him to be worse.

But let us look at your proof. You say: "For there, namely in the work for indulgences, there are two goods, namely merit and the removal of an obstacle, but here one" 2c

I answer: How deliberately do you close your eyes and seek darkness in bright light! I confess that there are two goods, that is, a merit and a remission of many merits, which is a good to the laziness of the flesh, but otherwise the best damage to the very best goods and certainly the removal of an obstacle, namely to the worse.

Secondly: Here, that is, in the works without indulgence (that is, when the satisfaction remains) there is not only one merit, but as many as there are in the whole satisfaction, which is the best and most meritorious removal of all hindrances to glorification. In short, if you understand your statements rightly, you would see that you have taken an occasion to reprove the good works and to praise their redemption, which is quite frightening to hear in the church. Therefore, I have confidently taken occasion to praise good works and yet not to censure indulgences. Put away these words: "indulgence," "indulgence," abandon your opinion and look at the matter, and you will find that you are not a good administrator nor the champion of a good cause. For what can even the church make of indulgences but a remission of pardons? But what can be understood by pardons other than the best works and meritorious punishments, which, moreover, are commanded by God?

  1. Terence, HenntontiMorurllenos, Act 3, Scene 1, v. 74.

394 L.V.L.H, 52f. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm, 178-181. 395

What, then, do we presume to make great, which in itself is nothing but an allowance of the worse, lest the weak sin?

From my forty-fifth thesis you say, as a new interpreter of Scripture, that one can refuse alms to a poor person without mortal sin, although not without venial sin; therefore my thesis is false 2c.

That extraordinary beast, the addiction to money, thanks you, as its best trustee, because it learns that it can refuse alms to the supplicant without mortal sin. Oh, heartbreak and terrifying horror! What must we hear in the church? Why does John say that love does not remain in him who closes his heart to his neighbor 1 John 3:17? But where love departs, does it not leave behind mortal sin? Yes, why will Christ in judgment condemn those who have not fed the hungry 2c? But perhaps you said this in the person of the inauthentic speaker. There is a true meaning of this, which you may bring from India later; therefore I will wait. If you ]only] had said that the alms is then refused with a venial sin, if the poor man is not needy or otherwise there is a just cause. In short, if there is a just cause for refusing, one refuses without sin; but if there is none, it is a mortal sin to refuse alms. Thus speaks the Gospel, thus the apostles.

108 Secondly: Why do you not investigate with equal, even greater zeal, how one need not purchase indulgences, which are neither useful nor necessary for salvation, since you investigate so dangerously and astutely how good works, which are necessary and useful for salvation alone, and which are also commanded by God, can be omitted? Or do you think you are doing God a service when you slander God's commandments and good works, only to exalt the indulgences, which are neither commanded by God nor by men, so excessively? If you imagine that there were no indulgences in the Church, but that everyone had to do enough for himself, as it happened in the past, I ask you, which image would you like, that of indulgences, or that of the

Indulgences? So either you don't understand indulgences well, or you are trying to slander good works with evil hypocrisy.

In the forty-sixth thesis, you again distinguish, as it seems to you, in a more sufficient way the necessary temporal goods, and finally you say, in agreement with our Thomists, 1) that one must give what is necessary according to the second kind for alms, but only in extreme necessity.

I beg you, venerable father, forgive me (for it grieves me too much that you so shamefully draw the text of the apostle John from distress to extreme distress), who gave you the power to make this distress extreme? Thus the devil, the most deceitful enemy, mocks and corrupts us even the holy Scriptures. May the Lord Jesus Christ grant that no man give anything to you and to all who hold this gloss, unless you come into the most extreme distress; so that you may learn, even through lack, to leave the holy Scriptures unadulterated. The church has tolerated this willfulness and impudence to falsify the Scriptures on the part of the scholastic teachers for almost three hundred years now, to its immeasurable detriment.

110 Secondly: You accept my thesis as true. But you do not understand what I wanted. You are right in that man can give up for indulgence what is necessary according to the second kind, which I admit. But our haggling preachers advise people to give up for indulgence what is necessary for them according to the first kind. For their words and letters are, for example, like this: "If you had only one skirt, you should sell it to buy indulgences." 2) Yes, not content with this, they also urge, if one does not have the necessities of the first kind, to borrow or beg from somewhere, even if it were a wife; likewise they persuade the mendicants to gather money together without permission of their superiors. These are, dear father, those monstrosities that are going on in our country. Nothing

  1. Cf. Tetzel's first disputation, Th. 77.
  2. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 424.

** **396 L.v.a. ii, 53-55. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xviii, i8i-i83. 397

as the most impudent, predatory avarice business is driven here to such a mockery of the Roman church that this alone would be sufficient cause to cancel all indulgences. Do not believe that what I say is false; there are not only speeches and rumors about this, but also their writings, in which one can read this everywhere.

Thirdly: Everything that you want to prove and say, you say in the opinion or under the pretense that indulgences are some kind of good; about which the above has been dealt with abundantly.

The forty-seventh proposition, although it is quite true for you, you nevertheless admit as true, since you have presumed to leave none unbitten, although you have no teeth, only out of an extraordinary flattery against the pope. But you make the pope a monster, and attach to him the head of the two powers, namely, that he is pope and emperor, and you attach it to him in such a way that he could give an order for the building of St. Peter's Church, as to a common property, out of sovereign power. But now you paint him with such incomparable modesty that he only asks and is rewarded. By this most gentle, but also most harmful flattery you bring about that some later pope, tired of the praises of this modesty, believes to have the right to flay the whole Christendom, and that by virtue of the sovereign power and might.

Secondly, I say that St. Peter's Cathedral is a common good of the city of Rome. Our cathedrals, however, are more useful and necessary to us; for we cannot all come to St. Peter's Cathedral to hear the Word of God and receive the Sacraments, for which reason alone they are built. And it would be better for St. Peter's Cathedral not to be built than for our parish churches to become desolate. But that this happens, we see and lament, since the resources of all churches are devoured by the indulgence to the insatiable St. Peter's Cathedral. Therefore, the Germans also laugh, as is right, at these so cold reasons of yours, with which you only want to pretend something, namely, that St. Peter's Cathedral is a good of the whole Christian people. Why don't you call much

more the St. John's Cathedral, the Mother of Churches, also a common good? But perhaps it will be reserved for future years that we build all the churches of Rome, then also the palaces, finally also the walls and alleys and bridges with our good works, which we do for the sake of indulgence, so that there is no end to the extortions. Therefore, my father, I advise the people, as I am obliged to do, that they first help the living temples, then their churches, and finally St. Peter's; for your churches are not necessary to us.

(114) At the forty-eighth proposition, you run so much that, confused by the truth, you do not find what to say; at last you stoop to the silliness of saying, "If you, Martin, had received from our Lord a good bishopric with a plenary indulgence for the restoration of your church, you might have been overflowing with sweeter words, and would have exalted the indulgence which you now disparage."

I answer: Perhaps you also judge me according to your attitude, which I conclude from the fact that you flatter so sweetly. If I aspired to a bishopric, I would certainly not speak what is quite unpleasant for you to hear. Or do you think I do not know by what means bishoprics and priesthoods are attained in Rome, since the children sing in all the streets of the world: "At last Rome has become the most shameful city in the world"? I pass over the rest of what you stammer here, as it were trembling and broken by the truth, more than you speak.

Against the forty-ninth thesis, you present indulgences as useful in the same slobber, but only "occasionally, in that the soul is awakened to thanksgiving". As if you were an orator, you invent such various and select reasons of proof. Why don't you also say that when a sheep bleats, the soul is occasionally prompted to give thanks? Or what praise is this for indulgences, since even because of punishments and evils we are commanded to praise God? But it displeases me to discuss such lazy and futile little things. But how attentive you have been to the fact that

398 L. v.ii, 55-57. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm, 183-186. 399

I would have contradicted myself, since I seem to call indulgences useful here, but different above! I say it is useful for the lazy, as all allowances are useful, so that no one sins which he would do if he did not have freedom; I say it is useless for progress to blessedness; which you, with your attention, should already have understood from the word, since I said: "if they do not put their trust in it".

In the fiftieth thesis you take up the matter of the preachers of indulgences, but in a clever way, because you do not believe that such a thing has ever been preached. Then you praise the pope, who is so innocent that no man should live or act unseemly. Thirdly, you attack that I have not sent a fraternal admonition beforehand.

I answer: If such a thing has not been preached, or if you do not believe it, what are you heating up to defend it? Let me have disputirt into the wind!

117 Secondly: I also know that in Leo X we have the best pope and, as it were, a Daniel in Babel, so that through his innocence he has sometimes come into mortal danger. But, dear, tell me: who has ever lived so innocently that no one else would have acted or lived ungodly or even unseemly? It seems that you wanted to say, I don't know which, quite great flattery, but under the speaking you have run out of words and reason. Perhaps you wanted to say that Leo X was trying to make it so that no one lived unseemly, but seeing that this was impossible, you changed the meaning of the words and left the speech without meaning. Tell me, then, who has ever demanded of one who disputes that he should first admonish the one against whom he disputes? Why did you not also admonish me beforehand, since you were preparing to defile me with so many kinds of crimes? Why does not the pope also admonish beforehand in his decrees, before he speaks out against the abuse of the indulgence sellers? I have disputed in general and have not named anyone. If they are innocent, why do they complain that they are attacked? So no one preaches the gospel, no one punishes.

the vices publicly, if he has not first admonished the people individually from door to door. It is a wonder to me that they are innocent and yet are struck by my words. But that saying of St. Jerome is true: "He who becomes angry when vices are punished in general is his own accuser." Moreover, how would they have accepted my admonition, since under your protection they still stand innocent to this day? Dear, do not order me. to admonish the innocent. But if you want me to admonish them, they do not need another accuser, because you, their protector, confess that they are guilty.

118 Thirdly: But that this has really happened (even if you do not believe it), the whole earth is witness to it, the existing scriptures are also witnesses to it; but who did this, let them see for themselves.

If you repeat the same thing to the fifty-first thesis, I will have said the same thing to you again. Only that you say that I speak in exaggerations, I pass over that.

  1. At the fifty-second, you say that my thesis is void, which you prove by saying that no one is so foolish that he should act this way.

I answer: What is that to you, dear one, if no one is so foolish? Let me dispute (as I said), even if into the wind. Is it because of this that the pope's decrees on the abuse of the indulgences are null and void, because you claim that no indulger has acted against them? But you may be talking and raving like this out of age. If there is no one who puts his trust in letters of indulgence, I have not attacked anyone. I wanted to hit those who are so foolish, and I know not one, but very many who are foolish to the extent that they thought they were assured not only of the salvation of souls, but also of their own blessedness, because they had these letters.

Then: Why don't you also persuade your protégées to pledge their souls for repentance and satisfaction? I ask: how often must you be told that it is an ungodly and a service of avarice when

400 v. a. ii. 57-89. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xvm. iM-iW. 401

Is everything done for indulgences in such a splendid way, as if they alone were everything, and for that which is necessary for blessedness, one scarcely hesitates? Consider for yourself whether the simple-minded people must not learn to trust in letters of indulgence when they are advertised to them with such pomp and splendor? For they must necessarily think that it is something great that is presented to them so splendidly. Do you think that because you are learned enough not to trust in letters, the simple-minded people will soon be able to distinguish and understand such things from themselves, against so much persuasion and appeal from such great people?

At last you threaten me with curses, taunts and punishments. With what? And why? Do not threaten, my father. Christ lives, and not only lives, but also reigns, not only in heaven, but also in Rome, no matter how much it rages. If I am cursed for the truth, I will praise the Lord. The punishment of the church will not separate me from the church, if the truth unites me with the church. I would rather be cursed and banished by you and your kind (if you insist) than blessed with you. I have nothing to lose; I am of the Lord. If I am lost, I am lost to the Lord, that is, I will be found. Seek therefore another whom thou shalt terrify.

In the fifty-third proposition, you call me foolish and ridiculous; however, as a wise man, you say that the ordinary must give way to the unusual, and the annual feasts of the saints are more solemn than the Sabbath of the virgin mother.

I answer: Whither, whither, my father? Is the rainbow or the Rhine River described here? But now is not the place for this. First of all,' the trade in indulgences is nothing unusual with us, but continuous. Then, what a ratio that the Word of God, which Christ commanded to be preached with constant perseverance, should give way to your rare indulgences! If Christ had not so commanded, then your likeness would stand. Moreover, the pope cannot impose silence on the word of God; for, once it is pronounced

It is no longer bound, but I have never read that it was done by the pope.

With the same, I answer to the void refutation of the following thesis, where you claim that the indulgence sermon is God's word, but inauthentically, namely with the explanations and exhortations. If everything is called God's word, what is said with God's word, then all heretics, all devils, all men speak only God's word. For nothing so distasteful can be said that could not be mixed with God's word. I say that it is man's word and deals with a man's indulgence; for it is God's word that justifies the heart through faith and confers justifying grace, according to Rom. 1:16: "There is a power of God that makes blessed all who believe in it." But the word of indulgence does not justify, nor does it confer anything on the soul, except that it gives liberty to be slothful in good works for the sake of the weak.

To the fifty-fifth proposition, you say that these and the like are childish and come from an angry man who lifts up his mouth against heaven and strikes out against the goad.

I answer: It is true, but only with Silvester and the Thomists.

In response to the fifty-sixth proposition, you say, citing St. Thomas, that the treasures of the church are the merits of Christ, inasmuch as they are pardons, and you prove the same with the same, saying. St. Gregory sometimes gave indulgences, as is commonly said; but it cannot be proved, and therefore St. Thomas also proves nothing in this. I, at least, did not offer to dispute with the whole world, because I could not know that my theses would spread so far; therefore, do not attribute such presumption to me. Chance has led me into these things from which I cannot extricate myself by silence; perhaps God has willed it so. However, I have not asserted this thesis, but am still disputing it, and await the decision of a council, as with all others that are doubtful or disputed.

402 D- ii, 59-61. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvin, i88-isi. 403

In the case of the fifty-seventh thesis, it is wonderful how you feel struck that I have bitten avarice a little. For you also seem to be able to bear it more calmly when I argue against Scripture than against avarice. That is why you hurry to make me hateful by extraordinary flattery against the pope. Why do you reproach me with the pope's innocence? Do I not know it? Or if I punish avarice, do I therefore attack the pope's innocence? Rather, see if you are not ungodly against the pope, who concoct avarice and the pope's innocence, and present the scolded avarice as the same as the offended innocence of the pope, yes, under the pretext of papal innocence you defend avarice as irreproachable. If your protégés are innocent, they are not affected by me; if they are guilty, why do you defend them? May the Lord grant that you may one day judge more justly, see better and refrain from slandering me.

To the fifty-eighth thesis, you repeat the same thing that you said in the previous one. For they are your words, therefore I pass over it.

By the fifty-ninth, you are all fire again. You are much more relaxed in everything else, except where I touch upon avarice, which you cannot deny, whether you like it or not, that it has its being in Rome, that I do not say rule, so that you also almost suspect me that you are more concerned about profit than about souls; however, you praise the most innocent pope in order to make me hateful, namely, in order to turn the so great adornment of innocence into the cover of unworthiness. For you only aim at not letting anyone punish the customs of Rome, without, according to your interpretation, proving at the same time that he has also offended the innocence of the pope. What do you want? Shall I call you a patron of Roman vices? Why do you not interpret it in such a way that you have also offended the pope, since you openly write that the Roman clergy has departed from the original perfection? Let me deal with you according to your art. You attack

the Roman clergy? But the pope is a part, and indeed the most distinguished, of this clergy. Woe to you, wretch, who publicly claim that such a great pope has not only fallen, but has deviated from the whole perfection, and has become apostate and heretical! For all this means to depart, namely from perfection. Do you not see how splendidly I could throw you down with such exaggerations if I wanted to flatter and slander?

I pass over what you say to the sixtieth and following propositions, for you say nothing that has not been said before. I have made it probable that the treasure of indulgences is the keys themselves, as seen in the "Explanations".

Likewise, I pass over the sixty-second, because you admit, though not without invective, that it is true.

In the case of the sixty-third, sixty-fourth, sixty-fifth, and sixty-sixth, the truth of which you do not deny, nor can you deny, I am surprised that you get so heated and all fired up. I have not yet seen a stranger disputer, whom the true theses excite more than the false ones, since truth is to be sought through disputing. Well, then, let me be a dog, the son of a dog, a chatterer, a slave to the ban, not quite in my right mind, and what else you take me for, according to your modesty that adorns an old man, if you only admit that I have at least bitten out the truth, if you deny that I have said it. I have deserved this mockery, not because I have spoken falsehood, but because I have spoken the truth against avarice. I would not have believed that Roman avarice was so delicate and sensitive, indeed, so ambitious and presumptuous, that it wanted to be taken for the innocence of the best pope.

On the sixty-seventh thesis, you say that, having abandoned the priest, I also abandon the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I am surprised that you, as an old man, get into such a heat that you can neither understand me, nor yourself. I did not say that indulgences are

404 v.". ii. 6i f. 16. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. xvm, 191-193. 405

not useful, but I have said that it is not useful to the soul,-except in the way that freedoms and privileges are useful; but that you call this a blasphemy, I do not care.

  1. In response to the sixty-eighth thesis, you think that those who have set up indulgences as the greatest grace are to be excused because they have said this only in an exaggerated figure of speech.

I ask you, why don't you also think that I am to be excused by some figure of speech, to which I do not assert anything, but only disputire? Why do you do to yourself what you do not do to me?

Then, if they are to be excused by the exaggerated figure of speech, why are they not to be blamed also by the actual manner of speech? since truth is most fond of this manner of speech and it is also most appropriate for teachers of truth, while they should avoid it as much as possible. Yes, that is the only thing I complain about, that they spoke in an exaggerated way. But if you, my venerable father, allow yourselves to speak inaccurately and exaggeratedly and in whatever way you please, why did you not also treat Johannes Reuchlin, this blameless and learned man, with the same fairness and excuse him by some figurative way of speaking? Or if you have been such strict judges over him that you have found poison even in innocent syllables, surely such a wide and arbitrary freedom to speak in images cannot be allowed to you, so that you can scatter and interpret false sayings according to your will. Or if you should be granted any leniency in this, it is due to him twice over, and he should be acquitted, but you should remain guilty.

132 Secondly: By means of a new distinction, you consider me inexcusable for having called indulgences the least grace, since there are other graces and gifts that are less, e.g. the goods of happiness 2c If you had been of a calm mind, you would have seen why I added this: "compared to the grace of God and the blessedness of the cross.

zes". I made a comparison with the cross. As if you had not seen this, you make a new comparison with the goods of happiness. If you are so attentive only to injustice and slander, who can appear to you as true?

I will pass over what you bitterly proclaim against the sixty-ninth and the three following theses 1).

In the seventy-fifth thesis I do not deny that by the power of the keys every case can be forgiven, but I have called it a frenzy, and I still call it so, that in order to glorify indulgences, which are of no use for life, such frightful monstrosities of crimes are cited as examples, and compared to the greatness of the power they are made to seem quite trivial. It is because of this nonsensical way of promoting indulgences that true repentance and true penance are held in low esteem. The duty of a good preacher is to preach sins, such as they are, as great, so that the mercy of God may be made great. Or say, why do they not speak something similar to the praise of repentance? Of course not, because such sermons do not bring money, but poverty. In things that are neither necessary nor useful to salvation, but only permitted, you consider it honorable to thunder in the church of God with so many exaggerations, while the church does not even want Christ's suffering preached in this way.

In the seventy-seventh thesis, I did not say that the pope was inferior to Peter; rather, I did not want it to be said of the pope and Peter that they had no greater graces than indulgences.

In the seventy-eighth, you accuse me of speaking mockingly of such a great pope, so that you will not omit anything by which you could make me worthy of the pope's curse, and by which he alone would be inclined to you as an arch-flatterer. Don't you see how great an opportunity I have here,

  1. It is actually the five following theses, since Luther's 73rd and 74th are also transitions. - He also has the 76th thesis transitions.

406 D. V. L. II, 62-64. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 193-195. 407

to go off against you, against your donkey-ness? I would have said soon; but I hold back. Prick up your ears and listen, if you have them at home at all. I say not mockingly, but simply: that every pope has greater graces than indulgences are, namely, the gospel, and the graces of healing, and all things that are written 1 Cor. 12. not in his person, but in his power, that is, in the way he has the graces of indulgences. For though you carefully conceal it, I do not believe that you are so foolish as to say that the pope has indulgences in his person, as well as personal virtues; for you would say that a deposed pope can do the same as before. That is why I said that all the gifts and offices in the church are in the hands of the pope, so that he can order, send and set up as he sees fit for the body of the church. But these are incomparably greater graces than indulgences. For the pope does better when he presents a good shepherd to a church than when he gives all indulgences at once. But you, whose attention is directed only to the person of this Leo X, as befits a true flatterer, understand the words of others as you will, and yet you do not want to be an abuser of honor and slanderer.

In the seventy-ninth thesis, you don't believe me. What is that to me? This is not enough for us. Everything that they say you interpret in the best way; on the other hand, what I say you, as one who looks at the person, interpret only in the worst way.

With the eightieth thesis you do not even allow me an apology. What kind of a new New Year's Eve court is this, in which the accused is denied an apology, while he is grabbed by the throat and dragged away to swear off the heresy, whether he is a heretic or not? But, where you cannot deny that my cause is true, you at least try to suppress my person with all your might. Would God that it were possible for me, and that the weakness of my wretched body would allow me to negotiate with you personally about this! I have no doubt that I can convince you so far.

that you would at least discuss more modestly from now on.

That is enough of the theses. The rest, I think, you have seen or you will see in my "explanations".

I actually wanted to leave the refutations to the questions of the laymen alone; but it occurred to me and moved me to do so, your head, which I have already come to know as such, that it wants victory gladly, but is incapable of argument; therefore I will answer it in a few words, if I can.

139 In response to the first question Thesis 82, you make a lengthy argument in which you also teach, among other things, that the infusion of grace must necessarily be preceded by the merit of equity and a preparation of man for grace. This false doctrine has now gained the upper hand in the church, but it has already been most superfluously rejected by St. Augustine against the Pelagians and is also beginning to be rejected at our university. Finally, you mention that divine justice does not permit that Purgatory be made empty. Finally, you mention that divine justice does not allow purgatory to be made empty, and you prove this from the testimony of the saints (of Thomas: for the other theologians and teachers of papal canon law have sucked from him). After you had gone through all this and this lay question was still there, namely, that love and need were quite just causes for emptying Purgatory, and here the whole knot was in place, you bravely solved it by saying: "But the love of the pope and the need of souls is not a valid reason for so slackening divine justice, which God has ordered and holds inviolable, who knows such need and is full of infinite love and mercy. This solution of yours is colder than all ice, and, to use your terms of art, the petitio principii that is, the adduction of what is to be proved as proof has only brought about that someone who wants to believe you is reassured by it, but who does not want to believe you has heard nothing but mere words. For what did you answer with these words, but that God does not want the dear ones to believe?

408 2 V. a. II, 64-66. Luther's response to Prieria's dialogue. W. XVIII, 195-198. 409

and necessity are sufficient causes? And you do not prove that God does not want this. If, however, God counts money or something temporal (he would not have to be aware of time either) as a valid cause, why not also love itself, in which he wanted to have all this ordered? If I would ask now: Why then is money or a temporal thing an efficient cause? you will answer with the same petitio principii: GOtt willed it so. If, then, we must dispute about the will of God, we know that nothing in the world is so pleasing to Him as love; and what He does not give to love, it cannot be thought that He should give to another cause; but if He gives it to another, then by far the most to love. And so it is evident that thou also shalt come to shame with me in this matter. I beg you, believe me, laymen also have understanding, and so great that I confess, I have three times known nothing to answer such questions, and thereby gained no more glory than that they told me that I only offer them words; just as you also do with me here.

The solution to the second question Thesis 83 is much colder and more futile and satisfies no one but you alone. The first cause, you say, is that perhaps the offerer has not offered according to the wealth he possesses, or has offered too meagerly. Take away these secondary things and put the case that people have given according to their ability and also sufficiently. For this is said by thee, as it were, for evasion, to gain time and escape; for it does not serve the cause. Therefore it is not a cause, much less the first cause.

  1. As a second reason you say: the intercessions, even if they do not benefit the already saved, do benefit others. This was not asked, but there lies the knot: whether the death offices, which are offered for the souls with explicit mention of the name, are to be omitted; whether their names are not to be pronounced, whether they are not to be mentioned in the prayers? Answer this; for, if they are to be omitted, all the worship of the mob will fall away, and

the priests will die of hunger; you might have wanted to say, "What is it to the Romans if the Germans die?

In answer to the third question Thesis 84 you again say that there is no sufficient cause; to which I again oppose love, as above, and the question remains, unless we want to take the mere words of Silvester for divine utterances.

To the fourth Thesis 85 you hold up to me as a guideline the doings and sayings of the Roman church. I answer: If you speak of your church in terms of power and representation, I do not want your guide; for, as I said above, such a church can err according to the Cap. Significasti err. The general church, however, cannot err, as the Cardinal of Cambray also very learnedly proves about the first book of the Sentences. Furthermore, nowhere does the pope teach or do what you call the deed and saying of the church; for you are all too ready to make the name "church" ambiguous; therefore you are exceedingly suspicious to me.

In answer to the fifth Thesis 86 you say: "Where there is much wealth, there are many who feed on it. That is just what is complained about, that Rome wants to satiate its gluttons with these funds and almost eats up the whole world. Why are the gluttons of wealth not made less? In the end, you again make an emperor out of the pope in power and coercion. But Maximilian and Germany do not recognize this, nor do they believe it; most of all, however, the Turks and the Tartars deny it. You also praise us in vain for that exceedingly glorious and common good, which is stones and wood, because this does not solve the questions of the laity.

In the sixth Thesis 87 I am an arch-heretic to you, since you arrogate to yourself the authority to baptize me as you wish. But be thankful that you confess as true that nothing is remitted to those who have perfect repentance. And I know that not all are such. But that is why they do not go to purgatory, because they owe punishments that the pope can solve, as I have held and still hold as an assumption.

  1. To the seventh Thesis 88 you say,

410 L. v. a. ii, 66 f. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. Lvm, los-200. 411

There are two additional things. One is that it is necessary for the faithful to repeat as often as possible the cause for which the indulgence is given, e.g. alms 2c. We know, my father, that you would like to see this cause repeated a thousand times in one hour. This would almost amount to a good for avarice. But we ask about the good of the giver, which, if it is the giving of alms, is better done without indulgence and for nothing, than for the sake of indulgence, as I said above. But you always imagine that indulgences are some good. The other good, you say, is that every new debt of punishment, if anyone had fallen after the indulgence, would be forgiven. I answer that this debt is better discharged without indulgence; for for venial sins no indulgence is necessary. But if you understand it of a mortal debt, it is already no longer a good, for one would have to sin mortally a hundred times a day, which no truly penitent person does.

In response to the eighth Thesis 89, that the pope abolishes indulgences and letters, you say that this is done for the most glorious building of all. And this seems to you a quite just cause for abrogation. No wonder; for you care only for that which concerns Rome. But I say, this building may be more venerable than all, but surely our churches are more necessary. You look only at the splendor of the world; as if the church were then well provided for when it has erected wood and stones into a great heap, but you Romans yourselves, if

you would be able to help the pope abundantly.

But I leave the judgment about your solutions to others. I confess that I can take nothing from it that I could give to the laymen, but greater questions.

Lastly to thesis 90, you once again accuse the pope of being the church in power, as well as emperor and pope, who has the power to force people even with the secular arm 2c But as long as this opinion of yours is upheld, I would like to be instructed as to whether you are also murderers of men? Why do the rights not allow the church to impose a penance with danger of bodily life? But this in another place and by others.

Finally, I say: you will not frighten me with blasts (ampullis) and the threatening noise of your words. If I am killed, Christ lives, my Lord and the Lord of all, blessed forever and ever. Amen.

(150) Behold, my venerable father, I have answered you this only very cursorily and in two days; for it seemed too slight to me what you have opposed me; therefore I have answered you extemporaneously and as it came into my pen. But should you be willing to answer this with a rebuttal, see that you bring your Thomas to the battlefield in better armor, otherwise you may not be received with the restraint with which you were received at this encounter. For I have conquered myself, lest I repay evil with evil. Farewell!

412 L.v. L.11,68 f . '17. des Prierias replica. W. xvm. 200-202. 413

The Prieria's replica (reply) to Luther's above answer.

*Probably at the beginning of November 1518. )

Translated from Latin.

Reply of Brother Silvester Prierias, of the Holy Apostolic Palace Magister, to Brother Martin Luther of the Hermit Order.

Martin Luther wishes the gentle reader Heil!

This reply of my Silvester, dear reader, I especially recommend to you. She is in great need of such a recommendation, especially because she is pregnant, I do not know, with what kind of threats.

goes. Dear, pray for her that she does not give birth to a mistake. Be well and have pity on such theologians. 1)

  1. Luther had this preface printed on the title of the edition of the replica of the Prieria that he organized, in mid-January 1519. (Weim. Ausg.)

To the Professor of the Holy Scriptures, Brother Martin Luther, Order > of Hermits, Brother Silvester of Prierio, Order of Preachers, of the > Holy Apostolic Palace Magister, wishes Heil!

I want to wish you well, my dearest Martin: with the explanation of your theses I also received your answer to our dialogue. Therefore, although you attack me sharply and indeed with great art, likewise also tease me and in the most hidden way possible have sought to disgrace me through oratory and violence, yet because at the first, superficial perusal I perceived with the greatest joy, that your spirit submits to the pope and that the thesis which I had called heretical is revoked, my heart was so open towards you and so taken in by sweet love that now nothing else was able to disturb me. However, when I was fully occupied with what you had written against me, I was surprised about the weapons you had used against me and my statements, as well as about the hidden art of using

I was so amazed at the way you used them that I could not get out of wondering; so much so that, while you made use of all the art and colors of an orator, you wanted to hide this art by the same art, affirming that you did not want to make use of my arts in speaking, although you could; yes, sometimes you imitated me clumsily, so that you could not be taken for a perfect imitator.

2 But let us leave that. But this I must say, that while you bite and prick me in every possible way, yet almost all your weapons are directed only against my person and want to strike me, not by the power of theology or philosophy, but of an ingratiating and cunning art of speech, which cares much for words, little for truth, if it only wins the ears of the mob.

(3) Therefore, because you hurl your arrows at me far more than at my sayings, I will now remove the projectiles that you hurl at my person, but soon also those that you hurl against my sayings.

*The date is a conjecture of the Weimar edition. This writing was printed in special editions at Leipzig and, according to a letter of Joh. Frobenius to Luther of 14 Feb. 1519, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1632 § 4, also in Basel. It was then included in the Basel collection of August 1519 probably after the original printing and passed with Luther's preface into the Gesammt-Ausgaben of Luther's works, namely in Latin into the Wittenberger (ürw. 1, col. 185), Jenaer (tom. I, col. 61), Erlanger (ovv. Int. vurii urs. II, p. 68), and in the Weimar critical edition (vol. II, p. 5Y); in addition, the Latin text is still printed by Löscher, vol. Ill, p. 892. German in the old Walch collection; Löscher (op. cit.) mentions an older German print. - The present translation is newly prepared according to the text of the Weimar critical edition.

414 L.v.s.ii,69-7i. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm, 202-204. 415

I will do this as soon as I get out of those comments that you have immersed me in, and I will do this as soon as I get out of those comments that you have immersed me in. And I will tackle this soon, as soon as I am out of those commentaries again, in which you have immersed me. 1) However, I would like you to take these comments of mine in such a way that they are not spoken in a spirit of arrogance or anger, but rather as an apology and mostly only as a joke, but always without prejudice to the love that goes beyond all knowledge of Christ, which recently arose in my heart toward you when I saw your humility toward the pope, as well as your reverence (if it is not feigned). For since my will is the pope's (as it should be), if you have the same opinion and attitude with the pope, I must also have the same with you, although for the sake of scientific investigation a tremendous war has broken out between us, yet (as I said) without prejudice to love.

To begin with the matter itself, bypassing all introductions, you chastise me mainly for the fact that our dialogue to you is arrogant, and in your rambling (not to use your expression "overly verbose") treatise you reproach me almost in one go for being inflamed with bile and unbridled fury of passion.

5 By what right you do this, you can see from this little. For although I am, by the gracious order of our Lord, inquisitor over Rome and the whole world, and therefore, both ordinarily and by delegation of this right, a judge over everything that belongs to the faith, I have given you an answer not only for your sake, but rather for the sake of others and especially of the more unintelligent, among whom your speech gradually ate away like a cancer, not unlike against a Donatus or Faustus or Manichaeus. 2) In everyone's opinion, your words attacked the Roman Church, as well as especially the Roman bishop, as much and severely as if you had published such things in order to immediately go to the Bohemians or with some great still hidden division to the

  1. Namely, the commentaries of earlier scholastics, which defended the unlimited power of the popes, which he intended to use.
  2. These were three false teachers against whom Augustine argued. Prierias thus presents himself as a second Augustine, but Luther as a heretic similar to the aforementioned.

To step into the light. Therefore, for the sake of the simple and the whole Christian people, but not for your sake, I believed I had to cut off your spikes and nails. Nevertheless, since I issued a very short dialogue to you, not out of bile and fiery anger (as you assure me), but above all out of divine zeal and to protect the truth, and also to show the loyalty that I have sworn to the Roman Pontiff, I had it carefully examined, above all by the people to whom it is incumbent, so as not to attack you more harshly than would have been fair.

In addition, I concealed the name of your order, which, according to my and everyone's judgment, you were about to bring into the greatest disgrace (God willing, I was wrong!), which I certainly would not have done if I (as you write) had been fuming with anger. Finally, I published my writing only after it had been approved by respectable men. Why, then, do you so often accuse me of ill-will, or, to use your term, of incendiary anger, since I have not put forward anything that has not been thoroughly examined, approved and praised beforehand?

  1. But you, who want that one should hear Christ thundering down in you, see how modestly, humbly, lovingly and reverently you wrote to the magistrate of the holy palace, using all art, craftiness and lies to bring me into disrepute with words and comparisons, and finally, since you had nothing else to iron out, you threatened not to treat me so humiliatingly the next time if I did not appear more armed on the battlefield (because, you say, you had restrained yourself). But I want to appear, because there is talk of armor, under the guidance of God and the accompaniment of truth, armed with such weapons on the battlefield, that I do not want to live, if I will not have struck you down according to all judgment and proven (what I want to have said, however, only theologically), proven, I say, that your statements contain heresy. But enough of this for now.

8 But then you make fun of me almost throughout your entire booklet, that I proved nothing, but only used mere words with my Thomas. But with what right you do this is clear to all who look at my writing; for I have both in the beginning and at the end of the dialogue expressly said that I then wanted nothing else than to publish other theses against your theses, in order to protect the simple from your falsehoods.

416 D.v.".ii,7i-73. 17. des Prierias replica. W. xvm, 201-206. 417

and to press your fundamentals out of you, who had also presented us with your bare theses, which were so ambiguous that very many could only see presumption, audacity and the like in most of them. But I have done this only in part; for there is no one who, comparing my writing with yours, would be so nonsensical as not to prefer it to yours.

(9) Likewise, you have also published the greatest possible confusion 1) as proof of your theses, in which it becomes apparent what you are really capable of and what is in you. In this you also put on a whole lot of divine sayings, but completely in the manner of a barker, and so intelligently that almost nothing fits to the matter and to what you intend. But I should not have been surprised about that either, because you also mock me and the Thomas people (Thomastros, to use your mocking expression) and Thomas himself and accuse them that they, being used to distinctions, make frequent use of them. O great shame, or rather greatest honor of the Thomists! For you, who think to renew the world with your teaching and to overthrow the monuments of the ancients, while you understand the Scriptures without distinction, as if they contained nothing ambiguous or homogeneous, can consequently understand, write and teach them only in a confused way. This has been proven by your great confusion, in which your testimonies, which you put on, coincide with your statements like a tomcat and a monkey in a sack. Therefore the sophisma fits very well for you: "Nothing and a fabulous beast are fighting in the sack", namely your confused mess.

(10) But you repeat over and over again and to the point of exhaustion that I am truly a Thomist and Aristotelian and that my words suggest nothing but Thomas. Of course, when I wrote to you, I could have taken this as a suitable opportunity and sufficient for me to reply to you in vituperation. But you will soon see whether I too, and perhaps far better than you, have outgrown the rut and whether I am a true Thomist or jurist or Canonist or Paulist or Sophist. Although, if I alone were acquainted with St. Thomas in a familiar way, I would not consider the fact that you call me a Thomist, and a very proper one at that, to be a

  1. By this Prierias means Luther's explanations of his 95 theses.

The man, who was blind before and then received his sight from Christ, took upon himself the abuse of the Pharisees, who, as the evangelist John testifies 9, 28, cursed him and said: "You are his disciple", that is, Jesus Christ. O, a strange curse and vituperation to be a disciple of Christ, or even of St. Thomas! Whose doctrine, thou mayest will or not, has been sifted and approved by the Roman Church, not as canonical, but as conformable to morals and the Catholic faith, and which, with the exception of the canonical Scriptures, the pope Innocent prefers to the doctrine of all the saints, saying: "This holy teacher's wisdom has above all others, with the exception of the canonical Scriptures, the true words, proper manner of speech, and true thoughts, so that no one who has adhered to him; has ever deviated from the path of truth, and whoever has opposed him has always been suspected of error."

(11) What, then, does the barking of presumptuous men and of the clever against St. Thomas accomplish? See if your order has had a more learned or holier man whom you may follow, since the great Bessarion has very much exalted St. Thomas as the most learned among the saints and the holiest among the learned, indeed, since, as the truth testifies, which is Christ, he has well written bene; if one does not want to hold St. Augustine against me; but your disputes must first be removed.

  1. But you cast aside not only St. Thomas, but every other teacher, holy as he may be, and in order to prove that the Roman pope can err in his decisions about faith and morals, you lean on a reed that will cut your hand, namely on the Sicilian abbot, 2) a man who was once rebellious and caused division; who in Basel, where a basilisk was hatched, earned the hat of impiety; who also, just as Satan makes his old haughtiness felt in all his actions, so likewise in all his teachings he makes his division felt, for which reason he is sometimes forced to teach silliness, since he does not have the truth with him, which in this matter is also banished from you, to your and your order's shame. He says, in fact, that if a pope and a concilium have different opinions, one must hold with the side that has the better reasons.
  1. Nicolaus de Tudesco or de Tudeschis, since 1434 Archbishop of Palermo, therefore usually called Panornaitanug. (Weim. Ausg.)

418 v. a. ii, 73-75. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm, 206-208. 419

13 O about the irrefutable man on whom you rely with derision of St. Thomas in a matter so exceedingly important, according to whose doctrine you would say that the Church is not sufficiently informed, since there might be a dispute which the Church could not settle! For who is to decide between the pope and the Concilium which grounds are the better, unless either one of the two parties be judge in its own cause, or else the infidels, or with your Sicilian, the general Church be made judge; and accordingly let us call together from the uttermost parts of the earth all the old women, that they may not be lacking in whom is the true faith. But since such things belong to another treatise, let us break off from them.

You also add Gerson to your protection, who also, not only according to Thomas, the light of the world, but also according to the scholars of your order and according to the Canons, held and wrote very badly about the authority of the pope. These little doctors, who cause you to think arrogantly of the Roman Church, and many others who do not like to see that the Roman Church is the head of all churches, Brother Martin, are a cause of many errors for you.

  1. But what wonder that you consider Thomas to be nothing, since you yourself consider Aristotle - whom (so to speak) the whole of nature admires and whose truth, as Boethius testifies, is brighter than the sun; in whose doctrine, whether in his writings concerning the laws of thought, or of nature, or of morality, no falsity has yet been found, except that he did not hold the opinion of the eternity of the world as certain, but, according to the same witness, only as doubtful - so dishonor him that you should blush at your own words. So it only remains that after you, as a second Archytas 1) or Plato or Pythagoras, we not only exchange Thomas or Aristotle for better things, but also the writings of all teachers who are celebrated, both of those who are counted among the saints and those who are not, as if they had written as ignorants without deliberation and the popes had given out indulgences uselessly.

16 I just remembered your words, in which you divine me with the tombs of St. Pudentiana or the glorious martyr Sebastian, as if I wanted to prove with these opinions of the rabble that the Church gives souls deliverance from purgatory through indulgences. I

  1. Archytas, a Pythagorean philosopher, lived around 400 BC.

I will not cite caves or tombs, but guarantees of the kind that if you deny them, you too will be denied and condemned. But how sharply you have proved your things by the attracted Clementine, you shall see next. But this I will not conceal now, that you have indeed shown yourself to be an excellent canonist, and since you despise the teachings of all the saints, you have built an immense and tremendous burden on a little gloss, which you have misunderstood to boot.

(17) But to leave Thomas and come to my own cause, you often call me a flatterer, an accusation of which I am almost ashamed to clear myself; but I will answer you for the sake of others, that what I have written about the pope is less than his personal virtues. But since I have spoken the truth (as the clergy and the people of Rome, and almost the whole world, can testify), with what sacrilege do you presume to judge my disposition? Yes, I rather defended my own cause and party when I attacked you, but pushed back the pope, to whom I owe allegiance according to Christian conscience and according to my special oath. Or am I not just as well allowed to defend myself by praising the pope with truth, whom you, as far as you are concerned, have badly defiled, as you are to rightly revile him with untruth? In this you carry the palm and the victory before all, which I have read up to now.

18 But that you say that in your Germany they say this, namely that I teach flattery, I answer that I do not believe you, but rather that my writings, both in this and in other matters, are held in greater esteem and honor in Germany than yours, and perhaps than yours can ever be. I could very easily prove this both by my commentaries on the sphere and theory, as well as by the "Golden Rose", by the "Silvestrina" and by the Grundriß of Capreolus, 2) which is being read publicly at Leipzig because of a bequest, as I have heard, and by others, if I did not fear that you would call me proud and vain.

  1. The following writings of Prierias are meant here: Commentaries on the Sphere of John de sacro Bosco (Venice 1513); Commentaries on the Theory of the Planets (Milan 1514); Golden Rose, a Gospel Postilla, compiled from the Fathers of the Church; Detailed Textbook of Sins, called KUvsstriua or Lumina Lurumaruru; Outline of Capreolus (a Dominican, d. 1497). 1444) on the (4 books of) Sentences (Cremona 1497).

420 L. V. a. II, 75-77. 17 Des Prierias replica. W. XVIII, 208-211. 421

19 But I see that you are now complaining again that I am making you hateful to the pope. But would God that your writings and something about you, which I conceal, had made you hateful not only to the pope, but to the whole Christian world! For, according to my custom, I will assist you with all my strength, if you are sincere and humble-minded, and I do not speak lies. You have lit a great fire with straws, and now you say that you cannot get out of it by silence. Would to God that you understood how to get out of it by good and sweet words!

(20) But what I would call even worse, in order to excuse your former statements, you are drooling out new ones, which are both false and annoying, and you are only holding up a shield of snow to them, as if you were not speaking in an assertive but in a disputing manner, as if it were an easy and not a grave sin to discuss such things out of doubt and then to withdraw to a future council, as to a special castle, which perhaps that spirit of yours Panormitanus has taught you. However, I do not want to be called a protector of Roman vices, as you threaten, but rather, if it pleases you, not a protector, but rather a confessor and a defender of Roman doctrine to the best of my ability.

21 However, to continue with our dialogue, you cry out that you do not know whether we have a different Thomas in Italy than in Germany, because I differ from my own in Germany. But in this I do not want to believe you, because I think that you mislead others just as much as you mislead me, and that you misunderstand our things as well as foreign things, which I would like to blame on reason or will; and what you cannot deny that you understand correctly, you twist into the wrong.

22 And lest you think that I am speaking into the wind, I will pick out an arbitrary example. Please consider my words more carefully, I beg you, and see carefully whether one can infer from them that one may not refuse alms to a poor person without venial sin, as you falsely accuse me of doing. In this matter, you are attacking me with such a great torrent of words, while it was not Silvester, but Martin who dreamt it. Have you understood me, who did not even think of such a thing, why do you roll so many lies on me? But if you didn't understand me, then read and study with a more sober mind.

  1. you also move up to me extraordinarily, i

I would only do it out of addiction to money and dignity that I applaud with flattering words for their sake, on which I have nothing more to say than that you perhaps know the secrets of my heart better than I do. If, however, there is talk of dignities, then I know that as a young man I rejected a bishopric with six hundred gold florins. Perhaps, however, I could once again, stupid with age, be turned away by softness from my position, which I have now held with manliness for 47 years and more in monastic life. But even the office which I hold by the grace of our Lord, I have, that you may know, neither sought nor desired, but only gratefully accepted. In a short time, however, if I live to see it, I will be able to say that I will show you and the world that I have neither been touched nor blown away in the midst of the sea of flames of lust and wealth as well as of dignities and enticements.

024 But thou sayest thou hearest not Christ speaking in me: neither do I hear his voice in thee, save when thou hast cast thyself at the pope's feet. But something else speaks to me in you: therefore either Christ does not speak in any of us, or else one is deaf or hard of hearing. Let us ask Christ to make his words resound!

(25) But you write that I speak as the preachers of indulgences would have me speak, and that I would set myself up as their protector. But how far you are from the truth in this, too, is known to the omniscient God, since I have not said with a word, not even with a tittle of any of them, what I have heard (as the Lord lives), yes, I thought at first that they were Minorites Franciscans. But in that you blame me for Donatist heresy, you can only make a true judgment when I have said from whom a preparation for the grace of God is required. But now you have (as they say) called yourself with the cross before the end of the gospel.

(26) Likewise, do you ask with which church I hold concerning the conception of the Virgin? But I say: I do not know with which one; but I believe with the Roman one, because my opinion comes to me from its writings. But when the matter will be decided, then I will know with which one. In the meantime, however, I will believe with 266 teachers, some of whom also belong to your order; but I will leave it up to you, together with your old red spirit Panormitanus, to believe what you like.

27 You add, so as not to omit anything hateful, something concerning Reuchlin, as if the Order of Preachers were persecuting him, and not the Pari-

,422 D. V. a. II, 77 f. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 211 f. 423

ser, Cologne and other universities. But who may protect him, the truth or the Hebrews or Chrysostom or both, I don't know; one thing I do know is that you completely misjudge my duties, which are those of a just and merciful man.

28 You also ascribe to me that I have claimed to be an Entellus, while I have named only Dares and only because of the boasting of his powers and the challenge to fight. But now I hold up to you the words of Jerome to Augustine: Think of Dares and Entellus: Entellus, who was serious in his old age, was mocked by the youthful and light-minded Dares, but in vain; for he immediately had to pay for it.

29 Finally, you write that I take the liberty to baptize you at will and to give you all the names that come to my mind.

But in truth, I have never mentioned your real name. However, the fathers of your order call it now and then. There are many other arrows, Martin, that you shoot at me; but my mind is disgusted by treading on these dirty things, especially since I have not brought them up in a bitter heart, but most of them in jest, and very much also in apology. In the meantime, I want to pucker up to send home your so numerous allegations.

30 But I beg you, if you love Christ, not to climb higher than necessary, but to walk steadily and perseveringly in sobriety on the path you have taken. If you do this, I believe that you will also hear Christ speaking in me, and perhaps then you will have no more faithful friend than Silvester, of whom you are now so afraid. Farewell.

*18 Des Prierias Epitome (Short epitome) of a reply to Luther; with glosses, preface and epilogue by Luther. )

**The epitome at the end of 1519; Luther's preface and postscript June 26, 1520. )

Translated from Latin.

Luther's preface.

Martin Luther wishes the devout reader salvation!

So far, kind reader, you've seen that I've been working with my New Year's Eve in the papal

I acted in such a way that I joked and played more than I seriously attacked anything. This courage came to me from the fact that I saw how this man, who was not only

*) The original printing of the epitome alone appeared, as the Erlangen edition after Panzer VIII, 224 indicates, at Perugia under the title: Kllvsstri krisratis Lxitorna rssxonsionis aä Imtwsruin. ksrusias iriviZilants st Äeourants I?. Ouspnrs cks ksrusia Orck. l?ra6ä. "um äuodus 6X oräino sockalidus sidi ackseitis per Llikron^nauir" ^raneiseuin Oartulariuna äioti I". Oasparis tratruolbin. 1519. toi. - The edition Luther was in charge of appeared at Wittenberg on June 26, 1520, as well as another in the same year with no indication of the place. In the Wittenberg collective edition, the writing is torn. I, toi. 188, in the Jena tom. I, toi. 64, in the Erlangen (opx. varii arZ.) tona. II, x. 79. Only Walch brought it into German, but with the omission of the Prierias' letter. Our translation is based on the first original edition of the larger work, which appeared in Rome after 21. July 1520 (for from this date is the papal ban on reprinting, which is printed on the back of the title) under the title: Lrrata 6t ar^umonta Martini Dutbris r6eitata, (wteeta, r6nu1sa 6t 6Opiosi88ilN6 trita: p6r tratrorn 8i1v68truni krioriatoir^ rnaZi8trurn 8aori palatii, of which this epitome constitutes the third book, and in which this short epitome has come out united with the other two books for the first time. This epitome has Prierias, as he states in the first chapter of the first book, toi. 1 d, "for the scholars who can take much from little". Also for this main work, the Epitome must have been printed first, because at the end of it we find the indication: "Rome, printed by Antonius Bladis de Asula, March 27, 1520, in the eighth year of the reign of Pope Leo X." Luther's preface and afterword as well as his glosses have been translated by us according to the Erlangen edition.

**On June 25, 1520, Luther wrote to Spalatin: "Tomorrow Silvester and the German Romanist (Alveld) will be finished", which undoubtedly refers to this writing. There is only One passage from which we can read with great

424 L.v.L.ii,7s f . 18. des Prierias Epitome. W. xvm, 212-215. 425

I am not only ignorant and crude in spirit, but also, caught in the Thomistic darkness and the antics of the popes, or rather the decrees of completely unlearned scribes, tried to win a victory over me with a certain simple-minded stupidity.

But now it comes to light what horrible things he had in mind; for the wretched man, in order to avenge himself for my jokes, has published an epitome (short epitome or (to speak in Silvestrian Greek) "an epithoma 1) of an answer to Martin Luther", which is filled from head to foot with so many and great blasphemies that I would like to think that the booklet was published in the middle of hell by the devil himself. If in Rome, with the knowledge of the pope and the cardinals (which I hope is not the case), they think and teach like this, then I freely declare with this writing that the true Antichrist sits in the temple of God and rules in that Babel clothed in purple (Revelation 18:16) in Rome, and that the Roman court is the school of Satan (Revelation 13:6).

What shall I say? He makes a god out of every, even an ungodly, pope and states that the power of the holy scripture, that is, the power of the word of God, which is God Himself, depends on the reputation of this man, even if he were ungodly; while at the same time everyone confesses that the pope has his reputation from the saying of Christ: "Thou art Peter" Matth. 16:18 and "Feed my sheep" John 21:17, that is, that the Scripture does not come from the reputation of the pope, but that the reputation of the pope comes from the Scripture. And therefore they also flee as soon as they are urged.

  1. Namely, instead of sxitorris, 68, or oxitorna, no, Silvester declines: exitlrorna, atis and therefore makes it noutruni. The change from oxittioma to 6pitorna at this point in the Erlangen edition is therefore unjustified.

The people of the world have nothing else to turn to than this holy scripture as a place of refuge with which they fortify and protect themselves. But now this Satan fortifies the scripture by a man. Who is the Antichrist, if such a pope is not the Antichrist? O Satan, Satan! How long will you abuse the patience of your Creator to your great misfortune?

Although I gladly grant the wretched Silvester that the Scriptures receive their power from the pope: for this will be the only way to deny the papal tyranny and to overthrow it at once. For if they prove the papacy from Scripture, and raise the prestige of Scripture by the prestige of the pope, then the pope can be founded on no other testimony than his own, and he exists not by divine right, but by his own. But what do I refute the thus manifest madness of this blasphemous Satan? The best refutation will be if I publish the booklet itself, as it is published, without citation (nudum); it carries its refutation, which is stronger than I can wish.

Read then, dear reader, and sigh that the glory of the Roman Church has fallen so low that it not only produces and nourishes within itself this heretical, blasphemous, diabolical, infernal poison, but also spreads it throughout the world. Away now with all those who boast that the Roman Church has never been tainted with any heresy! This certain Silvester goes incomparably far beyond Arius, Manichaeus, Pelagius and all the others (heretics).

If Rome believes like this, then happy Greece, happy Bohemia, happy all who have separated from him and left the midst of this Babylon! but curse all who have fellowship with him. And I, too, if the pope and the cardinals (do not) silence and revoke this Satanic mouth, will herewith confess as a testimony that I am not in communion with the Roman-

It is probable that the larger writing of Prierias came into Luther's hands, namely Tischreden Cap. 80 H 13: "Thus did the Elector Frederick at Worms. When a vehement refutation against my writings had come from Rome, which all the bishops eagerly bought, he said slyly: O I saw and read it three years ago, and they let it lie." Neither the Dialogue, nor the Replica, nor the Epitome of Prierias can be meant here, for all these writings Luther himself had reprinted. If, however, one refers three words of the Elector to the Prierias Errata 6te, then the words of Frederick have their correctness, because he has already seen and read the content of this writing in the Epitome. Only the time determination "three years ago" would seem a little too long, if one assumes that these words were spoken in 1521 at the Diet of Worms.

426 L. V. a. II. 80-82. III. Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIU. 2IS-217. 427

The church, together with the pope and the cardinals, is an abomination of desolation that stands in the holy place Matth. 24, 15. Faith is now extinguished in her, the gospel outlawed, Christ banished, and the customs more than barbaric. Only one hope was still there: the inviolate prestige of the holy scriptures and at least a correct opinion of them, even if there was no understanding. Now Satan also takes this, the castle of Zion and the tower of David, which until now was impregnable.

So farewell, wretched, lost and blasphemous Rome; the wrath of God has come upon you as you finally deserve;

even through so many prayers done for you, you have only wanted to get worse day by day. "We heal Babylon; but she will not be healed. So let her go" Jer. 51:9, "and be a habitation of dragons, and ostriches, and field-spirits, and owls" Isa. 13:21.; 34:13., and, as her name implies, an everlasting disgrace, full to the mouth of mammon idols, perjurers, apostates, doggies, priapists, murderers, Simonists, and innumerable other monsters, and a kind of new idol temple (pantheon) of ungodliness.

Farewell, dear reader; forgive my pain and have compassion.

Letter from the Prieria to the reader.

Br. Silvester of Prierio wishes the pious reader salvation!

Let Luther now recognize that his prayer and that of his people has been answered (namely, that our letter, which threatened to give birth, would not bring a miscarriage), and if it pleases, give thanks for it^a^ ) For he has not given birth to a miscarriage, but to a strong and powerful pugilist, who is so armed with deadly weapons that he, as was promised, is to strike the defeated to the ground under the watch of the entire Christian people^b^ ) . But so that he cannot pretend that he was overcome deceitfully or unawares, he sends the list of his weapons. Thus

Then let him gird himself and be a strong man;^c^ ) for with an allusion to that much-used word where he says: "Teach me who can," this fighter says: "Martin will answer if he can. He will be able to talk, but he will not be able to give an intelligent answer. But soon you shall get to know the weapons yourself. Farewell.

a) Out of humility, he raises himself.

b) Also in India and Scythia.

c) See how heroically he calls for the answer to two books by a > preface to the third book, which, as the Gospel says, is the first and > last.

Of the Legal and Irrefutable Truth of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, third book: a very long table of contents, but only a very short epitome.

After^a^ ) we have, with God's help, exposed the errors of the opponent and refuted them, let us now briefly repeat what has already been said.

a) You will notice here, dear reader, the figure of speech, the past > for the future. 1)

  1. In order to understand this remark of Luther correctly, it should be noted that Prierias had this epitome published alone, without the larger work, already in 1519 and sent it to Luther, and the latter could not know whether Prierias had started or even completed it. On July 21, 1520, Pope Leo X, in his protective writing on the Lrrata 6t arZunaeuta Llartlni L-utsris etc., says,

The first chapter of the first book was about our intention,^b^ ) which we have in the whole work, first of all to expose the bad teachings of Martin Luther and then to completely overrule them.

which he calls lidruin äo irrbkraZabili V6ritat6 roinaNN6 666l68ia6 rornani<iii6 pontlüeis, that Prierias "intends to have the same printed, or rather has begun to have it printed. Luthern, however, as he wrote to Spalatin on Oct. 13, 1519, had received the false news that -Prierias was silent, but the pope had given the brother Cyprianus in Paris orders to write against Luthern. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, appendix no. 37, § 5.

428 L- v. a. ii. 82-84. 18. Des Prierias Epitome. W. xvm, 217-219. 429

The first is to show that the contending church is the monarchical and hierarchical kingdom of Christ, and the second is to show that in this hierarchy the Roman superior (praesul) is the first and supreme hierarch according to divine right, who alone has to decide the highest concerns (resolutivus) and who alone is the infallible judge of truth about everything that concerns faith and morals.

b) Honestly, he says that it was his intention; because, since he > tried in vain and accomplished nothing, he only bears xxxxxxxfalse

Fire) on display.

Chapter Two. ^c^) That the contending church is the kingdom of heaven and Christ's monarchy, likewise also a hierarchy. And there it is shown

  1. That the holy catholic church is the kingdom of Christ;
  2. that it is also the reign of Christ;

3.^d^ ) that it is an empire and a monarchical rule;

  1. that it is the fifth in the order of the world monarchies, and there [namely Cap. II, punctum 4. is dealt with) also after the holy scripture^e^ ) of the four earthly monarchies, the Assyrian, the Persian-Medic, the Greek and the Roman;
  2. that of all the monarchies that have been, it is the most excellent.

c) If Silvester did not say this, no one would know it, d) As Christ > says: "My kingdom is not of the > > world" (Joh. 19, 36.), and agrees the word hierarchy, holy dominion, > and worldly, unholy dominion, like Christ and Belial.

e) That is, that of New Year's Eve, who is a new god.

Chapter Three. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the first hierarch, not only according to dignity, but also according to jurisdiction. And there

  1. The error of those who say that St. Peter did not see Rome is rejected;
  2. is described,^f^ ) who is understood by the Roman superior; for he is the one who is Christ's representative and Peter's successor, he may have his chair where it is, at Antioch, as in former times, or at Rome, as now, or elsewhere, if it pleases God;
  3. that St. Peter was appointed by Him during Christ's lifetime as the first of the apostles;
  4. that this first place (primitas)^g^ ) includes not only the dignity, but also the jurisdiction and the power;
  5. It is shown in a probable way that Peter alone was appointed bishop by Christ personally, but the others by Peter;^h^ )
  6. That the Roman superior is the supreme hierarch who contains the whole being (hypostasim) of the church under his bailiwick;^i^ )
  7. that the appointed Roman superior is to be considered the shepherd^k^ ) and bishop of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

f) The Antichrist will also be Christ's and God's representative. > > g) Since Christ says, "The greatest among you shall be as the > youngest." (Luc. 22, 26.) > > h) With the exception of Judas Iscarioth and Matthias, of whom Apost. > 1,20: "His bishopric is received by another.

i) Like Nero and Domitian.

k) to graze and perish.

Fourth Chapter. That the Roman superior in the ecclesiastical hierarchy is the highest hierarch, the head of the world, against the opponent who denies that the pope is the church in power (virtualiter), which is, however, proper to the head. And there it is shown

  1. that he who was called Cephas by Christ, changing his name^m^ ) was appointed by Christ to be the head of his sheep;
  2. many objections to it are refuted there;
  3. that after the death of Peter in the church another general shepherd was needed on his chair and after his departure again another one^n^ ) and so on until the end of the world, namely as long as the church will last.
  4. that^o^ ) the true and undoubted successor of St. Peter alone is the true and undoubted Roman pope;
  5. that^p^ ) the Roman church was the first and was appointed by Christ as the head of all churches, and with what ignorance it is said that it was not the head after Peter had his seat there;
  6. That the Roman superior, who is lawfully established, be the head in the same way and with the same power, as also St. Peter;^q^ )
  7. A certain opinion of wrong people is refuted there, that the pope is not the head of the general church as a collective, but only healed as an individual (distributive)^r^ ), from which they want to conclude that the pope is not the head of a council;

430 L. V. a. II. 84-86. III Luther's Stxeit with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 2IS-22I. 431

to the last, many objections against it are solved there;^s^ )

I) Not the foot or elbow.

m) Notice that Cephas is said to be the head, contrary to John 1:42, > where it is written that Cephas is called Peter.

n) So Prierias.

o) The Antiochian successor of Peter is the Roman one.

p) So Prierias.

q) If also Peter is an apostle, and the pope only a bishop, namely > smaller and yet the same.

r) Yes, only confusedly and materially.

s) According to Prierias way.

Fifth Chapter. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch everywhere?) against the adversary, who deprives his jurisdiction of some nations, e.g. the Greeks and the believers who live among the unbelievers. And there

  1. The generality of this monarchy is proven by the holy") Scriptures;
  2. The godlessness of Anton Roselli is rejected, who taught that Christ, inasmuch as he was man, had no right to an earthly reign;^v^ )
  3. Augustine and the Scriptures prove that once again a second proclamation of the gospel^w^ ) will take place with a greater conversion^x^ ) of the nations than in the times of the apostles, when their sound went out into all the world Ps. 19, 5., in such a way that the pope will rule over everything in the world, not only according to right, but also according to deed;^y^ )
  4. What jurisdiction^z^ ) the pope can exercise even over the unbelievers, be they pagans, Jews or even heretics.

t) That is, in the brain of a Prieria.

u) As- Virgil Aeneid, 3rd book, v. 57 says, "The holy hunger for > gold." > > v) Because Christ has denied himself the right of an earthly rule in > order to leave it entirely to his Roman governor; mark this well!

w) Of the Roman Jubilee Year.

x) Inversion.

y) Also over everything in heaven after Christ and GOD is cast down. > > z) Note that the pope is free to be the most cruel murderer of men.

Chapter Six. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch for all times, a) against the opponent's assertion that the Roman church was not always the head in former times, who also seems to have persuaded himself that he could destroy its doctrine for the future. ^b^) And there '

  1. from Daniel and otherwise manifoldly proved, that the kingdom of Christ hath no end^c^ ), except at the end of the world by the transition from earth to heaven; and there is shown.
  2. That this eternal duration is taught by the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, likewise also by those of the New, and thirdly by the sacred teachers.

a) Except when he dies.

b) The teaching of the pope is not destroyed, rather it is precisely > it that must destroy everything.

c) This is true, but not so the realm of the pope.

Chapter Seven. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the hierarch, the originator of all hierarchical jurisdiction,^d^ ) Against the opponent who holds that the jurisdiction of the pope over the general and that of a diocesan bishop over his diocese are the same with respect to purgatory. ^e^) And there it is shown]

  1. that the power of jurisdiction passes from the Roman superior to all ecclesiastical persons, as from the head to the members, whether without means or by a means;^f^ )
  2. how many^1^ ) opinions are about this; the wrong ones are refuted;
  3. that a bishop has indeed many powers, but all of them are traced back to those of consecration and jurisdiction, and all of them are inherent in him only from the Roman Pontiff;^g^ )
  4. Concerns are resolved there and many opinions are refuted.

d) This is a strong hunter, like Nimrod.

e) Money may be drawn from it, but not souls.

f) By jumping and taking it on the side.

g) Even if the latter is asleep.

Chapter Eight. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, with whose jurisdiction nothing can be compared, against the opponent who wants that in a council and consequently also in the general church there is a power that is not in the Roman pope. And there it is shown

  1. What the name "church" means and how many different things it means;
  2. that the power of the keys, whether flowing from consecration or from jurisdiction, was not given to the contending universal church in such a way as if all or individual members of it had received it in its entirety;
  1. In the original: 4110t. In the Erl. Ausg. 41106.

432 ii. 86-88. 18. des Prierias Epitome. W. xvm, 221-224. 433

  1. that the power of the keys of the general church was not given in such a way that it was given to all members of the church at the same time as a whole (collective), or, as it is customary to say, socially (coIlegialiter), and not to a single member in particular;
  2. that the power of jurisdiction in the general church is not greater than in St. Peter and his successor, but not even as great;

(5) It is concluded that since the saints say that the keys are given to the general church, this is not to be understood as if they were given to all the members of the church, either individually or collectively, but that they are given to some members in the church, as first to Peter, but to the apostles in their order and in subjection to Peter.

  1. that there is not only no jurisdiction greater than that of the Roman superior,^k^ ) but not even one equal to it;^l^ )
  2. Many knots are untied against what has been said^m^ ) and especially the: The world is bigger than Rome.

h) Nor Christ, as befits the Antichrist. > > i) Since the pope is not part of the general church, it is true that > he has a different power than that of the church, namely a tyrannical > and diabolical one. > > k) So the tiresome New Year's Eve, which does not miss threatsI) > stings once the Christi!

m) Silvester's key solves them!

Chapter Nine. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, the lawgiver,^n^ ) whose laws, because they are necessary for salvation, concern all men,^o^ ) Against the opponent who claims that the decrees of the popes are quite cold and nothing. And there

  1. that it belongs to the Roman superior to give laws;^p^ )
  2. that it is necessary for the sake of blessedness to submit to the laws and commandments of the Roman Pontiff, who commands nothing contrary to God's commandments;^q^ )
  3. that it is heretical to say that^r^ ) not all must obey the laws of the Roman Pontiff;
  4. that the decrees of the Roman popes, even if they are not issued at a council, are also not inserted into the papal law book, and also all their provisions are to be accepted and executed by everyone. ^s^)

n) Because he has not keys (claves), but clubs (clavas)! > > o) Truly, they affect souls and corrupt them! p) To give laws, that > is, to destroy the church, q) As he does almost everywhere. > > r) Rather, it would be exceedingly Christian to abolish the pope > together with his quite godless laws. > > s) Namely, so that from the heretical decrees the church becomes > heretical.

Chapter Ten. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, the sole judge of all,^t^ ) from divine power, against the opponent who says that the Roman church has its first rank and consequently its power not from God and always, but from elsewhere and for four centuries. And there 1. that many do not know from whom the Roman popes have received their power after St. Petrus,^u^ ) and there many opinions are separated;

  1. that the power of the Roman superior is directly from Christ, who is God (a Dea Christo); from which it is concluded that the whole world cannot even limit or restrict, much less abolish, the power of the Roman superior with one another;^v^ )
  2. that the power of a council is not of God,^w^ ) except in the case of heresy or schism, not in every, but in a certain one, namely, when it is not certain or provable by anything that a Roman superior is there: but all the power of the fathers of the council, whether as individual members, or whether as a body or council, comes from the Roman Pontiff. There also many false opinions about this are rejected;
  3. that among men alone^x^ ) the Roman pope has his power directly from God.

And there many objections are resolved, so also especially the one that is usually cited from the decision of the Constance Council, which, although it was not the decision of a true council,^y^ ) as the Lord John de Turre cremata has proved, is nevertheless also rescued by rational proofs and testimonies and shown to be true at the time of the schism, in which, however, the decision is left to the more learned.

t) The soothsayer divinornm, Is. 44, 25. and sign interpreter. > No miracle! > > u) No wonder, since they invented the same from their heart.

v) First frenzy of Silvester.

w) Second frenzy.

x) And so Paul lies, to the Galatians 1, 1., saying that he is > not of men, nor by men. > > y) Notice well, to the followers of Rome only that is a concil, what > and as far as it seems good to them!

Chapter Eleven. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch.

434 L. v. a. ii, 88-9i. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvm, 224-226. 435

a judge without a judge,^z^ ) Against the opponent, who by appealing to the Roman superior makes a higher judge, either a single person, which is rejected now, or some body, which will be rejected in the following chapter. And here it is shown

  1. Where does a concilium get its name?
  2. What is a general concil?
  3. that if only one undoubted pope holds the chair, it is up to him alone to call a council, and there some knots will be untied;
  4. when the chair is discharged and in the event of such an emergency that cannot be met without a council, to whom it shall be incumbent to appoint a council;
  5. that either the Roman superior or someone in his place must have the chairmanship and leadership in the council,^b^ ) and there many false opinions are being dispelled;
  6. that a pope, even if he cannot change the place of a council in which his heresy is to be tried, can nevertheless do so if he is an undoubted pope, despite the Constance council;^c^ )
  7. that the Roman superior may completely annul a council that has already been lawfully assembled and opened;^d^ )
  8. that the decisions of the concilia do not bind or obligate anyone unless they are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff's prestige;^e^ ) and there many objections are resolved;
  9. that the Roman superior in the external court, except in the case of his heresy,^f^ ) can have no superior, although there are opinions whether he can do so by agreement on an arbitrator.

z) and that this will be the Antichrist is foretold by the apostle.

a) namely of the wicked.

b) With the exception of the Council of the Apostles, Apost. 15, in > which Jacobus presided, and the Nicene Council, in which Eustace of > Antioch presided. > > c) The Constance Concil only remains valid as far as Silvester wants.

d) Satan can do that too, and so can robbers.

e) Speeding!

f) except for the case of confession and malaise, where the doctor is > higher than he.

Chapter Twelve. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the hierarch, a judge who has no body to judge,^g^ ) and I speak of one who undoubtedly is. Different in the case of a heresy or a schism, of which is said above, and that, as previously thought; Against the opponent, who has invoked a future Concil. And there

  1. Of the double power of the fathers of the council?) namely: as single persons, which differs from the power of the pope in a double way, namely like a second cause from the first, and like a partial from the whole; and: insofar as they are a body, which is the same as the authority of the pope, not according to number, but according to analogy; and this is in the pope an ordinary and full one, but in a council a delegated one and as far as it pleases the pope;^i^ ) there is also spoken of the authority of the fathers at a provincial council;
  2. that of the powers, that of the pope and that of the fathers at a council, in the way in which they are distinguished, the papal is superior;
  3. Many contradictory issues are resolved there;
  4. that the Roman bishop is in no way bound by the decisions (canones) and resolutions of the concilia, insofar as they proceed from the concilia,^k^ ) which is said because, if a concilium were to determine something that is also so according to divine law, whether written or natural, e.g. that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, or that a certain contract is usurious, the pope would indeed be bound by it, but not because it comes from the concilium, but from God, Dist. 25, 1) qu. 1, Cap. Sunt quidam;
  5. that the pope, although he cannot change the decisions of the councils, inasmuch as these are sometimes also those of God, that is, of divine right, as has just been said, may nevertheless annul those which belong to the council as a council, or which relate to the given right, in the same way as his own, that is, for a just cause to be left to his discretion;^l^ )
  6. that the fathers of the council cannot decide exactly about everything; and there the godless opinion of Marsilius of Paduc^2^ ) is rejected^m^ ) and many objections are resolved;
  7. that an undoubted pope cannot be legally deposed or judged by the whole world, let alone by a council, even if he would be so angry that he would lead peoples in droves with him to the first slave of hell, that is, the devil,^n^ ) as Cap. Si papa 3) of the 40th Dist. says, but, as it is said there,
  1. In the original: 5.
  2. Marsilius Patavinus (of Padua), called Raimondini after his family name or Meinardini after others, a teacher of law from the Franciscan order. He was Rector of the University of Paris in 1312.
  3. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 275.

436 L- v. L. ii, si f . 18. des Prierias Epitome. W. xvm, 226-229. 437

one must pray to God. The opposite, however, is held by^o^ ) those who had once been red spirits, such as Panormitanus in his disputation, which begins: Episcopus, and certain living persons, against whom I would like to disputate especially,^p^ ) if our Lord would grant me the desired rest;

  1. that a true pope cannot be forced to abdicate because of a schism,^q^ ) and there many objections are resolved;
    1. If, however, the heresy remains completely hidden from the church, the pope is not deprived of his power, but it is believed that^r^ ) the supreme bishop, Christ, replaces what is lacking,^s^ ) but if he mends, then he is again pope; If, however, his heresy should be quite obvious and no longer require proof, and also be a heresy in an essential way (formaliter), that is, with hardening of the will, then he is deprived of his power. If, however, it is presumably doubtful, then a general council is the judge, which must then be assembled either on its own initiative, as in the case of Marcellinus, 1) or by those to whom it belongs according to the foregoing;

last, that a concilium may depose a pope in case of manifest or proven or admitted heresy, or rather declare him deposed.

g) I.e. the Antichrist.

h) Observe here the hair-trigger distinctions of the Archmaster of > the Most Holy Palace! > > i) The will of the pope is the guide for everything. > > k) You see now that the pope has nothing in common with a concilium, > consequently also nothing with the Church of God, which is true. > > l) Note the magnificent restrictions! m) and the whole Constance > Concil. > > n) Shudder, heaven, be astonished, earth; O Christians, behold what > Rome is!

o) Catholic and holy.

p) neither happier, nor more reasonable, than this is written.

q) This is how the shepherd loves his sheep!

r) That is: one dreams.

s) Namely, Christ also inhabits the dunghill of ungodliness through a > new grace.

Chapter Thirteen. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, a judge from whom no appeal can be made, but again against the opponent,^t^ ) who, as said, has appealed from the pope to a future council. And there

  1. St. Marcellinus, Roman bishop from 296-303.
  1. that it is not permitted to appeal from the pope to a council;^u^ )
  2. that he who appeals from the pope to a future council is not only subject to the ban,^v^ ) but also stupid, if he does not know that he is doing something that he cannot do without the consent of his opponent, that is, the pope, or malicious, if he knows this well and appeals anyway;
  3. that it is permitted to appeal from a council to the absent pope, but not to the present one;^w^ )
  4. Many objections are solved there.

t) This is none of Luther's business, you shameful flatterer!

u) Speeding!

v) Just as Christ was banished by the Jews.

w) An opinion of the archmaster.

Chapter Fourteen. That the Roman superior alone has to decide in the highest doubts,^x^ ) against the opponent who says that in these matters of faith the council is above the pope. And there

  1. that the pope alone^y^ ) has to decide all questions and concerns in matters of faith by a judgement from his power, that is, which is legally valid and final;
  2. if we speak of the Concil as something that is not separate, in contrast to the pope, but includes the pope as its head. If we speak of the council as something that is not separate, in contrast to the pope, but includes the pope as its head,^z^ ) then the power of the council and that of the pope, properly considered (analogia), is only one, and accordingly it is also up to the council to decide on the faith, if the pope does not forbid it;
  3. Many interjections are solved here;
  4. that it is the sole business of the Roman superior to interpret the laws ordered by God and nature and to explain them in doubtful cases, not only in matters pertaining to life, but also in those pertaining to faith, which is testified to there by sayings, examples, and rational reasons; and this is proved to be true not only from the probable interpretation, as it belongs to the teachers, but also from the necessary one, so that his decisions are to be obeyed under the penalty of eternal and temporal death. ^a^)

x) by sheer force, even if he were the most ignorant and depraved man > in doing so; for he speaks and it comes to pass. > > y) That is, without anyone being there, namely when sleeping in bed. > > z) A remarkable and magisterial distinction. > > a) It is not Silvester who is speaking here, but Satan, the chief of > the devils.

438 D. V. a- H- 93 f. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 229 f. 439.

Fifteenth Chapter. That^b^ ) in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, an infallible judge of truth, against the opponent, who deviates and contradicts in this far, as it is obvious in his book. And there

  1. What it means: the pope acts as pope,^c^ ) and how all disputes of the saints and teachers about this are traced back to one, and what the root of all opinions is, namely: the pope acts as pope or head when he makes use of the help of the members and does in good faith as much as is in him to understand the truth; another would be where he maliciously deceives;
  2. that the general church cannot err in decisions about faith and life;
  3. That the pope, though he may act wickedly and believe unjustly, if he is a single person, yet, as pope, he cannot decide unjustly;^d^ ) and this is proved first in a probable manner, and then in an incontrovertible manner, not only by canons and conciliarities, but also by sacred Scripture; 1)
  1. Because here is one of the few passages of the Epitome in which Prierias refers to the Holy Scripture, and from this he wants to have proved irrefutably that "the pope as pope cannot decide unjustly", we want to let the reader have a small insight in which way he has really done this in his larger work, of which this Epitome is the table of contents. We therefore place here the interpretation from his great work, Errata et arGuMenta Nartini Imterig reeitata, äeteota, rspulgn 6t 6Opiy8iWilN6 trlta: per tratrsrn Kilvsgtrnm krio riatsni, MaZwtrurn gaeri palatii. It says Lot. 88 b.: "In general, all the conciliaries, without any exception, have desired that their decisions and pronouncements, both on faith and on other matters, be confirmed by the pope. This could not have taken place at all, if the infallible judgment which the Church has, as must be confessed, had not been inherent in the Roman Pontiff (rSgläsrSt). Yes, the Lord himself says this, saying: 'All that you bind cast' 2c For he [the Pabsts binds by commanding by a saying (xronllneianäo äiesrm) what must be believed. - What GOtt says, directly or indirectly, in itself or in a likeness, insofar as it is a likeness, is true, because truth could not lie in any way. But God has said that the judgment of the pope, namely as pope, that is, with the cardinals assisting him, is to be held inviolable. For this he said of the pope and the assessors in the old law, as is clear from Deut. 17, where he commanded under the penalty of death that it should have its end with the judgment of the highest priest in everything doubtful. And it is ungodly to deny this of the pope and his assessors in the new law, under which the grace of the Spirit is more fully infused, as shown above; and the power (antoritas) of the pope is greater, since he has the keys. This is also fully proven by
  1. that all general decrees of the pope, when he decides about faith and life,^e^ ) are from the pope, insofar as he is pope, or with the advice of the assessors the cardinals;
  2. Many objections to the foregoing are answered there, by which the enviers of the Roman see wish to prove that the pope has already erred, not only in his actions, but also in his decisions: and especially in regard to St. Peter, whom the apostle rebuked; upon which the adversary has erected a great but dilapidated edifice.

b) Satan is talking here as well.

c) The pope acts as a pope when he is carried by the referendums and > offers the holy feet to kiss them, then when he eats up the whole > world by avarice and corrupts the souls.

d) an opinion of Silvester taken from hell.

e) As was proved by the last Concil the V Lateran in 1512, where > it was decided that the soul was immortal, and tithes were to be > extorted for the Roman belly.

Chapter Sixteen. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch^f^ ), only^g^ ) the infallible judge of truth, against the opponent who expressly wanted it to be the business of a council and not of the pope to decide about faith and life. And there

  1. that a general council,^h^ ) even if legitimately held, yet understood as something separate from the pope, can err in its decisions about faith and life, and it is proven that it has often really erred;
  2. that a lawfully held council, if it is understood to be connected with its head,^i^ ) the pope,^k^ ) can absolutely not err in its decisions about faith and life;
  3. Many reasons of malicious people are resolved there;
  4. that if there were a disagreement between the pope and the council in matters of faith, namely, if the matter had already been decided by an irrefutable judgment of the Holy Spirit according to what has been said above, one would have to side with him who had the said decision for himself, because the other part, even if it were the pope, would set himself against the Holy Spirit, which is impossible if he had already done as much as is in him;^l^ ) but if the matter had not been decided, one would have to side with him who had the said decision for himself.

the Cap. per V6n6rakil6in" 2c This is the scriptural evidence on which Silvester relies in this passage, complete. All his other proofs are either from the Canons, or St. Thomas, or Aristotle. Can one wonder that Luther did not answer him even One Word from it?

440 L. V. a. II, 94-96. 18. Des Primas Epitome. W. xvm, 230-233. ' 441

would be, but first to decide, so some say, one must take the side of him who has the better reasons, what Panormitanus in the Cap. Significavit in "Of Election" and in a certain disputation beginning with Episcopus, but unreasonably,^m^ ) as is proved there; in this case the pope would have to hear all and then form a judgment on the impulse of his heart (which in such matters is governed by God^n^ ), therefore one would have to adhere to the pope who proceeds in good faith and after careful consideration, because he also has an irrefutable judgment without a council, as is proven, but not a council without a pope, as is also proven;^o^ )

  1. that if parties or the fathers of the council were to disagree with each other, the pope or the legate,^p^ ) who presides over the council in his place, must not form a judgment according to the judgment of the greater, but of the more reasonable part, or of the part whose reasons are better, even if it were only one; for- also Paphnutius 1)^q^ ) contradicted the Nicene Synod and kept right; Cap. Nicaena. in the 31st Distinction;
  2. Many objections are refuted there.

f) Satan.

g) I.e. without anyone being present, as above.

h) as the last Lateranese was.

i) Because lü the One Head of the Pope is more than in the whole > Church Chnsti.

k) Satan.

I) What does the "in him" mean? That he would not easily allow a > council because of the danger that the church would be reformed.

m) I.e. not Silvestri.

n) fromi the God of this world, who has his work in the children of > unbelief Eph. 2:2.

o) Yes, of course (produturu 68t)!

p) Or even the palace master or some notary.

q) a beautiful conclusion from a holy man to a godless one!

The first chapter of the second book shows that it is heretical to say (^r^ ) that true indulgences cannot take place in the Catholic Church, against the adversary who took occasion from the proclamation of indulgences to attack the apostolic see. And there it is shown

  1. What is the meaning of the word indulgence, as well as remission (veniae) and indulgence?
  2. What is indulgence?
  3. that in the Church the pope and the bishops or certain others give true indulgences under restriction 2) of the pope;
  1. In the original: Panuptius.
  2. In the original: limatione instead of 1iruitutivu6.
  1. Several throw-ins are solved there;
  2. that the saints, who found themselves moved to grant such remission, were not guided by their will, but by their reason, which is proven there from probable and immediately also from compelling^s^ ) reasons;
  3. As in our good works, e.g. almsgiving, there is a merit and a satisfaction: the first always belongs to him who works it, but not the second, but this belongs to him for whom we intend to do enough;
  4. That the merits of Christ or of the saints are not fully rewarded is said by some canonists in a non-genuine sense;^t^ ) but they mean to say that the gratifications of the same are not yet all exhausted or bestowed, otherwise even the suffering of Christ could not be a gratification for those who do daily penance;^u^ )
  5. It is explained in what way there is a treasure in the church, which is also proven immediately afterwards in the last chapter, and indeed irrefutably;^v^ )
  6. by whom this treasure can be distributed;
  7. reasons are presented to prove the indulgence and the treasure in a probable way, but then also in a necessary way^w^ ), after, however, the Extravagante of Clement VI is mentioned, which was issued under the advice of assessors, in which the said treasure is mentioned in detail;
  8. that it is heretical to say^x^ ) that the Church cannot grant true indulgences, which is proved many times, and it is suggested that St. Anthony and Felinus Sandeus held the same.

r) heretical according to the faith of Silvester, in which > ungodliness is believed, as the apostle predicted 2 Thess. 2, 10. > f.. > > s) and from the per se known and first principles of the book > Elenchorum Fallacies of Aristotle. > > t) Silvester, the inauthentic speaker (iin^roprii8tu). > > u) as if Christ's suffering and the merits of the saints were in any > relation. Thus he disputes in Silvester's way.

v) From Aesop's first fable.

w) finally also by itself.

x) heretical on the renegade road of Thomas.

Second Chapter. That it is now heretical to say that in the church no real indulgence can take place for the deceased. And there

  1. that about this question there used to be opinions between the theologians and canonists;
  2. that the opinion of those who believe that the indulgence is intercessory for the deceased is true? and it is proved many times;

442 D. V. a. II, SS-SS. III, Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 233-2SS. 443

  1. that the aforementioned opinion is now no longer opinion, but doctrine and pronouncement of the church,^z^ ) and the counter-sanctified opinion for the same reason is now an error and not 'merely an opinion;^a^ )
  2. that it is heretical to claim that indulgences do not benefit the deceased;
  3. It is explained how the "in the way of intercession" is to be understood;
  4. Very many objections Wider Vorgenanntes are resolved.

y) according to Thomistic truth.

z) the Thomists.

a) in Thomistic theology.

Chapter Three. That it is heretical in force and in its consequences to say that no punishment imposed by divine justice can be remitted by the pope granting indulgences. And there

  1. that after repentance and grace, man is still obligated by the guilt to solve a temporal punishment, which is proven manifold by Scripture,^b^ ) teachers and canons, even if the opponent denies this.
  2. that after repentance there is some place of purgatorial punishment called by the word "sweeping," and it is shown there how purgatory is twofold: an ordinary one, which is generally believed to be under the earth,^c^ ) although this is uncertain, and an extraordinary one (dispensatorium, i.e., granted by dispensation), which is at least sometimes in this world;^d^ )
  3. that in purgatory the punishment imposed by divine justice is remitted or resolved;
  4. It is proved that it is heretical to say that the pope cannot remit the punishment imposed by divine justice through indulgences;
  5. of a new and erroneous opinion that the pope may remit said punishments, but in reality does not do so, even if he grants plenary indulgence, but always remits only the punishments imposed by the priest; this opinion has not yet been published or rather made known.

b) that is, by the fifth book of the Conflatum of Silvester. 1) > > c) Note that the impersonal word "one holds" is the basis of > Thomistic and Roman theology, for with it they prove all their things.

d) Silvester's testimony.

  1. The main work of Prierias, on which he had worked for eight years, entitled: Conflatum krierii ex anZtzlieo (ioetorb saneto lüoma had only four books.

Chapter Four. How the indulgence itself is to be understood? ^e^)

e) The indulgence has a threefold essence, metaphysical, natural and > logical; the fourth is concealed, namely the fabulous (chimeri- cum) > and most genuine essence.

Chapter Five. How is indulgence to be understood on the part of the grantor?

Chapter Six. How is the indulgence to be understood on the part of the recipient?

Chapter Seven. That the foundations that I have previously established against the opponent are true. And there

  1. that the general church is by its nature the totality of all believers in Christ called to divine service; but that the general church is by its representation a lawfully held council; but that the general church is by its power the Roman church, the head of all churches, and the pope;^f^ )
  2. that the Roman Church is, according to its representation or in its more prominent way, the body (coIIegium) of the most reverend lords cardinals, but according to its power, the pope, who is the head of the Roman and the general Church, but in a different way than Christ;
  3. that just as the general church cannot err in its decisions about faith and life, so also a true council cannot err, which does what is in it to know the truth; which I understand, however, if the head^g^ ) is included, and that it finally and finally happens, though it may be mistaken at first sight, as long as the trial continues for the investigation of the truth, yea, has also erred at times, though more by setting up than by deciding, though it has been led out of error by the Holy Spirit;

and in the same way neither the Roman church, nor the pope can err in deciding about faith or life, as pope, that is, if he does and does the pronouncement ex officio, so much is in him that he knows the truth;^h^ )

  1. That anyone who does not base himself on the doctrine^i^ ) of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, as the guide of faith, that is, who is infallible in what must be believed, from which also the Holy Scriptures draw or have drawn their force, is a heretic;
  2. that the Roman church can decide something about faith and life by word as well as by deed, and that in this there is no difference at all, except that words are more suitable for this than deeds, therefore also for this reason habit acquires the power of a law;

444 L. v. a. u, 98-iov . 18. des Prierias Epitome. W. xvm, 235-237. 445

  1. Inferentially, that whoever holds that the Roman Church^k^ ) cannot do in matters of faith what it actually does is a heretic, in that he holds differently in matters of faith than the Roman Church.

f) Here the writer improves himself, who before fim dialog had three > churches, but now has five. Thus Rome's wisdom grows. > > g) A magisterial and most scientific distinction! > > h) That he sucks the world by estimations, he is truly not mistaken; > alas!

i) Here, Satan is speaking from the lowest hell.

k) by taking the Roman church in the sixth way for the magister of > the palace.

Chapter Eight. That the adversary has some errors, except those which he states in his theses and their explanations. And there

  1. proved that it is a mistake that the pope is in matters of faith under a concilium, if it is not understood by the faith^1^ ) of the pope himself, while the opponent speaks of matters of faith straight and in general;

and as a second error it was rejected that the pope could err in a decision about faith: and he Luther^l^ ) must speak of it (as is proven there), in so far as the pope is pope;^m^ ) and the third error is that the decrees of the Roman popes are quite cold and nothing;

and the fourth is that the Roman Church is not the head, except according to the quite cold decrees of the Roman popes from four hundred years ago, Wider which, he says, are the completely proven stories of eleven hundred years ago;

and the fifth that it is permissible to appeal^n^ ) to a future concil;

and the sixth, that the Roman Church or the Pope is not the Catholic Church by force;

and the seventh, that it is quite bad to say that God has not commanded anything impossible;

and the eighth, that the saying Matth. 16: "All that you will bind" 2c, is not a privilege of Peter, but belongs in the same way to all apostles and priests, and certainly to the whole church.

l) Because he did not know this palace-master distinction. > > m) I. e.: Nimm Brod yes gold - addition of the Wittenberg and Jena > edition.

n) O how this wound and ulcer hurts!

Chapter Nine. That it is an error^o^ ) to say that the pope cannot, through the indulgence, give any

  1. That this is the correct conception, and not the pope, but Luther is the subject of this sentence, is evident from the execution of Silvester in the larger work col. 142 d, where this sentence is expressed thus: oxortst HuoäinlkUIZut etc..

The priests and the canons shall not remit other punishments than those imposed by the priests or the canons. And there

  1. the error is cited and proven to be rejected from what has been said;
  2. All the bases of the opponent are answered and it is shown that he proceeded frivolously, because he cites the Scriptures badly,^p^ ) so that the same not only does not prove, but also does not go to the matter, or yet only rarely, and this he does throughout the whole book.

o) He proves these errors of Luther, but at night in his secret > chamber. > > p) This is also how the people of Cologne and Louvain answer, and > this is the solemn way of the magistri nostri to answer: You have > misquoted and misinterpreted the Scriptures.

Chapter Ten. That it is a mistake to maintain that the pope cannot grant plenary indulgences, either here or in the future. And there

  1. Showed that this is an error, if it is understood of the punishments which divine justice requires of us for sins, or which in judgment are imposed on the soul to endure (veniunt).
  2. all his grounds of proof are resolved;
  3. It is shown that it is a mistake to say that in purgatory the pope cannot remit the punishment of the canons, not in the actual form, but in an equivalent one (aequiva- lenti);
  4. Another error is rejected, according to which he claims that every punishment of this life is changed into the punishment of death if one willingly suffers it;
  5. It is proved that the Roman Church was the head at the time of Gregory, which the latter denies;

to the last, its foundations, which are nothing, are destroyed.

Chapter Eleven. That this opponent has a bad opinion of purgatory, where these errors are also rejected and the counterfactuals are refuted.

The first error: Man's way in relation to the increase of his condition (habituum) and to the merits of works does not end with death;

The second: The imperfect love of a dying person necessarily entails a great fear, even after death, which is all the greater the less it was;

the third: This fear and terror is in itself (to say nothing else) sufficient to constitute the punishment of the purgatory, since it is closest to the terror of despair;

446 L. V. E. II, 100-103. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 237-240. 447

the fourth: Hell, purgatory and heaven seem to be as different from each other as despair, near despair and safety are different from each other;

the fifth: In the souls in purgatory, love seems to increase as the terror decreases;

But the foundations by which he is moved to expose these errors are, as will be shown, powerless in many respects, but especially because^q^ ) he misapplies the sacred Scriptures and understands them differently from those who interpret them literally; and many beautiful things are said in the refutation.

q) How he talks so cologne!

Chapter Twelve. Once again, that the opponent has bad opinions about purgatory, where again many errors and many falsehoods together with its foundations are nullified.

The first false thing is that he says that there seems to be nothing, neither Scripture nor reason, to prove that the souls in Purgatory are outside the state of merit or increase in love. Thus that one.

But its falsity^r^ ) is already evident from the fact that we have proved the opposite from reason, from the sayings of the saints and the canons, as well as from Scripture; likewise from the testimony of Scripture and the saints at the same time: for St. Gregory, in the 4th book of his Dialogues, in order to prove the present matter, namely, that merits do not change in purgatory, cites many passages from Scripture, as illuminated from the previous chapter.

The second falsehood is that he says that it does not seem to be proven that they are sure and certain of their blessedness, at least not all of them, even if we are quite certain of it. So that one.

This is utterly false,^s^ ) for we have proved the contrary on probable, and then also on compelling grounds, and have shown its foundations to be void; especially that of supposing that the whole church holds that the punishments of purgatory are the same as those of hell; whereas no one says this, but it is quite false, since^t^ ) in purgatory there is no sin of blasphemy and despair of attaining blessedness, which is the greatest torment and punishment of the damned; for guilt is a greater evil than punishment, since guilt deprives us of God, but punishment of a creature.

The third falsehood is that he says: Who knows if all the souls of the purgatory also want to be redeemed? So that one.

But this falsehood is refuted in many ways; but what he cites for himself is nothing,

namely that Paul or Moses should have demanded to be eternally damned by GOD for others, and from the scriptural passages he attracts this is not to be concluded, but he misunderstands and misdirects them. ^u^)

r) The most beautiful conclusion of all: Silvester says the opposite, > therefore it is wrong.

s) According to the same Silvester conclusion.

t) The guilt is not the same, consequently also not the punishment; > again Silvestrian.

u) Likewise refute the Cologne.

Chapter Thirteen. That the opponent holds false opinions about the authority of the pope; and there many errors are cited, rejected, and the foundations of them shown to be void.

The first error is that the pope cannot remit a debt except by declaring and confirming it as remitted by God, or else that he remits only the cases reserved to him. Thus that one.

And this error he bases on another, namely, that grace is not conferred by the sacraments of the new law,^v^ ) Against the common teaching of the famous teachers, Augustine, Jerome, Hugh, the Magister of the Sentences, Beda, Rabanus, Peter de Palude and the Council of Florence.

The second error is that he says that in the Sacrament of Penance repentance is not as necessary as faith, namely, that one believes that one is absolved, and that faith in absolution achieves incomparably more than fervent repentance. And in those, he says, who believe in the word of Christ, "All things thou shalt redeem," 2c, the key cannot err. So that one. And again he says: "Even if the priest errs or does not err, you do not err if you believe that you are absolved. So he says.

And here also the pope's emptying of purgatory is discussed in answer to his first article; and it is proved that, just as the pope^w^ ) can bring one soul out of purgatory by indulgence, so also two and three, and so on ad infinitum, as long as there is a reasonable reason for the individual to be brought out; e.g. if the individual souls had such persons who came to them in a complete manner according to the pope's command.

The third error is that he says that the art of confession is tedious and useless, or rather to despair and ruin souls, in which we have been taught until now to count the sands, that is, to investigate, summarize and weigh the individual sins in order to bring about repentance. Thus that one.

448 L. V. L. II, 103-105. 18. Des Prierias Epitome. W. XVIII, 240-242. 449

The fourth error: the indulgence, given intercessionally, is of no more use than intercession alone.

The fifth error is that he says: "I do not care what the pope likes or dislikes; he is a man, like others. There have been many popes who have liked not only errors and vices, but also abominations. I hear the pope as a pope, that is, as he speaks in the canons, or concludes with a conciliar, but not when he speaks according to his head." Thus the one who also gives the example of the blood deeds of Julius.

The sixth is that he says that it is not up to the pope alone to issue new articles of faith, but only to judge by those that have been established and to decide questions of faith according to them. Here, however, there is a new article on indulgences, therefore the decision on it belongs before a general council, much more than the conception of the Blessed Virgin, especially since here there is none, but there there is much and great danger to souls; otherwise, since the pope is only one who can err in faith and life, the faith of the whole church would be in constant danger if one had to consider everything he liked to be true. Thus that one.

The seventh is that he says: If the pope would hold with a large part of the church in such and such a way, and would not err, nor is it a sin or heresy to hold otherwise, especially in a matter which is not necessary to salvation, until by a general council the one is approved and the other rejected; Which, to say it briefly, is already proved by the one thing that the Roman Church, even with the general conciliar of Basle and almost the whole Church, holds that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin, and yet those who hold the opposite are not heretics, because the other part is not yet rejected. Thus that one.

The eighth is that he holds the opinion that a bishop has the same power over purgatory in his diocese and a parish priest in his parish as the pope; which is touched upon and explained here to some extent.

The ninth is that he says: For the punishments of purgatory are remitted without the power of the keys by mere repentance; for he who has perfect repentance in regard to God is absolved from purgatory.

The tenth is that he says: For with plenary indulgence, that is, of all penalties, the greatest part of the people is deceived. So that one who, in explaining the same, thinks it improper, as it were, that some say that after such an indulgence the soul of the departed, when it is

no longer commits any other sin, into heaven. Then he continues: "No wonder," he says, "if those write, read, and shout in such a way that one who, after having obtained indulgence, dies from a relapse, immediately goes to heaven. For this," says he, "is as if there were only sins of the deed, as if the remaining tinder were no impurity, no obstacle, no means to keep from entering heaven, while yet it is impossible for him to enter heaven until he himself is made whole, even if there were no sin of the deed." Thus that one.

v) You lie, Silvester; Luther believes that grace is given through > the sacraments, better than you. > > w) Luther also says this: just as he can pull out one, so he can also > pull out many. For the comparison remains, because he can pull out > none.

Chapter Fourteen. That the adversary has bad opinions concerning the spiritual treasure of the church, from which it grants indulgences. And there

I. the right understanding of this treasure is given;

  1. It is shown that it is possible that such a one is in the church;
  2. it is shown in a probable way that it is so in fact;
  3. the same is shown in a proving manner;
  4. It is shown that what he cites for the opposite proves nothing and is almost cited as not belonging to the matter, and that all his bases are nothing but bites and vituperations. And in this chapter, in refuting the opponent, still infinite^x^ ) very marvelous things are treated.

x) Perhaps the infinite of Melissus, Anaxagoras and Leucippus.

Fifteenth Chapter. After the second volume is finished, the disputation with Eck and Luther's explanation about the authority of the pope came to my attention. Now it is added: that from what is said here and there above, his new errors are rejected. And there it is shown

I. That the Roman bishop (antistes - head) is first according to divine right, both in dignity and jurisdiction, according to the testimony of the Latin teachers;

  1. according to the testimony of the Greeks;
  2. according to the testimony of the concilia;
  3. according to the testimony of Scripture, to which he has responded inadequately^y^ );

450 L. v. a. ii, 105-107. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. xvni, 242-244. 451

to the last, the same is irrefutably proven for theological reasons.

y) Because Thomistic is judged about it.

Chapter Sixteen. That from what has been said all the opponents' invectives are resolved. And there

  1. That his reasons by which he seeks to prove that the supremacy of the Roman superior is not of divine right are void to him, although some are not void in themselves; nor are they all asserted in a treacherous manner.
  2. that his solution, which he gives to the scriptural passage Matth. 16, 19.: "To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven", is nothing, and his seven reasons of proof are refuted; and the same will be
  3. from his solution to the passage: "Feed my sheep" Joh. 21, 17. proven, and his four reasons for proof refuted;
  4. that he unjustly and out of ignorance ridicules the decree of Leo I. Ita Dominus of the 19-Distinction, and his four reasons of proof are refuted;
  5. that he laughs at the decree of Leo IV De libellis of the 20. 1) Dist. out of ignorance;
  6. the same is proved by the chapter Cleros of the 21st Dist. and his three reasons of proof are resolved, especially the one he takes from the African Conciliar in the chapter Primae sedis of the 99th Dist. where, deceived by the ambiguous expression^z^ ) "primacy of the chair", he did not understand in the least this chapter so clear that it did not need an interpretation;
  7. that he is wrongly fighting the decree Anaclets In novo of the 21st Dist. and it will also be
  1. In the original of Epitome 2. dist. but in the work itself 20.

proved by the testimony of a Greek emperor that the priesthood of the new law flowed from ancient Rome to all other churches;

  1. the same also of the decree of Pelagius Sancta of the 21st Dist. and its four grounds of proof are refuted;
  2. that he attacks with the greatest ignorance the decree of Nicolaus Inferior of the 21st Dist. and that the arrows he hurls at the opposite are nothing;
  3. the same of the Cap. Omnes of the 22nd Dist., and his seven libels are rejected;
  4. the same of the Decree Anaclets Sacrosancta of the 22nd Dist. and are rejected its six calumnies;
  5. that he unjustly and maliciously attacks Paschalis in his Decretale Significasti sim titled "Of the Election" 2);

last, that he proves his thirteenth thesis badly, but all his proofs come either from malice or from great ignorance. But let him beware; for, as far as I understand, he already bears the judgment of God on his neck.

z) What wonder if they invent new ambiguities from their heart every > day?

a) That is, by divine right.

b) This is also said Kölnisch and Löwenisch.

End of the third book of the legal and incontrovertible truth of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff.

Rome, printed by Antonius Bladis de Asula, March 27, 1520, during the reign of Leo X, in his 8th year.

  1. Here the original has correctly: äs elsetivns, instead of äs sIssraoZ^un in the other editions.

Martin Luther to the reader.

Christian brother, you who read this, what is brought forward by Silvester, the instrument of Satan, you must recognize that this is only composed out of deepest hatred and out of unbelievable fear of a general concil. For the Romanists, who have long since gone out of their minds with the rage of their godlessness, go about it in order that they may have unpunished liberty to undertake anything that might help the shattered and devastated Church.

not be helped by the means of a council, and the Roman Nimrods, Ishmaelites, bloodsuckers, Sybarites, Sodomites, Antichrists, who seduce the whole world (as Peter predicted 2. Ep. 2, 3.) "with invented words", not be given a goal.

Because they see that they cannot prevent a council, they think that the pope is over a council, without whose authority no council can be assembled.

452 L.v.a.n,io7f. 18. des Prierias Epitome. W. xvm, 244-247. 453

none could last, none could oblige, none could do anything, but he, the pope, was the infallible guide of truth, the guarantor how to understand the Scriptures. With these more than infernal inventions and lies they will have made a mockery of the Conciliar, if they are obliged to admit one before they admit it, so that they may thus keep their Sodom and Babel in all things unpunished.

If the frenzy of the Romanists continues in this way, it seems to me that there is no other remedy than for emperors, kings and princes to arm themselves with force and weapons, and to attack this plague of the whole world and to put an end to it not with words but with the sword. For what do these rejected people, who are also deprived of common sense, slur other than what is predicted that the Antichrist will do? and as if they considered us more senseless than blocks.

If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, heretics with fire, why do we not much more attack with all possible weapons these teachers of perdition, these cardinals, popes and all this yeast of the Roman Sodom, which corrupts the church of God without ceasing, and wash our hands in their blood, in order to free us and ours, as it were, from a common and most dangerous fire? O happy Christians, wherever they may be, if only they are not under this Roman Antichrist, as we wretched people are!

However, I will make myself free and leave this as a testimony to my conscience and my admonition that the Roman Pontiff's power, be it divine or human law, is not higher than commanded in the fourth commandment, that is, the first of the second tablet, where it says: "You shall honor your father and your mother". Therefore, I maintain that it is given to all of us in the commandments of GOD, esp.

is equal to the first three, so that if he does anything against one of them, he is subject to any believer who can punish and accuse him, according to the words, Matth. 18, 45-17: "If your brother sins against you, go and punish him between you and him alone. If he does not hear you, take one or two more to you. If he does not hear them, tell the congregation," that is, publicly in front of everyone. "If he does not hear the congregation, consider him a Gentile and a tax collector.

Who is he who could exempt the pope and the papists from this law of the gospel? Is the pope not a brother? or has not Christ commanded this to all his own? Show me a passage of Scripture that proves it is not lawful to force the pope under this rule. Or do they dare to frighten us with their diabolical little fists that we should not obey this commandment of Christ, that we should sin against God for the sake of a man, and for fear of a human statute nullify the commandment of God?

Truly, now I understand of whom Peter spoke when he said 2 Ep. 2:1 ff: "There shall also be false teachers among you, by whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed; who shall deny the Lord that bought them, and by covetousness shall deal in fancied words with you." Or is that not blaspheming the way of truth, claiming that the word of Christ has no validity in relation to any sinful person? I am excused and declare publicly according to these words of Peter and Christ: If princes, bishops and whoever else of the faithful do not warn, punish, accuse, consider the pope a pagan when he sins by any crime, they are all blasphemers against the way of truth and deniers of Christ, who shall be eternally damned with the pope. This is my opinion.

454III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. 455

Luther's dispute with Prierias includes the following writings:

a. Luther's letter to Spalatin of August 8, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 527 § 2. (Luther works on the refutation of the dialogue.)

b. Luther's letter to Spalatin of August 21, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 529 f. § 5.

(The dialogue and Luther's response to it are under press in Leipzig).

c. Luther's letter to Spalatin of August 31, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 599 § 4.

(Luther sends his response to the dialogue to Spalatin).

d. Luther's letter to Spalatin of September 2, 1518. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 9, § 2.

(Luther believes that his very erroneously printed explanations and refutation of Silvester's dialogue came to the attention of Spalatin).

e. Luther's letter to Johann Lang of September 16, 1518. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 15 a, § 1.

(All copies of the dialogue have been sold. New ones are being printed).

f. Luther's letter to Johann Staupitz of February 20, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix no. 31, and

g. Luther's letter to Wilibald Pirkheimer of February 20, 1519. De Wette, vol. VI, 12 f.

(Luther writes of the witty, intentional misprint in the dialogue in the Basel collection of his writings, [magirum Koch) instead of: magistrum and the sharp notes on the dialogue).

h. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 7, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 586.

(Luther sends the replica to Spalatin from Leipzig).

i. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 11, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 614 f. § 2.

(Luther asks for return of the replica and Rath whether he should answer it).

k. Luther's letter to Scheurl of January 13, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 616 § 3.

(To the reply, even if it were from Prierias, it is not worth to answer, because it is childish and feminine and nothing else than lamentations of his pain).

l. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 14, 1519. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 5, § 4 at the end.

(The Wittenbergers think that it is not necessary to answer the reply, because it is probably written by one of the dark ones, who plays the Silvester).

m. Luther's letter to Prince Frederick of March 13, 1519. Walch, old edition, Vol . XV, 867.

(Luther mentions that he let Silvester's replica drive).

n. Luther's letter to Spalatin of October 13, 1519. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 37, § 5.

(Luther is told that Prierias is silent, but Brother Cyprian of Paris will write against him by the Pabst's command).

o. Luther's letter to Spalatin of early June 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 723.

(Luther sends the epitome to Spalatin.)

p. Luther's letter to Spalatin of June 13, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 696 § 1.

(The epitome is under the press.)

q. Luther's letter to Spalatin of June 25, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 700 § 3-.

(The epitome will be ready tomorrow).

r. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 1652.

(Des Prierias Errata et argumenta Martini Luteris recitata etc. are sold during the Diet of Worms [second half of April 1521).

s. Luther's letter to Johann Lang of April 13, 1519. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 44, Col. 101 § 13.

(From the sub g. mentioned misprint in the Basel collection).

456 v. a. ii. iis f. 19. Luther's epilogue to d. Treatise of the Nannis. W. xvm, 247-249. 457

*19 Luther's epilogue to the treatise of John Nannis of Viterbo on the rule of the pope. )

Translated from Latin.

Martin Luther to the Godly Reader.

1 We read Joh. 12, 4. 5. that Judas Ischarioth was displeased when he saw that so much ointment was poured out, which Magdalene lavished on the body of Christ, while he very devoutly pretended that such a great treasure could have been distributed much more holy among the poor. This was, of course, a splendid and admirable appearance of godliness in such a rejected and unworthy man, so that the other apostles, seduced by these splendid words, also believed (but in apostolic simplicity), But later they saw (as John says) that he had been a thief and had lied so sacredly because of stealing, and that it was necessary to take care of the many poor (de ecclesia pauperum curanda).

The Roman pope imitated this more than too eagerly. After he had seen that great treasures were poured out on the body of Christ (that is, his church) by the faithful, even good-hearted Magdalene, that is, the believing souls and Christian princes, in order to maintain the servants of the church and to feed the members of Christ in the misery of this life, so he was seized with the most senseless frenzy to steal and rob, and also began to cry out through all the decrees and writings of his flatterers that he had his purpose in providing for all the churches, that he was commanded to feed the sheep of Christ. Under this pretense, which is not only like that of Ischarioth, but more than angelic, he proceeded to steal the goods of the whole church by this lie.

and to usurp it, although, according to the lies of the devil himself, the father of lies, no more impudent and impure lie under the sun has ever been put forward than that the Roman bishop is the shepherd of the whole Church.

(3) And this lie of Judas was without danger to the apostles, because in ignorance they believed the deceitful words according to the duty of love (which believes everything), and they also would not have wanted to die trusting in his words. But our Roman Ischarioth has so dressed up his lie for us Christians that we would not only be in danger of our salvation if we did not worship it as an article of faith, but that the certain condemnation already existing and decided by a judgement would already have swept us away long ago. And he took pleasure in the credulous and foolish simplicity of the faithful, in which he was free to make fun of them as he pleased with his papal manner of speaking (stilo curiali). For (if you wish) go through the histories and take care whether a page has ever gone out from the court of the pope, yes, two lines (versus) of Christian doctrine or at least of the holy ten commandments, since in the meantime storms and seas have flooded the whole church with decrees and bulls of prebends, bishops' coats of office, dignities and other quite worldly antics without ceasing, without end, without measure.

  1. although we have seen, grasped and felt all this for so many centuries, that hard and insolent mouth of the Roman whore nevertheless dares to boast that it wants to feed the sheep of Christ and all the churches, and that it wants to make the sheep and all the churches to be the sheep of Christ.

*This writing was, as Seckendorf (nist. Duttioranismi Inp. I, ssot. 15. § 32, p. 41) and Walch (Einleitung zum XVIII. Bande p. 26 report, the edition of the Epitome of Prierias organized by Luther is printed; but the Erlangen edition (oxp. var. arZ. II, 109) says that the same is not found in the Munich copy of the Wittenberg edition. Nor is it included in the Wittenberg collection of Luther's writings, but only in the Latin Jena one of 1556, Dom. I, toi. 72, from which it is taken over into the Erlangen edition (opp. var. arZ. II, 110 ff.). We, like Walch, have omitted the scripture itself and translated Luther's epilogue according to the Jena edition.

458 L. V. L. n, 117-119. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 249-251. 459

twists the word "pasture" with devilish and furious malice to mean that he is free to tyrannize and rage temporally and physically in the affairs of the believers to the ruin of the souls. As if the souls of the faithful were really well fed when they are forced, instead of the pure word of God by which they are nourished to eternal life, to devour the dung, the manure and the unflattering collections of the bulls and decrees of the supremacy, dignity, power and similar tyrannical monstrosities by which the belly of the pope and his food are glorified in this world and raised against God for those who are lost. And, God would that it were only the excrement and filth of the worst of men, and not the incurable poison of serpents and the eggs of basilisks (that I use the word of Isaiah Cap. 59, 5.), which kill by the mere sight.

(5) To suffer or even eat this filth would have been a sufficient misery of the human race, but to accept it as an article of faith necessary for salvation, and to trust in it and die as if it were an obedience conducive to life, this is the extreme evil and sign of the last times, of which Paul foretold that they would be very dangerous and horrible. This belongs only to the purple-clothed harlot, the mother of fornication and the abomination of the earth, the spiritual Babel, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of JEsu, which is carried by the scarlet beast, full of names of blasphemy. For so he John describes the court of the pope, and so indeed is the kingdom of the pope. So great a hell of so great evils has a false bell explanation of this word "pasture" been able to introduce into the world, teaching that it must not be understood from the teaching of the gospel, which the Jschariothic popes do not even touch with the tip of their finger, but from the power to rule, and have not shied away from Christ, who by his word forbids ruling in the church Luc. 22, 25. f.: You are not to rule like the pagans, but you are not to rule like them.

Shall serve one another, and Peter 1 Ep. 5:3., "Not as ruling over the people, but become models of the host."

Accordingly, if you compare the Roman Ischarioth with other tyrants in the world who have been, are or can be, you will see that those have been almost only shadows of tyrants, but the tyrannical body itself is the Roman idol. The historians relate whimsical things of the tyranny of Attila, king of the Huns, who called himself the scourge of GOD and the terror of the earth's circle, and of Tamerlan, tyrant of the Scythians, who boasted that he was the wrath of GOD and the desolation of the world. But these were only an image and a game against the Roman court. For they were only a calamity for a short time and, what was best, their raging could be endured with a good and safe conscience and unharmed faith in Christ. But the Roman Attila and Tamerlan, with constant and everlasting rage, devastated the churches of God and not only destroyed goods and bodies, but also suppressed and eradicated the faith in Christ and a good conscience with his very pernicious decrees, by which he was indeed and for too long the supreme terror of the world, the wrath and scourge of God. The former frightened the world with the sword, the faith in Christ remained unharmed: the latter, under the pretense of the name of God, frightened and ruled everything with the lie and forced to worship it as righteousness and truth.

(7) With these evils the man of sin and the child of perdition is not satisfied, nor his anger turned, but still his outstretched hand (as it is written of Antiochus) seeks to rule over two kingdoms and arrogates to himself the rule over the Roman Empire. He seeks this with no less lies. For after the Roman bishop Carl the Great had declared himself Roman emperor by anointing and coronation, admittedly against his will, the following popes, since they had received hope through this example, did not cease throughout the ages to arrogate to themselves the power to confer the imperial throne, which

460 v. L. ii, iis-121, 19. Luther's epilogue to d. Treatise of the Nannis. W. xvm, 251-254. 461

they wanted, and to consider themselves entirely the liege lords, but emperors and kings as their vassals liegemen; but they themselves were really and with full right the lords over all lords, the kings of kings, the judges of thrones, as they let themselves be heard through their flatterers.

  1. And the effect of error succeeded, through the invented ban, then through lying signs and wonders of Satan, until with the use of every kind of deceit, fraud, artifice, unworthiness and wickedness they robbed the kings of much, and what they could not rob, stole what they could not steal, extorted with ungodly worship and ceremonies, finally even stepping on the necks of the kings themselves and killing them with the sword and devastating the world with murder and war.

There is a letter of a good man, Jakob Meyer, chancellor of Mainz, to the Cardinal Aeneas Sylvius, in which he complains about the tyranny of the pope and his court. But Aeneas Sylvius, as a man who was not only a Welshman, but also a Cardinal, possessed twofold, and indeed tremendously great, courtliness, namely Welsh and Cardinal, and answered his friend so harshly that he claimed it was right and not tyranny, whatever the Pope was raging in Germany, and dared to claim that Germany owed it to the Roman See that it had the Roman Empire, that it had become so civilized from a horrible and barbaric country, that it now flourished so far and wide, since it had formerly been enclosed by narrow borders: in short, he makes Germany almost a creature of the pope; therefore she must be patient and grateful to her Roman plunderer.

(10) This man of Welsh conceit and courtliness believed that the Histories were neither read nor kept by the Germans, since it is sufficiently known from all the Histories that Carl the Great not only received nothing from the Roman bishop, but on the contrary gave him much, so that on the contrary the Roman bishop owed Carl precisely the preservation of his see, since he

Carl returned it to him after he had defended it against the king of the Lombards. For Carl already held Germany, France and Lombardy before the papal coronation. He did not even want to accept the mere title of emperorship as a gift from the pope, but from the emperor at Constantinople, so that he would not owe anything to the pope, but the pope owed him everything.

But this historical truth did not prevent the Roman tyrants from proclaiming themselves with constant frenzy as the bestower of the imperium, so that, if it so happened and the course of time permitted it, they would finally put on the crown themselves, destroy all kings and regain the old Roman empire, and thus transfer to themselves the honor acquired through foreign labor and gain the thing itself for the given title. This is how much wit these worthless wretches think they have.

  1. From the number of these people I present you (dear reader) this prophet of Viterbo for reading and also for laughing at, so that you may see what they have aspired to, what they have been crying for, what the monsters of the Roman fief (lernae) have opened their mouths for, what church they have striven to feed, what kingdom of God and what righteousness thereof they have sought, so that when you have seen this, you may learn to despise without danger the lies of the pope which have been spread in the church under Christ's name.

(13) For from this you will understand that the priest, who is entirely a lie and a son of the liar, the devil, must not be believed in a syllable, even if he swears by three hundred gods.

For there is nothing in the court of the pope but to deceive, to lie, to rob, to fornicate, and to be a knave (lupinari, vulpinari - to be wolfish and sinful), which they now call "doing Roman" (Romanari), and that under the name of Christ, that is, with abominable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; therefore his end has now begun to come. Thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

462 D Br.-W. 1,356 f. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, p8I f. 463

*IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim ) of Ochsenfurt

of the power of the pope over the whole church.

*20) Hieronymus Dungersheim's first letter to Luther? )

January 18, 1519.

Translated from Latin.

In defending the papal power over the whole church, Dungersheim bases everything on the false imputed decrees and tries to take away the credibility of the church history of Eusebius, as far as Rufinus has a part in it, at least with regard to the Council of Nicaea.

  1. greeting before. I have perceived, Martin, my brother in Christ, that in the matter of the pope you are entirely dependent on the holy Council of Nicaea, which I do not so much disapprove of, if only (with your permission to speak) the negotiations and decisions of this Council with what they presuppose, as it were, as a kind of foundation (and thereby the faith of the same in this matter) are duly taken into account. For not everything that the aforementioned council judged on this matter is mentioned in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, and what it states is not by Eusebius, but by Rufinus, which Rufinus himself openly admits in the preface of the 10th book; but even the little that he repeats of the statutes of this council, he does not reproduce completely, even as it was originally stated. This is clear, both from the way he speaks and from other very credible writers who have dealt with these matters; but Rufinus himself also indicates that he has not fully understood what was said to him, as by others.

said, has struck, has shortened. Finally, he has also completely omitted to mention the Canon itself in the observation of Easter, after he had mentioned what the aforementioned Council had decided about it. Moreover, how much credibility at least Rufinus should be given, or how reliable his writings should be considered, is evident from the Canon of the Proven Writings (de opusculis probatis), and from the defenses (apologiis) of St. Jerome, and from the replies, both to him and to others. Thus, Rufinus' account is deficient in this matter. Namely, as the writings of the oldest writers 1) and also the canonical laws claim, there are no less than seventy decisions (sanctiones) of the aforementioned council, among which are also those that just Rufinus has omitted, namely:

  1. According to the forgeries of the pseudoisidoric Decretals. Cf. Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, 7th ed. Hin8cüin8, voerstalW?86ncko-l8i(ic>riunus (1863) p. 451 f. 464 ff. 474. 476. 478. 535. 538. 542.

*) Although in old books the name is also written Düngersheim and Tungersheim, Löscher, Walch and the Erlangen edition have preferred the above spelling, because Dungersheim uses it constantly in his last writings.

**) This, as well as the following letters of Dungersheim to Luther together with Luther's answers to them are first printed in the collection of Dungersheim's writings, which appeared in 1531 in Quart at Leipzig (printer Valt. Schumann) under the title: HiMu ox>U86u1a irmAistri Hwroninii DunS6r8Üsim 6x Ostrotrancias Lospüoro, vulAS Oollssnkartü, saoras tUsoloSias xrowssoris, 8tuckii Iüp8i6N8i8 ooIIoMO 6t Canonici Eiccnsis, contra LlartiNUIN Imtüsrum ockita stc. Then the correspondence with Luther takes the first place with the special title: Miynot spistolas D. Hioronirni sx Ocüscnkartü, äatas aä Martinnrn I,ntücrnin, "nrn rssponsalidns sjns ach l^uasäam sarnnäsrn. From this Löscher printed it in his Reformation Acta vol. Ill, 27 ff. In the Bnef collections of Aurifaber and De Wette, only Luther's reply letters are found. In the Erlangen correspondence I, 356 ff., Dungersheim's letters are also included; our translation is based on these. The time determination is according to the Erlangen edition.

464 . Br.-W. 1,357-359. 20 Dungersheim's first letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 582-584. 465

2 "It has pleased us (say the Fathers, who under Constantine the Great assembled at Nicaea as a Conciliar) that if a bishop is accused or judged in any matter by his fellow bishops in the same country, he may appeal as he pleases and apply to the pope of the apostolic see, who may either himself or through his deputies procure that the action be taken again. And if the pope judges the matter anew, no other bishop shall be appointed or decreed in his place. For although the co-regional bishops of the accused before them may examine the acts of the pope, they are not permitted to render a decision without consulting the Roman pope. For to the holy apostle Peter none other than the Lord himself said: "What thou shalt bind on earth" 2c And there they call the apostolic see the mother of all others, "to whose disposition also (they say) the ancient prestige of the apostles and their successors and the canons (as they speak) reserved all more important ecclesiastical matters and the judgments of the bishops". And they add: "Of those who take up arms against the fathers we hold that they are dishonorable, and also those who hold with the enemies shall not be admitted to impeachment or to testimony." Accordingly, they want, as they say, that in all things the prerogative of the Roman Church be inviolate. Likewise, "He who is in league with foreign errors," they say, "or deviates from the path of his purpose (sui propositi), or is disobedient to the sacred canons, we cannot admit, nor permit him to attack those who believe rightly, or those who obey the decrees of the holy fathers."

This and many other things about these things are found there. Therefore, also the great Athanasius, bishop of the see of Alexandria (who in this council stood by his predecessor Alexander as eldest presbyter. and acted confidently in the Lord against the arch-heretic Arius), when afterwards the Arian heresy gained the upper hand by favoring Constantius, the heir of Constantius the Great, and he was forcibly expelled by the party tainted with this error (fasos), wrote himself together with other Catholic bishops from the East to the Roman pope who succeeded Silvester, and humbly asked for help. The inscription of this letter is: "To the holy lord and the venerable Marcus of apostolic highness (culminis), the pope of the holy Roman and apostolic see and of the universal church, Athanasius" 2c

But it is the beginning of this letter: We doubt not that it hath come to you. "2c There is express mention of these seventy resolutions of the Church Assembly at Nicaea, and there the Oriental Catholics confess that they are subject to the Roman See, and therefore refer to the aforesaid resolutions. And after the beginning of the letter: "We wish that we may obtain from the power of your holy See, which is the mother and head of all the Churches, through the present deputies, provided we are supported by your prestige and strengthened by your prayer, that we may remain unharmed by the said enemies of the Church of God and our enemies. "2c

They also mention the envoys of the Roman Church by name, who were present at the Concilium in question. The holy pope Marcus (on whose feast day I wrote this, 1), when he answered them as a pious father in a letter of consolation, not only did not conceal the dignity and privilege of this Roman See, but acknowledged their assertions as quite true, as is stated there; he could not, however, bring the matter to a conclusion, because death prevented him from doing so. But when after that the parties were cited to Rome by Julius, his immediate successor, the Catholics, through Athanasius with his assistants, appeared obedient, but the rebellious Arians, who, as before some more hidden, so then quite evidently, had fallen from the truth of the faith into the depths of error, had of course an abhorrence of submission to the apostolic chair. They wrote back to Julius with pride and dared to threaten that they would act against him, that they would no longer obey him, and that they would do anything they liked if he did not support them in the expulsion of Athanasius and his followers. Nevertheless, they greet him as "Father" and close their letter with the words: "May the Lord preserve your apostleship, which prays for us, for a long time to come, most holy Father."

(5) Now, when Julius counters this letter with a letter of reply, he punishes them severely, as they deserved, for many things, especially for having acted against the faith and the canons of the church assembly at Nicaea, and for having assembled a council of their own at Antioch, without his consent, for the purpose of

  1. January 18; this is also the date of the letter. (Erl. Ausg.)

466 L. Br.-W. 1,359 f. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 584-586. 467

Destruction of the often-mentioned church assembly at Nicaea; and again he duly censures them for interfering with the rights of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and many other things he accuses them of. Among others, the ecclesiastical history of three very eloquent Greeks, Bishop Theodoret, Sozomenus and Socrates, gives a detailed account of this. In this history, Cassiodorus 1) claims, not without reason, that it contains much that is very necessary for Christians. In the already mentioned history in the 4th book, the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 24th and 29th chapters are of this kind. There it is also said in the 9th chapter: Pope Julius did not even want to appoint a deputy for the council of the rebels, since the order of the church absolutely dictates that councils may not be held without the appointment of the Roman pope. The same church history also tells from the words of Pope Damasus that Athanasius wrote to the bishops in Africa and reminded them about the faith.

  1. Bartholomew] Platina, in the biographies of the Roman popes, who has thoroughly researched the archives of the apostolic see (for he was the abbreviator 2) of this see), also speaks of the aforementioned as follows: "Julius did not refrain from punishing the bishops of the East, but especially the Arians, because they had announced a concilium at Antioch without the order of the Roman Pontiff, and this could not be done without his authority, because the Roman Church would be higher than the others" 2c, namely, according to the provision of the said council, adding that they had resisted Julius.

7 But this also Antonius Sabellicus 3) states in the seventh Enneas of the eighth book, as follows: "Julius did not desist from attacking the Oriental bishops with letters, that they, without it being

  1. Cassiodorus, who died in 563, compiled the first Latin church history from the works of the aforementioned Greeks, which became the most important textbook of the entire Middle Ages under the name Historia tripartita.
  2. Bartholomew Sacchi, called Platina from his birthplace Piadena in Cremonese, was abbreviator, i.e. notary of the papal chancery, under Pius II, and as such had to draft the epistles, Lrovss. He died in 1480 under Sixtus IV as librarian of the Vaticana. (Erl. ed.)
  3. Marcus Antonius Coccius, called Sabellicus, because he was born on the border of the Sabine, at Vicovaro, 1436; died 1506 as chief librarian at Venice. Each book of his historical work had 9 parts, hence Lnuoaäes.

to proceed from him, had met to negotiate the most important matter, since the bishop of the Roman Church surpassed all others in dignity." This is to be understood in the way recognized above at Nicaea; and he added that they rewrote to Julius and resisted him with their pointed objections. And this presumption of some Orientals lasted until the times of the Emperor Phocas, "who (as he says) restored the ornament of the Roman Church, which had been taken away by ambition," namely, by preventing the Orientals, as is given to be understood in what has been said, from that audacious presumption, by which they sought to take away the right of the Roman See, which was due to it according to what has been said before.

8 Johannes Naucler d. 1510 at Tübingen says something similar in the second part of his chronicle in the 12th generation. And that others also report a great deal about the same thing, you can find out. From this, however, it is clear that the Arians of the Orient were among the first who did not want to submit to the Roman Church. And therefore Platina remembers Bonifacius III, namely that he "obtained it from the Emperor Phocas that the chair of the holy apostle Peter, as it is the head, says Platina, of all churches, should also be called so and held for it by all. This position (as he says) the church at Constantinople presumed to appropriate, since sometimes evil princes favored this". It immediately appears that this, I say, according to what has already been said above, as indicated by Platina himself, is to be understood in such a way, namely, that Phocas restored the Roman See in the exercise of its right. For a little after this the same Platina says: "I pass over," he says, "that Peter, the prince of the apostles, bequeathed to his successors, the Roman popes, the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power conferred upon him by GOD. "2c This becomes still clearer when one recalls what he himself said above about Julius.

9 As a sign of this, the Roman popes also had their permanent envoys (apocrisarios) in the Orient, especially at Constantinople. One such was Gregory the Great before he became pope, which can be seen in his preface to Job and elsewhere. Also your Bergomensis, 4) in the addendum to his Chronicle, in the 9th book, by Julius, whom he described as a man of admirable

  1. Jacob Philip Forestus, born near Bergamo, 1434, died in 1520 as an Augustinian monk, hence "your", namely friar.

468 Br.-W. 1,360-362. 20 Dungersheim's first letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 586-588. 469

of worthy sanctity, speaks in the same sense. The Roman popes who immediately succeeded Julius also wrote to the Orientals about the same thing. These letters, together with those of Julius and Marcus, also those of the Orientals, namely Athanasius and others, as mentioned above, are still at hand. Therefore also that holy Gregory, whom Bergomensis as well as others praise with truth as a very humble and exceedingly holy man, although in his letters or, as it is called, his register, in order to show the ambition of some people, especially of John at Constantinople, as detestable, has not made use of the word "general", which was taken in a meaning not to be tolerated: But he does not conceal that the other churches are called by the Roman one to share in its care, but not in the fullness of its power, which belongs to it, since, as he says, the others are called by it. The same is also written by the above-mentioned Pope Julius, from whom Gregory seems to have received it, as it were, from hand to hand. Therefore, the holy Canons also constantly cite these sayings of both, causa 2, qu. 6.

  1. This Gregory was followed by Bonifacius the Third, of which is said above, soon after, at the time of Phocas, but Phocas followed in the imperium on Mauritius, who as an adversary against the holy pope Gregory favored the ambitious bishop John at Constantinople and not long after was killed for his misdeeds with his whole house from God's judgment with the sword 1).

The holy father Augustine, together with other African bishops, in a respectful letter, asked Innocent the First to condemn the heresy of the monk Pelagius, by which he took away the necessity of divine grace, thereby sufficiently indicating the prestige of the Roman See. Innocenzo, in his answer, says among other things: "Carefully and appropriately you consult the majesty of the apostolic dignity, the dignity, I say, which, apart from what comes from outside, has the care for all churches in difficult matters, which opinion should be held, in that you have followed the old way of order, which, as you know, has always been observed by the whole world against me." In reference to the aforementioned Nicene Canons, however, continues.

  1. The murderer of the emperor Mauritius with wife and children was his successor Phocas i. I. 602. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2711, § 143.

He continues: "For you will also be given the grace of the canons, and your good deeds will be enjoyed by the whole world. And to what those canons refer is touched on above in what was said at the beginning. But it is to be noted that he speaks generally, both as to place and time: always, he says, and everywhere, as has just been stated. And in another letter, which Innocent writes back to Aurelius Augustine and other African sBischöfes, he remembers that tradition and speaks thus of the Fathers at Nicaea: "This they resolved, not of human, but of divine opinion, that if they should undertake anything concerning remote or distant countries, they should not take it into their minds to make a decision, unless it had first come to the knowledge of that See, where by the whole reputation of it would be confirmed, which would be a just saying, and from thence the other churches should take it. 2c St. Augustine and other African bishops still wrote back to Innocent on account of the aforesaid heresy, and not only did not contradict what he had said, but approved it by asking that he, as before he had condemned the error of Pelagius, so now compel him to condemn his books also: "It curse," they say, "Pelagius his writings"; it follows: "Or, if he says that they are not his, or says that that which is imputed by his enemies to his writings, which he denies to be his, nevertheless curse them and condemn them because of your fatherly admonition and the prestige of your holiness. "2 Therefore Innocent branded the books of Pelagius, who was then doing his business in the Orient, and which he had published there, with eternal curse, as is also described in another letter of his. By the way, I pass over much that could have been mentioned there. For from the statements that Rufinus added to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in the 10th book, Cap. 6, only in passing, namely about the fact that no one should ordain someone who belongs to another diocese (which the rebels, when they answered Julius, as said above, against the reinstatement of Athanasius, which had been done by him Julius, as if it were invalid, had attracted for themselves), you can see what it is worth. 2) This is also indicative in the above-mentioned

  1. Latin: Quantum kaelaut. May one refer these words to ex Owtis, or from Pistorius sodssiÄstwus (pluralis), always the sense remains: the church history of Rusinus proves nothing.

470 D. Br.-W. 1,362 f. 366. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. LVIII, 588-590. 471

The fathers say, with reservation of the apostolic reputation in all things. Of course Rufinus and those have omitted to insert this!

(12) And what he mentions above concerning the city of Alexandria and its sub-bishops or the co-bishops of Egypt 2c, namely, in occurring cases, and what he says of the city of Rome [which also has some bishops more closely connected with it, namely, the one at Ostia, Alba, Palestrina, and others), you can consider for yourself how this is to be taken according to what has been said before, namely, that nevertheless before it Rome, as

the head of all, according to what is ordered, as said above, the greater things are to be brought. I also ask you not to fail to write back to me in detail and affectionately through the bearer of the present letter, who will wait for your answer. When I have obtained this, I will send you other things about other things, with the right intention (with the help of Christ), like this, and it shall be subject to the judgment of the holy church. I wish very much that it may always be well with you in the Lord.

Hieronymus Dungersheim from Ochsenfurt.

*21 Luther's response to Dungersheim's first letter. )

After January 18, 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Luther responds to the previous letter. The issues raised by Dungersheim would also come up in the disputation with Eck, so he should accept what Luther would answer Eck as answered to him. Luther did not base himself on the Council of Nicaea, but on the Holy Scriptures.

To the excellent and highly esteemed Mr. Hieronymus Dungersheim of > Ochsenfurt, the highly learned Doctor of Sacred Theology at the > University of Leipzig, his in Christ highly esteemed Mr. Martin > Luther wishes salvation in the Lord.

I was very pleased with your diligence, dear sir, with which you looked up so many books in order to bring together what you presented to me. Indeed, I too had already read all this in the History of the Church and in the Tripartite, then also in the Canons, what is reported about Julius and other Roman popes, except for the one thing you write about concerning the decisions of the Council of Nicaea, that decisions are omitted, and of course this very one thing you cite is the most powerful thing, on which the strength of this whole letter of yours rests. But, venerable Lord in the Lord, believe that I also know where you have read this and where it is written, and you will not need my answer.

I know that in the Roman decrees only twenty resolutions of this council are enumerated, while Rufinus counts fewer. 1) Finally, we have the resolutions of the whole council in Greek. I expect, however, that D. Johann Eck will present either the same or greater. Therefore, I ask you not to be annoyed that my answer is delayed. What I will answer him, shall also be answered to you.

In the meantime (I ask you) let this float before your eyes in your judgment, that it is not permitted that what is divine right is changed or interrupted by any obstacle, at any time, by any case. But since Eck has presumed to make a general (proposition] 2) against

  1. In Rufinus the 20th canon is missing, therefore he counts only 19. That in newer editions of the Nist. sool. of Rufinus 22 canones are listed, has its reason in the fact that (probably by later copyists) the 19 canones were provided with 22 numbers.
  2. Namely, his 13th thesis.

*This letter is found in the collection of Dungersheim's writings given in No. 20 and from it, printed in Aurifaber I, 147; Löscher, Reformations-Acta III, 22; De Wette I, 205 (the latter places the letter "at the beginning of January"); Erl. Ausg., Briefwechsel I, 365.

472 D- Br.-W. 1,366 f. 373 f. 21. Luther's reply to Dungersheim's first Schr. W. XVIII, sso-592. 473

to prove myself, namely that he the Pabsts has always been of divine right: you see for yourself that our disputation is such that I must be free to conclude from a particular, but he only from the general. And therefore, if you prove the supremacy with the testimony of some, but I argue against it with only one, the conclusion will be in favor of the weaker part (sequetur), and I will destroy your whole general with one particular, because divine right must be observed all around.

Therefore, if the Roman popes in the Council of Nicaea immediately admitted what I said from Rufinus, which you also do not reject, I will easily prove that it supremacy is not divine right, or that both the Roman popes and the fathers of the Council are heretics. For they cannot be contradictory to each other.

have concluded. Not that I depend on the Council of Nicaea with all my might, but because I overturn all opposing grounds of proof with this one. But I base myself on the words of the Gospel, that all apostles were equal, and on the word Matth. 18, 18: "What you will solve on earth" 2c. I regret, however, that so much questioning arises from this matter, since I do not deny the Roman Pontiff supremacy and admit everything they want, only that I do not want the old saints and the apostles to become heretics for the sake of this new article of faith, which they themselves did not keep. Farewell in Christ, dear Lord, and interpret this, what I have brought forward, for the best. Wittenberg 2c (in 1519). 1)

Br. Martin Luther, Augustinian.

  1. The bracketed words are found in Aurifaber, Löscher, De Wette and Walch.

*22 Dungersheim's second letter to Luther. )

End of January (?) 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Answer to the above letter of Luther. In it, he seeks to support his view of the supremacy of the pope from the church fathers and to refute Luther's interpretation of Phil. 2, 6. 7. from the same.

Hieronymus Dungersheim from Ochsenfurt wishes Martin Luther eternal salvation in the Lord.

That you liked my previous letter very much can only be very pleasant to me, dear brother in Christ, Martin, because I have the confidence that it also pleases the Lord Himself, for whose honor I sent it, as well as this one (as I am not aware of anything else).

(2) Since you also imply that the letter's intention is directed to what I said was recognized in the matter of the pope at the holy council of Nicaea, but omitted by Rufinus, you understand me rightly; for in that (as there) the right understanding of the holy Scriptures, as it appears to us in the saints, is at the bottom of the letter.

The decrees of the Roman popes on the supremacy of the papacy are, of course, written on it, and there is no doubt that they are also formed to some extent according to the pattern of the same. If you therefore know, as you say, where I have read this, and have read it yourself, it is strange if you still have reservations.

Finally, although it is written in the book of decrees that there are twenty decisions of this council, it is not possible for you to deny that there are many more, namely up to seventy. This is also asserted in the context of these decrees immediately afterwards from the words of the great Athanasius, who attended this council. Among them is also

*) This letter is in the collection of Dungersheim's writings listed at No. 20; then in Löscher, Reformations-Acta III, 34 and Erlanger Ausg., Briefwechsel I. 373. The time of this letter can only be determined approximately. From Dungersheim's zeal it can be assumed that he did not wait long with this answer to Luther's letter.

474 L Br.-W. 1,374-376. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 5SL-5S4. 475

that of which I stated in the previous letter that it was omitted by Rufinus. Of this, and not a little, is found inserted in various places of the same, according to the nature of the titles. But that I have read what I then attracted, namely, from Athanasius, Julius, and others whom I have named, in the originals which I have at hand (penes me), with several other such writings, you may not doubt. Therefore, if (as you continue) you have the decisions of this whole council, they may be written in whatever language they want (but I add: if you also have them all), you also have those. But if you do not have those, then you do not have all of them, since among all of them these must certainly be included, because they are the ones that are most suitable for the purpose. I also suppose that you can have the resolutions of the whole council, as you speak; nevertheless, it does not follow that you have all of them, namely, if there are to be only twenty, since there are seventy; for to the whole council belong all those as well as some of them. The Concordia of Gratian 1) is not in the least opposed to this by the words of Stephen III, but rather serves our purpose, namely, that some have been lost; namely, if they have been lost, they must have been present. But it is certain that from his archive (scrinio) some have been lost by some accident, or that only twenty have been found, but that with others seventy have remained, as they are present. Yes, he himself also mentions that, according to the indication of many, those that seemed to be lost were added to others. But also Gratian does not claim that there are only twenty, but that they are there, as also Rufinus does not deny that there are more. How now? Wouldn't someone have guessed about those, 2) which the Arians or rebels (setting aside the others) have drawn out in Greek, of whom I have shown in the previous letter that they have cited for themselves what seemed to speak for them in the letter to Pope Julius, but omitted what was against it? For these people of broken senses strove with all their might to do so,

  1. The collection of Gratian's decrees (c. 1150) has the title Concordia or Concordantia discoräantiurn canonum.
  2. It seems to us to be read according to the context exciäerir, which can also be construed with the mere accusative; but not, as the Erl. Edition wants, exciäerit - caffiren, make invalid.

also to shake and invalidate this whole Concilium, so holy, even in the orthodox expression (prolatione) homousios, as you know: but what has remained in the Church may contain what has been inserted in various places for the cause of the pope and other things, as was said before. In no way, then, may it be considered that legitimate conciliar bodies have made decisions contradictory to themselves in this matter.

(4) But it is still more proper to consider what I have drawn in my previous letter from the holy father Augustine and the Africans to the pope Innocent, and from what he wrote to them, as I will also mention below. If this is added to the foregoing, then Rufinus himself is admittedly convicted that he not only does not tell exact things (penitiora), although only very few things, but mutilated things, and this still quite superficially. Also at the one in the Tripartita, of which you indicate that you have read it, I think you perceive that it also proves very strongly to the point. Namely, of the letter of Athanasius and others to the pope Julius, and his letter of reply to them, in which this is more clearly contained; and of the summons of Athanasius with the Oriental bishops to Rome, and their appearance, but of the contumacy and sedition of the Arians. And that, according to the ecclesiastical order, conciliar meetings should not be held without the determination of the Roman pope; this order, in fact, is contained in the aforementioned Nicene resolutions, as well as in those letters of the seventy chapters 2c Also that Julius had reinstated Athanasius, who had been expelled by force by heretics, and therefore those had written him a letter that was full of mockery, and that they had unlawfully instituted a heretical meeting, which Julius also rejected. After that, how the successor of the patriarch Athanasius, Peter, also came to the Roman abbot at ships to stop the persecutions of the heretics, in this story Book 7, Cap. 37. 37. that afterwards John Chrysostom - not that Epiphanius, who also appeared obedient with other Orientals (what is described by St. Jerome) of his time at Rome, but - Theophilus had unjustly deposed by a mob, Book 10, Cap. 13. of the above history; that by order of Pope Innocent also Chrysostom should have been reinstated. Also other such great reports of things of-.

476 D. Br.-W. i, 376 f. 22. Dungersheim's second letter to Luther. W. xvm, ssr-sss. 477

of the same kind, that they cannot be inserted here in detail, but hardly in part.

(5) This is perfectly consistent with the sayings of the holy fathers, with the decisions of the conciliar bodies, even the later ones, and with the decrees of the Roman popes. Therefore you wisely say that your answer is not necessary to me, nor did I desire it for this matter; for it has not occurred to us even to desire it, since it is fully established by the Conciliar and the holy Fathers that this is the most certain and correct understanding of sacred Scripture; but I have wished that you would express in your answer the benevolent consent of your heart to this and to other similar things, so that the frightful and most highly to be regretted aggravations, both given and taken, and moreover, as is to be feared, still worse consequences, also unchristian vituperative writings, and the all too terrible death of immortal souls for the sake of this controversy, may yet at last, though late, cease, and by this means true peace may be restored among the parties.

  1. But that you do not let yourself be bound by Rufinus' reputation is good, since it is small in other things, but in this matter it can be of no importance; for his account is mutilated and without probative force, as is admirably evident from what is also said elsewhere; but even then it is clear that it has no value, if it should be sufficient for you. 1) For when it is compared, as it must be, with what he omits, it is evident that it proves absolutely nothing against the supremacy of the pope. From this it is still proved that it is not to be suffered that even a suspicion is harbored that those exceedingly wise fathers and excellent men had thereby decided something contradictory. Otherwise, if one passage were not to be understood and interpreted by another, and what is omitted somewhere were to be supplemented by what is said elsewhere, one would find many contradictions even in the holy Scriptures (which is not possible).

(7) But you then add that you do not depend entirely on those Nicene Fathers or that Council, but on the Scriptures. But those men have attracted it the Scriptures in this matter; to think of them, in fact, as if they did not have the same

  1. In reference to this difficult passage, Walch says: gives no right mind at all". We have completed the sentence thus: seä sst) do" eu Ipsu sinvulicla sst, nt upxarst), yuancko tibi suKwwt.

or it the Scriptures would have a different and opposite meaning than these so many and so great men (in the midst of whom Christ, the truth, has undoubtedly been) have assumed, - how godly this is, everyone can see. Therefore the authority to solve 2c is given to all apostles, but over all and against all to Peter, as the often-mentioned fathers assume, as is quite clear from their sayings, if one adds what is put in Matthew 16, 18. f..

Therefore, I beg you to be moved by these heralds of divine truth and by the golden word of the holy father Augustine, among many others, in his most devout meditations, 2) where he says: "The exceedingly kind nature of the Godhead acts bountifully, forgives completely, so that for the sake of the confidence of penitent sinners, where sin has become powerful, grace also tends to be powerful. This, I say, is testified to by Peter, who, after being denied three times, was commanded to shepherd the whole Church. This is testified by Paul, who from being a persecutor of the Church became a chosen armor and the teacher of the Gentiles. This testifies Matthew, who was chosen from the custom house to be an apostle, to whom it was also conferred to be the first scribe in the New Testament." So much there. I could cite many other sayings of Augustine and others, which prove essential in relation to this, if I considered it necessary for this time.

(9) But you mention Mr. D. Eck, in regard to which you should be sure that it is not known to me what or of what kind he will write, as indeed it is not known to him either, as much as it is to me what I have written or whether I have ever written or still write to you. But this I think I have noticed, as far as I can remember, that in that dispute of yours no mention was made of the other decisions of the Council of Nicaea 2c. Accordingly, I also do not know whether the writings, which I have otherwise cited, were then or now in his mind (menti fuerint), at least with respect to the originals. From this and from other things that I have said above (menti fuerint)) and briefly, I do not want to be understood that I have said anything against anyone. Therefore, whatever may happen through him, I do not want to be included in the answers that come to him from you or that want to be given to you by him, because

  1. Not in the meckitationibns, but in the book äe äiliMncko Oeo, cap. 12, is the following passage. (Erl. Ausg.)

478 D- Br.-W. 1,377-379. IV. Luther's dispute mft Dungersheim. W. LVIII, 596-599. 479

I do not feel like getting involved in disputes right now. If it should nevertheless happen that I get involved, then no one can justifiably hold it against me, if I only explain myself reasonably (evolvam) and defend myself. But this and the former I write confidentially, as you see, because you promise somewhere, as I take it, that you want to live peacefully from now on.

(10) By the way, you ask me to keep this in mind in the meantime, that it is not permitted that what is divine right be neither changed nor interrupted, neither at any time, nor by any case. This is not doubtful to me, nor has it ever been, since I know that it is up to God alone, who is the author of this right, to leave it or to change it (conditionem). Again, I ask you to consider that this does not abolish the fact that the Church, and especially the general conciliation, can declare with its rightful presider and thus determine what should be considered such a right. That this, at least in this matter, as much as it had to be, was abundantly done at the Council of Nicaea by those Fathers, is quite evident, both from what has been stated above, and from other things which could have been stated in great abundance. Now, if by the obstinacy of the heretics, or by the tyranny of some temporal power (such a thing is again mentioned in the other epistle), the exercise of this right should sometimes be hindered in certain places or persons by permission of God, could it be justly said that it was thereby either changed in its nature or interrupted? Finally, with how great reverence this is also followed by the Orientals, one has seen in Athanasius and other orthodox believers, if one adds what has been brought from the letters of Innocent, who says: This has always and everywhere been held, and this means following the canons, and it is not human but divine opinion decided by the fathers. This reverence has also been seen in Augustine and the Africans, who not only did not deny it, but rather built it up and exercised it by the further use of this authority and by their petition. From this it follows that they considered it so; for would they not otherwise be convicted that, by writing and acting in this way, they were defying the prestige of sacred Scripture with knowledge and will, against their own consciences, in condemnable manner?

  1. manifestario 60N86U8U, actually: with apparent consent.

would they have acted contrary to it in a godly way? Or vice versa: if they did not think so, but nevertheless acted and wrote so, would they not be made known by the Scriptures as godless hypocrites? Which orthodox (recte sentiens) could take this in mind from such people?

For this reason, they also express sufficiently in their other conciliar sayings how healthy they are in spirit. In this way, the authors of the canons, the Roman popes, would also fall into the aforementioned condemnation; among them Severinus, Cornelius, Anacletus, Dionysius, Marcellus, Marcus, Julius the First, Damasus, Innocent the First, Zosimus the Greek, Leo the First, Felix the Second, Hormisda, Pelagius, Boniface the Third, Honorius the First, Theodoric the First, also a Greek, Gregory the Great, Agathon, Nicolaus the First, very learned and very holy men, who handed down to posterity the negotiations and writings on these matters, with other popes of this See and the leaders and superiors of the churches of the Catholic world, with the conciliarities, universities, princes, nobles, and commoners (plebeis) down to the present day, who firmly believed that Christ Himself, while still walking on earth, had undoubtedly conferred upon Peter and his successors this prerogative to establish His holy Church. Among many other things, the aforementioned Nicene decisions (capitula) testify to this, namely, that the judgments of the bishops and the greater affairs of the Church, according to the ancient prestige of the apostles and their successors and the canons, are reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and that the Roman Church was given the prerogative by the Lord, assuring that it must remain inviolate in all things. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone should be made a heretic for its sake, or why it should be claimed that it is a new article, or that the Roman popes have allowed the opposite to be issued, or that anything of the kind should be said. For it this article has always been held by all orthodox believers, as is clear from the foregoing, and, so far as it had to be, has been applied by those who behave rightly. Also, not the opposite, but the established proposition has been recognized in the often-mentioned Concilium, as has been said above.

12 But though some of the forefathers, either Greeks, or Africans, or others, have become rebels against the light in various things, yet, as the apostle says [Rom.

480 Br.-W. 1,379-381. 22 Dungersheim's second letter to Luther. W. xvm, 899-601. 481

3, 3] their unbelief does not stop God's faith, because, as he says Rom. 10, 16, not all are obedient to the Gospel, but God knows His own 2 Tim. 2, 19. Therefore it is not proper to fear anything from this sound opinion for the salvation or faith of the good (because there is no object of fear); nor is there any certain news that any saint ever entertained such fears, but rather that the fathers brought others to this opinion as much as they could, as has been proved shortly before. One must fear, however, that if it is held otherwise, by far the most irreparable evils will result from it. Only one of these, which is to be feared with other similar ones before all, I will touch upon very briefly for the sake of example.

  1. Suppose there were a tyrant who heard this, who, because of his ungodly deeds against the apostolic see or otherwise, suffered the jnterdict (as it is called) over his whole territory according to right and merit, whom otherwise some fear of God could have kept in check, but who now, who now, as the hearts of the children of Adam are inclined to evil, according to his thus corrupted inclination, would be willing to accept this opinion, and, considering the authority of the pope "less or more" to be nothing, would force his clergy to perform the service as before: it can easily be seen how great a danger there would be at once (in foribus) for good and body, or for conscience and blessedness, whether one obeyed the pope or obeyed the tyrant. It is therefore an exceedingly great cause for fear that such church punishments would be despised, that the rights and liberties of the churches would be torn apart, and that the divine and the human would be set aside to the infinite ruin of souls. For it is an all too evil time into which we have fallen. For evil people will be able to say: If that subservience arose only by human agreement (consensu), then it can also be raised with equal justification by human disagreement (dissensu), or why then, they will say, should these be more subject than those to a yoke which they are not obliged to bear? and the like, which is an abomination to think. But this is said in passing.

14 Furthermore, if any Roman Pontiff, or Concilium, did not always and where it could, draw the sword of his power, but for the good of peace either overlooked or permitted some things, especially those of which one would

(The pope could hope to keep in wholesome obedience those who are inclined to stubbornness or quarrels, as among the Greeks the beard, the leaven) a wife of the priest whom he has previously married as a virgin, and similar things, which can happen to God for a certain reason, as has been touched upon elsewhere by the Alexandrian churches: who could deny that this is done wisely out of Christian and paternal gentleness? Therefore, we find that some great Catholic men, like Irenaeus and his ilk, have in certain cases reminded the pope of this according to the circumstances of the time. In what way could one deduce from this the opinion that his power, that it was divine right, was even the slightest bit broken, or that it sank to the kind of a human right?

  1. Furthermore, if among the Greeks or Africans or others there are simple-minded and unlearned people, who either have not heard of the duty of submission to the Roman pope out of divine right, or because of their limitedness cannot grasp what is right, but have the lively will to stand in the Catholic faith, as Augustine speaks, in which they believe everything that is necessary to believe, and are also willing to learn and be instructed if possible, if they are otherwise good: do you then also believe that this wickedness or error of the superiors, who know this or can and ought to know this, deprives them of their blessedness? For how many could be found even among the Latins who are so good Catholics that, if it were necessary, they would be willing to endure martyrdom for the faith, who also form false ideas about divine things, e.g. that God is corporeal (which, according to Augustine, is the heresy of the anthropomorphites), and, as it were, as a kind of Geryon 2) even worship the supra-essential Trinity and other things - which the painters, according to the freedom they have presumed for themselves, along with the poets, are used to depict - as it were in devout contemplation, as one also reads of some hermits. But never, if they are so minded, as said above, they are to be condemned for the sake of it, since the same Augustin reports that they have communion with the church.

(16) But I understand the above also from the more recent Greeks, since their historians report a great deal, both of their return to the Ge-

  1. I.e. the leavened bread in the Holy Communion.
  2. Geryon, a three-legged king in Spain, from whom Hercules took his cattle.

482 L. Br.-W. 1,381-383. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. LVIII, 601-603. 483

The following is a list of the most important things that some of them believe against the teachers of their language, e.g. the origin of the Holy Spirit and other things.

(17) In short, after this and similar things that could have been said, what other particular (particulare) 1) could be asserted, by which the opposite could be proved? one may also consider more attentively oters, or times, or merchants, or even the orthodox persons, who are proved by their lives. Therefore, I cannot entertain the slightest suspicion that any general and lawful council could ever decide otherwise, since you yourself rightly hold that what is divine right cannot be changed by it.

(18) But someone might think that the life of some more Roman courtiers and their insolence, which presumes everything, could be improved in the opposite way, 2c, but, as the apostle says Rom. 3, 8, one does not have to do evil, so that good may come out of it. Let it be done, therefore, as far as possible, what is pious, in the royal way, which of course still remains, since the church rule established by God must always remain inviolate. The rest, however, may be ordered in humble prayer to God, who, as the apostle says Rom. 8, 28, will make everything serve the best for those who love him.

19 Finally, however, you say that you regret that so many questions arise from this matter. Indeed, not without reason you regret it, and I with you, do not doubt it, have fraternally an equal regret, but I have wondered how it might have occurred to you to argue for such an obvious thing, and indeed to the extent that even the men, 2) who already in former times resisted Pope John XXII until death, who nevertheless possessed not little perspicacity, did not doubt it at all.

  1. But also among other things that you have brought forward, I have also wondered no less why you have not understood the mind and the opinion of the often-mentioned Council of Nicaea and of the holy Greek fathers, and also of the Latins, who very well understood Greek.
  2. With reference to Luther's letter.
  3. William Occam, Marsilius of Padua, John of Janduno 2c (Erl. Ausg.)

and others, which have always been held in the church as a kind of pillars, in the interpretation of the passage of the apostle: Who, whether he was in divine form 2c, Phil. 2, 6.. There they understand it in such a way that by "the divine form" quite expressly the all things creating being of God is designated, in which the son is in an inexpressible way with the father of the same being (homousios) and equal. Because that form of the Godhead (because of its simplicity) cannot be a multiple (plures). And especially this passage they use against the faithlessness of Arius and others, as it were, as a projectile that cannot be escaped (inevitabili arcu), which is clear from the words of many. But you, in your sermon "on two kinds of righteousness," 3) where you take this word of the apostle as a basis, admittedly bring forward the opposite, by saying, among other things, thus: "Divine form is not called the essence of God here, because Christ never emptied Himself of the same." As if this could not exist in truth, that Christ, according to the words of the apostle, emptied Himself, and that the divine form denotes the Godhead itself, as the saints want. And shortly afterwards you add: This saying must be understood in a negative way, which many have taken in an assertive way, namely (as you say) that Christ did not consider himself to be like God, that is, he did not want to be like God, and other things which you put there.

(21) But from this it seems to follow, as it were, that Christ could deny himself, and not believe (arbitrari) that which belongs to him in such an unchangeable way, that in another way he cannot be at all, nor be rightly known; namely, it would follow that by not believing this, he would abdicate (abdicare) that which is naturally proper to him, as the same saints decide. For you go on and say: "But it must not be understood assertively in this way: he did not consider that he was like GOtte, that is, that being like GOtte, 4) he had not considered it a robbery. This interpretation, I say, yes, the simple mind, according to the saints, you do not want, and yet these truly holy, highly enlightened men interpret it without hesitation in an assertive way in the Catholic sense; but as your words are and follow, this opinion the Father has no suitable mind. You conclude, therefore, that there under "divine

  1. Wittenb. Ausg, vol. 7, toi. 44 b. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1262 ff.
  2. Luther: has.

484 Br.-W. 1,383-385. 23 Dungersheim's second letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 603-606. 485

In this passage, the term "form" must be understood to mean accidental, created forms, namely virtue, righteousness, freedom, wisdom; as also under the form of servitude, submissiveness and other things, which you act upon throughout the entire sermon. Now, on the other hand, that greatest Athanasius, as the Tripartite calls him, along with other fathers, has confidently and victoriously refuted, especially through this passage, the arch-heretics who dared to challenge both the divinity and the humanity of Christ, as I have already said above.

22 For since Athanasius himself explains this passage, namely: "Which, though he was in divine form" 2c, he speaks thus: "Count how many heretical men fall and fall for the sake of this saying. Marcion from Pontus claimed that this world was godless, and that this flesh had imbibed godlessness, and therefore Christ, who is God, had not taken on such corrupt and unfilial flesh. The Galatian Marcellus, Photin and Sophronius said that the word of God is a power (energiam). And Paul of Samosata claimed that this word had its beginning from Mary, as is clear. But Sabellius taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were only a kind of simple names attached to a person. Arius, however, claimed that the Son was created. Apollinaris of Laodicea, however, that the Son did not assume a sensible (sensibilem) soul. See how they are all almost felled with one sword, namely by this statement of Paul: Whether he was in divine form. But how do you, Marcellus, first assert with your followers that Jesus is a power, that is, an effect, not a being, since 'form' means the being itself, just as the form of a servant is the nature of a servant? And how do you also now, Samosatenes, rave that Christ had his beginning from Mary, since it is certain that he was from eternity in the form of God, that is, in the divine essence? Notice how Sabellius falls, for he says that Paul does not call this a robbery, that Christ is equal to GOtte. But in one person there is no equality, because he who is equal (par) and equal (aequalis) must necessarily have another with whom he can be compared, therefore two persons result from this equality. Arius at least and also the others are refuted with many things, likewise by: In the form

  1. This passage is not found in Athanasius, but in Theophylact (around 1100), as Luther also notes in his answer. - In the beginning of the citation yuot is to be read instead of guoä. (Erl. ed.)

GOtte', that is, in the essence of GOtte, and he did not say 'made', but being; a speech very equal to that: I am who I am, and: he did not consider it a robbery to be equal to GOtte. You see the equality, so why do you say that the Father is greater, the Son smaller? But notice the quite nonsensical refutation of those whose one says thus: Since the Son was a lesser God, he by no means usurped that he was equal to the greater God. But what Scripture teaches that there is a greater or a lesser God? For this is the folly of the heathen. For that the Son is the great God, listen to Paul, who speaks thus Titus 2:13: The appearing of the great God and of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Accordingly, how could he who is said to be small and lowly have presumed this greatness? Incidentally, since Paul wants to instruct us to humility, it seems quite inconsistent with himself if he would remind us of such things as they hold, namely, that the lesser God has not rebelled against the greater. For what humility could they learn from such statements that the lesser God has not rebelled against the one who is supposed to be more glorious in Godhead? For this is a sign of impotence, not of equality, which, as we say, the Son has with the Father. But this can be seen, that it brings a true and indeed the greatest humility with it, that he, who has the same power with the Father, has become man. But enough of this. Notice, therefore, what Paul says: He did not consider it robbery to be like God. For if anyone takes anything, he fears that he will lose it, for he withholds something that is someone else's. But if he has something lying in him by nature, he does not worry much about it, since he is sure that it is in such a way sem Theil that he cannot take it off, and will take it again immediately if it seems as if he had taken it off. Therefore, I say that the Son of God had no fear of lowering himself from the dignity proper to him, because he did not obtain it by robbery. So I say that he was equal to the Father and was aware of his own dignity, and therefore preferred to become lowly, since even in his humiliation he kept his majesty. But he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant. Now where are those who showed that he had humbled himself unwillingly in order to carry out the Father's command? They may hear. As he himself, as a lord, and who has full power, not under another's command, has emptied himself. But since he

486 Br.-W. 1,385-387. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 606-608. 487

If he has taken the form of a servant, I say, let Apollinaris be ashamed of himself. For he who has assumed the form or nature of a servant has indeed a reasonable soul." So far Athanasius, and to yourself I leave it to compare this with yours.

(23) For you also say of the figure of a servant that it does not mean the human being. For St. Cyril, the Greek patriarch of Alexandria, who was awarded the victory over the heretics of his time at the Council of Ephesus, says in the third book of his treasures (Thesaurorum) in the second chapter Against Them: "It is quite inconsistent that we understand the true Son of God to be the Son of God. It is quite inconsistent that we believe the true Son of God, for whose sake God is the true Father, because he is God from God, as man is from man, - it is quite inconsistent, I say, that we believe the Son of God himself to be like us, who are not truly children and gods, but only by the grace of him who gives for his mercy's sake. Therefore the apostle Paul says: "Because in the form of God he did not consider it a robbery to be like God, but humbled himself, taking the form of a servant." 2c But "he himself says to the Father John 17:5, 'Father, glorify me with the clarity that I had with you before the world was. But what was the clarity of the Son before the world was? Of course, that he was in the form of God." 2c But he said before: "He emptied himself and took on the form of a servant, and thus appeared all the more humble, the greater the difference between God and man. For he was not before a creature, and afterwards God; but being God from eternity, he afterwards became man." This is what Cyril, among others, said.

24 Also John, the patriarch of Constantinople, who was a goldmouth (Chrysostom) according to his name as well as his scholarship, says in his third sermon (homily) about John, among other things: "There are people who erroneously and ungodly think that Christ did not make himself like God, but that the Jews had used to do so. Therefore we want to go back a little further. Did the Jews persecute him or not? It is obvious that they persecuted him. Did they persecute him for that reason, or for some other reason? In this we also agree. Did he break the Sabbath or not? We do not disagree on this either. Did he betray God his Father?

  1. Rather Homil. 37 In loann. ean. 5. (Erl. Ausg.)

named, isn't it? This is also not doubtful. The other follows from this. As that he called God his Father, that he broke the Sabbath, that the Jews persecuted him for this and much more for that reason John 5:18, was not an opinion, but the truth, so also when he makes himself like God, as is clear from the above. My Father, he says, works, and I also work. These are words of him who makes himself equal to the Father, for in the words there is no difference of working. He saith not, The Father worketh, and I minister thereby: but it is the same word, I work. "2c It follows: "Paul testifies, Who, though He was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be like God, but emptied Himself and took the form of a servant. And Christ himself says: I have power to lay down my life" 2c So much in this passage. The same also says in the second sermon on the Epistle to the Hebrews among very- many things, with which he attacks the aforementioned heretics with some others: "These 2) all the apostle has at the same time cast down with One blow, saying (Heb. 1, 3.]: The image of his being, and bearing all things with his powerful word. "2c It follows: "To this is added that man is not called image (character), is not called likeness, which expresses the essence or likeness which agrees according to the very nature of the essence. For as the form of the servant indicates nothing other than actually a man, so also the form of God indicates nothing other than God. "2c

25 In the same place, John Damascenus, in the fourth book De orthodoxa fide, in the 19th chapter, says: "Some of what is said about Christ indicates the conformity and equality of essence (consubstantialitatem), such as: I and the Father are One; and: He who sees me sees also the Father; and: Which, whether he was in divine form; and other passages of the kind." So far this.

And all these, with others whom I shall now pass over, were Greeks, and had the peculiarity and mode of expression of their language without doubt in the most perfect manner. But also the Latins, certainly very great men, who also, as I have said, were not ignorant of Greek, accepted this opinion without any hesitation as the safest and strongest to effectively refute those heretics.

  1. istos, not istÄS.
  2. Should read: 18. cap.

488 D. Br.-W. 1.387-389. 22 Dungersheim's second letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 608-611. 489

(27) First of all, the holy father Augustine, in several passages of his works, especially those which he wrote against those heretics, therefore, against Maximinus, the bishop of the Arians, in the second book, chapter 5, he speaks thus: "I have shown," he says, "whence the Father is greater than the Son; because he is not greater than God, therefore the Son is eternally equal with him; but he is greater than man, because the Son became man in time. There," he says, "I have adduced the apostolic testimony: Which, being in divine likeness, he thought it not robbery to be equal with GOD. For by nature he had equality with GOD, not by robbery." This is what he says.

(28) When Maximin wanted to evade this, but could not deny the apostle's saying, Augustine says again: "For if you admit the divine form, why do you not openly confess that God's Son is like God? especially because you could not find anything to say in your favor concerning the apostle's words, where he says: He did not consider it robbery to be like God. And because you could not deny that the apostle said this, therefore you said: that he did not rob, neither do we say; as if "he did not rob" were the same as "he did not have," that is, equality; and as if: he did not consider it robbery to be equal with GOD, were said as if it were said: he did not consider that equality with GOD must be robbed, because it did not belong to him. For a robber is he who usurps another's thing; as if the son had not wanted to rob it, since he could have. You see with how great folly such an opinion is held. Therefore recognize that the apostle said: He did not consider it robbery to be equal with GOD, because he did not consider it something not belonging to him that he was born according to the Godhead, but yet, although he did not consider equality with GOD to be alien not belonging to him, but his own, he humbled himself, seeking not what is his, but what is ours. That thou mayest know that it is so, mark whence the apostle came to it. For when he commanded Christians the humility of love, he says, "Consider one another more highly than yourselves; and look not to your own, but to the things of others. Then, to exhort by the example of Christ not to seek or have in mind what is his own, but what is another's, he says, "Let every man be minded as Jesus Christ was. Who, though he was in the divine form

which was his own, he did not consider it a robbery, that is, he did not consider it something alien to be like God. But still, by seeking ours, not his, he emptied himself, not that he lost the form of God, but took on the form of a servant. For this nature is not mutable, so that he emptied himself by losing what he was, but by assuming what he was not, not by annihilating what is his, but by assuming what is ours." This is there.

In the same book, in two places, he expresses the same opinion about the divine form in which Christ is according to the apostle. Likewise, in the third book of the same, in the second chapter, where he says: "You say that you worship Christ as God. "2c Likewise, in the 14th chapter of the same book: "Neither can he who has received be unlike him who has given. "2c Likewise, in the following 15th chapter: "You do not deny that the Son is in divine form." And there: "He did not consider it a robbery, that is, not something foreign" 2c.

30 Similarly in the 23rd chapter of the same third book: "We read indeed" 2c Similarly in the 6th book "of the Trinity", Cap. 3: "The Scripture testifies aloud that he did not consider it a robbery, as if to say, Therefore every enemy of the truth is forced. "2c Likewise in the 7th book of the same work, Cap. 3: "For since to pure spirits" 2c Likewise Book 1, Cap. 14 (13) 1): "This is peculiar to the pious" 2c Same there: "But it is the appearance of the form" 2c Same in the book Against the Speech of the Arians, Cap. 8: "The Unity of the Person of our Lord JEsu Christ" 2c Same Cap. 11 same there: "To this comes that Christ is not only God" 2c Same, same there, Cap. 22: "We read that the obedient Son" 2c Likewise on John, in the 9th tract: "No one will say I have understood wrongly" 2c Likewise in the 12th tract: "If you were born of the Spirit" 2c Likewise in the 14th tract: "The Father has given all things into his hand" 2c Likewise in the 19th tract: "That form will be judge" 2c Likewise in the same tract: "The righteous will go into eternal life." Likewise in the 22nd (21st) tract, "What will happen hereafter when the form of the Godhead shall be seen." Likewise, in the 36th tract, he introduces Christ speaking: "The

  1. Here, as in several following places where Dungersheim has cited incorrectly, we have placed the correct number in brackets after the Erl. Edition, we have placed the correct number in parentheses next to it.

490 L. Br.-W. 1,389-391. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W.^vm. 611-L13. 491

I have taken the form of a servant, but I have not lost the divine form. "2c Similarly in the 17th tract, where he sent above: "Therefore the Jews sought to kill him all the more. "2c Similarly in the 25th (23rd) tract: "The Word and Flesh, Christ. "2c Similarly in tract 67: "We must, dear brothers, direct our attention more to God. Likewise in the 70th (69th) tract, "I know," he says, "O Lord, you have emptied yourself." Likewise in the 78th tract, "By this the Son is not equal to the Father," 2c; expansive. Likewise in the 99th tract, "He gave him to execute judgment. "2c Likewise in the canonical epistle of John, same in the 4th tract, "What is this: which, though he were in divine form." Likewise in the book Enchiridion, Cap. 35: "Christ, the Son of God, both God and man." Likewise in the letter to the Arian Maximus, above: "For as the Son is always born" 2c Likewise on the 74th Psalm: "This same Son, by whom we are made" 2c Likewise in the sermon on the words of the apostle Cap. 5 (15): "It was robbery for someone to be like God, and because he sought robbery, he found destruction" 2c Same, Cap. 31: "If you say that the Son was made, you deny it." 2c Similarly, in the sermon on the day of the birth of St. John: "Behold, how great he who is so small has become." 2c Similarly, in the sermon on the knowledge of God: "John said, And the Word became flesh." 2c Similarly, in the sermon on the words of the Gospel: "We have seen Jesus Christ, both God and man. Book: "But after he had taken on the flesh, by which he became man" 2c Likewise there: "For this cause therefore the Word became flesh, and he emptied himself" 2c Likewise there: "You concede the kingdom to the Son of God, the King, with the Father" 2c Likewise in the book of faith in Peter, 1) Cap. 2c Likewise in the book of the faith in Peter, 1) Cap. 2: "The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was in divine form." 2c Likewise in the book of the faith in Peter, 1) Cap. 2: "The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was in divine form." 2c Likewise in the book of the faith in Peter, 1) Cap. 2: "The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was in divine form.

  1. A writing falsely attributed to Augustine. (Erl. Ausg.)
  2. This second sermon is spurious. (Erl. Ausg.)

(3) Cap. 12: "When the Son, who was in the form of God, emptied Himself" 2c Likewise in the Book of the Trinity and Unity, 3) Cap. 2: "So that he showed his likeness" 2c Same, Cap. 9 (6): "The unity of the person of Christ JEsu" 2c Same: "So Christ was not yet what he had begun to be, but he emptied himself" 2c Same in the Book of Questions about the New and Old Testament, 3) Question 97: "Therefore it is evident that Christ is called the true Son of GOD" 2c Same about the 130. Psalm: "Since the Lord Jesus Christ was the Word with the Father, through whom all things were made" 2c Similarly in the first book of the Trinity, Cap. 6: "The Son is like the Father and is an inseparable effect of the Father and the Son." 2c Same Cap. 13: "This is the way of the devout, who thus hear of his incarnation, that they believe that he is the Son of God, that is, that he thus for their sake became smaller than the Father, in the form of a servant, they assume, so that they may believe that he is like the Father in divine form."

This and other things, which I pass over, about this passage of the apostle, the holy father Augustine has, and in every single case he interprets it of the eternal form of Christ or of the divine essence in an assertive way, and not in a denying way of created things, speaking often in this way: what he had by nature he did not steal, but it was due to him 2c But also in the aforementioned first book of the Trinity he says, as it were, in conclusion in the 7th chapter: "And this rule of resolving this question through the whole of holy Scripture is taken from one chapter of the letter of the apostle Paul, where this distinction is set forth very clearly. Cap.: "And this rule to resolve this question through the whole holy Scripture is taken from One Chapter of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul, where exceedingly clearly this distinction is set forth; for he says: Who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be like GOD, but emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant" 2c It follows: "He is therefore the Son of GOd, GOtte equal to the Father by nature, lesser in gifts; for in the servant form which He assumed He is lesser than the Father, but in the divine form in which He was, even before He assumed the servant form, He is equal to the Father. In the divine form he is the Word, through whom all things were made; but in the form of a servant he became of a woman 2c Accordingly (he says) in the divine form he made man, in the form of a servant he became man" 2c Similarly in the 11th Cap.

  1. Unauthentic writing. (Erl. Ausg.)

492 Br.-W. 1,3S1-3S3. 22. Dungersheim's second letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 6I3-LI5. 493

there he says: "Therefore, knowing this rule, how the sacred Scriptures must be understood concerning the Son of God, so that we may distinguish what is spoken in them of the divine form, in which he is like the Father, and what is spoken of the servant form, which he assumed, according to which he is less , than the Father, we shall not be confounded by the sayings of the Fathers, which seem to be contrary to this and to contradict each other" 2c, where he again makes many distinctions or differences between the divine form and the servant form in Christ. Similarly also in the immediately following 12th chapter: "According to the divine form," he says, "is spoken Prov. 8, 25. - Before all hills he hath prepared me, that is, before fallen high creatures; and fPs. 110, 3. according to the Vulgate]: Before the morning star I begat thee, that is, before all time and temporal things; but after the form of a servant is spoken [Prov. 8, 224: "The LORD created me in the beginning of his ways," and ibid. much else on this stroke. Finally, in the 13th chapter of this book, he introduces Christ speaking on the same opinion: "But it is the appearance of my form; when I was in it, I did not consider it a robbery to be like God, but, that I might assume it, I emptied myself."

32 St. Ambrose on the Epistle to the Philippians also said: "Be of the same mind as Jesus Christ was, who, though he was in the divine image, did not consider it a robbery to be like God. Christ (he says) was always in divine form, because he is the image of the invisible God. But the apostle is talking about the Son of God, since he became man and took on flesh, saying: "Be of the same mind as Jesus Christ was. Jesus Christ also was, that is, God and man, who, though he was in the form of God and certainly walked among men, it was evident by his actions and works that he was God. For the form of God does not differ from God in anything. For this reason he was called the form and image of God, so that it might be known that he was not God the Father himself, but that he was what God is. This one, then, did not consider it robbery to be like God. For he knew that he was in divine form; he did not steal it so that he could say: I and the Father are One. And in the Gospel of John: "For this reason," he says, "the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his true Father, making himself like God.

made. So rightly he made himself equal to GOtte; for he thinks that he who commits robbery makes himself equal to him in relation to whom he is inferior." Likewise the same: "It is not said that he assumed the divine form, but that he was in the divine form; but it is said that he assumed the servant form, since he humbled himself, as it were, as a sinner." Likewise, "When the Son of God was born man, he was in the form of God; for when he was seen as man, he did the works of God, so that it might be evident from his deeds that he was God, who was thought to be only a man. For the works indicated the form" 2c, which he further elaborates. Ambrose has the same opinion also in the 2nd book about the faith in Gratian, Cap. 41 1) (8). The same there in the 3rd book, Cap. 6 (11). The same in the letter to Sabinus. The same in the letter to Irenaeus.

33 Even St. Jerome in the first book about Zechariah says about the saying Cap. 2, 8.: He sent me according to glory to the Gentiles 2c: "The voice of the speaking Savior (he says) is introduced, who says that he is sent as almighty GOD by the Almighty, not inasmuch as he is almighty, but inasmuch as he is sent according to glory, which, though he was in divine form" 2c It follows: "And it is not to be wondered at that Christ is the Almighty, in whose person we read in Revelation Cap. 1, 4., This saith the faithful witness, the beginning of the creature of God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the LORD God Almighty." Similarly about Isaiah in the 14th (3rd) book about the saying Is. 6, 2.2c He says: "It is said that they have six wings and cover the face of God 2) and the feet and proclaim the testimony of the truth, and everything they shout shows the mystery of the Trinity, and among themselves they marvel that the Lord of hosts, who has the divine form, has taken on the form of a servant and has humbled himself to death" 2c The same about the same in the 18th book says: "They have six wings and cover the face of God 2) and the feet and proclaim the testimony of the truth, and everything they shout shows the mystery of the Trinity, and among themselves they marvel that the Lord of hosts, who has the divine form, has taken on the form of a servant and has humbled himself to death" 2c. Buche says about the saying Is. 65, 1.: I say, here I am 2c: "What follows: Here I am 2c, agrees with that in the sense s2 Mos. 3, 14.]: I will be, he who sent me to you. Which, though he was in divine form, he did not think it robbery to be like God 2c, but, calling forth the peoples of the whole world, he makes A people of his na-.

  1. This scripture has no 41 chapters. (Erl. Ausg.) 2) In the Vulgate: > Hus.

494 L. Br.-W. 1,393-395. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 615-618. 495

mens, the Christians." The same Jerome says about the prophet Amos in the 3rd book about the passage Cap. 7, 7.?: "And he had a diamond 1) in his hand" 2c: "It is said that the diamond, like amber, attracts poison to itself and resists magic arts; such is the Lord and Savior, who, although he was in divine form 2c, yes, until death on the cross. Namely, of this assumed form Isaiah writes 53, 2., "He had no form nor beauty. "2c Similarly, about the 49th Psalm, verse 16: But GOD will redeem my soul 2c, he says: "The God-man did not consider it robbery to be like GOD, but emptied himself and took on the form of a servant." Likewise in the 5th (3rd) book on the epistle to the Galatians Cap. 5, 13.: By love serve one another, he says: "For he that will be first, let him be servant of all, that, as the Savior, who had the likeness of God, thought it not robbery to be like God, but took upon himself the likeness of a servant. "2c This is what Jerome says among other things.

34 Also Pope Gregory the Great, the first of this name, says in the 2nd book of his Moralium in the 4th (22nd) Cap.Since God took on the form of a servant of man, "neither did the lowliness of the assumed flesh make an entry into the majesty, because he wanted to keep what he assumed, but did not want to exchange what he had, nor did he diminish the divine through humanity, nor did he consume the human through divinity, because, as is said by Paul: WHICH, though he was in the form of God, he did not consider it robbery to be like God, but emptied himself and took the form of a servant. For him, that he emptied himself is as much as that he showed himself visibly from the greatness of his invisibility, so that he covered with the form of a servant that which without barriers penetrated everything according to the Godhead. The same there book 29 (?), Cap. 3 (?): "Who, although he was in divine form, did not consider it a robbery to be like God. The Lord JEsus Christ is in that he is the power and the wisdom, born of the Father before time. "2c Similarly, in the homily on the words: Mary stood 2c, the same says: "Christ is born of the Father without time, he condescended to be born of the mother in time." It follows: "What wonder is there, if he who is earlier than the mother is like the Father? We have also learned from the testimony of Paul that Christ is divine power and divine time.

  1. In the Vulgate: trulla vsmsutarü.

is wisdom" 1 Cor. 1:24. It follows: "In Paul's heart, then, Jesus was equal with the Father through faith, since Paul said to them, "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider it a robbery to be equal with God."

35 St. Leo I, Pope, also says in the 41st (124th) letter to the monks in Palestine: "What reconciliation can there be by which God could be reconciled with the human race, if the mediator between God and man did not take upon himself the cause of all? But in what way could he have accomplished the mediation in truth, if he who in divine likeness was like the Father, were not in the likeness of a servant also partaker of us? "2c Similarly, in the same epistle, he says: "St. Paul preaches, whether he was in divine likeness," 2c to: "to the glory of GOD the Father." It follows: "For in the divine form the Son was like the Father, and between the begotten and the begotten there was no difference in essence, no difference in majesty, and even through the mystery of the Incarnation nothing was taken away from the Word that might be restored to Him by the gift of the Father. But the servant form, through which the Godhead, which is not able to suffer, has fulfilled the great divine mystery, is the human lowliness, which is elevated to the glory of the divine power, in that the Godhead and mankind, from the moment of the conception of the Virgin, are united in such a unity that neither divine things could be done without man, nor human things without God" 2c

(36) St. Hilarius (whom St. Augustine, the father of the saints, has cited for the assertion of his own), in his letter against the Greek emperor Constantius, an Arian, said among others: "You forbid that one should speak what is not written, and yet you yourself use what is not written, but you do not speak what is written. Thou wouldest have it preached that the Son is like the Father, lest thou shouldest hear of the apostle: Who, though he was in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be like God, but emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant. Christ does not rob what he was, that is, being in divine form. Being in divine likeness would not be an equality with GOD if the equality with man was not being in servant likeness. Now, if man is Christ in servant form, what else is in the divine form but Christ, the GOD?

496 D- Br.-W. 1,39S-397. 22 Dungersheim's second letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 618-629. 497

Therefore, for your sake, let it be preached that he is like you, lest it be written in your faith, And let every tongue confess that Jesus is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father. O over thy deceitful flattery! for thou coverest the waters with chaff, hidest the pits with sod, and layest snares under the food. Thou thinkest to do enough for the ignorant" 2c

37 Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt, an old teacher, also says about the epistle to the Philippians about this passage: "Who, even though he was in divine form, that is, in equality with the deity of the Father, being equal and like him in everything, he did not consider it robbery to be like God. Robbery is when any man usurps by force a foreign thing that does not belong to him. And the Lord Jesus would have committed robbery if he said that he was like God the Father, saying: I and the Father are one, if he was not in truth the Son of God, equal to him in everything. But his forerunner, when he said, I am not Christ, when he was asked by the scribes and Pharisees and the people, would have committed robbery if he had said: I am Christ. Simon the sorcerer therefore committed robbery, when he said Acts 8:9, f., I am the Son of GOD, though he was the child of the devil. "2c It follows: "And took upon Him the form of a servant, that is, He took on humanity in truth, and became like another man. Here (he says) the likeness (similitudo) is put for the truth itself, that is, he became truly man, because the Word became flesh, that is, GOD became man" 2c

St. Bernard in the first sermon on the birth of the Lord: "What is more unworthy, what is more detestable, what is more severe to punish, than that man, seeing that the God of heaven has become a little child, still continues to defy on earth? Ps. 10, 18. It is an intolerable insolence that, where the majesty has emptied itself, a little worm puffs itself up and makes itself big. This, then, is why he who has emptied himself and taken on the form of a servant

who in divine form was equal to the Father". The same about the Song of Songs, in the 8th sermon: "But who (namely Christ) did not consider it a robbery to be equal to God, so that he dares to say, I and the Father are one; because he is joined to him as an equal (ex ue^uo), he also embraces him as an equal and does not beg for a kiss from a lower 1) position, but joins the mouth with the mouth in equal majesty."

39 In the 77th (76th) sermon: "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. Accordingly, so that the merit of faith is not annulled, let him withdraw from sight and give place to virtue namely, faith. It is also time for him to return to his own property. You ask: to what kind of property? To the right of the Father. For he will not consider it a robbery to be like God, since he is in divine form." 2c The Son of God is like God (coaequalis) and of the same nature with him, who, as the apostle says, "though he was in divine form, he did not consider it a robbery to be like God, but emptied himself." 2c

40 However, in order not to be unduly expansive or to exceed the limits of a letter, I must return to your matter. For at the end you express the wish that I may interpret what you have sent for the best. I am willingly prepared to do this according to the brotherly love by which we are bound to each other, if you hold on to this will with constancy. But let me know about this again by letter through the messenger who delivered this. Then I will be able to show you in more detail what I have drafted, to the praise and glory of Almighty God, in whom, I wish, you may always prosper.

Hieronymus Dungersheim from Ochsenfurt.

  1. Instead of inferioridus, intsriori is to be read, as already correctly noted in Walch's old edition.

498 L. Br.-W. 1,438 f. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. xvm, 620-622. 499

*23 Luther's reply to Dungersheim's second letter. )

February (?) 1519.

Translated from Latin.

In response to Dungersheim's second letter, in which Dungersheim pelted Luther with quotations from the Church Fathers, Luther said that the evidence he had obtained from the Fathers was not sufficient. One would like to interpret the Fathers according to the Scriptures, but not vice versa.

To the excellent and respectable Mr. Hieronymus Dungersheim of > Ochsenfurt, the highly learned Doctor of Sacred Theology at the > University of Leipzig, his Lord in Christ wishes Martin Luther's > salvation.

I have now received, dear Lord, your second letter, in which you again write about the papacy and, among many other things, again bring up Athanasius and the decisions of the Council of Nicaea.

  1. dear, listen to what I say briefly. Because I'm still waiting for Eck, who in turn has poured out new frenzies, this big braggart (magno promissor hiatu). I ask you, what is it that I should confess further? I confess that the Roman Pontiff is higher in dignity than all, and that he should be honored. From this it follows that he is consulted in difficult matters and is asked for help when greater need arises; but I do not know how I would be able to maintain this against the Greeks. For even you do not give any satisfaction with regard to this matter. It does not follow that he must be consulted; therefore there must be no bishop anywhere except by his authority, and nothing must be done in the church except by his command. If I were to attribute to the pope, I say, this power to order all bishops and to do everything by divine right, I would make Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian, Athanasius, Gregory, and all the bishops of the Orient heretics, because they had never been under him.

Nor were they appointed bishops under him. For even the Council of Nicaea was not held by his command, nor was he himself present at it, nor a deputy for him, nor did he have the first place: unless you would deny that the Council of Nicaea was a general one.

What shall I say of the decisions of the Council of Nicaea? They are not against me; moreover, they are everywhere considered uncertain, so that it is still unknown which and how many of them there are, and to which one faith can be attributed. Finally, the works of Athanasius, which you use, are doubted to be by Athanasius, and are rather considered to be those of the Bulgarian Theophylact. 1)

4 But what Julius the First and other Roman bishops did, you know how that proves nothing. In greater matters, therefore, the Roman Pontiff may be approached by those who wish to do so. Why then does he interfere with his power when he is not required, and drags everything before him, orders everything, forbids everything? Show me where this power is found in the writings of the ancients. You have read that Gregory the Great in the decree dist. 22, cap. 4. confesses that if a debt or crime requires it, then

  1. Theophylact, Archbishop of Achris in Bulgaria 1078 until after 1107. From his ooininsutur. in 6p. uci kNilipp. is indeed taken the passage cited in H 22 of the previous letter, as Luther correctly remarks here.

*This letter can also be found in the collection of Dungersheim's writings cited in No. 20 x". 26; in Aurifaber vol. I, 148; in Löscher's Reformation Acta vol. Ill, 24; in De Wette vol. I, 218 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel vol. l, 438. The date is a conjecture of the Erlangen edition. De Wette assumes: end of January or beginning of February. However, it is also possible that this letter was written shortly after the publication of Eck's second disputation note on March 14, if Luther's words at the beginning of this letter about Eck's "new frenzies" refer to this note.

500 D Br.-W. 1,439-441. 23. Luther's reply to Dungersheim's second Schr. W. XVIII, 622-624. 501

the Roman Pontiff is the superior, otherwise, without fault, all are equal. Thus I want the supremacy of the Roman See to be honored when it is necessary and he is called upon to help. Although, as I have said, I could not prove this either at Leipzig, 1) or even today, nor could I meet those who held the text of Scripture against me. For I fear nothing so much in this matter as that, if a dispute broke out with heretics, we would be exposed to ridicule by basing ourselves on our glosses and speaking without a testimony of Scripture. For the devil fears not the rod of Egypt, but the sword of the Spirit. And in this matter you, and all others with you, would do me the greatest favor if we would test the sayings of the fathers against the words of Scripture, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles that Paul's words were also accepted (namely, that] they read the Scriptures day and night to see if it was so. You and Eck, you have the custom of accepting the sayings of all, and of making the words of the Scriptures conform to the words of the fathers, as if those did not want to draw us much more to the Scriptures than to themselves. I, on the other hand, have the custom, following the example of Augustine, to follow the little books to the source, without prejudice to reverence for all, which Bernhard also boasts of doing.

(5) As for the second, the passage Philippians 2, which you think I have treated badly by following Erasmus, here you also do not bring the text, but the opinions of the fathers. First of all, my good Lord, I think you know that this verse, Psalm 110, 3 Vulgate: "With you is the dominion in the day of your strength, in the splendor of the saints from the womb, 2) before the morning star I have begotten you" of the divinity of Christ has been asserted against Arius as the highest proof, or at least as one of the first (proofs, as one might expect in the

  1. This does not refer to the upcoming disputation, but to his presence there in January. (Erl. Ausg.)
  2. Deviating punctuated from the Vulgate; in the latter the punctuation mark precedes ex utero.

Tripartita and in the Augustin reads, so that both the Greek and the Latin church holds this Psalm in this sense, and even uses as a song at the service. For this reason, you will not make heretics of the Lyra, Burgensis, and even the Hebrew language, where one reads that this verse can certainly not be understood by the Godhead. That is why the holy fathers do not always fight against the heretics with clear and obvious sayings. How many sayings Jerome abuses against Jovinian, Augustine against Pelagius and others against others!

(6) Likewise, with what confidence does Augustine use the saying in the first book of Moses Cap. 1, 26: "Let us make man, an image to be gwich unto us," to assert the Trinity and the image that is in man, while neither can be proven from it, for in Hebrew it says: "I will make," not: "let us make.

7 Similarly, the passage 2 Mos. 3, 14: "I am who I am" all refer to the essence of God, while Burgensis and the Hebrews prove that it is to be referred to the effect of the help, because it says: "I will be who I will be", in the future time (in futuro). And the like innumerable.

8 What wonder, then, if they have also forced the passage Philippians 2 on the Godhead, which, considering the words, is more appropriately of mankind? I do not think I sin if I deviate from the fathers in any darker text. But what do you do, who set aside the text and occupy yourselves only with the sayings of the fathers, but that you leave cases doubtful and uncertain? In this the Magister Sententiarum has given a very bad example, in that he endeavored to bring the sayings of all into agreement. Hence it comes that we, being armed against the heretics with doubtful and dark opinions, become a laughing stock.

(9) Nor do I deny that this saying of Paul to the Philippians can be interpreted as Peter, Matt. 16, is drawn by many to the rock (Petrus ad petram); but it is necessary that the theologians be guided by a simple grounded

502 Br.-W. 1,441; 452 f. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. xvin, 624-626. 503

Fortify the mind against Satan. For this is my endeavor, and herein also consists the whole dispute against Eck, who holds fast the multiplicity, which is not pleasing to me.

10 Finally, it pleases me that a zeal for research has arisen from the disputation, only that I regret that this is happening in

to which other necessary things are put in the rear over this one not necessary thing, in which I still pursue enough and more than I can maintain myself. But I see quite well what is sought by many through this. But God lives. In that you are well, dear Lord.

*24 Dungersheim's third letter to Luther. )

March (?) 1519.

Translated from Latin.

This answer to Luther's previous letter is again about the supremacy of the pope and the interpretation of the passage Phil. 2, 6.

Jerome of Ochsenfurt to Martin Luther.

Eternal salvation in the Lord! There are things in your letter, Martin, dear brother in Christ, which I cannot approve, and to begin with the last, I confess that it displeases me not a little that you receive what I have sent differently than I meant it and have expressly stated how I mean it. I have also shown myself willing to receive everything for the best, as you wished, but you now have the suspicion that something, I don't know what, is directed against you. For you say: "You see quite well what is sought through this." 2c Are you still free to judge the heart of a man who speaks the truth differently than it behaves? Therefore, I wish even now, if God is gracious to me, that you may not harbor any mistrust at all, that I send this to you in sincere opinion.

Now let us come to the point. You complain that I "again write about the papacy and, among many things, present Athanasius and the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. To this I say: If you had accepted what was briefly said in the first letter, there would have been no reason to speak more expansively in the second with respect to the earlier or to refer to it. But even now you do not notice a great part of it, especially that the Nicene Fathers call the apostolic see the mother of all and decide that the prerogative of the Roman Church in everything must be inviolate.

that St. Peter was told by none other than the Lord Himself: "All that you will bind, and other such things. For that you say, "You confess that the Roman Pontiff is higher in dignity than all and is to be honored, and from this it follows that he is consulted in difficult matters and is asked for help when greater need arises," is not at all enough for those fathers, if it is not added: as in dignity, so also in authority, according to the evangelical institution of Christ, and that he thus stands higher or is the superior by divine right. Furthermore, if (as you say) he must be approached for help in greater matters, but what we are discussing about this matter is of this kind, then you too may approach him, who now presides over the church with the right of which I have spoken, and he will undoubtedly answer you with the Conciliar and the Fathers just this and, as I hope, receive you paternally as one who agrees with it. But shortly thereafter you weaken what you even confess, and say: "In greater matters, therefore, the Roman Pontiff may be approached by those who wish it. And further on: "Thus I (you say) that the supremacy of the Roman See be honored when it is necessary, and he is called upon to help," from which it follows that he is entitled to nothing or can do nothing, even in greater matters of the church, however necessary they may be, if he is not required. For by the enclosed condition you carry this

*This letter can also be found in the collection of Dungersheim's writings listed in No. 20, and in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, Vol. Ill, 56 and Erlanger Briefwechsel Vol. I, 452.

504 2. br.-w. 1,453 f. 24. Dungersheim's third letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 626-628. 505

when he is required and that by those who like it. For if he is to be consulted only by those who wish it, how does that rhyme with his dignity, according to which, as you confess, he is higher than all, and that he should be consulted for help in difficult matters and when greater need arises? Or, conversely, if it follows from this dignity of his that he should be consulted in such matters, how can he be approached in them only arbitrarily? For how should a necessary consequence not be contrary to free will and to him who perhaps does not want it? What, then, do you attribute to the Roman Pontiff in any difficult matter of the church more than to any arbitrator in this or also in any other matter, although it is secular, should this arbitrator also be chosen from the least contemptible people (homunculis) by the parties? Is it not therefore logical that what you have said should be contradicted, that because of his dignity he should either be approached, or asked for advice, or his help sought, at least in difficult matters and in major emergencies? For although his help would be required in these matters, what would be the use of it if you did not also consider this to be so firmly established that you should follow what he establishes above all in the church? The kind is admittedly what is acted of his cause.

But you add the confession: "You would not know how to maintain this against the Greeks. And further down: "Although, as I have said, I could not prove this either at Leipzig or even today, nor would I be able to meet those who held the text of Scripture against me. I (you say) fear nothing so much in this matter as that, if a dispute were to break out with heretics, we might be exposed to ridicule. "2c

4 But if, as you write, these are heretics who also hold against that which you confess, but the Greeks do so to such an extent that you cannot trust yourself to uphold it against them, what will they be? Further, what harm does this do to the truth, if it seems that it cannot be defended against heretics and stiff-necked people? For according to the apostle Rom. 3, 3. their unbelief does not cancel God's faith. For against the Arians and many others of the same kind, the Fathers and the Conciliar not only did nothing by the truth of the Scriptures, but by the same the heretics only fell deeper, dragging the orthodox mind of them elsewhere, so that they could not be persecuted.

that when one heresy was finished and condemned, sometimes several arose, like the heads of the Hydra. So it was with the Jews that the apostles had to say to some Acts 13:46: "The word of God had to be spoken to you first, but now you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, see, so we turn to the Gentiles 2c: And they believed, even of the Gentiles, how many of them were ordained unto eternal life. Thus the Lord Himself, having even used works of the Godhead, when He represented that the prophecies were fulfilled in Him, was led to a precipice (praecipitium 1), and when He said: I am [before Abraham, the wicked wanted to stone him and kill the one who showed that he was like God. 2c, so that he said, as Matthew reports, Matth. 13, 14. f.: "Over them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says, The heart of this people is hardened, and their ears hear evil, and their eyes slumber, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should help them." This also John adds, when he reports it 12, 41.: These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him. Paul also, when he mentions this in the Acts of the Apostles 28, 28., threatens and says: "Let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles. 2c To all this and even greater things than this, the wretched people have gone from bad to worse, so that they did what they wanted to the Lord and his servants, which the Lord also foretold that they would do Matth. 23, 34: Behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men. 2c He also spoke very clear parables against them, which the Gospel history does not conceal. Therefore St. Ambrose complains that he was first seen by the heretics, that is, if the grace of the spiritual mysteries could not have shone forth in the sermon. 2) So what is it miracle or

  1. This is the reading of the Erl. Edition; the other two offer xrasmxuurn, which is rendered in Walch's old edition as: "to the colonels".
  2. For the understanding of these words we put the passage from Ambrose (vxxoZit. svanA. lib. 7, aux. 48.) here: If, moreover, the animals see man first, it is said that by a kind of natural force they cut off from him the sound of his voice; but if man sees them first, they are said to be greatly dismayed. And I must beware of this, lest, if the grace of the spiritual mysteries cannot shine forth in today's sermon, it be thought that the wolves saw me first, and wrested from me the solemn testimony of the voice.

506 L.Br.-W. 1,484-456. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 628-630. 507

Strange that not everyone agrees with this truth either? for no one will set him on the right path whom God has rejected Eccl. 7:14. according to the Vulgate.

(5) But what is to be thought of the newer Greeks, superiors and subjects, I have explained in another letter 1), where it has also been shown what the ancients of the same language believed and did with the peoples entrusted to them. How much do you think the number of those will be today, who in matters of the most holy faith are most fiercely minded, than Turks, Tartars, Jews and heretics of various kinds? But are these things for that reason less firmly founded in the first truth, even though they do not want to listen to them, and even persecute them mortally? Or is there for the sake of it a standing of persons with God, who owes nothing to anyone and bestows grace without merit on whom He wills? Finally, what the apostle thinks of the last times, he expresses in the letters to his disciples Timothy and Titus, and also the Lord himself says Luc. 18, 8.: "When the Son of Man shall come, thinkest thou that he also shall find faith on earth?" If, therefore, what is necessary has been done, since it is not in man's power that those who are accounted for should accept faith, then for that reason there is certainly not a hair's breadth of deviation from the truth. Therefore, it is a futile fear that the heretics would mock you 2c if you kept what the church holds. Rather, listen to the holy father Augustine, a man who, according to his holiness, judges quite reasonably what is to be done in this matter. For in the book de Donatistarum correctione, Cap. 9 (3), he teaches that such things must be kept in check by laws, and assures that this is not only just, but also godly, regardless of the fact that some (as they also did) should want to kill themselves because of it. But in the 7th (2nd) chapter he precedes with the words: "Not those who suffer persecution because of ungodliness and because of shameful separation of the Christian unity, but those who suffer persecution because of righteousness, are true martyrs. For Hagar also suffered persecution from Sarah, and she was holy who did it, and she ungodly who suffered. "2c And in the following chapter he shows that suffering persecution is not a wise sign of a true Christian, although he does not inflict anything, since there is also a rightly inflicted persecution, namely, that which the Church

  1. In his second letter § 12, § 15 and § 16.

Christ to the wicked. He then exhorts that one should call upon the secular arm, as it were as God's help, against them, and praises a certain bishop who, in order to protect his army against heretical impurity, had acted in this way. And he advises the kings that they should be more concerned about this than about adultery or other crimes of this kind, showing that heretics are more deserving of the death penalty. But he wants them to be treated mercifully if they return to the right doctrine. Moreover, he asserts this also by the similitude of a collapsing house, from which someone who does not want to go out, if it is possible, is led out by force, namely, as he says, "by laws given against them, many are made free," either so that they do not become heretics, or cease to be so. He also introduces Christ's example in the conversion of Paul, saying, "Where is that founded which the heretics are wont to cry, It is free to believe or not to believe? Whom did Christ do violence to? Whom did he force? Behold, they have Paul, by whom they may know that Christ first compels, and afterward teaches." It follows: "And whom greater fear hath compelled to love, whose perfect love casteth out fear. Why then should not the church compel faithless children?" It follows: "Therefore, in these who must be compelled, the Church follows the Lord." After this he cites something from Christ's doctrine of equality and says: "These who are found by the ways and fences, that is, in heresies and mobs, and are forced to come in, they must not blame that they are forced, but take heed to what they are forced. "2c But also in regard to their deprivation 2) he cites what is said in the Book of Wisdom 5, 1.: The righteous shall stand with great joy, and saith, "When (saith he) the body of Christ taketh away the spoil of the ungodly, and the riches thereof are gathered unto the body of Christ, they must not abide without, that they should blaspheme, but rather come in, that they should be justified." And further on: "The heretic shall not stand against a Catholic, 3) who has taken from him what he has earned, because the laws of the Catholic emperors have come into force; but the Catholic shall stand against the heretic." It follows: For it is not said, Men shall stand, but the righteous shall stand.

  1. sxolintio, that is, the confiscation of their goods.
  2. That is, to be allowed to bring an action for the taking away of his goods.

508 D. Br.-W. 1,456-4Z8. 24. Dungersheim's third letter to Luther. W. xvm, 630-633. 509

And there, too, many other things. Among them he also remembers how the Catholics preached and wrote fiercely against these stubborn ones. Finally, he assures that he wrote this for the sake of those who did not want the heretics to be forced by imperial laws. Book 2 of the Retractations.

It should be noted, however, that he says this mainly against those whose heretic superior opposed the holy pope and martyr Cornelius and caused the schism by which the Donatists separated themselves from the unity of the church. Therefore, in the preface of the book, he says: "Wretchedly, they alone quarrel about the community, and rebelliously, against the unity of Christ, they practice enmity by the perversity of their error," rebaptizing their own, believing the rest to be Christians, of whom he shows that they were banished and cut off for that reason, and that the cause of those who were such people in Africa was first brought to the church at Rome and there judged and condemned. He also reports that the Pelagians, although most of them were active in the regions of the Orient, were repeatedly banished by the most holy men (as he calls them) Innocent and Zosimus, Roman popes, after they had long cunningly concealed their heresy and slyly taught the people the poison of their error; Their heresy was also brought before the Roman See, he says (as it was due), despite the fact that Pelagius had made a confession of the Catholic faith in the regions of the Orient and had, as it were, sent out a recantation of his errors; despite the letter that he had sent to the pope about his purification, because it had been learned that it was hypocritical. There are letters from African bishops to Pope Innocent about this, and letters from him to them, as I mentioned in the other letter, which can be found in the epistolary book of St. Augustine, a part of which he also included in the aforementioned book. There he also continues: Pelagius had tried for a while to avert the stain of heresy from himself and had been considered good and holy at first, also by him, Augustine, and he had brought forward his errors, as it were, under the name of another, so that his deceitfulness would come to light less, but finally he could not remain hidden, since he also tried to deceive the synod before which he had been summoned. Accordingly, he shows that he and his followers were rightly banished and condemned.

had been dammed. He also tells about this in the 3rd book de peccatorum meritis et remissione and mentions that Pelagius also interpreted the letters of Paul, and accuses him of having mixed in "his new teachings against the implanted (so he says) opinion of the church". He also obtained that his books were condemned by the Roman Pontiff at the same time as the author, as I have shown in the other letter. Thus his trade, which, as he says, had arisen suddenly, grew into a great conflagration, so that it had to be extinguished by the prestige of the apostolic see. The same holy father does not remain silent about the heretic Petilianus, who attacked the Roman popes with unbelievable blasphemies, because he and his accomplices had been banished from the Roman See, as it is more extensively written in the Scripture of One Baptism. Also, since in the book against Fulgentius he punishes the heretics who, when the Scriptures are held up to them, remain on their senses and do not allow themselves to be instructed, he calls their conventiculum a den of robbers and the fornicating woman spoken of in the Proverbs of Solomon [Cap. 7.He compares them to those sorcerers who resisted Moses, because he stood for the people of God, and wants to insinuate that they should be punished with death according to the example of the saints, because they did not agree with the truth, which he, as he reports, defends by the prestige of the apostolic chair. That he was sometimes driven to such things by this prestige is described by the bishop Posidonius in his biography. This must move us, and what he, in the above-mentioned book of grace against Pelagius, punishes the stubbornness of heretics, he introduces from Scripture: "Not all (he says) have faith who hear from the Scriptures that the Lord promises the kingdom of heaven; nor can all be persuaded to come to him who says, 'Come to me, all you who labor.' But whose faith is, and who are persuaded to come unto him, he himself sufficiently sheweth, saying, No man cometh unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him."

7 Much the same is found in his sayings, as well as in those of St. Jerome against Vigilantius and other heretics of his time, and in the sacred canons, by which we are taught in what manner it behooves the Church to act against the obstinate, with hindsight, and against the unjust.

510 Br.-W. 1,453-460. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 633-635. 511

The fear of mockery, scorn, abuse, slander, and defamation of the unpleasant, so that, according to the admonition of Augustine himself, one should not even worry about the mockery of the pagans, but rather be careful not to deviate in the least from the truth and the right way in order to win them, since, in order to achieve this, not even a venial sin may be permitted.

(8) Since you, in order to excuse yourself, mention the mere names of Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian and Athanasius, I now refer you to what is otherwise known of their sayings, especially what Jerome says to Damasus, among other things, that he who eats the paschal lamb outside the house, which is commanded to the Roman Pontiff, is an ungodly man. And Cyprian to Cornelius says that Peter answered for all because the Church was founded on him. And Augustine in his "Reflections" expresses his joy that after being denied three times, he had been entrusted with the pastoral care of the whole Church. And as Athanasius writes with the Oriental Catholics to the pope, he invokes the prestige of the Roman See as the mother and head of all churches. But Gregory, since you introduce him speaking, although very briefly, 1) may himself speak more closely in the register (as it is called) in the 7th (9th) book, Cap. 69 (68) to the bishop of Thessalonica and other Greeks. Irritated against the man of hope, the patriarch John of Constantinople, he forbids to hold a synod, threatens and testifies that without the prestige of the apostolic see, whatever is negotiated otherwise will have no validity, and a synod of this kind must not be called, and those who act contrary to it must be deprived of the communion of the church, 2c Accordingly, he praises his predecessor of blessed memory, as he speaks, Pope Pelagius (namely, the one of whose canon you say elsewhere 2) that he spoke only with words, but not in the sense of Christ), because he invalidated the negotiations of a synod, which was held otherwise, by strong opposition (districtione). He reports the same in the 4th (5th) book, Cap. 78 (21) of the same register, where he also explains the word "general", which the aforementioned John arrogates to himself, as if the latter had presumed to be called the sole bishop in the world, and to that extent he just rejects it.

  1. In the previous letter § 4.
  2. In the [iiAust. Lrl. var. arZ. II, 388. Incidentally, the canon is by Gelasius, not Pelagius (Erl. Ausg.).

But not because he wanted something to be taken away from the prestige of the apostolic see; rather, because that John undertook to harm it, he resisted it in about six letters. In the same book, Cap. 80, and in other places of the letters, he writes about the same reputation of the pope in much the same way. And in the 6th (7th) book, Cap. 201 (40), he speaks thus, as it were in conclusion, to the patriarch in the regions of the Orient at Alexandria Eulogius: "Who should not know that the holy church is founded on the firm foundation of the prince of the apostles, who expressed in his name the firmness of mind, so that he was called Peter of petra (rock)? to whom the voice of truth says: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to whom again it is said: And if thou be converted some day, strengthen thy brethren; and again, Simon Johanna, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep. Therefore (he says), although there are many apostles, only the chair of the prince of the apostles had the power of supremacy. "2c Finally he testifies aloud that the fullness of authority is vested in the Roman chair (as also Julius testifies, of whose sayings and deeds you make the assumption 3) that they prove nothing on the matter), but the other churches, he asserts, are called by him to share the care. He also does not conceal what has to happen to the obstinate ones in the proceedings with the aforementioned. Other things of the same humble, true and extremely holy Pope Gregory I will now pass over. For from this you can easily measure what he intended by what you have mentioned, and what he thought of the supremacy of the Roman See, and in what way he understood the passages of the evangelical, that is, divine law, which he has attracted, and the orders of the Church, driven by the spirit of God (afflatus). But you have not to fear, if you keep it with the Conciliar regarding the supremacy of the Roman pope, that you will thereby make the aforementioned saints and Gregory heretics. But I fraternally point out to you that you must fear very much that they might accuse you severely before Christ, the founder of the church, that you have spread that they have held differently about the church than it holds itself. What do you fear, that you would make the aforementioned saints heretics by agreeing with what they themselves have held, and do you not rather fear that you would at the same time make them heretics?

  1. In the previous letter § 4.

512 L. Br.-W. 1,460-462. 24 Dungersheim's third letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 635-637. 513

Do you make heretics out of the popes I mentioned in the previous letter? Among those is also Gregory the Great, who, acting in the same way as these saints, defended the dignity or prestige of the See of St. Peter with deeds and writings, according to all their ability and duty.

(9) Though you imply that they did this against the right understanding of Scripture, namely, out of ambition, it is known that whoever does this with a persistent will has a fatally sinful and heretical opinion, which would be frightening to think of such exceedingly holy men.

(10) Again, therefore, I say that if the pope should relax any of his rights, which he can relax if the cause exists, namely, because of the remoteness of the places, or to keep the peace with disputants, or anything similar, this prudence of paternal care and indulgence will be praiseworthy.

(11) Therefore, what you say about bishops as if they were without him is not wrong, for they are not without him, nor were they so, since he, in order to relinquish his right for the aforementioned reasons, himself agrees that they are so. Now, that you are not satisfied by this and other things that are given now and in the earlier letters, you must necessarily not blame me, but those whom I have attracted, the fathers and conciliates and others who can be seen, if anything at all (which is far off) can be blamed on them in this; but rather blame it on your sense, since, even if not you, still the matter itself is satisfied. For who do you think could satisfy you, since these so many and so great people cannot satisfy you? For you are also far wrong in saying that at the Council of Nicaea (which was the most famous because of the meeting of 318 fathers) there was no deputy of the pope, and that it was not held by his command, since the more proven histories and the letters of Athanasius himself, who was present there, list by name the deputies he sent there. But the substitutes are due the place of him whom they represent in his absence. And that the fathers themselves at that council, together with the named deputies, acknowledged that no council could be held without the consent of the Roman pope, is evident from the proceedings (Actis) of that council.

(12) Nor is it necessary for the Roman Pontiffs to be present in person at the conciliar meetings, but it is sufficient for them to agree with what has been said.

and approve what they rightly decide, as St. Pope Leo I shows in a letter to the Greek emperor. If this were not written, in what way do you think it probable that the most Christian emperor (as St. Jerome calls him), Constantine the Great (who, according to the Tripartite, had procured the removal of the Fathers at his own expense), who was so godly in matters of faith and so favorable to the successor of St. Peter that he ceded Rome to him, had brought about this solemn assembly without his consent, or that the Nicene Fathers had consented to it, since they had decided the foregoing according to Scripture? But you want those decisions to be considered as uncertain, which are so obviously for the cause of the pope, as shown above. But the sacred canons, which are taken from them, and the oldest manuscripts, in which they are preserved written, and proven histories, as well as the letters of Athanasius and the Orientals to the Roman popes, and the latter to them, which on both sides repeat the decisions themselves, according to the wording of which also the later concilia have made their decisions about the power of the Roman pope, ascribe certainty to them. All this together, I say, with other things that might be said, makes them so certain that no doubt can remain for a right-believer. Now if anyone should continue, according to his inclination, to cast doubt on certain things in this way, it does not serve the cause which he has taken upon himself to defend.

(13) The same could be said of the works of Athanasius, in regard to which it is written by the most credible men that the ones they have are his, and this is also proved by their expressly stated titles. Now if it be said that they are of another, what is this but to take away their credibility? But supposing that what is contained in them were not from him, the fact that it agrees in every way with the truth no less proves that it is true.' Since you say that I know that from all that I have mentioned in the previous letter from the Tripartita and similar writings about Julius and other Roman popes, nothing is proved: I say that I know the opposite, namely, that because they, as governors of Christ, have acted this sacredly and quite rightly, it proves enough and more than enough about the matter, and presents it completely. Since you now ask in relation to this, where one can find this authority of the

514 L. Br.-W. 1,462-464. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 637-640. 515

I refer you briefly to this and to what was said earlier, that is, to the decisions of the conciliar bodies according to the Protestant Scriptures, and to the writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers, and thus to the custom and faith of the Catholic Church up to the present day.

14 But that thou wouldest have me and all to be at thy bidding, that we should test the sayings of the fathers by the words of the Scriptures, and say that I accept the sayings of all, and put the words of the Scriptures to them, that cannot please me. For the first, in the way you want, is full of danger, as I will say more widely below, but the other is your mere pretense. Therefore, dear one, hear me. I have a far different custom, which you could also have perceived from my letters, since I know that sacred Scripture is, as it were, the foundation (principium) of theological doctrine, which originally comes from infallible truth, and therefore, above all writings that come from anyone else, must be dearest to every Catholic's heart, as St. Augustine also asserts that this is his custom, and I did not mean that you should doubt this from 'me or any orthodox. But what is the proper and certain understanding in this Scripture, do you not think that this must be left to the Church? Christ is always with her, according to the consolation he gave her when he went to the Father, and constantly enlivens her with his spirit in necessary matters of faith, and assures her that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against her firm foundation. How should one not, for the sake of it, stick to what this church has more than once acknowledged according to the Scriptures through the concilia? This is what the exceedingly wise Augustine did in all things, but especially when the Donatist mob was raging against the apostolic see, which cannot be hidden from those who take a closer look at his sayings and deeds. This is what the sons of the church do without a thought of conscience, even if (which is far from it) conscience (which can only be an erroneous one) seems to draw someone elsewhere, because Christ wants it to be heard in it as well. That this is therefore the custom with me, as one of them (which I hope by God's grace), you could have gathered from my letters, if you had wanted to read them more attentively, where it concerns any truth, especially if it concerns faith, that is, that which the church holds as such, if the sayings of the fathers according to the Scriptures, according to which

grace, which was so abundantly bestowed upon them, to show him as such. I wish myself happiness in an exceptional way, and it is no small consolation of my faith that the truth remains the same everywhere; accordingly I do not accept it other than as a gift coming from above, but I would not believe less if one or the other of the fathers should not prove it, if the church believes it, to which (as is right) the same holy father attaches so much that he testifies that he would not believe the gospel either if he were not moved by the prestige of the church. But it is the pope's business, as far as the conciliar bodies have decided. Therefore, in such matters I leave any other glosses in their value, however great it may be (because it will not be able to weaken the aforementioned in any respect), and keep it with the church in the dark word, until I come to see under the guidance of Christ.

(15) Nor do I admit to you that this means drawing the Scriptures from the fathers, as many are said to have done from the rock (petra) to Peter, as you finally conclude for your opinion, but rather, on the contrary, I claim that it means wisely using the fathers, who faithfully paid attention to the Scriptures at the hint of God. That I do this, even without the test that you want to have newly introduced, you nevertheless testify to me yourself (although you do not intend it, since you charge me with the opposite). Namely, you do not deny that I follow the fathers, yes, that is what you blame me for; But you claim that they wanted to draw us more to Scripture than to themselves, and that this is, according to the example of Augustine, to follow the booklet to its source. 2c Since this is well done, and they themselves have thereby faithfully followed Scripture, for otherwise they would do otherwise than they taught and drew, I have indeed followed them (as you also testify) and compare their sayings with Scripture, as they themselves have done. Not because they say it, but because they speak right and true, since they speak it according to the Scriptures in the Catholic sense, I do not keep company with them unjustly, but especially, as it is right, I follow the Scriptures, which, as I have said and you admit, they follow, and to which they want to draw us. But I do not want this to be understood of the things which they either revoke, or in which they do not remain the same to themselves, or do not agree rightly among themselves. For I also hold with them what the church holds, and I do not doubt that they always want to hold with the church. The

516 Br.-W. 1,464-466. . 24. Dungersheim's third letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 640-642. 517

does not mean (as you want), to leave everything uncertain and doubtful, what is catholically certain. For then, even according to you, the Fathers themselves, whom one must follow in the aforementioned manner, would have left everything doubtful and uncertain, since they are faithful, exceedingly wise and catholic interpreters of Scripture and pillars of the Church. Rather, this means faithfully and bravely overcoming foreign and hostile things, which the Fathers have already most shrewdly shot down with bullets from the firm foundation of Scripture, and strengthening what is ours. If you had this custom, you would not doubt what has already been decided by the church, at least in synods. Which of the two is best done, then, you can judge for yourself. For is it not evident that to act otherwise than as stated above is as much as to make certain things uncertain, and to expressly write and hold that which so many and so great people have done with the church, namely, which presents (reputat) such a synod, mainly in necessary matters of faith, as I have said, by an ungodly industriousness? Or does this not mean the Scriptures say, to be in bondage to the fathers, who do not hold so, but rather want to go according to his own head? How great a temerity this is, you recognize without a doubt.

16 But even that does not take place here, which you take from the Acts of the Apostles, where it is perhaps a matter of those who have only been students of the Catechism for two days, in relation to the extremely well-considered decisions of the general conciliarities. Therefore, if one acts as you will, nothing is so certain that it should not find an examiner, not to say a mischievous mäkler (sycophantam captiosum). Who should not see how doubtful the very firmest certainty of Scripture would become? Finally, you know that from such a procedure all heretical sects have arisen; for there never was an arch-heretic who did not chatter away that the Scriptures were for him, presuming a new examination of them against the mind of Christ and the Church, as Arius did against the equality of the Son with the Father in the Godhead, Sabellius against the real distinction of the divine Persons, Eutyches against the personal union of the humanity of Christ with the Word, and likewise with others. But for their sake and for the sake of their followers, what has been decided by a synod must certainly not be revoked in any way, but neither, as if it were uncertain, must it even be discussed. Therefore, about this writes the most holy and very learned

Man, the pope Leo I, to the Greek emperor Leo in the 57th (162nd, according to others 132nd) letter, which begins: With great joy 2c: "We must abhor (he says) and persistently shun that which heretical deceit strives to obtain, and not again allow to be drawn into controversy that which is godly and clearly established, lest we seem to doubt it according to the caprice of the damned themselves" 2c It follows: "Therefore, since I know that you, venerable prince, are enlightened with the clearest light of truth, and do not waver in any part of the faith, and separate what must be held fast from what must be rejected, I beseech you not to think , that my lowliness is to be accused of mistrust, since this warning of mine not only cares for the general Church, but also serves your honor, lest in the time of your government the impiety of the heretics should appear increased, and the safety of the Catholics disturbed." It follows: "For it is all too unseemly, all too unjust, to admit to liberty of trial those whom the Holy Spirit indicates by the prophet, saying Ps. 18:45., The strange children have lied against me" (According to the Vulgate) 2c He writes such things also in other letters, which I now leave aside.

  1. How do you think that this proves to me that those decisions of the saints and the conciliar are called by the cane of Egypt (which is the unstable and weak darkness), because (as you like) what is cited against the deniers of the supremacy of the pope ordered by divine right from the aforementioned conciliar and saintly proves nothing, nor does it give any satisfaction with regard to this matter for its sake, because the Greeks, or, as you say, the heretics, do not turn to it, and so it is not based on truth, but on a fragile reed and on a deceptive support, about which, of course, the devil (by which, however, I understand a faithless heretic, which you speak of immediately before) does not care, as if these testimonies (documenta) had no value, .but rather only bring harm, so that it seems that they are also rightly exposed to the Gesp'ötte. May God not punish you! But I wish you would consider whose these threatening and quite impudent words are, and against whom he (who speaks them) brings them forward. Certainly an ungodly Rabshakeh Isa. 36, 2. 6. against the church of God and for its sake against the Lord. You should also see what God answered him through the prophet Isa. 37, 22. "Whom (says he) hast thou reviled and blasphemed? against whom hast thou

518 L. Br.-W. 1,466-468. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 642-645. 519

you lift up your voice and lift up your eyes? Against the Holy One in Israel." Then follows v. 28. f., "But I know thy dwelling, thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy raging against me. Because thou hast raged against me, and thy pride is come up into mine ears, I will put a ring upon thy nose, and a bit in thy mouth." This, then, should rather have been said Against the vain speeches of the heretics, by which they revile the Church of God with the mockery which you fear, and have already, as the apostle Tit. 3, 11. says, condemned themselves. And, as St. Hilarius rejoices, against the same, 1) since God protects them, they will never prevail. Therefore, the Holy Scripture continues and says Ezk. 37, 34: "The way he came, he shall return." Consider that the apostle commanded, as follows Tit. 3:10. f., "Avoid a heretical man, when he is once and again admonished. And know that such a one is perverse." And with what a horrible end this rabble perished, the Scripture does not conceal in the 2nd book of Kings 19, 35. and Isaiah 39 37, 36. ff., where the foregoing of Rabsake is found literally. Therefore, the heretics may laugh as much as they like with those who believe them, but we who are believers have an avenger in heaven, the original truth itself, which it is certain will eventually be victorious in everything.

18 After this, however, I am displeased that you, without making a distinction, accuse the Roman pope so much of ambition. Everything, you say, he commands, everything he brings before him, does everything, forbids everything. For if he is Christ's governor in this respect, and must be acted upon in the church according to Christ's will, then the consequence is that the affairs of the church belong to him, as the highest judge on earth, to whom all should finally take refuge, especially those who have been wronged. 2c But could it be said, for the sake of this being exercised by the faithful, that he does everything in the way in which you accuse him? The provinces have their decrees, the dioceses their synodal resolutions, the churches their ceremonies and customs, the monastics their, as it is called, constitutions orders, rules 2c Does he then forbid these to be kept? yes, rather he praises and favors them, outwardly perhaps from time to time because of a cause arising. Otherwise, I do not see how you and the people of your order and others in the

  1. Hsnäsm, not snnäsiru

Church, which, while keeping their rules, could be found in useful ways far and wide. There are papal rights, there are laws of princes who did not disdain to imitate those, there are proven interpreters of them in the Christian schools at his command, there are also judges to exercise them. Does he not then approve of all this for the sake of Christian peace, for the protection of the good, but for vengeance upon the wicked, and put up with it, as said above, unless you meant that all this should be trampled under foot at once? as if it were not also ordered by the church on general concilia under his presidency, or perhaps the church should be asserted not as existing by these, but by those whom you describe as rottians and heretics? But the aforementioned church, which is founded by Christ, must remain until the end of the world.

(19) If, then, in the foregoing, or in any other matter whatsoever, anything should be done improperly, I will not approve of it; but neither is life (moribus) spoken of here, but rights. Therefore believe me that this is not the right way to put something in order, that one wants to break the right.

20 Many other things come to mind that I should have written about. But now, so that I do not go too far, I will come to that saying of the apostle, Philippians 2: Which, if he were in the likeness of God. If anyone compares what you cite for your assertion with this passage, he will see that you meant to say that it was not only not clear and quite unsuitable for the intention of the Fathers, namely, to refute the heretics, but that they all cited it in a wrong way, twisted it and, as it were, dragged it there by force as a dark and uncertain one. For you say of this saying that it can be drawn to the Godhead, and you do not think that you sin by departing from the Fathers in any darker passage (since you had spoken of this immediately before). But you also refer to other passages as similar, in which, as you wish, the fathers were absent, and bring forward from them the other thing that I have said, in order to show that they have cited this saying just as improperly, but that you have interpreted it more correctly, especially as you speak, if the words were rightly regarded. Of course, I am very sorry that you should differ from all in so glorious a passage, which, moreover, is so clear against the perversity of the heretics. Clearly, I say, because it is clear to all except the heretics.

520 D- Br.-W. 1,468-470. 24 Dungersheim's third letter to Luther. W. XVIII, 645-647. 521

It is doubtful, even for Erasmus, whom you confess to have followed, that it is to be understood by the Godhead, but you dare to state that it must be understood by created beings. I have already said this in the last letter. For the letter of the apostle does not read "in forms" of God, as several, but "in the form" of God, which is one of his essence, in the same way as it is indivisible and cannot be multiplied (plurificabilis). Furthermore, Erasmus admits that he did not want to offend the opinion of the Fathers. Finally, this passage is so certain that even the heretics themselves (against whom the saints always used the same insurmountable sign of victory), although they were very cunning persecutors of Catholic truth, could not take it otherwise than from the figure of the Godhead, nor did they dare to contradict the saints in it, convinced by the clarity of the words, although they chattered away that the figure of the Son was different from that of the Father, and set gradations in the Godhead with their blasphemous mouths. That this is so, is reported by the extremely credible author Augustin, among many others, in the first book Against Maximinus (who is considered to be a bishop of the Arians and who undertook to defend their whole extremely corrupt sect in such a miserable heresy), that he speaks like this: "It is certain that the apostle says: Which, whether he was in divine form; for who should deny that the Son of God was in divine form? For that he was God, that he was Lord and King, I mean (says Maximinus), we have already explained more extensively. And because he did not consider it a robbery to be like GOD, the holy apostle teaches us this, that he did not rob it, and also we do not say" 2c Augustine repeats this in the 2nd (1st) book Wider denselben in the 5th cap. like this: "Fifthly, I have shown whence the Father is greater than the Son: because He is not greater than GOD, therefore the Son is coeternal with Him. There I have cited the apostolic testimony: Who, even though he was in divine form, did not consider it a robbery to be equal with God. For by nature he had equality with God, not by robbery. To this you said in your answer: For who denies that the Son is in divine form? For that he was GOD, that he was the LORD" 2c, as above. Augustine adds, "These words of yours not only contain nothing against us, but seem to be more for us. For if you confess the divine form, why do you not openly confess that the Son is like God? Especially because you

with regard to the words of the apostle, since he says: "He did not consider it a robbery to be like God, you could not find anything that you could have said for your opinion" 2c, which the holy father elaborates there to refute that proud heretic more thoroughly. But you oppose it in such a way that you say somewhere that the teachers of theology did not have the right understanding of this passage, namely, those who took it like the saints, and assert that the same, both Greeks (in whose language this passage is written by the apostle) and Latins, who did not understand Greek, have here twisted this passage and dragged it to the opinion which they say is contained in it. Moreover, after the passage is thus defended by you, you compare it with that which is written in Matt. 16, which the fathers used to put on for the supremacy of St. Peter, saying that it could be put on the Godhead as Peter is put on the rock (petra) by many. I beg you to consider this more carefully, and as you see that you have failed in this passage of the apostle, so you will also see that you have failed in the one to which you compare it. For that it is much easier to believe, or rather easier to believe, that you are mistaken than that the fathers were mistaken, and especially the general conciliarities, I hope you will not deny. One must therefore always obey the church (in whose midst is Christ) more than cling to one's own opinions, especially in matters of faith; this I urgently advise you out of brotherly love; if I can persuade you to do so, I am sure it will not repent you either. For who knows for what benefit (also for you, if you agree) God has permitted this temptation over you: but there is nothing more dangerous than to trust too much in one's own judgment. For Prov. 14, 12. it pleases some a way Good 2c; of which perhaps at another time.

(21) But what should I think of the other passages which you cite as an example, although they are dissimilar? I suppose that you assume how great the reputation of the church is (as it is touched). If, therefore, she uses any passage as a certain one, why should not her children, of course (though it might have been different in another language), use it confidently, as the fathers themselves have certainly been exceedingly obedient? especially against those who admit this passage as a well-established one (authenticum), and above a similar passage to the same opinion elsewhere in the canon of Scripture in the language from which the translation was made?

522 L.Br.-W. 1,470-472. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 647-650. 523

is found. For what believer could doubt in the least that the Spirit of Christ is and remains no less true in the Church than in the writers of the canonical books? For Christ sent the Comforter to her with the promise that he should abide with her forever. But in what manner the writers of the earlier faithful Fathers have adduced the sayings of Scripture, sometimes by stating the words exactly, sometimes the meaning, sometimes the sayings of one or in one place under the name and title of another, may be read, whoever will, in St. Jerome to a great orator at Rome and in similar writings. Not that I want to concede this to any other private writings, but to the church, whose members were also those authors of holy writings, and who had received this power from Christ.

22 Now, therefore, I come to the passage which thou adduceest as an equal first, 1) though, as I saw above, it is unequal Ps. 110, 3. according to the Vulg.: "With thee is dominion in the day of thy strength, in the brightness of the saints from the womb, before the morning star have I begotten thee." This, thou sayest, is not said of the Godhead of Christ, and cannot even be understood of the same, and yet the Fathers would have asserted this saying as the supreme proof, or yet as one of the first proofs against Arius 2c How now, if it were shown that this very one could not be understood at all otherwise than of the Godhead? First, I think you will not deny that the Psalm from which this verse is taken is in letter about Christ, since the apostle in the first and second chapters to the Hebrews quotes from it as referring to Christ. And the Lord Himself says of Himself to the Pharisees, Matt. 21 22:42 ff: "How do you think of Christ? What son is he? They said: David's. He said to them: How then doth David in spirit call him a LORD, saying, The LORD hath said unto my LORD? 2c Now that thou bringest up Burgensis and Lyra, which were with thee, and would not be heretics for thy sake: Dear, where will you show from them what you promise? For Lyra interprets this verse, as it reads, of the Godhead well and excellently, saying: "By the fact that it is said: With you is the dominion, the equality of the Son with the Father is shown, but at the same time also the difference of the persons, according to the passage in John 1, 1.

  1. In Luther's previous letter § 6.

Word 2c Also the equality and equality of essence by what follows: before the morning star I have begotten you" 2c Although he also adds (something) from the Hebrew text, so he does not invalidate that in the least, nor does he revoke it. Furthermore, he says that the Chaldean translation (which is considered by the Hebrews to be the same as the text) is like this: It said the Lord to his word, which among the Catholics is as much as to the Son according to his Godhead; uno Burgensis does not deny this. Therefore, what you say of the Hebrews, what does this prove against the Church or the Fathers, that their Catholic interpretation should not stand against the heretics? Since so has the Roman and Gallican text, also that of Jerome and that improved by him according to the Septuagint (conciliata), yea, also the Greek, which according to Jerome is that of the seventy-two (interpreters), which the apostles used and approved, as the same declared to Damasus, whom he calls the highest priest. And, what is greatest, this is also held (as you yourself confess) by the Greek and Latin churches in worship. So this verse, as it reads, and as I enclose it, cannot be understood otherwise than of Christ's Godhead, so that it is the words of the eternal Father to the coeternal Son from His essence, namely, from the womb, begotten before the morning star, and therefore before all time, because by Him all things were made. For the morning star, as well as all other celestial bodies, were made by him with the heavens, according to whose motion time is reckoned. This is contained in the same way in the 72nd Psalm (which also deals with Christ according to the letter); there it is said v. 17.: His name is blessed forever, his name remains longer than the sun; and other things in the same place, concerning the Godhead. For the morning star revolves with the sun more uniformly in its own circle. Burgensis also testifies that there is a name in Hebrew that refers to the filiation. This he says in the book which has the title: Scrutinium Scripturarum, in the first part, Dist. 9, Cap. 10. You have something else, which is similar to the one that follows: I have begotten you, in Isaiah (53, 8.), where it says: Who can excuse his begotten? which they explain of the eternal birth of the Son from the Father, although Jerome, according to a similar interpretation, admits that this can also be understood of his temporal birth from the virgin, namely, so that a cultivation (compago) that does not agree with the sacred construction is not incoherent, because the prophet also has the pre-

524 D. Br.-W. 1,472-474. 24. Dungersheim's third letter to Luther. W. XVIII. 680-652. 525

which is about Christ's humanity. If, then, the heretics, such as Arius was, whom you introduce, and the followers of his false doctrine (perfidiae), whether Greeks or Latins, read this passage] just as the church reads it, how should it not be effectively and appropriately brought against them? since, according to Augustine and others, disputation must be carried on with the unbelievers on the basis of what they accept from ours, as it were on a basis common to both. What use, therefore, is this example to your purpose? But especially because it is so unequal, since the passage of the apostle, even in the original Greek edition, does not read differently with respect to the figure of God as the saints use it.

The second thing you cite by way of example 1) is from the first chapter of the first book of Moses: "Let us make man in our image and likeness," in reference to which you rebuke Augustine and say: "With what confidence does he use this passage for the assertion of the Trinity and for the image that is in man, while neither of these (you say) can be proved from it, because in Hebrew it says: "I will make", not "let us make": 'let us make'." But even if "I will make" were there, not "let us make," this does not prevent the confidence of St. Augustine the Father. But St. Jerome, who is so learned in Hebrew, seems to help St. Augustine up again, as it were, in his explanation of the 90th Psalm to Cyprian (which he will interpret by the truth of ecclesiastical expression as he implies that another interpreter would not be necessary). He reads this passage thus: "Moses, through whom the Lord gave the Law, out of whose mouth we have heard God speak: Let us make man in our image and likeness" 2c Also in the traditions or questions about the first book of Moses, where he promises that he will indicate what is in our Bible differently than in the Hebrew, he does not change anything in relation to this passage. I have also read another, very knowledgeable of Hebrew, who asserts that this verse is spoken in the plural in Hebrew and reads thus: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. But, as I have said, this does not take away Augustine's confidence, namely, that he has the power to prove both, even if "I will make" were there. For there the connection of the singular with the plural shows the unity.

  1. In Luther's previous letter § 7.

of the essence with the majority of the persons in just the true catholic sense, as Burgensis, 2) according to his origin or nation a Hebrew, widely explained in the above-mentioned book, Dist. 9, Cap. 2. There he also says that in Hebrew there is "Elohim", which is the plural of "El", which means God. Also from another root word he shows that in the beginning of the first chapter of the first book of Moses the Trinity is designated, since in the word "he created" (which also stands in the singular) the essential word, namely "is", is included, or "it was creating Elohim", that is, Gods. It is to be noted, however, that here still is added "our", which obviously goes to a plural of the persons, like "image" and "likeness" to the unity of the being. This interpretation of Lyra about the image of the Trinity in man is also approved by Burgensis and he adds that also the Magister (Sententiarum) in the 16th dist. of the second book gives the same interpretation, in that he considers the image of the Trinity, which is in man, to be certain, and so for the sake of it both of the aforementioned things are there. Yes, that the image of God in man is also meant here is not denied by the newer Hebrews, although they do not accept a majority of the persons in the Godhead in the way that the Catholic faith teaches, as blind and faithless people, as Lyra faithfully reports her interpretation of the image of God in man, which is assumed according to some accidental things. So, if one may read "let us make", or "I will make", because there the singular is connected with the plural, namely "Elohim" and "our" with "image" and "likeness", Augustine and other Catholics, who interpret in this way, have what I have established (propositum). But especially (as already said before in a similar passage), if they argue about it with the heretics, who have any other opinion of the Trinity, in a right-believing way, since the Jews know that creation belongs to God alone, which Burgensis proves beautifully from their teachers.

(24) From this it is quite easy to see what is to be thought of the third thing that you cite as an example. For since you reprove all that they refer the word in the 2nd book of Moses 3: I am who I am, to the nature of God, Burgensis

  1. Paul of Burgos, as a Jew Solomon Levita, after becoming a Christian, Bishop of Carthagena, Burgos, Chancellor of Castile and finally Patriarch of Aquileia, died August 29, 1435, 85 years old, multiplied the Nie. of Lyra glosses on the Bible. (Erl. ed.)

526 L. Br.-W. 1,474-478. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 652-654. 527

but and the Hebrews show that it must be referred to the effect of the help, because it says: I will be, who I will be, in the future time: so it is already said before that he says that in the word "he has created" (which goes more obviously to the effect) the essential word "he is" or "he was" is included; but "I will be" belongs to the inflection of the same word, and it is proved that it refers likewise to the essence, may God be in himself in the future (who is always and everywhere unchangeable), or may he be to be recognized in the effect. Therefore, although Burgensis says that in the. Therefore, although Burgensis says that in what follows there is the name of four letters (tetragrammaton, i.e. Jehovah), and that to this actual name belongs the nature of God as He is in Himself, more than to the (name) in which He is called: "I am", he nowhere denies that this very name refers to the essence, whether one reads "I am" or "I will be". But rather he asserts this in an identical passage, as has been said before. Lyra also asserts that by each of these two: "I am, who I am" and "I will be, who I will be," the same thing is signified, namely, the eternity, immutability, and necessity of being, which quality is peculiar to GOtte and belongs to him alone. For that which is "I am" is said in Scripture of the essence of God, with all the difference of time, because eternity is at all times. For of the past the saying is, "In the beginning was the Word"; of the present time, "Before Abraham was, I am." When the Jews who knew the law heard this, they picked up stones, considering this a blasphemy, and did not believe that Christ was GOD, since they knew the passage in the second book of Moses. For even according to Hebrew usage, the future time is sometimes substituted for the present. And at the same time of all (time] Revelation says: "He who was, and he who is, and he who is to come." In addition also Burgensis approves this interpretation according to our translation; because it is that of the holy Hieronymus (in the letter to the Marcellus of the ten names of God, where he puts as the sixth name of God "Asher Ehejeh", which is in the 2nd book of the Bible).

It is read in the letter of St. Moses: "He who is (he says) has sent me to you"; and to the pope Damasus in the letter which begins: Quoniam vetusto. It is also present St. Augustine in the 5th book of the Trinity Cap. 2 and St. Thomas in the first part, 13th question Art. 11.

(25) Ignoring all else, I thought I should say this, so that you may see that the saints have not explained the Scriptures in an inconsistent way in those passages, and yet that none of them is like the one in Philippians 2.

  1. That you say that Jerome against Jovinianus and Augustin against the Pelagians also used so many sayings wrongly, I pass over, since you cite nothing in particular; Only that I know for certain that they have exceedingly clear sayings from Scripture to prove the opinions which they mainly have in mind, this one (Jerome) namely about virginity being preferable to marriage 2c, that one (Augustine's) about the necessity of grace 2c Now if for the sake of adornment, or in order to carry the matter further, or for some other cause, they have put on something else, this will not be the same as what is said of the apostle's passage, in the aforementioned way. Finally, 1) but it does not seem necessary to you that this matter of the pope be dealt with, but to me it seems necessary that it be defended, because (as St. Jerome thinks) if there were no such head, there would be as many sects as cities 2c Now if it is not a necessary matter with you, I ask you, why do you cling so much to your opinion (sentimento)? Why don't you rather join what is established?

At last you close and say: God live. I know that. But he lives in this way not to those from whose hearts, as the apostle says, Christ is banished, but to the church, but only to its believing members. For their life is Christ, and they will not lack what they ought to believe and speak rightly, in that he himself presents it to them. In him I wish that it may always be well with you and that you may act lovingly. Given 2c

  1. In Luther's previous letter § 10.

528 D- Br.-W. 1,47S. 25 Luther's response to Dungersheim's third Schr. W. xvm, 854 f. 529

*25 Luther's reply to Dungersheim's third letter. )

March (?) 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Luther sends the following receipt by the messenger who brought him D.'s letter.

To the excellent and respectable Mr. Hieronymus Dungersheim of > Ochsenfurt, the highly learned Doctor of Sacred Theology at the > University of Leipzig, his Lord in Christ wishes Martin Luther's > salvation.

Your letter is too long, excellent sir, for me to read it through in one day and to

could answer. But this I have given to you to testify the faithful direction (fidem) of your messenger, that he has handed me your letter, yes, your book. At another time, however, I will answer it. Farewell.

Martin Luther, Augustinian.

**26 Dungersheim's fourth letter to Luther. )

End of August or beginning of September 1519.

Translated from Latin.

After waiting almost 17 weeks in vain for a reply from Luther, Dungersheim asks that Luther send a reply through the messenger.

Eternal salvation in the Lord! It is now not only many days but also months, Martin, brother in Christ, that I await your promised answer to the letter I sent you. In the meantime, many of ours have been at the exhibition of your relics 1) and elsewhere in Wittenberg, likewise many of yours have come to Leipzig especially for the Easter Fair 1). I also have no doubt that Doctor Caspar Güttel from your order has already been

  1. This exhibition took place on Monday, May 9, 1319; the jubilee fair began May 16.

spoke to you about the answer you were to send me, as he had promised me. But even so, I have received nothing, now that almost seventeen weeks have passed. Therefore, eager for your answer to what I sent, I asked the bearer of this, and found him willing to go to you and deliver to me what letters you would give him for me. I therefore ask you, with a benevolent attitude, to finally carry out what you have already promised me (on receipt of my letter). Farewell.

*) This letter is found in the collection of Dungersheim's writings x. 48; then in Aurifaber I, 150d; Löscher's Reformation Acta III, 79; De Wette I, 221; Erlanger Briefwechsel I, 479.

**) This letter is in Dungersheim's collection p. 48; in Löscher, Reformations-Acta III, 79 and in Seidemann's Lutherbriefen p. 7.

530 Br.-W. H, 135. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. W. XVIII, 655 f. 531

*27 Luther's reply to Dungersheim's fourth letter. )

Beginning of September 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Luther excuses himself with the amount of his business; it is also not necessary to answer because Luther and Dungersheim are so completely different in their basic views: Luther wants to know everything proven from Scripture, but Dungersheim from the Fathers, who cannot be absolved from error and violent distortion of Scripture.

To the excellent Hieronymus Dungersheim of Ochsenfurt, Doctor of > Sacred Theology at Leipzig, his superior in the Lord.

Hail! You can easily see for yourself, good sir, how I am far more busy than you, so that it is impossible for me to answer your so extensive letter; but that is not necessary. For I see that you base yourself only on the sayings of the fathers, although you know that we accept none without the Scriptures being judges. I ask you, how could any of us know which of the fathers has spoken rightly, if the Scriptures are to be understood only according to them and not rather they are to be judged according to the Scriptures? If one must hear them without the judgment of the Scriptures,

why should we not hear them all together? Therefore, to all the sayings of the fathers you should have this short answer from Augustine, yes, which is also taken from Paul: "I read the others in such a way that they are as holy and learned as they can be, so I do not consider it right that they have taught in this way. 1) I will not let my liberty be taken captive, which Paul gave me, saying, "Test all things, and keep that which is good" 1 Thess. 5:21. It is enough that the holy fathers are defended against the accusation of heresy: against that of error and violent distortion of the Scriptures they cannot and need not be defended. Hereby farewell in the Lord.

  1. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2635, § 22.

**28 Luther's response to Dungersheim's fifth letter. )

Mid-September 1519.

Translated from Latin.

This is the last letter that Luther addressed to Dungersheim. In the sixth letter, Dungersheim announced to Luther that he would have the Dialogus Wider printed. Luther left the same letter and a later one from 1528 unanswered. - In the present letter, Luther briefly discusses his opponent's views on the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, complains about the latter's distortion of his words, admits that he has communicated his letter to others, and leaves it up to him whether he wants to have it printed against him. Luther still refers to the hostility of the Leipzigers and his previous patience, but does not declare himself averse to keeping the peace. (Seidemann.)

*) This letter is found in Dungersheim's works; in Aurifaber I, t 50d; Löscher, Reformations-Acta III, 80; De Wette I, 280.

**This letter is found in Dungersheim's äialoAus aä Martinus l,utti6rum "te. which has been included in his oyusoula. Then only m Seidemann's Lutherbriefen p. 2. This letter of Luther is, as Seidemann communicates, only recently found again by Dr. Goldhorn in Leipzig in Ochsenfurt's works. We therefore give for the first time its translation into German.

532 L. Br.-W. II, I6p. 28 Luther's response to Dungersheim's fifth letter. 533

Martin Luther to Jerome of Ochsenfurt.

Hail! Truly, dear Lord, you always have the best of the tops and the worst of the bottoms. You have nothing else in your mouth but: Church, church, heretic, heretic. But when we desire the church, you show us a man, the pope, to whom you attribute everything, but you do not prove with a single syllable that he is infallible in the faith. But we come across so many heresies in his decrees as never before in the case of any heretic. This, which you alone must prove, you constantly presuppose as proven, as if you did not know that it is the most erroneous way of disputing to presuppose as proven what one should first prove (petere principium). This, I say, you should have proved that the Church of God is with you, and not also in other parts of the world. We want the Scriptures to be judges, you, on the other hand, want to be judges of the Scriptures. Desist, I beg you, from tiring me further with such things, or, as you threaten, let what you have to say be made public. If the fathers are to be read without selection and judgment, let the Scriptures be taken away. I hold of the divine figure and of the papacy as I have held, and have no doubt that I can easily meet you if you give out something about it. Don't be muthwillig, dear man; for a whole year you have undertaken many things, but have not accomplished anything great. I am not moved by the fact that you have done much, but by the fact that you have produced something well-founded; but I do not therefore accuse the saints of lying, as you and yours are wont to bring out of my words what you will when I say that the Scriptures are sometimes perverted by them. And I beg you, if you will write, beware that you do not make such conclusions and inferences and impute your meaning to my words. You will need sharp eyes. For it is not fitting for a good teacher to say that someone has lied who has hardly erred, since even Augustin admits in so many places that dark passages cause a diverse mind, while a simple mind is necessary. And I confess that it is quite ungodly to say that Augustin has gone too far.

But this, as if you do not understand it, you twist again in single words what I said about the whole doctrinal position (de summa sententiae) against the heretics. For if I am not nonsensical, I cannot deny that Augustine sometimes twisted and changed the interpretation of Scripture, to say nothing of the fact that by "reaching too far in speaking" you understand it to be the same as "lying" and interpreting in different ways, or differently from the literal sense. If you should use such word explanations (vocabulariis) against me, then you will drive nicely, yes, there will never be an end of writing and arguing, because always, if I have said something, you will assume something else as said, as also that your donkey 1) does. I don't know whether the mental disposition of the Leipzigers is such that you are so industrious readers, so bold judges, so slow to grasp what others have written. Believe certainly, I will have enough of what will be said against you. You used to write against the Picards, you know with what luck. If you give something on the advice of a friend, see to it that you do not put forward much, but what is appropriate. I know that victory does not lie in the crowd, which is always exposed to slaughter, but in the art of war. You complain without reason that you have been exposed to ridicule by my doing so. I confess that I have shared your letters so that I do not judge my cause alone, which you constantly reproach me with; but if you feel somehow hurt by this, I allow you to do the same to me; I will not argue with you about it, nor will I feel hurt. If our agreement in the matter of faith were so easy, not a syllable would need to be written. But consider how much I and ours have suffered from yours and still suffer daily, which can only happen at your instigation. But see to it that God does not also repay you once again for this. This matter 2)

  1. The donkey will mean Alveld.
  2. Namely, Eck's disputation with Carlstadt and Luther, which the Leipzig theologians tried to prevent.

534 L. Br.-W. II, 164 f. IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim. 535

is none of your business, and until now you have always rejected it. Now, at last, you are getting in the middle of it; see to it that you do not get involved. But I also know very well, dear Jerome, as I wrote to you in Leipzig, how great things you have always done behind my back, which I have always forgiven and still forgive and do not heed. You will have to see to it that not even the patience, which you put too much to the test (laesa patientia), breaks. I am a man like you, only that you bite idly and calmly in secret, but I, overwhelmed with business, am attacked by the teeth of all and my moderation is challenged, since I alone am torn by so many greedy wolves. The whole world rushes in against me, but if I bite just a little, O God, how I am accused! but you, you do not bear it if we even stir

  1. During the disputation in Leipzig, Luther wrote to Dungersheim. As can be seen from the latter's dialogue x. 12, he spoke most vehemently against Luther in the pulpit and on the chair.

(nutemur). I write this so that you may know that I would rather have peace and harmony; but if this cannot happen, then let the will of the Lord be done. By the way, it is not necessary for you to write to me about this; I understand your matters sufficiently. Only see to it that you also understand mine; you will not be able to tear it apart, so I will not suffer that either under Christ's gracious protection. Farewell and pray that we may not only have right knowledge, but also live rightly and be saved.

With regard to Dungersheim and his dispute with Luther the following letters may be consulted:

a. Luther's letter to Silvinus Egranus of March 24, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix no. 42.

b. Luther's letter to Johann Lang of April 13, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, anh. no. 44, § 6.

c. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 14, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XX, 2215, § 2.

536 L. V. L. 1,410 f. 29 Luther's asterisks Wider Eck's obelisks. W. LVIII, 796 f. 537

V. Luther's and Carlstadt's dispute with Eck.

**29. Luther's asterisks against the obelisks *) by Eck. )

March 23, 1518 †)

Translated from Latin.

Martin Luther to Wenceslaus Link, preacher of the Nuremberg church, > the true theologian, his brother in the Lord.

The "little spits" (obeliscos) of our corner, which you gave me against my disputations, I thought it would be good to go through them individually, and to add "little stars" (asteris- cos) to my disputations, which are, however, somewhat dark. He will then easily see for himself, through their bright glow, if you wanted to share them with him, how presumptuous it is to condemn foreign things that are, moreover, not understood, and how exceedingly deceitful and disgraceful it is to embitter the views, yes, actually only questions of a friend with such bile, without first warning him, who takes all the best from his friend. But it is true what the Scripture says: "All men are liars" Rom. 3, 4.. We are men and remain men. It says now

Corner:

"In the subject of the present disputation on indulgences, I do not want to attack the petty things or what can be contested according to scholasticism, since then I would have to contest the first thesis right away."

Luther:

With what a magnanimous (for I do not want to say haughty) introduction he attacks the matter, only that he modestly preferred to say that he only contests it, and not that he conquers it; namely, "trifles and scholastic matters. For more important things he will perhaps conquer. Who should not be afraid of the bang of this building jaw? But I thought of the word of Horace: "What will this boaster bring forward that would be worthy of such a mouth-breaking?" 1) I could

  1. Horace, "Of Poetry," v. 138.

*An obeliscus is the figure of a small spike, which one used to make in books at suspicious places. Asteriscus, asterisk, on the other hand, is a critical sign to indicate, for example, that something is missing. Each of these two words would therefore like to be rendered in German as "Anmerkung".

**Eck never had his Obelisks, which were written in January or February 1518, published in print, nor did Luther publish his Asterisks, which he replied to them; they were, however, distributed in many copies. It was not until a few years after Eck's death, in 1545, that they were published with Luther's Asterisks in the first volume of the Wittenberg Gesammtausgabe von Luthers Werken (toin. I, lol. 145); from there they came into the Jena Ausg. (tom. I, toi. 32), in Löscher's Reformation Acta (vol. II, p. 333), in the Erlanger (opp. varii arZ. I, p. 410), and in the Weimar critical edition (vol. I, p. 281). German brought them only Walch, whose translation has been replaced in this revised edition by a new one. It was not necessary to print the obelisks separately, because they are included in Luther's asterisks.

†) This date is, as it seems to us, a correct Conjectur of the Weimar edition. The signature gives August 10, 1518. That this date must be wrong follows from the fact that Luther writes to Johann Sylvius (Wildenauer) as early as March 24 that Eck has rudely torn the bond of friendship, and highlights some expressions from the obelisks to indicate the spiteful manner in which this was done. "August 10," says the Weim. Ausg., "was lorin III vost Evriaei; but there are two <Ii68 Evriaoi, the one being August 8, the other March 16: suppose that originally the date was determined after the day of St. Cyriacus, it might also be resolved as March 23, and this would suit admirably to chem cited letters of Luther to John Sylvius."

538 L.V.Ü.I,4U-413. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 797-7S9. 53-

hardly hold the laughter. He does not want to discuss and argue in a scholastic way, from which I understand sufficiently that our Eck made these "little skewers" in the (so-called) carnival time, since he had tied up the high talent as a mask. For in this whole tangle of "little spits" there is nothing from the Holy Scriptures, nothing from the Church Fathers, nothing from the Canons, but he invents nothing but scholastic, arbitrary stuff and mere dreams, and just the things against which I am disputing; so that, even if I wanted to speak peripatetically, I could blow away all his little seeds with one breath and say with the well-known doctrine of his master Aristotle: To bring forward as proof what is to be proved first is a mistake in disputing and giving proof. For I hoped that he would argue against me from the Bible, the Church Fathers or the Canons. But he opposes me with the briefs and husks of Scotus, Gabriel and the other scholastics (of which his belly is full), which I reject. But let us only hear how the orator, while pretending not to contest my first thesis, nevertheless does contest it. He says namely:

Corner:

"For since the kingdom of heaven in the words of Christ seems to denote the present church and the time of the evangelical fulfillment which then appeared, it is impossible to see how repentance can express the whole life of believers."

Luther:

This is a scholastic, that is, ridiculous and self-mimicking reasoning. Whether he learned this conclusion from the logic of reason or the logic of faith, I do not know. Namely, because the kingdom of heaven now exists, consequently the whole life of the faithful is not a repentance; as if there were any man in this kingdom who did not constantly sin and therefore did not also constantly need repentance! For that I speak of this repentance, the following thesis teaches. Eck, however, may be making a fuss about sacramental or solemn penance. But that he who says that man is at times without

St. Augustine says in many passages that he does not belong to the party of the heretic Donatus (even though St. Bonaventure, having fallen into error, sometimes wrote such things); indeed, only the faithful do penance. But I pass over that; below a more.

Corner:

"But we do not want to pursue such things; only from a momentary idea, without the help of books, we want to note a few things and (as one is wont to say) designate them with an obelisk."

Luther:

What a presumptuous display of his high spirit! But where he will use a lot of books and think seriously, then he will not set up small spears, but cruel murder weapons (phalaricas), battering rams and cannons, and leave nothing that belongs to the armor of war unused. Dear, what is left for me but trembling and terror? But I am lucky to say that he does not write iron or wooden spears, but only paper and painted ones. At the same time, I wonder why he did not prefer to use asterisks? Perhaps it was because he disliked the light and shine 1) of the stars, but liked the lead color and rust of the skewers. He did not care about brotherly love, that he would have wanted to admonish and illuminate the brother's error, and sincerely add the better, but he let himself be driven by envy to slander and obscure the brother's efforts, and enviously disparage the good.

Corner. 1. obelisk.

Against Luther's 3rd Thesis.

"That inward repentance is great, Christ and all Christians have taught; for Christ looks at the heart and the will. This shows

  1. Candor the light, white color, also sincerity and honesty, here used ambiguously in contrast to the following livor lead color, also envy and resentment. In the following, this play on words is continued with "anüiäus and liviäus. Also kerruZo, rust, has the secondary meaning: envy.

540 L. v. L. i, 413-415. 29. Luther's asterisks against Eck's obelisks. W. xvm, 799-802. 541

The widow, who put only two mites into the treasury, and put in more than all, as Jesus testifies. For the will is in the soul, as a king in his kingdom".

Luther:

This is the skewer that is supposed to pierce my 3rd thesis, although I do not see what it actually wants or how it is against me; however, I will advise (even if reluctantly), because I am afraid of giving rise to new skewers.

Perhaps it displeased the man that I said that the inner repentance is not at all, if it does not work outwardly. 2c The obelisk contradicts this and says: No; all have taught that it is not only somewhat a repentance, but a great repentance. Here I add and even say that it is very great and is taught by them as very great. But if Eck wants it to exist only in itself and externally without a work, he will, I hope, make himself hateful enough to his scholastic magisters. For, as everyone says, it is neither great nor true if it is not actively directed toward external works. But Eck, since he did not want to remain silent, but had nothing to say, at least he said this.

Then, I believe that his saying: "For the will is in the soul like a king in the kingdom" must be understood as: "like a bawd in a brothel". Christ is in the soul by faith as a king, the will as a handmaid, but the will by itself is always a harlot, and all its powers are those of a harlot. And even if this were the case, I do not see what difference it makes that inner repentance is great, because the will is very great and a king of powers.

Corner. 2. obelisk.

Against Luther's 5th Thesis.

"The 5th thesis is obviously erroneous. For if he wants the punishments of the canons to be only incidental to the punishments imposed by God, there would be a snare in the penitential canons and no salvation; but if he wants to conceive of them the canons as declaratory (declarato- rios) (as they are in truth, but what is

Martin Luther disregarded), then he sder Pabsts, however, by remitting the penalty of the canons, he enacts some penalties."

Luther:

To the first: Our Eck (for so he promised above) does not speak anything in scholastic manner, therefore I am put in the highest astonishment that there can be such a clever head and such a diligence who could have found these things (that means with me antics) in the holy scripture, in the church fathers and the canons, which no man in the world has found in it yet.

Secondly: Although the words of our chatterer are as if he understood me to have denied the remission of any punishment, saying: "by remitting the penalties of the canons he remits some penalties"; but I will believe that this is not falsely imputed to me by him, but that his meaning is that the pope, by remitting the penalties of the canons, remits, however, also the penalties imposed by God (which Martin Luther does not observe, but Eck observes more than is true), and thus he does not remit penalties which are added to those imposed by God, that is, he remits single and not double penalties.

Thirdly: In this thesis, as in all others, I establish nothing, but only dispute. Although I consider most of it to be true, I am still a human being, and in this I have not the slightest authority, apart from the power to make arguments. Therefore I say on this obelisk that I do not want the punishments of the canons to be taken for those that are accumulated, but only for those that are imposed for sins. But that GOD imposes penalties on the confessing sinner, I deny; and this cannot be proved either by our obelisk writer, or by all his paltry school theologians. Yes, GOD, when He remits sin, remits guilt and punishment at the same time; since He knows well that it is punishment enough for the sinner to live a good life and struggle with his vices and evil habits, especially if they are ingrained. Therefore it says Ezk 18:21: "But if the wicked turn from his sins which he hath committed,

542 L. V. L. 1,415 f. V. Luther's, Dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 802-804. 543

and does right and well, he shall live and not die; all his transgression which he hath committed shall not be remembered." Here no punishment is demanded, only the doing of good and right. But it is ungodly to claim that more is imposed than God imposes. Yes, in Joel 2:13 God says: "Rend your hearts and not your garments." And in the 51st Psalm v. 5. it is said, "My sin is always against me." With these words it is proved that GOD is satisfied with the hatred of sin and the love of righteousness. And this is how the believer should be throughout his life. Therefore, let him keep to himself this scholastic little fable of his, that the canons declare the punishments of the divine judgment. I will not accept this until he has taught me, not scholastically, but ecclesiastically (as he promised).

But that the canons, if they impose (as they say) accumulated (accumulatas) punishments, should be ropes and not salvation, I again do not know what he says; I also believe that he himself does not know what he says. For even if the priest imposed more than God demands, this is certainly to be borne and also salutary to the one who bears it, for the sake of reverence and obedience to the keys. But if he wants to say that he who enacts the canonical punishments is deceiving the Absolver if the punishments imposed by God are not enacted at the same time, and thus he is entangled in the divine punishments while he is released from the human ones: this is certainly true insofar as it is true that punishments are imposed by God, that is, it is quite false. Therefore, it is not the canons that are snares, but the unlearned and silly theologians who dream that punishments are imposed by God or declared by the canons to be imposed by God.

If our obelisk speaker were as much a theologian as he is a sophist (I almost said philosopher), he should not have been surprised that the canons are ropes of death, since even the law of God is a servant of death, wrath and sin, and entirely that net in which God has decided everything under sin Gal. 3, 22.. And to state my opinion, I have wanted to say in this thesis that, since

God always chastises His own in order to humble them to repentance, as He says in Jeremiah 30, 11.: "I will chastise you with measure, so that you will not keep yourself innocent"; as well as in the 89th Psalm [v. 31. ff.2c - I wanted to say that this preceding punishment cannot be remitted by the pope, but only the following and sufficient one, that is, the one imposed by the church. For God never imposes a subsequent punishment, He is satisfied that He has brought man to judge himself, so that he will not be judged by God, according to Paul's saying, 1 Cor. 11, 31, and that He will say Ps. 119, 137: "Lord, just are You and right is Your judgment." Vulgate.

Yes, I even say, about which perhaps the completely Aristotelian corner will be surprised: not even the church demands any subsequent and sufficient punishment after absolution, as our 12th thesis says. For even if it is now the custom to carry punishments after absolution, this was not the custom in former times. The only trace that remains of this is that no one is absolved unless the punishment has been imposed on him beforehand and accepted by him, namely, as an obvious proof that in imitation of God the church also grants remission of sins only after the punishment, i.e., that it must already have been carried out, if not in reality, then at least in desire. But whether this custom of our time is a wholesome one, others may judge. It is only my business to speak by way of discussion, namely, that it is quite bad, and that it would be better if one were to let Communion stand even on Easter Day before he had in every way made satisfaction in reality and in deed; as it was done in former times.

To this obelisk still adds

Corner:

"But if you should reject this, then by virtue of the keys, indeed, no punishment would be remitted, which is contrary to the dignity of the Sacrament of Penance."

544 D- a. i. 4ie-4i8. 29. Luther's asterisks against Eck's obelisks. W. xviii, 8v4-sv7. 546

Luther:

Again, I do not understand what this is supposed to be. It is also no wonder; for I deserve forgiveness for it, because I am not forced to read bright and shining stars, but rusty, dark and black spits, which are quite similar to darkness. Therefore, one must again advise here; namely, it seems to our corner that no punishment is remitted where I do not admit that it is remitted as imposed by divine justice (as they call it); since the canons with their punishments have come out of force.

Here I say: partly the punishments, which, as it happens nowadays, have been imposed arbitrarily, are remitted; partly the canons have not yet been invalidated by a commandment. But if this should be too slight, I reply: In a matter that is not necessary for salvation, something slight is better than a lie; and I expect that either the opposite will be proved to me, or that the church will decide. However, I will respect or disregard the opinions of men according to my freedom; since I do not have to believe the corner either, unless he speaks ecclesiastically and not scholastically.

But to the fact that it is against the dignity of the Sacrament of Penance that no penalties would be issued, I say: Although neither the teachers of papal canon law nor the theologians (except Eck alone) are certain what the keys actually remit in their ordinary form, yet this is precisely what has led me to put forward this thesis as the main reason, that if the keys are to remit only temporal punishments, their dignity is held too low, for they are not given for the attainment of temporal salvation or peace, but for the attainment of the eternal. For a temporal punishment is something quite small and far too bad to be worth remitting through the keys, at least in my judgment, as I will say below. Therefore, this word of the obelisk, that this is a degradation of the sacrament, if it is not to remit punishments, seems to me to be a quite null one; since the degradation of the sacrament is much too small and much too bad to be worthy of being remitted by the keys, at least according to my judgment, as I will say below.

more in it, if it is to enact punishments, at least than his main work. But we hear how he proves this disparagement by discussing it theologically rather than scholastically.

Corner:

"For the sacraments of the new law work that which they signify, wherein they differ from the sacraments of the old covenant."

Luther:

Behold, this is not scholastic! But who says this other than only he who has died in the scholastic antics? Who says this, that the sacraments of the new law effect what they mean, than the Magister of the Sentences, in the 4th book, with the explanation of Hugo, and those who follow these? This subject is so vast that the shortness of time would not allow me to elaborate it. The only thing I lament is that Eck was not silent at first when he promised that he would not proceed scholastically.

I say, however, very briefly: The sacraments of the new law do not work the grace they denote, but before each sacrament faith is required. But faith is grace. Therefore, grace always precedes the sacrament, according to that very common saying: Not the sacrament, but faith in the sacrament justifies. And St. Augustine says: Not because it happens, but because it is believed.

But Eck, the bourgeois (obelisticus) theologian, proceeds from the Scotist dream that the sacraments work grace without any action on the part of the person receiving them, if only no barrier is put in front of it. This opinion is the most frightening heresy, and already no longer a Bohemian poison, but a hellish poison that mocks and overthrows all sacraments of the Church, as we will show in a moment.

But that he says that the sacraments of the new law differ from those of the old law in that the latter do not work grace is equally scholastic and almost heretical. Rather, they are distinguished in that our sacraments are fewer and easier, but those are so many and exceedingly burdensome; or at least in that those only baptize and

546 L. s. i. 418-420. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xviii, 8v7-8os. 547

Justifications of the flesh in food, drink, clothing, feasts, sacrifices, cleansing from the leprosy 2c were, which meant the One baptism and the One justification in faith, which is now fulfilled. For this is not spoken by the school teachers, but by the church teachers, yes, by the heavenly Paul.

Corner:

"And since with you, according to the 6th thesis, repentance is not able to do anything about guilt: you will consequently admit that it is able to do something about punishment and punitiveness."

Luther:

By "repentance" he understands here again the sacrament of repentance and the office of the keys (because he speaks in such a way that one must always guess what his opinion is), otherwise repentance has neither power over guilt nor over punishment. But what I think about this, I will explain in my "Explanations". For I have not put this sixth thesis of mine in earnest, but for the sake of the custom of others. For, as I have said, it seems to me all too little for the keys that they should only enact punishments. Therefore, as it is doubtful to all how they remit guilt, so also I will set up my doubt in the "Explanations".

However, I ask only this of our obelisk: if it is contrary to the dignity of the sacrament that it should not remit punishment; but the remittal of punishment is due to it most of all for its own sake, because the sacraments of the new law work what they mean: consequently the sacraments mean only the remittal of punishment; which is heretical not only against the church teachers, but also against the scholastic teachers, and at the same time destroys all the sacraments of the church. And this again is not merely a Bohemian poison (as he interprets to me), but a plague greater than that of all the heretics who ever have been or will be. For they do not mean remission of punishment, but remission of guilt. But if they mean remission of guilt, and the priest does not do this by declaring it, then I ask my corner to let himself be a disciple and disputator with me in the meantime, until we find a master in this matter who makes the decision.

Now do you see what it means to condemn another's spiritual gifts without shyness and out of envy?

Corner. 3. obelisk.

Against Luther's 10th and 11th Theses

"In a malicious way priests and bishops are here accused; for just as in the 6th thesis he wanted the pope to remit the guilt which is remitted by God, by declaring and confirming this (although it seems silly that a lower should confirm the doing of the higher), so also the priest can declare to the dying that the canonical punishments according to the divine judgment would be reserved for purgatory, not indeed for doing penance, but for suffering penance. And when the bishops have recognized this, it must be said, not that they have slept over there, but that they have watched far more than Luther."

Luther:

It is silly, he says, that the lower should confirm the doing of the higher. But in the previous obelisk, or rather basilisk, it was not silly, but very godly (so that even Martin Luther, of course, as a godless and uneducated man, did not notice it), that the pope by the canons declares the penances as imposed by God, and in this one that the priest declares that the punishments, which are according to divine justice, are reserved for purgatory. Perhaps, however, the obelisk writer has such freedom that without any suspicion of heresy, when he speaks for himself, God is lower than the pope and a priest; but when he speaks against me, only then is God the higher and does not tolerate an explanation of his judgment by a lower; and so let malice lie with respect to him, but with respect to me speak the truth.

I pass over here that after the acceptance of all it is said of the apostles that they confirm even at the last judgment the judgment of Christ; Eck would have to deny that Christ is higher than the apostles, or say that they are silly.

First, however, I ask from which church teachers (because he does not speak anything according to schola-.

548 L.v.a.i.420f. 29. Luther's asterisks against Eck's obelisks. W. xvm, 809-812. 549

stic way) is proved that a priest can declare that the punishments are reserved for purgatory? Isn't it just what I have denied? and now by such a great dialectician, yes, what is even more, not by a Stoic, but by a peripatetic dialectician, the assertion to be proved is simply repeated to me as proof! Above I have already said that there would be no punishments by a divine judgement, much less such, which would be according to the same. For he did not say: Everything that I will bind in heaven, or as much as I will bind in heaven, that shall also be bound on earth; but on the contrary: Everything that you will bind. 2c These words rather mean that God confirms the doings of the lower; and that is why I said that I had not set the 6th thesis in earnest, but in order to hear others about it.

Secondly, I ask: How can it be true that every priest is a pope at the hour of death, if he does not or cannot remit all punishment? But if he can and does not, how does love remain in him? The divine justice, you say, does not allow it. Why, then, does it permit it in the case of the pope, as often as it pleases the pope, whose place every priest then represents in the most perfect manner?

But now the most beautiful thing (because it is Scotist, but not scholastic): the souls are to expiate the punishments in purgatory not by doing penance, but by suffering penance. Thanks be to Scotus, who, although he is an arch-scholastic and has nothing at all of church teachers, has made Eck (wonderful to say) the best church teacher. As if any peasant could be so stupid as not to know that the punishments (if only they are not the infernal ones and the punishments of the wicked) can only be borne voluntarily; and so it could be said of them that they expiate their punishments not only by suffering but by wanting to suffice.

But I should have better refrained from disputing with the Scotist and in truth Scotin dark quibbles, lest they slip away from me by some new-found formality. But this is just a glory for the bishops, so says that obe

lisk, that the bishops knew this very well, therefore it is to be said of them, not that they slept, but that they watched far more than Luther. Truly a happy church, whose bishops are all Scotists or (what fits better here) Eckianists, by whose Eck's Scotus they can be defended against the accusation of never having slept;- perhaps because Eck wanted to sleep for them all the time!

Corner:

"I add that even a deceased person could not be absolved from the ban, about which the rights are known."

Luther:

Hui, how soberly and valiantly Eck watches here! I confess that the rights have been made known. But Eck's new preparation is still lacking; therefore, we believe the traditional and customary rights until he brings together better ones. It is the 5th book "Von dem Urtheil des Bannes", Cap. A nobis, where the pope states that even deceased banned persons are to be absolved. This is understood by Panormitanus and others: in relation to us, or in the presence of the Church, while he the absolver, in relation to himself, is in reality absolved by death, without the absolution of the Church. Nor does the ban that remains after death harm him in the least, except that no public prayer is made for him in the church; privately, however, whoever wishes may pray for him; so that it must be understood from this that all binding of the church ceases in death and has validity only for this life. That is why I have called the penalties of the canons also penalties for this life.

But look here at the conclusion of our dialectician: If the priest could not declare that the punishments would be reserved for the dying person for purgatory, then also a deceased banished person could not be absolved. Which, I do not say scholastic doctor, but disciple of the scholastics from the first year must not laugh at such a conclusion? as if to be absolved from the opinion of the people in the Church is the same as to reserve punishments for Purgatory, since there the Church has the remission of

550 L. V. a. 1.421-423. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 812-814. 551

The first is that he is declared guilty and punished, but he himself is not actually absolved, but here he is really and actually bound to punishments; finally, as if indulgence and absolution from the ban were one and the same!

Corner. 4. obelisk.

Against Luther's 13th thesis.

"That the provisions of the laws ceased with death is not evident from the end of the preceding."

Luther:

Whether he means the previous one of his obelisk or my conclusion thesis is uncertain. But because he makes his statement from a tripod, as it were, without giving reasons, I also leave it as sufficiently refuted from the preceding, until he brings proofs from church scholars according to his promise.

Corner. 5. obelisk.

Against Luther's 14th thesis.

"Silly seems this thesis. For a baptized child (since he enjoys a foreign merit) has a lesser love than an adult who passes away in full reason, and yet the imperfect love of the child does not bring him a terror which in itself would constitute a purgatory. For what man of sound senses would like to say. St. Severinus have less grace than a two-year-old child? Therefore, the more perfect or imperfect grace has nothing to do with purgatory, but the punishment due for sin, which has not yet been atoned for."

Luther:

Here, finally, it does not sound scholastic, nor thoughtless, but like a divine saying from heaven. First of all, it would have been very appropriate for Eck to leave his hand off this and the six following theses; for they are too deep to be grasped in any way according to scholastic opinions. For they taste of the experience of that saying 1 Sam. 2, 6., "He leads into hell and out again." More about this in the "Explanations". However, let us consider the tales of this obelisk.

"A child enjoys someone else's merit." So be it. But who enjoys his own? The adult, he says, in grace. But why then does he say fPs. 143, 2.], "O Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight no living man shall be justified"? But this is ecclesiastical and therefore far from Eck by a double octave. Finally, because it may seem that he used "rejoice" in this passage (as he daintily does) for "possess," I pass over it.

But that is why you have to assume more that a child has lesser love and yet no fear of purgatory. I confess. But, dear, what do we want to say here? The adult is beset by greater temptation and more violently troubled by the fear of death and judgment than a child who does not yet know anything and cannot grasp much. But the adult gets with the knowledge also the pain. Therefore, it is no wonder that the adult who is gifted with great love can fall into sins faster and easier and feel more pain than a small child with little love. Therefore, Eck can also say that, just as a small child with little love is not afraid and does not shy away from fire, water, sword, or even death, so an adult who has great love is much less afraid of such things. But who does not see that the opposite is the case? If God wanted the adult to come so far that he, like a child, neither knew nor feared punishment, then I would also say that he, like a child, would go straight to heaven. But now that he has knowledge and fear, he does not need that little love, but the perfect love that casts out fear 1 John 4:18, and that he may triumph and no longer offend God with his rebelliousness, fearing death more than God, even loving life more than God.

Then it is very uncertain whether a child has less love than an adult, if the adult does not have perfect love, so that even he, after he has turned back and become like a child according to the gospel Matth. 18, 3, would not have to fear death.

At last he says, not perfection

552 L. V. a. 1,423-425. 29. luther's asteriskswider eck's obelisks. W. XVIII, 814-817. 553

The reason for purgatory is not the lack of love or the imperfection of love, but the not yet atoned punishment. This he says after the aforementioned dreams, namely, that, as the scholastics say, a punishment is demanded by God for satisfaction, while they claim that every priest can and does everything with a dying person that the pope can and does. Even more; if one cannot have a priest, they say, the desire to have him is enough. What then is left for such a one to atone for, since he is detached from everything?

I will say further that it is the general opinion that purgatory is due to sins and not to punishments, namely to venial sins, as it is expressly stated in the Canon Qualis of the 35th Distinction. And many examples are also given in this regard. Such a sin, I also say, is that imperfect love according to which they die unwillingly, and are impure through their too great love of life and therefore do not love God above all. About this in the "Explanations".

Corner. 6. obelisk.

Against Luther's 16th thesis.

"An impudent thesis. For after they are separated from the body, the friends of GOD to be purified certainly know that they will be blessed, but as through fire."

Luther:

How do they know that for sure? Because Eck says so. And the conclusion has instead according to his master, from an authority in affirmative way. So ignorant is he in the theology of the cross that he believes they are certain to be blessed because they are friends of God and separated from the body.

It is true that I, too, have read excellent men (I do not speak of Scotus or Thomas, nor even of Eck) who assert that certain souls are so stalled until the day of judgment that they do not know whether they will be blessed or damned; but because those who have experience and the examples in this matter are more to be believed than all the spits of all the smiths, there is not much in what Eck's presumption prates or calls impudence. We have read of many who

have appeared as if they were led to the court and held up for a long time. And be it as it may, it is still free to dispute because of one example and one statement and to contradict the mere and unproven opinions of the theologians. I add that the terror of the soul by its nature makes man uncertain; but of this terror I have already said that it is inherent in souls for lack of love, and I shall soon say more about it.

Corner:

"Since it is therefore probable that they have intercourse with the angels, how then can they be placed in a near despair (which belongs only to the god-loaves)?"

Luther:

This smells again of his goat Aristotle or rather deer buck, and he prattles nothing but probabilities, that is, what is disputed, he brings forward as if it were proven. I have known and read all of this, and against what my good versed instructs me now, I have put it up with consciousness and deliberation. The whole corner is opinion, and this he has nevertheless exhibited everywhere, as it were, as a tripod of the sun god.

The occasion for this thesis of mine was this: Since all teachers say that the punishment of purgatory is the same as that of hell, with the exception of despair; and since terror is one of the highest punishments of hell, and finally since terror is a brother of despair, or yet similar to it, and comes very near, as experience teaches; he who fears begins to be suspicious: so it seemed to me probable that purgatory from too great terror is near despair and just like despair. And I don't see what else Eck is drooling against, but only empty words. Therefore, it is not peculiar to the godless to almost despair, otherwise even those who are challenged in faith and hope (of which the obelisk writer as a scholastic rightly knows nothing) would have to be nefarious, since they appear to be quite desperate; which would be nothing other than committing and teaching soul murder (spiriticidia) (that I say so).

554 L. V. a. 1.425-427. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 817-819. 555

Corner. 7. obelisk.

Against Luther's 17th thesis].

"The thesis is not unlike the preceding: 'Whither the tree falleth, there shall it lie' Eccl. 11:3, according to merit and unmerit. And this is death with men, which is the case with angels."

Luther:

I beg you, my dear Eck, if you want to write against me again, acquire so much intelligence that it is enough for you to make yourself ridiculous three or four times in one writing, but not, as you do here, almost in every speech. But you will only be able to do that if you believe with firm conviction that I have read the swarms of questions and opinions with which you struggle in vain and under mask. I say: I do not want to hear (so that you know it) the scholastic theology, unless it is supported by the church doctrine and already no longer scholastic. Or do you want me to do nothing but laugh at you, since you present nothing but what I doubted when I read it and which I now deny as a disputant?

Of this kind is now also here your fine gloss: "according to merit and unmerit"; namely, lest that passage from Ecclesiastes compel you to deny purgatory with the Bohemian Picards, you invent, nay, you prate from your own words the poem that this is the falling of the tree, that it neither deserves nor does not deserve.

At this point, I will leave aside the trade of merit and demerit, since I strongly doubt whether the scholastics understand it, since they cannot deny that after death the godless man immediately falls into hatred and blasphemy against God and thus becomes worse than he was. But I leave this, I say; for with sophists and cunning and obdurate wilful wranglers this matter cannot be negotiated; since "a fool delights not in understanding, but in that which is in his heart" Prov. 18, 2., and again Prov. 17, 17.: "It is better to meet a bear, which the young

robbed than a fool who trusts in his foolishness."

But I say this and ask for instruction (because that is why I have asked questions and discussions): since St. Gregory assures in the chapter Qualis of the 35th Distinction that venial sins are expiated in Purgatory, how am I to understand that the purified one does not become better? But if he becomes better, how can he not increase in goodness and merit? One would have to consider venial sins as nothing, as the scholastics consider them, but God considers them so great that He imposes such an unbearable punishment for their purification.

So if that passage from Ecclesiastes does not abolish purgatory, which he strongly denies, how much less does it abolish that in purgatory there is no increase in good or evil! It may be that they remain where they fall, in such a way that they do not continue to sin mortally, or in some other way unknown to us.

But when John Damascenus says: "What is death with men, that is with the angels", I hope that he is not talking about the death of all men, since many have died and yet have been called back to life. So where were their souls? They fell, but not like the angels, and yet did not remain where they fell. So who knows if it is the same with the souls in purgatory? We, however, want to immediately claim what we only dream of in a fever as a divine statement, so boldly do we judge even the most mysterious things and do not even allow to doubt it.

Corner. 8. obelisk.

Against Luther's 18th thesis].

"This is the same presumption that is evident from the previous theses. Such an assertion would be as much as to reverse the goal of the Way, of repentance and everything else. For they are in the state of paying, not of earning. Therefore, the love for which each one is given, after having acted in the body 2 Cor. 5:10, must be shown in the life and limb.

556 L.V.Ä. 1.427-429. 29. Luther's Asterisks Wider Eck's Obelisks. W. XVIII. 819-821. 557

not be earned in purgatory. Otherwise, the apostle would have to add: 'that each one may receive after he has acted in life or in purgatory'."

Luther:

To always drink wine is finally burdensome, and every pleasure produces disgust by frequency. How much more is it exceedingly burdensome to hear over and over again these stinking and presumptuous opinions of people, who nevertheless prate them in such a way that they declare everything else, which is not of the same yeast, to be presumption! So often I have to say to Eck that he does not speak ecclesiastically, but scholastically, that is, that he presents unworthy and useless gibberish.

I have disputed and said that one can hold that souls are in the state of merit, although, as I said, I nowhere state anything as certain in this. He resolves this disputation by saying, "They are not in the state of merit." Exactly the same unproven fiction he adduces, which I myself have disputed. Thus women and children dispute or rather argue: It is. It is not. "Yes," "No." "Yes," "No," and yet in this they are the sharpest theologians. But about this enough above and in the "Explanations". How learnedly he applies the saying of the apostle, which he cites, to the matter! The apostle speaks there of the judgment seat of the last judgment, where death and purgatory will cease. But he draws it to purgatory and the death of man in time, so that he interprets what the apostle speaks, they shall receive in judgment: they shall receive in death. For this is so among the scholastics (I almost said scoffers) the most popular and praised custom of interpreting the holy Scriptures; if such an apparent frenzy can be called a custom. These people are described by the 1st Psalm v. 1., "And on the seat of pestilence sitteth not" according to the Vulgate. Instead of the word pestilence, the Hebrew reads lezim, which means mockers, mocking interpreters, that is, those who teach and interpret the words of Scripture in such a way as to deceive souls thirsting for truth. Hence their name is also correct'

so close with this name, as they are not far away from the matter. For what does scholastic mean other than lusorius 1)?

"The goal of the path inverts them," he says. If God would, I could invert beginning, middle, end and everything that belongs to the way as well as to the error of the scholastics; for I would then have hope to satisfy also the Eck, who has promised that he does not want to do scholastic theology; only that he has described these side issues in passing (I do not know, seized by which deity) a little broadly in fact.

Corner. 9. obelisk.

Against Luther's 19th thesis.

"The falsity of this thesis is evident from the foregoing. For they know not less but more than we, who are in the body that weighs down the soul. 2) So they know that they are dead and do not despair, nor do they enjoy God; consequently they know that they are in purgatory; but if they know this, they also know that they are among those who will be saved."

Luther:

May the good JEsus have mercy on you, my dear Eck, so that you do not still come out of your mind with envy against me or die with love for your scholastic studies! . What else can I say, poor thing? I am unwilling about the matter and man takes me.

I said in the 19th thesis that it could be that not all who are in purgatory are certain of their blessedness, and I have an example of this, as I said above, then also the opinion of some. And therefore I alone have wanted, not that my thesis is certain, but that it is not necessary to consider the opinion of the scholastics certain. I only punish the presumption of those who proclaim for certain what is quite doubtful. Therefore, I do not deny that some are certain, but not all; just as he who is challenged with the contestation of faith

  1. I.e. a schoolboy, but also one who makes fun of others - iHusor -.
  2. As Walch has already noted and as follows from Luther's refutation, instead of sxistsnts - sxistentes must be read.

558 L.v.n .i,42S f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 821-823. 550

is uncertain whether he believes, but the one who promises him is certain that he believes, if only he has the discernment of spirits. For if he did not believe, it would not hurt him, he would not lament and weep over his unbelief. But this feeling of unbelief and the pain over it is an obvious sign that faith is alive in him. He who is dead in faith is not hurt that he does not believe. This is how it is in despair and in every challenge. Thus I have said that some souls may be uncertain (of which there are many examples), whereas we are quite sure that the souls in purgatory will be saved. Thus, I say, I have disputed and doubted.

But our obelisk, who brings forward nothing new that has not already been disputed by me, does not dispute, but preaches from heaven the disgusting opinions of the peripatetic Aristotelian theologians and says that the souls in purgatory know more than we do. Then, in order to show what is the more they know, he adds: They know that they are dead, not despairing. 2c From this I conclude: Therefore, we do not know that they are dead; we do not know that they do not despair; we do not know that they do not enjoy God; we do not know that they are in purgatory; we do not know that they will be saved; we do not know this, I say, because we are still burdened with the body. This means nothing else than saying: "we are all heretics", because Eck wants it that way. Not as if I do not know that this is not his meaning, or as if one could not understand his words differently (but only if one wants to do violence to them); but so that the obelisk writer once sees how easy it is to twist other people's statements, not to mention obvious errors, and how difficult, on the other hand, to let others pass without bringing oneself into greater disgrace. Just as envy is always unintelligent and foolish, so it also shows itself to be the greatest liar, to its shame, precisely in the attempt to accuse others of lying. Learn, then, my dear Eck, that it is something different to judge the writings of others than to write something oneself that can be judged. That

even fools can do; not even Socrates is skilled enough to do this. But I beg you, do not be a fool.

Corner. 10. obelisk.

Against Luther's 20th thesis.

"The conclusion that this thesis makes is nothing. However, we do not admit the inference, since the priest, by virtue of the given keys, remits the punishment, even that one owes to God, so that the noble sacrament of the evangelical law is not given to the wind."

Luther:

He has denied the prefix TH. 17-19, but not overturned it; therefore he denies with the same cleverness also the conclusion: so great is the prestige of this scholastic tripod! If they deny, one must deny; if they assert, one must assert; if they deny the same again, one must deny it again. But do not think, dear reader, that they are a kind of Gnatho 1) in Terence; they are theologians, that is, speakers from God, from Him who instills a great frenzy in the soothsayers, which is known to you from Virgil.

But well! This splendid obelisk does not allow this my concluded thesis therefore, so that the sacrament is not given into the wind. We give thanks for it. Then it is not given to the wind, then it is a noble sacrament, then it is completely evangelical, if it does not remit guilt and conscience, but punishment, that is, something very small, which is contemptible to all Christians. O theologians, who make punishments so great in order to make fainthearted Christians! How much happier are the pagans who used to encourage their own to death! But we, by disgusting the punishments, mislead ours into a childish fear. But enough has been said above that it is not true that through the sacrament the punishment owed to God is remitted.

But it grieves me that the sacraments of the new law have come to the point that

  1. Gnatho is the name of a person in Terence's comedy "Dunuodus" who, as a lickspittle, talks to the host in all matters.

560 L. V. a. 1,430-432. 29 Luther's Asteriskenwider Eck's Obelisks. W. XVHI, 823-826. 561

they must serve for temporal things, namely for punishments, since they were given for the attainment of eternal things. But just as the theologians are only windy and driven out by the wind of opinions like a pig's bladder, so they do not consider the noble sacrament of the gospel as given into the wind, but turn it into wind. And yet, according to everyone's judgment, including their own, the sacraments are called vessels of grace, with the exception of Eck, who calls them vessels of punishment, not to be imposed, but to be taken away. But I believe he does it only for this reason and rightly deviates from them, because he did not want to set up anything scholastic in these obelisks.

Corner. 11. obelisk.

Against Luther's 25th thesis.

"An impudent thesis, which perverts the whole order of church government, and might be rejected on many grounds."

Luther:

However, only in such a way that the reasons are Eckisch, that is, not scholastic. But who can bear such a persistent and continuous sacrilege with such a conspicuous carelessness and ignorance? All too long impudence and presumption defeats patience. He judges everything and understands nothing. I deny with the whole church that the keys have power over the purgatory, as it is clear from the previous and from the next thesis, what the obelisk should have noticed. How should it therefore be possible that I should have contradicted myself in such close, even in the very near theses, especially in a matter which I have thought through so carefully with myself? It would be, then, that according to the philosophy of Cratylus, I would be that horse that can go only once into the same river; so that here I would have attributed not only to the pope, but also to the very last priest a power, which before and after in all theses has been denied by me.

But Eck, who thinks evil of me with a fierce heart, wanted that he could incite the whole church to hate me, and that only with loud false and from himself

lies. Who would believe that such toxicity could be found in a theologian? So I have said that the power is the same; I have not said that a bishop or a priest has as great a power over purgatory as the pope. Not that they have there a jurisdiction of keys or a power of rights, but rather a power of forces; not to command, but to act. That is, the pope can intercede for souls through the general intercession and prayer of the whole Church; a bishop can do so through the special intercession of his diocese, and a pastor through that of his parish; as is done on the day of All Souls' Day, on the general penitential days, and at the services for the dead (parentationibus). And it was at least not my wish that they should be mocked by the word "violence" in this thesis of mine. But it is dear to me that it has so happened to these presumptuous judges that they have mocked themselves, so that they may learn henceforth to treat foreign things with fear and without arrogance, and to learn before they teach, to hear before they judge....

Corner. 12. obelisk.

Against Luther's 26th thesis.

"This thesis seems to indicate that the one who has made it does not understand what in the apostolic bulls this expression 'intercession' wants to mean: Since it does not diminish (as the author of the thesis wants), but rather adds and explains the way of communication, as this can be nicely explained and the existing apostolic commentators have explained."

Luther:

I openly confess that I do not understand this kind of intercession: that is why I have made this disputation, in order to be instructed about it. The words that Eck recites, "do not diminish, but add," I can also recite, but I do not understand them.

But that he says that they are explained by the apostolic interpreters, I have read none except Gabriel Viel, and now I hear that Eck can explain these things beautifully. But that I do not have a hair on my head for both explanations.

562 L.V." 1,432-434. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 826-828. 563

Eck himself is to blame for this, who said above in an obelisk that it is impertinent if a subordinate wants to explain and confirm the actions of the superior. But since Gabriel and Eck are under the pope, one must despise them as impudent declarers. I add that all jurists say that it is only proper to interpret laws to whom it is proper to give them. But I am waiting for Eck, the beautiful explainer, who understands everything; perhaps he will also teach me to understand the way of intercession; only he must not speak scholastically for me. But more about this in the "Explanations".

Corner. 13. obelisk.

Against Luther's 28th thesis.

"An audacious thesis that could cause noise, turmoil and divisions in the Church of GOD, but not increase love."

Luther:

Dear, see here the theologian, how he lusts after my ruin! Only his own increases the love. It seems to me that Eck is also one of those who do not even want to know their mistakes and want to rule over the people of Christ with vain tyranny. Everything is allowed, only you must not touch this ulcer, i.e. the avarice of the popes, priests and monks.

But I am surprised that not only Eck, but all scholastics sometimes punish not only avarice, but also simony in their theses. Then all decrees and books are full of the vices of the popes. And yet, so many books punishing so many vices have not yet caused riots and schisms. My only and very small rebuke of a vice should be able to cause such a tragedy? Either Eck is hired for money and a hired agent of certain friends of darkness (Melaniorum), as we remember that one once proceeded against Johannes Reuchlin; or else he has completely passed over into the Pythagorean rebirth (palingenesia). 1)

  1. The Pythagoreans assumed a kind of soul transformation (palingenesia), which they regarded as a purification process, in which man would be transformed into an ever better being.

Does it befit a theologian to speak so carelessly and incautiously (not to say maliciously)?

Corner:

"But the end is mixed with poison. For if the intercession of the Church were solely at God's discretion, so that He wanted to disregard and reject the priestly devotion, then no priest in particular would be able to give a mass to one more than to another. No more anniversaries for the dead should be endowed, no more special masses should be said, since, according to God's will, they could benefit another in the same way, or even more; nor would it be necessary to commemorate the living or the dead in the Canon of the Mass."

Luther:

I confess, the end is quite poisoned; not, however, in its origin, but poisoned by Eck's art, and so it is already no longer my, but Eck's obelisk, or rather basilisk, tail; for what it a basilisk looks at is immediately death. .

I will refrain from speaking here about the priestly devotion; others may see how it is done correctly; for I have nowhere spoken of it in my theses. But Eck, who understands everything in everything, i.e. nothing, also wanted to poison my loud and harmless opinions in this way. But I say one thing: If Eck seriously wanted to say that the priestly grants were not solely in the will of God, so that he distributed them according to merit, as St. Augustine teaches of the deceased, then already not his tail, but head, foot and everything that he is, is poison. It is quite frightening to me to hear, not from a Jew, not from a Turk, not from a Bohemian heretic, but from a Catholic theologian, that the intercessions of the Church are not in the free will of God alone. If you teach the people in this way, you are not a preacher, but a destroyer of the church. But I freely proclaim against such an impure heretic and say: Cursed be all devotion of every priest, if he does not first purely and reverently put it into the discretion of God alone.

564 D. v. L. i, 434-436. 29. Luther's Asterisks w'ider Eck's Obelisks. W. xviii, 828-83." 565

God, and has preferred God's attention far, far ahead of his own, and has added his own conditionally! Should the theologians make God such a prisoner that He can no longer do what He wants?

But I leave that. For I have not spoken of the grant, but of the acceptance, which Eck, if he had a nose, could have smelled from the preceding theses. For I have set them up against those who say that souls are led out of purgatory by this way of intercession, since intercession is only a use. The value of the use, however, does not consist in the discretion of the one who gives it, but of the one who accepts it. Therefore, since the indulgence is not offered as an indulgence through the power of the keys, but as an intercession for them, I have denied that a soul is redeemed through it, unless it so pleased God. And this is also only disputed by me, not asserted. Now I expect the explanation, but not an impudent one, that is, from subordinates 1). What I say to the statement of Sixtus IV, however, can be seen in my "Explanations".

Corner. 14. obelisk.

Against Luther's 29th thesis.

"We know from Scripture Job 19:21 that souls cry out to us: 'Have mercy on me, at least you, my friends; for the hand of the LORD has touched me, and since they have the love and affection of GOD, they would like to be united and joined to GOD, their ultimate end, in an orderly manner as soon as possible.' This cannot happen unless the penalty is paid or compensated."

Luther:

If I had not read this, I would not have known that souls call out to us and desire to come to God: Eck, the holy doctor, brings forward such entirely new and unheard-of teachings; and therefore I am surprised against whom I actually raise the thesis-

  1. To understand this expression, compare what Luther said about the 12th obelisk.

I have placed. But let's leave the mockery, rather compassion is necessary here.

I therefore ask, how may Eck understand his woxte? For what does it mean to want to be connected with GOtt in an orderly manner? Is this not that they should not seek what is theirs, and that they do not want to be connected to God for their sake, but for God's honor and will? How, then, if GOD did not want them to be joined to Him quickly? Would they not want the same?

But what am I talking so ecclesiastically with a scholastic? My reason to discuss this was that it did not seem impossible that some souls did not want to be redeemed from the punishments, as one could find in Tauler's sermons a striking example of a virgin who offered herself according to God's will also to the punishments of hell. And Moses 2 Mos. 32, 32. and the apostle Rom. 9, 3. wished to be eternally banished by God according to His will; just as also the bride in the Song of Songs rejoices and says 8, 6.: "Love is strong, like death, and zeal is firm, like hell"; and further it is said in 1 Sam. 2, 6.: "He leads to hell and out again." But the scholastic teachers do not write of a strong love, but of a soft love, not one that endures evil, but seeks only the good, that is, the desire of one's own advantage. That is why they are so foolish.

Corner:

"Severinus is to be spoken of according to what was last said. The story does not come to me, but I remember to have read, when I was still a boy of eleven years, that Severinus appeared to his uncle and revealed to him his purification with the cause of it and asked for the prayer of the priest in his chapel. This contradicts Luther's thesis. But if it were so, the good man should know that one may not draw any conclusions from the deeds of the saints beyond a general law."

Luther:

I pass over the sillinesses of this speech artist and his as it were secured mockery to my insult. Only his lies I want to pursue. I have never said that

566 L. v. a. i, 436 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, sso-sss. . 567

I have also not made a law out of one example or drawn a conclusion. But I have done this enough, that I have traced back their general to a particular, in order to show their insolent presumption.

Then that example of Severinus, which he rebukes as false, and against which he cites a proof from his childhood, in order perhaps to clearly testify to his foolishness, I have not established according to what one has heard, but as I have heard it told by certain learned men. But these reported. St. Paschalis had been in purgatory, and yet miracles had happened at his grave, and he could have freed himself by his merits, but he had not wanted his reward to be reduced. That is why he preferred to burn. They told the same story about Severinus. I do not reject these speeches, but I do not follow them as credible testimony either; I have quoted them only for the sake of dispute and to hear others. That is why I have also characteristically said: "as they say." Such books have less credibility with me than the speeches of such men; but more, what I have already said above, about Paul and Moses.

Corner:

"Augustine, on the other hand, prayed, 'Lord, burn here, cut here, that you may spare for eternity.'"

Luther:

As if I had forbidden that no one should pray for the remission of punishments, or as if one could not want the punishment that another would like to pray away. But let the quarrelsome sophist go.

Corner. 15. obelisk.

Against Luther's 30th and 31st theses.

"Since it is a common opinion that one can do enough in a mortal sin, e.g. a priest imposes on one in fasting as a pardon to pray the Lord's Prayer five times a day until Pentecost and' to fast on Fridays, although the priest knows with probability that the one will not be in the

If he does not complete the satisfaction imposed on him, he sins; but if he does complete it, why should he not do enough in anything? Since the indulgence is for satisfaction alone, 2c: it would therefore not be improbable that one in sins could also obtain the indulgence, as I also hold and have held in reality."

Luther:

Eck had forgotten this obelisk and added it at the end, after the others, because he thought it necessary that I should recognize in what dark and gloomy darkness he was.

In many respects I dislike this rusty and useless little spit. I would make it short if I denied the whole of what he slurs; for he brings these mists right out of the yeast of scholastic opinions.

I therefore say that he who is in a mortal sin when he prays the Lord's Prayer does not pray, but curses himself, because such a one is turned away in spirit from everything he asks; indeed, he opposes everything he asks. So he does not do enough for God, but becomes more guilty.

If Eck had read from St. Augustine even the few booklets "On the Spirit and the Letter", I would strongly promise myself that he would condemn and lament not only this, but all obelisks, yes, his whole scholastic. He would condemn and lament not only this but all obelisks, indeed all his scholastic studies.

Of course, I admit that one who prays in this way is doing enough for the church that imposed it on him, but not for God. Yes, I firmly believe that it is not the intention of the church that the imposed penance should last longer than he is able to fulfill it, namely as long as he stands in grace. For it must not be supposed of our gracious Mother that she intends to enjoin useless things or to impose something that is not salutary. Yes, she precedes the being and the first action before she imposes the second action. So I hold and do not turn back on what the scholastics mean against it, what the custom, or rather the abuse of unlearned men, holds against it. But if I am mistaken in this, I desire to be instructed.

Z68 ' V.v.s.. 1,437-439. 29. Luther's asterisks w'ider Eck's obelisks. W. xvm, 832-835. 569

And I will be more expansive about this one day. For these unlearned heroes of opinion, who impose human laws, have introduced to us innumerable cords of conscience in the church. Therefore, to him who has fallen again into sin, all imposed penances are to be remitted and not to be imposed further than as long as he stands in grace. For if bodily labor can be imposed only as long as the body is healthy, how much more can labor be considered imposed on the soul no longer than the soul is healthy. But nothing is to be imposed on the dead.

Furthermore, I am not opposed to the fact that indulgences can also be given to those who have no repentance; however, not because this was necessary for Eck's reason, but because the remission of punishment, as the very least gift of the church, can also be given to the unworthy. For to the worthy, the punishment is rather imposed by God. I say all this because there are no punishments more sufficient than those freely instituted by the Church and used to be imposed before absolution; but why they are now imposed after absolution, I do not know.

Corner. 16. obelisk.

Against Luther's 34th thesis.

"We do not accept the appendix of the thesis; otherwise he who is to absolve would have to say, after the penance imposed: 'What I have imposed too little, let the will of the pope complete,' whereas one says: 'What I have imposed too little, let the bitter suffering of Christ complete'; also, a priest would not be called the representative of God, but of the pope and the bishop."

Luther:

This is the same gibberish as that in which he said above that through the Sacrament punishments imposed by God are remitted; which I have denied and still deny, and he cannot prove. Then he again argues that the suffering of Christ or the sacrament only remits punishments. For this is the way he values the Sacrament and the suffering of Christ, who works in the Sacrament, so that it does not

He does not remit guilt, but punishment, and even this only as a temporal punishment. Truly, a great honor of the suffering of Christ, that it remits temporal punishments, which the Gentiles also despise!

Furthermore, I admire the sharpest perspicacity in which he himself found a reason for proof against me in the alley, namely that the absolving priest says: "What is less, replace the bitter suffering of Christ. It would perhaps not have been safe for me to say here that this custom of the priests does not please me; otherwise he could say again that I am sowing Bohemian poison. But it disgusts me that the suffering of Christ is considered so unimportant that it is regarded as an addition and, as it were, an appendage to our effectiveness. Finally, since it inflames us more to punishments than to remit them; but for the remittal of punishments the will of a man, the pope, is sufficient. But about it more extensively in its time.

It is ridiculous that one would have to say: "Let the will of the pope be completed. He always dreams that it is necessary to supplement, and that punishment is sufficient, and that remission cannot be effected otherwise than by another compensation, so that there is no true remission, but only an exchange and lawful satisfaction by another. This is also condemned by the teachers of papal law, and it contradicts the word indulgence. For what is a true indulgence needs no other compensation; but if compensation takes place, it is not an indulgence, but a satisfaction. Why, then, do they mock us with hypocritical words, and do not call the matter by its proper name, so that they call the indulgence not indulgence, but compensation? Yes, it would be with more truth that Christ's sufferings would be compensations than if we ourselves paid the compensations. For who would cherish such a frightful heresy that he would not prefer the suffering of Christ to his punishments and works? But about it widely in the "Explanations".

Corner. 17. obelisk.

Against Luther's 36th thesis.

"A quite erroneous thesis; since it is established that there are many people who have a true repentance without

570 L.v.a.i.43"-44I. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 835-837. 571

have complete remission. I put the case of a dying man who is to be purified in purgatory. He has true repentance, otherwise he could not receive the grace of the sacrament and forgiveness of sins; and yet he does not have complete remission of punishment, otherwise he would not enter purgatory. Therefore, in a very dangerous way, he Luther has set up a general proposition that would have no difficulty when proved in particulars."

Luther:

If Eck would be as much at hand with researching and listening as he is with judging and condemning, he would not become so silly with so much madness and buffoonery. Behold, the one epithet "true" has caused him to fall into such a shameful error. I understand by a truly penitent one who has perfect repentance, of whom all say that he goes to heaven even without sacraments; and he who denies this is a heretic and blasphemes against God. Therefore, my general sentence stands firm.

I say even more: even a merely half-repentant, as he accepts it, has equally perfect remission of the church punishments due to him; for the priest must remit them to him if he sees him repentant. And no penitential punishment is required, from the dreaming of which all these Ecks' things arise.

Corner. 18. obelisk.

Against Luther's 37th thesis.

"A true thesis. But since (as is clear from the following) there are different kinds of communion of the saints and participation in the goods and merits, Luther strangely mixes them everywhere with each other. Otherwise, if there were an equal and merely general participation of those who are in love (as David says Ps. 119, 63: 'I am partaker of all them that fear thee' Vulgate), then all brotherhoods and all societies would be in vain; which is nothing else than spreading Bohemian poison."

Luther:

These two coarse invectives, that he called me a heretic and a venomous man

I believe that I should bear it for the sake of the gospel by following Christ's example alone and saying: "I have no devil" [Joh. 8, 49.However, since I live in a famous university, in a confirmed order, in the so noble Duchy of Saxony, in a respectable diocese, and these are all Catholic; furthermore, since I myself claim nothing, but disputire and seek to be Catholic, while only obstinacy in an error in faith makes one a heretic (here, however, is only an error, if it is an error at all, then also not in faith, but in scholastic opinions): It is necessary to accuse Eck of dishonor and to make his mouth, which overflows with lies and blasphemy, make his lies true or prove that a simple error is a poisonous heresy.

If disputing means tasting like a heretic, then Eck is the greatest of all heretics the church has ever seen, for he has poisoned everything at four of the most famous universities with poison, that is, with disputations. 1) I am surprised at man that he does not freeze to the toe when he goes to the sacrament of the altar, when he is mindful of such cruelty against his brother. In everything Eck plays along with me just as Johannes Reuchlin was played along by his Satan. Both have the ambition, where they could, to stir up all abominations, all morass and all abyss of errors, heresies and all evil; that would be the highest joy for both.

But, to return to the thesis, I pass over the various kinds of participation in the goods of which Eck boasts. What it is or what it does, others may judge. It seems to me that a great deal of carnality is nourished in this; indeed, to speak frankly, it seems to me to be harmful in many respects if one does not prefer by far that general, true, genuine, ecclesiastical participation which is recommended both by the Gospel and in the Lord's Prayer. Also, the one who disregards those ways is not a

  1. At the universities of Vienna, Bologna, Freiburg and Ingolstadt, Eck had shone as a skilled disputator.

572 L. v. a. i, 441-443. 29. Luther's asterisks against Eck's obelisks. W. xvm, M-M. 57Z

Heretics; but he does much better who unites them into one than he who separates them. For so teach the apostles, however much the scholastic dreamers may think otherwise.

But be that as it may, I speak of the general and true participation in the goods of the church. This, I say, every Christian has without a letter of indulgence and it alone is sufficient for him. St. Augustine also speaks of this so often against the Donatists, ascribing everything to the unity of the Church. And I do not believe that by the letters of indulgence another one is conferred, or one should prove it. So let this Hecuba bark until it becomes a dog. I do not care about human opinions.'

Corner. 19. obelisk.

Against Luther's 39th thesis.

"This does not seem so difficult, since repentance refers to guilt, and indulgence to the punishment due for guilt. And according to this, the following thesis must be corrected, namely thus: 'Since true contrition seeks punishment in order to do enough by itself or by something that has equal value with respect to satisfaction'."

Luther:

I confess that all this is true, if scholasticism is true. What Eck claims, I deny, and therefore he takes as proven what he should prove.

Corner. 20. obelisk.

Against Luther's 42nd thesis.

"A true thesis when understood with reference to earning; a false one when understood with reference to sufficiency."

Luther:

Again, he comes up with the argument that the punishments are only sufficient, but not meritorious, while Paul says Rom. 8, 28 that "all things are for the good of those who love God". And the scholastics themselves admit that the gratifications are at the same time meritorious. From this it follows at the same time that indulgences are inferior to pardons. For it is better to do enough and thus earn at the same time, than to be able to

The first is to enjoy idle gratification. It follows from this that indulgences are harmful, for they are a remission and omission of merits. For so it follows from their own fiction.

But I deny, as mentioned above, this double punishment; because John the Baptist, who was certainly sent to teach repentance, did not impose repentance at all, but only prescribed rules of life for the soldiers and others Luc. 3, 14.. But it is an atrocious blasphemy if someone wanted to say that John did not teach perfect and complete repentance, so that the scholastics would have had to add atonement as a third part (which John did not know), who also want this to be required by divine judgment and not merely by ecclesiastical power. But then John the Baptist would have appeared to be a snare and a seduction, because he would not have taught anyone to do enough.

But, they say, John taught Luc. 3, 8: "Do worthy fruits of repentance"; consequently he wanted satisfaction. I answer: The gloss is true, if it is allowed to stain the holy scripture with our dreams. But these worthy fruits of repentance he himself named when he answered the people who asked him what they should do Luc. 3, 11.: "He who has two skirts" 2c, that is, they should lead a good life. For in this way one does GOtte enough.

Here, however, I wanted to advise the scholastic teachers as well as Eck to leave Christ and John the Baptist behind (because they are not scholastics) and to take refuge in their father Aristotle and, relying on this teacher, to deliver to me that most sacred oracle: "No valid conclusion can be drawn from a testimony in a negative way". But let us leave these scholastic great posts; Eck does not speak scholastically.

Corner. 21. obelisk.

Against Luther's 43rd thesis.

"He thinks it better to act in a meritorious way, not in a sufficient way, as he himself explains in the following thesis."

574 L. V. E. l, 443-445. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 839-842. 575

Luther:

Again, out of the tangle of opinions, he brings forward the dream that something else is satisfaction and something else is merit, which has been amply refuted above.

Corner: 22nd obelisk.

Against Luther's 45th and 46th theses.

"We all know that a thirsty person who is in the utmost or, as it were, in the most extreme need is to be helped according to the commandment of God. In the same way this is to be understood of him who has only the necessities for his house."

Luther:

This is that happy scholastic divinity, for the sake of which alone all scholastics would be worthy of the favor, which once the Romans determined for the philosophers and Plato in his "State" for the poets. O not scholars of God, but scholars of mammon, who interpret this need for us as an extreme or as it were an extreme one. I ask you, which angel would be allowed to sow such an interpretation?

So one need not lend to the needy, nor borrow to the needy, nor clothe the naked, nor visit the sick, nor even do any work of godliness or love, if the neighbor has not come to the point that he is already about to give up the ghost. For when else should the need be extreme? Or perhaps the Holy Spirit is so unlearned that when he said simply "need," he did not know or forgot to add "the utmost, or as it were the utmost," so that this was reserved for our scholastics, lest they too should have lived or taught in vain. Dear, why does even natural human feeling possess so much goodness that it offers itself in vain, and does not first wait for necessity, but is rather anxious that no necessity should occur? And the incomparably kinder love of God should do none of this? Do you not see there again that the scholastic teachers are desecrators of the holy scripture?

Corner:

"More could be said about the following theses, several of which are crude and tasteless, not to say that they taste of. Bohemia."

Luther:

Behold the unbridled mouth full of cursing and bitterness. Because these theses contain only love and fruitful godliness toward one's neighbor, the lover of the unfruitful indulgence that serves only one's own advantage calls them Bohemian. And how could envy give love any other name than the worst? And even if Eck were an angel in the midst of the seraphim, I still say that he is the most godless enemy of love and a deceiver of the simple-minded people, when he teaches that the barren indulgence is good for the people and that the preaching of love is a Bohemian taste.

Corner:

"But there is to be considered in them dishonor to the sanctity of the pope."

Luther:

Before I was a heretic, a Bohemian, full of poison and what else; now, to make my wickedness full, I am disrespectful to the pope. Eck, who swore to shower me with blasphemy, has become a Timon 1) or is worthy to hold the office of a chief priest of the childish Hercules 2). Dear God! Can this man do nothing but curse, revile, slander and blaspheme? and yet he is the most reverent towards the pope and a theologian, that is, one who speaks from God, if blasphemy and cursing is God.

Am I therefore disrespectful to the pope, because I claim that I am disrespectful to a man who, for the sake of so

  1. Timon of Athens, a contemporary of Socrates, notorious as a man-hater.
    1. Hercules was worshipped as a god at Lindos, a city on the island of Rhodus. He had a large temple there, in which great festivals were celebrated in his honor (Herakleia). He could be worshipped here only by curses, imprecations and words of evil foreshadowing; whoever uttered an auspicious word had violated the sacred customs.

576 L. V. a. 1,445 f. 29. Luther's asterisks Wider Eck's obelisks. W. XVIII, 842-844. 577

Is the prayer of many necessary, more than money, the more miserable he is, the greater he is? Or is not rather he an insult against God and the pope, who declares this to be wrong, and wants to let money be more necessary than prayer? Whether this is merely blasphemy or not rather the most ungodly wickedness? But no vice, no crime is too great for the flatterers; indeed, they think of Christ as so distant from the church and the pope that they think they can deceive him with their pernicious flatteries, as if he were a mere and noisy man, and the more insidiously they flatter, the more they believe they are telling the truth. Yes, they do not even notice that through God's admirable wisdom this protection is left to the Church (should it also be the only one), that even if the Pope with the whole of Rome wanted to agree with the parasites and deviate from the truth (since God is before), he could not dare to do so. For he would have to shy away from and be held back both by the multitude of scholars and great spirits, who (by Christ's grace) are now developing so splendidly; and by the power of kings and princes, who favor these scholars at great expense; as well as certainly by many nobles at the papal court, who are more devoted to true piety than all these. For what should even the devil himself, let alone a wicked man with all flatterers, presume to do, if they saw that, with contempt of those SoPhists with their opinions, the Bible and the Doctors of the Church were held up to them? Or does this cruel, but tame, tyrannical flattery already miss itself to such an extent that it should dare to set itself also against God's word? May Christ and his word be with me, so I will not be afraid, what can the whole world do to me?

I say this so that those painted tyrants (Nerones) and shadowy images may not think that they have said the right thing and won with their terrors, that is, flatteries, for the sake of it, because they hope to bribe the pope's majesty with their lies. The Pope is a man, he can be deceived, especially by such mischievous and glittering lickspittles; but God is the Truth, who cannot be deceived. Therefore ask

I ask my very friendly enemies not to frighten me further with flattery from the pope or with our excellent Magistri nostri, but to instruct or overcome me with firm reasons from Scripture and the decrees of the fathers, if they are so interested in victory.

Corner. 23. 1) Obelisk.

Against Luther's 58th thesis.

"Further on he confessed that the indulgence was enough; and since the priest, in imposing the penance, says: 'What I have imposed too little, supplement the bitter suffering of Christ,' 2c why does he return to that treasure?"

Luther:

O of the unusual spiritual vein and the truly peripatetic talent! A priest says so, therefore it is so. This conclusion takes place according to the dialectics of faith. But, he will tell me, the custom of the Church is to be respected. If it is a custom to believe that the merit of Christ's Passion and the Sacrament is used only for the remission of punishments, and this is not rather a folly, I admit it. Further, if it can be proved in an ecclesiastical way, I admit it again and more. And since I repeat this so often (although unwillingly) in an ecclesiastical way, I hope that Eck will finally be moved to understand that he must henceforth no longer bark against the truth in a scholastic way. Thus, everything that any, even the most ignorant and superstitious priest has invented with pious intentions (as they call it), must also be considered by learned theologians as a custom of the church.

One must, however, deplore the Sacrament of Penance, which, according to these excellent Magistri nostri, has come so far in esteem that it is the only one among all that remits penalties and is not a vessel of grace nor a sign, except of penalties, while Baptism does not remit penalties but sins-.

  1. In all editions, with the exception of Weimar's, from here to the end, the counting is reversed. This obelisk is once again listed as the 22nd.

578 L.V.Ä. 1,446-448. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 844-846. 579

remits sins and confers grace. Thus Confirmation, thus Holy Communion, thus Consecration, thus Marriage, thus the last rites; all these remit sins and confer grace. Only the Sacrament of Penance, it is that remits punishments and does enough, but it earns nothing and it pours no grace. Perhaps it is a bastard among the seven and spurious, as poets say of the Pleiades. I am speaking here according to Eck; for others will perhaps deny that indulgences belong to the sacrament of penance.

Corner:

"Further, if man had to suffer all the evil, punishment, and cross of the world by merit of Christ's suffering, it would be said in vain that Christ conquered death, redeemed the human race, and nailed death to the cross."

Luther:

Nobody will persuade me that this statement of Eck was made seriously. It is far from it that a theologian speaks against the understanding of all theologians. Yes, even though his words read as if he wanted to say that man does not need to die because Christ has conquered death, which surpasses all madness, I still want and believe that he wanted to say (in order to advise) that the merits of Christ do not work death, that is, Christ's death does not work that man must die, but rather it works life. (I deserve pardon if I am mistaken; for this rusty little spit speaks darkly). If, then, this is Eck's opinion, what else does he show with it but his gross ignorance? since he turns the apostolic way of speaking into a verbiage of peripatetic tongues wagging with Aristotelian sundries or rather full of a mishmash of words. However, I want to explain myself in order to do good to the envious slanderer.

I mean to say that the merits of Christ are not remissions of death, cross, hell, but rather exhortations; that is, that a Christian who truly loves Christ does not seek remission of punishments of this kind, but, prompted by the example and love of his Lord, follows him in this

and despises indulgences. This is what I meant when I said that the Passion of Christ works penalties, but not indulgences, over which the pope has no power.

Corner:

"Nor is his explanation valid, since he digresses from a general participation in the merits of Christ to a particular one; as we said above."

Luther:

Very well he refers to his above dreams in order not to bring greater ones to market here. See also you there that marvelous, that is, scholastic distinction of participation.

Corner:

"From this, then, the most impudent error is revealed, that the merits of Christ are not the infinite treasure, which is also not entrusted to the pope for orderly distribution."

Luther:

To demand the grammar even from a theologian: If it is an error, how can it be impudent, or even the most impudent? An error is something pardonable; for it is not impudently accepted voluntarily, but ignorantly committed. Not that I consider it a great thing that a theologian should err in grammar, but that you may see that he is guided more by frenzy than by reason.

I will try to say it more accurately (if I can). It is an impertinence when someone teaches something in the philosophy of Aristotle that he does not think he can prove from his testimonies. Do you admit that? So it is by far the most impudent presumption of all to assert something in the church and among Christians that Christ did not teach. But that is what our corner is babbling here, while he speaks nothing in a scholastic way and follows the truth alone quite bashfully, namely, that the treasure of Christ's merits is in the hand of the pope. Where does the Scripture say that? where do the Fathers say that?

580 L. V. a. 1,448-450. 29. Luther's asterisks against Eck's obelisks. W. xvm. 846-849. 581

ter? where the Canones? where anyone in the whole world (Magistri nostri excepted)?

And so that I too may vent my anger a little, it is an anger and displeasure of God, and nothing other than opening the door to all heresies, errors, and the whole of hell, if one so freely asserts what one pleases, since the Spirit speaks 1 Thess. 5:21.: "Test everything, and keep what is good." If the scholastic teachers, your unhappy masters, had refrained from this arbitrariness of asserting, distinguishing, thinking according to their pious intention (as they call it), the church would not now be so full of error and foolish things, and also you would not have invented your so lead-colored and black spits.

I admit that in an extravagant of Clement V. there is a narration about the treasure of Christ's merits, which would be distributed through the indulgence; but I never read that this was confirmed. It is something else when the pope tells, and something else when he decrees; yes, it is much different when the pope decrees and a council confirms. Moreover, it is not I, nor Eck, nor the Magistri nostri who declare the apostolic see, if we do not want to be insolent, as the not insolent Eck said.

Corner:

"Therefore every Christian should rather put his hope in this treasure than make a release out of punishment, cross and tribulation, which is due to him, as it were, out of his merits; for when we have done all, it comes to us to say: "We are worthless servants" Luc. 17:10. And this, deeply considered, would throw over the whole ground of the imaginary sayings (quasi dictorum) of this good man."

Luther:

If Eck spoke of the remission of guilt in these words, he would already be completely ecclesiastical and he would have me completely wanting to kiss his feet, yes, his footsteps; so much do these words please me. Cursed be he who does not trust with all his heart in the treasure of Christ's merits; as Jeremiah says 17:5: "Cursed

is the man who relies on men." This is exactly what I teach, write, think, shout and desire with all my might; and this, considered quite deeply, would not throw my reason over the heap, but would fortify it most powerfully.

But, since the wretched theologian understands these words of the remission of punishment, and insofar as that treasure is in the hand of the pope, he not only does not deeply consider the word of Christ, but completely nullifies it. For he wants man to trust in the remission of punishment and to subordinate the merits of Christ to this ungodly trust.

Therefore, to explain myself more clearly, imagine, dear one, if only for the sake of the game, that the merits of Christ are a treasure for the remission of punishments, so as not to deny it altogether obstinately. Nor do I say that the merit of Christ is incomparably more glorious when it works cross and suffering than when it remits; and I am compelled to make distinctions or yet to imagine them: The merit of Christ can come to us in three ways'.

First, that it is the epitome of our trust and the chief of righteousness, according to the saying of Paul 1 Cor. 1:30, "Who is made unto us of God unto righteousness," that is, who hath made his righteousness ours, even as he hath made our sins his own 1 Cor. 1:10.

Second, that this may be the cause for us to do likewise, that we also may do so for ourselves and for others. These are the works of Christ's merits. Of these two ways St. Augustine speaks in the third book "Of the Trinity", Cap. 4, that the life of Christ is both a sacrament and an example; a sacrament in the first way, in that he makes us righteous in spirit without us; an example, in that he exhorts us to do likewise in the flesh, and works with us.

Thirdly, that it the merit of Christ remits (as they call it) the remissions for sins. This third way, I say, is without canonical or ecclesiastical proof. If this were also the case, it would still be

582 L.v. ".i,4so-^s2. ' V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xviii, 84d-ssi. 583

less than the second, just as the second is less than the first. Yes, I do not see how this third way should be possible; that is why I wanted to dispute.

Corner. 24. obelisk.

Against Luther's 60th thesis.

"A clumsy and blind thesis. For who can say that treasure and key are one and the same thing, since the key is a suitable tool for unlocking the treasure? Yes, this rather gives a case against Luther. If Christ gave the keys to the church, ask him: To what end? What is dipser treasure? How is it to be opened by the keys? It is therefore the thesis a sword of Ajax and kills itself."

Luther:

You see how skilful and more sharp-sighted than even Argus this obelisk is. Didn't I say right at the beginning that Eck seemed to have made these obelisks in the carnival time at the sound of the cup? Or at least the one can serve Eck as a testimony that frenzy and reason cannot live in the same brain at the same time.

First, from Aristotle's Book of the First Analytica, he champions the proposition: the

Key is a tool for opening the treasure. I am surprised that he did not say: to open the treasure chest; since the chest must be something other than the treasure, then also the lock. And if you want to pursue the likeness or the image completely, then perhaps the entire household goods of the city of Rome must be brought here.

Then, puzzled by this sharp conclusion, he asks: How can a key open and be opened at the same time, if the key is also the treasure? The quite silly disputator! He hears that I deny the treasure; for I call that which is distributed (that is, the keys bestowed by Christ) the treasure, but he sets up as such that which is distributed by the keys, that is, he means that which is distributed by the pope, but I mean that which is distributed by Christ.

To the last: so he claims, this thesis is a sword of Ajax 2c Truly, a new Aristarchus, yes a new Homer! For who ever wrote that the sword of Ajax killed itself? and not rather that Ajax killed himself with the same? But one must credit his late Zechen somewhat. For he wanted to say, the thesis is a sword of Ajax, with which I killed myself, but not with which it killed itself, just as the sword of Ajax did not kill itself, but Ajax. Perhaps he has dreamed of that animal which ate itself, and instead of it he has fallen for the sword of Ajax.

Corner. 25. obelisk.

Against Luther's 62nd thesis.

"No one denies that the Gospel is a treasure that teaches and instructs us about what to believe. But that indulgences are given out of this treasure is downright ridiculous, since neither the pope who distributes it nor the practicing priest mentions it when absolving, nor has any of the teachers of the subject of indulgences ever sown such things, with the exception of this new prophet, who transcends the limits set by our fathers."

Luther:

Our fathers he calls, I think, Aristotle, Porphyrius and their followers, who are not new prophets; but more worthy than the old patriarchs, also than the apostles and (not to omit any honor) than the angels in heaven are those whom Eck may revere. For that here by him the church fathers cannot be meant, he must necessarily admit, although he is mad.

Then he spouts out in the same drunkenness that I claim that indulgences are given from the treasure of the gospel, which no healer of the same, he says, intends. I think this is too good for the Shrove Tuesday disputations; for if they were not, he would already have remembered from his own words above that I say indulgences are not given from the Gospel, but through the keys. For that these

584 L.v.".i,452f . 29. Luther's Asterisks Wider Eck's Obelisks. W. xviii, Wi-853. 585

The theologian understood above and it will become even clearer below that the theses I wrote are the treasure of indulgences and that this treasure is different from the treasure of the gospel. But the theologian wanted to have something ridiculous for the celebration of those days of wild lust, and since he found nothing else, he wrote in my theses.

Corner. 26. obelisk.

Against Luther's 67th thesis.

"A thesis full of poison, which may have come to light to excite sedition, not to increase the love of Christ. If Luther had been moved by godly love, he should not have raised such a thing before the simple-minded, who are easily annoyed anyway, but before those whom it concerns; and perhaps, who knows, whether God would not have given it prosperity and progress?"

Luther:

Thanks be to him finally once for his benevolent admonition, which, of course, is preceded by a rage. I ask: why doesn't the pope stir up an uproar and fill everything with venom, when in the 6th book of the Clementines, 5th Distinction, 1) he decrees most severely about the abuses of the indulgences, in so many words, since he does this with assertions and commands, which I touch upon with few words in dispute? Or is it possible that there are no indulgences that abuse their powers? or is it not even allowed to discuss those who abuse their powers? Or does Eck alone appear as the protector of all shameful deeds? Or is it not rather to fill everything with poison to resist those who punish vice, even the papal decrees? This is what a theologian teaches and does, if he can still be called a theologian who speaks such devilries with rage and snorting.

Then he says one thing with full justification, namely: I would have given the simple ones trouble. For since I did not state these theses in

  1. It should read: Olsw. 11d. V, tit. 9. Cf. the note to H 21 of Luther's "Freedom of the Sermon on Indulgences and Grace" above.

I have published my theses in the German language, distributed them no further than in our area, and sent them only to scholars and more educated friends, so I find none more simple-minded than "our fathers," "the old prophets," that is, our excellent scholastic Magistri nostri. But I have known these people's annoyance well in advance, and with knowledge and deliberation I have despised it not only in this but in all my other theses. Rightly, I say, he calls these "simple-minded"; for they are good for nothing but to be annoyed.

Corner. 27. obelisk.

Against Luther's 69th thesis.

"If this is true (the pope says that the treasure of indulgences is drawn from the merit of Christ), why did Luther contradict it above?"

Luther:

Must I, my dear Eck, appear to you as if I were about to tell you that the treasure of indulgences is the merits of Christ, because I advise that indulgences should be reverently allowed? Is it really one and the same thing to allow indulgences and to call indulgences the merits of Christ? Should not the decrees of excommunication and absolution, the ordinances, again the abrogations, declarations and dispensations of the pope be received reverently? and yet no one calls them merits of Christ. How do you dream that I contradicted myself according to your most logical reasoning, because I said above that indulgences are not merits of Christ, and here I say that they are to be admitted? Must I teach you your Petrus Hispanus, of the sentences in which the same expression is used in a twofold manner? But in which bull do you find that the pope says that indulgences are drawn from the merits of Christ, than in that extravagante of Clement V, of which I have spoken above and will speak more widely in his time?

Corner:

"Let all guilty punishment be remitted, says the pope; why then does it compel Luther

586 L. V. a. 1.453-^55, V. Luther's controversy with Eck. W. LVIII, 853-856. 587

merely on the punishments imposed at the discretion of the pope? So continue through all the above theses."

Luther:

Not the pope, but Eck says that all punishment should be remitted. Why I say this, however, I have already stated sufficiently in the previous: because I have not asked for the scholastic, but for the ecclesiastical teaching, not for the impudent interpreters of their superiors, but for the confirmed teachers of the church.

Corner. 28. obelisk.

Against Luther's 77th thesis.

"The thesis is false and detracts from the head of the church. If, however, he aims at the 'private persons' of Peter and the pope, the thesis is true; but if he means the papal painting, it is to be disregarded altogether."

Luther:

What am I hearing? So Peter and the Pope have no greater graces than indulgences? Perhaps the closer Eck comes to the end, the more freely he rages and the more venomously he speaks.

I defend this thesis in such a way (that you know it, Eck!) that if you should seriously contradict it, I will call you not a Bohemian heretic (for he admits all sacraments), but the common enemy of the whole church and prove you as such. What Christian anywhere could bear that the pope or St. Peter have no greater graces than indulgences? So the indulgence is more than baptism, confirmation, the Lord's Supper, the Gospel, the power to judge, and all that is greatest? In truth, then, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope to say that indulgences are the greatest of all graces.

If Eck did not have this opinion, he should have tempered his presumption beforehand, and should not have stated it so stormily, but theologically, even before he understood it himself. For I have set up this thesis against those who trumpet this indulgence in such a way that they dare to claim that the pope could not have a greater grace

and now Eck (as I see) has taken the opposite of this opinion of mine from it, by understanding nothing, while he understands too much.

Corner. 29. obelisk.

Against Luther's 81st thesis.

"On the other hand, the effect of this disputation and the presumptuous disregard of indulgences is that the clergy can be defended not merely (not) from the calumnies, but hardly from the swords of sophistical laymen."

Luther:

Like the previous one, also this obelisk has its value mostly, yes, completely from the flattery against the pope. For this is how the unlearned asses (I do not say scholastics) tend to argue, that they fight what they are not able to overthrow neither by scripture, nor by testimony, nor by reason, by flattery against the pope, without caring how true, but only how pleasing they speak, if only the, even if false, hope of victory smiles at them.

But this I hope, that our chatterer, even if it is only because of his scholastic theology, will grant me that indulgences are not meritorious, nor even necessary for salvation. But if this is so, I hope that I will be allowed to refrain from it, and that I will not be forced to redeem it; that therefore there will be no presumptuous disregard of it on my part, but that the mad and vituperative envy of Eck will declare freedom to be presumption. Yes, I say, moreover, even if the codrus bursts at this, 1) that I wanted there to be no indulgence anywhere; and I await the verdict of a not impudent interpreter, whether I am a heretic in such a way?

Furthermore, that he says that the clergy can hardly be defended from the swords of the laity is the second strength and a commonplace of all scholastic reasons. The clergy can be protected most easily, because Christ is with them. That

  1. According to Virgil's 7th Eclogue (v. 27), a proverbially used expression of an envious person. Kodrus was a bad poet, hostile to Virgil out of envy.

588 L V.". 1,4S5 f. 39. Luther's asterisks Wider Eck's obelisks. W. XVIII, 856-8S8. 589

But it is no wonder that the scholastics are in danger, since they are only safe under the leadership of Aristotle. Then they have nothing else in mind than tyranny; that is, that the theology, cast in new words, is not understood by the people, and then the trade in indulgences is hidden in such a way that they themselves do not know what it is worth, and are content with the fact that the people must not know this and must not ask us about it, lest the profit be reduced. An obvious proof of this is that so much effort and labor is expended in a matter that is neither necessary nor deserving, but absolutely nothing in a necessary one.

Corner. 30. obelisk.

Against Luther's 82nd thesis.

"To answer this question is quite easy; but the brevity of this writing, written in haste, does not permit it. But all these questions can be resolved sufficiently and according to the truth, and that by reasons and not by mere force, as the one supposes."

Luther:

They can be solved by reasons. Why then do the indulgenceists solve them by sheer force, who only drive at the trembling people with lightning and fire, if someone so much as mutters against such questions? I believe that they can be solved sufficiently, that is, scholastically, and not insolently, that is, one can babble words that no man understands. But about this more extensively in the "Explanations".

Corner. 31. obelisk.

Against Luther's 92nd thesis.

"Following Christ in tribulation is a matter for the perfect. But to pray for peace and tranquility, to strive for and seek them, this is what the Holy Scriptures loudly demand and teach. This also Christ taught, since we are to pray: Save us

from evil. I could prove this by a thousand scriptural sayings, if it were not witnessed many times everywhere in the Old Testament."

Luther:

For the corner is the tower of David, out of which hang a thousand shields of sayings, not against war, but for peace. So then, let the cross come to an end and let no one suffer anything, but in peace and good pleasure, that is, through the remission of punishments, let us enter safely into the kingdom of heaven. It would perhaps be better for God to become a liar, since He said Revelation 3:19, "Whom I love I chasten," than for our Aristotelian fathers not to remain within the limits they set for us.

I am ashamed of such silly and stupid talk. Eck is a theologian and yet he is diligent not to know that the peace of Christians is the glory of a good conscience, which no indulgence can give, but the remission of guilt through grace. But external peace, as well as that which indulgences give, is death and the letter that kills. Our very astute obelisk writer alone dreams of external persecutions. But with this I want to make the end of my conversation with the presumptuous, ignorant, inexperienced, that is, scholastic theologian.

Anno 1518, August 10. 1)

  1. This date is incorrect and should probably read: March 23. Cf. the note to the heading.

The following writings also belong here:

Eck's letter of apology because of the obelisks of Carlstadt of May 28, 1518, which is included: Walch, alte Ausgabe, Vol. XV, 957.

Luther's letter that Eck's statement satisfied him to Christoph Scheuel at Nuremberg, June 15, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 596.

590 Löscher, R.-A. n, 78 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm. 656-658. 591

30. of Andreas Carlstadt, Doctor and Archidiaconus at Wittenberg, 405 sentences of defense for the Holy Scriptures and for the Wittenbergers,

placed in such a way that they could also be useful to the readers)

**Completed the s. of May, printed at the beginning of July 1518. )

Translated from Latin.

If a child teaches me right, I will recant.

Dr. Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt, together with some respondents to be named below, will present the following 370 theses against those who, under the name and pretence of the Wittenbergers (whom they evidently intend and especially endeavor to wound with terrible wounds), seek to overturn the holy Scriptures and speak of them according to their will, and judge them either according to Aristotle's metaphysics, or dialectics, or according to another unbeliever's fiction, or according to their conceit, as if they had been given the power by God to explain the holy Scriptures according to their own liking, interpreting neither the dark Scriptures by the clear, nor the testifying law by the testifying Christ, maintain and defend this summer, if it should be demanded either by a theological circle (as they say), or by some righteous lover of truth, and, if you will, also by a trafficer and enemy, on the battlefield of disputation, especially against Dr. Eck, who is otherwise very learned, who made friends with the Wittenbergers of his own free will, but who also maintained the same afterward, without a warning because of a prior

He had the audacity to blacken the name of an excellent member of this university and to wound him in such a way that through the wounds he inflicted (notice it well, you Wittenbergers and you dear successors of theology) this entire scholarly society at Wittenberg appears as a declining one, but especially the theological faculty as shattered, yes, bloodthirsty and even shattered and saddened. Finally, this was not enough for him, but he also flattered the Roman pope and the bishops, so that some were corrupted by his flattery, to whom he did not show God's word, but rather gave the thoughts of his heart. 1) He has also antagonized other high people (praepositos) of the church against the theologians of this famous university.

  1. This refers mainly to Gabriel von Eyb, bishop of Eichstädt, who was initially inclined to Luther's teaching, but was turned away by Eck. On the other hand, Eck says in his Dokonsio contra arnarnlontas Xnärono Loäsnstsin (this is the title in Wiedemann, ,,Eck", p. 490), that he was asked by the bishop to write notes (the obelisks) against Luther's theses and sent them to him, and that he did not spread them further, but that they finally came to Wittenberg.

*) In the original print only 370 theses are given, but in reality there are 379 except for an appendix of 26 sentences, so in total 405 theses, as em later print, where they are connected with Carlstadt's DotonÄo aävorsus Dckü mononmcüiaw and his Lpitomo äs impii justiücntlono, counts correctly. They are found in Latin in Löscher's Reformation Acta, Vol. II, pp. 78-104 and in part (109 theses) in a treatise published by Carlstadt (for the disputation of Bartholomäus Bernhardt pro kormatura, i. e. for the third academic degree in theology, on July 7), in Löscher, Vol. II, pp. 66-77. Of these 109 theses, an offprint appeared at Basel under the title: Oontra D. ^onnnom Lckiurn InSolästnäionsom. D. ^näroas Loäonstoin ^rcüiäiaconi ^VittendorMnÄK apoIoMticao xropositionos, pro Rovoronäo patro D. Llartino Dutimr. Lx 'WittondorAk. VII. äio monÄs 3uIH. ^nno Domini 1518. From this the text with somewhat improved Latin has flowed into the Basel collection of Luther's writings and is also found in later editions, as well as in LI. Dutüorii luoubrntionum pars uns, Lasilono in aoäibus Dotri 1520. ÄIon86 4u1io. p. 138-145. Our translation is made after Löscher, with comparison of the latter Basel edition.

**Individual sections were printed earlier; in the form reported here, however, only after July 7, 1518, as we can conclude from what was said after the 212th thesis.

592 Löscher, R.-A. II, 79 f. 30. Carlstadt's Vertheidigungssätze für die h. Schrift. W. xvm, 658-660. 593

to make up for it. Therefore, we have taken this matter (provinciam) upon ourselves in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both to defend the Holy Scriptures and to protect our good reputation.

Mr. Nicasius Claji from Herzberg, Master of Philosophy, will be a responder to become Baccalaureus of Theology, along with others.

  1. the text of the Bible quoted by a church teacher is more valid and has stronger probative force than a saying of the one who quotes it,
  2. since this depends on that and is inferred from it.
  3. the sentence (praejecta) that has just been uttered contains truth to such an extent that the teacher's statement must be understood according to the text.

And the sentence (autoritas) must again be understood boldly and from it also the teacher's conclusion must be either proven or rejected.

If the readers or listeners of Augustine pay attention to this, they will see that Christ shines forth in all of Augustine's writings.

If the invalid (non authenticus) Gratian 1) had taken this into account, the Decretals would have less difficulty and they would be theologically more palatable.

If you keep the content of the first thesis and consider it well, the reading of Jerome will be more sweet.

In some volumes of the second part, however, Ambrose is understood differently than his intention and clumsily, if one does not also take the proofs (documenta) from his other parts,

  1. And he does not let the power of Christ be noted at all,
  2. although it is rightly considered that he is admirable in his allusions (allusionibus).

11 Our disputation field does not allow us to disputate about Cyprian, Cassianus, Gregory and Bernard.

  1. the text of the Bible is preferred not only to one or more teachers of the Church, but also to the prestige of the whole Church, according to the saying of Augustine "about the baptism Wider the
  1. The Camaldolese Gratian had organized around 1143 a new collection of papal canon law, which was compiled from older pieces of canon law, the newer pseudoisidoric decrees and later ones.

Donatus", book 2, cap. 3, which is transferred to the Cap. quis nesciat; dist. 9, arg. cap. Sunt quidam unb cap. Violatores XXV, qu. 1, and according to Augustine's saying in the 48th letter, which is cited in the cap. noli frater, 9. dist., and that he wrote in the 19th letter and it is taken over by Gratian into the cap. ego solis; from it (e. q. == ex quo) by Gerson de exam. doct. , 5. consideration.

  1. when the church is understood as the congregation or assembly of all believers,
  2. The preceding sentence has such force that the statement of a teacher, which is supported by a canonical sentence, must be believed more than a declaration of the pope. Gerson de exam. doct., 1st part, 5th consideration.

(15) I do not believe this to be true unless the Roman Pontiff is stripped of all prestige and is barren.

16 However, Gerson, since he does not mention Matthew de Methaselanis, even though he taught the same thing earlier in other terms, and whose example he also followed, seems to have kept silent about him in an unreasonable manner (turpiter).

17 But the same Gerson taught rightly (bene), but again badly concealed whom he followed in that a man who is well versed in the holy scriptures and relies on their testimony is to be believed more than a general concilium.

18 He restricts this in such a way: if the council should deviate from the evangelical testimony out of malice (this is to be noted) or out of ignorance.

19 This is nicely concluded from his sixth observation and from the first of the second part, namely, that the holy scripture can neither lead astray nor err. To this, take what Augustine says de pecc. mer, Book 1, Cap. 21 says.

(20) But a general conciliar, according to Gerson, both from malice and ignorance, can mislead and err.

(21) Yes, according to the teachers of canon law, the church mostly errs when taken in the way stated above 13th thesis, and misleads because it sometimes follows an opinion. De sen. excom. cap. A nobis II, where the text and the teachers, those who write and those who refer to others (remittentes) testify to this.

Who dares to deny this after the theologians? as we will show below.

  1. the preceding theses are true if

594 Löscher, R.-A. II, 80-82. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 660-662. 595

the teacher's statement is aided by a testimony of the holy scripture (testimonium sanctum) according to its literal meaning,

  1. or the circumstances (circumstantiae) of Scripture provide and give strong evidence for the view (intellectu) of the author, so that this text cannot be contradicted. I have already quoted this from St. Augustine in the proof of the previous theses, although I originally followed M. de Methaselanis in his treatise äs slsst. opi. sol. I and other teachers after him.

25 Against Gerson, we deny that this is the literal mind, which infers from the intention and circumstances of the writer. Gerson in the same treatise, 6th consideration.

26 Neither do we admit that this is the literal sense, which is strictly logical, nor has the art of reasoning (dialectica) taught the letters.

27 But this is what we call the literal sense, which is taken according to the word or the meaning of the word; according to Augustine de utilitate credendi, cap. III, coi. Si junct., cap. VII de princi. diale.

28 "Reading" (Iegi) is to be understood in such a way that it is not only understood, but also perceived with the eyes what is written. Thus Ulpian. Casually also Joh. Crot. according to ancient scribes,

29 And these have taught better and more like Augustine than Gerson.

30 But what is inferred from the circumstances, or from the intention of the writer, is understood from the outside, that is, outside the letter, which Ulpian says and is according to the truth.

The same, it is said, takes place in relation to a mind that lies in it (subaudito) or a mind that comes to it from outside (extraneo), and to that which is derived from a conjecture (conjectura). The same Crot, according to Lur. and Augustin.

According to Augustine, truth presents itself in the highest degree when we hold (sentimus) what he holds whom we read 2c To agree is to agree with the intention. De utilitate credendi cap. V.

This type is very rare when we are dealing with very dark things. Augustine, as above.

34 We cannot know this clearly, but only believe it; the same. So the intention cannot be inferred from the letters if it is not read in the words. Augustine ad Simp. lib. I, qu. II, inductio difficilis.

But that in a theological way and according to Augustine the sense which can be taken is not the literal one, for this note Augustine's words: By what reasons, he says, can I so take the will of an absent or dead person that I could swear by it?

36 Neither does it mean an expressed thing, which is concluded from the sense of the scriptures.

(37) Behold, what a beautiful correspondence there is between the proofs of theology and those of jurisprudence. And you should know that such a way of reasoning can greatly benefit a theologian.

The foregoing serves that he should be punished or cautioned as an enemy of the Church who builds up such things from a dark thing, tearing down something quite true and quite known. Augustine, two letters sa Lon. 6on., Book 3, Cap. 81. I have written all this abundantly in the proofs of others and of the preceding propositions, which I have brought from ecclesiastical scholars and jurists.

(39) From all the foregoing it is concluded that one must adhere more or rather to the one who has a testimony according to the letter than to the one who has one that can be taken, or according to the sense.

40 Secondly, it is concluded that he who has a testimony according to the letter is to be preferred to him who has a testimony from the opposite sense.

Thirdly, that a ground of proof taken from the opposite sense is not something expressed, but is based on a kind of inference, and can be inferred from the circumstances.

(42) If a sense that can be taken contradicts an expressed testimony, we do not attach it to that, but to this, to someone who only ever uses it.

The reason of proof, which is taken from the opposite sense, is permissible in theology, if only the Scripture is not mastered thereby and inconsistency is avoided.

äs sorrsp. st Arstia, ssp. XIII, L.

But it is not very strong, since it is a kind of silent, external, derived (subauditus) understanding. Nevertheless, it concludes with necessity, as is evident from the Collect on the 5th Sunday after Easter: God, from whom all good things come.

  1. a stronger ground of proof is that which can be read (legibile), or from the letter (literale), or is after the letter

596 Löscher, R.-A. II, 82-84. 30. Carlstadt's defense theorems for h. Scripture. W. XVIII, 662-664. 597

(aä litsram). ArZ. AuZ. äs psss. msi., lib. I, SAP. XXXV, where he attaches much to the clear evidence of things.

46 But it is nice to have an abundance of reasons, both literal and those that can be taken away.

47 For what the Scripture hides in one place, it reveals or shows in another.

48 For example, with this literal and clear passage of Ecclesiastes V, 21: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin," which apparently sets up sin in a good work,

  1. This Gen. 3, 17. 18. is true: If you cultivate the field, "it shall bear thee thorns and thistles" according to Cassian and Bernard, notwithstanding the distinction of Ambrose, although it seems true.
  2. likewise these Jos. 16:10., "There hath the Cananite dwelt in the midst of Ephraim, and is interest-bearing unto this day."

According to Gregory, the Cananite denotes some vices that the righteous retains while performing high deeds. [On Job, Book 3, Cap. 25.

52 The same Canaanite becomes interestable to the righteous, because they cannot subjugate him, but they urge him to the use of humility, that thereby the mind may be held low in high things.

(53) Therefore, he becomes interest-bearing because he gives interest or tax to the righteous, reminding him of his weakness and making him mindful of his dangers,

  1. That he may do good works in fear and trembling and humility. Augustine says this beautifully in sontra aul. lib. IV, sap. II, col. psn. and sap. Ill, H.; äs na. st era. sap. XXVII, with other. What we have attracted and what after him Gregory says.
  1. From what has just been said, it is concluded, first, that vice, that is, sin, is in the midst of Ephraim, that is, in the righteous one who bears fruit and in righteous works;
  1. Secondly, since the land, which is man, is cultivated with good works, that the good works, or the righteous man himself, be as a lily among thorns, according to Bernard;
  2. Third, that temptations arise which stain the center and sides of good works, or darken them with vices.
  3. Because of this fault, no living person is justified before God, and even daily we ask that our guilt, that is, our sin, be forgiven us.

(59) Because of this fault, the servants of God accuse themselves of being useless servants when they have done everything,

  1. Also want to be chastened with Jeremiah by God, who has mercy on those who fear him, as a father has mercy on his children.

(61) Therefore, as long as we adhere to God in faith and love in One Spirit, we do not sin, but do well.

In so far as in the same action we are assailed by repulsions, desires, darkness, and bring with them difficulties and weariness, or even excessive joy, we sin. Augustin äs x>6. nasäi. sup. II, with what we have already put on, adding what he has taught de perfect, justi.

63 Or in this way: if God creates the will and the work in us, we do not sin; but if we do our part, we lack and sin, according to the saying: whoever does good on earth sins 2c Eccl. 7:21.

64 Therefore, the sighing Church asks that by pursuing righteousness she may abstain from guilt on the Monday after the 2nd Sunday and on the Saturday before the 4th Sunday in Lent.

(65) If she keeps herself from sin by doing righteousness, why does she ask to be free from guilt, saying, "Forgive us our trespasses?

  1. to this belongs also this, Ps. 80, 5: "Lord God, how long wilt thou be angry at the prayer of thy servant?" Vulgate.

67 There is no contradiction to what Augustine wrote against Julian in Book 6, Cap. 5, that grace completely renews man.

To return to the 12th thesis, this already well-known saying of Augustine is countered: I would not believe the Gospel if I were not moved by the reputation of the Church. Augustin contra epistolaru lunäurusuti, sap. V.

69 Gerson responds to this, and badly, by saying that Augustine understood by "church" the first assembly of believers who saw and heard Christ, Gerson, de vita spirlt. anlnius, lest. II, vor. VII, shall II. inü. and the Wider vurauäuin.

70 Because Augustine says: I have believed the gospel, since it is preached or taught by orthodox believers.

Scotus seems to have spoken better than Gerson (in q. XIV, r^. I, soll III) of the faith that is attained by hearing,

  1. Although we doubt and deny that its foundation is to be believed.

598 Löscher, R.-A. II, 84-86. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 664-667. 599

The one who says, "It must not be concluded from this that the Church has greater prestige than Christ, but if the Church did not approve, we would not have the certainty that the sayings of the New and Old Testaments were brought forward by Christ or contained in the Old Testament. Oaräina. ^lsxÄnäri. sontra I. 1.

74 Augustine says that he believed the gospel through the orthodox, which Gerson did not observe,

  1. Who says in the same passage that if the reputation of the gospel is weakened, the reputation of the church is also weakened. Augustin oontra spistolLm kunäumsuti, äio., 6LP. V.

The same says against the same letter: if someone believes the gospel, he must also believe the prophetic and apostolic testimonies, because the reputation of the church recommends both Scriptures equally.

The actual meaning or the wording must always be adhered to in the sacred Scriptures. 1) Augustin äs spiritu st litsra, oap. II.

78 This is restricted or limited: unless someone can prove that the words could be understood differently than they read.

But this no one will prove by a simple denial, or by ignorance, or, what is worse, by a useless obstinacy, but by the proof of the inconsistency or the figurative speech. From the Sermon on the Mount, book 1, h and äs spiritu st litsra, oap. IV.

The thesis of the actual meaning of the words is to be extended to the fact that when the Scripture speaks of "fire", an active, warming, burning fire must be understood, not a painted one, not a dead one.

(81) When the Scripture speaks of punishments, it is not necessary to understand an alchemical one in the first degree, or one that is warm in the second degree; so it must be said of other expressions,

  1. Because according to the alchemists (if they speak true) fire does not hurt the one who touches it in the first degree, but heals a sick person in the second degree.

After it has been proven that something is contained in the wording, it is also immediately proven that this something is contained in the wording according to its quality, power and effect.

  1. Löscher: Would GOlt that Carlstadt had considered this six years later, when he deviated from the actual meaning of the words in the institution of Holy Communion with presumptuous audacity!

The first thing to be said is that the things designated by the words are understood therein.

  1. for example, of the children who die in original sin it is said that they go into the eternal fire; if this is true, as it -is- quite true, it follows that they suffer the properties of fire, that is, the chastisement of fire, and eternal, if it is an eternal one,
  2. Unless someone could show us a text where we would like to read that the judge will say to those on the left, "Go, you adults, into the fire, but you children shall be deprived of the sight of God for eternity. But this we do not read and see, therefore we do not depart from the letter of the gospel.

(86) If anyone should make the vain claim that they are kept in the fire but not burned, claiming a miracle, he must be rejected as a violator of the words of God.

    1. It is ridiculous to proceed miracles without sacred testimonies and not to prove them. ZIo. in s. surn sx injunsto äs dsrs.

Gerson says: "Every revelation is suspect, which is not confirmed by the law or the gospel. Os sxruni. äooU, 2nd part, 1st consideration, Msra s.

89 And there are no examples to be added to the words (which are foreign to the present question and do not belong to it).

  1. the rules of the sacred Scripture must be universally understood and no one must be exempted from them when it speaks universally and without distinction,
  2. Unless it can be proven by the testimony of this Scripture that someone or some people are not covered by this rule.

(92) An example of this rule or decree is that it will be said to those who are on the left: Go into the eternal fire.

Those who contradict the Scriptures, either by understanding them to punish some vice or by not understanding them as if they were wiser and could see better, sin mortally and are ungodly. Os Aoot. slirist, 2nd book, 7th cap.

94 And there is no need to dispute whether it is true or right, which is certain that it is written in it.

  1. In Latin, the number 87 is skipped here in the counting and therefore the number is one greater than the numbers we set, until thesis IM (inol.).

600 Löscher, R.-A. II, 86.66 f. 30. Carlstadt's defense theorems for h. Scripture. W. XVIII, 667-669. 601

Rather, everyone is guilty of thinking and believing that what is written there is better and truer, even though it is darker than what we can see of ourselves.

If the reputation of God did not help the holy Scriptures, it would be sufficient for the conviction and defense of the church that the Scriptures had once been accepted and approved by it.

  1. ambiguous testimonies do not resolve a question, or so: no one will explain ambiguous words with ambiguous words. Augustin äs nnim. st 6M8 oriZ. üb. I, eap. XVIII, and Us prino. äiawot.

For refutation or proof, certain testimonies are to be sought, not ambiguous ones. Augustin äs anim. st 6M8 oriK. lib. II, oap. XIV sä P6.

  1. Although something concealed or hidden in Scripture is not denied, it is not necessarily affirmed either.

In the Scriptures, not only the words that can be inflected (i.e., declinatured or conjugated) are to be considered, but also the others, and everything that is written must be considered.

Although 1) several other related propositions (connexiones) could be appropriately added to the preceding ones, which could give those who are interested in theology cause and opportunity to study, and serve them more than the art of reason (logica), they are rightly followed by the examination of the propositions, which the excellent Herr Eck has not at all excellently directed against the Wittenbergers, and that in a boastful manner and with all too great arrogance. 2)

  1. Instead of et si, etsi will probably be read.
  2. The theses just communicated were already publicly posted in Wittenberg on May 9, 1318, the Sunday Rogate, but the following three sections, which contain 40, 51 and 18 theses, thus 109 theses in total, were not printed in their entirety until July 7, as is stated in the first printing. (Löscher, Reformation-Acta, Vol. II, W. ) Only these 109 theses are also found in the Basel collections, to which the three sentences taken from Luther's Theses on Indulgences were added when counting the theses in the complete edition of these theses, which Löscher mentions, loc. cit. p. 77, since the first section closes with 101, but the fifth section begins with 214. In order to avoid confusion, we leave the following 109 theses in the counting as it is found in Löscher and Walch, and resume the continuous counting only at the 213th (not 214th because of omission of the number 87) thesis.

To the reader. 3)

The theses of the venerable father D. Martin Luther on the power of indulgences, which he plucked from the midst of the Scriptures, Eck dared to gnaw with sophistical teeth, relying too much on the opinions of Scotus, Capreolus, Durandus, Alphonsus, Gabriel and other new teachers. But the venerable father Martin Luther, as it is called, deserves the palm of victory (aureolum), because he was the first to so astutely overthrow the abuse of indulgences, to which so many thousands of theologians have been silent for so many years.

What a knavery it is to ape the Christian people, for whom Christ died, so brazenly with these things, which are found to have no foundation at all, neither in the Gospels, nor in Paul, nor in Origen, nor in Jerome, nor in Ambrose, nor in Augustine, nor in Hilarius, nor in Cyprian, nor in other ancients. They are opinions (they say) of theologians, but of the more recent ones. After all. But opinions should remain opinions, and be nothing else than opinions, but not burdens of Christians. Let us not make the opinions of new theologians into articles of faith equal to the precepts of Christ and Paul. And let the theologians finally be ashamed of such a word, as very learned people sometimes chatter in secret to their friends: "I would speak like this in the schools, but (it must remain between us) I think differently. Likewise, "We say this in the schools, but it cannot be proved from the Scriptures. Rather, if they want to teach something, they should not immediately force the people with threats, otherwise the situation of the Christians would be a miserable one, but they should present testimonies from the sources without forced and self-invented explanations, and then they should be believed. This was not done by the Master of the Holy Palace, brother Silvester Prieras (sic!), who recently answered Martin Luther, but in such a way that he provoked theologians and non-theologians to laughter with his church according to the essence, according to the power, and according to the representation.

Now since the laymen, as the world here and there comes to their senses again, do not learn both from the books they read, and better than we do, from the books we read.

  1. In the complete edition of Carlstadt's theses, this preface is missing, which can be found in the individual editions (Löscher, Ref.-Acta, vol. 2, 87.).

602 Löscher, R.-A. II, 67 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 669-671. 603

Theologians, but by their keen intellect, daily find fault with many things in Christianity which they believe to be otherwise, what should we do, who stand high above the rabble? (a vulgo longe lateque remotos). For the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, open your eyes, you theologians! Leave your scholastic opinions, leave the childish disputes, and go to the source of the Holy Scripture itself. Let it be believed that this is said for admonition, and certainly not written without the tears and sighs of good men who sigh over the proud obstinacy and stubborn pride of certain people. Christ is witness to this, blessed be He for ever and ever. Amen, amen.

Against the theologian D. Johann Eck

the venerable Father Doctor Martin Luther, in his disputation explaining the power of indulgences, put this forward as the first thesis:

Since our Master and Lord Jesus Christ says: Repent 2c, he wants the whole life of his believers on earth to be a constant and unceasing repentance.

Eck 1) disputes this as follows:

Since the kingdom of heaven in Christ's words seems to denote the present church and the time of the evangelical fulfillment that appeared then, it is impossible to see how repentance could express the whole life of believers.

The D. Andreas Bodenstein, Archdeacon at Wittenberg, Defence sentences for the venerable father D. Martin Luther.

The first sentence of Eck against the Wittenbergers is basically this: The contending church (for which the time of evangelical fulfillment has come, because it is the assembly of all believers, among whom there are many righteous) does not seem to need repentance.

  1. Eck does not understand that the church sighs, he denies what the church confesses, and shamefully does not know the prayers that are going on in her,
  2. for the Church, in the annual observance of Lent, professes to be purified (on the 1st Sunday in Lent), and, saying.
  1. In the 2nd movement of the obelisks.

is afflicted in all its members (universaliter coacta): We sinners beseech thee 2c

(3) But since Eck abolishes the repentance of the church, he denies its cleansing, which it confesses, lest it be judged by the Lord.

The Church prays (on Friday 2) before) that God's people be cleansed from all sins, which are words of a penitent, Ps. 51. So also the Church prays (on Friday after the 2nd Sunday): since holy fasting cleanses us. Likewise (on Wednesday after the same Sunday): Let us abstain from harmful vices.

  1. it also says (on the first Sunday in Huin.): GOD, who is offended by guilt and reconciled by repentance 2c And: Turn away the scourges we deserve. It is not said that we deserve, but that we deserve. Likewise, note: you are reconciled by repentance.

6 And in another collecte: Spare, O Lord, spare your people, that they, chastened with deserved punishment, may rest in your mercy.

Does not the church or God's people (not the devil's) pray to be chastened, as Jeremiah says? Let Eck judge whether this is not repentance.

  1. The Church asks the same thing among the intercessions in the Collecte: God, who smites our debts with merciful rod 2c
  2. See, Eck, the prayer (collectam) which the Church does, asking to be saved by God's assistance from the impending dangers of her sins (on Monday after the 3rd Sunday and on the 2nd Sunday in Lent);
  1. for she asks that from the people of God the scourges of divine wrath be turned away (on the 2nd Sunday in Lent). But perhaps Eck without books 3) i.e., according to his head will easily answer: the Church asks to be freed from future (imminentibus) sins, not from those that are in her, but from those that are imminent (as the Scotists used to answer the Thomists, that Christ was the Redeemer of the Blessed Virgin, and not evil, because through him she was saved from original sin).
  2. but in order that the evasions be enclosed with a firm fence, we set him these collecte
  1. I'sria 66xts is Friday. Here and in the following time determinations, in which a day of the week is given, a wrong day is given in the old Walch edition, because wr. I. was regarded as Monday instead of Sunday 2c
  2. This refers to Eck's "third" sentence in the obelisks: "without the aid of books."

604 Löscher, R.-A. II, 68-70. 30. Carlstadt's defense of the Scriptures. W. XVIII, 671-673. 605

against: We beseech thee, O Lord, purify the hearts of thy faithful, that, being purified from earthly lusts, they may not cleave to this life 2c (on Thursday after the 3rd Sunday in Lent). In addition, take another collecte of the same day, in which she asks that the holy devotion create purification.

From this prayer, taken according to the letter, we see that the Church asks that the hearts of the faithful of God be purified, of which no one dares to say that this is spoken for the sake of humility, if he is not to meet the ban (äs Loolss. äo§. oup. XXXV together with oux. XXXVI and XXXVII).

(13) Which of God's faithful does he presume to understand as the righteous, who also live by faith?

14 Secondly, it is clear from the letter that the church asks that believers, that is, the righteous, also be cleansed from earthly lust, so they have impurity that must be cleansed.

(15) I ask Eck what the church is asking for but that the righteous may be cleansed from that building by which the righteous build upon the faith of Christ wood, hay and stubble 1 Cor. 3:12,

  1. Who shall not perish, but be saved by fire; of which there is a different interpretation in Augustine and Gregory.
  2. build those who are in carnal inclination with regard to the temporal 2c (As Augustin says lib. suob. oux. UVII, äs ooto äuloi. [uusstion. H. 1. ä.)
  3. the church asks that its holy members be purified from the earthly evil lust, so that the ever-emerging filth may be destroyed.
  4. what did she fear who said to the bridegroom knocking, "I have washed my feet, how shall I defile them again?" Hohel. 5, 3.

The church asks what Christ promised that the heavenly Father would do, namely, that He would cleanse the branches so that they would bear fruit John 15:2.

(21) Since we are all deficient in many things, the church prays to be cleansed from offense and guilt, and repents.

She asks that the hearts of believers be purified, because all believers still have the old life of sin, which is renewed in the inner man from day to day. (See Augustine äs psoo. nasr. lib. II, oap. 6.)

  1. she asks what the apostolic commandments require, that she may be renewed in the spirit of her mind and put on the new man.

(24) It is a good penance to confess sins and infirmities and ask the physician for healing.

  1. alms, fasting and prayer are remedies for venial sins (I have sufficiently proved this in the previous theses from testimonies of Augustine). -

26 Although the time of evangelical fulfillment has come for the church,

  1. Yet the whole church, as long as it contends, is in need of daily repentance, (vs xosu. msä. bomil. II in from Augustine's ässiä. uck

p666. oup. XU, äs psrlset. just. ^rAUnwnto ^u§. äiot. H^po. lib. IV; oontra Julian, oup. I.)

28 It is called the contending church because it is always rebellious and contested in every good work by vices and evil desire (according to what Augustin lib. IV and oontra Julian, lib. Ill, vap. II elaborates).

(29) While the righteous man contends valiantly, fatigue sets in, diminishing and tainting the giver's cheerfulness.

Blessed is he who strikes his children on a stone, not a criminal.

This is why love can grow in this life, and what is lacking in this growth is lacking through our fault.

This guilt is sin, which the holy church expiates by daily confession, not by unfruitful confession. (Augustin äs ssu. lluoobi and lüxist. I^IV.)

(33) This is the guilt of those who need footwashing.

  1. the same are good and evil children of god, for whenever the righteous does good, he sins, and he is both good and evil.

Yes, no one repents before God but the righteous. (Augustin äs üäs aä; Hisron. in llsrsmium.)

(36) Note that the righteous fall seven times a day, but do not perish, because the Lord puts His hand under them; according to Cassianus, it is clear that the faithful righteous fall.

(37) To these righteous ones the Lord puts his hand under; and therefore he does not impute sins to them, because they recognize their sins, beat their breast 1) and remit their guilt to the guilty.

  1. the biting people, who, under the name of
  1. Latin: temur hip.

606 Löscher, R.-A. II, 70-72. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 673-67S. 607

  1. reproach the word "imputes" as an unseemly or improper one, mock the Scriptures and bark at the Doctors of the Church, but why? because they do not want to learn and understand that they want to speak rightly.

(39) Those who want to be incorporated into the church repent, and those who are truly incorporated into it repent.

But let Eck also not seek a remedy from the apostolic Scriptures, by which the church is praised as "holy, without spot or blemish" Eph. 5:27, lest, where this passage is poorly understood, he also tear up and destroy the other passages of Scripture, as Faustus did the law of Moses. For what Augustin says against Julian in the 4th book, Cap. 3, does not contradict what Augustine says against Julian.

Second thesis of the venerable Father Doctor Martin Luther from the words of the Gospel.

The word "penance" cannot and may not be understood from the Sacrament of Penance, that is, from the confession and satisfaction practiced by the priest's office.

Eck 2) disputes this as follows:

Christ and all Christians have taught that inner repentance is great, since God 3) looks at the heart and the will. This is shown by the widow, who put only two mites into God's box, and paid more than all, as Christ testifies. For the will is in the soul, like a king in his kingdom.

The D. Andreas Bodenstein, Archidiaconus at Wittenberg, Defence Sentence for the Venerable Father D. Martin Luther.

(1) But since Eck, in the second sentence against us, has made inner repentance great, because he says that the will is the king of his actions, he shows that he either does not know the Scriptures or evidently contradicts them.

(2) For our will is not king and lord of the works which God hath ordained to be of the will: except it were lawful to will with the valiant hero Eck.

  1. By M. and A. are to be understood Martin Luther and Andreas Carlstadt. The meaning of this thesis is: Allegedly the opponents blame M. and A., but in fact they mock the holy scripture with their blame.
  2. In the 1st obelisk.
  3. In the obelisks: Christ.

(Augustine, 107th Epistle.) The promise of security is contrary to the testimonies of the prophets and apostles. (Augustine, 107th Epistle.)

  1. Eck also shows that he does not know that repentance is a gift of God, which God works in us.

4 I think that D. Eck is sufficiently refuted by this scripture, which is written in Jeremiah Jer. 31, 18: "Convert me, O Lord, and I will be converted; for you, O Lord, are my God. When I was converted, 4) I repented, and after I was wrought, I smote myself on the hip. "2c He read this passage and saw how he was put to shame, according to Jerome's interpretation. Of Ambrose and some others we are silent, not without good cause.

5 You have stirred up and confused the land: restore to it the right repentance, because it is stirred up. God moves the will and repentance occurs.

  1. learn also from this Jeremiah, who teaches that the Lord brings about our conversion, that the Lord gives repentance; he acknowledges the prayer which he knows: give us due weeping for the evil we have done. (On the Saturday before the 4th Sunday in Lent).
  1. But since the letter does not say: You have given, but: You have converted 2c, and it is to be feared that he who 5) was inclined to call the M., whom he did not understand, a heretic, would also slander this, so read the apostle 2 Tim. 2, 25.: "whether God would give them repentance in time to come and they would sober up from the devil's snare." Be careful, he says: "give"; read Augustine (äs üä. uä kst. sap. XXXI).
  1. the will is master and king of its actions, of all its actions, namely the evil ones.
  2. when the will reigns in the soul, the devil laughs and rejoices because a prey is prepared for him.

God loves in us what he himself has made, but what he himself has not made he hates. Ambrose (äs vo. om. Äsn. lib. I, sap. II) proves this in the prayer, 6) which is read before others: Let yourself be guided, let yourself be sanctified 2c (also on the Saturday before the 4th Sunday in Lent). And on Easter: God, who through the only begotten 2c,

  1. by the saying Matth. 15, 13.: "All plants, which my heavenly Father has not planted, will be cut out", and it serves well for the cause.
  1. In the Vulgate: "because after you converted me." The following 7th thesis comes back from these words.
  2. Instead of Husrn, which is written in Latin, Hui would be read. The old edition of Walch makes the remark: "In Latin it is confus.
  3. We read ooUssta with eraser, not eolIsstain as the Basel edition has.

608 Löscher, R.-A. II, 72 f. 30. Carlstadt's Vertheidigungssätze für die h. Schrift. W. XVIII, 675-677. 609

12 His mercy, of course, is above all his works, not our changing will; if he is not governed by the unchanging will, then the more eager he is to act, the more he approaches ungodliness, remember that, Eck.

Note the benefits and dangers of governing the will and governing the soul.

  1. To speak generally, God is the Lord and King in our souls.
  2. everything of ours that God has not made ours is evil and sin (according to Augustine and others whose testimonies we have cited in the earlier theses).

(16) Israel, thou hast brought evil upon thyself: for thy salvation is with me alone. [From us comes calamity, from God comes help and good and salvation. If a salutary repentance is from us, that is, from our will, it must be false, for from us comes misfortune.

(17) "All our righteousness," that is, that which is of our will, "is like the garment of an unclean woman. [The Thomists say of this saying that it is spoken of the righteousness of the sacramental law 1) and cannot be understood of any other written law.

But consider how glorious is the work that the will does when it reigns in the soul.

(19) If with God the Lord is our righteousness, but with us is the shame of our countenance, that is, if we have shame, but God works righteousness, what shall we say of repentance when it comes from our will?

  1. but Eck may understand to base his prayer on his righteousness (prosternere), and not on the mercy of God; and to have his righteousness, not that of God.
  2. Jeremiah 9, 24. says: "God practices mercy on earth", and another prophet says: You are my mercy. Dan. 9, 9.
  3. this Eck, if he is not mad, cannot understand otherwise than from the mercy with which GOD is merciful, but from the mercy by which we become merciful by effect of GOD; GOD is our mercy and is so called,
  4. According to this word of David, Make me alive according to thy great mercy, and I will keep the testimonies of thy mouth.
  5. the works of mercy, and those alone, God crowns out of mercy and compassion, for
  1. This probably refers to the penances imposed in the Roman sacrament of penance.

Judgment comes upon him without mercy who does not show mercy.

By these testimonies, a stony heart could be softened and every faculty of the ineffective free will could be laid low, because the works of God are not in our power. The Lord also loosens the bound, not the free will. The Lord raises up the brokenhearted, not free will.

(26) If good works were in our power, we would foolishly ask that they be given to us.

(27) Everything that belongs to the spiritual life, we implore by this short word: Thy will be done, that is, make us do, make us take upon ourselves the works according to thy will (according to the Collecte: Be it done, we beseech thee 2c on the Saturday before the 4th Sunday, and the Collecte: I beseech thee, do, on the 5th Sunday after Easter).

The church asks that it be given or bestowed upon her that she may seek God, and that she may seek the joys of the promise and soon find what she seeks. (On the 1st Sunday in Lent and on the Saturday before the 4th Sunday.) She asks that she be enlightened so that she can see what needs to be done (what Eck can see exactly without prayer) (on Wednesday after the 1st Sunday). Likewise, she asks (on the Thursday after the first Sunday) that it be given to her to recognize what she confesses and to love the heavenly gift with which she frequently deals (which Eck can love from natural forces, without the help of prayer) (and on the Saturday before the same first Sunday she uses the daily prayer), and also asks that God may awaken our actions by His providence, and again promote them by His help. (Since Eck has grace, he does not need new help, unless he confesses that he needs it). Likewise, the church asks that help be given to it so that it may be mindful of prayer and fasting (on Thursday after the 2nd Sunday; likewise on Tuesday after the 3rd Sunday it asks that the gift of abstinence be given to it. Likewise, on Monday after the 4th Sunday, she asks that she may also do what she has asked. The church asks for many gifts at the same time in the collection on Thursday after the 4th Sunday and on Saturday, and in many others. See the rich Collect on the 4th Sunday after the Octave of Easter, which begins: God, who is the heart of the faithful, and on the following 5th Sunday the Church says that all good things come from God, so nothing comes from us; also the Collect on the Wednesday after the above-mentioned 2nd Sunday), with many other Collects.

610 Löscher, R.-A. II. 73-7S. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 677-680. 611

(29) What I have said from the testimonies of Ezekiel and other trustworthy men, that God makes us do something, I will show to the corner in his prayers, so that he will not stray again in the future time.

  1. you have the prayer in the fast, on Friday after the first Sunday: which you make devout to you. Beautifully it asks in the Collecte on Tuesday after the second Sunday, that we may accomplish by God's action what we have known by His providing. And in another it literally says: and make that we always cling to his commandments, on the third Sunday. Likewise, on the Wednesday after the fourth Sunday and on the Sunday in the Octave after Easter: who hast made to be celebrated. And in the Collecte on the weekdays it says: you have given a celebration (fecisti), give (fac) joy.

31 But that thou mayest have an example of the repentance which is now spoken of, observe that on the Saturday before the fourth Sunday in Lent thou prayest: Give us due weeping for the evil we have done 2c What is this but: make us weep, give us the weeping that atones for sins?

There are countless other examples from which you should learn that God does what He has commanded us to do, and that nothing else pleases Him than what He Himself has given, and that He does not promote any actions other than those He Himself has given; His actions He promotes, His actions He supports; His works, not ours, He crowns. This is proved by the Collecte on the fourth Sunday after Easter week, and by the Collecte which is read at Easter and on the first among the Easter feasts, in the words: To him who has, it will be given that he may have the fullness, 2c

We must finally come to weakness, to nothingness, by saying with the Church: God, who sees how we are without all strength (virtuts), protect us, inwardly and outwardly, on the second Sunday in Lent. Far be it from God to see falsely, and from the Church to lie that we are without all strength.

34 By this prayer hope is taken away from man, and that very well, because cursed is he who puts his hope in a man Jer. 17:5. Eck is a man, so he must not put hope in himself or in his will that he may repent.

35 And again, very well, so that you may not say, I have brought about this fortune for myself, but rather you may say to the Lord,

your God, who Himself gives you the strength to carry out this ability.

Consequently, we are nothing in the knowledge of God, but in His divine mercy we are something. Bernard.

(37) If we put all our effort into it without having the love of God, we are nothing.

  1. But if we seek the divine powers and help from above, even as the hungry poor and having nothing, begging, the Lord will be grieved for us, according to the saying: I am poor and a beggar 2c

(39) So let us get on with it: I and we have done; let our own and our own pass away; let us by the Spirit of God mortify our own, that God may do His own in us.

40 Where the "not I" is, there is an I that is all the more blissful. Augustin de conti. Where there is not something and nothing, there is something that is all the more blissful, according to the words: "He lifts up the lowly" Luc. 1, 52.

41 And after saying, 'God, you have rejected us and destroyed us; you have been angry with us and have had mercy on us again; it is said, 'You have destroyed us. '

  1. as long as the I, the we, our things, the own and the my, the our, the something pleases man, so long on the other hand is that in man, what displeases God, according to the proof of Ambrosius (äs voo. om. Äsn. lib. I, sax. II.).

But our I makes the wicked servants, but in the righteous it has strong remnants of the old man. Also the challenge comes in a wonderful way unnoticed, which takes away from us the I, the you, the we, the you. [It becomes 1) not I, not you, and evil you have done.

But then, when God will reign and be all in all Col. 3, 11., the I and everything of one's own will become small (according to the proof of Augustin against Julianus, 4th book, Cap. 3.).

  1. Let us in humility and truth remove the I and We, and then God will make us blessed.

There is no man who speaks the truth unless God speaks in him. (Augustine, Ps. 108.)

No one has anything of his own but lies and sin. (Augustin on John Truct. V, a. with other testimonies that we have cited).

  1. Here, in order to have a meaning, we had to allow ourselves this insertion. Walch already complains about the darkness of this speech, which one can probably guess, but not actually hit.

612 Löscher, R.-A. II, 75 f. 30. Carlstadt's defense of the Scriptures. W. XVIII, 680-682. 613

(48) He that doeth that which is evil in him doeth that which is evil in God: he is a liar, and a rebel, and dealeth against himself.

From the foregoing it is concluded that a good work must not be attributed to the human will, but simply to the divine will.

  1. a good deed, as they say, insofar as it concerns its whole essence, that is, wholly, is attributed to GOtte.

But those who, like Capreolus and Scotus, attribute to the will the essence (substantiam) of the act, but the manner or the lesser essence (minorem entitatem) GOtte, they assign to themselves the greater, but the lesser, that I do not say, the yeast, GOtte. From the foregoing it is concluded to overturn what we read in Scotus, namely: that the will is the principal cause, so far as it concerns the principal cause of being (principalitatem entita- tis) in a good work; it is otherwise, so far as it concerns the principal cause of it being meritorious (principalitatem esse meritorii). Scotus, I. D. and his followers and Capreolus, II. I). XXVII.

It is also concluded Against those who tear Augustine, that I do not say, corrupt, by interpreting his saying: the grace itself is increased, so that it, increased, deserves to be perfect, in that the will accompanies as a handmaid, does not lead, does not precede, and who speak that the will is a handmaid, insofar as it concerns merit, which Augustine did not think of.

The venerable father D. Martin Luther.

^1^) Therefore, by these words "perfect forgiveness of all chastisements," the pope does not mean that all chastisements are forgiven in general, but means only the chastisements that he himself has inflicted.

Eck 2) disputes this as follows:

Rather, the opposite. For if he either understands it in such a way that the punishments of the canons are only added frequently to the punishments imposed by God, then in the penitential canons there would be a snare and no salvation; or if he wants to understand them the canons as explanatory, as they are in truth, which he does not observe, then he the pope already remits some punishments by remitting the punishments of the canons.

  1. Luther's 20th thesis. Cf. Luther's 5th thesis.
  2. In the 2nd obelisk.

The D. Andreas Bodenstein, Archidiaconus at Wittenberg, Defence Sentence for the Venerable Father D. Martin Luther.

(After two of Eck's errors have been laid down, let us consider the boastful speech (plausum) of the third thesis, in which he begins: "The thesis is obviously erroneous. For if he wants the punishments of the canons to be added only by accumulation to the punishments imposed by God, then in the canons there would already be a snare and no salvation.")

Since Eck believes that in the Canons there is not a snare, but salvation, and writes this in a hidden way, he judges and does not understand Paul, who says: The letter kills; likewise the law is an office of death,

  1. or he attributes more to people than GOtte.

3 He also needs Augustine as a teacher.

  1. and he does not have this mind of Paul, which Capricornus, Scotus, Alphonsus and Gabriel cannot give him.
  1. But since the error which is based on ink, or on the letters made with it, 3) a help other than that of proof and exposition, namely salvation itself, is overthrown and condemned by Paul's judgment, 4) it is to be feared that Eck has heresy in his heart (pulmone).
  1. it is not enough to preach God's word or to understand it by reading, but it must also be applauded.
  2. those who understand divine things, even the evangelical law, without grace, by hearing or reading, become worse.
  3. the knowledge of sin without grace is harmful, because it makes us know what we cannot avoid. (Ambrose on Jacobus and on a blissful life, Cap. 4.).
  4. a mere (nudus-without proof) speech is useful for remembrance (monendum), but ineffective for persuasion.

(10) Even the holy law, which shows what one should and should not do, and free will with it, are not sufficient to do works for salvation.

11 If Eck thinks that salvation is based on the Scriptures, Christ punishes him in the person of the Jews, saying, "Search the Scriptures, for you think you have eternal life in them. "2c

  1. I.e. to the canons.
  2. In Latin: Valsstino jnäwio - by the judgment passed in Palestina. This is in any case the result of the passage 2 Cor. 3, 6 mentioned in the previous 1st thesis. Therefore we believe that instead of Vuwstino kauUno is to be read.

614 Löscher, R.-A. II, 76 f. 88 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 682-684. 615

Joh. 5, 39.; 1) and the apostle stands against him, saying that grace is testified by the law, but not given.

Yes, if the blamed error could exist, then a large part of the Bible would be wrong.

  1. even Paul would be justly convicted of having been nonsensical, since, as a defender of grace, he said, "If by the law righteousness comes, Christ died in vain." Gal. 2:21.

(14) If Eck spoke of salvation differently than we do, his statement that he made against the Wittenbergers proves and is unable to prove anything, and he fights against the fire with a waxen sting.

15 But if he spoke of salvation according to the way of the Scriptures, he contradicts the apostolic testimonies.

16 From the foregoing it is concluded that if the canons are to bind the consciences, they only increase the transgressions and show the commandment of the Church, and do not extend further.

But since D. Eck says that the Wittenbergers do not pay attention to the truth (veritatem), namely that the canons explain the punishments imposed by God, his vaunted truth will disappear if it is not seasoned with understanding (sale), especially if it is not written with an f feritas = crudeness.

18 But he Carlstadt asks that Eck in his sentence (which begins: The thesis is obviously erroneous 2c) speak about the same and more clearly. For what kind of dispute is this, if the parties are not opposed to each other? if he did not want to say that the canons increase and explain the punishments; but we do not concern ourselves with small and trivial things, nor do we bother with sophistries.

In haste. Wittenberg, July 7, in the year of the Lord 1518.

We will save the remaining sentences of Eck for another disputation. This one, in defense of the Holy Scriptures and the simple Wit...

  1. Walch's comment: Here Löscher notes that Carlstadt fell too much on the other side in the heat of the contradiction; which would be true if he denied that the way to salvation could be attained through knowledge of the Scriptures. But he does not mean this, but the Jewish prejudice, since the Jews and the works saints thought that the letter of the law sanctified them by hearing or reading, by imaginary doing: since the law is spiritual, and demands more than the sinful man achieves.

We have not allowed the adversary to pass by untouched, but we will have to continue to fight against him.

213.^2^ ) We defend free will in such a way that we do not deny the grace by which it becomes free.

We praise the virtues of men in such a way that the Scriptures remain inviolate.

The philosophers may not be angry with the theologians when they call their wisdom a real foolishness, since divine wisdom is also considered foolishness by them; but what is completely foolish before God is considered completely wise by the world.

Let no one boast, and since he must boast in the Lord, let him not boast in any man.

217 Let him glory in his weakness and his need, that the power of Christ may be made more complete.

He who does virtuous works for the sake of honor seeks his own glory and praise.

He who seeks honor seeks what is his, but the love of God, without which no true virtue can exist, does not seek its own.

Aristotle's moral teaching is full of pomp and its own glory, and therefore it subtracts more from the teaching of the true virtues than it serves to learn them.

The moral teachings of Aristotle must be read in no other way than to attack them in the places where they teach about morals.

  1. If the judgment were to take place before a human judgment seat, we would rightly boast of the praise of men.

If we were to be judged by our own examination, we would rightly delight in our own praise.

  1. But now that I am to be brought not before your judgment, nor before mine, but before God's, it is foolishness and folly for me to boast and seek honor in your testimony or mine.

According to Aristotle, we can judge and have justice about our justice and the circumstances (circumstantiis) that accompany it.

According to the truth we do not follow our judgment, since it says 1 Cor. 4:3 ff: "Neither do I judge myself. I am conscious of nothing, but in this I am not justified;

  1. Cf. the note after the 100th thesis.

616 Löscher, R.-A. II, 89-91. 30. Carlstadt's defense of the Scriptures. W. LVIII, 684-687. 617

But it is the Lord who judges me. How do these judgments agree? What the apostle calls something rejected, Aristotle calls something accepted.

It is very true that no man knows what is in man but the spirit of man that is in him,

  1. But this judgment is not one already approved by God; approved is only the judgment that knows our sins and infirmities, not the one that does not know them.

The heart of man is corrupt and inscrutable to itself, and also largely does not know about what is present (praesentia).

According to Aristotle, a person can boast of his virtuous works, which he has procured for himself.

According to the truth, one must not boast of works, that is, one must not look at and seek the glory of works.

232 In the Lord we must boast with fear, not because we are great through His gift, but because He has done it.

According to Aristotle, man is free to seek his own, namely honor and praise.

According to the truth, it is a sin to seek the praise of men. Whoever claims the opposite, touches Christ's word.

Aristotelian virtue seeks its own; but the virtue of Christ, and the true virtue, does not seek its own, and does not rob what is another's.

But since to please oneself, to seek one's honor, is pride, it follows that all Aristotelian virtue is courting truth.

  1. he who pleases himself does not please GOtte.

We must love each other only in kind. Thus Ambrose.

True virtue is more complete in weakness and makes man think less of himself and boast in nothing that is his, but in the weakness of free will (as said) and in the incapacity of man.

240 Grace gives strength to true virtue. If we pay attention to the apostle, it becomes clear what our efforts achieve.

The one who tries to fight against the vices out of natural effort only adorns the life of this time in an unfruitful way.

We do not attain true virtue through natural effort.

It is quite wrong that God gives either grace or glory according to our effort.

  1. Without the service of the true God, even what appears to be virtue is sin. Ambrose.

From the foregoing is concluded the dangers that threaten the Christians from the mores of Aristotle.

Since the testimonies of Aristotle and Christ are in conflict with each other, and since opposites are not explained but destroyed by opposites, let the preachers see what account they will give to those who explain the law of Christ by the morals of Aristotle, that I do not say, overthrow it.

It is obvious that Aristotle's virtues are a subtraction from Christ and that the science of some who say that Aristotle's moral teaching serves theology is false.

248 It is also obvious the falsity of the idea that an action, which is completely moral according to all its circumstances (circumstantionatus) as far as morality is concerned (in genere moris), is made perfect by God out of distant goodness, that is, by the grace that makes it pleasant.

249 I cannot absolve those from Pelagian! I cannot absolve those from Pelagian error who make grace the handmaiden of the will, which they say is given according to merit (de congruo).

When Peter said to his Lord, "You shall not wash my feet," he deserved honor according to Aristotle, but dishonor or rebuke according to the truth.

When Peter said to the Lord, who foretold his future sufferings, "This shall not happen to you, Lord," he may have been pious and without offense, according to Aristotle,

  1. According to the truth, he was not pious, but worthy to hear from Christ: Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me.

The piety that Aristotle achieves, which understands only what is man's and not God's, is not piety, indeed it is reprehensible.

254 Those have taught rightly who have written that free will is the origin of one's own works 1) if they understood it rightly.

According to Aristotle, it is great that I am judged by men; according to truth, it is little to me that I am judged by you, nor do I judge myself. Notice, how great a difference!

When a man's walk is guided by the Lord, the Lord delights in his way. Accordingly, the Church prays thus: God, you who let the light of truth shine on the erring, so that they may come to the right path.

  1. Slloi-llill oxsrnill i.e. works that are directed from the own.

618 Löscher, R.-A. II, S1-S3. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 687-689. 619

may, bestow what you command 2c On the 3rd Sunday after Easter week.

God causes us to will without us, but if we will rightly, we will be driven and guided.

258 In order to exercise our intellect, not conclusively, we hold that if we insist on the Holy Scriptures (without the sayings of the Doctors of the Church), free will cooperates only as an instrument, and so God works with us, if we will, like a craftsman with a saw, but in such a way that nature remains unharmed and comes into consideration (eisque ponderatis).

  1. this also seems to have been taught by the apostle, since he wrote 1 Cor. 15:10., "not I, but God's grace which is with me."

For the connective (conjunctio) "with" connects in an accessory and less principal way 1) (accessorie et minus principaliter), as the jurists Paul and Gajus say, and quite correctly.

  1. Here also the word of Christ serves, since he says Matth. 10, 20.: "It is not you who speak, but it is your Father's Spirit who speaks through you."

262] The word of the apostle also agrees with this Rom. 8, 14: "Whom the Spirit of God impels, they are the children of God"; he says: "impels".

If Augustine did not believe that the children who depart in original sin are tormented with eternal fire, then the scholastics have not understood him (who are defended), who say that he has said too much (excessive).

If Augustine had the opposite opinion, the scholastics understood him in the sense, but they claim badly that he did not speak well (male).

However much some try to protect themselves with the opinion of Augustine (which they try to bring out in such a way that they would like to say that those who die in original sin are not tormented), Augustine contradicts them according to the letter, since he says that they should be punished with the torment of eternal fire.

266 Our sentence is based on the words of the sentence which the most righteous judge will pronounce against those who will stand on the left, namely: Go into the eternal fire.

He immediately added: which is prepared for the devil and his angels, so that the,

  1. That is, by the preposition "with" is added that which is added as a secondary matter.

Which of these distinguish the eternal fire, would be convicted of the opposite and those would be refuted who attribute to it an alchemical fire, 2) which is warm in the first or second degree.

And in another place he says that in the extreme darkness there is eternal pain, incurable disease, indissoluble bonds, fiery tears 2c and other things that are effective, from which we infer, according to the letter, a perceptible punishment (poenam 86Q8U8).

Those may teach us, if they can, that the unbelieving children will have a different fire than the adults.

270 But, because they cannot teach this from the Holy Scripture, they send the unbelieving children into an alchemical fire (which does not hurt the one it touches).

Nor do I believe that they can show a scripture in which it says that the judge will say to those on the left: You adults, go into a perceptible punishment, but you children, into the punishment which brings you harm (poenam damni). 3)

272 We also do not believe that the opponents can take their opinion "from" the circumstances of Scripture, and we know that the apostle Peter teaches that natural reason neither rightly concludes nor interprets Scripture. See below the special thesis 4) on this.

Accordingly, since we honor the holy Scriptures, we know with Augustine of no means between those whom the eternal fire will torment and those in whom God will be all in all. lib. V, better, however, from the cause to be said, we know nothing of a third place.

Nor will we presumptuously bark at the letters, even though they may seem harsh to us.

Although the children have had no actual sin from such an act, they have nevertheless received the condemnation of original sin through their fleshly birth. Augustin äs üätz acl, Cap. 27.

Augustine brands those who teach otherwise with the stain of heresy, saying: "If you know that someone holds doctrines contrary to these, flee him like a plague and reject him as a heretic. 1)6 üäs aä?6t., Cap. 44.

  1. Cf. above the 80th-82nd thesis.
  2. According to the 85th thesis it is meant that the children shall be deprived of seeing God for eternity.
  3. Thesis 304.

620 Löscher, R.-A. II, S3-S5. 30 Carlstadt's defense of the Scriptures. W. XVIII, 689-691. 621

Therefore, what we read about the damned without distinction must remain true: Their fire will not go out and their worm will not die.

The opponents may wipe away the stain of heresy, if they can, and defend this inconsistency, namely, that they make the unbelievers equal to the holy souls of the believers, as far as the penalty of privationis (as they call it) is concerned.

For before the suffering of the Lord, all the souls of the saints were kept in hell under the guilt of Adam, which brought with it the deprivation (sub debito privationis Adam). Augustin äs sool. äo§. Cap. 78, with addition of the following chapter.

The next thesis is probably according to the scholastics, because the perpetual and the eternal do not change the species (speciem). Therefore, the deprivation of seeing God was not different in kind before the suffering of Christ for the patriarchs and for a small unbelieving child.

But it happens 1) and shall remain true, even if no one among the philosophers should think so, that the natural (animalia) and corruptible bodies of the unbelievers will rise and burn in eternal fire; although it is wonderful that the corruptible, which is used by a thing that can be destroyed (corruptivo), is never destroyed.

The punishment, which the scholastics call damni^2^ ), is in hell. This principle (maxima) is read by Augustin in the book which has the title: äs tripl. dadit.

But since some take offense at attaching it to Augustine, and I (then) speak without evidence (nudus), I present it disputationally, lest I be condemned as a heretic, although the scholastics are often without evidence and unarmed, and yet do not want to be considered heretics or sacrilegious people.

But it will be upheld by this saying Prov. 30:89: "Do not give me poverty, lest I deny and blaspheme your name. Likewise Ps. 6:6: Who shall be to thee in hell?"

The punishment of being deprived of grace and divine vision is, according to the church scholars, a sensitive punishment, that is, one that torments and pains;

  1. and so great that in comparison with it all torments and kinds of punishments are gladly chosen.
  1. fit, not sit.

2), Cf. thesis 271.

Dignities, so that one would like to have the grace and the sight. This is evident from the righteous in this life, and this matter will be dealt with more conveniently elsewhere.

Since without free will neither evil nor good nor happy is lived, we do not know by what kind of spirit a certain weak enemy of the Wittenbergs is led or driven, who has boasted that he will show the light of glory on a glass. 3)

God does not look at our works when He either pours grace or bestows bliss, that is, His kingdom,

  1. According to the saying Eph. 2:9, "Not of our works, lest any man should boast," and according to the saying, In vain shalt thou save them, and according to the likeness of Christ, Give to the last as much as to the first.

All who are written in the book of life will be justified and will be blessed, according to the words of Jeremiah 31:3: "I have always loved you, therefore I have drawn you to myself out of pure goodness;

  1. According to Ambrosius: Otherwise the providence would be uncertain, the council variable, the will ineffective,
  2. and according to the testimony of the apostle Rom. 8, 29. 30.: "Whom he hath before ordained he hath also ordained; whom he hath ordained he hath also called; and whom he hath called he hath also justified" 2c, 4) and according to the saying: Thou hast guided me according to thy will, and accepted me with honor;
  3. Likewise, according to the teaching of Christ (Matt. 13:12), "To him that hath shall be given, that he may have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that he hath."

Therefore, works can be defended according to grace and disposition, but disposition cannot be defended according to works.

  1. But it is true that some are so ordained that they are commanded to the prayer of the saints.

However, since this judgment of God is hidden (and is signified by the depth of the cross, from which everything springs and grows), we must always entrust ourselves to the prayers of the saints,

  1. Not as if they could confer grace or blessedness on us, but use themselves insofar as GOD gives them.
  1. Löscher notes: Wundersame Geschichte von Eck.
  2. We have inserted this passage here after the Vulgate, because we consider the reading of the Latin: ut prasäkstinarst 6te. a misprint, instead of: tzt xrasätzstinavit tzte.

622 Löscher, R.-A. II, 9S f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 691-694. 625

For the saints cannot confer, give, grant, or distribute salvation either for the body or for the soul (mentis). Augustine, Psalm 35, g.

This is what the Church teaches us to pray: Grant, O Lord, salvation to your people in soul and body. On Monday in the Passion; on Friday after the 4th Sunday in Lent; äs 8. oruos in sonnn.

And in the great litany it is not prayed like this: Saint Sebastian, protect us from pestilence, but like this: protect us from bloodshed and pestilence, dear Lord!

The intercessions of the saints for us are granted by God. This is what the Church confesses when she prays: Grant, O Lord, we beseech thee, that thy saints may not cease to pray continually for us. According to the Cap. Odtinsri 23, Hu. 4.

To return to the foregoing, we do not believe that Augustine wrote: If thou art not chosen, make thyself chosen. Against the common error.

But like this: If you are not drawn, pray that you may be drawn.

The one who understands and interprets sacred theology through the liberal arts makes a noise (sonat) and speaks like Balaam's ass without knowing what he is saying.

If one asserts that the understanding of sacred Scripture depends on the liberal arts and is taken from them - only grammar may be accepted - this is a miserable error that must be remedied at once.

306 Show us the teacher of the church who, through dialectics, has extracted the essence from Scripture, and show that he had power to do so. The Cap. Uslatum of the 33rd Dist. is not opposed to this.

If this saying 1Tim. 2, 4.: "God wills that all men be saved, that is, that they should be saved; or, those who are saved, of them He wills that they be saved," is taken "only according to the understanding of Augustine," then it is badly and contrary to the opinion of Damascenus (as the scholastics and their defender Eck cite him) set up, that this is true in relation to the preceding, not to the following will.

For if the works of those who are to be saved are considered, we have the subsequent will; but if God considers his man's created nature, it will be the previous will, according to the scholastics.

  1. although gOd does not know the future works

The scholastics have conceived the bundle of such a twofold will.

Thus, the testimony of Damascenus is badly and ignorantly intertwined with the mind of Augustine, because they do not fit together, but they have put forward different, but not opposing things.

Although Damascenus, in the passage cited, at first sight assumes a twofold understanding of the saying, it is incomprehensibly cited anew for the explanation or decision of a doubtful question, because certain, not ambiguous testimonies must be cited.

312 The preceding proposition is greatly strengthened by the fact that one of the two views not only disagrees with the scholastic explanation, but is contrary to it.

313 Since the free will is led captive under sin and suffers the dominion of sin, it is forced to suffer temptations, to consent to them and to sin always,

  1. According to the saying: He did not want the blessing, and he will stay away from it. Likewise: A wind that passes by and does not return. Likewise Jer. 11:11, "I will bring a calamity upon them, which they shall not escape." "Lead my soul out of my troubles," prays the one who has recognized this.

(315) Nor is it contrary to the fact that every sin is voluntary; although the free will is coerced or forced when it is in distress, such distresses are voluntary.

316] Those who are the brazen opponents of the Wittenbergs, our excluders from the church, have not yet understood this in Scripture, nor have they rightly regarded it in Augustine.

The common good (bona vulgaria), although under a new word: the works of natural piety, are quite obvious sins among the theologians. This is clear from what was said before about St. Peter.

We confess that wicked sinners can understand God, but also sin all the more grievously.

The made-up and painted virtues of the unbelievers are sins, but they are not crimes without distinction.

  1. if the free will has not been made free by Christ, it is not, a middle thing (inäikksrsns - neither good nor evil), and is not able to turn back to grace, nor to turn to it.
  2. if the human being through free will

624 Löscher, R.-A. II, 96-S8. 30. Carlstadt's theorems of defense for the h. Scriptures. W. xvm, 624-696. 625

how can the truth of the righteous man stand Rom. 7:19: "The good that I want, I do not do; but the evil that I do not want, that I do"?

The works that are done according to divine grace are done according to mercy, for they are taken for one and the same with mercy (cum misericordia identificantur).

He Eck desires to be taught: Since, if we have done everything without love, we have done nothing, how can we fulfill the commandments imperfectly without love? Since to do imperfectly is in any case to do something, where is Christ's saying: Without me you can do nothing?

This is certainly a very ludicrous, truly old wives' question, which has a wound in the bosom. Why does he not make us blessed through the word? Did he not create everything through the word? since it is quite true that God makes us blessed through his word without our merit.

    1. God does not change the eternal punishment into another, temporal one, since He wants this repentance to be a perpetual one, that is, to be done throughout life, 2) through judgment on the sin committed 3) and through the judgment of damnation which we pronounce on ourselves.

326 Man should do nothing for the remission of sins, but only truly repent; if he does this, there is nothing God wants to punish,

  1. Unless my brother Tetzel was appointed by GOD to be a prophet to improve Ezekiel and the other prophets.
  2. God says through Ezekiel 18, 21. 22.: "If the wicked repents from all his sins that he has committed, all his transgressions that he has committed shall not be remembered."

If God, when repentance is done, does not want to remember the sins, let the same good brother or his teacher Conrad Wimpina instruct us: if God does remit the eternal punishment, but beats the sins with temporal punishment, does that not mean remembering the sins? Most likely.

  1. and Isaiah says 43, 25.: "I, I redeem your transgression for my own sake (he does not say: for the sake of money) and remember your sins.
  1. This is where the theses against Tetzel begin.
  2. Here, in order to make sense, voluit must be inserted from Luther's first indulgence thesis 6886.
  3. In the Latin of the scholastics, adnriWnm means sin. Cf. lnsil. 1Ü68aurus 6rucütioui8 86Üo1asti6U6, 8. V. admitto.

not"; but you shall be mindful of them. Remember them through confession, remember them by solving them through almsgiving; give alms, and all will be clean.

331 Jerome says, "'For my sake: because I am merciful and patient and of great compassion, not for the sound of money, for if I should need anything, I would not tell you 2c And 'for my sake,' that you may know: not for your merit, but for my goodness."

Let us learn what true repentance is from the prophet Ezekiel and the exceedingly glorious martyr Cyprian, our superiors and teachers, who say: If he repents of all his sins and keeps all the commandments of God and does justice and righteousness, he shall live.

As Augustine and Ambrose teach, he who truly repents is displeased with himself, he has everything against him, he accuses himself, he is a witness against himself, he oppresses and tortures himself, and he cannot find a place to flee to. This is a sign of a good mind, to feel the wound of sin; he who does not feel it has an incurable disease.

Whoever repents in this way, and always confronts, judges, and condemns his sin, will go blissfully into the Fatherland, nor will he suffer future torment in purgatory after death, even though he should sin when he dies;

  1. If only he blots out sin by his repentance, confidently saying Ps. 51:4, 5, "Wash me well from my iniquity, for I know my iniquity." O LORD, because thou art merciful, and I useless man in my repentance perceive that I am unfit, that is, sinful, and judge sin itself, judge me not, but wash me only.

336 If thou wash me not, I will have no part with thee, who hast said, Repent, and sin no more.

337 Although, according to the testimonies of holy Scripture, nothing can be found in a truly penitent man that should be bought by the sound of pennies, yet I conclude nothing about indulgences, nor do I approve of them as they are preached. But I am bound to disapprove of it because they love and lay hold on the fat spoils of men, not the souls of men, and know that the last day will come in eight years, 4) and teach that of which Christ said it was not due to the apostles.

  1. Löscher's note: We know nothing of this opinion of Tetzel from other sources.

626 Löscher, R.-A. Il, 98-100. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 696-699. 627

(338) I doubt whether the Church will avenge offenses and disobedience or rebellion after the guilt of the transgression has been discharged, or whether it will leave it in abeyance until the transgressor has redeemed himself by money or good works according to a decree of the Church.

339 I also doubt whether the church, after the guilt of the offenses is remitted, can still demand punishments; arg. I. 8i unus § 8i pactum kk. ckc pac. with addition of cap. I. ckc uo. ope.; now the canons imitate the judgment of the laws.

340 I believe that this is in accordance with the truth that every priest (no prelate is excepted) is obliged to remit both guilt and punishment to his subordinate who asks him to be forgiven.

If he does not do so, I consider that the subject is also bound by the commandment of a disciple of the Lord. Hereby, however, I do not want to say anything about the indulgence against the Catholic prelates.

342 But a prelate sins who does not forgive.

343 In order to refute new, because (quoniam) unlearned, theses of a conscience Tetzel, we want to treat the subsequent theses in defense of the Wittenbergers, in addition to those which we wrote in the beginning, by which, as can be seen, this new teaching is already broken and destroyed.

344 We do not deny that the Roman Pontiff can give new laws, can also dispense and interpret them definitively (plene).

  1. But where the Lord or his apostles have evidently made a provision, the pope must not give a new law, but rather confirm it to the life and blood'. It is a clear (rotundus) text, namely 8unt Huiclam, XXV, HU. I, and no stronger gloss than this will be applied. It does not contradict what is touched upon in the Glossa and thereafter in other [writings.
  2. "Up to" 's life in this text is not taken exclusively (exclusive), but, as one says, inclusively inclusive.

347 If the Roman pope should strive to destroy what the apostles and prophets have taught, he would be convicted that he does not pass judgment, but rather errs. Thus says the pope Urban in the decree cap. 8unt HuiUam, from which the gossipy brother can see whether he has flattered the Roman pope, whose predecessor said the opposite.

348 A heretic is anyone who understands the Scriptures differently than the sense of the Holy Spirit allows.

Calls. XXIV, Hu. Ill: Haeresis after Jerome.

349 A heretic is one who, for the sake of temporal advantage, such as money or vain honor, (or to defend his error and his supremacy) imposes new opinions, especially those that are unlike the holy Bible. Augustin ckc uti. trc. cap. I; XXIV, Hu. Ill, llacrcticus.

But the simple-minded people, who believed such preachers, are deceived by a kind of conceit of the truth.

  1. He who believes falsehood is a heretic. Augustin, Huacstionurn cvanA. sccuückum Muttd. cap. XI.

He is a heretic and is outside the church in his heart, even if he seems to be in it physically, who believes false things (much more, who sows them) with regard to any part of the doctrine that belongs to the building up of the faith. The church has many such people. Augustine himself.

353 Those heretics who defend their false opinion in such a way that they arouse the crowd (intentam faciant), the church expels and expels them. Augustine, as above.

Augustine does not speak of the doctrines of the scholastics and of human fiefdoms, but of the canonical, that is, the biblical doctrines.

We consider false prophets those who take the words of Scripture differently than the Holy Spirit has spoken them (insonuit). XXXVII, vc vino according to Jerome.

356 Although there are many words in the holy Scriptures which can be drawn to the meaning which anyone brings as a preconceived opinion according to his own liking, yet the law of God must not be read or taught according to the ability or understanding of one's own cleverness. XXXVII <1. lkclaturn after the Roman pope Cicero.

Because the Wittenbergers have set themselves to take from the Scriptures themselves the right understanding of the truth, and indeed very well, according to the prophetic, apostolic and papal provisions, not to seek a foreign (extraneum) sense, those spread for the sake of it that they are heretics, although they themselves interpret the Scriptures according to their spirit and with the help of Aristotle.

Whoever speaks what the holy church fathers have spoken and not recanted cannot be accused of presumption. According to Innocent, whom Philip Decius calls a father of truth.

  1. this is a very good saying of a

628 Löscher, R.-A. II, 100 ff. 30. Carlstadt's defense of the Scriptures. W. XVIII, 699-701. 629

Roman pope and our armor and steel armor, for unjustly is he accused of heresy who is not presumptuous.

360 Although the money hunters and very industrious merchants of works boast that they have won the victory against us, they affirm this as well as other false things they write and accomplish many paltry things in canon law.

He is not a heretic who takes care that he who is innocent of a crime (when the wolf howls and demands the lamb before his judgment seat to be torn to pieces) does not come to an unsafe place and to a hostile judge. G

For, to go into torture or perhaps a death by force, not by right, or into the maw (sense) of the enemy, nature has an abhorrence of that, human reason flees; this is rightly and praiseworthily refused. Cllo. pastoral!8 äs rs. juckioio.

A summons is also not binding if what should have preceded it (praemissis) has been neglected or disregarded. According to the above: Ols. pastoralls.

Therefore the prince is praiseworthy who takes care that the lamb is not delivered to the ravening wolf, or that it does not enter the lion's jaws; to this, we say, every Christian is also obligated.

He is not a heretic whom his enemy accuses of being a heretic, but he who, according to the law, commits or permits the crime of heresy.

366 There is no doubt that the property of heretics is forfeited according to the law itself or in fact (sint confiscata). But the confiscation itself may not be carried out, nor come into force, until the judgment on the proven crime has been rendered. Cap. Cum 866unckuiu 16A68 cks llasr. VI.

There is also no doubt that heretics are subject to the curse and in the ban; but from the words of the text this is wrongly concluded (male).

(368) However much a person may be banished by the law itself or in fact by the canon the so-called spiritual law, he may not be publicly shunned unless the judgment pronouncing it has been rendered, and the piece in question is cited, from which it may be seen and heard that he has been guilty of the penalties of the canon or the law, or from which the causes may be stated and said why 2c

  1. and there is still today an extravagant of Martin V, which in the Council of Constance

has been published: That also those, which are all-known (notorii) in the ban, must not be avoided with necessity before the publication or announcement.

370 The foregoing is qualified: if they are not under ban for the murder of an ecclesiastical person. This exception extends the previous rule.

371 All canonical laws that say that a person is punished by the law itself or by the act with confiscation of his goods, or with any other punishment, require nothing other than the judge's declaration of the crime committed.

But before the declaratory judgment the punishment does not come into force by the fact that the crime has been committed or the punishment earned, but it is suspended (stat in suspenso).

The first two words of the first sentence of the second sentence of the second sentence of the third sentence of the third sentence of the third sentence of the third sentence of the third sentence of the third sentence of the third sentence of the third sentence of the third sentence of the third sentence of the fourth sentence of the third sentence of the fourth sentence of the fourth sentence of the fourth sentence of the fourth sentence.

Until the declaration about him is pronounced, the remarkable effect remains that he need not be avoided in worship and communion, nor in other things as one under ban. This is further extended: even by those who know that such a one is under ban, he need not be avoided with necessity.

He therefore unjustly accuses good Christians of heresy in a crude and ignorant manner, and the patrons of these heretics (who in truth are not heretics, nor, if they were, which is far from it, have they been declared to be) he pricks and violently presses them, and attaches to them (to whom the race of heretics has always been odious) the suspicion, yes, the stain of dishonor, if they should not make amends within a year. 1) He does this so that, lacking the holy scriptures, he may deceive people either by trifling fright or by flattery.

376 The judges (inquisitores) of heretical wickedness can also be bad and malicious people, and be charged with the crime of heresy, for we certainly read that bad inquisitors have given rise to a new decree in the Clementines.

377 When an inquisitor of heretical malice is about to institute judicial proceedings against a heresy, he must begin the transaction, which concerns the Catholic faith, not with cerebrosa and unlawful little bundles, but with legal testimonies, love

  1. Cf. the 47th and 48th theses of Tetzel's second disputation.

630 Löscher, R.-A. II, 102-104. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 701-703. 631

and hatred, and make a decision according to the Holy Scriptures and the constitutionibus, but disputing about faith according to the law of God.

378 We reserve other things for another disputation, or rather for the publication of the books (because such a difficult trade cannot be settled with short and defenseless theses).

What is connected and related is judged like what it is connected and related to.

[Carlstadt) reserves the right to increase or decrease and to do other things that are necessary for this dispute, also to improve; saying, not to violate the holy or canonical Scriptures or the church of the faithful, but to avert the errors that creep up through the curse of the first Adam: Lord, do not remember the sins of my youth and my ignorance.

And he testifies (protestatur) in addition, as it is the theological right, custom and usage, he does not want to hold differently than the holy scripture and the catholic church teaches; likewise, that he will also be obedient to their decree. Furthermore, he condemns as suspicious those who have not drawn from the holy Bible, nor from the teachings of the holy fathers declared as a guide (irrigati sunt), but make themselves teachers and interpreters of the holy Scripture in such a way that the Scripture must suffer pitifully many constraints (angustias), and those who are guided by hatred or love, and rejects the condemned judgment from himself; With regard to all this, in total and individually, he protests, submitting himself and all that is his to the protection, the umbrella and the defense of the apostolic see. 2c

Given at Wittenberg, to exercise the mind, May 9, in the year of our Lord 1518.

Since we have published the members 1) or rather our theses in such a way, but not without consideration, that some seem to contain the same opinion, it has seemed good to us to add the following sentences to the decision (epilogos), so that our intention or the number of theses does not lack a proper division.

  1. In Latin oonänlia - rings, as the slaves wear them. Instead of this, Löscher wants to have read eorollai-ia - inferential sentences. But the original reading probably wants to stand.
  1. God gives everyone who receives Him the power to become His child.

God immediately and undoubtedly enters what is His, if there is someone who wants to receive it.

382 Augustin has (if his book does not have a typing error, as we believe) written all too freely: he necessarily gives what is his.

  1. God's grace will not depart from anyone if the will obeys the good admonition.

God calls a man according to how he is sent to the calling and how he agrees with it (congruit).

God does not work our salvation without our will.

386 He who created you without you does not justify you without you.

From these true propositions testifying to divine grace, yet contrary to what is contained therein, the following are usually concluded, by which they hold the ax to grace.

387 Thus it is in our ability to receive Christ, the God.

It follows that man can make himself capable (disponere) of becoming God's child.

So it can be the will itself that can receive what God can give.

For this reason, a general help is inferred, which does not distinguish the good, but which supports the will so that it can grasp the gifts of God.

391 Therefore, the being of destiny and the congruentia with the divine calling is from the human being.

392 And therefore the will is required that he comes with previous action.

Therefore, the act of the will precedes the justification of God.

  1. These seven sentences are false and cannot be taken from the sense of the preceding seven.
  2. in the first the 380th thesis lies this sentence: No one receives Christ unless he is drawn by the Father, and this: Not you have chosen me 2c

396 In the second of these: You were once far away and have become near in the blood of Christ;

  1. and the Rom. 9, 31.: Israel, in that she was after the law of righteousness, did not obtain the law of righteousness.

398 Yes, this too: Man cannot preserve the bestowed grace out of his own strength.

  1. In the fourth: I put my hand out-

632 Löscher, R.-A. II, 104. 30. Carlstadt's Theorems of Defense for the Holy Scriptures. W. XVIII, 703 f. 633

stretched all day to a people who do not believe. Along with this: I appeared publicly to those who did not ask for me.

In the fifth is this saying: He will have mercy on whom he will and will destroy whom he will.

401 In the sixth of these: Without me you can do nothing. And this saying: The Lord will give his goodness, and the land will give its fruit.

  1. it 1) does not happen without the will, that is, not outside (extra) of the will.
  1. This is said with reference from thesis 386.

It does not happen without the will, because God makes the will and works the will.

The works of man, which are done without grace, are sins, lies, vanity.

Something else is working according to man, something else, according to God.

Here you have, sincere reader, 405 theses; read them, be inclined to me and prosper.

Printed in Wittenberg by Johannes Grünenberg. In the year of salvation 1518.

*31 Carlstadt's Defense Against Eck's Monomachy. )

Started August 28, completed September 14, 1518.

Translated from Latin.

Defense of Andreas Carlstadt against the duel (monomachiam) of the respectable Johann Eck, Doctor of Theology and Ordinary at Ingolstadt.

Carlstadt accepts the judgment not only of the apostolic see and the universities of Rome in Italy, Paris in France, or Cologne in Germany, but also of all and everyone who has read the dialogues (dialogos) of Jerome Against Pelagius, and the books of Augustine äs psssatorum msritis, äs spwftu "t litsra, äs psrksstious sustitzias and Wider Julian 2c, and other Church Fathers, the writings of Chrysostom, Cyprian, Cyril, Hilarius, Ambrose, Cassianus, Gregory, Bernard, Beda, not from back to back, but from beginning to end, as far as the matter at hand is concerned, read and understood.

To the venerable fathers and lords, Henning Göde, provost, and > Laurentius Schlamau, dean of the collegiate and free church of all > saints at Wittenberg, doctors of law and highly renowned professors, > his most honored patrons, Andreas Carlstadt wishes Heil.

Since I, venerable fathers and lords, have titled Wider den Zweikampf (monomachiam), which D. Johann Eck, the very learned professor of theology, has titled "eine Vertheidigung" at his discretion, and which he, I hope, more ornamentally than happily titled Wider die Wahrheit under my name under

*) Against Carlstadt's 405 sentences of defense, which only appeared after July 7, 1518, in the form we have communicated (they were published more than once by Carlstadt with quite a few changes, sometimes in parts, sometimes in their entirety. Löscher, Reformation-Acta, vol. II, 77), Eck sent out a rebuttal on August 14, 1518, his MononEÜia, as Carlstadt calls it, under the title: vekeusio 4oanm8 LcLü contra amaruleutns D. ^udreae Lockeusteiu Eurolstutiui iuveetiouss. We do not print it separately because it is included in the present paper, the defense of Carlstadt against Eck's Monomachy. Löscher (Ref.-Acta Bd. II, 107) describes both the previous and this writing of Carlstadt as essential pieces of Reformation history and as rare. First this writing appeared at Wittenberg, probably only in October, with Johann Grünenberg, under the title: Oekeusio ^ndrsus Eurolostackii n<I versus exiruii O. 4ouuuis Delrii mouoiuaetiiaiu. Then Löscher included it in his Ref.-Acta, vol. II, 108 ff. Our translation is made according to this.

634 Löscher, R.-A. II, 109 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 705-707. 635

I have not set myself the task of compiling Aristotle's reasons, even if I could; unfortunately, however, I have not yet been granted the task of deriving a booklet from the stream of Ciceronian eloquence, since in this matter I cannot regale your ears with flowery ornaments. Rather, I have deemed that it is sufficient for me in our struggle if I speak in such a way that I am understood, so that I imitate the simplicity of Scripture when discussing it and have a way of speaking that explains the matter to my peers, explains the meaning, makes the obscurity clear. This, of course, can also be achieved by such a way of speaking, which does not make many useless words, nor is it rich in scheming circumlocutions, since truth has never needed the exaggerated adornment and make-up of words, nor, like a sick person, has it sought the medicine of speech. Furthermore, in my theses, which Eck has corrupted by not a few distortions 1), I have said nothing of mine, nor have I put forward my opinion, but repeat that which the Holy Spirit has revealed through the Law, the Prophets, the Apocrypha, the Evangelists, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers, but what our distortionist 2) thinks against the same under the pretense of my name, all who have a good judgment will decide that it will perish through his slobber 3). Your office shall be to act as a psyller 4) so that the truth shines forth in this dispute, and to implore that arrogance be destroyed and envy be kept away. To avoid this corruption and that pride is not in my ability, because I fall into manifold nets of sins and am wrapped in the mists of darkness. I will crawl on the earth and not start from the beginning, lest, by going too far in this business, I be left already in the beginning. I know how money differs from beans 5). Be well, and let this be your concern. Go to

  1. orditntidus--robberies. The sense is: the theses are deprived of their right sense, thus twisted. Cf. also the soon following äiversurius.
  2. äLversurius - one who goes astray.
  3. pure, ablative of xus; not sure, as is emendwt in Walch.
  4. k[Mi, a people in Africa who could summon snakes and cure snakebite by sucking out the venom.
  5. Actors and children helped themselves to beans instead of money.

given in haste at Wittenberg, on the day on which the machina of D. Eck was delivered to me, August 28 in the year 1518.

Carlstadt sends his regards to the respectable Mr. Eck.

It does not behoove me, highly learned Mr. Eck, to defend my honor in such a way on this battlefield, to which you seem to draw me with invectives and jibes, or to refute your invectives, of which you are overflowing, so sharply that someone could think that I rather protect my cause as that of truth, since I have truly attacked you no differently than as a skirmisher opposing divine truth. Therefore, I have decided, as much as it is possible, to oppose these holy things, which do not become clear otherwise, to your acting (histricosis) sentences with God's help in such a way that you may realize at the same time that you have inflicted ten insults on me for one, if I have inflicted one at all, and that you have adapted inappropriate testimonies of Scripture to your opinions. Then, when we both, wearied, shall choose arbiters and desire a judgement, only a judgement made according to the canonical Scriptures shall satisfy us. You should not think that the aversions are great (as you say), through which truth overcomes all wickedness: War must be for the sake of peace. And let us not allow a false peace to take away what has been preserved by the righteous warfare of the fathers; let us pursue the truth, not hatred. Fare well, and be inclined to him whom thou makest an adversary for thy projectile. Given at Wittenberg, August 28, 1518.

Eck's first comment or rather first rebuke. 6)

Since the kingdom of heaven in Christ's words seems to denote the present church and the time of evangelical fulfillment, it is impossible to see how repentance can express the life of all believers.

Carlstadt's defense record.

Eck's first sentence is this: He does not see that the contending church, for which the time of fulfillment has come, needs repentance, since it is the assembly of all believers, among whom not a few are righteous.

  1. Cf. Col. 538 in this volume.

636 Löscher, R.-A. II, 110 f. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 707-709. 637

The excited corner defends, or rather offends like this:

I.

I wonder where it might have come into the mind of D. Bodenstein to say: the first sentence of Eck basically wants that the contending church does not need repentance, since this is nowhere found in my note 1). Therefore, because the ground is dilapidated, everything built on it must also fall down.

I recognize, D. Eck, your judgment about my foolishness, namely you wonder where the sense of your rebuke came from? I do not pale because of this rebuke of yours, since I must confess my ignorance when circumstances demand it. But I am not so dull of mind that I should understand only 2) the sound of your words, but not also what you want and what kind of opinion you show with it. Why are you not surprised at yourself? since you must mean the same thing that I have stated, and I would not have denied that what you wonder about, that it has come into my mind, is not seen or read with the eyes, but yet I only claim that it is found in the intention of the writer. You base it on this: it does not seem that repentance expresses the life of all believers. I said: The church, as D. Eck says, does not need repentance. For by saying that not all the life of believers will be repentance, you make this implicit conclusion: So some life of the faithful is repentance, and again, according to the laws of alternate (altercantium), I would say, of alternate things occurring occasionally in a matter (subalternarum in materia contingenter accidentium) (of which here is an example, if it is permissible to use scholastic expressions), the opposite of this, namely, this conclusion: some life of the faithful is not repentance, becomes equally true. Take both of these together; will you not then admit that any church, which is the assembly of believers, has no need of repentance? Thou wilt indeed admit it: is it not, then, the ground of thy proposition? But I have set up a contradictory proposition against your, not my, ground, namely: the whole life of the believers is a repentance. This I had taken from innumerable books

  1. This is what Eck calls what is presented in the "Obelisks," since the obelisks are notes on Luther's 95 Theses.
  2. tum, should mean: tanturu. (Walch)

I do not see that anyone could be allowed to contradict this. Moreover, that every Christian teacher must accept this, all church teachers testify, although the scholastics argue against it. I have no doubt that you will admit that the many individual (particulares) churches of God make up the one general and holy one, as it were a holy and godly body; and at least of the individual ones, in which only the righteous and not also the ungodly can be found, you would not deny the reason I have given, because the righteous have no need of repentance. But I confess that the most holy are in need of repentance in this life, this is my reason, because this is a truth testified by the whole canonical Scripture, which does not mislead nor err. Your reason, however, or, if you wish, mine, which is derived from your sentence, in this I agree with you, is dilapidated and false, and everything and anything that is built on it and that only grows out of it suffers from real sickness and must, as truth teaches, do a great fall of itself. In this way I thought I had to refute this sentence, which really begins at the first beginning (ab ovo coepit exordium), not because I wanted to violate the modesty that you demand but do not observe, but because you undertake to prove by the testimony of Scripture, but nevertheless turn here and there and throw in what has sprung from the heads of men, namely from their inclinations (pectoribus). Never, dear Eck, have I believed that you have taken away all repentance from the general church, but from your used testimonies I see that you deny that the whole life of believers is a repentance; this I refute. But you base your opinion on one kind of repentance, as we read in the following sentence, as follows:

II.

Therefore, I claim and confess with the Holy Mother, the Church, that penance is a sacrament and the second tablet 3) after the shipwreck. Likewise, I humbly confess with her and the holy fathers that through penance the souls of the faithful are purified and cleansed, and no living person has heard that I had a different opinion about it.

  1. Shipwrecked people used to have a painting made of themselves and the shipwreck they had suffered in order to go begging with it.

638 Löscher, R.-A. II, III-113. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. LVIII, 709-712. 639

This is the proof or explanation of the previous sentence. You say that nowhere in the note do I find that the contending church does not need repentance. This you now prove and explain by this sentence, saying, For I maintain with the mother, the church, that penance is a sacrament. If this was your opinion, then you have carelessly contradicted the following sentence: The whole life of the faithful is a penance; for that is not understood of sacramental penance. I thought that a man gifted with the acumen of Chrysippus would have contradicted on the matter, but since I see that you did not speak in reference to the matter at hand, I calmly tolerate your rebuke and do not reproach again.

By what inference, indeed, by what order can you conclude this proposition: repentance does not express the whole life of the faithful, from that: not the whole life of the faithful is expressed by sacramental repentance? Does it follow, dear Doctor, dearest brother, that the destruction of one part is followed by the destruction of the whole? Further, that I chat with you in a philosophical and dialectical manner: is then the ground of proof, which one transfers from a single (subjectiva) part to the whole, valid to deny the whole (negative validum)? e.g. if I were to say: he has no fever, therefore he has no infirmity or disease. Now, if we apply this to the matter at hand, is it valid: sacramental penance does not express the whole life of believers, consequently there is no penance which embraces or expresses the whole life of believers? Why do you wonder that I see what you mean? For I have long since seen through those sophistical antics and could point out to you that you are making fallacies by inferring from a lower thing to a higher one in such a way as to nullify the latter (destructive arguendo). But away with these monstrous fictions of men: on this battlefield we do not suffer them. Our way of disputing is another. About the matter itself I want to do with you and ask this of you, that you do not think or speak according to your arbitrariness about the scripture given by the Holy Spirit.

I myself affirm and confess sacramental penance with the Church, but I teach with her and the holy Fathers not only this, but also others. There is the writing of Augustine "On the Medicine of Penance"; likewise another treatise "On the Usefulness of Penitential Doing" and many others of the same, on whose

One or more Gratians, who may have a great reputation with you, but not an outstanding one with me, are not at all fruitful in their way, but lean and coldly support themselves too much. Yet he cites the book of Augustine, in which the latter teaches a threefold way of repentance; but in citing it, he has founded repentance more firmly, insofar as, as I see, it concerns you, not me.

Obviously, dear D. Eck, St. Augustine teaches the penance which expresses the whole life of the faithful. His words are: But the other penance is that the practice of which must be throughout this life, as long as we walk in the mortal flesh, in constant humility of prayer. See the reasons there and consider carefully that there is a penance whose practice must take place throughout life, not in a frivolous way, but with humility, but also with prayer. Do you not see that Augustine clearly asserted that the whole or all life of believers must be a penance, or, as you say more delicately but also more obscurely, that penance expresses the whole life of believers, because it comes to all believers who live here, for he speaks of all who walk in the mortal body? only, according to Ambrose, where Scripture does not distinguish, neither do we have to make a distinction. Therefore, the whole life of believers deals with repentance.

But why do I make a fuss with these reasons of proof? For the passage quoted from Augustine satisfies the grammatical reader, namely, that the whole life of all believers is a penance. But what kind? Note, one that is practiced in constant humility of prayer; it must be a perpetual one, that is, all, that is, a whole one. For perpetual, according to your Aristotle, is nothing that is not whole, that is not all. For if the life of the faithful were not a whole atonement, or not all atonements, it would not be an everlasting one. But what is more difficult for a man than to repent with humility without ceasing, so that a man becomes lowly in his opinion, with prayer or supplication; that he goes into his closet and closes the door behind him and pours out his heart before God with the full fervor of his soul? These are very difficult things and yet they occupy the whole life of the believer, order it, drive it. Is this the sacramental penance? If it is sacramental, what do the scholastics, your patrons, say that minor sins are forgiven without the priest's absolution? Likewise, if you call it a sacramental one

640 Löscher, R.-A. n, 113-ns. 31 Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 712-714. , 641

Will you not then also prove the sensually perceptible signs of the Sacrament to be equally eternal, and by what testimonies of Scripture? In this act of penance, the whole assembly of saints cries out with one voice: Forgive us our trespasses. Hear David crying piteously: Woe is me, for my pilgrimage has become a long one. Lament Job, who laments and says: Is not the whole life of man a temptation? And the wise man: The body that perishes weighs down the soul. Must this wholesome repentance be taken away from the church and the righteous believers, so that your rebuke may stand? Did not Paul, who was incorporated into the body of the church, sigh and eagerly wait for the redemption of his body? Therefore, agree with me, not with me, but with the Scripture, on which the prestige of the Church is based, and affirm that this non-sacramental repentance extends through the whole life, in all believers, especially the righteous. Of the sacramental, which has the key, namely, of the third act of penance, which must be performed because of the sins indicated in the ten commandments, from which the penitents in the church actually take their name, I likewise teach, according to the testimony of Scripture and the holy church fathers, that it is a permanent one. 1) I do not say that that sign (namely, the words of the priest who says, "I absolve you from your sins according to the word of the Savior: What thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven) shall always remain and sound, so that the priest shall always pronounce it with his voice, but that inner repentance, which is promised by this sign or sound of the words, but also takes place by the action of the Holy Spirit inwardly in the heart, must be an everlasting one according to the words of the Savior: Whoever does not take up his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple, or, as Matthew says, he is not worthy of me. Likewise John: Whoever is my servant, let him follow me, and where I am, there shall my servant be also. These words speak without distinction of all the works by which we strive to follow God and fulfill his commandments. But what do they teach? Read carefully and you will find that we must follow Christ in every work by which we want to serve and follow God. But if we must follow, how can we stand still? how can we stop? 2) How

  1. As an aside: This is not opposed, dear Eck.
  2. As an aside, Christ teaches in Matthew that sins should be constantly remembered.

interrupt the constant and following steps? So you will admit this perpetual repentance, by which we are badly converted to God, by which we please God but displease ourselves, in which we do not condemn the righteous God, but confess with Daniel and Baruch that we are ungodly and unrighteous, yes, our own disgrace. Of this repentance, I say, by which we tremble in regard to GOD, disagree with us, and feel a shudder before us, since we hate our souls, must be expressed in uninterrupted series in all of life, what that noble eagle Christ taught quite clearly: Where I am (that is, Christ), there shall also my servant be. So where is the servant of repentance? Where is the servant and the subject? Only where Christ is. 3) But you may object that this is not written of repentance. Therefore, respectfully hear this scripture: My sin is always before me. If "always," how can you suppose that any life is without that avenging repentance? Or don't you know that God, when He purifies, keeps no one innocent? that we enter Heaven through many tribulations? Are you not familiar with Isaiah, through whom God inculcated: Remember thou, and I will not remember: for if thou forget that which thou hast committed (admissorum), I will remember it. Or should you not want to know that (among other things) to repent is to fulfill all the commandments of God? As Ezekiel reminds us, "If the wicked repents of all his sins which he has committed, and keeps all my commandments, and does justice and righteousness, he shall live; I will not remember all his iniquities. Oh how great a comfort we hear when God promises that He will not remember our sin! If the wicked repents, by what law, dear D. Eck, how is repentance commanded? The learned Ezekiel speaks: And keeps, he says, all the commandments 2c How long? We must agree with the evangelist who resolves this: He who perseveres to the end will be saved. The commandments must be kept if the penitent is to enter into life, and he must persevere in keeping the commandments, not allowing himself to be interrupted, but continuing in constant observance, even to the end of life. Therefore, the whole life of the believers or the life of all believers is a repentance. This is not contradicted by the fact that God leads out of hell, that He sends word to the poor, that He shows mercy after wrath, because these testimonies, which do not contradict each other, are not the same.

  1. In passing: This is not contradicted by Cassianus cks xsoo. satist.

642 - Löscher, R.-A. II, IIS f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 714-716. 643

contradict, nor even the foregoing, are not unseemly to be announced here (adglutinanda). But whoever desires to know this very beautiful subject, wait a little, we have collected this, because, God willing, we want to publish it shortly. But Eck will admit, both verbally and in writing, that this repentance, although the perceptible sign is temporary, is equally perpetual. If he still shakes his head and insists on what he started with, then we have to dedicate another booklet to him with full rights. You who have little in the way of knowledge and scholarship, or who are eager for it, read Augustine in the scripture cited and "On the Usefulness of Penitential Doing," "On Faith in Peter," Cap. 3 and 31; Ambrose "on the defense of David"; Chrysostom, Ps. 51; Augustine on the penitential psalms, and Cyprian. This about your second rebuke. But there is perhaps another error rumored about the second tablet of the shipwreck. But since you have either dismissed it yourself or are hiding it deep in your chest, I will not refute it, but go further. The rest of the same rebuke and its last part reads like this: "Likewise, I confess with her and the holy ones.

Fathers humbly that through repentance the souls of believers are > cleansed and purified, and no living person has heard that I had a > different opinion about it.

You assert something true, if you understand it rightly, if you do not trust in works, but have the faith of the indwelling Christ in such a way that you believe that you are helped by God alone; if you assert that repentance is poured into the hearts by the Holy Spirit, and thus believers are cleansed and purified by it. But I believe that this is true not only of sacramental repentance, but of every repentance which we gather from Scripture, and against your proposition I say that the faithful righteous and those who are clean through repentance are cleansed and purified. If you admit this, your proposition falls away, in which you denied that the whole life of believers is a repentance. Speak with the Scriptures, and the controversy will end. But this and the like you may add, that you may bring and draw to your side simple-minded and unlearned people (against me, as if I were insulting you); I did not think you so unlearned, and that what unlearned people spread here and there is hidden from you.

D. Ecks III.

For thus, says Aurelius Augustine, His abundant mercy is communicated by God, that the punishment which justice requires is not left; with other sayings of the saints which one reads in the canonical decrees.

This is the proof of your sentence from Augustine and other saints whose sayings are read in the canonical decrees.

First, tell me what these canonical decrees are, if they are those of the Roman popes? Bring them forward, cite them! If they are the ones of Gratian, why do you suggest that they are canonical? Because he has no more power to canonize (canonizandi) the sayings of the saints that he has gathered than you do, and just as I do not believe that you can canonize writings, neither does Gratian. Here I would like to say well, you have forgotten your Scotus, who, moved by good reasons, says that it is not clear to him that the sayings (capitula) collected by Gratian should make all [Christians binding, after Jerome and Augustine, and I will not call any other than the writings of the Holy Spirit canonical. According to legal scholars, Gratian never had the power to make any sayings canonical. See the specula, of Joan. And., Panormitanus, Felix, Paul, de Cass. and others, lest you ascribe more than is fair to Gratian and put a bit in the mouths (lupatis arceas) of our church scholars.

Secondly. To the passages we have quoted, which all who have read Augustine and those who look at them know to be true, you add contradictory ones. But since contrary things, as Ambrose says, cancel each other out, I might argue for myself, since the knee is nearer to me than the calf; but this may go, because we who have a carnal inclination (animalis affectio) almost all think too much of ourselves (φίλαυτοι). What I have been

is as much closer to the canonical scripture as my shirt is closer to me than my coat. I know that you have seen that my opinion has used the testimonies of God to prove it; with regard to yours I am doubtful, since a statement of the same teacher, which is justified by a canonical saying, overturns, erases, nullifies an opposite one, which stands unproven.

Thirdly. I am afraid that you used a doubtful (apocryphum) saying of Augustine against a clear and certain one, and, as it.

644 Löscher, R.-A. II, II6-II8. 31. Carlstadts Verth. wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVHI, 716-719. 645

The first time that you have done this, you have put on a revoked one instead of a non-revoked one, and thus mixed the sea with the sky.

Fourthly. I confess that between the pronouncements of the Holy Fathers and the Scriptures (which the Doctors of the Church call canonical) there is a world of difference, because the Fathers did not set out to reach the highest goal in any respect, 1) Pay attention to what I have mentioned in the 12th sentence. But of the order of the canonical Scriptures according to the doctrines of the Church we have gathered much in the explanations of the first theses, namely of our firstfruits. If it pleases you, we want to talk to you about it in this very booklet. Just take in hand what Augustin says in the second book, Cap. 31, Against the Grammarian Cresconius, namely: "We may not judge at all about the holy scriptures, which comprise the canon of the church, but we judge according to them about the other books, both of the believers and of the unbelievers. Memorize this well, it holds my anchor. I love you so much that I don't want you to be put down by going back far (revolutatione) to books. You do the same: lead, prove.

Fifth. What you cite in general, show it, so that I may recognize whether you act as a faithful or a negligent or a scheming teacher, who guesses from a piece of the main thing (ex cauda capitis) to the whole context of the thing. Show the passage, so that we may then also have a lame teacher, if I can find nothing for my opinion. I will draw from the sources of Augustine. Thus, after Jerome, let us move from the Latin copies to the Greek and from these to the Hebrew, with which Augustine agrees, and investigate the sources and beginnings of the booklets.

Sixth. You also do of it and to it, and interfere with impossible things, saying that God's bountiful gift is so distributed that the punishment which justice requires is not left. You admit mercy and deny it; or take it away. If the punishment of justice does not remain, neither does mercy. For as the healthy have no need of the physician, but the sick, so also the righteous are not called, but the unrighteous' Therefore we read: He who draws you in mercy and compassion. He has come,

  1. Luprsmam asssyui oetavam - to reach the highest octave.

to make the sinners blessed; likewise: I have not come to call the righteous. Therefore I believe that the discipline of justice will always remain, for the sake of which he also punishes justly and gives mercy out of mercy, otherwise man would not need mercy. Nor do I see what advantage for your proposition would result from this. Beginning with the general, you did not want to take away the sacramental penance of the church; further, you set up this proposition that you admit with the mother, the church, that there is a sacramental one; finally, you fell to saying that there is no penalty left to justice. If you think that no punishment of justice is left by the sacramental one, why does he want to be washed further who says: I recognize my sin? I see what a quagmire you are sinking into; let us clear it away not here, but hereafter. Perhaps you have the opinion, which I learned and taught earlier as a scholastic theologian, that through repentance all impurity is so removed that not even a speck remains, 2) indeed, that the repentant becomes thoroughly healthy and pure. I am afraid that you suffer from the same false opinion as the one who is washed and no longer needs to wash his feet, and so you think that the punishment of righteousness does not remain. This is a very bad error, which is completely tainted with the sin of hypocrisy. Nevertheless, Augustine may have said the opposite, but he recanted it in many pronouncements and with much better reasons (armatius). He uses, namely, the sayings of Solomon 20, 8. 9.: For when the righteous king sits (on his throne) in judgment, who can boast that he has a righteous heart? and Jeremiah: Why will you contend with me in judgment? and David likewise: Of mercy and judgment will I sing unto thee; likewise: Go not into judgment with thy servant; for before thee no living man is righteous. Before him no living man, be he righteous as he will, can escape the chastening of justice. Should you alone be able to do it? Yes, he also uses this passage: Mercy boasts itself against judgment, in the letter to Jerome, de sen. Jacobi, de spiritu et litera, in the last chapter and others. As the stronger and better equipped takes the robbery of the weaker and defenseless, so the same teacher, since he bases himself on a saying, takes his acquired defenseless robbery by the opposite equipped opinion,

  1. In passing: Those have reason to speak likewise who have only looked at Chrysostom above.

646 Löscher, R.-A. II, 118-120. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 719-721. 647

excludes [his opponent, takes him away, rejects him. So you see that this opinion is more valid (receptorem), and that Augustin became more learned by writing. Jerome uses this saying Ps. 32, 5. 6.: I said, I will confess against me my transgression, and thou wilt forgive me the iniquity of my sin. For this all the saints will ask you 2c For this forgiveness of iniquity all the saints will ask: but after you no saint will ask. This is what I intended in my 131st thesis: Blessed is he who strikes his children on a stone; this thesis you, prevented by some heat, have not touched. Therefore the punishment of justice remains, since the just, not the vicious, as soon as he begins to speak, is his own accuser. To what is stated from Augustine we will answer elsewhere.

D. Ecks IV.

I also confess that repentance is properly accomplished through contrition, confession and satisfaction with the addition of the absolution of the priest, as Chrysostom and other fathers have summarized it. That this was my opinion of penance, I call to witness: Princes, counts and the whole audience of my sermons.

If this was your opinion, that you knew only this sacramental penance, you have not yet touched the one you wanted to destroy, namely: The whole life of believers is a penance. This did not speak of the application of a sensually perceptible sign, that the application of the same is the whole life, but it was shown that everything and the whole life of believers requires repentance and confession, as the Scripture speaks. I admit the repentance that God works, according to the passages of Scripture that I have cited in the 145th thesis and others. Since you can read this, it would be superfluously repeated here. Christ looked at Peter and he began to weep bitterly.

The confession of the heart, which is the first, without which the external has no meaning, I admit. God works this, according to the saying: Confession and glory is his work, namely God's, not man's; it is not due to someone's willing or running, but to God's mercy, therefore confession is God's work. For if it were the work of a man, it would be a lying work, as the man who performs it, of whom it is written: I said in my anguish, all men are liars.

We speak the lie from our own. A good confession of sins is God's work. I would like to prove this more strongly, so that when I follow in your footsteps, I do not bring up what is known to you and become annoyed. I will not bring up what is known and become annoying to you. The Savior of sinners says: He who does the truth comes to the light, so that his works are revealed, for they are done in God. The works, he says, are done in God. Which ones? By this he means that his justification is not due to his merits, but to the grace of God. Augustin äs poeout. moä. Book 1, Cap. 33.

But you say: We argue about confession. Listen to the same Augustine on John, 12th tract: He who confesses and accuses his sins already acts in God; he who does the truth accuses the evil in himself. For if we say that we have no sin, the truth is not in us. Therefore, he who does the truth confesses his sins. The confession of our evil belongs to truth no less than to humility. So he who does the truth comes to the light. But why does he come? Because his works are done in God. It is God who works in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure, so a true confession is God's work. Certainly, if the inner confession of the heart, inspired by God, does not precede the outer confession, then the latter must be empty and void. When the Holy Spirit comes, he says, he will testify and you will also testify. You add: With the addition of the priest's absolution. What this sacramental absolution of the priest does would be very nice, and even necessary to tell; but since this is not within the scope of our very narrow and short disputation, let us save it for our booklet "On Penance" and there, with God's help, say something that can delight the reader's mind, according to the canonical Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church. I fear that certain people would like to elevate the sensually perceptible signs as high as Christ, yes, as God. They may look up what Augustin says in the Tractate, John 10. cap.; äo äoot. ollrist., lid. I, oup. XVIII; äs üäo uä I^strum enp. III.

I know that all atonement is deficient because it has sin in it that can be forgiven, for everyone who does good sins. The sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come; but if they are not worthy, they are not sufficient, and therefore they are not to be called atonements. But about this in more detail elsewhere.

But that you have princes and counts as witnesses

648 Löscher, R.-A. II, 120 f. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W.^VIII, 721-724. 649

Who could not claim that you did this in order to chase a little praise? But I do not want to repay you for your invectives with invectives; I only deal with bringing you to the battlefield of the church teachers.

D. Ecks V.

But right at the beginning of my remarks I rightly deny that repentance expresses the whole life of believers. That I therefore said that not all the life of believers is repentance, D. Bodenstein falsely put this on me, as if I had denied the repentance of the church.

I do not want to make assumptions from your painting (picturis) whether you make a distinction between "everything" (omnem) and the "whole" (totam) life; I do not pursue foolish antics. But I have posited that all and the whole life of believers is a repentance; add this. For 1) All and the whole life of believers is subject to corruption, hindering good, opposing the spirit, sowing corruption; all this repents the righteous. Truly, no one desires an incorruptible and immortal life, if he should not be sorry for the corruptible and mortal life. Therefore, as the whole life and all the life of believers is mortal, so it is worth the effort that repentance expresses the whole and all life of believers. Augustin äe poeu. weck. Cap. 2 That this and other penances must be constantly done because of offenses is denied by D. Eck; or if D. Eck maintains and confesses that all Christ's faithful, however holy they may be, need some true penance, even though it is not the sacramental one: then a little leaf (pagella) makes us agree. But if he insists on his censure, by which he has asserted without distinction that he does not see how the whole or all life of the faithful is a penance, I have not falsely attached any stain to him, but rightly the church will accuse him of error and the Scriptures will reprove him, and it will happen that even a great house can hardly unite (sociare) the disunited. I fight for the truth and strive for it.

D. Ecks VI.

For throughout life, repentance is neither actual nor effective.

  1. Nam, not non (Walch).

(virtualis), nor as virtue, nor as sacrament, nor as satisfaction, > done from a commandment of necessity.

Here Eck lets the war cry of Scotus sound; with his protection he rushes between, heaps and makes it heavier. I know that your patron Scotus, with regard to actions such as penance, distinguished in three ways the intended meaning (intentione) 2c, namely, one according to the deed (actualem), one according to the power (virtualem), one according to the constant practice (habitualem), keeping an order of the more perfect actions, and so made distinctions with regard to penance 2c. In order that you may know that I have spent some years among his testimonies, I add this to show you. Keot. IV, älst. VI, Hu. VI; and IV, eist. XIV, Hu. I, urt. Ill, where repentance is dealt with; and II, ist. XIU; and II, ist. XXXVI; and III, clist. XV; and I, ist. I, hu. II, urt. IV; and I, aet. Ill, Hu. VII; and III, Hu. prolo. and HH. XVIII, art. Ill, and VI, mettm. These I have gathered together, that thou mayest know that I too have examined these things, but have found and hold better than they (that is, than the scholastics), namely, the Doctors of the Church, who have imbibed the truth and juice of the sacred Scriptures. Now I say to this sentence: I do not want to understand it, because I defend the theological truth, and I do not accept other words (voculas) than those which the Scriptures use. If you are sent by God, if you love God, speak with the words of God; if you are from Aristotle or from the inventions of men, let their words sound.

To the basis of this proposition, which is admittedly dilapidated, I reply that active repentance is commanded during the life of all believers. This is sufficiently clear from what has been said before.

D. Ecks VII.

It follows that D. Carlstadt has cited so many collects 2) in vain and has filled up his paper uselessly by struggling with the church prayers (collectis) in 25 theses.

What is Eck dealing with here other than that all of you, dear readers and arbiters, should mock me, laugh at me, hiss me out? He assaults me with this thought of Jerome: The blacksmith practices his blacksmith's trade, great things come to great people; but they despise me, as if I were little

  1. In the 2nd series of theses of the previous scripture.

650 Löscher, R.-A. II, 121-123. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 724-726. 651

and treat small things. For he thinks that I must be blind, that I am not worthy to fight with him with these weapons, projectile and arrows, and he can justly blame me for what Goliath had reproached David with, and say: Am I then a dog, that thou comest to me with a stick? as if these weapons and shield were altogether too bad to fight with him. I will make all of you judges of this, whether he does not ridicule the congregation more than he ridicules me.

D. Eck knows from his Aristotle this sentence: That, because of which a thing is of a certain quality, is even more of the same quality. But D. Eck judges that I am to be laughed at because of the church collections, therefore he also judges that the collections are to be laughed at even more. But let us go further: the same judgment applies to things of equal value, or rather: the same law applies to things of equal value that have the same purpose. The collections of the church agree with the sayings of the holy fathers, and not only with them, but also with the writings of the evangelists, apostles, and prophets; they have the same opinion about them, as a good booklet has and represents the nature of its source. Thus, D. Eck scorns the Collects of the Church as well as the canonical Scriptures and the sayings of the Holy Fathers. Is this how you honor your mother, the church, with adornment and splendor? Do you thus help the things through which the Church, as with her best offerings, gives her heart to God? Furthermore, as a member of the church, I will take this insult to heart with other sighs, and if you do not revoke your error, yes, this arrogance of yours, and make amends, then I will avenge the disgrace. For I am not ashamed, humbly in the name of the Lord, to attack so great a Goliath, and I am not ashamed to cast him down and smite him, who goes about in steel armor, by means of the collects.

Is then the effort lost, which I have given myself with the countering of the Collects? which the holy fathers have not worked out without anointing and effort at the command of the church and have thus connected the epistles or prophecies with the gospel in the most beautiful harmony and have put into a short word expression what contains the strength and the power and the area of the holy scripture. Away with you, D. Eck, be silent, fall silent ! Return 1) honor the prayers of the church! The collections are not contemptible things, but beneficial, fruitful, well-ordered (eruclitLs).

  1. Instead of "reversrl" will be read revertsre.

I do not think my paper is worth so much honor that collections should be written on it; you say that the collections are not worth your paper. But I have mentioned the collections in such a way that one can see that you have not touched any of them, or more correctly, that you have not known them. This sentence is dismissed with such an answer, because it contains nothing learned, but disparages the wholesome and holy prayers of the church.

D. Ecks VIII.

Although it is to be wondered at that D. Carlstadt interprets Eck as his foundation, which he never thought of, it is no less astonishing that he turns from the repentance that we must do according to the command of the Lord Jesus to the repentance by which we suffer the blows and punishments inflicted by God.

In the first part of this sentence you return to your first defending sentence, namely, that you wonder about the same thing here as there; if this is the case, he suffers the same wounds made by your bullets. The second part is: So this is no less 2c

If D. Eck sees that anything he reads deviates from what Scotus drools - for that is what he has imbibed - he immediately cries out, writes and banishes it as something monstrous and wrong. I, D. Eck, hold against your defense taken from Scotus (Scotisticum patrocinium) that repentance consists more in endurance (pat,ibilita,t,6) and suffering than in action; unless Augustine was mistaken, who says: Everything that we are commanded 2) to do is required in these short words: Thy will be done. For when we ask that God's will be done in us, which is set before us in God's holy law, we confess that God's commandments are fulfilled through our suffering, or, to put it more plainly, when we suffer and let it pass over us. Or, if we fulfill the commandment of repentance by doing, causing, or producing good works, as people like you talk about, we would be all too foolish to ask the Father as a gift that we might do so. Yes, since we cannot receive anything good, unless it is imparted to us from above, God works it through Jesus Christ, so that we do not want to withdraw from His commandments, and since we want to do them through His effect, He works that we do them, as Augustine teaches, äs Krut. st üb. urb. o. And Jerome in the Dialogue Wider Pelagius

  1. praseixtuntur, not: xkroixiuntur.

652 Löscher, R.-A. II, I23-I2S. 31 Carlstadt's Verth. against Eck's Monomachy. W. XVIII, 726-729. 653

about the matter at hand: so that we do not merely feast on the outward appearance of repentance, let us also explore its depth.

I have said, yes, not I, but Christ: Whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. All texts without exception unanimously read like this: He that taketh not; no text saith, He that maketh not his cross, or causeth not his cross, or bringeth it forth, and followeth me, but: He that taketh not. David confirms this when he sings: Pierce my flesh with nails from your fear. Here he asks that he be crucified by the fear of GOD, not his fear. He does not want to make nails or a cross, but he asks that he receive nails and be struck on the cross by the fear of the Lord, so that he will not throw off the cross. Moreover, Jerome remarks on Matthew, Cap. 10, in another Gospel it is written: He who does not take up his cross daily, lest we think that a single blaze of faith is enough; always the cross must be borne. Let Christ tell us whether we follow him more by suffering than by doing. Whoever wants to follow me, he says, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. If you want to follow Christ, if you want to repent and suffer for what you have done and do good, as it is written: "Forsake evil and do good; deny yourself, deny what is yours, deny your will. Or according to Origen: Let all works breathe self-denial, and according to Bernard: If thou desirest Christ, despise thyself; if thou wilt do the will of Christ, who saith, repent, break thy will, and do the will of Christ; let not thy will be done, but God's will. Therefore leave and reject all ability to work, according to what is written: Turn from your will and wait only on God, for this is the most perfect effort to come to Christ, that we regard ourselves as nothing and know that we can do nothing that is pleasing to God, unless he himself has given it.

Therefore, if you want to follow Christ, reject the active, causing and producing faculty; if you want to repent, deny the own faculty of the will, deny yourself, then you can bear the cross of Christ and follow him, so that you may say: I am poor and a beggar, and the Lord cares for me. Since man has a poor will, which has nothing of its own, that is, which has no actions prompted by it, and no actions of its own, and even if he has a begging

If a man shows his will, begging for help and casting all his care on the Lord, the Lord will take care of him and feed him.

For he who dwells under the umbrella of the Most High says to the Lord, "It is you who receive me, my refuge, my God; I will hope in him. On the other hand, he who does not dwell firmly and constantly under the umbrella of God, that is, he who partly ascribes to himself the ability to do something, or he who misses to work, to do or to bring forth holy works of God by his will, will not say to God the Lord: You are the one who receives me, my hope, but will partly ascribe it to his own will. But in order for you to hope in God, to trust and to say, "You receive me," you must dwell under the umbrella of God. How will it be for you? I have said that God is concerned about the beggars, for He saves from the snare of the hunter, that is, from those who, with sweet speeches, flattery and persuasion to evil, lay snares of beasts for man, that is, those who deceive in a sweet way, but He also saves from those who attack with harsh words. If you hope in God's shield, but despair of yours, His truth will surround you with a shield, grace will surround you, which rightly accepts temptations, which rightly overcomes them; for God is faithful, who will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but will put an end to temptation.

But we cannot overcome the temptations that surround us because of our sins, harass us, wear us out, and hinder good works too much by ourselves, but in all this we overcome by Him, that is God, through Jesus Christ, consequently not by ourselves. For we are rather driven than we act, because those who are God's children are driven by the Spirit of God. So we take the shield of God; behold, we suffer justly. Will you not admit that the ability to receive something is a suffering one? In the same way we also receive the ability to overcome persecutions. This is it, then: he taketh up his cross, and followeth after me; not he doeth, but he taketh; Christ beareth, and we follow. But how? We must be drawn: Draw us after thee, and we will run; for no man cometh to Christ, except the Father draw him. If we are to come, the Father must draw us. If thou, O Christ, bidest us take up our cross, compass us about with thy shield of truth. He will thus with a shield

654 Löscher, R.-A. II, 125 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 72g-731. 655

that is, with the cross his truth will surround you, and you will not be afraid of the terror of the night. You carry the cross blessedly, when Christ lays out his cross. It is said: Truth will surround you with the shield (see, it is always the suffering or exquisite will, not the active will), with the shield of chastity (continentiae), patience, prudence and humility, because by these four sides (cornibus) the cross of Christ is represented. Thou shalt not be afraid of the terror of the night: 1. of the arrow that flieth by day, 2. of the work that creepeth in darkness, 3. of the approach of the evil enemy at noon, 4. thou shalt not be afraid of the temptations of sins; thou shalt not be afraid. Because you will overcome far through the shield, the cross of Christ.

The terror of the night has in it the punishments of night and condemnation, but so that we do not fear it, we are given the gift of the cross, which holds up to us the sins we have committed, for whose sake we speak with the prophet: For I am made to suffer, and my pain is always before me. For I show my iniquity, and take thought for my sin. Laying up eternal chastisement in our thoughts because of our sins, we consider all that we suffer to be delicious, and exclaim with Daniel: Lord, you are righteous and have justly brought these evils upon us because of our sins.

This power of the cross fights against pusillanimity, chastises the body and keeps it in bondage, so that the flesh may become accustomed to endure tribulations and to endure punishments and mighty scourges (flagella procellarum).

On the left side of the cross of Christ, patience is represented, which turns against open insults, public persecutions, namely the arrow that flies by day and wounds openly. This power is given by God, received by God, not made by our free will; it is not broken by disgusting evils, nor does it consent to open persuasions to evil, but repays evil with good, overcomes the enemy in good, gives food to the hungry, waters the thirsty, and gathers fiery coals on his head.

On the right side of the cross, the hand of divine prudence is stretched out. This has the wisdom of serpents; so that it is not deceived, it plugs the ears. This power, which we ask from God and receive through Christ, is directed against the works that creep in darkness,

namely, flattery, the poisonous deceit of slandering the brother, sowing hatred, secretly persuading to evil, lest she be deceived, lest she be fed with poison under the appearance of honey. The upper side of the cross has humility. This alone deserves prestige, and it alone is what is praised (intitulatur): He who humbles himself will be exalted and blessed. This power of the cross preserves good works; it watches and strives, lest the pride of good works lift up its head and destroy all other efforts.

Therefore, accept Christ's cross, which he himself offers you, which the Lord himself bore for us; accept it, but not in vain; do not sleep, do not stand still, but follow Christ. For Christ suffered for us, says the apostle Peter, and has left us an example, that we should follow in his footsteps. Do not accept the grace of God in vain, for he who stands there, let him see to it that he does not fall, for there are always various kinds of temptation, but may there always also be the shield by which you can destroy the temptations, and just as the whole and all life of believers is a temptation, because the life of man on earth is a temptation, so also the cross of Christ must always be borne. See then, dear D. Eck, as Bernhard says in his 2nd sermon on St. Andrew, and on the Psalm: Who under the umbrella 2c, in the 5th and 6th sermons, that repentance (I do not say sacramental, that is, receiving the grant of a sensually perceptible sign 2c) embraces the whole life of the faithful. For it shuns evil and turns to good, it accepts chastisement, it does good to enemies, it guards against flattery and crushes arrogance. This pride, as the last thing, puts all righteous believers in ambush and so powerful that there is not a moment when the saints should not need humility and repentance.

But blessed is the soul, says Bernard, which boasts of this cross, and overcomes, only so that it may persevere in it. Therefore, let each one pray that he may not be taken away from this cross. The apostle Paul also reminded us that it is through God's good pleasure that we can take upon ourselves the cross of Christ, so that we may not weaken or fall away in the sufferings of our neighbor. And how much more in ours? since the sufferings that attack us are more burdensome and severe. Therefore, if we receive this strength from God

656 Löscher, R.-A. II, I26-I2S. 31 Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 731-784. 657

that we do not fall away, repentance 1) consists more in suffering than in doing; indeed, the act of repentance, if there is one, is based on suffering and goes back to it, as it were, as its source. For the apostle wrote thus for the sake of this thing: He had sent before Eph. 3:13, I have asked that ye might not be weary because of my afflictions; I have required your will, which ye have as a free one. But that what I have asked may be done [Eph. 3, 14-18.For this cause I bend my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he may give you strength to be strong, that you may not be weary; that he may give you strength to be strong through his Spirit, which is grace (note the shield of truth and the cross), and that Christ may dwell in the inner man through faith, that you may understand what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth. But when do you grasp this? Hear the apostle saying, "Let boasting be far from me, except in the cross of our God Jesus Christ; and let us also boast in the same. In it we find the breadth, the length, the height and the depth, for with these words the cross is set before us. For it has the breadth, to which the hands are fastened; it has the length, that from there to the earth the wood extends; it has the height, where the head of the crucified is; it has also the depth, that is, what is put into the earth and is not seen. Behold, what a great mystery! From what you do not see, the whole of what you see arises. The breadth is the love that alone works right; this makes a cheerful giver whom God loves. He who sows in blessing will also reap in blessing.

What is the length? He who perseveres to the end will be saved; this is the length of the cross, where the whole body is stretched out, where one stands to some extent if one perseveres in standing. If you want to boast of the breadth, have love, but boast so that you have received it from God. If you want the length of the cross, have perseverance. But if you want the height or loftiness of the cross, lift your heart upward. How upward? There hope, there love, from there ask for strength, there expect reward. Likewise, if you do not do all these things for the sake of eternal reward, 2) you will not be rewarded.

  1. As an aside, the act of repentance refers to suffering.
  2. According to what soon follows, God Himself is to be regarded as the eternal reward. Therefore, the text will probably not need any change here.

you will not have the height, and there will be neither the width nor the length. For what does "having the height" mean other than to think of God, to love God, and to love God in vain? to ask Him as a helper? finally to regard God Himself as a reward? to expect nothing else from Him but Himself? If you love, love in vain; if you truly love, he himself will be your reward. Blessed are they, O Lord, that dwell in thy house: for ever shall they praise thee. From the depths comes all that we are able. I can exclaim: How are thy works so great, how are thy thoughts so very deep! an unintelligent man knoweth it not, and a fool regardeth it not. A fool does not recognize it, because it is deep, therefore many, who wanted to give an account of this depth, have fallen into fables. Notice this, you scholastics. I do not want you to demand account from me about the depth. I am a man, I am mindful of the depths of the cross, I do not penetrate them; I shun them, but do not explore them; unfathomable are his judgments and inscrutable his ways. Man, who are you that you want to be right with God? Do not want to know what God has wanted to keep hidden. Ambrosius: Do not allow yourself to know the hidden things of God. This is from the 7th sermon of Augustine "on the words of the Apostle"; äs Aiatia X. Dsstum. Cap. XXV. XXVI. and in many other places, although Jerome and also Ambrose explain the Apostle's saying to the Ephesians 3, 18. differently, D. Eck may like to read Augustin carefully and crucify his sentences, or at least allow them to be crucified.

When you consider the height of the cross, your propositions, especially those that attribute too much to the will an activity (activitatem) and a causing (elicitionem) (to speak with the expressions of Scotus), are lost. Of this kind are the fourth 3) sentence, which derives the being good (bonitatem) for an external action from God and from an internal action, as if God alone were not enough, and the 8. 15. 24. 32. 38. and 40. sentence of the second note. 4) These are truly to be crucified, that they may be humbled, that they may lift up the heart, for they enter into the movement of the heart, which they alone should pour out before God.

If you consider the breadth, you may crucify the theses which you have set up about repentance. For just as the whole life of the

  1. In Löscher and Walch erroneously the second; hence in Walch an unnecessary change of the text.
  2. With this the first obelisk of Eck is meant, above which the second row of theses of this writing is placed.

658 Löscher, R.-A. II, 128-130. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 734-736. 659

If the world is full of repulsions for believers, it is also full of the twofold repentance of which we have spoken before; but you do not seem to have admitted it in your first remark. Likewise the sentences which you have attributed to me quite falsely, as if I had said that one should not pray for one's enemies, you may crucify. For the breadth extends to the love and benevolence against the enemies. So hang them up, pierce them and pin them with the nails of truth and brotherly love. But these are in the first row or note the sentences 14. 15. 18. 2c

If you look at the depths and pay closer attention, you will confess that everything we argue about comes from the election of grace, and that you have all too impudently claimed that the object of the election of grace is something foreign (extraneam) in relation to works and does not belong to it. For the apostle says Eph. 2, 10.: We are his workmanship, created for good works, which God has prepared that we should walk in them. Augustin says: He has decreed (praescivit) and predestined that He would give good works to the elect. Why do you deny that the election of grace belongs to good works and that it is intrinsic to them? For this, that God justifies, He does in secret; for it is because we are justified that good works begin; not because they precede, that we are justified. For if grace were of works, it would already be no longer grace. The breadth has the perseverance.

Whoever does not take up this cross, in whatever form it may be presented to him, is not worthy of Christ. Therefore, it is not a true repentance that does not have humility, love and perseverance. There is no man on earth who is righteous and does not repent; but there is also no righteous man who does not always repent.

We have noted the above for V. Eck and the students with different concern, but with the same intention: so that the students would have something to read at the same time, but D. Eck would see the general refutation of his propositions.

D. Ecks IX.

And it is quite astonishing that he calls this a penance, and yet the Church asks that this be averted from the people of God, which, as he assures afterwards, lasts with the good throughout life.

And I can't help but wonder with D. Eck about the one who wonders so finely. He has sharpness of mind, reverses the context

of the refutation, and secretly stings. But I knew, dear D. Eck, before I made the attempt, that a scorpion lies under every stone; therefore I procured the oil, by which its sharp poison is removed, before I touched this stone.

To get behind the matter, I did not say, D. Eck, that the Church asks that GOD avert the penance (the prayer of the Church is clear enough), but that GOD avert the scourges; 1) something else it would be if said: the penance; as penance and scourge are two different things.

It does not move you that I have quoted from the prayer of the church that the faithful and just people ask that he may turn away the scourge of wrath, as in my 111th thesis 2) has the very clear wording (linea). Thus, on the Saturday before the 1st Sunday in Lent, the Church prays: And graciously turn away from him the blows of thy wrath; since elsewhere she prays that she may be mended by the gracious (pio) blows. The Church suffers merciful blows, but prays that she may be delivered from the strokes of wrath. But since you spurn, scorn and despise the holy prayers of the Church, I hold up to you the canonical Scriptures. Have you not noticed that somewhere in the same context the righteous and holy David says: He is prepared for scourging (made for suffering), and his pain is always before him? Since in the beginning of the same psalm 38. he prays thus: O LORD, punish me not in thy wrath, and chasten me not in thy fury. He prays, says Chrysostom, that he may not be punished in anger, that is, severely, nor chastised in wrath, that is, without mercy. This is not a commandment, he says, of a man who does not want to be punished and refuses to be chastised. To this I could add what Augustine wrote, and I could add what Chrysostom said in the 66th Homily ad populum, but stronger is the saying of Jeremiah, who says: "I know, O Lord, that man's doings are not in his power" 2c, and immediately adds: Chasten me, O Lord, but in judgment, not in anger. This testimony you see in Jerome, then also in Augustin <le xsoo. ras. lid. II, oup. XVII, from which it is clear that the Church asks because she desires that the scourge of wrath, not penance, be averted. This is the appropriate answer

  1. Instead of averti will probably have to read avertst.
  2. The 10th thesis of the second row in the previous scripture.
  3. oratio, not ratio. (Walch.)

660 Löscher, R.-A. II, 130 f. 31 Carlstadt's Derth. Wider Eck's Monomachy. W. XVIII, 736-73S. 661

to what has been set up above. You see that you do not celebrate a scripture twister. I have said nothing about mine. Consider whether you are not to be pitied, since you fight with me with closed eyes, after the fashion of an Andabata. 1)

D. Ecks X.

For since the understanding of the sayings must be taken from the things that are to be spoken of (ex causis dicendi), D. Bodenstein should have rightly considered which penance we were arguing about.

You present what is known and quite true, so that even a legal scholar writes that the force and power of the laws lie in the intention or in the thing that must be spoken of. This matter, which should have been spoken against (causam contradicendi), I have considered quite well in your rebuke. I have considered that your whole purpose was to prove completely and without distinction that not all or the whole life of believers is repentance, and against this you argue from near and from far, and indeed with all your strength. But I hold with the Scriptures that the whole life of believers is a repentance, as I have stated again.

D. Ecks XI.

For when he thought of the repentance of which our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, Repent 2c, I, having a different opinion from him, evidently spoke of the repentance which is done by us, not of that by which we suffer.

Here you name the thing which is to be talked about. I have taken from this the meaning of your sayings. I have perceived that you are chattering thoughtlessly deviated from the path of truth, that you say that because of the sacrament of penance you cannot see how penance can express the whole life of believers.

You, too, should have remembered the teaching that a proposition is understood according to the antecedent propositions from which it is inferred; that is, how others pronounce it: The statement of a teacher must be understood according to the cited texts.

I could say something about the citation of the saying of Christ, but since I see that you contradict more from your head than from the saying of Christ, this is not necessary. But I see

  1. Andabata, a Roman gladiator who fought blindfolded.
  2. praemissas, not praeoruissas (Walch).

various citations in the Church Fathers, which I will communicate when I am prompted to do so.

Since Christ says: Repent, he shows what we have to ask from him. He does not say that free will can repent of itself, but rather he says: Without me you can do nothing.

D. Ecks XII.

Therefore, it is clear that the collections and prayers of the church are not only not against me, but rather that they are attracted in an improper manner. For the Church prays that God may protect us from impending dangers 2c.

The sharp-witted swordsman D. Eck, who touches the arrow thrown into him, but hides the pain of the wound, says that the collections are not against him, and yet he tries to undo them, as can be seen in the 9th and 14th sentences. Here he throws himself on the other side. He says that the collections are not against him; and by thus resisting the knot by which he is bound, he is tied more tightly and becomes entangled in his own rope.

But it is against D. Eck the prayers of the church, which we read in our theses 102. 103. 105. 106. 110 and in others, which in brief say this: The church, gathered together, says in truth: We sinners ask you, hear us. If all and every individual, as many as are in the Church of God, confess and speak with truth that they are sinners, then it follows that the whole life of the faithful is in need of repentance for sins. D. Eck says nothing about this. For the Church does not speak of sacramental penance. Moreover, the Church asks that God's people be cleansed from the sins that are in them, not from those that will be in them. These are words and requests of a penitent, which I have proved from the penitential psalm. But D. Eck goes straight through and believes that it is enough for his fight if he laughs at the holy prayers of the church and denies them according to his liking, but finally says that there is nothing fighting against him, because he denies that it is fighting against him.

D. Eck, tell me, when the general church is assembled and says: We sinners ask you, hear us; whether it speaks the truth or not? If the truth: whether it is the prayer of a penitent or not? If you admit that it is (the prayer of) a penitent, say: whether it is of one who does sacramental penance? If it is the prayer of one who does sacramental penance, provide one who is not included (extruuuiusrariuiu), who could absolve. But

662 Löscher, R.-A. II. 131-133. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 739-741. 663

you will not be able to provide such a one. Since I have accepted all the assembled believers and shown that they all ask for forgiveness of sins, but no one can absolve himself with others, you will consequently admit a penance that is not sacramental, but still, because all believers pronounce this word in prayer: We sinners 2c, so you will admit that the life of all believers will be put under the penance.

Likewise, say whether all of God's people speak the truth (namely, the universal Church): We deserve chastisement (flagella)? If it is true, because the Church says so, then you will consequently admit that all believers repent. If you refuse, listen to the Church, which on Thursday in Quinquag. says: God, who is offended by guilt, is appeased by repentance; and shortly thereafter: The scourge of wrath, which we deserve for our sins, turn away. Behold, the Church confesses offending guilt, and the word of appeasing repentance pronounces God's people whole and entire; otherwise the Church would say: Behold the prayer of a part of thy people. Actually, then, God's people (namely, the Church) includes all believers; they cry out and confess that they deserve the scourges of God's wrath and that they repent of their guilt by asking God to remit it; but there is nothing in the prayer about a absolving priest. You will therefore admit that there is a penance that is not sacramental, that takes place daily, that encompasses the entire life of the faithful, and that the church collections cited against you are really against you. From this and what is still to be proven, it is obvious that you are bound. You yourself try to untie the knot, but you would have better concealed the following sentence.

D. Ecks XIII.

Therefore, he should not have guessed a solution for me without books, since in a confessed matter no solution is necessary. What is bound must be solved; he had not bound anything and is looking for the solution. If such a solution had been necessary, then I would have wanted to answer him abundantly with God's help and grace.

I suspected that you would respond to the collections in which the whole multitude of believers say that they repent of their sins and trespasses. I confess that it is true that the church asks to be freed from the sins that are coming, not from the guilt that is in her, namely that the general church does not live in her.

She asks that she be protected, so that it will not be in her. Thus I have answered for you, and, as I suspected that you would answer, so you have indeed answered, as all those judge who understand your 20th and 21st sentences.

D. Ecks XIV.

However, we deny that he claims in the letter that the Church prays only for the righteous, since he uses the prayer: Purify 1) 2c.

In the ninth sentence, Eck was blind because of too much love for his sentences. In this sentence he has taken lynx eyes and sees what is not in the nature of things, and fights fiercely with every kind of weapon, he tries it in every way. But he also plays the role of the giants Enceladus and Porphyrion, who attacked Jupiter and wanted to storm it down from heaven, because in my theses, especially the 112th and 113th, he sees, fights and destroys such things, which, if I had set them up, would certainly bring me out of the kingdom of heaven, that is, out of the church of the faithful, where I would not be able to get along again. For he presumes to interpret to me that I wrote that the church prays only for the righteous, and therefore he rightly denies it. As if I had thrown to the winds the Gospel, the Apostles and the Doctors of the Church, in which we read: Love your enemies; likewise: Pray for those who persecute and blaspheme you.

Did you have to look for a reason to contradict from the church prayer that I cited against you? With this work you do not seek the truth, but rather try to desecrate the collections. This sentence is therefore to be marked with a murdering spike 2) (obelo) in front of it, so that the readers know that you have imposed on the church as well as on me what we have not thought of.

Finally, I ask D. Eck to search through all my theses and to bring up just one syllable from them, by which he could support his wrong opinion, to which he has twisted the healthy words of the church. But why does he resist so wilfully? To have something he could say? what he could bite?

  1. This refers to the Collecte mentioned in the 11th thesis of the 2nd row on Thursday after the 3rd Sunday in Lent. The following on the 15th thesis same there. Therefore must be read here instead of: kuriüeat - ?uriüea.
  2. An allusion to the name "Obelisk", which. Eck had given to his notes. Cf. the note to the title of No. 29 in this volume.

664 Löscher, R.-A. II, 133 f. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVHI, 741-743. 665

D. Ecks XV.

Yes, the holy and most loving Mother, the Church, often prays also for sinners whose hearts she wants to see purified, yes, she prays also for the unbelieving and faithless Jews.

Who dares to deny that we must pray for the unbelievers, Jews and enemies? For the enemies who do not want to live rightly (bene), we are obliged to pray that God's mercy may precede them, namely, that God may work in them the will; but for the righteous we pray that God's mercy may succeed them, namely, that what they will may be done by Him God, through whom it is worked that they will. Augustin Lnoli. oap. XXXII; oontra ckulian. lib. IV, oap. Ill, L; aä Lonikao. oontra ckua8 6pLst. lib. I, oap. XIX; lib. II, oap. IX, X; äs ckono p6r86V6ran. oup. XX, XXIII; äs ^ra6ck68tin. 8anotor. oap. VIII. XI; äs vera IQQ066N. oap. 0611.

D. Ecks XVI.

Therefore, the name of the faithful also includes sinners, because St. Gregory I, in the Homily on Virgins, says that the Kingdom of Heaven refers to the present Church, in which foolish virgins are also found.

I do not deny that those are called believers and elect who are known to be baptized and to live rightly, but many of them are among the number of foolish virgins, and have not burning lamps, but are wicked and tares. They are believers and Christians in name, but in reality they are far from it. But I am talking about believers who are believers in fact and in name, who are made white by Christ's blood, who are God's elect, none of whom are lost, who belong to the number of saints of whom John writes: 1) They came out from us, for they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would certainly have remained with us. For these believers, the Church prays especially that they may be purified, as I said in my 113th and 114th thesis 2). For what I have just said, read carefully Augustine: cke oorrep. st grat. Cap. 7.8. 9.; "of Wednesday" Cap. 5.

  1. This saying, as Walch already remarks, is quoted because of those who remain.
  2. In the 12th and 13th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous number.

D. Ecks XVII.

For faith is not lost by any mortal sin, as love is, but by unbelief, although the saints sometimes give their name to the faithful in a narrower way from complete faith (fide formata). 3)

Faith, of which Paul and then his interpreter in this doctrine (materia) of faith, Peter, spoke, is cast out by every sin by which love is lost, 4) although the scholastics deny this, for faith is active through love. If you take away love, you also take away grace; this is the first thing. Second, the righteous lives by faith. Third, justification comes by faith. Fourth, faith is counted for righteousness to every believer; therefore, whatever takes away justification takes away faith. Fifth, by faith the hearts of the righteous are purified, who live by faith; then also faith is grace. Sixth, David asks of the Lord that faith may be given him according to his mercy, saying, Make me alive according to thy great mercy, and I will keep the testimonies of thy mouth; likewise: Give me understanding, and I will search in thy law. The apostle also bears witness to this opinion, saying: "For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; not from works, lest anyone should boast. When the foregoing is well considered, it is clear that the apostle ascribes faith to grace, so that all faith is grace. But I am speaking of the faith by which we give healthy applause to the truth, by which we believe in GOD, by which the righteous live, for whose sake alone they are believers before GOD 5) who believe and are righteous. I do not care about the scholastics' reasons of formed (formata), unformed (informi) and acquired (acquisita) faith. The faithful have their name from the faith through which Christ dwells in the hearts of the faithful, not from the faith that men obtain from their works. But of these believers the prayer of the Church is: Purify the hearts of believers 2c

  1. The fides formata of the papists includes love, and justifies for the sake of love. Cf. the Concordia Book, St. Louis edition, p. 81; I. T. Müller, p. 107.
  2. Marginal gloss: Truly! a golden saying.
  3. Walch: Perhaps: chosen.

666 Löscher, R.-A. II. 134-136. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 743-746. 667

D. Ecks XVIII.

But even if it is admitted that the Church prays in this prayer only for the faithful righteous, it is wrongly concluded that they have sin for their sake, because the Church prays that they may be purified.

Only unclean things are purified, since, according to Chrysostom, sins do to souls what filth and diseases do to bodies. Heal my soul, for against you I have sinned; so the righteous, who can be cleansed, has sin from which he is cleansed. But who doubts that sins make the spirit of man unclean, and that nothing can be cleansed except what is unclean? with what dialectician should this conclusion not hold? That righteous man must be cleansed, therefore he is unclean; but Job says that no one is clean from filth. Did Christ conclude wrongly when he said: The healthy do not need a physician, but on the contrary, the sick need a physician?

If D. Eck is not ashamed to publish these trivial antics, what would he do in an oral argument? For there we all have greater freedom, even if we do not let ourselves be driven in with conclusions (quamquam inconclu- sibiles); there the unlearned crowd shouts, even if there is no victory, that he has carried off the palm of victory whom he hears shouting the strongest. For such a judgment has the uneducated (amusa) simplicity.

D. Ecks XIX.

Since it could also be understood from the pleasure adhering to punishment (poenali) and the things quite remote from our will (pure involuntariis), creeping over us unnoticed (surreptionibiis), not from an act burdening us with guilt (criminoso actu), which alone is actually sin. For lust is rather called a daughter of sin, although it is sometimes also called sin in a broader sense.

If the prayer: Purify the hearts of the faithful, could be understood by lust, the implication would still stand that it defiled, if for its sake some had to be purified. But to other matters; to the point. Notice, sincere reader, according to D. Eck's wretched opinion, nothing is called sin in the proper sense, but a crime, as if only a great, tremendous sin or crime were actually sin. For he was not ashamed to write like that.

He accuses all those of improper speech (improprietatis) who call minor sins, venial sins, absolute and actual sins. Did Cyprian, for example, clumsily call sins in the holy Lord's Prayer the daily sins for whose forgiveness we daily ask? Or did Chrysostom do this in a useless way, who wrote the same abundantly? Or in an indelicate and crude way the so very delicate and learned Jerome? Or Augustine in a bad way? Or Bernard in an inauthentic way? Or Cassianus in a foolish way? and so all the others? Beware all of you, teachers of the Church! Your speech has a severe judge. Consider the apostle who wrote: I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; and shortly after, If I do that which I would not, it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in my flesh. How evil he, according to D. Eck, he called sin what he does against his will, even with reluctance evil, which he does not want! Beware also, Apostle James, that you have inculcated in us a speech that is inauthentic in word and content; but you have also taught evil when you write: Lust, when it is conceived, begets sin; but sin, when it is finished, begets death. But come also thou, O Christ, and hear that even thou hast spoken falsely, since thou hast immediately added after the mighty short pattern of prayer which is given to the righteous: For if you forgive men their trespasses, the Father will also forgive you your trespasses, from which it is evident that you reproached us with the fact that the trespass of which you had said before was sin. Why did you speak so inauthentically? But is it really, why does D. Eck bark against you? In order that he may say that the subreptiones of lust is only inauthentic sin, of which your saints and righteous ask to be forgiven as sin and guilt, since they are, as it were, frail in your righteousness by resisting these sins of lust. May Augustine, who was bitten (morsus), also be silenced, who said: If, because of the frailty of the flesh, reprehensible and ungodly movements "creep in" (subrepunt), we sin and for this reason we need the prayer: Forgive us our trespasses. David may also suffer, for he says inauthentically: Remember not the sins of my youth and ignorance; likewise: Lead my soul out of trouble. I have now briefly touched on this, but have written it in more detail in my First Theses, which we have written for D. Eck, when he

668 Löscher, N.-A. II, 136-138. 31 Carlstadt's Werth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 746-748. 669

who desire to be released. Let not those be unclean who ask to be delivered from the evil of lust? let not those be unclean who pray: But deliver us from evil? Because Eck says this and Augustine agrees with it "of infant baptism" Book 3, Cap. 4 and elsewhere, and "against Julian" Book 6, Cap. 11, where Augustine declares that the apostle spoke the above in the person of others.

Of lust I say that it is sin according to Augustine. First, because it is made by sin, as by the Scriptures that which is made with the hand is called a hand, and speech, in so far as it is produced by the tongue, is called a tongue. Secondly, it is called sin because it is moved by pleasure in sin. Third, because it does sin and gives birth to sin, and instills evil in us against our will, and through rebellion plunges us into guilt if we are not freed by the assistance of grace, and because it is sin to consent to the same. There is more about this in the Firstfruits Theses. [This is from proven church scholars.

D. Ecks XX.

Even if it were understood by accomplished desire, D. Bodenstein's conclusion that the church asks that the righteous be cleansed from punishment, not from guilt, since he already no longer has it, would not yet stand.

Here we see that today 1) a new kind of purification is given to us for nothing, as far as what D. Eck has just mentioned is concerned. The Church asks that the hearts of the faithful be cleansed from lust; D. Eck, in his usual manner, says that the Church asks to be cleansed from the punishment of lust, not from the guilt of it. This we, I and the Doctors of the Church, did not know, namely, that the Church asks to be cleansed from some blow (verbere); for we meant that a blow with a beating does not punish, but the cause for which the blow is given.

To the matter. The righteous God does not strike an innocent with punishment, since Daniel says: "Because of our sins you have brought all this evil upon us, and the Church says that no wickedness would harm if there were no wickedness. Likewise it says: Turn away the scourges which we deserve; and if you want to see that which deserves the scourges, turn your eyes to the beginning of the prayer: God, who is offended

  1. Here we have, just as the old Walch edition, from weggelaffen.

by guilt 2c, it is said; as in the 106th thesis 2), where I have stated, it is said: we deserve, not: we have deserved. So it is a present guilt which is earned. For D. Eck serves Cap. 35. 3) in Augustine's writing "of the doctrines of the church".

D. Ecks XXI.

But if we were to concede this to D. Bodenstein as well, his conclusion would still be invalid (frigrida), since the church asks that the righteous be cleansed from earthly lust by protection from it, which is more excellent than by healing; but every scholar easily sees that I have nullified those thorny writings.

Our cold conclusion I want to make warm with God's help by Cap. 1. at the end [of the Scripture) äs spir. et lit. I cannot make the truth entirely free from thorns; that saint in misery was converted when he was pricked by a thorn. If then thou mockest me, I confess that I am thorny; and if I were not, and would not confess it, how then should the rock become a refuge to hedgehogs? I will glory in this, that I see Christ wearing a crown of thorns, that he may destroy, blot out, and break my thorns.

To the matter. See, dear Eck, whether I have erred in the 110th thesis 4), whether it is a void assumption; for you think that the church confesses that the righteous are protected from sins, but not that they are righteous and sinners at the same time. But what do you want to say to what is stated in the 105th thesis 5): Let us abstain from harmful vices, where the church asks that the righteous also abstain from harmful vices? So she confesses that the righteous commit vices and harmful things, because she says: Your people 2c, and understands this also of the people, which is in fact God's people. What do you want to answer? What do you want to say to the apostle John: If we say we have no sin, the truth is not in us? "We have," he says; you do not read, If we say that we can have, or: that we are guarded by God's grace, so that we do not have 2c, but: If we say that we do not have 2c.). What does having sin mean other than that sin is inherent? Shortly thereafter, it is said that God forgives those who

  1. The 5th thesis of the 2nd row.
  2. The same chapter of the same book of Augustine is mentioned again below at the 41st sentence of Eck. We therefore assume that 6 XXXV is set instead of 6. XXXV.
  3. The 9th thesis of the 2nd row.
  4. The 4th thesis of the 2nd row.

670 Löscher, R.-A. II, 138 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 748-750. 671

the sins they confess. What will you say to this: the righteous man is his own accuser at the beginning of his speech? He accuses himself either falsely, that he has sin, or with truth. Falsely? Then you will admit that he lies and is not a righteous man, but an ungodly one, because the mouth that speaks lies kills his soul, especially when he lies. But if you admit that a righteous man accuses himself with truth, it follows that the righteous man has sin and is a sinner.

D. Ecks XXII.

Furthermore, when he asks Eck 1) what the church prays for other than that the righteous may be cleansed from the building by which the righteous build wood, hay and stubble on faith in Christ, Eck answers this question without hesitation that the church quite rightly prays in such a way that venial sins, which are the lighter ones, such as hay 2c, are remitted at the prayer of the church, so that the righteous may not suffer in purgatory the punishments they deserve.

Do you not now warm to the cold conclusion? For you admit in this thesis that the venial sins of the righteous are remitted at the prayer of the church; you admit, then, that the righteous have inherent guilt, although you said a moment before that the church asks that the righteous be protected from guilt, but not that the righteous be cleansed from their inherent guilt.

But what you introduce about the terror or fear of the righteous, that they would be punished by purgatory because of their guilt and sins, I would go further if this argument contained this in itself. But your opinion seems to find support in this word: Lord, do not punish me in your wrath, according to the interpretation of Augustine.

D. Ecks XXIII.

But not only this, but also other things the church asks, that the faithful may be cleansed from the construction by which they build up iron, ore or lead, namely harder and heavier mortal sins, as in the prayer for the people: Rid us, we ask you, Lord, from the bonds of our sins 2c Likewise: We beseech thee, O Lord, absolve us in mercy from all our sins. But I do not want to increase the army of my sentences with collections, as D. Bodenstein has done.

  1. In the 15th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.

If you have brought this doctrine to the present matter, namely, that the righteous build mortal sins on the faith of Christ, I do not accept it unwillingly to hurl it back at you, for it is hearty (animosa). And I did not dare to say this from the dialogue of Jerome quoted, although I had more suspected than fully understood that the righteous could sin mortally and yet righteousness would remain. But this I know, namely, that it is very difficult for the righteous to distinguish whether their guilt is venial or mortal; but you had established this quite heartily, if you had only stayed with the matter at hand.

With regard to the collections, prove that they are not the prayers of the righteous. For he who accuses himself of his sins is righteous; he does good who comes to the light so that his works may be revealed, and God is faithful who forgives the sins of the one who confesses them. These are actually the prayers of the righteous, through which the Church asks that sins be blotted out. However, I do not want to sink into the stream of oblivion that you quite obviously ridicule the collections, as if they were too tasteless, yes, too small and unworthy to prove your opinion.

D. Ecks XXIV.

But I do not despise the opinions of others. For Mr. 2) Erasmus leads from the first book of St. Jerome Wider Joviman an excellent opinion, and St. Ambrose, as well as some others, interprets the apostle's word of hay and stubble of evil doctrines, gold and silver of sound doctrines. Let us both run, dear D. Bodenstein, and let you also see something (da tu), my friend!

Also Augustin does not despise the opinions of others, if it is so with the darkness of the scripture, because it is difficult that it gives only one understanding. However, whatever understanding may come out, it must agree with the rule of faith.

But that you secretly accuse me of an innovation in the Scriptures (novitatis scripturarum), I bear patiently, but I do not judge that they are new teachings, which the prophets, the evangelists, the apostles and the church teachers gave us as rules before your teaching came into existence.

  1. The D. can possibly also be called Desiderius.

672 Löscher, R.-A. II, I3S-141. 31. Carlstadts Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachy. W. XVIII, 7S0-7S3. 673

D. Ecks XXV.

We therefore do not deny, but rather confess most strongly, that the Holy Mother, the Church, asks that her members be purified and the branches be cut out (pur^url), as we have already admitted before that a different kind of purification is necessary for us.

He admitted before that the saints are not cleansed from inherent guilt, but guarded so that it does not dwell 2c; afterwards he contradicted fund said] The righteous have venial sins, which even the scholastics must admit.

Our will, for whom Christ is the vine and the heavenly Father is the vinedresser, still needs purification, so it is impure; it is therefore "a fruit-bearing branch that needs purification. He who bears no fruit in Christ is spoken of before in the text Jn. 15. If D. Eck agrees with me with the holy scripture, then it is dear to me, I accept it, and I wish him luck.

D. Ecks XXVI.

And the kind of purification of which we have thought, D. Bodenstein here willingly admits, since all believers still have the old man about them from sin (vetustatem relictam 1), which Aurelius Augustine in his time called sin from just causes, but this is no longer in use in our time.

If D. Eck admits that the righteous saints here have guilt and actual sins from which they ask to be cleansed, then he is of my mind, and that is right (bene); but if it is otherwise, then he holds it neither with the truth nor with me, which is sufficiently proven from what has been said before.

But there is an old life (vetustas) left in the inner man from sin, namely an evil and impure one, of which the apostle says: The inner man is renewed from day to day. Truly, he who is still being renewed day by day is not yet completely renewed, and insofar as he is not yet renewed, he is still in the old life. Therefore, according to what is still in the old life, even though he is baptized, he is still a child of this world; but insofar as he is in the new life (novitate), insofar he is a child of GOD. The same apostle commanded that we should put off the old man with his works, and put on the new man, who is created according to God in righteousness and holiness.

  1. In the 22nd thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.

lness. So the righteous, who is renewed daily, has the evil old life daily; therefore he is not completely pure, is still a child of the world. From the way of speaking below.

D. Ecks XXVII.

For what is the old life of sin but a tyrant, and the law of the members the evil desire, which rages in us, promotes evil, hinders the good? And this is sown in us from the old sin of Adam through original sin.

This proposition is based on the preceding. Of the difference of the old life, likewise, what a difference is between the lust and the old life and how they take place in a twofold man, I have written very abundantly in the proofs of our first thesis, but the preceding may suffice. Because of one difference one can see: Augustin "Against Julian", book 6, cap. 5.

D. Ecks XXVIII.

But this, as we have often mentioned, is not actually to be called sin, but rather a punishment, whether it incites sin or promotes it, since it remains in a baptized child.

I have quoted to D. Eck the book of Augustin "von der Kindertaufe", book 2, cap. 7. If he had read it with the following, he would have kept this and similar sentences in his bookcase. But what to think of this opinion is obviously according to what is said before about the evil desire.

D. Ecks XXIX.

For in such a child there is actually no sin; not the original sin, because this is washed away by baptism; not the real (aotual sin), because it does not yet have the use of its reason. Now when sin is spoken of in him, it comes from an extrarial designation, in that an expression is used that designates where it comes from, or what it will come to. 2)

As in baptized children lust (the imputation of which is extinguished, but it itself is not yet buried) is called sin, we have

  1. tsrmini 6 yiio vsl aä Husm. L Huo, because it has sinful origin. Husm, because it will become a sinner.

674 Löscher, R.-A. II, 141 f. V. Luthers Streit mit Eck. W. XVIII, 753-755. 675

already mentioned. But that they have no sin of their own will, Augustin "von der Kindertaufe", book 1, in the 35th and in the last chapter, and de bono persev., cap. 12, and also Jerome at the end of the dialogue against Pelagius seem to assert. But I believe that it is a different question whether a man is without sin of his own will, and whether he is wholly (absolutely) without sin. Therefore, since this proposition does not belong to the main part of our dispute, I have not been allowed to touch upon it, but if the opportunity arises, with God's help we will diligently pursue it.

D. Ecks XXX.

For so we must not let sin reign in our mortal body, that we obey its lusts, for this sin is in our members, but it does not reign if its lusts are not obeyed, Augustine says.

The righteous, by the grace of God, resist the sin that is in the flesh, that it may not reign; they take away the dominion, that what it commands may not come to pass, but yet have sin in their members. For thus saith the apostle, Sin therefore shall not reign in our mortal body. He does not say, Let there not be sin, but let it not reign. The wrath rises: Give him not the tongue to revile; no unreasoning wrath would rise, if sin were not in the members. Augustine on John 1, tract. 41; äs vsrbis ^post., 12th Homily; and Epistle 200. You see that it is something else to have sin and to perform sin (partum), and something else to allow sin to reign; you see also that anger is evil. I did not say that sin reigns in the righteous, but that very often the righteous fight against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit, so that they do not do what they want. They have evil desire, but do not let the desire rule. I am surprised that D. Eck reads Augustine so carelessly, but it is not to be wondered at, because only a crime is true sin with him and in a real way. This take with patience auf , elsewhere we want to bring forward more.

D. Ecks XXXI.

Therefore, the church rightly asks to be renewed in the spirit of the mind 1) and to attract the new man, so that thus

  1. In the 23rd thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture. > > with the second Adam the spirit has the supremacy, but the law of the > members, which has passed from the first Adam to us, which contradicts > the law of our God, is subdued.

If D. Eck thinks that when Christ, who is the second Adam, renews the spirit of our mind and looks at us as the new man, grace thus has supremacy in us and insofar as the contradictory law does not give rise to sin, then he, together with Pelagius, places men, as it were, among the angels. Let D. Eck consult Augustine Against Julian, Book 6, Cap. 5; if he has read this carefully, but also understood it, then let him answer. He sees to it that he does not make man godlike (xxxxxxx), and

tries to escape the truth by a new trick. For if he claims that the righteous man is not a sinner and in truth has no sins, he will hardly be able to escape this rebuke.

D. Ecks XXXII.

Likewise, we admit that it is a glorious penance to confess sins, 2) if there is nothing else in the way (ceterisparibus); but we cannot actually confess infirmities, since not what we suffer ((passiones), but only sins are the object with which penance has to do (materia circa quam).

This may go with other similar things. But the fact that he denies that we actually have to confess our weaknesses shows what he knows from the apostle, the prophets and the church teachers. The apostle likes to boast 3) of his weaknesses so that the power of Christ may dwell in him; the power becomes mighty in weakness. Weak is everyone who is content with God's grace; those who are not content with it are not weak, they have no weaknesses. But what is weak before God is stronger than people. The weak need a physician, therefore it is said: Heal me, O Lord, for I am weak. Behold, dear D. Eck, the righteous confesses his weakness and is healed. Whatever weakness may happen to us (vento adfe- ratur), it must be confessed, so that we may be driven by God's Spirit. I could say many more things, but I will leave it at that.

  1. In the 24th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.
  2. We have, just as the old edition, drawn ludenter not to the previous, but to this sentence.

676 Löscher, R.-A. II, 142-144. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. xvm, 755-757. 677

D. Ecks XXXIII.

But that alms, fasting and prayer are remedies for venial sins, 1) we admit; but if he wants to exclude mortal sins, that they are not cured by them, we do not accept his statement.

How remitted mortal sins may be redeemed by alms 2c, to state this here would lead too far. But that by the alms of an ungodly and unbeliever his own sins are remitted, I deny completely, because nothing is pure for the unclean and unbelievers, but both their mind and conscience are unclean Tit. 1,15., and because everything that does not come from faith is sin Rom. 14, 23.. The life must therefore first be corrected, then God is to be reconciled for past sins through almsgiving, according to the saying Matth. 23, 26.: Purify the inward things, and the outward things will also become pure. For one must first show justice (judicium) and love, then also not leave alms pending. Students may consult Augustine in Enchir. Cap. 70. 75. 76. 77. But the alms given by a gross sinner (criminoso) serve to make him less punished. For Fabricius will suffer less punishment than Catilina; not because the latter is good, but because the latter is more wicked, and Fabricius less impious than Catilina. Augustin against Julian, Book 4, Cap. 3, v. 6t. D. Eck may look, and he will find what I mean.

D. Ecks XXXIV.

Since they belong to atonement, as the third part of penance, but the sacrament of penance, as Aurelius Augustine considered it, is ordered against mortal sins, although those three things do not in themselves expiate guilt, but the punishment of sin.

The first part of this sentence is refuted by what has been said before, and enough has been said about it and about the second part in the preceding. The third part, however, requires examination, since it is written: Give alms, and everything will be pure for you. Likewise: Alms wipes out sin. But I have never read that punishments stain the penitent, but often that certain punishments are purifying, and that all those which are borne with patience in this life are purifying, I see written quite unanimously. The fire proves the potter's vessels, and the trial of affliction proves the penitent's vessels.

  1. In the 29th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.

The fire will prove the rightness of a man and the nature of his work. But if a man's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, even as through the fire. This also I hold: He who purifies does not make innocent.

D. Ecks XXXV.

Therefore, although Nebuchadnezzar had sinned mortally, Daniel still advised him that he should redeem his sins with alms. Likewise, our Lord Jesus Christ said: "This kind of evil spirit is not cast out except by prayer and fasting.

This is sufficiently clear from what I have stated in the 23rd sentence, for God first judges the person in Christ. Afterwards, He establishes the works in which one must walk. Another text says this quite clearly: God saw Abel and his sacrifices. For since he wanted to say that the Lord looks at the sacrifices, he carefully prefixed: He looks at Abel. The sacrifices of the wicked are truly an abomination to God. He says: If you spread out your hands, I will turn my face away from you. The gifts of the wicked are not regarded by the Most High. Likewise: I will accept the face of Job, so that your foolishness will not be imputed to you, about which Gregory is to be consulted, about Job, Book 35, Cap. 5.

D. Ecks XXXVI. 2)

Since the church at war never lacks people who sin, it is rightly always in need of repentance as long as it is at war, but it is not rightly concluded from this that the whole life of the faithful is a repentance.

Since all who are rightly disputing in the disputing church sin in disputing, and all who belong to the disputing church are actually and in truth sinners, and for that reason need daily repentance, it is rightly concluded that all or the whole life of believers is a repentance.

D. Ecks XXXVII. 3)

That the growth of love through our guilt (vitio) is missing, if he understands by guilt the sin that makes us worthy of the eternal punishment and hatred of God, I do not accept, because St. Michael lacked the growth of grace before the perfection without guilt.

  1. Against the 27th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.
  2. Against the 28th thesis of the 2nd row.

678 Löscher, R.-A. II, 144-146. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 757-75g. 679

If D. Eck had read Augustin, he would not have doubted what has been mentioned, but would have written that this guilt is actually sin, according to the law of God, even if it is different according to D. Eck. Eck it behaved differently. But it was stated: Augustin äs ssuten." llaoodi, book 2, cap. 10. I add for the blamers: Augustin äs p6oo. insr., book 2, cap. 17. 19 and 20. The last chapter äs spir. st lit. deals with it more extensively. What is stated about St. Michael is unseemly.

D. Ecks XXXVIII.

It can be assumed, however, in the sense that through our fault (vitio) the growth of grace is lacking, that is, that from our imperfection, which we suffer from a faulty desire (ex vitiosa concupiscentia), we receive a lesser grace, for it is clear from Augustine (from whom this sentence is taken) that he calls "fault" (vitium) the tinder of evil.

Behold, he confesses that Augustin was cited to him, but he did not want to understand him according to the writings cited by him, so that he could all the more freely chatter away what he dreams, but I understand the teachers according to the cited sayings, judging from these about their interpretation and the conclusions drawn from them, according to my 2. 3. 2c thesis.

It is not only through the guilt of the desire that dwells in the flesh, but also through the remnant of the old life that remains in the inner and spiritual man that the growth of love is lacking, so that all arrogance of the soul is subdued and everyone who prays knows that even if he prays, he does not do enough and sins. For there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin.

D. Ecks XXXIX.

From this it is sufficiently clear in what sense it is said that a good man sins in doing good, and that he is good and evil, since evil here expresses the human frailty that makes our works imperfect.

This and the preceding is sufficiently clear from what follows.

D. Ecks XL.

But no one, unless he is nonsensical, will admit that someone deserves > eternal life by the same act by which he, like > > In this sense, our fathers, the most proven theologians, have been > talking for four hundred years with the benefit of souls.

If D. Eck accuses those of silliness who claim that there is sin in the proper sense in a good work, which he himself calls a meritorious one, then, according to the rule of the jurists who say that what is set at the beginning refers to everything that follows, which aims at the same purpose, I have certainly been quite silly, since I have actually called the lack of a good work sin, indeed I have written so.

But I would have considered it a very impudent presumption to deviate from the rule of the church's way of speaking and the word of God. For I have regarded the word of God as a guideline (gnomonem) and rule, which is given to the theologians, so that they may judge according to it everything they read or hear, whether it is true or false, actual or inauthentic, in the interpretation of the holy scripture. But since I do not see in D. Eck I have not a beginner but a ruler (imperatorem) over the sacred Scriptures, so I hear that my opinion 1) which I had formed about the Scriptures is silly. What consolation is there now? Must one follow D. Eck, who speaks his words, and not only speaks his own, but defends himself in such a way that he violates God's word and rule? What remedy is there for such a great disease, what deduction 2)? Dear D. Eck, I would rather speak with the Scriptures and have a right opinion with nonsense, than actually speak with you of sins and think evil of the Scriptures to the ruin of the soul, for I know that God has mentioned what is foolish in the sight of the world, so that he might put the women to shame. And what is foolish in the sight of God is wiser than the world. Take heed how firmly he holds his opinion, but let him know that he has spoken such things as would find credence with a deaf man. This good man would rather go around the trade by crooked detours, so that it may appear that he has won, than to keep the straight path. This is not to be wondered at, for who would gladly yield to another head? Who can? This I know (what Ambrose says), that God is not to be judged by foreign assertions, but by His words.

In short, D. Eck has not read, and no man of sound mind can in my thefen

  1. sxiMmationsm, not sxtirnationsm. (Walch.)
  2. Instead of sndäuurn, which does not exist, we assume sudclustulli in the sense of purganz.

680 Löscher, R.-A. II, 146 f. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 75S-762. 681

That is why it is quite strange and improper, and serves no purpose, but it does serve a great purpose in making a great rant. Therefore, his refusal is something alien and improper and serves no purpose, but to make a great rant, it serves that purpose quite significantly. But I hold fast until I am better instructed by the law of God and the decisions of the Church that the sin of a righteous work or a good action, if God wanted to reckon it, is capable of plunging into damnation (regnet ad damnationem). For the Savior says: If you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your sins; that is condemnation, not forgiveness of sin. This, if my memory does not deceive me, Cyprian has clearly confirmed: But since the good work is found in a righteous and blessed man, God does not impute sin in this work, as the Scripture says: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin. He therefore admits 1) that he is blessed to whom the Lord does not impute sin or wrong. Therefore sin is found in the blessed, but it is not imputed, says Bernard. About this imputation elsewhere.

Sin in a good work or action is actually sin because Scripture calls it sin. Furthermore, it is written thus: There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin, therefore the righteous man actually sins in doing good, and if he did not confess that he sins, he would have a falsehood in the spirit and would not be blessed. The sin in a good deed is in a bad way actually sin. Likewise, it must be repented of, washed away by prayer, fasting, almsgiving and tears. For the sake of that guilt, God is offended and we deserve scourges, as the Church testifies. God, who is offended by guilt, she says; and shortly after: Turn away the scourges of your wrath, which we deserve for our sins (so the whole Church cries out altogether). This is testified by the righteous and holy prophet, when he says Ps. 80, 5.: O Lord God of hosts (virtutum), how long wilt thou be angry at the prayer of thy servant? Seest thou not that the servant of GOD, the servant of righteousness, not the servant of iniquity, lament that GOD is angry over his prayer? Is the prayer of the saint an evil work? Far be it from that. If it is a good work, why is God angry? Because there is guilt in it, the Church asks that, by pursuing or doing justice, she may be free from guilt. It

  1. tatstur, not tatsntnr.

is therefore the guilt for which David confesses that God is angry. Augustine says: God is angry like a chastening father, not like a condemning judge. So in the good deed it is something that must be chastised and that deserves scourging; it is something for the sake of which God scourges every son whom He receives. Thus the righteous Jeremiah asks Cap. 10, 24 that he may be chastened in judgment, not in anger. See Augustine in the psalm cited and Ezekiel, Book 2, Cap. 17, 16. Admit, then, that in a good action there is actually sin. Do not make uncertain what Scripture has made quite evident and what the church always confesses.

But since you say that proven theologians have been speaking the opposite for a long time with the profit of the souls, then list these proven people. I point out even more proven church teachers, yes, I know that one must speak with the holy scripture.

Moreover, even if I admit that they have been talking like this for four hundred years, I will not admit that in the meantime the pleading of the church has been silent and that their prayers have stopped, rather the Scriptures and the church have always resounded for more than eight hundred years.

Finally, I will not admit that a way of speaking contrary to the holy Scriptures of God is valid, nor will I admit that such a custom can be established through a thousand years. It is true that an ancient custom is considered a law when it has arisen through good customs, but not also when it has been adopted through error, through sins and without sound judgment.

But the apostle overturns every custom and declares it to be an abuse, as he says Gal. 1:8: "But if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed;" and shortly after v. 12: "For I received it from no man, nor learned it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Still more generally I say that reason and truth always exclude custom, therefore, where truth is revealed, custom must give way to truth. Thus Augustin says "of infant baptism Against the Donatists" Book 3, Cap. 8 and Book 7, Cap. 27: "In vain, therefore, do those who are instructed by reason oppose us to custom, as if custom were greater than truth, or as if in spiritual things we should not follow what has been revealed to us by the Holy Spirit for the best.

682 Löscher, R.-A. II, 147-149. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 762-764. 683

is. This is quite true, that truth and reason must be preferred to custom. But if truth comes to the aid of custom, then nothing must be held more firmly, says the same Augustine, äs duptis. sto.

Christ does not say to me: I am the custom, but: I am the truth. Therefore, surely he who despises the truth and fails to follow the custom is either envious of the brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God by whose inspiration the Church is instructed. Augustine "On Baptism Against the Donatists", book 6, cap. 35. 35. But who doubts that an evil custom is to be rejected as a harmful corruption? See then what your citation of four hundred years, as you say, helps your opinion. Now if the sayings thus quoted from Augustine seem to you to have greater prestige with Gratian, then see Cap. 8i oousustuäiusrn; Cap. Hui ooutsmptu, which words are not in the chapter. Likewise Augustin Cap. k'rustru and Cap. Älsla sutsui in the 8th Distinction.

As for what you say about the gain of souls, I call God to witness whether I have ever been able to understand true humility from the scholastics; but I see that it is praised in the church scholars according to divine Scripture, because they always make us sinners and incapable and weak. Let us therefore say, with the more approved, that in every good work there is sin.

D. Ecks XLI. 1)

Thus, one and the same cannot be called good and evil at the same time, because the good will enter eternal life, but the evil will enter eternal fire, since someone will not be sent to hell and heaven at the same time.

So Christ spoke inauthentically when he said Matth. 7, 11.: If you, who are bad, can give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to those who ask him? inauthentically the very eloquent Jerome, who says: Although someone is a prophet or an apostle, it is said to him by the Lord: If you, who are bad 2c Jerome "against the Pelagians", 3rd book, 7th conversation. Therefore also in fact the very careful Augustin, who says in the 54th letter: Man receives from God that he is good, but with regard to his own he is evil. As far as

  1. Against the 34th thesis of the 2nd series.

If he does right, he is good, but if he sins, he is evil. But who is without sin in this life? The same Augustine ad Bon. against two letters, Book 3, Cap. 3. if they were not God's children, he would not say to them, Your Father who is in heaven, and yet he calls them evil. Read and you will see that you say quite badly that only those are called evil who deserve eternal fire. There you will find that not every sin makes one a child of the devil, but a child of the world. You will also find that every sin makes man evil. But all children of God sin in this life. More passages (allegata - citations) we have brought together in our firstfruits theses.

The scholastics conclude thus: All the righteous in this life are actually sinners and therefore 2) actually evil. Those who in truth, that is, really and truly, have sin, actually have sin and are actually evil. All holy and actually good children of God in this life truly have sin: thus all actually good and righteous children of God in this life actually have sin and are evil. This conclusion holds engraving (discursus tenet); you throw out the upper sentence if you don't want to argue about words. You are, of course, actually a man, because you are truly a man. I set up the subordinate clause according to the saying of John, who says: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. So, if the truth is in us, sin and the true and real essence of sin is in us. Namely, because you are truly a man, if you denied it, the truth would not be in you. Therefore, in order for the truth to be in us, we must have sin and confess it. But insofar as sin is in us, insofar we are evil, according to Augustine, as above. Note also, dear D. Eck, that he says: thus we deceive ourselves when we say that we have no sin, lest you bring upon yourself the stain of being a deceiver and washing dung with dung. But who will hear him who sets himself against this truth? Who will tolerate him? Who will not think that the privilege of speaking such things is not rather a sacrilegious wrong, if the Scripture is said to speak in such a way improperly (ita impropriare scripturam.).

Finally, I fear that D. Eck has fallen under the curse and ban, because everyone is supposed to be cursed,

  1. subiliäs is probably used here in the sense of xroinäs.

684 Löscher, R.-A. II, 1L9 f. 31. Carlstadts Verth. wider Ecks Monvmachie. W. XVIII, 764-766. 685

who says that the saints, that is, the righteous, have no sin which God may forgive and cleanse them from, or that they pray this prayer: Salvage us our sins, for others not righteous, not prayed for themselves. Augustin de Ecclesiast. dogma. 1) Cap. 35, 36 and 86.

each of us watch and judge between us. But this I have mentioned, so that the well-bred (morsus) D. Eck might be transplanted into the garden of the church teachers and see whether he has directed his arrows against Christ or against me. I see that he does not consider that he concludes against the holy scripture.

D. Ecks XLII. 2)

Everyone knows that the faithful fall, who knows that Adam fell in Paradise, David in his kingdom, Peter in the apostles' fellowship, but the righteous rise again very quickly through repentance and through the consideration (discussionem) and detestation of their sins, as God the Lord puts the hand of grace under them.

He fishes with a golden fishhook; from sins he diverts to crimes, of which enough has been said.

Second note D. Ecks. 3)

Christ and all Christians have taught that inner repentance is great, since God looks at the heart and the will. This is shown by the widow, who put only two mites into God's box, but put in more than all, as the Lord Jesus testifies. For the will is in the soul, like a king in his kingdom.

Carlstadt's first defense sentence Against the reason of the preceding. 4)

But since D. Eck in the second sentence Against Us has made inner repentance great for its own sake, because he says that the will is the king of his actions, he shows that he either does not know the Scriptures or that he obviously contradicts them.

  1. In passing: Even if the book de eccles. ckoZ. is not by Augustine, it is usually cited as such.
  2. Against the 36th and following theses of the 2nd series.
  3. Eck's 1st obelisk. Cf. Col. 539 f.
  4. The 1st thesis of Carlstadt's third series of theses in the previous paper.

Second defense sentence of the same. 5)

For our will is not king and lord of those works of which God has decreed that they should belong to the will, if one does not want to promise certainty to the presumptuous corner 6) Against the testimonies of the prophets and apostles.

Other defense sentences can be seen in the theses.

D. Eck's I. Blame speech.

Eck never made the inner repentance great for its own sake, because the will should be the king of its actions, but in comparing the inner repentance with the outer one, I wanted the inner one to be greater than the outer one.

If D. Eck would not contradict this sentence in the following, then we would neither blame this nor the following sentences. But since he pulls the barge against the current and afterwards has fallen back with his hands and drifted to where he did not want to go, it is fitting that we punish this and that at the appropriate time and place, as far as it can be done in a short time.

D. Ecks II.

Since the inner repentance, as it is commonly, has been produced by the will, but the outer repentance, as a dominated one, is subservient to the produced one, the dominating is more excellent than the dominated.

Immediately he pulls down the strings by openly saying that the inner repentance is produced by the will, that is, the will is the master or the producing faculty for the inner repentance. But I maintain that no salutary repentance of any kind was produced by the will, but that it was God's gift, and that the woman did more than the others for her sake, because the heavenly Father instilled in her a burning love, for she was quite poor, even in spirit, as Christ speaks truly, saying: "Every plant that my Father has not planted will be rooted out. So the good will of the chief husbandman is the plant, the good will is also the first germ of all good works; this germ precedes everything, according to what is written, Before all works the true word shall go before thee, and before every deed steadfast counsel. I confess, then, that inner repentance is better, because God will not despise a troubled and bruised heart, because a troubled spirit before

  1. The 2nd thesis is the same.
  2. xromittsrs, not prasmitters.

686 Löscher, R.-A. II, 150-152. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 766-76S. 687

God is a sacrifice, and that the inward repentance precedes the works of the outward repentance, according to the saying: Purify the inward, but that God may give everything, as Sirach has foretold: In all this ask the Most High to direct your way in truth. 1) According to the letter, I do not know how the story of the two mites rhymes with your sentence. But if you want to relate it to the will, then I can again turn the same text against you, namely, that this woman is praised for her own sake, because she was poor in spirit and without the ability of her own will. Bernard says that the two mites mean body and soul. But you make this great, that the will produces the act of repentance. I contradict this and hold that God is the author of the good will and the good performance, according to the words of Ezekiel: I will do unto you, and that of the apostle: God works both the will. 2c I confess that we diverge far and wide; but after you have said with me that the inner repentance is great for its own sake, because it is God's work, because it is God's gift, then Andreas Carlstadt will belong to you, will revere you and hold you in high esteem.

D. Ecks III.

Again, as with the first remark, 1). Bodenstein has reversed the intention of my words, and by not touching the main issues at all, he has twisted the conclusion of my comment hanging on it according to his sense, in order to have all the more ample opportunity to slander.

What is it, dear D. Eck, that you try to cover yourself (involucrum struis)? In vain you set a net before the eyes of the birds. You say, I am reversing your opinion: did you not fear the judgment of the readers, who also tend to weigh according to the guideline? Why did you call the end of your note an appendix? Do you think that people might think that you have added the cause or reason of what precedes (on which what precedes is based) more than an appendage? For you wrote: For the will is in the soul, as a king in his kingdom. Who will not assert (causabitur) that by this conclusion you have given the reason of the preceding? If you now still insist that you have added more an appendage than a reason, then your following sentences are opposed to you; but I have taken heed of your reason and laid the axe to its root.

  1. äiriALt, not äiliZat.

D. Ecks IV.

I want the inner repentance to be good and better than the outer, because the outer is nothing without the inner, and its goodness (bonitatem) comes from the inner and from God.

The outward repentance, yes, even more generally, no outward good works are regarded by God, if the inward is not good. For this reason the Savior rebukes the Pharisees, because they kept the external pure, but the internal was full of impurity, and adds: "You Pharisees, first purify the internal, so that the external may also become pure. Who then doubts that outward repentance is impure, when inward repentance is impure? Of this we do not dispute, but of the cause of inward repentance. You say it is produced or generated by the will; I say it is God's gift, God's work. Of inward purity this is evident from the word: Create in me, God, a pure heart and renew in me (in visceribus meis) a right spirit. So I am unclean and do not have a right spirit, since I have a spirit that goes and does not return; I have a spirit that goes out to evil and does not return from the same; renew therefore the right spirit and create in me a pure heart, that is, a pure will; take away the stony heart, that is, the will that is completely hardened, and give me a heart of flesh, a will that feels its wounds. So we ask from God that the inner be cleansed, we do not produce or generate the purity of inner repentance, so inner repentance is not better for its own sake because it is produced, but because it is good because it is given by God.

D. Ecks V.

For whatever men do, the intention directs them all. Therefore, even if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it is of no use to me, says the apostle. So the inward must be weighed.

In Augustine I found that the intention makes a good work, but that the intention is directed by faith, and it is very much a matter of what cause one does it, and one must see to what end one does it; it is also a matter of what mind one acts, and each one is to be estimated according to the mind for the consideration of either the reward or the punishment, and from this the passage in Matthew is explained: If your eye is simple, the whole body will be bright. If your intention, from which you do whatever you do, is simple, that is, if your eye is simple, then your whole body will be bright.

688 Löscher, R.-A. II. 152-154. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 769-771. 689

If the intention is pure and right, and you look at what must be kept in mind, then all our works that we do according to it must necessarily be good. I therefore admit that the intention makes a difference between external works; but what does that do for your opinion? That intention is a good work of God, is not produced by the will, but inspired by God to the will, otherwise it could not pray: Turn away mine eyes, that they look not after vanity. And to this present matter, contrary to your conclusion, serves the apostle's saying that it is love that works the love of GOD and the good intention. For love is kind, it is patient, it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things; consequently not the will. So you see that love, poured out in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is not the will that works the good intention. But I could also answer that statement by saying that our judgment is useless 2c.

D. Ecks VI.

Therefore, by comparing the will with the lower forces that put it into action, I wanted it to be true that the will is in the soul, like a king in his kingdom, because he rules and is master over them, even though he has it from God that he may rule for good.

The good will, which is God's gift, is not satisfied with the grace (already] obtained, but takes its refuge 2) in the powers of the Lord and keeps its strength with God. Jerome writes to Ctesiphon thus: It is not enough for me that he has given once, if he does not always give. Even what is mine cannot remain mine without God's constant help, and therefore (and for the sake of other causes to be said) I say that the will, even if it is supported by grace, needs prayer, so that it may to some extent force the flesh under itself, as is its nature. 3)

D. Ecks VII.

The meaning of St. Augustine is: because God searches the heart, looks at the heart, witnesses within, judges, approves and crowns, it is enough that you present yourself as one who wants.

  1. 6X66Utri668, not: 6X66Utri66.
  2. Instead of 86 dit, perhaps 86(1 it will be read. 8s äit would also give a very appropriate sense, namely: enriches 2c, if it could be proved that, as the second person of ditto can also be 618, so instead of the "ritten (ditnt) dib would occur.
  3. xro inZsnio 8 "o, not: xro inA6nic>8O. ,

The Scripture says: Man sees what is before his eyes, but God sees the heart; likewise: He searches hearts and kidneys; but what does this prove to your opinion? Or do you not know that it is God, not free will, who gives a new heart and a new spirit, who makes the good will he accepts?

D. Ecks VIII.

St. Anselm testifies to this in explicit words: the will is the mover, he says, in the whole realm of the soul, to which everything obeys, and Boethius says: there are two things in which the whole efficacy of human actions consists, namely the will and the faculty.

Greater is the reputation of Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose, who say: Our heart and our thoughts are not in our power; and of Jeremiah, who says: Man's way is not with him. Likewise the apostle: We are not able to think anything of ourselves. If then we cannot have a good thought, how shall we have any other? In addition, Christ says: "It is not you who speak, but it is your Father's Spirit who speaks in you. Behold that the Spirit speaks in the righteous more than they, that the heart of the king is in the hand of God, and he inclines it whithersoever he will. But it is quite false that everything obeys the will, for the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and they are contrary to each other, so that you do not do what you will. And this is true: Not what I will (says the righteous Paul), but the evil that I do not will, that I do. He does not want to be lusted after, and the flesh lusts; he does not want to have evil desires, and he has them, and for that reason he has a mighty war with the flesh. Also, the effects of good human, actions that God's mercy makes human, are not at all in our ability; we ask that God may give them, we ask that He may receive them.

D. Ecks IX.

The Holy Scripture agrees with this Sir. 15, 14. ff.: God created man from the beginning and left him in the hand of His counsel. He has added His commandments and commands. If you want to keep the commandments (volueris), keep them, 4) and in order to have eternally the pleasing faith

  1. Here Eck, deviating from the Vulgate: eon8srva. In the latter it says: 6on86rvadunt ts.

690 Löscher, R.-A. II, 154 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 771-773. 691

he has presented water and fire to you. Stretch out your hand, > according to which you want (volueris). Consider [that it is said: > If you want; after which you want (volueris).

Mortal man is shrewd to deceive not only others but also himself. By tightening the knot, he unties it. What you do not want, dear D. Eck, you say. You put the knot and the unraveling together, but you also, according to your habit, cite such a scriptural passage, which disputes with you. You will not consider that the Scripture says: God created man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his counsel. 2c If you consider it unworthy of you to be ignorant of the Scripture, then look at another Scripture passage which expresses how man was created from the beginning. Do you not read that God made man righteous (rectum)? Therefore, you must understand the Scriptures according to what they express (cum effectu), so that you may know what kind of beginning man had, namely, a righteous one. But if a righteous one, then also with the first grace, by which the first man could have stood if he had wanted to. You will admit, then, that what you have stated does you more harm than good, because you will admit that grace has given free will this possibility of being able to do good, and that free will does not of itself have the producing faculty or dominion in works, for since it has fallen, it does not of itself return to good. Consider 1) also how much trouble you have wasted in proving the ground of your reproof (which you called an appendage). But for the resolution of your opinion, see Augustin lib. III.

D. Ecks X.

That is why, I believe, St. Bernard called free will exceedingly powerful (potentissi- mum), hence he also says: Take away free will and there will be nothing that can be blessed.

From your citations of scriptures, everyone can easily notice what care you take to understand the teachers; for you cite them in a quite ludicrous way. This is clear from the preceding, from this and the following sentences to the pupils or listeners at Wittenberg, even to the younger ones. For since Bernard and Augustin before him say: Take the

  1. rseonäs, should probably be rsoolk. (Walch.)

free will away, then there will be nothing that can be blessed, so they say that God works beatitude in free will, here justification, there 2) glory. And you dare, against their opinion, to conclude from this statement in favor of the conclusion of your rebuke that free will is exceedingly powerful. You should have understood and concluded from their intention: therefore God's grace is the most powerful. But your inference has corrupted Bernard in a thousand places, especially where he does not deal with our cause. But so that all may understand what Bernhard says, I add here his words and opinion from the book "Of Grace and Free Will" col. I: Take away free will and there will be nothing that can be blessed. (D. Eck did not pay attention to the "what" quod , but perhaps instead of "what" *quod* read "whereby" quo, because he says that it is exceedingly powerful). Take away grace (the same Bernard immediately adds) and there will be nothing whereby (unde) one can be blessed. Here he expresses the power, since he says: Therefore (unde) there will be nothing whereby (a quo) one can be blessed: If thou despise this, note that he added: This work cannot be done without two things: The one, ivhereby (a quo) it is done, which is what he called, "therefore" (unde) it is done; the other, to the good of, or in which it is done. See, he indicates more the capacity to suffer (pati- bilitatem) and the receptivity (suscep- tivitatem) of the free will, that I say so, than its activity or capacity to do; but of grace he says that it works blessedness in the free will. 3) And so speak the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, which you dishonor, sully, and destroy by your very paltry citations.

D. Ecks XI.

Therefore Augustin says: It depends on how a word comes out of the mind. Only a guilty mind uses guilty language; and several similar things are read in the canonical decrees.

This is solved with the 5th sentence of this second series.

D. Ecks XII.

Therefore, the same says: One must not look at what a man does, but with what mind and will he does it; for in the-

  1. instead of alii will read illic.
  2. As an aside, Anselmus also talks about free will.

692 Löscher, R.-A. II, 155-157. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 773-776. 693

In the same That we find God the Father and Judas. The father we > bless, the Judas we detest. A different intention therefore makes > different actions.

Too uselessly you repeat the same so often, because that this differs in nothing from what was said in the 4th sentence of this series, one can easily recognize. Of course, I should rather despise this by silence than by refutation. But to serve the students, I say that what we think right is God's gift, and if we keep our feet from falsehood and in righteousness. For as often as we do good and are of good mind, God works in us and with us that we work. Augustin.äs vera iimoo. Cap. 22. fund] 111. Now as to the works which are done outwardly, both he who fears punishment and he who does righteousness do not do contrary to the commandment, and therefore they are alike in hand, unlike in heart; alike in action, unlike in will; cke vsru irnioo. Read, dear Eck, that book from beginning to end, then judge about the scholastics.

D. Ecks XIII.

°So, Eck's remark stands firm, that the internal penance, because it comes more directly from the will, is preferable to the external, since the internal yes (quamvis) works as an effective the external, when, where, what kind and how it must be, as it is with other affirmative (affirmativis) commands.

This gossipy sentence repeats what has been said before and adds what the scholastics have thought up about the circumstances. Here I want to give D. Eck only one passage from Cassianus, about which he should wonder and sweat. It is impossible, he says, for the mind to dwell on good thoughts when the main intention (principale) of the heart is directed toward shameful and earthly contemplations (intuitus); therefore, we must turn away from the contemplation of vices with haste when we are led to such thoughts by a pernicious memory, lest what happened to Solomon Prov. 23, 33. ff. Vulg. wrote: "Thine eyes shall look after strangers, and thine heart shall speak perverse things; and thou shalt be as one that sleepeth in the midst of the sea, and like unto a stupefied helmsman that hath lost the helm, and shalt say, They smote me, but it hurt me not; they pulled me, but I felt it not." These are the ways,

The end of these, however, leads to ruin. Therefore, we must strive to incite ourselves to a praiseworthy repentance by desiring virtues and the kingdom of heaven rather than by harmful memories of vices, because inevitably someone will be suffocated by the very harmful stench of a cloaca as long as he wanted to stand over it or stir its excrement. Now may your patrons, the inventors of circumstances, go with you, who by their teaching sink their souls more into sins than tear them out. I know that this will cause a war cry and frightful skirmishes, but I shall not care if, by obeying the truth, I can render it some service. I know very well what Scotus in his writings and with great subtlety XVIII, Thomas de mulo, II, Art. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, and others, then also his defender Capreolus have found out.

D. Ecks XIV.

And according to the aforesaid sense, which actually lies in the words, it is certain what I added at the end of the note, that the will is in the soul, like a king in his kingdom, as also Aurelius Augustine says: The will is the measure of all deeds and of our merits, and elsewhere he says that it rules over the lower powers.

Suffice it for your antics what we have said before about intention, good disposition, and other things. But it is fair that you teach us that Augustin ever said that in relation to what you claim, so that you may earn yourself either honor or just disgrace. Do you think you are talking to stones or senseless plants?

D. Ecks XV.

Therefore, Saint Anselmus speaks to God in the person of the other powers and says: You have given us a Lord whom we cannot obey. I would add the testimony of Aristotle, but (as I hear) he who has the opposite opinion (diversarius opinator) does not believe him.

I will never equate the reputation of Anselmus with the merits of St. Jerome. The latter says: I am not interested in what Aristotle teaches, but in what St. Paul teaches; and everywhere in theology he abhors the

694 Löscher, R.-A. II, 157 s. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 776-778. 695

The proofs of the philosophers, yes, it seems to him the doctrines of the philosophers are the firstborn of the Egyptians. The same says in the Dialogue against Pelagius, Book 1: "But that which you state in another place, that all are governed by the will, which Christian can hear that? For if they are governed by their own will, where is the help of God? And How do you interpret this [Ps. 37, 23.j: From the LORD are the steps of man directed? 2c I have also said that it is quite false that the sensual powers must obey; rather, they resist even in the righteous, and an ungodly they lead captive. The heart of man may take its course, but it is up to the Lord to direct its steps. If man's steps are directed by God, then he wants His way, namely God's way, not his own. Otherwise, he will take his own way, which will be evil, and he will be trapped by sin in the flesh.

I will give my verdict on Anselmus once and for all (semel): I will not admit that he has spoken entirely carelessly, although I see that he has put forward many things without proof; but this without right] judgment.

D. Ecks XVI.

But although I have made my remark clear, D. Bodenstein pulled it, as it were, by the hair on the question (materiam) of the election of grace, citing everything that follows for this purpose, that there is no cause for the election of grace, but all our goods are from GOtte. This is the ordinary opinion of theologians and quite detailed in Gregory of Rimini u.cl meutern ckis. XXVII, II. truot. and <M. XI,, I. of the first [bookP

We, unlearned and learned without distinction, write poetry. A loquacious sophist and everyone misses to understand the art of the holy scripture, and there is also no lack of people who, driven by arrogance, philosophize about the holy scripture; there are people who, with a certain fluency in words, even with audacity, expound to others what they themselves do not understand. The opponent is mistaken who does not cite any evidence for his contrary opinion (inermis diversarius), because he asserts that the election of grace has nothing to do with works and does not belong to them. Where is the word Jer. 31, 3: I have always loved you and have drawn you to myself out of pure goodness? Where is the word Rom. 9:15: To whom I am gracious, to whom I am merciful?

Am I merciful, and on whom I have mercy, on whom I have compassion? Where is the word Rom. 8:30, Whom he hath ordained, them hath he also called; whom he hath called, them hath he also justified; whom he hath justified, them hath he also glorified? Where the word Eph. 2, 10.: He hath prepared us for good works, that we should walk therein? Where the last letter (spistola ll.) and äs voo. ow. A6n. of Ambrose? Where the book of Augustine cks prasclest. 6t Zrut., äs ckono p6i86v., äs prneckestin. 8unotor., äs oon6ption6 st Aiut., cke Krutiu 6t lid. u.rd.? Likewise uck8iwpli6. and others? So much on the preceding and following.

D. Ecks XVII.

But several good and holy theologians have admitted the reason of the election of grace in a certain (suo) way, like the doctor seraphicus Bonaventura, St. Thomas in a writing, Alexander of Hales, Henry of Ghent, Thomas of Strasbourg, Gabriel Viel, Silvester of Prierio and others, whose I have thought of in the Chrysopassus 1); these contain that, with which one can resolve for the most part what is stated here by D. Bodenstein.

I confess that they have admitted the reason of the choice of grace in a certain way, but I venerate, grasp and appreciate from the bottom of my heart the way and regulation of the holy scripture. By the way, why was it necessary for me, who am by no means a stingy merchant, to buy the chrysopassus 2) (which I could prove with God's help to be a lead-colored one or one speckled with dirt, since to me it is, as not

It is difficult to assume that it contains swamp water ) with so many excellent witnesses.

to penetrate? Good things are easily proven to me, even without witnesses, even just by their natural appearance.

D. Ecks XVIII.

However, I do not undertake here to defend one of the two parties, because the trade of the election of graces does not belong to the matter and is something quite foreign. Therefore, I do not know in what kind of spirit D. Bodenstein digresses so improperly on this subject. If, however, he should like to make this counter-.

  1. A lecture by Eck on the election of grace, delivered in 1512, published in print in 1514. Cf. Wiedemann "Eck," p. 453 ff.
  2. A gold-speckled gemstone, chrysoprase, Revelation 21. 20. Eck titled his book after this biblical passage.

696 Löscher, R.-A. II, 158-160. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 778-780. 697

If I have to negotiate with a university to be chosen, I am willing to > put forward theses about them and to answer for them, or to oppose the > one who represents them.

The beginning of this sentence is already set down by what was said earlier against it (prioribus teils), the end needs this answer: I admit 1) that you are a disputator, I almost said an insurmountable screamer, since you are blind in one and the same dispute, if you will, and again, if you will, more sharp-sighted than a lynx and more changeable than the Empusa, 2) because you can change opinions so easily; hence it is that I shy away from arguing with you verbally. But, if the costs are reimbursed and I get safe conduct, then I want to enter the battlefield with you, but on condition that the mutual reasons and refutations (solutiones) are dictated to reliable notaries.

D. Ecks XIX.

But although what he says does not belong to the matter, and does not serve in relation to my remark, I want to go through his theses briefly right now, so that I make his bites harmless, by which he tries to wound me with injustice.

Therefore, let us turn our ears and eyes to the ruler of the sciences, so that nothing may fall away in vain.

D. Ecks XX.

I confess first of all that the will in a meritorious work is not the king, but the servant in comparison with Christ the King, who reigns in the good will; therefore, all that he has attracted from the Lord JEsu about the will does not strike me.

Take heed, he says: in comparison to Christ 2c What he means by this comparison, I will explain below, so that I am not called a presumptuous person when I say it here. Finally, he denies that he is affected by what has been said, from which we have concluded that God, not the will, works good works, and yet it is sufficiently clear from what has been said before and what follows that Eck denies this.

  1. Instead of eonersäsrs, probably eonesäsrs should be read.
  2. A ghost sent by Hecate.

D. Ecks XXI.

Therefore, in none of my writings, whatever they may be, have I ever promised security to the will, as D. Bodenstein accuses me of, 3) about which I am quite surprised; but let him see for himself, as the apostle reminds us: Let him who stands see that he does not fall.

That you promise security to the will (since this is required by the things about which you argue), I will prove. The saying: Let him who stands see that he does not fall, does not conclude for the ability or the faculty of the will, but rather, if it is rightly understood, it entails that we do not stand by our will, but by God's grace, that is, our will stands rightly by God's grace, not by itself. Therefore, the ability and activity of grace is attributed to God, for he who stands stands by the Lord, for God is able to establish him; by His will he falls who falls, by the will of God he stands who stands. So take it in this way: whoever stands, watch, that is, fear, tremble, lest he fall. If you want to know the cause, hear: because he stands through the Lord; this the apostle teaches elsewhere in other words, saying: Create your blessedness with fear and trembling. Why with trembling? Listen, because God the Lord works the willing and the accomplishing. The above saying therefore proves against you, unless D. Eck wants to show that a good work does not come from the will, but that it is God's work.

D. Ecks XXII.

And it is even more wrong that he says, 4) I do not know that repentance is a gift of God, since I have long known (and not from D. Bodenstein) that it does not depend on one's will or walk, but on God's mercy; that He has mercy on whom He wills and stiffens whom He wills; that no one comes to Him unless the heavenly Father draws him; that our righteousness is like a stained garment; That it is not of the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his great mercy, that he has saved us; that though we have done everything, yet we must say that we are worthless servants; that we can do nothing of ourselves,

  1. In the 2nd thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.
  2. In the 3rd thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

698 Löscher, R.-A. II, 160 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 780-783. 699

than from ourselves, with innumerable similar passages. Therefore, I > am surprised at Bodenstein that he measures so precisely what I know > or do not know, although I must confess my ignorance 1) by calling out > to God with the prophet Jer. 1, 6. Vulg.: A, a, a, HErr, I do not > know how to speak.

D. Eck says that he does not know how to speak, and yet here he brings together a large sentence, and claims that he knows the scriptural passages that he cites. I am surprised at this, because I know that the same lettuce has the same edges 2) and that his scholastic doctors touch the Scriptures only just (summis naribus); I am surprised that he prides himself on knowing the Scriptures, because it is known to me that this does not mean to know the Scriptures when one draws the sayings of them to an opinion not lying in them (alienum), but when one holds their force and meaning. But in order that he may know that this armored sentence is of no use to him, I have undertaken to transfer the armor of the same to the following sentences, where I want to turn these sayings Against the one who cites them, like a sword of Goliath. D. Eck has forgotten that he has made the election of grace something that does not belong to the good works and is foreign to them, while here, with respect to repentance, he has brought together many passages that those who have written about the election of grace use.

D. Ecks XXIII.

Furthermore, the representative of the opposite opinion (diversarius) cites Jeremiah, 3) so that I should see my disgrace, by again charging me with what I have never thought of, in relation to which I freely confess that no meritorious good work is ever done without the special assistance of divine grace and mercy.

In my 145th thesis 4) I quoted the saying of Jeremiah, who says: "Convert me, O Lord, and I shall be converted", in order to prove that our conversion is a deed of God, not of our will. Therefore it is a gift of divine mercy. This passage, says D. Eck, is not against him, because he also confesses that no good work can be done without special help.

  1. ivseitial", not jnstitiam (quencher).
  2. This may well be meant by: siniilss Kaders ssirnilia] lakra leetneas - Same brothers, same caps.
  3. In the 4th thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.
  4. This is the 4th thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

by the grace of God be done, and he cries out that I have charged him with what he did not think.

But you who read this sentence of his will easily judge that I have not burdened him with anything, but that I have refuted his opinion, since he clearly states that grace assists the will so that it can do a good work. What else does he show but that grace does not work, but assists the will that works? It is something else to assist the active, something else to work. I could both state and refute the opinions of the scholastics here, but in the First Theses there is ample opportunity to do so.

In short, if grace assists or helps the will to perform good works, inasmuch as the will alone is not sufficient to live justly and righteously, if it is not helped by the mercy of GOD, then it follows undoubtedly according to Augustine's opinion: So it is not due to God's mercy, but to man's will, because God's mercy alone is not sufficient unless the consent of our will is added (in this way, and quite badly, our changeable defector in the opponent's camp (contraversarius - who takes the opposite opinion to his previous one) has added the following thesis, but it is evident that we will in vain if God does not have mercy, but that God does not have mercy in vain. For if GOD has mercy, we will. Furthermore, the good will does not precede the calling, but the calling precedes the good will; so it is not said for the sake of it: It is not up to someone's willing or running, but up to God's mercy, because it is only through his help or assistance that we obtain that we will; but for the sake of it, because he himself works in us the willing and the doing. Perhaps you murmur against it with the saying: Many are called, but few are chosen. But the readers who have their hearts in the right place (cordati) may see this knot in Augustin, Book I, Question 2, M. N., and only then may they give it to one of us.

D. Ecks XXIV.

Therefore I have always judged that in this trade (which is remote from our cause) those have a more correct opinion who give to GOtte what is his, and to free will what is his; and for this being true, I adduce the same Jeremiah to the adversary: If you

700 Löscher, N.-A. II, 161-163. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. against Eck's Monomach ie. W. XVIII, 783-785. 701

turn, and I will turn thee; likewise Zechariah, Turn ye unto me, and I > will turn unto you; likewise Ezekiel, Turn ye unto me, and repent 2c

Even though he connects this sentence above with the 20th sentence of this series, he still overturns what he has confessed with a wonderful appearance. Judge whether this means making the will a servant in good works, if we attribute the beginning and start of a right conversion to God to the will? So what does he give to the free will and what to God? This may be taught to us by the testimonies he has put on, for from them we take what his opinion is. To the free will he puts this: Turn to me. Behold, the origin and beginning of right conversion he ascribes to the will, but, what GOtte? So will I also convert to you. What is this different, according to what Eck states, than to assign to GOtte the lesser and only the complement of conversion? What else does he assign to GOtte but the work of a follower? For he states that God is waiting for our conversion, and to prove this he has cited this passage: Repent. So where does Christ go first? Where is your divine revelation [8ibMas koliuru - oracle), which you told us in the 20th sentence? To what purpose are the other sayings that you have put on, e.g.: It is not because of someone's running 2c and similar ones, are invoked by you? What an abominable sin thou hast committed, see in Augustin ad Bonifao. contra äuas epist., book 2, cap. 9; likewise äs sool68ia8tioi8 cloKinatibu8 cap. 44. I will bring up more when I find out that what I have mentioned is not sufficient for you.

In short, I could greatly promote your foolishness and give it a semblance if I wanted to, but far be it from me to argue against the truth in order to flatter you. I will indicate 1) that the testimonies are not only inappropriate for your cause, but even contrary to it, but only briefly and above. The saying in Jeremiah: If you convert, I will convert you, does not belong to the matter at hand, according to Jerome's interpretation. But if it is part of the matter, the prophet Jeremiah declares explicitly and clearly in what follows that our conversion to God is not in our power, but in God's, for he says: "Convert me.

  1. Instead of juäwavo probably iudisavo would be to be read, which seems to us commanded by the following: 8sd vrsvitsr st psrkunstoris.

Lord, I will be converted. But because he says: My God, it is clear from this that the beginning of the right conversion is also the gift of God. This he teaches in other words and perhaps more clearly in what follows, since he says: I will convert the conversion of Judah 2c From this it is clear that the opponent has falsely attributed to the will that which need not be given to it. In the same way one must also understand the testimony of Ezekiel, who also wrote: I will convert your conversion, while afterwards he demands conversion by saying: Convert and repent. See Augustin de grat. st lib. ard. Cap. 15. 13. and in other places, and fall silent. In commanding the conversion of the heart to GOD, Scripture teaches what must be asked of GOD in order that we may say: Convert us, God of our salvation.

D. Ecks XXV.

For this reason, Augustine's excellent solution suffices for all the sayings that have to be cited for each of the two parties; he who does not have it easily gets into danger between door and hinge, 2) for this is the art of bringing each to its proper place.

D. Eck, in his great distress, defiles 3) in his fear of death (expirando) the sacrificial knife (saxum) and desecrates the sanctuary. But he brings everything to its proper place, to ruin the ruin, to misery the misfortune; he mangles 4) the holy scripture, he bites the holy church teachers. I cannot marvel enough at the impudence of the man that he cites Augustine only once and, what is more, so wrongly. Augustin is clear <1s psooat. ms., book 2, cap. 5 and in other places where he teaches that we are instructed by God's commandments, so that we ask of the Lord what he commands us to do: Give people who ask what you command.

D. Ecks XXVI.

So I confess that God gives repentance to man, just as faith is also a gift of God; if only we frail people do not disdain to accept it. Therefore, D. Bodenstein makes in vain of his statements

  1. ivtsr saxuiu st sasrura, between sacrificial mefser and sacrifice, a "sprüchwörtlich" idiom for the highest distress. Dres immediately takes Carlstadt out again.
  2. sonkorit seems to us to be a verb formed from koria, ornna.
  3. To this expression Isesrat refers afterwards under the 31st sentence: saerariiM litsrarum lupus.

702 Löscher, N.-A. II, 163 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 785-787. 703

a large amount, not after the manner of a man who presents something > by conclusions (concludentis), but of one who only argues > (argumentantis).

GOD does not need a preparatory disposition. For when He works the conversion, He also works the assent and takes away the disdain. So what do you want to give to the will? Nothing, but that he must receive. At the end you reprove (vulneras) the way of writing common to both of us.

D. Ecks XXVII.

Since the will in the soul rules over the lower forces, without Christ, it produces bad fruits through its unevenness with the divine will. For if it is not supported by the grace of God, it produces nothing but thistles. Therefore, it is dangerous if the will is not governed by God.

Why do you restrict the holy scripture by so many limitations, as if the free will had not been described completely (absolute) by Christ, afterwards by the apostle, but also before by the prophets after the fall. Out of the heart, says Christ, come evil thoughts; here he does not limit the will to the dominion over the lower powers. Furthermore he added what belongs to the evil thoughts: adultery, theft, blasphemies 2c, and the apostle says Rom. 3, 9-13.: We have proved that all are under sin, as it is written: There is none that is righteous, neither is there any; there is none that hath understanding; there is none that asketh after God. They have all gone astray and have all become unfit; there is not one who does good, not even one; their mouth is an open grave, viper's poison is under their lips. 2c This describes the will without grace exceedingly completely (absolutius), but your restriction narrows it down.

D. Ecks XXVIII.

But when the Lord Jesus rules the will by His grace, His rule over the lower powers is not taken away, but fortified, just as the original righteousness made the lower powers completely obedient to reason.

Christ's grace saves from the power of darkness and transfers to the kingdom of light; it calls from darkness to its marvelous light and leads to GOD: it thus takes away evil and gives a new dominion, yes, before grace re

the will does not have any powers well. 1) I am surprised that D. Eck is not ashamed to repeat the same thing so often in a useless way, and gives the paper for such trivial things, which he nevertheless takes away from the prayers of the church. 2)

D. Ecks XXIX.

And D. Bodenstein judges me, 3) that I pour out my prayer on my righteousness. God, whose mercy is without end, knows how useless a servant I am. If God would, he would make me one of his day laborers with the prodigal son! But D. Bodenstein, since he has judged another, may he pray that he will not be judged as well. For I know that my prayer is nothing unless God makes it something.

It is clear from your 24th sentence what you attribute to God and what you attribute to the will. But you do well that you now curse as ungodly that which you had defended. If you pray rightly, confess publicly that you cannot begin to pray rightly if God has not given you the beginning of the prayer and everything that follows it, according to what Jeremiah writes: I will reveal to you the prayer of peace and truth. But there is a difference between ascribing to the will an active ability to produce prayers and confessing that prayer is nothing if God does not inspire it. But I will gladly beseech God with you that He may reveal to us not subtle sophisms and subtle syllogisms, but His Word.

D. Ecks XXX.

God does mercy on earth 2c D. Bodenstein says that I cannot take that from the mercy with which God is merciful. 4) To him I answer by using my reason: I accept the general opinion which Peter Lombard taught after Augustine. God does mercy when he shows the effects of mercy, as he is the salvation of the wretched and the beaten (calamitosorum); as it may also otherwise be with the opinion that he states.

  1. In passing: Even the will of the just has too little power (juris) over the members of the flesh. Augustin äs p666. in", Book 2, Cap. 22.
  2. Cf. Eck's 7th sentence in the 1st row.
  3. In the 20th thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.
  4. In the 22nd thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

704 Löscher, R.-A. II, I6S f. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 787-789. 705

My opinion is sufficiently clear and always approved by Augustin, from which I took it. Since we read: You are my mercy, I said the mind is: you make me merciful, you make that I can practice mercy. The opponent 1) often invokes Augustine, but in such a way that it does not serve the point. However, I have not rejected the other opinion, but I have established the opinion of the passage cited by me.

D. Ecks XXXI.

If D. Bodenstein understands by works of mercy those, as the whole Christian nation of theologians now holds it, which are applied to the wretched neighbor, I deny that they alone are rewarded. But he may be speaking in the sense that the works of mercy would be rewarded which we alone work by his giving us his mercy; then I accept the opinion . but, as Augustine prescribes, I better the language. For as Fortunatianus says, "Words must be used like coins, which are marked by the public stamp.

The wolf of the holy scripture dares to cite Augustine for the purpose that the custom of speaking should have more validity in theology than the holy scripture. How false, abominable and despicable his doctrine is, can easily be seen by those who read what we have mentioned above about the custom, and that it is not written: Blessed is the man who meditates day and night on the custom of those who corrupt the Scriptures; but: Blessed is he who meditates day and night on the law of the Lord.

Where is now the vaunted humility that you brought forward in the 29th sentence? You cannot deceive me by flattery, nor escape what is so delicately expressed in the iambic verse:

'Ζχ των περισσών χαρδίας λαλεϊ στόμα.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

D. Ecks XXXII.

Good works are in a sense in our capacity, in a sense not, because they are merits lying in the will (voluntaria) and

  1. Here is the same expression as in the 23rd sentence of Eck: "outravsrsurius - who suddenly turns from one opinion to the opposite one.

something by which one earns (demerita), as discussed in detail in > the doctrine (materia) of the election of grace.

This proposition overturns 2) all the good that he established in the 22nd, 26th, and 29th propositions of this series. But you affirm what you had denied by altering, namely, that good works are in the faculty of the will. Why, then, do you say that prayer is nothing unless God makes it something? If a good work is partly in your power, then according to this part it is something, even if God had done nothing. But I want to help my dear brother with this: I will willingly sacrifice to you, adding: Sacrifice the sacrifice of righteousness. Connect this with it: No one comes to me unless the Father draws him; and the saying: Establish, O God, what you have worked in us. Do you not see that a willing sacrifice is God's gift? that it is therefore not in our will? Conclude from this that the righteousness of our sacrifice is like a stained garment.

D. Ecks XXXIII.

Of the church prayers, which he thinks he is leading Wider Eck, I say, I pray that, I stand that with all my heart, which the holy mother, the Church, prays, so that God may place me in the fellowship of all those who fear God. Therefore, a respected (gravis) man and high standing (maturus) theologian must not strangle (vinoii6) his poor fellow servant and charge him with the abominable sins of spiritual pride. God knows what is hidden in the heart. It would be better that D. Bodenstein and I, one for the other, prayed that we would be blessed, that we would be enlightened, and that we would be pardoned with help, whatever God Almighty wants to give.

If you pray with the Mother, the church, with all your heart, what is the cause that you treat her prayers so insolently? What kind of godliness is this that you take the church prayers so badly? But it is ungodliness that someone who is struck (morsum) should help himself hypocritically with the sacred Scriptures (in sacris scripturis dissimulare). Finally, I will gladly pray with you that we may be enlightened, that we may be blessed, that you too may abandon the sophistry of the scholastics and be brought over to the church teachers.

  1. Instead of wriat, ksrit should be read.

706 Löscher, R.-A. II, 166 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 789-781. 707

D. Ecks XXXIV.

Although I am in great need of a teacher, and with Aurelius Augustine I am willing to be taught by a one-year-old child, I have long known what D. Bodenstein wants to teach here from Ezekiel. 1) He should spend his effort on something else and learn to speak more gently about a fellow servant than to carelessly charge him with an error. For I too send the following prayers 2) with the Church and with him to GOD. God grant that we pray devoutly.

You are hit, my dear brother, D. Eck, so that you have to visit the church psyller 3).

D. Ecks XXXV.

Furthermore, he concludes, 4) Eck does not have to put his hope in himself and his will; this pleases me. For I do not put my hope in myself, for I am a very poor, miserable man, but I have put my hope in the Lord, who will guide me and provide for me. But I could probably put something from D. Bodenstein into the subordinate clause and then hold this against him: It is shameful for a teacher 2c if he punishes another for what he himself is guilty of. Of the following, I have the opinion as I have said.

To attach to the will an activity in good works is to place its hope in a man; but to transfer all ability from the will to God is to cast hope in God. But even I do not boast that I do this. But I humbly ask God, who does this, that I may do it.

D. Ecks XXXVI.

Of the I and the we, 5) of what is ours and what is our own, I hold according to what has been said before, because the good works of God and our find, God's gifts and our merits, for God gave them to us so that by them we might merit, as St. Peter said, Behold, we have forsaken all and are unto Thee

  1. In the 29th thesis of the 3rd row of the previous scripture.
  2. In the 30th and the following theses.
  3. See the 3rd note to the letter of this writing to Göde and Schlamau about Here the church prayers (Collecten) are meant.
  4. In the 34th thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.
  5. In the 39th, 42nd and the following theses of the 3rd series in the previous scripture.

What reward shall we have for this? What reward shall we have for > this? Our Lord Jesus did not punish him because of the word "we", > even though he is the most careful teacher.

St. Ambrose attributes it to the great mercy of God that God makes His works our merits, and for His sake promises and gives eternal life to the one who leaves everything and follows Him, which St. Peter now receives in eternal rest. Furthermore, my dearest Doctor, I wish you happiness from the bottom of my heart, and for my part I also want to please you again that you have allowed yourself to come to this truth, namely that our good merits do not depend on our ability or strength, but that they flow entirely from God. If this is your opinion, you will absolutely deny both the active (activam - based on human activity) atonement and the very powerful freedom of the will; indeed, you will affirm that our merits are not in our power. To this you can very well apply Ps. 30, 7. 8.: I said when I was well: I shall never lie down: but when thou didst disguise thy face, I was afraid. 2c This sentence, in this sense, I adore and praise, and look up to it as to a saying that came down from heaven (ex Tripode).

D. Ecks XXXVII.

Therefore, the church asks in the church prayers that it may be assisted by the merits and intercessions of the saints. If I now wanted to write the church prayers under our affirmations in the manner of D. Bodenstein, then all the Mass priests know what a collection I could bring about here.

In such church prayers, the Church asks God to look graciously upon His gifts or His works, not as if our merits, which we have brought about, were pleasing to Him, so she asks that all our doings take their beginning from Him and be brought to completion by Him. If you understand it in this way, then you take our merits in the right way and according to Jerome, Augustine and Gregory, but if otherwise, as far as the producing faculty of the will is concerned, then I oppose it. But I spare you because of the previous sentence, otherwise I would call upon the most holy Father in Christ, our Lord, the Lord Leo X, who by divine providence is the pope, and accuse you that you have not heeded his most holy prayers for nothing.

708 Löscher, R.-A. II, 167-169. 31. Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 781-793. 709

read 2c Therefore, I use the collections or prayers of the church for their sake, because you and your kind immediately threaten those who deviate from those opinions with fire, and so that the Roman church knows that I treat neither new nor unusual, but very old and commonplace doctrines, and she now not only does not burn me, but protects me with motherly kindness against our opponents of the church prayers. Bite this if you can, or accept it.

D. Ecks XXXVIII.

Since, according to the opinion of the most proven theologians, "doing what is in him" is as much as removing the bar and obstacle of grace, I will not admit that he who does what is in him does what is displeasing to God, according to the generally accepted principle of the theologians: God never withdraws from the one who does what is in him.

According to the opinion of the untrained theologians, "to do what is in him" is not only to remove the bar and the obstacle of grace, but also to prepare oneself for grace. But according to the opinion of the Doctors of the Church (these are the words of Ambrose) God loves in us what He Himself has done, and hates what He has not done; likewise: The changeable will, which is not governed by the divine will, approaches godlessness all the faster, the more eager it is to act. This has been pointed out to you in the 184th thesis. 1) Similarly, I have quoted some things from Augustine in the 188th thesis 2) and in the following about the writings that you did not want to read, so that you would not be disgraced. I also enclose for you what he has compiled de vera iQQoe. 126, where he says: If that is in us which we ourselves have done, then we will be condemned by it. Read this and other things, and then murmur against them and hold up your patrons; I will not suffer you to make excuses. If you had only touched what has been mentioned with the tip of your finger, you would not have raved with such great insolence, nor would you have jumped off your 36th sentence.

D. Ecks XXXIX.

He is cursed, says Jerome, who says that God has bound man to the impossible: therefore God withdraws from him who wills.

  1. The 42nd thesis of the 3rd series.
  2. The 46th thesis in the same place.

that all men may be saved, according to his infinite goodness never to man, unless man withdraws himself.

That the law, not God, has commanded the impossible to man, I have written in our first thesis, and that Jerome is not to be understood so crudely. By the way, that I admit the last part of this sentence is written in the 381st and 383rd thesis, 3).

D. Ecks XI,.

That a good action is in its whole essence from God, I do not assume in the way that the will behaves purely suffering against him, but I hold that the created will is the second and secondary cause (causam minus principalem) of a good action, although it also has this action from God: therefore the saints say that a good action is entirely from God.

He ties the rod with which he will receive blows, and in part he deviates from what he absorbed from Scotus. In short, Ambrose in his last epistle writes that it is too presumptuous to say that one needs God in one part of good actions, but not in another. But about this and about Augustine's opinion more extensively in the First Theses.

D. Ecks XLI.

Otherwise, it would be impossible to see that the good works of St. Peter belonged to him more than to St. Linus; indeed, it could not be said of anyone that he deserved because he had done nothing, while it is certain that everyone will receive either good or evil after he has acted in bodily life.

D. Eck certainly doesn't see what he himself put together above and shows that he directed his voice after his precentor and that he came out with it. He does not understand that the money which is hidden in his purse belongs to him more than that the money should belong to this purse. In short, we earn and act in such a way that we are rather driven, because GOD drives 2c and crowns his gifts.

D. Ecks XLII.

But that he rebukes Scotus and Capreolus 2c You bring together many useless and large sentences 2c

  1. In Latin erroneously: 372 and 389; a printing error instead of 382 and 384. The latter numbers agree, because of the omitted number 87, with ours.

710 Löscher, R.-A. II, 169 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 793-796. 714

The sentences of the third row I save, because of prevention of our book printer, for the notes to the book de spirltu et litera, where they can, yes, must be either treated or also refuted according to their splendid nature, both more conveniently and more abundantly. They will certainly emerge from the austere writing desk and shall finally get rid of the snot that is to be blown out immediately.

To the venerable Johann Wortwein, head (paterfamilias) of the house > of the German Order of St. John at Würzburg, his most esteemed patron > Carlstadt offers his greetings!

I submit to you, my dearest patron, the notes which I have hastily and fleetingly drafted against our opponent's pompous propositions (contraversarii), for your consideration, but with the request - so that you may do the right thing - that I, who have departed from the opinion of the so-called scholastic theologians, only want to trouble their defenders and also those who attack us. Furthermore, since I have tasted better things in my innermost heart, who will accuse me of having unjustly fallen away from the vain opinions of the scholastic theologians? and who will reproach me for accepting the glorious writings of the most learned men instead of those paltry, farcical, vain things? Who will at least not praise this effort, that I recommend and advise the students the pure nard (odorem) and the purest balm of the holy scriptures? And who will blame me if I rebuke and repel those who hinder and tear up the holy Scriptures? Therefore, since I have recognized that the adversary (di- versarius) has set out with shield and armor to attack (mordere) even the sacred Scriptures under our name, I have seized with my hand the scourge and the above described (depicta) chastisement, and immediately hold out arms and resist; nor do I fight in a cause foreign to me. For to the defense of the holy scripture (which the opponent treats mercifully) I have directed all and every one of my efforts, yes, I have also committed myself with an oath to give up my spirit for the defense of the scripture. In addition, there are other things that require a separate hand.

del, namely that D. Eck not only despises the prayers of the Church and considers them worthy only of the Mass priests, but also, once he allows them with displeasure, that he twists them to a wrong opinion. He incites the apostolic chair against me with secret flattery, he incites the brethren against me to contempt, as if insults had been inflicted on them by my pen, finally he brazenly drools against heaven whatever he wants. The man is very skilled in argument, so that some say that if fresh laurel beckons to him (viridi incensa lauro), he can obtain it all the more easily before the enemy and personally; this is confirmed by the inconstancy and changeability of his sentences. Therefore I have opposed these very brief remarks. I have resolved to confront him more precisely and more abundantly in other books, so that he may soon learn that we are exceedingly far from each other, and either to desire the sharp judgment of scholars or to regard it as nothing. You should now make do with this little. Let your mind rest once from the many labors and refresh yourself by this new occupation. Stay well with me and be well. Given at Wittenberg, on the day of the Exaltation of the Cross (Sept. 14) in the year 1518.

To the learned D. Johann Eck.

Highly learned Eck! Here you have my notes on the sentences (axiomata) of your first and second series, which I naturally began to publish as soon as they would have come to my hand. Therefore, direct your heart with care to the church teachers. If now (which is far) these things of ours should have anything ungodly about them, refute it. Truly, I will give way to the one who is superior to me in war. But I ask forgiveness because of the haste. Fare well in Christ.

Wittenberg in the house of Johann Grünenberg.

In 1518.

xxxxx xxx 1)

It is all quite vain. Eccl. 1, 2.

The same protests as in the defense sentences 2c

With reservation of the right to add 2c

  1. With this reversed vocal designation in Löscher.

712 L. V. Ä. Ill, 9 f. 32. Eck's thirteen theses Wider Luther u. Carlstadt. W. XVIII, 860-862. 713

*Eck's thirteen theses against Luther and Carlstadt. )

March 14, 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Against Brother Luther (Lutter) and D. Eck will discuss these theses > at the University of Leipzig on June 27, 1519.

  1. Neither with the sayings of the Holy Scriptures, nor with the Holy Fathers, Augustine and others, is it true that when our Lord and Master Jesus Christ says: Repent, he intended that the whole life of the faithful should be a repentance, therefore this word can be understood quite appropriately also of sacramental repentance.

(2) Although venial sins are daily, we deny that the righteous always sins in every good work, even though he may well die; just as we say that it is erroneous that the righteous, since righteousness remains, can sin mortally, or that in an infant after baptism the sin arising from a foreign will remains.

(3) One who says that repentance is not properly begun by detesting sins and by considering the greatness of the sin and the punishment 2c, and that this makes one even more of a sinner 2c, should not be heard, as we think, since he teaches contrary to the Gospel and the holy fathers.

  1. to say that God, by remitting the guilt, also remits the punishment and does not turn it into a temporal sufficient punishment,

which is made known in part or in whole by the canons and by the imposition of the priest, we consider to be something contrary to sacred Scripture and the custom of the Church.

(5) That any priest (not excepting a prelate) may or must remit the penalties and the debt to his subordinate who asks him, so that the dignitary (praelatus) who does not completely absolve himself from the penalty and from the debt sins, we do not accept, as something contrary to the custom of the Holy Mother, the Church.

  1. that the souls in purgatory do not do enough for the punishments of the sins of which they have absolved here, we consider erroneous, just as he is not without error who does not believe that God requires of a dying person a punishment other than that of death.
  2. He is mistaken who denies that the free will of man is the master of man's actions, for the reason that he is active with respect to evil, but only suffering with respect to good; Just as he is not without error who, against the scholastics, holds that faith is destroyed (corrumpi) by every gross sin (crimine); and he is not without very great error who, without regard to repentance, boldly preaches that one is absolved by faith alone.

*In their first edition (Dec. 29, 1518), Eck's theses for the disputation in Leipzig were directed in name only against Carlstadt, but in substance almost exclusively against Luther. Luther reproached him for this in the open letter to Carlstadt, with which he introduced his 12 counter-theses against Eck (Feb. 7, 1519). In order to at least to some extent remove the reason for these accusations, Eck inserted the 7th thesis Wider Carlstadt, so that from then on there were 13, which he now also described in the heading given to them as being directed against Luther (in the first place) and Carlstadt. He published these 13 theses in placate form on March 14, 1519, together with the epigraph already mentioned in our introduction, under the title: visputatio st sxeusutio vorn in i ^otiunnis Dekli aUvsrsns orilninationss 1?.. Martini Inittsr orUinis ürsrnitarnrn. The letter is found in Walch's 15th volume, but (as in Löscher's) with the wrong title; it should read: To the Abbot Caspar of Wessobrunn and the Provost Johann of Polling. - Of this writing, which Wiedemann p. 494 describes as very rare, Löscher had two different editions (according to the incorrectness of the text in Löscher, reprints) (Ref.-Acta III, 563), both in quarto on one sheet. We have an old, most likely the original edition in folio, one sheet, printed on one side only. Printer and place of printing is not indicated, also the title is missing. It begins with the words: l)60 ^mantiss. krslatis l). tlasxari Urdati kontis Vusssonis st <1. loanni kollingas oto. According to this our translation is made. - Eck's 12 theses are found in the Basel collections of Luther's writings of March 1520 and July 1520, in the latter p. 187. The 13 theses are in the Acts of the Disputation at Leipzig, P 2d; in the Latin Wittenberg edition, Dom. I, col. 241; in the Latin Jena edition, Dom. I, col. 227; in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, vol. Ill, 210; in l). Hofmann's Reformation History of the City and University of Leipzig, p. 57; in the Erlangen edition OM. var. arZ. Vol. Ill, 9 ff.

714 L. V. L. Ill, 10 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 862 f. 715

(8) That from the imperfection of love or faith a horror and, as it were, despair arise in the soul of the dying, by which they are tormented in purgatory, and that they fall into this horror through the fear of death, by which they die, as it were, unwillingly, we do not accept, because it is contrary to truth and reason.

(9) That the souls in purgatory deserve greater grace, or that their rewards are diminished when they are freed by other merits, or that they are not certain of their blessedness, or that they do not want our help, we deny as contrary to our faith and all reason.

(10) That the merit of Christ's passion is not the treasure of the Church, from which indulgences are given, we deny, because it is contrary to the truth and the apostolic decrees, as we consider it a very great ignorance that the keys should be the treasure of the Church. We also devoutly believe that we are helped by the merits of the saints.

I I. To say that indulgences are of no use is a

Likewise, to say that indulgences are a kind of affliction for a work, making it less valuable, is a very serious error; therefore, we hold that even he who says he is guilty of rejecting indulgences is wrong, because the Lord says, "For my sake I blot out transgressions;" he does not say, "For the sake of money.

(12) That the pope cannot remit the punishment due for sin by means of indulgences is an error; indeed, it is erroneous that he cannot absolve the souls in purgatory from the punishments; but most of all we do not accept that the dying, the sick, the lawfully incapacitated, and those who do not have public gross sins should not need indulgences.

(13) That the Roman Church before the time of Sylvester was not higher than other churches, we deny; but he who had the chair and the faith of St. Peter, we have always acknowledged to be the successor of Peter and the governor of Christ.

Salvation of the Truth and the Apostolic See.

Glory to God alone.

*33 Carlstadt's theses against Eck for the disputation in Leipzig. )

April 26, 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Carlstadt's theses against D. Johann Eck, which are to be upheld at Leipzig on June 27.

Andreas Carlstadt will defend the following theses against Johann Eck in Leipzig on June 27, 1519.

Since Johann Eck denies that the whole life of the believer is a repentance, or in need of repentance, he is a Jew under Christian skin, exclaiming: If the righteous man is the Son of God, let him come down from the cross, and he does not know that this life is a time (diem) in which one must take care of the cross.

  1. in the same way, he makes this false conclusion: the life of the faithful does not express penance, as a sacrament, therefore not penance.

3 In order to extract D. John's knowledge (scientia), this sentence will also be maintained: The whole life of the faithful has the sacramental penance, which I have brought out of circumstances that belong to the conjecture, from Cyprian and Bernard.

  1. D. John thinks it is something strange that I have turned from the commanded penance to the penance that suffers scourges and punishments, but he is not surprised at the penitent pro-.

*These theses are found in Latin in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, Vol. > Ill, 289, who had two editions of them in his possession, both in > quarto: one, as he says, is printed with Italian, or nowadays more > common, the other with Gothic or monastic script. Our translation is > after Löscher. The Latin title is given in the introduction. > Carlstadt's sharp letter to Eck, which preceded these theses, is > found in Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 978.

716 Löscher III, 28S ff. 33. Carlstadt's Theses for the Disputation at Leipzig. W. XVIII, 858-860. 717

phet prepared for scourging and pain, nor about himself that he does not know himself.

5 Since John boldly denies that the righteous repent, he denies what the church confesses. He is also under the ban, since he claims that the righteous who still walk (viae) are not actually sinners. But how will one who is under bondage defend the church?

  1. small sins are true sins to be atoned and repented (dolenda).

(7) Every little sin that man does not judge is condemnable, therefore it is not enough that one does not agree with it, but the judgment must also be added that all this is sin (delicta) for the sake of which it is written: Who can tell how often he is wrong? likewise: Show me my faults.

Daily sins, which are neither recognized as real on earth nor forgiven by compensation of what one owes, are mortal sins. I will not be astonished (stupescam) at the trivial objections (stupeum pensum) of the sophists.

(9) John, by setting scholastic doctrines, which have been disputed for four hundred years, against the older truth, has invented a new right of custom and prescription, which was not known in the earlier times, namely, that errors and sins can also be made a rule (praescribi). Therefore beware, you oldest fathers, and you Augustine, that you did not overcome the Donatists with false reasons, but entangled them. Here is the famous (ille) new protector, who defends the church with a new protection, in which there are very learned people, but he is an even more learned defender.

(10) Then also you prophets, apostles, beware, and you Christ the Savior, lest through the unoriginality of your speech we be led to think that we sin in every good work.

II. free will, before the grace poured in by the Holy Spirit, is only able to sin a little. But this earthly believes my

Deceiver not; how could he believe when I spoke of heavenly things?

(12) Yes, our will, which is not governed by the divine will, the more eager it is to act, the faster it approaches godlessness.

13 John with his principle, who belongs to his disputators, 1) can do what is in him, that is, take away the bar and that which hinders grace, that is, soften the stony heart, against Ezekiel and the sentence of Ambrose already mentioned before.

14 Since John does not see how a good work is entirely of God and God's work, he still reads and understands the Scriptures through the cover of Moses.

Finally, everyone can see very well what erudition D. John has in theology, who, I do not know how much lappish work in his Chrysopassus 2) has brought together about the election of grace and yet denies that the passages about the election of grace could refer to the works that are to be crowned.

16 By citing the statement of Bernard: Take away free will and there will remain nothing that can be saved, against me, and thereby wanting to prove that free will is capable of very much, he has read completely wrong (quid pro quo), and shows sufficiently with what kind of judgment he looks through the church teachers. But he makes himself suspicious to all students as a falsifier.

(17) When John says that blessedness is based on the canons in such a way, if someone does what they command out of the capacity of free will, he judges and establishes his own righteousness by pursuing the law of righteousness.

The origin of this so just dispute can be seen in our defense, which we have published Wider D. Johann.

  1. Cf. the 38th sentence of Eck in the 2nd row in the paper No. 31.
  2. Cf. the notes on the 17th sentence of Eck's 2nd row in the paper No. 31.

718 L. V. L. Ill, 16 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 863-86S. 719

*34 Luther's thirteen theses against Eck. )

Mid-May 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Against new and old errors, Martin Luther will defend these following theses at the University of Leipzig.

Every man sins daily, but he also repents daily, as Christ teaches, "Repent," except for a certain new righteous man who does not need repentance, as the heavenly vine dresser also cleanses the fruit-bearing branches daily.

  1. to deny that man also sins in good, and that a venial sin is such, not by its nature, but only by God's mercy, or that sin remains in a child even after baptism, is to trample Paul and Christ underfoot at the same time.

(3) Whoever says that a good work or repentance is a sign of the abhorrence of sins before the love of righteousness, and that there is no sin in it, we count him among the Pelagian heretics, but we prove that he is also nonsensical against his holy Aristotle.

God changes the eternal punishment into a temporal one, namely, that the cross must be carried, which neither canons nor priests have any power to interpret or take away, although they may presume to do so, seduced by harmful flatterers.

5 Every priest must absolve a penitent of punishment and guilt, or he sins; likewise, a high dignitary (prelatus) sins when he withholds secret things without the most just cause,

how much this is also opposed by the custom of the church, that is, the flatterer.

Perhaps the souls in purgatory do enough for the sins; but that God requires from a dying person more than a willing death is asserted with the most trivial presumption, because it cannot be proven in any way.

  1. who shows that he knows not what faith is, nor what repentance is, nor what free will is, who chattereth that free will is the master of his actions, whether good or evil, or who dreameth that a man be not justified by faith alone in the word, or that faith be not taken away by any gross sin (crimine). 1)

It is, of course, contrary to truth and reason that those who die unwillingly are deficient in love and therefore suffer the horror of purgatory, if truth and reason are the same as the opinion of bad theologians (theologistarum).

We know that bad theologians claim that the souls in purgatory are certain of their blessedness and that grace is not increased in them, but we are surprised at the highly learned people that they cannot give any reason for this belief that would be probable even to a simple-minded person.

  1. that the merit of Christ is the treasure
  1. This 7th thesis is missing in the first publication of the theses at the beginning of February. (Weim. Ausg.)

*The original print of this manuscript is externally very similar to that of Eck's Thirteen Theses (No. 32): one sheet in folio, printed on one side only, and comes from the office of Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg. Then there are two quarto editions, each of 4 leaves, one printed by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg, the other by Martin Landsberg in Leipzig. The title is: Disputatio st sxeusatio I?. Martini lurtUsr ackversus srilninationss D. lottannis Lekii. This writing is found in the Latin Wittenberg edition (1545) Dorn. I, toi. 240; in the Jena one Dorn. I, 239, in both without the passages where Carlstadt is mentioned; in the Erlangen edition, opp. var. arZ., vol. Ill, p. 12; in the Weimar edition, vol. II, 158; in Löscher, in his Reformation Acta, vol. Ill, 563 the preface, p. 212 the theses. The thirteen theses alone are found in two old printings described in the Weimar edition, Vol. II, 157; in Luther's Wittenberg Theses collections of 1538 (with incorrect year) and 1558, and in German in the Leipziger Gesammtausgabe, Vol. XVII, p. 243. Our translation is according to the Weimar edition.

720 V- a. Ill, 17; 296 f. 34. Luther's thirteen theses against Eck. W. XVIII, 86S; 930f. 721

The fact that it is a treasure of indulgences is certain, but no one pretends that it is a treasure of indulgences except a shameful flatterer, the extravagant who depart from the truth, and some fictitious acts or customs of the Church.

  1. To say that indulgences are a good thing for a Christian is nonsensical, because they are really the affliction of a good work, and a Christian must reject indulgences for the sake of abuse, because the Lord says: For my sake I cancel your transgression Isa. 43:25, not for the sake of money.

(12) That the pope may impose all the punishments that are due

  1. In the explanations of these theses, "us" has been added by Luther. - The doctrine of the merit of the saints is, of course, still papist.

The fact that indulgences can be granted to those who have not committed gross sins is certainly dreamed by unlearned sophists and corrupt flatterers, but they cannot demonstrate it in the least.

That the Roman Church is higher than all others is proved by the very cold decrees of the Roman popes that have arisen in the last 400 years; against these, however, are the proven histories of 1100 years, the text of divine Scripture, and the decision of the Council of Nicaea, which is of all the holiest.

Anno 1519.

  1. What Luther intended to mean by this expression, he explains in his letter to Spalatin in May 1519. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV. 988 § 9.

35 Luther's Explanation Who His Thirteenth Thesis of the Pope's Violence

(increased by the author). *)

Bor the 27th of June 1519. The increased edition after the 18th of August 1519.

Translated from Latin.

JEsus.

Martin Luther wishes the godly reader salvation in Christ!

About my thirteen theses I have recently published my explanations in the greatest haste, as the circumstances of the time and my business brought it with itself. For in this way I am forced to meet almost unprepared the most evil slander, which is thought of me by many. Since I now see that one with

I have been looking for something in them the explanations with greater zeal than I had expected, so it has seemed good to me to undertake them again and to increase them or at least to improve them, so that they may come before the public in a somewhat more dignified form. Above all, I ask you, dear reader, not to be surprised that my way of writing is so different in this from my other. I am sometimes really too coarse, and not at all like myself; but I do it with

*The first edition was printed by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg. After that, a reprint by Johann Frobenius in Basel, and two others without indication of place and printer. The second edition, increased by Luther, which appeared after the disputation, towards the end of August, was printed in Leipzig by Melchior Lotther and reprinted by Valentin Schumann in Leipzig in 1520. From the Baseler Allsgabe, the writing is in the Baseler Sammlungen of March 1520, sheet oo 2 a and Äl. Intirorii Irlorlkrationurn xars una. Lasileas apuck Xclarn?otri 1520. msnstz lulio. P. 300 passed. In the collective editions and erasers, the text is included according to the increased edition printed by Lotther. The writing is found in the Latin Wittenberg edition (1545), Dorn. I, toi. 110 d; in the Latin Jena (1556) Dorn. I, 311 d; in the Erlanger, opx. var. arA. Ill, 296; in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, vol. Ill, 123; in the Weimar edition, vol. II, 183. Our translation is based on the latter.

722 D. V. E. Ill, 297-299. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 931-933. 723

I have never sought such a thing, but, as I have been dragged by force before the public, so I am always anxious how I could return to my corner as soon as possible and keep my good Christian name. For I believe that my public appearance (neuter) has its time. After me, if the Lord wills, another will follow; I will have done enough for my time. I also seem to many to have been a bit too hard on the opponents and to have forgotten theological moderation, as it were. If other faults should be found in me, I do not ask for much forgiveness, because I am aware that I am doing this for no other reason than out of excessive weariness and hatred of the public, into which they drag me and steal a great deal of extremely precious time from me; Furthermore, because I have to endure such obstinate and obdurate complainers against me, that from every syllable they seek shame for me, but for themselves the victory that they are true Christians (Christiani nominis), quite deceitfully and quite persistently, so that it seems to me that for an evil branch an evil wedge is necessary, although it seems to me as if I have always done much violence to my displeasure, so that I do not do what I could have done. And I do not know whether those can be treated mildly and at the same time with benefit who, through a long ingrained habit of reproaching others with the name of a heretic, have become so senseless in judging the writings of others, and have become hard of hearing the truth and deaf in their opinions, that it seems as if they could hardly be awakened by some divine herald's staff. To say nothing of how intolerable it would be to mildly rebuke those who have made of the temple of God a den of thieves and of the Scriptures of God a human trade. Christ also expelled this abomination from the holy place with scourges John 2:13 ff, and Paul Titus 1:10 judged that these useless babblers should be harshly rebuked. For this they must confess,

they may or may not want that the holy scripture has been completely neglected in all universities without distinction, although they boast to understand the scripture in a more conscientious way (religiosius) by human understanding, which is brought from others, than by their own the scripture. I do not want this song to be sung to me, nor will I dance to it; I do not want to understand the Scriptures according to the judgment of a human day, but according to the judgment of the Scriptures the writings, sayings and deeds of all men. After all, it is praise if someone bears the shame of all accusations humbly and patiently: but if someone knows that the name of a Christian is stolen from him, that his honor is taken away from him, that Christ is denied - with which those deal who so easily and sacrilegiously declare a man to be a heretic - and does not rather instead of bearing it patiently cry out against it to the death with all his might, let him be accursed! Therefore, let those who wish me to be patient first accuse me with another name than that of a heretic, a faithless man, an apostate, or, what they are guilty of, first convict me that I am such a man. For I do not believe that I would have repaid any of those who have made such accusations against me. I would have repaid the same, even if I had called him a thousand evil names. For there is no abomination equal to heresy, since the latter is the sin against the Holy Spirit. But when I consider the example of all the saints, and the weak mind (impotentem animum) of those who so often make this accusation, I would almost persuade myself that the name of heretic should be tolerated as well as that taken from any other infirmity. For the Jews raged that Christ also had the devil John 7:20 and thought that they were doing God a favor John 16:2. But be that as it may, the person of no man shall be abhorrent to me, since I hope that one day we shall all live eternally in peace in the kingdom of Christ. If, however, I should put the matter of the Holy Scriptures in too

724 L. v. ". in, 299 f. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. xvm, 933-935. 725

I hope that I will not be denied a cheap pardon, since there can be no equally great injury or insult that could be compared with the injustice committed against the divine Scriptures. For here our eternal life is violated, there only the wretched name of a perishable man. But may the Lord Jesus rule and keep us all, and guard our hearts and minds. Amen. Farewell, dear reader. 1)

Glory to God in the highest. 2)

Eck's thesis.

That the Roman Church before the times of Sylvester was not higher than other churches, we deny; but he who had the chair and the faith of St. Peter, we have always acknowledged to be the successor of Peter and the general governor of Christ.

  1. In the first edition, instead of the above, there is the following preface: To the reader. I alone, almost among all people, either do not have to insert anything strange into my disputations or am immediately forced to reveal my entire secret at once. All others, even if they go about in strange things that are too high for them, and not only put forward the strangest things, but also the most false doctrines, have this permission to such an extent that a wide distinction is made between what they thus display and what they simply teach before the people or chatter about at home. It is only Luther who is challenged and forcibly dragged into a dispute, into a disputation; of whom it is demanded that he should speak and at the same time also give his reason for it before the time, or that when he disputes, he should speak in such a way that even a craftsman can understand it: if I do not do this, I am immediately a heretic, a blasphemer, one who gives offense; I have such a fate, dear reader. But I am not afraid, as long as Christ lives, who had to endure a similar, even a greater envy, since he deceived the arrogant with his divine, strange speeches, so that those who were seeing would become blind, which he, however, only wanted to reveal after the ascension to heaven in his time through the Holy Spirit. These theses of mine against Johann Eck, especially the thirteenth one, about the power of the pope, are of such a nature that they should ape his extremely spiteful arrogance by their appearance, especially since I realized that I would have to deal with a slippery wrestler. Therefore, dear reader, I choose you as judge, whoever you may be, so even I fear no danger for me with this thesis, as far as the truth is concerned. By the way, if envy should do something else, it will only do its own work: you judge only honestly and freely. Farewell.
  2. These words are missing from the first edition.

Luther's thesis.

That the Roman Church was higher than other churches is proved by the very cold decrees of the Roman popes; against them are the text of the divine Scriptures, the proven histories of 1100 years and the decision of the Council of Nicaea, which is the holiest of all.

First of all, my reader, you see that we do not differ much on the matter itself, but on the causes and origin of the matter. For even I do not deny that the Roman pope is, has been, and will be the first, nor do I dispute it. Nor is this the question, but whether the grounds of proof by which this is asserted are valid. Of all things, I confess, I am most displeased that anything asserted in the church should be proved by flattering pretenses or by lies, by which we would expose the church and our faith to the ridicule of our opponents. The Church of Christ has no need of our lies. She is firmly founded on the rock of faith. She is not afraid of being debated and investigated. Hence it has come about that the flatterers of the Roman popes have long since brought upon themselves the suspicion of tyranny in this supremacy (primatu), in that, as if they had no real confidence in this matter, they have not allowed the truth of this matter to be freely investigated and discussed, which they have quite willingly allowed in all matters, even divine ones (if only they did not touch this supremacy).

I therefore pass over Eck's thesis: Firstly, because I do not believe to understand it correctly as one set up out of envy and deceit. For he has publicly aroused this hatred against me without any cause, although I have not treated this subject in any of my sayings. But the flatterer has sought his own, even with his brother's undoing. Secondly, because the lovely person claims that someone is not Christ's governor and Peter's successor, unless he also has faith. In this he is either crazy or he denies from many Roman popes that they were Christ's governors.

726 L. v. L. in, 300-302. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 935-937. 727

And what is most intolerable for the Roman popes is that he imposes holiness and godliness on them as something necessary, while in our country even his governorship and papacy is considered valid who is without faith and holiness.

But well! I want to dissect this slippery eel and do two things in my thesis: First, I want to bring the solid evidence by which this supremacy, as it seems to me, can be established in a reliable manner, so that by means of it, even heretics and red spirits can be effectively resisted. Secondly, I will show that the decrees and proofs on which those who have asserted this supremacy have so far based themselves prove nothing.

From the first one first.

The first thing that moves me, that the Roman Pontiff is higher than all the others, at least than all those of whom we know that they are pontiffs (gerere), is the will of God Himself, which we see in the existence of that. For without the will of God, the Roman pope could never have attained this autocracy. But the will of God, in whatever way it may have become known, is to be received with reverence, and therefore it is not permitted to resist the Roman Pontiff in his supremacy. This reason, however, is so strong (tanta) that even if there were no Scripture and no other cause, this alone would be enough to keep the insolence of the resisters in check, and of this single reason the glorious martyr Cyprian boasts in many letters with the greatest confidence against all opponents of any bishops, as we read in 1 Kings 12. 12. that ten tribes of Israel had fallen away from Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, and yet, because it had happened according to the will of God without legal cause (autoritate), this was valid with God. For even according to all the theologians, the revealed will (voluntas signi), as they call that which God works, is not we

Therefore, I do not see how those can be excused from the accusation of rioting who, acting contrary to this will, evade the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

Behold, this is the first and, as it seems to me, already alone an insurmountable reason that subjects me to the Roman Pontiff and compels me to confess his supremacy.

The second reason is: If according to the commandment of Christ we are commanded Matth. 5, 25. 41. to yield to the adversary, and we are to go with him who compels us one mile also two other miles, how much more should we yield when the Roman pope demands something in his rule, may he do it rightly or wrongly! For this rule is an incomparably lesser thing than that for its sake unity and love and humility should be abolished from us. Therefore I do not doubt that those sin who go into disunity and dissolve the eternal unity of the spirit in order to escape this temporal, earthly sovereignty (excellentiam), for everything must be borne that is not sin.

The third reason is: How, then, if God wanted to afflict us with many princes for our sins, as Solomon says in Proverbs 28:2, should one resist the scourge of God? For the sin of the people, he says, his princes become many. Therefore, since it is not for us to decide whether GOD has given us any princes in wrathful or gracious will, that is our business to receive His will in godly sincere fear. In this way, even if he wanted us to be under the Turk, we should gladly be subject to the Turk.

The fourth reason is: The apostle Rom. 13,1. ff. says: Every soul should be subject to the higher authorities, because there is no authority without from God. But whatever powers there are, they are ordered by God. Therefore, those who resist authority resist God's order, but those who resist God burden themselves with condemnation. Through this

728 L- V.". m, 302-301. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 937-940. 729

strongest cause of all, as far as I can see, we are subject to the Roman Pontiff, in which he clearly asserts that no power is, nor can be, without from God. But since the power of the Roman Pontiff is already most strongly established, as we see, we must certainly not challenge this divine order, but humbly uphold it in its entirety, even if it were unjust, and leave the judgment to God.

The fifth reason is: St. Peter teaches 1 Pet. 2, 13. 15... that we should be subject to all human order, because it is the will of God. But human order he calls the authorities appointed by human arbitrariness, as is clear from what follows, where he says: "Let it be to the king as the ruler, or to the captains as the messengers from him." But since we believe that even the Roman Pontiff's authority is instituted by human decision and so strengthened by God's order, he who evades it by his own power is not without grave sin.

The sixth reason: This also includes the unanimous agreement of all believers who are nowadays under the Roman Pontiff. For since this authority is a temporal matter and is far inferior to the unity of the faithful, he cannot be without the most shameful sin who, because of a temporal matter, disparages this common opinion of so many believers, that is, denies Christ and despises the church. Or is it possible that Christ should not be among so many and so great Christians? But if Christ is there and the Christians, then one must stand by "Christ and the Christians in every thing that is not contrary to God's commandment. This, I say, is a strong and irrefutable reason. And from this many others can be formed, indeed, all Scripture can be drawn, since it everywhere inculcates love, humility, unity of mind, and fear of God, which are not to be violated on account of any cause of the world, much less on account of the papacy or the supremacy of a person alone, even if the same were instituted only by human right. And with this reason, as it seems to me, the sovereignty (monarchia) of the Roman

It would be far better for the Roman Pontiff's will to be fortified if not only the subordinates, but also the Roman popes were compelled to pay attention to the will of God and the agreement of the faithful and to fear the same, than if, while they want to have the same, as it were, by divine right, they enforce it by force and terror and only generate hatred against themselves in the subordinates and, through security, gradually strengthen themselves in tyranny.

From the last piece.

That the proofs which have been held up to now are nothing, I will show in three ways: first, by setting forth the scriptural passages cited; second, the void (inefficacem) proof of the canons or decrees; third, by giving very strong reasons of reason.

In relation to the first, there are two sayings of Scripture with which it was believed that the supremacy of the Roman Church could be established.

First, the saying Matth. 16, 18. f. is used: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 2c For from this text, they cry, Peter alone received the keys before the other apostles.

But that this serves nothing to this cause, I prove:

First, that the jurists themselves, who assert this supremacy, depart from this opinion and deny that by this word the supremacy is given to Peter, consequently also to the Roman Pontiff, fei, as the gloss has it to the Cap. Considerandum in the 1st Dist., and Panormitanus äo oloet. eap. LiZiüücrLsti, whence they say, not by this word, butu by that word John 21:16., "Feed my sheep," was Peter given the pabbacy over the church. If, then, the jurists are permitted to deny so many clear passages (textus) of the decrees and to deviate from everything that is so abundantly and persistently set forth in the 17th, 18th, 19th, 21st and 22nd Distinction from this word of Matthew, why should I, as a theologian, not be at liberty to call the decrees quite cold,

730 D- v- a. in, 3v4 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xviii, 940-942. 731

since the jurists are allowed to deny and nullify them? They may first prosecute themselves, since they are guilty of a greater offense, or, if those who deny and nullify the decrees deserve mercy, he who claims that the evidence of the decrees is without probative force and cold will be without sin. For I have not denied them, as those do, but I have only said that they are cold to prove, as indeed they are cold, only that they serve to bring up much about the passage in Matthew, after the manner of that which is forcibly spoken of and drawn to a remote (alienam) opinion. By this text, therefore, from which they themselves depart, nothing is proved; nothing is proved by these decrees, which they themselves deny; and to neither of them have they any right confidence. And they are induced to do this by a very strong reason, which makes the opponents insurmountable, namely, by this, that Christ, as St. Jerome also declares in this passage, does not hand over the keys to Peter, but only promises them, therefore one must go back to such a passage in which he really hands over the keys. And then the passage in the last chapter of John 20, 22. f. is introduced, that he does not say to Peter, but to all: "Receive the Holy Spirit, to whom ye remit sins. 2c From these words it is not only clear to whom he promised the keys in the person of Peter, namely to the whole church, but also what he wanted to be understood by the promised keys, namely forgiveness and retention of sins.

Secondly, that the decrees draw this word only to Peter and the Roman pope. For in the holy fathers it is asserted that Christ spoke this word to the church and all the apostles in the person of Peter. The first of these is St. Jerome, who, interpreting the word "Peter" in this passage, says: Peter makes his confession in the person of all the apostles, saying: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." And in this he follows, as he is wont to do, his Origen, who expresses the same opinion at this point.

Chrysostom, however, although he exploits this whole passage for the glorification of Peter, saying that he was the head and ordained shepherd of the future church and set before the whole world, nevertheless also calls him the mouth of the apostles, who answered instead of all, saying: Peter, as the mouth of all the apostles and the head (vertex) of the whole apostolic community, answers alone, since all were asked. Therefore, this passage does not refer to Peter alone, but to all, even though he was the first and foremost among the apostles.

St. Augustine says about the 109th Psalm: Just as some things are said, which, since they seem to concern the apostle Peter quite properly, have nevertheless no quite suitable sense, unless they are referred to the church, whose person he, as is recognized, led in the image for the sake of the first place he had among the disciples, as this is: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and others of the kind: so Judas represents, as it were, the person of the enemies of Christ 2c You see that he claims that the keys were given to the church in the person of Peter. The same says also in the first book de doct. ollrist., Cap. 17: These keys he gave therefore to his church, that all things which they loosed on earth might be loosed also in heaven.

And why do we ourselves not rather consider the text and words of Christ, who will best instruct us through Himself?

It is said Matth. 16, 13. ff.: Jesus came into the region of the city Caesarea Philippi, and asked his disciples and said: "Who do the people say that the Son of Man is?" 2c, where St. Jerome notes quite significantly (significanter) that Christ asked differently with respect to Himself when He desired the opinion of men than when He asked that of the apostles. Those he calls men, of these he indicates that they are gods. Further, when he asks in regard to men, he calls himself the Son of man, as it were by an indefinite (vago) name. But since he asks the apostles, he says, "I," pointing to a definite, particular person. And since he asks in relation to men, no disciple called by name answers to indicate that the

732 D- V. a. Ill, 305-307. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, PP42-S45. 733

are without name, who have improper opinions of the Son of God. Add to this the fact that people's opinions of Christ are unstable. But where he asks the apostles about themselves, a certain person, named by name, answers and pronounces a short, constant confession of faith, in order to teach that the right knowledge of Christ consists in unity and firmness and is not moved to and fro like a reed by the opinions of many. So you see also here that nothing really refers to Peter, but that he is the common tool of all apostles.

Now behold also this, that I myself have learned that the remark was also made by laymen (even in the laymen is the Spirit of Christ), that this word of Christ could not be understood as spoken to Peter alone, because Christ did not ask Peter alone, but all the apostles, saying, "Who do you say that I am?" He did not say, "You, Peter, who do you say that I am?" Therefore, if all the disciples had not answered through Peter, they certainly would not have been disciples, nor would they have heard the Master, nor would they have satisfied the questioner, and it would be ungodly to have such an opinion of the apostles. It remains, then, that Christ did not accept Peter's answer for Peter alone, but for the whole company of apostles and disciples. Otherwise he would have asked the others anew. From this it follows further that, just as Christ assumes the person of the answering Peter for all, so also in the sequel he does not say to Peter alone, but to all in whose person Peter speaks, "You are Peter, to you I will give the keys. "2c Otherwise the Scriptures will not be rightly understood unless the preceding and the following are rightly compared. And that this might be all the more certain, that not to Peter alone was anything said of Christ, Christ Himself has declared to whom He speaks, and to whom He gives the keys, saying, Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonas, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

I ask you, what can even be invented here against it, what can be more clearly

be said than that Peter in this person is not Peter, that he is not flesh and blood? But he is the one to whom the Father reveals. Peter is here placed completely outside of man, and is now no longer any person for himself, but the hearer of the revealing Father. Not Simon, Jonah's son, answers this, not flesh and blood, but the hearer of the fatherly revelation. Can any slanderer here still twist the word of Christ on the man Peter? What follows then? The one who is the hearer of the fatherly revelation is the one to whom the keys are given, not Peter, not the son of Jonah, 1) not flesh and blood. Now if this be so, it follows already inescapably (pronum) that the keys are not given to any private person, but to the Church alone; for we are not certain of any individual (privato) man whether he has the revelation of the Father or not. But it is the Church with respect to which one must not doubt, for it is the Body of Christ, One Flesh, living in the same Spirit as Christ. She is the Peter who hears the revelation and receives the keys; for this creed stands firm: "I believe a holy church, the congregation of the saints"; not, as some now dream, "I believe that a holy church of dignitaries (praelatum) is", or any other thing they may invent. The whole world professes to believe that a holy Catholic Church is nothing other than the communion of saints. Therefore, this article, "the congregation of the saints", was not prayed before ages, as can be seen from Rufinus' explanation of the Creed (symbolo exposito), but some interpretation (gIossa) has given this explanation that the holy Catholic Church is the congregation of the saints, which in the course of time has been put into the text and is now prayed at the same time. But this is a necessary and highly desirable thing for the sake of those who today give the Church any other name than: the congregation of the saints.

But it follows, And upon this rock I will build my church. If we now look under

  1. In Latin: ^oknnnis. So Peter is also called Joh. 21,16. Simon Johanna.

734 D- D. L. in, 307-309. v. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 945-947. 735

If we understand "this rock" to mean the authority of the pope, then see what we do. First, it follows that the original church of the apostles was not a church, because Peter (to prove it with solid reasons) was still in Jerusalem in the eighteenth year thereafter and had not yet seen Rome, which is evident from Paul's letter to the Galatians 1, 17. f.. The latter writes that after his conversion he first went to Arabia, then after three years he came to Jerusalem to see Peter, and Gal. 2, 1. afterwards, after fourteen years, he went out (to Jerusalems and discussed with Jacobus, Peter and John about the gospel of the foreskin i.e. to the Gentiles. Dear, but who should thus race, and even if it were an Orestes, that the church at Jerusalem and the Catholic had not been one church, because the authority of the Roman church, and perhaps also its faith, had not yet existed? So it was not built on the rock, that is, on the authority of the Roman church, as some decrees interpret it, but on the faith that Peter confessed in the person of the whole church, since also the general and catholic church had been so long before the Roman church.

Furthermore he speaks Matth. 18, 17. f. in the plurali numero not to Peter, not to the apostles, but to the church, saying: If he does not hear the church, consider him a Gentile and a tax collector. Verily I say unto you: Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Now come here, if you will, and compare this passage with that. The former passage says that the keys were given to Peter alone; the latter denies it and claims that they were not given to him alone. Now how can both exist? The one word must be brought into agreement with the other, for the same Christ spoke both. If they the keys are given to Peter alone, then it is a lie what he says here, that they are given to all. But who should not see that this latter passage interprets the former, and that in the latter the matter is clearly explained, but there the unity of many in the church is praised to Peter? It is clear, then, that the keys of the church are given to all.

are, and there is nothing to be opposed to this passage, since he says, "Tell the church; if he does not hear the church"; he does not say, "Tell Peter; if he does not hear Peter. "2c Yes, behold a wonderful thing: There he begins with all, saying, "Who do you say that I am?" and concludes with One Peter, saying, "You are, and to you I will give." Here, on the other hand, He begins with One, saying, "Does your brother sin against you? "2c, and Ceases with all, saying: "All ye shall bind" 2c Is it not clear that he intended the same thing there with the One Peter, as here with all, and that the keys do not belong to any particular man, but to the church and commonwealth, so that it is certain that the priest does not use the keys by his own power, but by the ministry of the church (for he is the minister of the church), yet not as if they were his or given to him, but to the church?

I believe that this alone will almost create the belief that this saying of Matthew does not refer to Peter, nor to his successor, nor to any individual church, but to all churches. For, as I have said, who can deny that the keys are given to him who confesses Christ at the revelation of the Father? If this is accepted, then where the revelation of the Father and the confession of Christ are, there are necessarily also the keys. But this confession is in every church, but not in any particular one and in a particular person. In order for Christ to impress this on us, immediately after this glorious praise of Peter, when Peter refused to die, Peter heard Matth. 16, 22. f.: "Get behind me, Satan, for you do not mean what God means. What is this? Peter does not mean what is God's? Has the Father not revealed it to him? If this had happened before Peter's praise, it would have some meaning that Peter was praised for his person and that of his followers or a church. But now, since after the praise he is rebuked as one who does not know God, it becomes clear that the former Peter, who had the keys to the church, was not the one who was praised.

736 L. V. a. Ill, 309-311. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 947-919. 737

was not Peter, the son of Jonah, but the Church, the daughter of God, who, begotten by the Word of God, hears the Word of God and confesses it constantly until the end, who does not sometimes mean what is God's and who is not commanded to stand aside, as Peter was. Or, if this concerns the Roman pope and the church, which is said to Peter: "I will give you the keys", then also, according to an irrefutable conclusion, that word must refer to the same: "Get behind me, Satan; for you do not mean what is of God", because this was also said to Peter, the future bishop of the Roman church. Or, if they believe that this does not concern them, they already cannot convince by any reason that what was said before refers to them.

But well, still more. If they rely entirely on literal reason (ad grammaticum rigorem se recipiunt), that it was said to Peter alone, "Thou art Peter, I will give thee the keys," 2c, how shall we resist the heretics, if, supported by our sharp insistence on the words, they should urge us and say, "Granted, this was said to Peter alone, therefore not to his successor, therefore the keys of the church came with Peter and are there with him; where then is the church now?" For it cannot concern several what is said to one, as the word, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself 2c, which is said to Peter alone, so that it is fulfilled and finished with Peter, referring to none of his successors.

But if it is said to his successors and to any church, it can no longer be denied by any reason that it should not be said to all, even that it should not be assumed that it was necessarily said to all the apostles who were present more than to the successors of the one Peter who were not yet there. If it is said to all the apostles, then it must also be understood that it is said to the successors of all the apostles and not only to one apostle.

But may it answer me, whoever can, from whom one should believe that he also has the keys in the Roman church? Does the church itself or the pope have them? and note what I say: When a pope is elected, does he bring the keys or not? If he brings them, then he was pope before he was elected. If he does not bring them, from whom does he receive them? From an angel from heaven? Does he not receive it from the Church? Likewise, when a pope dies, to whom does he leave the keys? Does he take them away with him? If he does not take them away, to whom does he leave them but to the Church from which he received them? What, then, can be said against this quite convincing experience, the best interpreter of the Gospel, that the keys are given neither to Peter, nor to his successor, but to the Church alone, from which the priest receives them as a minister for use? Where then is it that it is thought to have been said to Peter alone, "I will give you the keys"? Yes, where is it that the keys are given to the Roman Church alone? It is necessary that the keys be in every church, as I said above.

I want to say one more thing and use the reason of the apostle Paul, Rom. 4, where he proves from the circumstances of the time and the fact that Abraham was not justified by circumcision, but by faith, by using no other reason than that Abraham was justified before circumcision by God through faith. If this reason of his has validity, as it must have validity, then what I now present in this way must necessarily also have validity. When Peter received the keys from Christ - if you certainly claim that he received them for his person alone - he was not yet bishop of the city of Rome (in fact, he was never bishop of any city, but an apostle, an appointor of bishops, greater than all bishops), but he was one of the apostles. Therefore, the keys are not given to him according to what he became afterwards, or according to what is connected with him either by place or by office.

738 V. L. III. 3II-3I3. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 949-952. 739

Just as righteousness was not imputed to Abraham according to what he became by faith, but in accordance with the fact that he was only an apostle and had the revelation of the Father. Therefore, this saying does not refer to the Roman pope at all, even if it had been said to Peter alone: how much less does it concern him now that it is shown that it was not spoken to the person of Peter alone either!

I add another reason of a similar nature, which Paul uses in Romans 4 and Galatians 3, saying that just as righteousness was imputed to Abraham through faith, so righteousness should be imputed to all who believe. Therefore the keys are also given to them, as to Peter, who has the revelation of the Father and confesses Christ. Thus it is necessary that the keys be given to everyone who confesses in the same way and has the revelation of the Father, which cannot come to anyone but the church, that is, the congregation of the saints, since no individual believer can constantly and surely and persistently have this confession, since even Peter himself did not persist in it, because he erred not only once, but soon after receiving the keys. And yet the keys were not taken away from him again, because he received them not in his person, but in the person of the church. If these reasons of proof are not valid, then also those of the apostle Paul, which have been mentioned, have no power.

But to throw the opposing opinion completely over the heap, well then: If these words: "I will give you the keys" 2c refer to Peter and his successor, then the preceding and the following and that which stands in close connection with it must necessarily also refer to them. For in the case of the holy words of the Gospel, such people must not be admitted who, in order to bring out their meaning, twist and turn one part here, another part there, but according to the testimony of Hilarius, the right understanding is to be derived from the connection of the meaning and the words, and from the

circumstances. Since Christ did not want to hand over the keys until all the disciples had been questioned by him about the confession, nor until he had received and approved the answer of Peter, who spoke from the revelation of the Father, it is clear that the keys belong only to him who is of the same nature as Peter was at that time. From this would follow the most inconsistent inconsistency, that a bad pope or bishop would not be a pope or bishop, because he would not have the faith on which it is based that someone could be a recipient of the keys. Then it would also follow, against the text and against their opinion, that Peter neither received nor kept the keys. For Christ says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church, nor against the faith which Peter then had. But against Peter even the maid who was waiting at the door had the upper hand. Matth. 26, 69. ff. If, therefore, the opinion of the latter were firm, it would follow as an absolutely necessary conclusion that either the Roman and all popes must be holy and have the revelation of the Father, and must not be flesh and blood, or they would not be popes and would not have the keys. I do not see what could be said against this, since this so clear text stands there that the keys are given only to him who does not hear flesh and blood, but the Father in heaven, that is, to one who is holy and righteous in spirit. Otherwise, every pope would be a Satan who does not mean what God means. But if we say this, we immediately renew the error of the old Donatists, who claimed that an evil bishop is not a bishop. This is far from us who confess that a minister of the holy and righteous church can be godless and evil. Thus, while they want to make the Roman Pontiff the only and the whole and the general Pontiff, they do not leave us a Pontiff, so that they may see what reward flatterers and ambitious people receive for doing violence to the Scriptures. So it only remains that the gospel at this point does not refer to Peter, nor to his successor.

740 V- a- m> 313 f. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. xvm, 952-954. 741

I do not refer to any bishop or any individual person, but to the congregation of the saints, which is the Church. The latter can then give the keys both to a worthy and to an unworthy one; to an unworthy one, I say, before God, because she does not know whether he is worthy before God; otherwise she must give them only to one who is worthy before men.

Therefore, I think it is sufficiently clear, since certain decrees drag this text on the Roman See and the Pope, that they treat the word of Christ not only quite coldly (which I have even said modestly), but also contrary to the sense of the Gospel. We will make this clearer when we examine them below. In the meantime, enough has been said briefly about this saying that if the keys are given to someone, Peter's faith is also necessary for him. For if it were denied that Peter's faith was necessary, it would also be denied for the same reason that the keys were given to him, since Christ combines and expresses both, and indeed demands faith more and first. Therefore, it is clearly understood that Christ spoke only of the church, not even of one in particular, but of each in every part of the world.

Secondly, the passage of John is drawn at the last 21, 15. ff.: Simon, do you love me? Feed my sheep. For from this (false) assumption, that it is said to Peter alone, it is thought that he is set over all. But I show that this also proves nothing:

First, because it is quite certain that none of the apostles was neither made an apostle nor sent by Peter, it is neither true nor possible that all the sheep were commanded to Peter, but it is said in a general utterance to all, "Feed my sheep." For he does not speak "all," as he speaks to all the apostles: Go into all the world and teach all nations. But I cannot wonder enough that so many and so great men, against the Scriptures so explicit, against the experience so manifest, claim for Peter all sheep, since they are compelled to confess unanimously that every one of them is a sheep.

Peter was sent as an individual apostle to his assigned territory, and that Paul was called from heaven to be an apostle to the Gentiles. How can we still dare to claim that Peter is nevertheless the shepherd of all? Since he did not send any of them, especially not Paul, as the latter strongly maintains in many words in the first chapter to the Galatians (contendit). This is so obvious that a refutation does not seem necessary. They, says Marcus, went out and preached in all places Marc. 16, 20.

It follows, then, either Peter and his successor are not commanded all of Christ's sheep, or the sheep which Peter did not feed, but Paul and the other apostles did, do not belong to Christ's sheep. How could there be a greater blasphemy? So the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Philippians, and other Gentiles, because they were not fed by Peter himself, nor by his sending them shepherds were they fed by him, are not to be considered Christ's sheep? But what am I still dwelling on such a manifest thing?

If you say, "But the word of Christ says to Peter alone, Feed my sheep," I answer, he did not say, "All my sheep," or Peter would have sinned if he had not fed them all alone, without the other apostles; the Roman Pontiff also sinned today by not feeding and not sending shepherds to the Turks and other Gentiles.

I will even say something else: From this word nothing else can be forced than that Peter should feed the sheep, which were from the sheepfold of the Jews, and so the feeding of the Gentiles 1) does not concern him, nor the Roman pope and his successor, or it does not refer to him alone. This I prove from the apostle Paul, Gal. 2, 7. where he calls Peter the apostle of the circumcision and himself the apostle of the Gentiles. So, if someone were stubborn, he could not be forced by any force to understand anything else by this word of Christ.

  1. In order to make sense of it, we have added this addition, which arises from the context.

742 L. v. L. in, 314-316. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 951-957. 743

as the feeding of the sheep which were of the circumcision, or if it be extended to the Roman Pontiff, then neither can it be denied that it concerns all and can be extended to all with equal justification (pari negotio).

Secondly, I would ask that the flatterers of the Roman Pontiff refrain from invoking this quite terrible word to establish his supremacy. For I have not yet read a more terrible word in the whole of Holy Scripture, which could frighten the Roman Pontiff and every bishop more: First, because "to pasture" does not mean the same thing as to be first or a prince. Therefore, nothing else is proven from it than that the Roman Pontiff should preach and teach the Word of God. If he has to do this, he already has to give up all this supremacy, he has to occupy himself day and night with the holy scriptures, to pray holy (pure). He must suffer dangers and death for the word; in short, the whole of Rome, as it is today, would have to be brought to a completely different appearance. So they may desist, for God's sake, from adapting the most spiritual words of Christ to their desires. For if this is applied to the Roman Pontiff, it follows irrefutably that it is necessary for him to teach the word, or, if he does not teach, it does not apply to him.

But notice even more: Christ lays pasture on Peter only after he loved before. I pray thee, what is this? Does it not follow that if he loves not, he shall not be heard? But who will make us sure of the shepherd's love? Shall we then doubt whom we shall hear? For if it is necessary for us to hear the shepherd, it is also necessary for him to love Christ; or if it is not necessary to love Christ, it is also not necessary to hear the shepherd, since Christ has joined the two and commanded only the one who loves to feed. Now what shall we do here? I know that if he were to consider this word of Christ, any bishop would despair of being able to feed even half a city.

So we have shown that nothing is proved by this passage, and that it is

is not fit to prove supremacy: but if it serves this purpose in the least, it will also enforce that he who does not teach is not a bishop in the church, and that no one should teach unless he loves. This, I say, and nothing else, do these words prove, if thou wilt not use a new grammar, and say, "If thou lovest me, feed my sheep," be the same as, "If thou lovest thyself, be first over the. whole church."

You will therefore act more correctly if you take this word of Christ for an exhortation, even for a command, not to bind the sheep into submission, but the shepherds to love Christ and feed the people. Furthermore, the love of Christ (as St. Augustine interprets it here) also requires dying for Christ's sheep.

And would God that the Roman popes believed that this word concerned them! For this is the complaint of the whole world, that they command love and doctrine to others and think that it is none of their business. For they think that these words belong to the people, so that by them they want to force all to submission, and no one hears from the same words that yet they should be shepherded and the word heard (what the words say). O happy ambition, if only someone could be found somewhere who desired to be a shepherd of all, who would not most willingly admit him? But now they gladly allow everyone the office of loving and shepherding, but they reserve for themselves the title of loving and shepherding and what follows the title, namely profit and honor. Finally, refrain from twisting the words of Christ, for they take away completely what you attach to the priest by this, and impose on him everything that you do not approve of him and that he detests beyond measure.

But you say, "He cannot shepherd unless he is a superior. So although he does not perform the service of a shepherd, he does not thereby lose the place of a superior." I answer: What is that to me? Find other words, then, by which you may assert the doctrine of authority: these words require either one who is

744 v. m, 316-318. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 937-960. 745

loves and feeds, or they absolutely do not fit for anyone, if you do not again take "love more than these" Joh. 20, 17., according to a new way of speaking Latin, for "be set above all others" and "feed" for "possess the rights and goods of all". Therefore it is not to be wondered at if they seek supremacy with such great heat: if they should establish the same, taken according to the words in their proper meaning, they would not want even GOD Himself for a reward. Do you see, then, what it is to mock the Scriptures or, as I have said more reservedly, to prove this supremacy from the very cold decrees?

It follows that to be higher than others and neither to love nor to feed is not an evangelical nor Christian office, but a worldly and human one. Tell me, if the subordinates would rise up against the pope and say: "We do not want to hear you, nor have you as a pope", with what words would you keep them in check? With these words: "Feed my sheep"? But they will say, "But when do you feed? when do you love? where is the work and the cause for this word?" So they would have to be forced with another word, not with this one. Therefore it also follows that by these words neither is any power, much less supremacy, given, but to him who has the power is laid the ministry of loving and teaching, as Peter, who had already been called to the apostleship, is told this. And this is what keeps these flatterers, who read Christ's words sleepily and snoring, from a sound understanding, that they do not distinguish the word ministry and the word authority. The calling of Peter has made him first and such as they would like to raise up. But the imposition of the office by the word "pasture" did not give him a higher position (gradum), nor could it confer it on him, unless they wanted to say that Peter was also exalted above himself by the word "pasture".

But you say, "It is enough that he teaches and loves through another; it is not necessary that he do this personally." I answer: I admit that, but that is not made possible by

This word of Christ is not pronounced, and this permission (licentiam) must be justified by another word. This word insurmountably establishes that there must either be shepherds who also love and teach in their own person, or, if they do not love and teach in their own person, then this word is of no concern to them. And so nothing is proven from it for the Roman sole rule, but it is rather argued against, since it is impossible that so much could be loved and pastured by one.

We see, indeed, that the office of loving and feeding is given by the Roman Pontiffs to the bishops, while they retain the title of shepherd and lover, and the bishops retain the same name and confer it on the parish priests, the parish priests on the caplains: the name passes through all and remains, the office passes through and adheres to none. But also the mendicant friars, who have accepted the office from them, eagerly imitate them: the superiors and the magisters impose the office of teaching on the mendicant friars and are themselves content with the name of the office. So burdensome is it to teach, love and shepherd the word of God, for the sake of which the Son of God alone came into the world and sent the Holy Spirit and did everything so that this office would be rich in service (esset officiosissimum).

If it is enough to teach through another, what does a bishop do more than a layman? Can not even the Turk command or permit another to love and feed? Why, then, was it necessary to charge Peter so often with this ministry and to inculcate it so earnestly? Is this the way to interpret the Gospel: "Feed my sheep, that is, allow, command that another may feed"? If this other should likewise feed through a third, and the third through a fourth, and so on without end until no one, where is the word of Christ? Or how much will it be the others' duty (qua decentia) to feed, since the most high and those who owe it more than they do, do not feed? Why did not Christ do the same? Why is

746 L. v. a. in, 31S-8A. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm. W0-W2. " 747

Did not Peter also remain idle and pasture through others?

Therefore, if you want to force those words to be useful to the papal authority, your cause will go badly and you will conclude that from the time of Gregory the Great there was no shepherd in the Roman Church. For this was almost the last of those who treated the sacred Scriptures. Therefore, if you say to Peter, "Do you love me better than these?" do so, and you will live; love more than others, feed more than others, and the fields will be full of sheep, and the meadows will be thick with grain, so that people will shout and sing. But if by "love more than these" you want to understand that you are greater than others, then you bring into the word of Christ an opinion foreign to Him. For by these words something is not commanded to the subjects, but to Peter. He does not say, "Ye shall be sheep under Peter," but, "Peter, feed the sheep." And yet they want that, they do not want this:

I therefore believe that it is quite obvious that these two sayings of the gospel serve nothing to the matter and that what has been raised from them so far in this matter is quite cold and ineffective.

From this, it is easy to judge the decrees themselves, how weak they prove their things. In order to make this clear, I will cite a few.

The first is Leo, Dist. 19, Cap. (Ita dominus noster): "Thus our Lord Jesus Christ," he says, "the Savior of the human race, ordained that the truth, which before was contained in the preaching of the law and the prophets, should go forth by the apostolic trumpet for the salvation of all mankind, as it is written Ps. 19, 5.: Their sound and their words have gone forth into all lands to the end of the world. But the Lord wanted the secrets of this gift to belong to the office (officium) of all apostles in such a way that he wanted to let them rest mainly in the most holy Peter, the highest of all apostles, so that he would pour out his gifts from him, as from one head, as it were, into the whole body.

and who wants to recognize that he is not partaker of the divine mystery, who deviates from the firm foundation of Peter. So much for him.

Who, I pray you, does not see that something human has happened to this holy and learned man? For if he understands by the solid foundation of Peter the faith in which Peter confessed Christ, Matth. 16, 16, then he speaks rightly and evangelically. For this faith is the rock (petra) from which Peter takes his name. Whoever deviates from it is rightly not partaker of the divine mystery. But if he understands by the solid ground of Peter the jurisdiction and the power of Peter and the Roman pope, then everyone easily grasps that he misuses the word of the gospel and is mistaken. Were not all the apostles on the firm ground of Peter? and yet they were not under the Roman church. St. Stephen and others who suffered persecution from St. Paul were on the solid ground of Peter before the Roman Church came into being.

Further, from the same frailty of human mind, he says that in the apostle Peter rested chiefly the office of teaching, drawing upon the One Peter what the prophet said in the majority and without distinction of all: Their sound and their words.

But also this is obviously wrong, that Peter is the head of the whole body, from which Christ pours his gifts into the whole body, if he does not understand the part of the church, which is instructed by Peter as a teacher, as this has taken place in the Latin and occidental church. For also through the other apostles, especially Paul, he poured out his gifts to many more people than through Peter, so that it is a wonder to me that the mind of this pope was so much clouded (profunde occupatam) that, when he wrote this, he could not think of Paul and the other apostles. Therefore, if he had said, "through whom he poured out his gifts into the body," he would have spoken rightly, but "into the whole body" is too much to say.

The same Leo continues, "For this (Peter)' who had been received into the community of personal unity (in consortium individuae unitatis), he also wished to be associated with the

748 D. V. E. Ill, 320 f. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 962-964. 749

To know by name who expressed what he was, saying: 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,' so that the building of the eternal temple may stand on the firm foundation of Peter through the miraculous gift of God's grace."

Again, by the firm foundation of Peter he does not designate the faith of the general Church, but the power of the Roman Church, and takes the word of Christ as one spoken under Peter's own person, but not as one spoken to the Church, as is clear from the following, where he says: "But this most holy firm foundation of this Peter, which (as we have said) was laid by GOD as Master Builder, he wants to injure with too ungodly presumption who seeks to damage its power by giving place to his lusts and not following what he received from the ancients."

See, here he interprets himself that the firm foundation of Peter is the power of the Roman church, understanding the same under the completely hidden faith of the spirit and under the outward power of jurisdiction, not without doing violence to the word of the gospel. So he does not violate the solid ground of Peter who does not live under the laws of the Roman church, but he who does not believe what Peter confessed.

But I solemnly testify that I do not condemn decrees of this kind, for nothing is lost to me in regard to my blessedness if I tolerate a forcible interpretation of Scripture by anyone, if only the true and rightful understanding is preserved alongside it. But I insist that we should learn to fortify our cause and our faith by a constant and well-founded understanding. For although such abuse of Scripture may be tolerated by those who already believe, even when a struggle arises with disputants, we must have the simple and genuine mind of Christ, which can stand victorious in the struggle, lest we expose the church and all of us to ridicule. For I do not agree with those who think that the Roman popes were not mistaken and that they alone have the right mind.

of Scripture, since here and in many other passages one sees quite the opposite: they were men, just like the other bishops. And it is really no great wonder that these holy popes, out of human weakness, sought to attain supremacy for themselves, since even the apostles in the presence of Christ not only desired it, but also more than once argued about which of them should be considered the greatest. As Christ has graciously borne their human weakness (humanitatem), so the church also learns to bear the remnants of ambition in such popes and therefore does not reject such decrees altogether. But those are to be resisted tooth and nail who are not satisfied that we bear such decrees humbly, but race to such a degree that they dare to interpret them as necessary articles of faith and to proclaim any other opinion heretical, as if there were no other meaning in Scripture, reading everything without any judgment. Through such sacrilege, we inevitably lose the right understanding of Christ and are built on human arbitrariness and sand.

For if it were true what this Leo says here, and one had to obey his words as a divine commandment, then the whole Oriental church from its beginning to its end would not be partaker of the divine mystery, because it has never been under the power of the Roman church. Therefore, the error of this Leo can be tolerated, but for his sake one must not abandon another and more correct sense.

The second is Leo IV, Dist. 20, Cap. Oo libolli.], in which he says: "For this cause I am not afraid to proclaim quite plainly (luculentius) and with a loud voice, that he who is convicted of not accepting without distinction those statutes of the holy fathers of which I have said, which with us are given the name 'Canones,' whether he be a bishop, or a clergyman, or a layman, is also convicted of not accepting without distinction those statutes of the holy fathers of which I have said, which with us are given the name 'Canones,' whether he be a bishop, or a clergyman, or a layman, is also convicted of not accepting without distinction either the Catholic or the

750 L. V. L. Ill, 321-323. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 964-967. 751

apostolic faith, nor the four evangelia useful and effectual, so that they may effect what they ought (ad effectum suum), keep or believe."

Truly, dear Leo, you are not too afraid to proclaim, daring to make human statutes equal to the Gospels, and even boldly claiming that if they are not kept, the Catholic faith will not be kept either. When you spoke of despisers and those who are under you, you spoke rightly: but now that you mix life and faith, superstitions with the gospel, the word of men with the word of God, are you not a man? Who would tolerate that the gospel and the faith should not be kept, if someone had not been under those statutes? You and yours keep the ordinances and canons: those who are in the East have other ordinances, but the same gospel.

The third is Dist. 21, Cap. Cleros. I will never believe that this chapter is decreed by any Roman pope, but it seems to me to be a little finding of Jsidor, who describes Metropolis as the measure of a city 1) and an acolyte as a candlestick bearer 2) and other scales with excellent ignorance, and yet finds faith. "The pope," he says, "is the prince of priests, or it is said that he is, as it were the way of the following. He is also called the highest priest, also supreme Pabst. For he makes the priests and Levites; he disposes of all ecclesiastical dignities (ordines), he indicates what each one must do. In former times the popes were also kings. For the ancestors had this custom that the king was also priest and pope, therefore the Roman popes were also called emperors."

I would have passed over this presumption (divivatorem) with contempt, together with its errors, if I did not see that from this some nowadays take that they consider the pope as emperor and supreme pope.

  1. ----- μίτραν πόλεως.
  2. Probably from αγειν λνχναν

boast. Therefore, I do not refer it to the canons, but to the dogs (canes), and so that I do not do this without good reason, I want to oppose it with decrees that say the opposite, which at the same time will support our opinion. For it is said in the 99th Dist., Cap. Primae, it is said: "The bishop of the first see shall not be called prince of priests or supreme priest or anything of the kind, but only bishop of the first see." And' it follows: "But a general bishop shall not himself be called the Roman Pontiff."

Here I also summon (in judicium voco) the Canons themselves and the teachers of law (canonistas): they may instruct me, I ask what I am to say here. This Canon is accepted, but see how much greater offences against the Roman Pontiff he is guilty of than I would ever have dared to think. First, he not only asserts that they are cold, but he denies and forbids and condemns those canons and canonists which call the Roman Pontiff a prince, the head, the highest, the greatest bishop. Then he takes away his supremacy altogether, and makes him equal to the rest of the bishops of the first sees, that is, to the patriarchs. Now where are those who gossip that I have exhibited something new by saying that the above decrees are quite cold, and, as I believe, not wrongly? For this Canon of the African Council is all the more preferable to those, the further it is from ambition and the more it has evangelical modesty about it.

Those who accuse me as a heretic may at least spare this canon, I ask for it, if they do not want to spare mine. I have admitted everything that is attributed to the Roman Pontiff today: I do not deny the matter, I do not contradict the fact, but I dispute his right, and hold that it is not by divine right, but by decree of men that such is attributed to him. What more shall I do? Must I not only confess the fact, but also confirm it with lies and distortions of Scripture? Let that be far off!

Therefore, I may be damned as much

752 L V. a. m, 323-325. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVHI, 967-S6S. 753

Here I have the canon which condemns the Roman pope being called the general pope, which I have never condemned. But we want to add more.

In the same way, Pelagius writes to all the bishops: "None of the patriarchs should ever use the word 'general'. For if one patriarch is called a general, the others are deprived of the name of patriarch. But let this be far from the faithful, that anyone should wish to appropriate to himself that by which he would seem to diminish, even in the least, the honor of his brethren. Therefore, let your love never call anyone a general, even in letters, lest it deprive itself of what is due to it by attaching to another the honor that is not due to him."

You see, it is a diminution of fraternal honor when One is preferred to all, even according to what a Roman pope says about it.

There, St. Gregory writes to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria: "Behold, in the inscription of the letter which you addressed to me, since I forbade it, you have put the proud name that you call me the general pope. I ask that your most beloved holiness may not do this to me anymore, because you are deprived of what is given to another more than a reasonable reason demands. Nor do I consider this an honor, wherein, as I perceive, my brethren lose their honor. For my honor is the honor of the general church, my honor is the complete welfare of my brethren. Then I am honored if each one of them is not denied the honor due to them. For if your Holiness calls me a general pope, she denies that she is what she professes me to be, namely, general. But let this be far off: let the words fall which blow out truth and wound love."

I beg you, what shall we say here? Am I still sinning for calling coldly the decrees issued by some Roman

  1. In Latin veritatem, which Luther must have read instead of vanitatem. (Weimar edition)

What if I had said that the words of the popes come under fictitious names, since if I had followed this last decree, I would have had to give them the name that they are words that blow out truth (that is, make it insignificant and void) and wound love? How, if I had said this, namely, that they were not only powerless, but also hostile to truth and contrary to love?

In addition, take the approximately six letters of St. Gregory in his Regesten i.e., Collections, in which he quite zealously pursues the same to the emperor at Constantinople and the patriarch there and testifies that this supremacy was offered to the Roman pope by the Council of Chalcedon and yet was not accepted by anyone.

If then the new teachers of spiritual law say that this has been abolished or has ceased through custom, I say to them in gratitude: this I have willed. It follows, then, that it is not by the words of the gospel and by divine right that this supremacy is corrupted, but by human right and custom: this I allow, this I confess. Otherwise, if it existed by divine right, it would always have to be and would always have been, and Pelagius and Gregory would have committed a mortal sin here, as those who abrogated divine right and falsified the gospel. Now, if human rights assert it in such a way that they seek to prove it by the word of the gospel, is it not necessary that they do it quite coldly and quite invalidly and forcibly? as we see in the foregoing and will now immediately see further.

The fourth is Anaclet, 21st Dist., Cap. In novo. "In the New Testament," he says, "according to the Lord Christ, the priestly dignity (ordo) took its beginning from Peter, because the pontificate in the Church of Christ was first given to him, the Lord saying: 'You are Peter' 2c"

If he understands this to mean that the priestly dignity had its beginning in the Latin Church, this can be maintained to some extent, just as St. Cyprian in the Third Epistle calls the chair of Peter the most important, and the one from which the priestly dignity derives its

754 L. V. L. Ill, 325-327. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvill, 969-971. 755

If he understands it in such a way that the whole priesthood comes first and only from the Roman See, it is clear from what has been said how erroneous this is. But if he understands it in such a way that the whole priesthood comes first and only from the Roman chair, then it is sufficiently clear from what has been said how erroneous this is, and then this is not a decree of Anacletus, but the chaff (palea 1) of some invented Anacletus.

The fifth is Pelagius in the same 21st Dist. "The holy catholic and apostolic Roman Church (perhaps because he considers the others neither holy, nor catholic) is not set above the other churches by any decisions of the concilia (synodicis). But by the evangelical word of our Lord and Savior she has attained supremacy: thou art, he says, Peter."

Here he comes out more clearly and not only brazenly opposes the previously mentioned decrees of the 99th Dist., but also twists the word of Christ to Peter completely from faith to the power of jurisdiction and the pomp of supremacy; furthermore, he assumes in the words of Christ only the person of Peter with rejection of the person of the church, which Peter demonically presented truly. Therefore, "thou art Peter," according to a new art of speech, means "thou art the first," and "I will give the keys to thee," that is, "to the Roman church alone, the other churches having nothing." But I am weary of mentioning anything. In short (as I have said), if Christ by these words signified the Roman Church, since the Roman Church arose scarcely in the twentieth year of the original Church, it follows that the original Church itself was not a Church, and consequently all who did not receive the keys from the Roman Church were disobedient to Christ. And so it would have to be judged that St. Stephen was condemned with so many thousands of martyrs of the Oriental Church. To pass over the fact that if, by the word of Christ, the power of the Roman

  1. A whole number of chapters in the first part of the papal canon law, the. Decrees of Gratian, have the superscription palen. (Cf. Col. 247 of this volume.) These contain later additions that are mostly missing in the oldest manuscripts.

If the Roman church should be called the church, as he wants here, and Christ promised to build his church on this rock, it would follow that the general church would not be built on faith, but on the power of the Roman church. What then is the Roman church itself built on? Not on the rock, that is, its violence, nor on faith, that is, on.nothing. Who can tolerate this? So you see how I could set out against these opinions of men if I wanted to act freely; but now it is enough for me to show that nothing can be done by these decrees against the enemies and in the dispute: for they are quite dull, quite cold, and quite unfit for dispute. It is enough that they are tolerated according to brotherly love, but they should not also be worshipped as founded and genuine truth.

But even this is not to be tolerated, that he concludes: "In all this, the higher the dignity (gradus), the greater is the power. Since with the superiors the power is to rule and to command, so with the inferiors the necessity is to obey."

See how he interprets necessity for all and arrogates freedom to himself alone (against the duty of love), but with a very bad conclusion. For there is not immediately a greater power where there is a higher dignity. For Peter was the first among the apostles, but he never had any authority over them; on the contrary, the apostles had authority over Peter, as Apost. 8, 14, that the apostles sent Peter and John, who were the chief among the apostles at that time, and yet they were sent by the apostles, as chiefs, to the believers in Samaria. So Pelagius is obviously mistaken in this place, although I believe that these and similar canons have nothing else from the Roman popes except the name, but that they were written by their officials (officialibus) and scribes, who were completely unlearned in theology. Therefore nothing evangelical, nothing ecclesiastical lives in them, but human inclination, flesh and blood.

The sixth, Pope Nicolaus, in the same Distinction, Cap. Inferior, since he is most strongly

756 D. V- a. m, 327 f. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. xvm, 971-974. 757

to prove that a lower cannot absolve a higher (but he understands by the lower the church at Constantinople, because this was the cause of many canons about this supremacy), introduces the word Is. 10,15: May an axe also boast against him who hews with it, or a saw rise against him who draws it? "With this," he says, "which has been adduced from divine Scripture, we have proved brighter than the sun, that no one who has a lesser power can subject him who has a greater power to his judgment." Who should not be surprised? so very skillfully does this author treat the Scripture under the name of the pope: he makes of the pope a god, he makes the other bishops not brothers, not -once- men, but instruments. That is, of course, to prove clearer than the sun: that is, to pour out darkness.

To say nothing of the fact that he proves with this final speech that a lower man cannot be the judge of a higher man, since he had undertaken to prove who was the higher and the lower man: to be discussed in such a skillful and astute way deserves this supremacy of the most shameful ambition.

Furthermore, at the end, he calls the Roman church the mother of all churches. It is wonderful that her daughters and disciples were the churches in Judea, of which Paul says to the Galatians 1, 22.: I was unknown to the churches in Judea; and v. 13. which was the church that Paul devastated, because the Roman church was then still in the loins of her father Peter, who was in Jerusalem. What, I pray thee, did the church at Jerusalem learn from the Roman? Why does Paul lie, Rom. 15, 25. f., by saying that the poor saints in Judea rightly receive a common tax from the Romans and other Gentiles, because they have been made partakers of the spiritual goods of those? With this word the apostle clearly describes the church at Jerusalem as the mother, the origin and the root of all churches in the whole world, also of the Roman church, which is also true. For who can deny that the church of the Gentiles is later than the church of the Jews, and that the latter sprang from the former? since the prophets have said this

in so many places about the Gentiles, since we read in Acts 8, 1. 4. that the scattered disciples preached the word to the Jews alone, and 10, 45. that they were astonished about the salvation that happened to the Gentiles, and Paul Rom. 15, 8. f. teaches that Christ was a servant of the Jews, and that the Gentiles received mercy from the fall of the Jews Rom. 11, 11. . But also Christ, Joh. 4, 22. says: Salvation comes from the Jews. He would have said "a mother of churches", but "a mother of all churches" is an exaggeration.

The seventh is Nicolaus again, in the 22nd Dist., Cap. Omnes. I do not know what to say about this text. For I almost want to improve my thesis and say: that the Roman Church is higher than others is proved from the insane stuff of a certain quite ludicrous palea 1) who, under the name of the Roman popes, mocks the Church of Christ. Listen, I beg you, for the sake of Christ, to what this one says.

"All," he says, "whether the highest offices of each patriarchate, or the supremacy of the metropolises, or the seats of the bishoprics, or the dignities of the churches of every rank (ordinis), have been instituted by the Roman Church, but these alone He has founded and set upon the rock of the just-rising faith, who delivered to St. Peter, the key-bearer of eternal life, at once the rights of the earthly and the heavenly kingdoms."

I beg you, my reader, of the Roman Popes and even of the Roman Church, which shines with so many thousands of martyrs in heaven and on earth, may you think everything else that you can, but Christ have mercy on you, that you do not believe that this decree was issued by any Roman Pontiff, at least with his knowledge.

First of all, this godless one, who pretends the Roman name in a lying way, whoever he may be, blathers that by the word of Christ alone the Roman church is founded. But the others, he continues, were not founded by Christ, but by the Roman church, because he had the Roman name.

  1. Cf. note Col. 754.

758 L. V. a. Ill, 32S-330. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 974-976. 759

mical church on the rock of faith. On what rock, I pray you, did he set the other churches? On sand? Don't the Roman Church and other churches believe the same thing? Are they not also churches? If they are also a church of Christ, why do you, with a completely ungodly mouth, resist Christ who says, "On this rock I will build my church? What does my church mean? Is only the one Roman church his church? But if every other church is also a church of Christ, and Christ assures that it is to be built on the rock of faith, then it is already said with godless error that this belongs to the Roman church alone and not to all others as well. I now call upon you, my reader, to judge whether I have called these decrees modest or immodestly quite cold, since I should more properly have called them quite impious, not because they are from the Roman popes, but because they are spread under their name, and by them for so many years now the Roman popes have been flattered, who do not care about these follies, even like to hear them. -Thus, according to this interpreter, we will understand and enrich the Gospel thus: "Upon the rock of faith I will build my Roman Church. But the Roman church will build her churches on her opinion, not mine, because I will build mine on the rock of faith." Behold, now the flatterers may go and charge us that the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures belongs to the scribes of the Roman Pontiff. Furthermore, see what it means that in the Roman court the jurists rule and, without theologians and holy Scripture, are presumed solely on their power and the presence of the Holy Spirit, that is, they treat Scripture solely by force. By the way, according to the rule of Augustine, both the Roman and every pope is subject to the judgment of every believer, especially in matters of faith.

Then also this, how evangelically it is said that he has handed over the rights of the heavenly and the earthly kingdom to Peter! I pray you, is not this thing worthy of all tears, that we should not read this alone, but that we should read it again?

are also urged to believe as revelations of the Holy Spirit, and are urged in such a way that they also threaten with fire, if we only murmur against them in the slightest? But so it happens that we take this with greater fear and reverence than any other divine commandment about faith or life, where no one threatens with fire, indeed such is glorified; and yet we dream that it is well in the church, and do not recognize the Antichrist who sits in the midst of the temple. Therefore this word is the most ungodly blasphemy, that Peter holds the rights of the heavenly kingdom, while he alone has the ministry of the word on earth, and Christ alone is the Lord of heaven and earth. Furthermore, both Christ and Peter taught to despise the earthly kingdom: this author of the decree not only says no, 1) he Peter has it, but has also placed the rights of it in Peter's hand. From this has followed the evil that the flatterers make the Roman pope lord in both kingdoms, which was not even given to Christ, since he says his kingdom is not of this world. But it is marvelous that Peter suffered Nero as prince, not only at Rome, but also at his crucifixion (in sua cruce), since he could take away from him the rights of the earthly kingdom; or it is certainly silly and ungodly that the successor of Peter should claim this, whereof it is seen that it was not with Peter. Away, then, with these exceedingly presumptuous words dominion, rights of dominion, heavenly and earthly kingdom! Only GOtte is entitled to this: a servant of the church and a priest, a servant of Christ, should be given more modest things.

The same palea continues, "So not any earthly opinion, but that Word by which heaven and earth were built, by which also all elements were created, founded the Roman Church."

  1. Nie non 8olum non NuNsre, seä etium ete. That the translation given by us here is correct can be seen by comparison with the end of the following third paragraph: Nie vero non, ete. After the second non in the first row of this note a comma should be placed.

760 v. a. m, 330-332. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 976-S7S. 761

Behold the monstrous thing: either this is said of the Roman church alone, and it follows that all other churches are established by earthly opinion and without the word of God, without which nothing has become what has become, and so all other churches are nothing: or it is to be understood at the same time of other churches, namely, that they are ordered by the Word of God, which created all things, and from this it follows that nothing is said of the Roman church that is especially due to it, but an empty pomp of meaningless words (syllabarum), and that thus this decretista either denies the other churches at the same time as Christ with intolerable impiety, or that he quite obviously makes a mockery of himself with his ignorance.

If he now speaks of the establishment of the churches according to degrees of dignity, not according to their essence, it is evident from what has been said before how wrongly he twists this word of Christ from the faith of the whole general church to the power of one man. Christ says that he builds his church on the rock, but the latter says no to it, but only the Roman one; that is, to make the other churches nothing and to deny Christ.

Further, if the other churches are established by earthly opinion, and he has said that this opinion is that of the Roman church, he condemns himself with his own mouth by saying that their opinion is earthly, not divine. And where is this, that Peter's voice must be heard as a divine one, and not as an earthly one? Further, who built the church at Jerusalem before the Roman church was there? Or did Peter not establish the Roman church by the word of God?

But if he speaks of the institution of dignity, not of the essence of the church, then I conclude thus: the Roman church is instituted by the divine word as one that is higher than others, so it will be necessary that by the same word the other churches are so instituted that they are lower than it, because it cannot be "instituted" as a higher one if there are not such over which it could be instituted as the higher. Where, then, is that which he said above, that the

are the lower ranks (ordinos) of the churches appointed by the Roman church? not by "God's word, by which it itself wants to be established? For how could Christ have been appointed as the Lord, if the Gentiles and the end of the world had not been subject to him at the same time, and Mount Zion, over which he was to be set as king?

If someone wants to say: "If the Roman Church is established above all by the divine word, then other specific churches must also be named, which are to be subject to the divine word". Well, this is the divine opinion: "the Roman Church is higher than others", say, where is written what must belong to it (ejus correlativum): "the Church of Milan shall be lower than it, or any other"? If none is mentioned, then none must be below it, at least not according to divine command. What better can be said here than that the word of Christ can be understood neither from the superiority nor from the inferiority of the churches, but from the one, the same and unconquerable faith and from the authority of all churches in the same way? Do you not see what it means to treat the Scriptures according to human inclination and without fear of God?

It follows: "It certainly administers the prerogative of him on whose authority it is founded."

See what conclusions he draws from this! Christ's word of faith, twisted to mean "power," becomes a prerogative of the Roman church in the word that is generally given to all churches, because Christ says, "Upon this rock I will build my church;" "my," he says, "mine. If any other church is a church of Christ, it is certainly built on the same rock and none has any privilege. If it is not a church of Christ, and Rome alone is the church, this privilege has no standing, because there is no church over which the Roman could be higher. Again, I say, the pronoun "my" denotes either the Roman church alone, or every church. If it denotes it alone, it does not have a privilege over others. If each, it again does not have a privilege over others.

762 L. V. E. Ill, 332-334, V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xviil, 979-981. 763

So let him choose what he wants, so by this word of Christ the Roman. Church will either be alone, or it will not be the first. In another way, therefore, this supremacy must be proved, for you see how beautifully the gospel of Christ escapes this mockery of his, and as it is written in the Proverbs of Solomon Cap. 3, 34: He mocks his mockers.

And yet there are so many who, out of this wretched chaff (palea), boast of the privilege of the Roman church without distinction as an article of faith, even as the first and greatest of all, and would rather suffer you to deny Christ than not to worship this privilege, perverting the words of Christ.

There follows again a conclusion which is worthy of such a sentence (themate): "Therefore it is not doubtful, because whoever takes away the right of any church commits an injustice. But he who undertakes to take away from the Roman Church the prerogative which has been handed over to her by the supreme head of all the churches (see, however, how far this crybaby runs his mouth), falls without doubt into heresy."

The Roman Church has not a right, but a privilege. Which? That it is built on the rock of faith, because according to this writer, this belongs to the Roman church alone. Then by the rock of faith he understands this privilege of earthly supremacy. For these two things this palea constantly mixes and confuses.

I beg you, how great patience is needed to endure this! First of all, as I said, if rock denotes faith, then all churches have it and no privilege remains. But if not all churches have the same, the Roman church will be alone, having none to be preferred. Secondly, if the rock of faith denotes dignity, it immediately contradicts itself in the same word and falsifies the word of Christ, turning the meaning of "faith" into the meaning of "power" and drawing the spirit to the flesh, Christ to the world.

So he is not a heretic who denies this prerogative of the Roman church, but

He is a falsifier of the word of God, who understands the rock of faith as the prerogative of temporal power.

But that at the end he cites Ambrose, who claims that he follows the Roman, the mother of the churches, God wanted him to do the same as Ambrose! The Roman Church is a mother, but not of all churches. For also every metropolis is a mother of churches according to the statutes of the fathers. Furthermore, the Roman Church has never done to the words of Christ this dishonor that this palea does to them, but understands by the rock the faith, but not the ambition of tyranny.

The eighth (to make an end with these deplorable interpreters of the divine scripture) is again Anacletus in the same Distinction, Cap. Sacrosancta (for so foolish was this quite illiterate scribe, whoever he may have been, to attribute such great ignorance and sacrilege even to so great a pope, as we shall see): "The most holy Roman Church (because others are not holy, or not the most holy, though sanctified in the same faith, words, sacrament, spirit, and by all means in the same holiness) has received supremacy not from the apostles, but from the Lord and Savior Himself, as He says to St. Peter. 'You are Peter' 2c"

If any pagan heard the words of Christ interpreted in this way, when would he become a Christian? So he also understands here the supremacy under the words "you are Peter" or under "this rock". But they may choose (to repeat again the same thing) which of the two they will. By "Peter" he means in this place either the faith of the Spirit or the supremacy externally, for it cannot mean both at the same time. If it means faith, then all churches are also built upon it, for Christ says: upon this rock I will build my church. So it comes to every one that it is called "my church" by Christ, to which rock (petra) and Peter refer, on which it is built. Thus the Roman church has nothing of its own, but everything is common, for where the same faith is,

764 b. s. in. 334-336. -35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. xvm, 981-983. 765

there is also the same power of the keys. For to the faith and to the rock the keys are given, as is clear. If it means a power, then again all churches are the same, because it is said by Christ to each one: "my church", and at the same time it is said: "I will build you from the rock", that is, the power. Therefore, by this word, every church will be the first of all, because it has the same rock by which the Roman church boasts itself as the first. Therefore, wherever you turn, Christ always confronts you and resists you by building his church on the rock, and does not allow any particular church to have this rock, that is, not even Peter. You see, then, that this single pronoun "my" like a heavenly crystal 1) makes all these decrees so cold that none can stand before its coldness, since it makes the rock common, the power common, the keys common, Peter common, and everything common. So also all that the Roman church has by divine right has any church, however small, because he speaks to all. Paul also, 1 Cor. 3, 21. ff, says, All things are yours; whether Paul or Apollos, whether Cephas or the world, all things are yours. But you are Christ's,

It would really be ridiculous that all churches have the same baptism, the same Lord's Supper, the same confirmation, the same Word of God, the same priesthood, the same sacraments of penance, last rites, marriage and all sacraments, the same faith, hope, love, grace, death, life, glory, and only this temporal power should have been given to only one through the Word of God, which is common to all.

Therefore, wherever the Word of God is preached and believed, there is also true faith, that immovable rock; but where faith, there is the Church, where the Church, there is the Bride of Christ, where the Bride of Christ, there is everything that belongs to the Bridegroom. So faith has everything with it that is based on faith.

  1. This word is derived from cold and I pull together. Hence Pliny says, Nist. uat. lid. XXXVII, eap. VII, a crystal arises through violent contraction by means of cold.

The keys, the sacraments, the violence and everything else.

I also ask, if the keys are given to Peter alone, and not to the general church, why are they not called the keys of Peter? why are they not called the keys of the Roman church? why does the pope himself call them in his letters the keys of the holy mother, the church? For either this expression, which is common to the whole Church, does injustice to the Roman Church in its prerogative, which arrogates the keys to itself alone, or the Roman Church seeks a division by saying, "I am Cephas'," and robs the whole Church of a thing which it itself professes to be a common one. It is clear, then, from the public testimony of all, that it is not to Peter but to the Church that the keys are given, not to the Roman, but to the general and to any one. Moreover, see how properly they understand by the rock a power. For since a violence cannot be unless the Church is founded beforehand, which could receive the violence, how can the Church be built upon the violence, that is, the former upon the later? Finally, Christ does not understand a violence by "rock," but by "key," which He gives to the Church previously built on the rock (that is, faith), as the order of the text clearly proves. So you see how ambition blinds the eyes of the mind, so that, not satisfied with the violence of the keys, it makes a violence out of the rock of faith, which is the essence of the Church.

But that this Anacletus calls the Roman chair the first, the one at Alexandria the second, and the one at Antioch the third, he refutes himself again, not only because this order has long been changed, but also because it follows from this that either the one at Alexandria is the second according to divine order, and the one at Antioch the third, or the one at Rome would not be the first either, because it must be the first according to the same right as the second and third. But it is obvious that Rome orders the second and third by her own authority, so she also puts herself in the first place by her own authority.

766 L. V. L. Ill, 336-338. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 983-986. 767

He is also mistaken in history, because he writes that Ignatius was appointed by Peter as bishop of Antioch as his successor, since church history shows that Evodius followed Peter, and Ignatius followed Evodius. Therefore, it is not credible that Anaclet is the author of this canon.

Now hear again the sure, that is, the sacrilegious assertor: "Among the holy apostles," he says, "there was a certain difference in power, and though they were all apostles, yet it was granted to Peter by the Lord, and they among themselves willed the very same thing, that he should preside over all the other apostles."

I pray you, what difference was there in the power? Did Peter ordain apostles? did he send them? did he confirm them? Where did you read, you beast, that it was granted by the Lord to Peter to have a power distinct from the others? When did they want it themselves?

But now even, here make you a sign: "The supremacy is twofold, of honor and of power. That Peter was the first in rank, no one denies. For even among the cardinals, bishops, priests, teachers, and princes, though none is subject to the others, it is nevertheless necessary that in the assembly some one should sit on high, even though he has nothing to command them. Thus we confess that Peter is the prince of the apostles, the first member of the church, the head of the apostolic community (collegii) and other things that the holy fathers have said about him. Thus we see that also the Roman popes have always been honored as successors of Peter and that they have been considered the first. And in this they have done rightly and praiseworthily, and so they act now, and so they must act without complaint."

But the second supremacy, that of authority, was never given to Peter, for each of the apostles preached the gospel without Peter's command, appointed bishops and elders in his places; all were sent by Christ alone in the same way and directly. This supremacy these very righteous canons covet and abuse of the

Words of God to fortify this tyranny. For they do not want anyone to become a bishop in the whole world if he does not have the pallium 1) and the authority of the Roman Pontiff. And where Peter did not rise above the apostles, one apostle's successor, who is far inferior to his predecessor (like a bishop against an apostle), not content with the supremacy of honor, wants to rule over the successors of all the apostles in force and violence, but not also to pasture himself 2c

I oppose this insurmountable reason to all those who flatter the Roman Pontiff because of his dominion over the whole world, and I await with confidence what they can raise or deliver against it. I also trust in this as the most certain truth, known to all, and confidently proclaim that the decrees which state anything to the contrary are not only quite cold, but also contrary to the divine Scriptures, the Gospel and Acts, and the letters of the apostles, in which he is so frequently and so clearly described as being like the apostles, and that a special territory has been assigned to him in the world, so that I cannot wonder enough that .that there ever could have been such sacrilegious flatterers, who should dare to raise their earthly smoke against this thunder of the Scriptures and to arrogate to the successor of Peter, a bishop, what even his predecessor, the apostle Peter, was never allowed. But I would not be surprised if they only presumed this to him, would not complain about it either, but about the fact that they rather wanted to falsify the scripture, which argues against this presumption, than to give up this temporal supremacy of authority in the face of their contradiction.

Add to this that even in this the Roman popes do not act rightly and evangelically, that they rule the bishops who have emerged from the Roman church, that is, the Latin church, in such a way that they alone decree and confirm all bishops. For in this they do not seem to Christ,

  1. What the pallium is and what it costs is explained Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1412 s., tz 203 and 204.

768 L- V. E. Ill, 338 f. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 986-988. 769

but to arrogate to themselves the churches of Christ, since, according to the example of the apostle Paul, they should also leave the appointment of bishops to others, namely, to archbishops and neighboring bishops They should therefore entrust them to GOtte and by no means force them to send to Rom for a new bishop, for this has no small appearance of avarice and tyranny, by which they would like to lord it over their faith; this Paul did not want to take upon himself over the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3. For it would be enough to have once given a bishop, and thereafter to command them to the grace of GOD and leave them to their own procreation, or only to see to it that they did not depart from the faith, as the apostle gave an example in Galatians. Now we see how, under the pretext of this benefice and sovereignty, the bishoprics and priesthoods of all are torn into the maw of Roman avarice, covering so many abominations of the most insolent simony with this one lid.

It follows: "And Cephas, that is, the head, was also to hold the chief place in the apostleship." 1)

This passage at least shows that this supremacy was sought more out of desire for power than out of love for truth. For how should they use so many false reasons, if they once had one, and indeed a well-founded cause? But a lie needs many to appear true. Therefore, this scenicus et poeticus 2 Anaclet is so ignorant that he interprets Cephas as "head", contrary to the very clear and apostolic testimony of the apostle John, who says John 1:42: "When Jesus saw him, he said, 'You are Simon, the son of Joanna; you shall be called Cephas,' which is interpreted, Peter. I am ashamed that such a great trade is built on this very gross error, in which they show at the same time that they are industrious readers of the Gospel.

  1. We have deleted the comma after principiuiri, and in this we have followed the Basel edition and also the papal law book itself.
  2. I.e. he who pretends to be the Anaclet and puts fictitious words into his mouth.

It is therefore not surprising that they also misunderstand it. Leo understood it better before 3), namely petram (rock) as "solid ground" and knew the word Cephas well. But this one understands neither the Gospel nor the Canons correctly. According to the testimony of Jerome, Cephas is a Syriac word that means solidity, which the Greek translated as petrum or petram, that is, stone or solid rock. But our Pofsenmacher has understood κεφαλήν in Greek for Cephas in Syriac, and this Canon is nevertheless considered even the first among the sacred Canons. For in the Decretals, which Gregory X and Boniface VIII have brought together, such great prestige is attached to this Canon and its like that there is hardly one which does not contain (spiret) it entirely within itself.

I pass over what he says afterwards, that this conception (formam) is handed down to the successors and must be observed by the other bishops, since he announces nothing but the greatest ambition.

There follows a beautiful similitude: "And not only is it ordered in the new testament, but it was also in the old, as it is written Ps. 99, 6., Moses and Aaron among his priests, that is, they were the first among them."

What do I hear? I do not read these canons in vain! How wonderfully I learn to understand the Scriptures! First, since I knew of only one high priest in the old law, I have now learned that two were the first. Secondly, notice also the new art of speech: "among his priests" is the same as: "they were the first among them", while I understood it so far that by this verse of the Psalm nothing else was said than that Moses and Aaron were priests or from the number of the priests, just as also Samuel was among those who call on his name, and I did not even have thoughts of the supreme place. The third testimony is that the high priest in the old law was a model of the Roman pope. For the apostle in the letter to

  1. Above Col. 747.

770 D. V. L. m, 339-341. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 988-990. 771

Hebrews 7, 26. ff. has deceived me wonderfully, since he teaches all the teachers of the Church that not the Roman pope, but Christ alone is signified by the highest and only priest.

To pass over the fact that we know that everything happened to them in the model, and that in the new testament the model again imposes itself, so that in both testaments the same pictures are to be, and no more difference between both takes place. I am extremely annoyed that the divine Scriptures are so brazenly trampled on by these swine, especially under the name of the Roman pope and the Roman church.

But what is this, that he hath set two first priests in the old testament, to the great disadvantage of his supremacy? Follow what thou sayest, though it be false; the like shall be, and now provide thou also two firsts: how canst thou prove one to be the first by two firsts? So you see that these people were those who abused the simplicity of our faith and dared to exhibit everything they could even dream of.

Finally, he concludes and with the same skill calls the Roman church the pivot through which all churches are governed, since the Lord so decrees. And there it shall have an end here. For the other canons, which say the same, are, by taking their poison from them, naturally poisoned in the same way.

However, I cannot refrain from mentioning a Decretal, even if only one, so that it may become apparent what good it does to govern churches and not understand the Holy Scriptures. For there are also very many quite matte (admini- strationem) Decretales, especially those which are now most in use. I pass over the de constitutione, Cap. Translato, which I believe has been so punished by me before 2) that it is not necessary to repeat it. However, I take this trouble upon myself with respect to the Cap. Significasti, de electione, where the Archbishop of Palermo (?a-

  1. I.e. papal decree or law.
  2. In the ^ULustana, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 748, § 4.

normitanus), when he quite justly wondered with the king and the kingdom of Sicily that an oath should be required of him who was to receive the pallium, and there with beautiful modesty cited against this quite shameful requirement the command of Christ and the decisions of the Conciliar, received the following answer and interpretation of the sacred Scriptures from Paschalis, the Roman pope, that is, from the Roman scribes:

"You may wonder," he says, "that our Lord JEsus Christ, when he commanded Peter to care for his sheep, added a condition, saying: If thou love me, feed my sheep 2c"

The great ones of the pope and the Roman court were so upset by the question of this one bishop that they could not find what to answer until the Spirit of the Lord turned them to where they had to show everyone that their thoughts and actions were not in the law of the Lord. I want to play the role of the archbishop.

If the example of Christ pleases you and applies to you, O Paschalis, why do you not imitate the same? If it does not please you, why do you follow it? Why are you not content to ask whether he loves Christ, and entrust Christ's sheep to him without an oath? Since you like the example, why are you not satisfied with the condition? Or is the condition of the oath better and holier than that of love? Or do you hope that he who swears out of compulsion will do more than he who loves freely? Christ detaches Peter from the law and constraint of the vow and the oath, seeks in him only the assurance of voluntariness and love, and you take away freedom and constrain him with the law of the oath; where is the example of Christ? where the similarity of condition? Is the word "love" to be understood as an oath?

Did Christ ask Peter to take an oath for the Roman church? What business is it of Christ's sheep to swear to you and your church? Are they your sheep or Christ's? But you, best father, do not care at all whether he loves Christ, that is of little importance to you, as a completely worthless

772 v-"- in. 341-343. 35. Luther's explanation on his 13th thesis. W. xvin. 990-993. 773

Condition: You bind him with an oath that he will be faithful to you. The archbishop's question is still there; you have not satisfied it.

Furthermore, the question arises, by what right do you enforce this loyalty? Your answer brings you deeper into it and entangles you. Furthermore, I ask you, to whom do you swear allegiance? Why do you impose a burden on another, which you do not want to touch even with a finger, both against love and against the law of nature?

Furthermore, this question also remains: Why did the previous popes not demand the oath? Why did others not take it? Where does this new demand come from? Do you want me to say it? The conscience is afraid because of the unjustly imposed violence, because justice is not at hand. Therefore, consolation and fortification are sought in every possible way.

Thus, even today, one cannot be a bishop (pontificari) if one does not swear allegiance to the Roman Pontiff. But as soon as you have sworn allegiance, you are immediately worthy to be a bishop, whether you love and pasture or not: for these conditions Christ may demand, what is that to our time? Nor need we care whether he be holy and learned or not, if he be but a servant of the Roman Church. You must not serve Christ, the teacher of freedom, unless you first become a sworn slave of the Roman court. It is enough, when one has learned from Christ's example, to interpret to the brethren any condition, however unreasonable, at will, but not to remember Christ's condition with a single syllable.

But answer again, Paschalis: with your own judgment I attack you. If Christ has set the condition there, as you say, then we now establish, according to your own saying, that no one is a Roman pope if he does not love and pasture, because it is a conditional contract and commission; if the condition does not hold, then the same does not apply. So I use your conclusion. 1) The Archbishop of Palermo, without the fulfillment of the

  1. enthymemema == a short conclusion of reason from the

Antithesis.

You are not a bishop unless you really fulfill the condition of love and pasture first. If this is true, we have not had a pope in six hundred years. For no one has taught us God's word, and it is not enough for you to promise that you will love, because it is not enough for you to promise that someone will swear. But just as you require of the brother the condition by deed, so we in the name of Christ require this greater condition by deed, or we deny, upon your proof, that you are the pope. What do you want to do here? So you see how the Scripture does not put up with falsification at all, how it shows those to be void (vanos) who defile it. - Paschalis did not want to be convicted by the question, nor even to appear as if he had done evil, and without knowing it, he convicts himself of being unworthy of the whole papacy, and while he pulls out the splinter from the brother, he shows us his beam. So this is the pasture, that the Romans draw all things to themselves, lay all things upon all, withdraw themselves from all, and, what is still more terrible, force us not to Christ but to themselves, not demanding a condition by which we promise the freedom of Christ, but by which we swear servitude to them. But what greater misery can there be in the church than that it is held together not by love but by force? than that the popes rule not by goodness but by force? than that the subjects serve compelled not by love but by hatred and fear?

But there follows a worthy application of the parable: "If he who made conscience, and knows all things that are hidden, used this condition, not once only, but also the second time, and until he Peter was afflicted, with what anxiety must we lay so great a ministry of overseership (praelationem) in the church upon the brethren whose consciences we see not?"

This, of course, is no wonder, for Peter, Paul, and the other apostles were not as concerned as the Romans are now, and further, they may have known the consciences of those who were

774 L. V. L. HI, 343-S4S. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 993-995. 775

They made them priests, and did not make much of the example of Christ. Is this not making a mockery of themselves? But even Christ, whose sheep are his own, even though he gave himself up for them, was not so concerned that he demanded an oath from Peter, but sleepily demanded only love, a very small thing indeed. Admittedly, if Paschalis did not hold the oath higher than love, he would undoubtedly be satisfied with Christ's example and would not complain that he had to bear greater concern than Christ himself, who also set Judas over the sheep to be fed, whom he knew to be evil, and that without condition. For you see how he concludes from the lesser to the greater: "Christ has demanded how much more we", as if this had anything to do with the fact that Christ knows the consciences, but the Roman pope does not know them, since in this Christ has given an example for all to imitate. Finally, we do not know the conscience of the Roman Pontiff either; let him therefore swear to us the condition, at least that of Christ.

Again I ask: If not knowing conscience is the only cause for the requirement of the oath, why don't you force him to swear that he has sworn right, and so without end, since you don't know his conscience for any oath, whether he swears right or not? But if this not knowing the conscience does not cause the demand of the oath, how can you be so bold as to cite the not knowing the conscience as the cause? What is this marvelous toleration and non-toleration of the non-knowing of conscience in One man in relation to the same man? If, after taking the oath, you give up such a great office (admini- strationem) to him, why do you not, which would be easier, give up the oath? Or do you think that the oath you have taken is a greater thing than the administration of such a large church?

In addition, not knowing conscience should make you quite confident of obtaining the prelate's dignity (praelationem), that the less you know conscience, the more you should refrain from taking the oath, so that you do not force him to perjure himself.

you would like. So you should have been glad that Christ gave you this freedom, that you could entrust to him the sheep whose hearts you do not know. Now, through the oath, you are investigating secret things, or putting the brother in danger, both of which are something highly questionable; and without cause, not for the sake of God, but because of loyalty to the Roman church.

Finally, if not knowing is the cause of the oath, it follows that if you knew the conscience, you would have demanded the oath wrongly. But since everyone should assume the best of each other, and since it is the duty of love to believe everything, this very confidence in the brother's good conduct is better than all knowledge, which, even if you knew it, you could not know for long, but you could believe at all times.

Finally, do you know his conscience after the oath? Why then does he not swear to you all the time, since he gives you cause to swear all the time?

I have said this so that we may see what it is not to yield to the word of God and to conform the Scriptures to His meaning. How could I hope that the Roman popes have the right to interpret the Scriptures, who so obviously treat the Scriptures in a foreign sense? Or what would the Romans not like to gain on earth? What would the flatterers not dare to do under their name, if this opinion of theirs were to captivate and pervert us, namely, that their sayings should not be read with judgment, and that to them alone was given the right to interpret the Scriptures? For then (to use Augustine's word) a game is really being played in the church without danger to this supremacy, but it would be surprising to Hu if God's and also ours were not mocked. But away, away with this more than Babylonian captivity!

There now follows in the Decretale the resolution of the objections: "They the Archbishop of Palermo and the King of Sicily say that every oath from the Lord in the Evan-.

  1. Instead of ooexerit in the Weimar edition, oexerit will probably be read.

776 D. V. a. Ill, 345-347. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. LVIH, 995-998. 777

gelio Match. 5, 34.] was forbidden, nor could such a provision be found either by the apostles according to (pc>8t) the Lord, or in the Conciliar."

Now let us hear what he the pope Paschalis will say, since he is prostrated by these irrefutable blows: "What is it, then, that the Lord says hereafter Match. 5,37.What is above that is of evil? For this above compels us to require this evil, since he permits it to us." 1)

What Christ forbids and says no to, this one says yes to and commands. Christ says: What is above this is from evil, that is, it does not have to happen. For he speaks of the inclination to swear without the necessity of the brother's need, that is, of the desire to swear; just as he forbade the desire of a wife, since he did not forbid the husband and wife to be friends, so he forbade the desire to swear, not the oath. This one says "this about it compels us", that is, it must happen in any case. But let us hear what this "evil" is, which no one has ever thought of in the words of the Gospel:

"Is it not an evil," he says, "to depart from the unity of the Church and obedience to the apostolic See, and to rise boldly against the provisions of the canons? Many have presumed to do so, even after taking the oath."

I meant that he would interpret this "evil", not loving Christ, not feeding the sheep, and being urged by Christ's example to demand the oath because of the care for them. But this is what Christ may demand of Peter: nowadays, it is necessary to take care that the bishops do not depart from obedience to the apostolic chair.

  1. We have, just as the Weimar edition, left the incorrect interpunction of Luther, because the following argumentation of Luther is somewhat excluded from it. In the Decretale itself is so mterpungirt: Koo enim EF/ES ut 6XIMMU8, muluna QO8 Mo perruittsntD eompellit, i.e. that we demand that/ what is above it namely the oath, the evil the rebellion against the supremacy of the pope forces us to. This shameful distortion is also sufficiently refuted by Luther's splendid interpretation in the following.

Then I say, "My bishop has not yet done anything of this sort; why then do you demand the oath? Is it because you do not know whether he will not do it? Why don't you demand an oath for every commandment of God? Why does not evil force you here? Or isn't it an evil to break off from the commandments of God? Yes, you fill the church with oaths! But if you are so lenient with God's commandments that so many evils, which prevail before everyone's eyes, even in your own court (in domesticis tuis), do not drive you to oath, how can evil, which neither exists nor perhaps will ever occur, drive you to oath with your commandments? Is it not obvious] that the more self-love is glossed over, the more it betrays itself? There is absolutely no reason why, if you demand oaths for your own benefit in your commandments, you should not demand them for God's benefit, or if you do not do it here, you do not do it there without fault.

So here you have an evil that the Romans see in the gospel, which is the evil suspicion concerning good brothers, for whether the transgressions of God's commandments are evil, let others see. Oh, about the eye of ambition and avarice!

It follows: "By this evil and adversity we are driven, of course, to demand the oath because of fidelity, because of obedience, because of unity."

Not also because of faithfulness to Christ, because of obedience to God, because of unity with the brethren? No, but this one thing is good and necessary for the church, that Rome may reign securely and all others serve in captivity.

That is why the Christians in India still suffer from a great evil. Thus, the most shameful suspicion regarding the best brothers is the cause to demand an oath, which they do not take, for the commandments of God, which they presume to be kept.

Again, by unity of the Church he understands fidelity and obedience to the Roman Church, not faith, hope, love, sacraments, word, and other of the same kind, but only the One,

778 D.v.a. Ill, 347-349. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 998-1900. 779

which they do not want any other church to have but their own, and yet they call it unity. Only the Roman church today has this, probably its highest good, and yet all other churches agree precisely that they do not have it, and thus become one in a matter which is not common to them, but which is quite peculiar and is attributed to only one man. For thus in our times we have new words to learn in the Scriptures and in the Church of God. How much more correctly did Cyprian understand love as this unity, as Christ also prayed, John 17:21, that they might be one in us, even as we also are one: "one", he says, "in us", not "in the Roman Church".

At the end: "They say that in the Conciliar Churches such a provision is not sound, as if any Conciliar Churches had imposed a law on the Roman Church, whereas all the Conciliar Churches have both been held by the prestige of the Roman Church and have received power from it, and in their decisions the power of the Roman Pontiff is evidently excepted."

Who can tolerate this, I pray you? Did the Council of Nicaea receive strength or was it held by the prestige of the Roman church? or also many others, which were held by Augustin and Cyprian before in Africa? Finally, even if the decisions would exclude the Roman pope, he should not want to be excluded for the sake of the edification of the church. Here, however, he boasts that he owes nothing to anyone, so that God owes nothing to him.

Truly, I would not have answered the Archbishop of Palermo with such harsh and uneven speech, full of strife and pomposity, arousing fury and hatred, but would have said, "Let it go now, dear brother, it is a great thing, for your sake alone, to cancel so suddenly what we have not ordered." For thus peace and love would be preserved. But this decree breathes only pride and unbending defiance.

^1^) Now let us add a second decree, in order to prove all the more firmly that not only the Roman popes have the right to interpret the Holy Scriptures, and that Christians must not be forced under their words as prisoners, but that all theirs must be read with free judgment.

In the Decretale de majoritate et obedien- tia, Cap. Solitae, we find this. When the Emperor at Constantinople had held up to the Roman Pontiff the word of Peter 1. Ep. Cap. 2, 13.: Be subjects of all human order 2c, by which he wanted to prove that the Patriarch at Constantinople was under him, Innocent III answered him, or it may have been some trusted scribe of his, who was completely ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, and said:

"But if you had paid more careful attention to the person of him who speaks, and of those to whom he speaks, and to what this speech contains in itself (vim locutionis), you would not have brought out such a mind of the writer."

Behold, I beseech thee, this shepherd of Christ's sheep, who, in interpreting the word of God, sets out to establish a distinction of persons, when the word of God opposes nothing so much as the respect of persons. For with God there is no respect for the person Acts 10:34, but what He commands, He commands to all, great and small Romans 2:11. But now, let us

  1. In the first editions, the entire section on the second Decretale, which comprises the following 44 paragraphs, is missing, up to the words: "since, on the contrary, all the words of men must be judged according to the word of God, which judges everything." Instead of this, they have the following addition: "Besides this (Decretales, there are also some others, especially the äe masoritutk et odväisutlÄ, Cap. Kolitae, which are so completely devoid of theology that it takes me the Church, which is only occupied with the traditions of men, so that it is not allowed to see the completely pure sense of the Gospel. But I will refrain from this now, since it is enough for me to have shown why I believe that I have sufficiently honored the Roman pope when I tolerate his decrees, but do not also follow their opinion as the sole and true one, lest, when I examine them in more detail, one might get the idea that I have censured the pronouncements of such highly placed people (tuuti vsrtiois) out of pleasure. I do not want to condemn them, but I also do not want to be forced by them against the truth of the Scriptures.

780 V- a. Ill, 349 f. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, Kwo-IE. 781

see what kind of person of the speaker this new interpreter of Scripture presents to us.

"For it wrote the apostle to his subjects, provoking them to the merit of humility."

So you have the person of the speaker and those to whom he wrote, that is, the greater and the lesser, then also what the speech contains in itself, namely, an incitement to the merit of humility. He says that.

First, I ask you, what new thing does this interpretation bring forward? For who ever commands others, or teaches others, but his subjects? Why, then, is a distinction of persons necessary in order to understand this passage of Peter alone, before others which he has written, and before the writings of all teachers? Or do in others the subordinates teach the superiors, the disciples the teacher, the Gentiles the apostle? But so they must speak, lest they should be silent, since they are both defending a very bad cause, and ignorant of the holy Scriptures. But this deceives this speaker, that he takes the words of Peter for all that they concern his human law, in which the superiors sometimes order something for the salvation of the subordinates, which does not concern them themselves. And this, of course, is the reason why he makes us a counsel out of Peter's divine command, saying that he incited the subjects to humility, namely, that he neither commanded nor advised, but incited, as it were, to the superfluous (as they call it) merit of humility. Namely, the shepherds of the sheep find this content in the speech of God, while Peter commands a divine and necessary command by adding: For this is the will of God 1 Petr. 2, 15.

But we want to pursue his opinion further, which is that against these persons distinguished by the content of the speech, not Peter, not his successors, not the rulers in the church, but only the subordinates are encouraged to submit. Let us see what follows from this.

First: 'Peter and the popes are exempt from the commandment of God. For them it does not befit to obey God, but to obey God.

Although the law, or the divine word, is prescribed to all, great and small, and leaves none exempt, yet a scribe of the pope has the power to exempt whichever he pleases. Thus you see that by the Decretals the Gospel is blotted out, that by the word of a man the Word of God is abrogated: and this abomination we Christians in the Church of Christ worship as the Word of God. Who, I pray thee, should not be inflamed?

But what other man should be so foolish as to believe that Peter, by his own authority, imposed this submission on his subjects, that he might exempt himself from this commandment? If he did this, he taught by word other things than he showed by example, that is, he destroyed what he taught. Or must the subjects of Peter and his successor be subject to the emperor, but they themselves contradict them with the opposite example? Or was Peter not subject to the authorities, as he taught? Was not Christ under the emperor? Were not all the apostles and saints likewise? Or may not the Roman Pontiff be encouraged in the merit of humility? Is he alone free to rise to the sin of pride? Therefore, popes are already something else than Christians, because the law of Christians does not bind them: elsewhere they themselves go, elsewhere their subordinates, elsewhere the shepherds, elsewhere the sheep, elsewhere the leaders, elsewhere the herds, according to a completely new way to lead, to pasture, to govern. They may henceforth no longer say "come", but "go": they need not go ahead, but they may yet only leave the people in the commandments of God.

Now if this wisdom is valid in this passage, it will also be valid in every other commandment of Peter, where he teaches the faith of Christ, and the whole reputation of Peter will be destroyed, because everywhere it will be said that he commanded this to the subjects, not to himself, nor to his followers, since he could only speak to subjects. So we also want to

782 L. V.-".mi. 350-352. v. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 1002-1004. 783

here say, "if thou hadst taken heed to the person of him that speaketh, and of them to whom he speaketh, thou wouldest not have so construed his mind, for he speaketh to his subjects, encouraging them to the merit of faith, hope, and love: he willed that he himself should be exempt, and we also." And quite rightly, for the Romans nowadays pay such exceeding careful attention to the person of their Peter when he speaks, that they understand him to mean that they are at liberty to hold nothing of what he has spoken, not even to believe Christ, and to be Christians, and to live as Christians, so that after rejecting the Christian word of Peter they become such Christians as are worthy of this decree: as the law, so also the people.

Where, then, will this remain, that in all that is taught in the sacred Scriptures, the popes should be first and the light of the world, so that their works may be seen by men? How now, if the subjects were to say, "We can neither do nor be guilty of anything but what we see being done by our shepherds"? Where then will the word of Peter remain? Where then the person of those to whom he speaks? since the subjects have greater cause to reject it, precisely because they see that it is not only not kept, but also rejected by those after whose example they should live. I can hardly refrain from calling this most impious and perverse decree a blasphemy.

But now that we have come to know the person of the speaker and the hearer and what this speech contains in itself, let us see further how it carries this out.

"For if by what he said, Be subject, he had intended to put the yoke of subjection on the priests, and to attach the prestige of preeminence to those 1) whom he recalled to be subjects, it would also follow from this that any servant would have received dominion over the priest, since it is said, to every human creature (creaturae).

  1. ackkerrs, not autsrrs. The latter reading occurs in some older prints of canon law and was also presented by Luther (Weim. Ausg.).

What a bitter word: "Be subject"! Therefore he also repeats it in as spiteful a manner as possible, calling it a yoke of subjection, in contrast to the prestige of precedence, and, as it were, lamenting the rule of a servant. Further, he says, "he remembered," abhorring the word commandment, and desiring nothing else but that he might not be compelled to be subject to any man, but that he might rule all, or at least that he might make a council of the commandment.

But how far is it inconsistent that a priest is subject to a servant? Did not Christ come to serve in the midst of all Matth. 20, 28. and take on the form of a servant? [Does this encouragement to the merit of humility belong only to Christ's subordinates, whose subordinates the Roman popes do not want to be? Christ commanded to be placed below Luc. 14, 10., and Peter 1 Ep. 5, 5. commands that all should be subject to one another and hold fast to humility, and Paul that one should esteem another more highly and Rom. 12, 10. that one should precede another with reverence. But this the persons of the speakers have said to their subordinates and have judged themselves according to other things!

However, if Peter does not speak of this submission, which reigns among the Christians through the mutual demonstration of the humility of the spirit, he does speak of that, by which they were subjected to the worldly authorities, sovereigns and judges, which the power of the Roman Empire had ordered. For this institution Peter calls a human order (creaturam), because these authorities are instituted by men (creentur). But this Decretenmacher does not even understand the words of the Scriptures and yet dares to interpret them. But that this human creation is what I have said, he could have understood if he had sought Peter's opinion as eagerly as he sought his ambition from what immediately follows, where Peter, handing out to the individuals what he had previously summarized, declares to himself: of every order (creaturae), I say, be it to the king, be it to the

784 a. m, 352-3Z4. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. xvm. 1004-1007. 785

Captains, as if to say, "Therefore I have said that you should be subject to every creation and to all the ordinances of men, lest any of you should rise up against the inferior superiors, as if to obey the king only; but also to those who are sent by him, give, do, keep what must be given, done, and kept." As it is said in Rom. 13:7, Honor to whom honor is due, fear to whom fear is due, duty to whom duty is due. He does not speak of the creature of GOD that is, of a person whom GOD created, which Innocent imagines in his opinion, but of a human creation i.e., order, as the words expressly read; but such a one is not a servant, who, as he fears, would like to obtain dominion over the priests, although according to the Gospel we are to humble ourselves under every servant. Yes, this whole tangle of Innocent's words does not serve the cause at all and only gives evidence of his ignorance.

Now follows: "But that it follows, be it to the king as to the chief, we do not deny that the emperor is the chief in temporal things, but only over those who receive temporal things from him."

Now if you were to ask here by what power he so constrains the word of Peter that he refers what is said to all, as a falsifier, only to some, he will answer nothing else than: "So we will: our word must be believed, even more than the express text of the words of GOD."

First, this scribe labors where he is not pressed, and flees where no one pursues him, namely, because he is tormented by his dishonesty and his evil conscience. Peter says that one must be subject to the king as to the chief, that is, because he is first and more than the captains sent by him. But the decretary is offended by the word "chief" and since he fears that it might be read as if the emperor had a supreme power over the popes, he opposes it fearfully and disputes the supreme power of the king and the pope in a completely different way than Peter's opinion entails. He has not

Pay attention to the word of Peter, who commands that one should obey not only the king, as the supreme, but also the captains, as the messengers of him, yes, all human order. The decree-maker does not care about this at all, because the word of the supremacy with princes and with human order did not sound terribly in his ears. In short, this Roman scribe, whoever he may be, does not understand a word in this saying of Peter, and yet he claims to teach all the sheep of Christ:

But we want to follow his smoke.

I say: The emperor is supreme in all temporal things, even in sacred ones, and this by divine right, as the words of Peter enforce; but, because it is in his will, and they are human orders, he can voluntarily either retain or let go this supreme power, and in both cases he has a divine right. Thus, from the times of Constantine, not by the authority of the popes, but by the human orders of the emperors, exemption from taxes has been given to the persons and goods of the ecclesiastics, and no one can answer anything else to this that is any good. Therefore, if the emperor or the captains should revoke this, which they have given by their authority, they cannot be resisted without sin and impiety. Therefore, the counterfeiter does not do anything here by only subjecting to the emperor those who have received temporal things from him, by obviously and insolently tearing up the word of Peter. From whom, I ask, did he receive the temporal things? From the devil even by robbery? And where is that which he said above, that one must pay attention to the person of the speaker, that Peter wrote this to his subordinates? Who are Peter's subordinates? Are they the laity alone? Why then does he boast that all Christ's sheep are commanded to him in Peter? Therefore all the sheep of Christ, that is, all the subordinates of the pope, whether they be laymen or clergymen, and thereby both the leader and shepherd himself, and the goats of the flock, are subject to the emperor and the captains. For so enforce it even the

786 v. a. m, 3Z4 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, loor-ioos. 787

Words of this Decretenmacher, if one compares them with each other. So either only the clergy are the hares of Christ, who are commanded to Peter, or the clergy are subject to the emperor together with the laity, because all who are subject to Peter are made subject to the emperor and the captains by Peter.

"But the pope is supreme in spiritual things, which are as much more glorious (digniora) than the soul is more excellent than the body."

Why is it not added here: "but only for those who receive spiritual things from him"? Namely, because he wants to be the supreme in the temporal, so that he is not forced to be subject to the emperor in any way, since Peter submits him completely to the emperor. Thus the holy and terrible word of God must sit below and give way to our inclinations. But one says:

Didn't Peter know that spiritual things are higher than temporal things? Why, then, does he subject himself and all to the temporal authorities? But this is much more sweet: the subjects of Peter and the pope are spirituales, therefore they are not subjects of the emperor. From this it follows that the laity, because they are not spiritual, are also subordinates of Peter, not sheep of Christ, because he has subjected all of them to Peter. But since Peter, according to this decree-maker, wrote this to his subjects, the consequence will be that only the clerics must be under Caesar, and not laymen, or, what they most abhor, not all the sheep of Christ in the world are under Peter, or all the subjects must be equally spirituales, if all the sheep are also subject to Peter: and thus this distinction of temporal and spiritual things entirely coincides. What else should he deserve who dares to treat and defile the sacred Scriptures with human traditions, but to fall into such monstrosities of confusion and contradiction? Thus the subjects of the pope are no other than those of the emperor, only insofar as the emperor's determination and order something is not changed.

has given. 1) By this word of Peter and by divine right we all become subject to the sword and the temporal power, as it is also written in Rom. 13:1 ff. and Titus 3:1. Every soul, he says, shall be subject to the authority that has power over him. For it does not bear the sword in vain; it is God's servant, for your benefit. I believe that the one who said: "every soul" will not have excluded the soul of the pope or his own. But let us consider this individually, in order to see today's Roman interpretation of the Holy Scripture.

If the spiritual is so much higher than the temporal, as the soul is higher than the body, and therefore the spiritual must not be subordinated to the temporal, but every man has a soul, that is, a spiritual, then no man must be subject, not even the sheep of Christ to Peter, since Peter is a man, as well as those. Paul says: "Let every soul be subject", which is certainly spiritual. Or was Christ not spiritual, since he paid the emperor the interest groschen with Peter Matth.17, 24. ff.? Or did he exempt the popes when he said Matth. 22, 21: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's"? But with this conclusion (syllogismo) we want to conclude that what is more spiritual should be higher than what is less spiritual. Then a holy virgin who is a handmaid will rule over a godless pope, and a ragged beggar over the emperor. I beg you, what foolish antics would finally follow from this? This is certainly true: in the dispensation of word and sacrament (for these are spiritual things) the popes are higher than all, but in temporal things, offices, customs, interest, treasury and all burdens of the temporal state, the popes and the clergy are absolutely subject to the authorities, by divine right and not exempt, except by the grace of this human order.

Now if he had said "by spiritual I do not understand the persons themselves (for we want all the sheep of Christ to be subject to us

  1. Namely, the freedom of the clergy from taxes.

788 V. ". m. 3S5-S57. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. xvin, I009-UM. 789

and spiritual), but the spiritual things, as under temporal things temporal things," I answer, I catch thee in thine own snare. If thou putest authority over all temporal things in the hands of Caesar, why then dost thou take away thy temporal things from him, and wilt not that they should be subject to him? And what is still greater, and a monstrosity not to be thought of, why dost thou hold, take, lend, and transfer emperorships, kingdoms, and dominions? Why do you bother with them? Does this mean to give the temporal to the emperor and to reserve the spiritual to you? What do all deceitful men want to say here, but that they are known from their words as well as from their works, as from leaves and fruits, namely, that they do not know either what is temporal or what is spiritual, yes, that they have lost the spiritual and love only the temporal, as precedence, wealth and pleasure. For if the emperor exalts himself in temporal things, the ecclesiastical pontiff must not presume to do so, but let it be his subject, pay the emperor duty for it, and serve the captains and the temporal state with it as often as they are called upon to do so.

"Whereas it is not simply said, be subject, but added, for the sake of GOD."

What is this? Will the commandment in turn become a council? Or is not simply the person of the speaker to be taken into account? Or did not Peter simply encourage his subjects to humility? Is not the emperor simply the supreme in temporal things? O miserable and fearful evasion, yes, deplorable ignorance, which does not even understand what "for God's sake" means! Peter's opinion is clear, as he immediately explains: "For," he says, "such is the will of God, that is why one must be a subject for the sake of God, not because the authorities deserve it, but because God has willed it so. But the decree-maker (decretætor) perhaps undertakes to teach by this word that a servitude of the kind is not necessary, as if Peter were asking those who do not owe it, namely for the sake of the merit of humility.

Woe to you who so boldly corrupt the exceedingly wholesome Word of God, you utterly wretched Decretenmacher!

"Nor is it written quite naked: to the king, to the chief, but it has been interposed, perhaps not without cause: 'as it were' (tanquam)."

A lie needs so much make-up to at least appear as true. How miserably this slippery writer writhes to make a mockery of God's commandment! If this "tanquam" 1) is the truthfulness ent

neither of the king nor of the commandment diminishes, why has he not said above in the same way: "Be subject as it were of all human order"? Why does he command to be subjects without "as it were"? Why did he not say, "Be as it were subjects, feigning submission," as that one feigns the king, as it were as if he were king? This interpretation is too hackneyed to merit refutation. Peter wants this "as it were" to be a connective word that gives the reason by showing why one should be subject: "because," he says, "he is supreme and because the captains are sent by him," that is, this sovereignty and this power, because it is exercised according to God's will, is the cause why you must be subject to him for God's sake.

"But what follows: For vengeance upon evildoers, and for praise to the pious 1 Pet. 2:14., is not to be understood that the king or emperor has received the power of the sword over good and evil, but only over those who, using the sword, are committed to his jurisdiction."

O a very necessary gloss for the Roman court and for the completely unpunished licentiousness of the clergy. Of course, it was necessary to direct attention to this, here the ulcer was touched, but in vain. Here again he comes out with his "only" and twists the general word of God to a part of the people of Christ. Therefore, we also want the same their inconsistent things.

  1. From the papal scribe is tanquam in the

Luther, as he will explain in a moment, had to translate it by "as" according to the meaning of the passage.

790 L. V. a. Ill, 3S7-359. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 1011-1014. 791

for God's word against this vain pretense against him, and ask: whether all of Christ's sheep are subject to Peter, and whether he wrote this only to his subjects, and whether Peter's subjects are different people than those of the king? For these three things he must necessarily confess to be true, as is clear from what has been said before. Therefore, if he has written this to his subjects, and they are different from the subjects of the emperor, then by the word of Peter the power of the sword will extend only over the clergy, for vengeance on the wicked and for praise of the pious, and all laymen, and these alone, will be excluded from it. Why then do we see that the opposite happens, and to such an extent that the clergy are handed over to the secular court only after they have been expelled from the spiritual state? But if all are subject to Peter, and he has written this to all those who are Christ's sheep, then either the clergy, who are exempt from the sword, are not Christ's sheep, or this falsification and differentiation of Peter's words is absolutely ungodly and contrary to the truth.

Finally, this gloss will bring it to the point that there will no longer be any power of the sword, since they submit the whole world to the pope, but those who are subject to him are not under the emperor's jurisdiction, unless a new and indeed man-ordered jurisdiction excludes the clergy alone and leaves the laity under it. But this is not to interpret the word of Peter, who subjects to the sword all who are subject to him. Thus the laws of men dispute against the law of God. Therefore, no one is exempt from the power of the sword, whether he be a layman or a clergyman, except in so far as the power of the sword itself has given and abated, as once in the time of Augustine the heretics were punished by the power of the sword, and this happens also now by fire. This should not happen at all if the ecclesiastical jurisdiction were divine right, namely, that by which the clergy are exempted from the violence of the sword.

are exempt from the sword. And as it stands today with the clergy, it would be better if the exemptions were abolished and all clergy were again subjected to the sword, according to the commandment of Peter and Paul, so that they could be punished, then it would stand better with the church, in that the sins would be kept in check by the fear of the sword, but now they are led by their laws to all evil with impunity (aluntur). The power of the sword of the clergy can, however, of its own free will let up some of its sharpness. But if it did not want to do so, it could not be forced to do so, nor could it be prevented by any decrees of the popes. For they do not have the power to limit the sword, which God alone has given. Nor is it true that it is in the hands of the pope to command that the sword be drawn or put away: the power of the sword has been conferred by God as a free one, as he also said above that the emperor has it in temporal matters, when he should have said "in all". Thus, he could not deny that the sword was not in his hand.

"Thou mightest rather have known the privilege of the priesthood from this, that it was said, not of any at random, but of GOtte, not to a king, but to a priest, who was not of a royal stock, but of a priestly family, even of the priests of Anathoth Jeremiah 1:1, 10., Behold, I have set thee over nations and kingdoms, to pluck up and to destroy, to build and to plant."

What is this? Is it not said by GOtte, what Peter and Paul said: "Be subject"? Is it not said to the priests, is it not said to all, when Paul says: "every soul" Rom. 13, 1.? As when the emperor said, "I have the two first apostles for myself, who must be believed more than Jeremiah, because those have the revealed truth of the New Testament, but this one, after a prophetic manner, has spoken the same yet darkly: therefore nothing is proved against me thereby"? What

792 D. V. L. m, 3S9-361. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 1014-1016. 793

one wanted to say here? But take to it: If this is true, then Jeremias is a pope, since only the Roman popes arrogate to themselves this title, that they are set over nations and kingdoms.

God has thus spoken of the prophet and of the work of the prophet, nothing of a priestly primacy. There is no other primacy in the Church than the ministry of the Word, which is well preserved when the priests are subject to the power of the sword in all temporal things, as it was with Christ, the apostles and the first bishops.

Finally, why does he not tear up, disturb, build and plant, if he thinks that this is his right? These are words, not of dignity and precedence, but of work and service, which are set here. And where is the high priest in the law, if Jeremiah is appointed by this word as a priest over nations and kingdoms, over which he was not appointed? And where is it also that he said that the pope is only supreme in spiritual matters, when he shares the rule with the emperor, when according to this opinion he is appointed over nations and kingdoms?

"Moreover, you should have known that GOD has made two great lights in the firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; both are great, but the one is greater. So in the firmament of heaven, that is, of the universal Church, God has made two great lights, that is, He has established two dignities, that is, the papal power and the royal power. But the one that rules the days, that is, spiritual things, is the greater, but the one that rules in carnal things is the lesser. And as great a difference as there is between the sun and the moon is known between popes and kings."

By whom is he recognized? By the gloss, quite worthy of this text, which says that the pope is seven and forty times greater than the. King. They are so certain about the measure of these two sizes, namely the sun and the pope, only that here a big question arises: How are in the old testa-

mente were the kings over the high priests? if one is not to believe, it was not yet a church, that is, the firmament of the sky at that time, since nevertheless One church of God is from the beginning of the world to the end. But granted that he may understand the Christian church, what does he want to say then? Who can make us sure whether the sun means the new or the old priest? For, of course, an allegory is doubtful and proves nothing. Yes, with what reason can we condemn the emperor when he says that his power is meant by the sun, the greater light, since by the word of Peter 1) every soul, no matter how spiritual, has been subjected to him?

What will one say to this, that from this reason it follows that Julius Caesar, Augustus and other pagan emperors were in the church, because they were the lesser light of the church, which is made by God? And, what is even cuter, Julius and Augustus were the lesser light before the firmament came into being, that is, the Church, indeed, before Christ was born, the head and author of that firmament; but even the general Church was long without this greater light, as it still is in Greece and India. These are perhaps still in darkness, although they are in the firmament of heaven.

It is really to be deplored that one perverts God's words with these gimmicks and antics in order to confirm such serious things (as they mean): away with this empty pretense! an image proves nothing. Furthermore, the simile (allegoria) contained in these words is this: The sun is Christ, the moon the Church, the sky the apostles, the stars the saints. The power of the emperor does not concern the Church, no more than any secular matter.

"But we are commanded Christ's sheep in St. Peter, when the Lord says, Feed my sheep John 21:17, making no distinction between these sheep and others, that he may show that he who does not belong to his fold is not one of them.

  1. Instead of Peter we should read Pauli, because the word omnis anima is found in Rom. 13,1. but not in Peter.

794 L. v. s. m, 36i f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, ioi6-iois. 795

Peter and his successors would not recognize as his masters and shepherds."

It was really necessary to add this, so that the ambition would be openly shown. But who will accept this gloss? By what support will it be corroborated, since you say: "he makes no distinction between these and others"? Whose sheep did Paul and the other apostles feed? Their own? Rather, why not say he made no distinction between Peter and other shepherds, since it was impossible for all to be shepherded by the One Peter? But if he can feed through another, what is there in the way that the sheep can also listen through another? But then where will both the shepherd and the sheep remain? Is it permissible to play games with God's words in this way? But why do those who think that the word "pasture" concerns them alone not go to the Turks, yes, why not at least to the Bohemians? But why do I bother with that? Why did not this Paschalis pasture this Decretenmacher and his court, that he might rightly understand the words of Christ for the food of his soul, and not stain it so miserably? Or are there no souls to feed in Turkey and Bohemia? Or does he think that he alone is commanded to feed those who have already been fed? Why, then, was Peter not satisfied with the sheep pastured by Christ, and himself sought throughout the world for such as he might pasture and teach? Why, I say, do they presume to feed, and yet do not? Only because they wish us to know what they mean by the word "feed," as often as they boast that the sheep belong to them, namely: to rule, to shear the sheep in all leisureliness, and to have the upper hand in the church with pure tyranny. Therefore it is a mistake that he does not belong to the sheepfold of Christ who does not acknowledge Peter and his successors as his shepherds and masters: first, because they themselves neither feed nor rule. Otherwise all Christians would already be far from Christ, because none of them sees, even if they would like to, that the Roman popes are shepherds and teachers, but they see them and recognize them as such.

who rule and make a show, and yet by such knowledge they do not enter better into the sheepfold of Christ, but are thrown out almost by force: such is the power of their aversions. Then, because it is enough to acknowledge Paul, even any priest, as a shepherd and teacher, wherever he may be. For the latter shepherds and rules, but those shear and slaughter those who have already been shepherded. But this may be enough, so that it does not seem as if I am doing this out of a desire to rebuke, since I seek nothing else than to shut the mouths of those who dare to imprison the completely free understanding of Scripture, which is given by Christ, under the opinion and the word of men, the popes, by wanting to judge the words of God according to the words of men, since, on the contrary, all the words of men must be judged according to the word of God, which judges everything.

With regard to the third, with regard to the reasoning, this must be dealt with first, that I have said that the decrees - by which, as I have indicated, the supremacy of the Roman Church is proved - have arisen in the last four hundred years, and against this are the stories of eleven hundred years.

First. I knew that this would cause offence and appear to everyone as something obviously wrong. For it is certain that through the decrees of the Roman popes this supremacy was argued for a thousand years ago.

But I have had this in mind, that the Roman Church has never been, nor is, nor ever will be, over all the churches of the whole world, though it is over very many, for it has never been over the churches of Greece, Africa and Asia, nor confirmed their bishops, as it now confirms ours, as the histories sufficiently prove. Furthermore, there are undoubtedly Christians in the East, since Christ's kingdom is the world, according to the second Psalm v. 8, and yet their bishops are neither installed nor confirmed from Rome; nor is this necessary.

796 D. V. s. Ill, 362-364. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 1010-1021. 797

Furthermore. From this time on the laws and rights began to be made much. For if Gregory IX, Boniface VIII, and Clement V had not patched them up and taken out some letters, added others, and given them to the schools to read and teach, there would undoubtedly not have been so many seas of glosses, nor the quite unfortunate study of the law, but both the decrees and the decretals would have remained hidden in the closets of the Roman Pontiff for the great profit of the Church and the benefit of the Gospel. But we can see more than enough how the Church is by the existence (vigore) of these laws; but this is not enough: such books are multiplying daily, and yet they accomplish nothing except to make more nets for souls. Hence comes the exceedingly shameful annual market with dispensations, letters of confession, indultoruiri and exemptions; hence the robbery and most outrageous sale of bishoprics, priesthoods, offices, pallia sbishop's cloak] and annuities (annatarum 1); hence the ecclesiastical punishments, threats, lightning (ful-

mina == rays of banishment), violence, deceit, deceitfulness and innumerable monstrosities, of which none would be, or at least would rarely occur, if such letters had remained, as it should have been, among the yearbooks and collections (regestis) and they had left the Gospel its place in the public. Therefore, the world has never felt the Roman statutes as in these last four hundred years. That is why I believe that all their weight and power are due to Gregory IX, through whom they were, as it were, born and born. For from him their use has received strength and validity, so that through these laws and traditions the offices of all, the regulations of the church, the orders in these four hundred years have been thrown together in a confusion, so that the present church is more confused than Babel itself. No one goes along in his own order, each one buys a law from Rome, according to which he may live: the one as an exempt, the other as a ruler.

  1. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 285.

as a privileged person, this one as a trusted servant, this one as an official, this one, I don't know under what pretext: all of them have the freedom to be, to do, to dare anything by these Roman laws. And in Rome, nothing else is taken care of than that through this greatest misfortune of the church, its power and its rule alone be strengthened, in each of its individual members. And if we sigh at this decay of the Church, if we grieve over it, if we complain, we are heretics, we are disrespectful to the Roman Church, we are angry, rebellious, we are audacious, because we cannot complain without touching the rights and the power of the Roman Pontiff, yes, so great an injustice against the people of God at the same time. For here is the source for either preserving or destroying the church. But since nowadays in Rome everything is completely defiled and corrupted, and at the behest of the exceedingly ungodly flatterers, one may not make a sound about these things, unless one praises, justifies and glorifies these abominable things: what is it to be wondered at, if under the venerable name of the Roman church so many evils have swamped the whole church with full impetuosity and in a sudden rush, which no one can resist?

Finally, with the study of the Roman laws and the neglect of the Gospel, they had to conclude in the last Council 2): The soul of man is immortal. What do you think this decision indicates?

Therefore, everyone may think himself very wise Sir. 19, 21., for me the authors of the decrees are Gregory IX, Boniface VIII, Clement V and the popes of the extravagant, because they have been published, commanded and all established on their operation. If they had been left as letters of Gregory, Augustine, Jerome, Bernard and others, either in libraries or archives, that each one could have consulted them at his pleasure, without any commandment, the Church would be better off. But now that they have been given over to the highest articles of the faith

  1. In the Lateran Council at Rome 1512-1517. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 908. Table Talks, cap. 27, § 119.

798 D. V. a. Ill, 364-366. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 1021-1024. 799

But if the flatterers put them even higher, we have as fruit the confusion of the ecclesiastical order, the terrible torture of consciences, ignorance of the gospel, quite unpunished freedom to commit shameful deeds, the most hateful tyranny of the Roman flatterers, until they have deserved that under the wide sky there is no more hateful and stinking name than that of the Roman court.

From this, I think, one can see that I was not so grossly ignorant that I did not know that the decrees of the Roman pope were written long before four hundred years ago. How else could I have stated four hundred years and not more or less? how to make the judgment that they were quite dull? how to refer to the histories? how to assert that the text of Scripture was repugnant to them? if I had not perused and compared everything most carefully? With these hints I wanted to do enough for the intelligent (nasuto) reader, so that he would recognize that I did not put it that way without cause, nor out of ignorance, but with diligence, at the same time also so that I would like to repay Eck's deceitful and flattering thesis in all respects. Since he had stated that before the times of Sylvester, the Roman Church had been higher than the others, and I was firmly convinced that Eck was not so insolent as to lie publicly, nor so ignorant of history as to believe this, I suspected deceit, since I know thoroughly the manner of the sophists and the slippery ways of these people of changeable form (proteorum), who, if they want, make the false true and change the true into false, while they demand from others such accuracy in speech that even God's words are not safe from them. Therefore, I wanted to make him more confident and certain of victory before the time, as he tried to make me completely fearful.

Since it may now be enough for me that the prestige of the Holy Scripture is on my side, by which it is proved that there is no supremacy in the church by divine right, let us also hear the opinions of others with their reasons, since

so that it does not seem as if I boast only of the Scriptures.

The first is St. Jerome, who writes in the Letter to Evagrius: "We read in Isaiah 32:6: 'A fool speaks foolishness.' I hear that someone has committed such foolishness as to prefer the diacones to the elders. For since the apostle clearly teaches that elders is the same as bishops, how can it be tolerated of one who ministers to tables and widows to puff himself up and exalt himself above those at whose prayers the body and blood of Christ is ministered (conficitur)? Are you asking for a scripture? Hear the testimony Phil. 1, 1.: Paul and Timothy, servants of JEsu Christ, to all the saints who are at Philippi, together with the bishops and deacons. Do you want another example? In the Acts of the Apostles 20, 28 Paul speaks thus to the priests of one church: "Take heed to yourselves and to all the host, among whom the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, that you may govern the church of God, which He purchased by His blood. And lest anyone should argue that there were several bishops in one church, let him hear another testimony, in which it is quite evident that bishop and elder are the same [Titus 1:5 ff.For this reason I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set up what was lacking, and appoint bishops 1) in the cities to and fro, as I commanded thee, where there is one blameless, a wife's husband, having faithful children, not notorious for revelry and disobedience: for a bishop ought to be blameless as a steward of God. And to Timothy 1 Ep. 4, 14.: Do not disregard the gift given to you by prophecy and by the laying on of the hands of the elders. But also Peter in the First Epistle 5,1. f.: "The elders who are among you, I exhort, being fellow elders and witnesses of the passion of Christ and partakers of the future glory that is to be revealed, rule the host of Christ and watch carefully, not forcibly, but willingly, as God wills, which, of course, in the Greek, is not the case.

  1. According to the original text, xresb^teros is to be read. (Weim. Ausg.)

800 L- V. a. m, 366-^368. 35. Luther's explanation on his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 1V24-1026. 801

schen more significantly expressed is ίπισχοποΰν- τες (Episcopuntes), from which the name έπί- ιτχοπνς (Episcopus) is derived. Do the testimonies of such great men seem small to you? Let the evangelical trumpet be sounded, the son -of-thunder (Marc. 3, 17], whom Jesus loved most, who drank from the breast of the Savior the rivers of doctrine 2 John 1: The eldest of the chosen woman and her children, whom I love in truth, and in another letter 3 John 1: The eldest, Gaius the beloved, whom I love in truth. But that afterwards one was chosen who should be above the others, was done to prevent a division, lest every one should draw (ad se) the people to his own person, and divide the church of Christ. For even in Alexandria, from the time of the evangelist Marcus until the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius 1), the elders always chose one of their number and assigned him a higher position, whom they called bishop, in the way an army chooses a commander. The deacons, however, are to choose one from their number, of whom they know that he is diligent, and call him Archidiaconus. For what does a bishop do, except ordination, that an elder does not do? For the church of the city of Rome is not to be taken for a church other than that of the whole world, and in Gaul, and in Britain: for Africa also, and Persia, and the Orient, and India, and all foreign nations, worship One Christ, hold One standard of truth. But if reputation is asked, the world is greater than Rome. Wherever a bishop may be, whether in Rome or in Eugubium (now Gubbio), whether in Constantinople or in Rhegium (now Reggio), whether in Alexandria or in Tanis, 2) he has equal prestige (ejusdem meriti) and equal priesthood. The power of wealth and the lowliness of poverty make one higher or lower,

  1. Both in the 3rd century. In several editions Lfüruru is written, probably a reading error for Llradam. (Weim. Ausg.) -The Jenaische and Wittenberger editions and Löscher correctly read Hsrucüum.
  2. Tanis, city in Lower Egypt, now Samnah or 'San; in the Bible Zoan, Num. 13:23. and Ps. 78:12.

by the way, are all successors of the apostles." So much for St. Jerome.

I speak nothing of the change of times, nothing of the given (positivo) right. This is what I claim: If one bishop is preferred to the others by divine right, Jerome obviously teaches a heresy here, not only he (for I would not believe him), but Peter, Paul, John, Lucas, whom he cites as irrefutable warrantors. Who, I pray you, will resist these? Why does the flatterer deny that the Roman bishop is a fellow bishop in relation to the others, since the first, Peter, calls himself a fellow elder? If they are successors of Peter, why are they ashamed of the title of their predecessor? If they inherit the extremely hopeful name of a most holy, supreme, greatest bishop (maximi pontificis - Pabsts) from the later ones, why not the name of a co-elder and co-bishop from the first one? I ask you, if Peter, Paul, John, Lucas and all the apostles did not know what the word of Christ meant: "You are Peter", and "I will give you the keys", and "feed my sheep", that they did not take care that Peter was given the supremacy by God? If they call me a heretic by all means, who ascribes everything they want to the Roman Pontiff, only that I am not forced to do it by the prestige of the Scriptures, that is, lying, then they may spare St. Jerome, who, supported by such great guarantors, proclaims far more impudently in public that the bishops are either higher or lower in relation to each other by the power of wealth and by the lowliness of poverty. I put this up. in agreement with the faithful and the decrees of the people, why don't the quite vicious inquisitors of heretical malice burn this dishonorable, blasphemous, rebellious man ten times (bissepties)? Meanwhile, you may let me keep it with Jerome. You may allow to have the same opinion with Paul, Peter, John and Lucas. If this is not enough, let them burn their decrees first. For this

802 L. V. E. Ill, 368-370. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 1026-1028. 803

This letter is cited in the Decrees, 93rd Distinction, Cap.: it is read, heard, taught, approved by all in the Roman Church. Why am I alone forbidden to speak and hold what they themselves all speak, hold and command to be held? Jerome not only equates the bishops with each other, but also equates the elders with the bishops, stating that one name denotes age, the other the office. I have spoken most reverently, and desire nothing but that I may not be forced to mock the Scriptures and the Word of God against this truth. The Roman pope may be anything they want, if only they do not claim this on the basis of the Scriptures: but I will also tolerate that the Scriptures are adapted to their opinion, if only they do not want to claim that this is the true and only meaning. So it is enough that by the very cold decrees the supremacy is asserted, which is denied by the most ardent words of God. But we want to hear the same again in his interpretation about the letter to Titus.

St. Jerome, in his interpretations of the Letter to Titus: "So an elder is the same as a bishop, and before parties (studia) arose in religion by the devil's operation, and it was said among the people 1 Cor. 1:12: I am Paul's, I am Apollo's, I am Cephas', the churches were governed by the common council of the elders. But when every one thought that those whom he had baptized were his, not Christ's, it was determined throughout the world that one should be chosen from among the elders, and set over the others, to whom should be committed the care of the whole church, and so the seed of division taken away." If anyone thinks that this is not Scripture, but our opinion, that bishop and eldest are one and the same, and 'it is another name for age, another for office: let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, and other things which he has quoted above in the Epistle to Evagrius. And at the end: "How then the elders know that according to the custom of the church, they are to the one who is set over them,

subjects, let the bishops know that they are greater than the elders by custom rather than by the truth of divine decree, and that they are to govern the church collectively."

See, then, whether my thesis has spoken evil or well, it is against the wording of Scripture that the Roman Church is higher than others, since this is also against the decrees themselves. For these words of St. Jerome are also cited in the 95th Distinction, Cap. Olim, and even if they should not be approved by you, yet, because they contend with the strong weapons of divine Scripture, even by the contradiction of the whole world and of an angel from heaven, nothing could be said against them. And so I believe that both our thesis is sufficiently proven and all reasons refuted which can even be conceived against it. The opinion stands firm that not by the truth of divine order, but by the custom of the church, the bishops are higher than the elders.

I also add the third decree from the same 95th Distinction, Cap. Episcopus: "When the bishop sits in any place, he shall not suffer the elder to stand." And again in another Cap. Episcopus, "The bishop may sit higher in the church in the assembly of the elders, but in a house he shall consider himself an officiant of the elders." There it is said that these are decisions of the fourth council of Carthage. This is certainly heretical, vexatious, and seditious (as they call it), when the bishops by divine right are higher than the elders, whom they decree to be the bishops' bailiwicks: much more, when one bishop is higher than the others. So let them first eradicate their decrees, which they force us to learn: what then do they condemn in us that they themselves teach us? Hence it is evident that in fact the bishops are equal among themselves and the elders, and that only by custom and for the sake of the church one must be preferred to the other. It follows that if the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff begins to be detrimental to the Church, it must be completely removed from the Church.

804 V- a. Ill, 370-372. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 1028-1031. 805

because human rights and customs must serve the church, but do not wage war against the church. If this does not happen, human tradition already abrogates the commandments of God before God. Therefore, see on how thin a thread hangs the tyranny of the Roman flatterers, which, since it undertook to fortify itself by divine prestige, completely overthrows itself by this reason.

Here I also call upon Cyprian, whom St. Augustine also cites, that in the 2nd book, Cap. 2, "Of Baptism," he says: "For no one among us pretends to be a bishop of bishops, or with tyrannical terror compels his fellow bishops to the necessity of obeying, since every bishop has his own will according to the liberty and power due to him, so that he cannot be judged by another, just as he himself cannot judge another: but let us all await the judgment of our Lord JEsu Christ." This glorious martyr publicly confesses that it is tyranny for one bishop to force others to obey. But this tyranny almost all the syllables of the Decretals set up as a justice and preserve it as if it were a divine power. Furthermore, it is surprising that St. Augustine did not rebuke Cyprian, whom he cited, if he thought that he was speaking against divine right; rather, he agrees with him that all bishops are equal.

But we want to see more.

Since the same Cyprian in his first book of letters, in the fourth letter to the elder Felix, wants to prove with divine testimonies that it is not in the power of the bishops, but mainly in that of the people to choose or reject a bishop, he says: "Therefore the people, who obey the divine commandments and fear God, must separate themselves from a sinful superior, nor participate in the sacrifices of a godly priest, since they themselves have primarily the power either to elect worthy priests or to reject unworthy ones. We also see that it comes from divine power that the priest in the presence of the people before all eyes

And if he be worthy and skillful, he shall be confirmed by public judgment and testimony, as in the fourth book of Moses the Lord commanded Moses, saying, Take Aaron thy brother, and Eleazar his son, and bring them up into the mount in the presence of the whole congregation, and take off Aaron his priestly garment, and put it on Eleazar his son. And Aaron shall gather there and die. God commands that the priest be ordained before the whole congregation, that is, He teaches and shows that the ordination to the priesthood must not be done otherwise than with the knowledge of the people standing by, so that through the present people either the transgressions of the wicked may be exposed, or the merits of the good may be praised, and that this is a right and lawful ordination, which has been tested by the vote and judgment of all. This is subsequently observed according to divine teaching in Acts 1, 15. f., when Peter speaks to the people in the place of Judas because of the ordinance of a bishop. Peter appeared, it is said, in the midst of the disciples; but there was a multitude. But we perceive that the apostles observed this not only in the ordinance of the bishops and priests, but also in that of the deacons, which is also written of in the Acts of the Apostles Cap. 6:2: And it is said that the twelve called together the whole multitude of the disciples, and spake unto them. This, however, was done so carefully and cautiously, summoning all the people together, lest an unworthy person should creep in to serve the altar or to hold the position of a priest. For this reason, this divine tradition and the custom of the apostles must be carefully observed, and what is also observed in our country and in almost all countries must be maintained, namely, that all the neighboring bishops of the country come together for the ordinations to be performed in the proper manner among the people to whom a superior is ordained, and that the bishop is ordained in the presence of the people, who know the lives of the individuals very well. We see that this has also happened with you at the

806 L. V.". Ill, 372-374. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. LVlil, 1031-1033. 807

Ordination of our colleague Sabinus, that by the vote of all the brethren (universae fraternitatis), and according to the judgment of the bishops who had personally hired themselves, who had written letters to you about him, the bishopric was conferred upon him, and the hands were laid on him in place of Basil."

This ordinance (ritum) is also mentioned by the same Cyprian in many other letters, always citing the vote of the people and the judgment of the neighboring bishops in such a way that he confidently states that this ordinance (ordinationem) is from God. What this custom is in comparison to the one that is desired today from Rome, in which not only the people are excluded, but even the election of priests is not enough, I leave to others. Nor is it necessary to state how much better it would be to keep this divine way today, especially since there are so many bad priests, who are also imposed against the will of the people. For we see that through the Roman court, by means of its grace of expectation (gratias expectativas - expectances), priests are also imposed everywhere in the world. Let this happen. I deplore that these people of ours want to consider this sacred and ancient custom, which agrees in all respects with the divine right, as heretical and condemned against their newer custom, since it is certain to all that St. Nicholas, St. Martin, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose and all the ancient fathers were ordained in this way. Therefore, today's custom may be what it can be, but we should not think that the Roman Pontiff could do this by divine right, lest we condemn the saints and martyrs of so many centuries as if they had acted against divine right.

Although Gregory the First, in the 4th book of the Register, in the 32nd Epistle, says that by those sayings, "Feed my sheep" and "thou art Peter," Peter, the prince of the apostles, was given the care of the whole Church by the Lord, yet in this care he suffers no bishop to succeed him, nor does he say that Peter is called the general apostle, thus addressing the

Emperor Mauritius writes about John at Constantinople: "The care of the whole church and the supreme office (principatus) is given to Peter and yet he is not called general apostle: and the very holy man, my fellow priest, submits that he wants to be called general bishop. I must exclaim: 'O times, O manners!'" And further down: "If anyone in the church usurps that name, then the whole church (which is far) falls from its proper state (a statu suo), if he falls who is called the general. But far be from the hearts of Christians this blasphemous name, by which the honor of all priests is taken away, while one usurps the same nonsensically."

See, there you have that it is a blasphemous name "general bishop". What do you think he would have said about the name of the highest, the greatest, the most holy?

It follows: "Certain it is that this was offered in honor of St. Peter, prince of the Apostles, by the venerable Conciliar of Chalcedon to the Roman Pontiff, but none of them ever accepted this name, that it was singular (singularitatis vocabulum), nor admitted that it was used, lest, while something special was given to one, all the priests should be deprived of the honor due to them."

It is clear that this Gregory, who prefers to call himself a servant of all priests rather than a lord and the servant of the servants of God, did not believe that the Roman pope alone was the successor of Peter, since he abhors being called a prince of priests and of bishops, since he calls the latter the prince of the apostles.

In the following letter to Constantia, he compares the same John to Lucifer, saying: "because he imitates him who, despising the multitudes of angels in their common joy, wanted to soar to such majesty that he alone was something (ad culmen singularitatis).

The same says in the 36th letter to the bishops Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch: "As your venerable saints have said, I do not want to be a part of it.

808 D- v. a. m. 374 f. 35. Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. ' W. xvm. 1033-1036. 809

As I know, by the Holy Council of Chalcedon, the bishop (pontiüei) of the Apostolic See (which I serve by God's providence) was given this name "universal". But never any of my predecessors wanted to use this so unholy word, because if one is called the general patriarch, the others are deprived of the name of a patriarch. But let this be far from a Christian mind, that anyone should wish to usurp it, by which he would seem in the least to diminish the honor of his brethren." But if the supremacy of the pope is divine right, are not the Roman popes just as much heretics as the Conciliar? The former because they did not accept divine right but trampled it underfoot, the latter because it proposed what it had no right to propose.

And further on: "He tries to ascribe to himself all things and all members which are connected with the only One Head (namely Christ): all members of this Christ he endeavors to force under himself by the pride of a pompous speech." I ask you, what would he deserve who would speak like this today? This Gregory, a Roman pope, pursues this as something unholy, which our people set up as if it were a divine right.

And in the 38th Epistle to the Bishop John himself, repeating and more abundantly explaining what has gone before, he speaks: "Surely the Apostle Paul, when he heard that some said: 'I am Paul's, I Apollo's, but I Cephas', most vehemently abhorred this rending of the body of the Lord, by which his members joined, as it were, other heads, and exclaimed, saying: "Is Paul crucified for you? Or are you baptized in Paul's name?' If, then, he expressly willed that the members of the body of the Lord should not be subject, as it were, to certain heads apart from Christ, nay, not even to the apostles: what wilt thou answer Christ, the Head of the universal holy Church, in the trial of the last judgment, since thou undertakeest to subordinate to thyself all his members by the appellation 'universal'?" But, O Gregory, do and undertake

for this is not your followers with the highest impetuosity?

And further down: "Certainly Peter is the first member of the holy and universal church. Paul, Andrew, John, what are they but heads of individual nations? and yet all under One Head are members of the Church."

But this is enough. Now we want to hear the head of all himself, what he has determined about the nature (statu) of this single rule (monarchiae). For he foreknew what was to come, and of all first and with great care settled this question, and yet for so many centuries it is still argued over, as if the words of Christ were smoke and a vain fable.

So it says Lucas 22, 24. ff.: There was also a dispute as to which of them should be considered the greatest. But he said to them: The kings of the nations rule over them, and they that have power over them are called benefactors: but ye are not so. But he that is greatest among you, let him be as the least; and he that is chiefest, as a servant. And he adds his example: For which is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? Is it not he who sits at table? But I am in the midst of you as one who serves. You see that Christ evidently says that it is kings of the nations (gentium), not bishops, who want to be the greatest, and condemns that worldly power (that is, without the word and love) altogether. But I believe that since it was necessary that the church should always be oppressed by the Gentiles, as Ezekiel 5:5 says: I have set them in the midst of the Gentiles, and Psalm 110:2: Rule in the midst of your enemies, therefore, when other Gentiles are not present, in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled, kings must become Gentiles in the church and tyrannize over the church by force, while the office of loving and teaching is given to others.

Likewise Marci 10, 35. ff., where the sons of Zebedee strove for authority that one might sit on the right and the other on the left, they truly received the right answer, namely, that they should drink the cup, received

810 L. V. a. III. 375-377. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 1036-1038. 811

but still no certainty where they would sit. What is it to wonder that this infirmity of ambition was also in the Roman popes, however holy they were, even martyrs, since Christ had to bear the same in the apostles? At last, when those two apostles by this presumption had moved the others to displeasure, and again a dispute arose as to precedence, JESUS called them together and said to them: Ye know that they which are seen to be the chiefest (principari) among the Gentiles lord it over them, and their princes have authority over them. But it is not so among you; but whosoever will be greatest, let him be your servant; and whosoever will be first among you, let him be servant of all. Again he gives an example of himself: For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life for the redemption of many. But who should not see that neither the popes nor their flatterers seek this service, but only power? For it is difficult to imitate the serving Christ.

Likewise with the same, Cdp. 9, 33. ff.: And they came to Capernaum. When they were at home, he asked them: What were you doing on the road? But they kept silent. For on the way they had been arguing among themselves as to which of them was the greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve, and said unto them, If any man be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all. And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and after he had embraced him, he said unto them: Whoever receives one in my name receives me.

The same has Lucas Cap. 9,46. ff: There came also a thought among them, which would be the greatest among them. But when Jesus saw the thoughts of their hearts, he took a child and set it beside him, and said to them: Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is greatest.

Likewise Matth. 18, 1. ff.: At that same hour the disciples came to JEsu and said:

Who do you think is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And JESUS called a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, He that humbleth himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Now see with how many words, with how many examples, with how much care Christ has forestalled and resisted this ambition, which the decrees and deretals boast of with such great fervor and repeat and inculcate as if feeding Christ's people is the same as boasting of power and seeking to attain it. So not power but service is imposed on the bishops. But who would not gladly let them serve, if they only wanted to?

Therefore, according to my judgment it is like this: As the apostles argued until the end of Christ's life and by so many examples and words of Christ did not abstain from this human inclination, and yet he did not allow anyone to attain supremacy until they all left him scattered Matth. 26, 56.: so in the church now for so many centuries they argue about it forbidden supremacy, and Christ is not heard, who nevertheless resists it with so many words and does not allow anyone to attain it, until perhaps they too are scattered by the coming of the Antichrist and deny Christ.

For the apostles at first held this very well, when they appointed Jacob the Less as bishop in Jerusalem, and Peter, Jacob and John threw off their supremacy. After them, however, both Christ's and the apostles' example was soon set aside, and they fought without end, not for the word, in order to teach all the more, but so that they could command, bind, loose and profit all the more far and wide. For thus we too are forced to bear the infirmities of the popes not without many aversions, for Christ's sake. For if Peter's supremacy were by divine right, then he would have acted completely ungodly, along with John and Jacob, by preferring Jacob the lesser and making him bishop of the church at Jerusalem, of which they were all members; therefore Paul, too, in Gal. 2:9, where he lists the pillars of the church, gives Jacob preference over Peter.

812 D- v. a. m, 377-379. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. xviii, 1038-um. 813

Now [follow proofs from the stories and reasons.

The first is from the history of the apostles themselves, where it is written about Peter that he was equal to the other apostles and finally received the confirmation of his speech, Cap. 15, 13. ff, from Jacobus. Furthermore, he did not appoint any of the apostles himself, and none was under him. So how can the successor of Peter have the successors of all the apostles under him? What, I pray you, can be said to this by any man? Yes, neither he, nor all of them together, dared to appoint Matthias as an apostle Apost. 1, 15. ff., but they requested him from God alone; this is the most convincing proof that no apostle was above the others, but that each one, in the same way as the others, was called and appointed by God alone.

The second is Gal. 2, 11. ff: Peter was punished by Paul at Antioch, from which it is clear that the Roman pope is subject to anyone who has a better opinion. And something is not true or good because he says or does so, but he is required to give an account, yes, he cannot give it all the time, but he sometimes errs, just like Peter.

The third is in dex ecclesiastical history book 5. Victor the First, Roman pope, wanted to banish the bishops in Asia: but he was punished, not by Paul, but by Irenaeus of Lyons, and also by all the others, put in check, reminded, and ordered to keep peace and not to disturb the church; to them he yielded, as it was due. Likewise, Anicetus also yielded to Polycarp, bishop of Smyma, and could not force him under his decrees. Likewise, in the Historia tripartita, Book 4, Julius the First tried to forbid that the Oriental bishops should not assemble a council without his order, but tried in vain, because they did not care and gave him a very sharp answer.

The fourth: That the Roman bishop is higher than all is established by a human decree, namely by Constantine the

Fourth, Emperor of Greece, as Platina writes in the biography of Benedict ll, but it has not been so held by other bishops.

The fifth: Did the pope confirm Cyprian, Augustine and other bishops in Africa who belonged to the Latin Church? Did he prevent their conciliations? Or were they conciliabula, because they were held without the permission (au- toritate) of the Roman pope, as it is clear in their books?

The sixth: When did he appoint the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and others in Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Asia, and throughout the Orient? Were all these heretics, then? Let that be distant j

The seventh: Even today, those who are in Persia, India, Scythia and all the Orient are not under the Roman Pontiff. Or do you think that there are no Christians there and that the kingdom of Christ, whose possession is the end of the world, Ps. 2:8, 22, 28, is limited to Rome? Or are they not bishops because they do not put on bishop's vestments, do not have palaces, do not have horses and other Roman splendor? It is enough that they teach the word of GOD, that they love and feed, because in such a way you would also not confess that the apostles were bishops, if you wanted to start looking at the outward appearance of things, not at the things themselves; indeed, the farther they are from pretending to outward appearance, the better are the bishops, and the less bishops, the closer they are to it.

The eighth: Jerome writes "of famous men" that Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, a disciple of Eusebius of Pamphylia, when Constantius reigned, deposed the pope Liberius and installed Felix. Likewise, that John Chrysostom was not deposed by a Roman pope, but by the bishops Theophilus of Alexandria and Epiphanias of Cyprus, as is told in the Tripartita. The same Epiphanius of Cyprus, a lesser bishop than Bishop John of Jerusalem, excommunicated the latter and repented of having held communion with him, as Saint Jerome

814L. v. L. in, 37S-38i. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 1041-1043. 815.

writes against the same. And if you look at the stories of how the emperors changed the pope, how the pope changed the emperors, how the pope changed the bishops, and how the bishops changed, appointed, and deposed the pope, you might think you are looking at a kind of Iliad 1). This is not to be wondered at: because they have not heard Christ, who forbids ambition, that is why they are so often divided and troubled.

The ninth: What shall we say to this: is the opinion not true, which the whole church, also all decrees, all teachers hold, namely that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, as in the 21st Dist. Cap. In novo? If it is false, why is it exalted with such great prestige? If it is true, how can the Roman Pontiff alone be the successor of the One Apostle Peter, and all others the subordinates of the Roman Pontiff? Why don't the other apostles also have successors? Were the other apostles the successors of the One Peter? Why is the honor of the other apostles taken away and attached to Peter alone? Why do not all the bishops have what their apostles had, since the Roman one has what his predecessor Peter had? So change the word and say: that the bishops are the successors of the apostles, but the bishop of Rome alone is the successor of an apostle. This reason, I confess, otherwise I would have to be more senseless than a log, forces and clogs everyone's mouth that all bishops are equal, and just as the Roman pope is ordained by no one, so also every bishop should be ordained by election alone, as he is, by divine right. For the opinion stands firm that none of the apostles was sent by Petro, but that all of them received the same from the Lord Christ in the same way for the district assigned to them: thus the bishops who are their successors. The same with the Roman Pontiff, except the privilege of honor or dignity, as Paul clearly writes to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11, 5. 12, 11.]: For what have I done less than the high apostles?

  1. A poem full of strife and war.

The tenth: Answer: If the Roman pope, by God's command, is God's general? governor in the whole Church, it follows inevitably that those sin, indeed that they are heretics, who have not been under him. But then the whole original church, at least to the four hundred years, with so many martyrs and saints, would be heretics. I beg you, what is the use of exhibiting such a great blasphemy in the Church for the pomp of an incense 2) violence? Finally, St. Peter would also be a heretic, who was with the apostles in Jerusalem before the Roman Church. This insurmountable reason overcomes me.

The eleventh: If any church is the first and the mother of all, it is none other than that of Jerusalem, as I said above. For what would Rome not do if it had for itself what that has? Namely, that Isaiah 2:3 and Micah 4:2 and all the prophets proclaimed that from Zion should go forth the law of the gospel, and from Jerusalem the word of the Lord. Likewise, that the Lord gave glory there in his last house, as Haggai 2:10 says. That Christ was bishop (pontifex) there, but the apostles as it were elders; that Christ was sacrificed there and sent the Holy Spirit. And in short, from here the Word of God went out into the whole world, from here all the churches came into being. And no one has such an impudent forehead that he could deny that this is truly the mother of all churches, the source, root and womb, also of the Roman church. Therefore, as it is written in the 9th book of the Tripartita, Cap. 14, the bishops assembled at the Conciliar of Constantinople indicate to the Roman bishop Damasus, among other things, what they decreed. The following: We announce that in the mother of all churches, -Jerusalem, which has been chosen (constituta), the very venerable Cyril, beloved of God, is bishop, who was formerly ordained by the regional bishops in the proper manner 2c From this it is clear that at that time the church at Jerusalem was considered to be the mother of all churches, and that the con-

  1. D. i. of which is written in the ranch hole.

816 V. L. m, 381-383. 35 Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis. W. XVIII, 1043-1046. 817

cil has been held without the authorization of the Roman Pontiff, which would be heretical if the Roman bishop's authority was based on divine right. If, therefore, this church has not the supremacy, indeed, since they have hardly assigned to it the fifth place, how much less has the Roman church the same, which is its disciple! Say something against it, whoever can!

The twelfth: The Council of Nicaea, as written in the History of the Church, Book 10, Cap. 6, has established in the sixth article the following: "And in Alexandria as well as in the city of Rome, the old custom shall be kept, that as the one over Egypt's churches, so the other over the churches near the city shall have the oversight" (solicitudinem gerat). Answer: This Concilium is probably the holiest of all, and behold, it not only does not give the Roman Pontiff supremacy and sole rule, but according to ancient custom, not by divine right, it assigns to him the care of the Italian churches and those near Rome. And this I touched upon in my thesis when I said that the decision of this Council was contrary to the very cold decrees.

If, then, I am a heretic, let them first revoke this council, which, like a gospel, the decrees themselves compel me to obey. I cannot serve two vile masters.

The thirteenth: The same Council of Nicaea has determined that not by the Roman bishop should all bishops be ordained, but by the provincial bishops, saying: "And that if, for instance, at the ordination of a bishop two or three should disagree because of some dispute, the reputation of the rest, and especially of that in the capital with the others, may be the more firmly maintained." I beg you, what more can I do? Is it not enough that I willingly concede to the Roman Pontiff everything he arrogates to himself? Do I still have to prove above that these decisions are to be despised and considered as nothing for the sake of the human arbitrariness of a bishop?

The fourteenth: The same Council of Nicaea attributes the honor of supremacy to the Bishop of Jerusalem, not to the Roman one, in that

It is said there: "And that the bishop of Jerusalem may retain the privilege of honor conferred from time immemorial, while at the same time retaining the dignity of bishop of the capital of that province. Teach me, dear reader, what to do if it is not enough for me to confess today that the Roman Pontiff was the first, if I should not lie and say that another was not the first from time immemorial, and resist the prestige of such a great council. Finally, it is written that at the Council of Nicaea Eustachius sat at the top, the bishop of the church of Antioch, not the Roman, not an envoy of the Roman bishop, in the Tripartite Book 2, Cap. 5, which would be offensive to the present right of the Roman bishop, and yet he was not therefore a heretic, nor did the Council of Nicaea act contrary to divine right.

The fifteenth: If the Roman church is the first, because of the first apostle Peter, we must also confess that the church at Compostella is the second, because of the holy apostle Jacobus, and that at Ephesus the third, because of the third apostle John, and so on through the whole series of apostles. But is this order kept? By what right, then, does Peter alone make a church the first, but by a human right? Why is the one at Constantinople, which has no apostle, preferred in second place to the one at Compostella? Why is that of Alexandria, which also has no apostle, preferred to that of Ephesus? Why is the one at Antioch, without an apostle, preferred to the one at Edessa, which has the apostle Thomas? Why is the one at Jerusalem followed after all these, in the fifth place, which had Christ, Peter, Jacob, John, likewise Jacob the lesser, as pillars (as Paul writes Gal. 2, 9.), and all the disciples? You see how there is no reason for it, how Christ, with great effort, has forestalled the ambition of this supremacy and has utterly put to shame the causes of it.

The sixteenth: If to the followers of Peter alone comes the word of Christ, "You are Peter," and, "Feed my sheep," then might

818 D. v. a. iir. 383 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvin, ivt"-iot8. 819

One can conclude with the same conclusion that the successors of John alone are the sons who were commanded to Mary at the cross Joh. 19, 26., who alone are loved more than the others, because he alone addressed him at the cross and commanded the mother: thus the others receive it from the bishops of Ephesus that they are children of the church and of Mary. Likewise, only the successors of Jacob and John would be children of thunder, and only the successors of Jacob the Less would be brothers of the Lord. And in general the successors of all, to whom Christ once spoke, would have the same by divine right. What can be said that is more inane than this?

The seventeenth: If the pope were by divine right over all the faithful of the church, no one could absolve him, nor hear his confession. For everything that is divine right is immutable, and he could in no way submit to another and suffer a power over himself without violation of divine right. For a lower cannot become a superior under any condition, except by human arbitrariness: the divine right stands firm in what it is.

Finally, I say that I do not know whether the Christian faith can suffer that another general head of the church is set up on earth than Christ. There are people who reject Christ in the triumphant church, so that they can set up the Roman pope as the head of the contending church, contrary to the explicit gospel of Matthew in the last 28:20: "Behold, I am with you until the end of the world, and the word, Apost. 9, 4.: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? For therefore the

Church is called a kingdom of faith, because our King is not seen, but believed, as it says in 1 Cor. 15, 25. 24: He must reign until he makes his enemies the footstool of his feet, and then he will hand over the kingdom to God and the Father. But these make a kingdom of earthly (praesentium) things out of it, since they set up a visible head. For even if a pope has died, the church is not without a head; why, then, is Christ alone not held to be the head during the lifetime of a pope? Or does he, for instance, step down when the pope is alive, and follow him when he has died, as it were as a kind of alternate pope? But if he is also the head, since the pope is alive, why then do we set up two heads in the church?

Closing:

Every priest is a bishop in case of death and need, he is a pope, and has the greatest possible power over the one who confesses, as the general opinion of the whole Church states and is clearly proved by the letters of St. Cyprian. Therefore, by divine right, neither the pope is higher than the bishops, nor the bishop higher than the elders. This conclusion is certain, because the divine right is unchangeable, both in life and in death.

End. 1)

Should you ask for more, you can find it elsewhere.

And peace on earth and goodwill toward men.

  1. Instead of the following lines, the first editions contain only: Glory to God alone.

820 D. V. a. in, 245 f. 36. Luther's explanations of all theses. W. XVIII, 866 f. 821

*Luther's explanations of the theses he disputed in Leipzig. )

End of August 1519.

Translated from Latin.

First thesis.

Every man sins daily, but he also repents daily, as Christ teaches: "Repent" Matth. 4, 17.], with the exception of a certain new righteous man, who does not need repentance; as the heavenly vinedresser also cleanses the fruit-bearing branches daily.

This proposition is based on the reason that every human action is either good or evil, there is also no indifferent (neuter = neutral) action, or, as those say, no morally good one. Therefore, I must first ward off two things, which one tends to hold against this.

The first is the reputation of the school among almost all theologians throughout the world who hold the opposite. Although I owe them all reverence, they will still allow me to prefer the Holy Scriptures to them. Therefore, if I displease anyone, I ask that they not immediately say to me, "You alone are wise, and the church has hitherto erred without you, and so many minds have not been able to see what you see," and not confront me with such pleas. For to pass over the fact that God sometimes spoke through an ass what He hid from a prophet Deut. 22:28, and showed Samuel, when he was still a child, what He revealed to the priest of Israel, Eli,

If they have not revealed 1 Sam. 3, then they may at least be calm according to their own example and also allow me what they concede to themselves among themselves and to each other. Scotus stood up, One Man, and challenged the opinions of all schools and teachers, and prevailed. The same did Occam; many others have done so, and continue to do so to this day, and since each one of them is free to contradict all of them, why am I, I alone, deprived of this favor? finally, since I too have contradicted all of them in many other opinions, without complaint, why should I suffer a new law in this one? Therefore, I ask that whoever wishes to do so, take note, not of who and against whom, but of what and against what I speak. Let the reputation of those persons depart Gal. 2, 6. whom God does not respect. We read in the Gospel that Christ commands to listen to the scribes and Pharisees who sit on Moses' chair, not because they are persons, that is, Christian scholars and Pharisees, but because they taught Moses. Otherwise, since the world is now exceedingly corrupt and the times are very dangerous, if we begin to act with pride and contempt, it might very easily happen that we fall into the danger of which Ps. 14:6 is written: You have the poor man's

*The first printing of this manuscript was published (on Sept. 3, it was already sold) probably already at the end of August 1519 by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg and was published again by him in this year. In the same year another edition was published by Wolfgang Stöcke! in Leipzig and two other printings without indication of the printer. In 1520, an edition not organized by Lucher himself was published in Leipzig by Melchior Lotther. The dedicatory letter to Spalatin, written by Luther on August 15 (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1356 ff.), was published alone, without the explanations, by Siegmund Grimm and Max Wirsung in Augsburg. Mur this is found in the Baseler Sammlung Lutherscher Schriften of March 1520; zuglerch with the explanations In VI. Dutüorii Iriorivratiouriru pars una, Lasiloao in aodikus Vda6 Dotri 1520, Vlonso lulio, p. 291 (the attribution) and p. 517 (the explanations). The dedicatory letter alone is still found in ] urilubor, LxistoInrrirrr VI ^utkkri, Dom. 1,1556, lol. 185; in De Wette vol. I, 290. In the collective editions we find both pieces; in the Latin Wittenberg of 1545, Dom. I, Lol. 293 d and in the Latin Jena one of 1556, Dom. I, toi. 294 u, with the possible elimination of the favorable verdicts on Carlstadt; in the Erlanger opp. lat. var. arx. Bd. Ill, 228; in the Weimar edition Bd. II, 391. Then still in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, Bd. Ill, 733. Our translation is according to the Weimar edition.

822 D. V. L. Ill, 246-248. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvill, 867-870. 823

Council to shame, as far as God is his confidence. Therefore, both of us, knowing that we are all human beings, how easy it is to err, how seldom it happens, and how difficult it is to have a true opinion and to act rightly, would rather seek the truth in common endeavor than bite and consume each other solely out of a desire for honor or to maintain our own opinion.

The second thing that is held against me is that this article was expressly condemned at the Council of Constance among the articles of Hus: if I do not now soon keep silent here and recant, they will stop their ears, storm me [Apost. 7, 56. and threaten me with fire, for they do not deign to delay here, nor do they accept any excuse, but, I pray you, is this the way to seek the truth, if one immediately blocks the mouth of him who seeks the truth? And where is this that Peter commands to give an account to everyone who demands it? 1 Pet. 3:15. Further, have not the conciliarists often erred? Did not Cyprian err with the bishops of all Africa at a council held even on an exceedingly important article of faith concerning the power of baptism? And what is it to wonder if even nowadays a conciliar stings everything, since we live in a much more indifferent (frigidiore) time than Cyprian? And so that I speak clearly and freely, which I do most of the time, I believe that I am a Christian theologian and live in the realm of truth, that I am therefore guilty not only of affirming the truth, but also of asserting and defending it, even with blood or death.

Therefore, I will be free and will not be captivated by anyone, neither by the prestige of a council, nor of a power, nor of the universities, nor of the pope, that I should not confidently confess what I have known to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or by a heretic, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council.

I will not be afraid even of the envy which will perhaps innocent me as a patron of the heretics, because

I know that truth has nothing to do with envy, as it is said in Wis 6:25: "And I will have nothing to do with poisonous envy, for such a man will not have wisdom. So what is it to me that lying envy accuses me? It is a praise to displease the wicked. I also dislike the heretics. But because nowadays the sophists do not deal with any accusation so foolishly as with that of a heretic, they bring about that almost only among the heretics the Catholic Church of Christ remains, among the heretics, I say, not who are, but who are called so by the frenzy of those.

And in this I will follow the decision of the jurists, so that it will not be thought that I alone, and presumptuously, do this. For it says Panormitanus de electione, Cap. Significasti, that one must believe a single (privato) believer more than a whole council or the pope, if he has a better ruling of Scripture or reason. If this is true, why should one not be allowed to make use of it? Why should I not dare to try whether I alone could not produce a better testimony than a council?

Therefore, let us look at the conciliarities. Is it not known to all that the church has sometimes condemned things and at the same time also the opposite, such as: "God does evil, God does not do evil"? Although I do not know whether it was the church that condemned this. For the church does not have the power to condemn an explicit statement of the holy scripture, which is also written in the text. For that "God does evil" is expressly stated in Isa. 45:7 and Amos 3:6 and in many other places. And this does not serve the purpose of saying that it is condemned because of the false mind of the heretics. For the words of Scripture need not be condemned because of the wrong mind of any man. For otherwise, because of the Arians, this word also would have to be condemned John 14:28: "The Father is greater than I", yes, the whole Scripture would have to be condemned, and it alone, because from none of the words of the Scriptures can be found.

824 D. V. a. Ill, 248-250. 36. Luther's Explanations on all Theses. W. XVIII, 870-872. 825

other source heresies have arisen. What could be more foolish than this? For far be it from this, that a godly and simple-minded Christian should have learned anything rightly in the holy Scriptures, which, if he came under certain judges of heresy, whose feet are hastening to shed blood, he himself should also be forced to condemn, because of the false reasoning of others who have been condemned. For in this way we would pave the way for the whole prestige of the Holy Scriptures to be overturned at once, and the most impious of blasphemers would rise up, saying that the Bible is the book of heretics, and that Christians must protect themselves with other books, namely those of the teachers.

So I also find two contradictory things in the Council of Constance: First, it was stated there that a council is above the pope, of which I judge that it is quite true. For St. Jerome also writes to Evagrius: "If the reputation is asked, the world is greater than Rome. Thus the whole Church is greater than the One Roman Church, and thus the Roman Church is not above the whole general Church, but on the contrary, the whole Church (and 'one Conciliar representing the same) is above the Roman, as well as above every other special Church. For even the whole is greater than its part, since the Roman Church is a part of the whole general Church.

If this is true, it is clear that the Council of Constance wrongly condemned this article of John Hus: "The pope does not stand above all churches by divine right. For if the Roman church and the pope are above all churches and above the council by divine right, then it was established against divine right (which is quite ungodly and heretical) that the pope and the Roman church are under the council and the whole church, because it is not in the hands of the church or of a council to break divine right, therefore it could neither depose nor appoint the pope. Or do you think that the bishop of Lyons would suffer to be either deposed or installed by the bishop of Mainz, if he knew that by divine right he was higher than the bishop of

Mainz, however much he would like to have deserved it? Yes, he would not have to suffer it either, if he did not want to be godless and a heretic. So also the Roman bishop cannot and must not suffer that he is ruled and determined by a council (statui), if he stands above the council and the church by divine right: for it is for him to rule, not to be ruled, who is the supreme by divine right.

And so it is evident that the Council of Constance either wrongly condemned the article of Hus, or that it decided and acted in an ungodly manner against divine right.

But in all this, see how the Holy Spirit is present in the Church: that which was established at the Council of Constance, that the Pope is below the Council and the Church, and confirmed by that of Basle, was now rejected at the last Council of Rome, and the whole Council of Basle was overturned, and it was established that the Pope is higher than a Council. What shall we say here? Inevitably, either the council at Rome or the council at Constance is heretical, if one may not deviate from the decisions of the councils.

Finally, the way is now broken for us to weaken the reputation of the conciliums and to contradict their actions freely and to judge their resolutions. For, as they say, if a council is convicted (deprehenditur) that it has erred in an article, its whole reputation immediately falls. Who, then, is so bold as to dare to accuse me of being a heretic, even if I should deny all the resolutions, both of the Roman council and of that of Constance, since I have this support and this excuse, that it is incumbent upon a council to prove its resolutions and to show that it has not erred, after it is established that it has sometimes erred and may err.

What then, do you think, do the decisions and condemnations of the conciliarities of our time, given in the place of the church (vicariae), help us, but that they make us uncertain (if we rely on them), where Christ, the church, a council, the Holy Spirit is to be looked for, and that everything is completely in the all-

826 v. a. iii, 250-252. v. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, pp72-87S. 827

greatest confusion (in primum cahos) is confused?

But I want to return to the one from Constance with which I am most attacked. I claim that his condemnation of the article of Hus: "The pope is not by divine right over all churches", is also ungodly because it is contrary to the Council of Nicaea and the one in Africa, also to the whole Oriental and African church, since only by the sixth Council of Chalcedon the supremacy (not by divine right, but by the church) was offered to the Roman bishops, but not even accepted by them in such a way, as St. Gregory writes. Gregory writes. For if the supremacy had taken place by divine right, then the Conciliar of Nicaea with the four following ones would be heretical, and all in the Church of the Orient would be heretics, heretics would also be the Roman bishops, because they rejected the proposed supremacy. Therefore, I do not want to yield anything to the reputation of the Council of Constance in this matter. For I will in no way suffer the greater part of the church to become heretical for the sake of the Council of Constance, which has erred, as is clearly evident. It is also not to be wondered at, since these things have been led mainly by the machinations (machina) of the heretical judges and their comrades.

There are also many other quite true articles of Hus condemned there, which I will refer to if the opponent tempts me: for I will clearly prove from the words of the Council itself that the opinion of John Hus was not that an evil pope, or one who lives in mortal sin, is not to be considered a pope, although the bloodthirsty heretic judges saw to it that many articles were imposed on him about this and condemned.

Nor do I care here that they proclaim me a patron of the Bohemians; I show the words of the council itself, which they boast against me, and follow the same: if these should be found to be false, what is it to me? But if they are true, why should I not follow them? It behooves me, as I have said, against

all clamor with words, titles, names and dignities to tell the truth and deny the false. For I believe that a Christian must act in this way. And I ask that if I do not please them under the name of a Christian, they may imagine and allow that I, for the time being, as a Turk or as some unbeliever, oppose my reasons and testimonies to them, so that they may at least thus see and realize with what effort they could maintain their faith, and how easy it is to say: "The Council has decided thus" and how difficult it is to maintain that just that was decided correctly (bene). I therefore say that this article was wrongly condemned at Constance: "Every action of man is either good or evil," and let it be answered whoever thinks he can defend that decision.

Firstly, the apostle says Rom. 8, 14: "Those who are moved by the Spirit of God are the children of God. Likewise v. 9: Whoever does not have Christ's spirit is not his. Here I ask, Whose is he that is not Christ's: is he not of the devil and of sin? But he who is the servant of sin does nothing but sin.

Secondly, the same Gal. 3, 10, says: All who deal with the works of the law are under the curse. See, here he says that the works of the law outside of grace are cursed, that is, not indifferent (neutra - neutral). And he says: "All who", not excluding anyone, and not making any middle position between curse and grace. It is not valid for them to say that the apostle is speaking here of the ceremonial law, that it was then fatal. For it is clear from what follows that he is speaking of all the works of the law, since he cites Moses, who says Deut. 27:26, "Cursed be he who does not abide in all that is written in the book of the law. After that he says Gal. 3, 13., Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. But Christ has not redeemed us from the ceremonial law, which was taken away after his death, but from every law, giving grace that it may be fulfilled. If therefore the works of the law are accursed without grace, how much more are none of the works of the law accursed without grace?

828 L- V. a. Ill, 2S2 f, 36. Luther's explanations of all theses. W. XVIII, S7S-S77. 829

other works indifferent (neutralia) or morally good!

Third, Matth. 12, 33: Either plant a good tree and the fruit will be good, or plant an evil tree and the fruit will be evil. Here Christ does not allow a middle position (medium) to be understood, as he also says there v. 30: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. So you see that one must either gather with Christ or scatter, either be with him or against him: but against him is only sin, also scatter only he who sins.

Fourth, John 15:6: He that abideth not in me is cast away as a branch, and withereth: and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they must burn. Behold, he that is without Christ withereth and perisheth, and thou sayest "neither" (neutrum), that he neither withereth nor is green, but is at times in a middle state?

Fifth, Romans 14:23: Whatever does not come from faith is sin, which is the rule of St. Augustine. But that they say that faith is taken for conscience, and that the apostle speaks of those who act against their conscience, even though St. Augustine rejects it: but so be it, the opinion still stands: He who does not have faith in Christ does not have a good conscience toward God, so either he does not believe, or he doubts whether he pleases God in his works. If he doubts, he sins against his conscience, because he does not firmly believe that he pleases God; therefore he does what he does not think is good, and in this way he always sins. But only faith firmly trusts that it pleases God, and through this faith it comes that we please God, because this faith in truth has a good opinion of God and it considers Him to be the true God, thinking good of Him, according to the words of Wis. 1:1: Have an opinion of the Lord that He is good. For it is impossible for a man to be blessed and to live rightly if he does not have the opinion of God that He is good toward him.

Sixthly (to pass over several things, so that I am not too prolix), I will mention the reason that St. Augustine used in the

especially against Julian in the 4th book, which Gregory of Arimini also repeats in the 2nd book, question 28. It is this: The virtues differ according to their final purpose [which they have, not according to the service which they render. For every virtue except grace seeks its own, it cannot seek what is God's, because it has no capacity for a work of love, of which with the praise due to it 1 Cor. 13, 5. is said: Love does not seek its own. Therefore, no virtue has God as its ultimate purpose, nor can it love God above all things and for God's sake, otherwise grace would not be necessary. And it is from this cause alone that all the good works of the Gentiles, or those that are done by nature (naturalia), are evil, because they do not have the end that they should have. This is what the apostle Rom. 3, 10. ff. says, in that he includes all men, both Jews and Gentiles, even though the former did as much as they could in righteousness and the latter in wisdom: There is no one who is righteous, there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who asks about God: they have all gone astray and have all become unfit. Behold, no one inquires after God, and all depart; none understands God, much less should he have Him in his work for his end. Therefore he concludes confidently and says Gal. 3, 2.: God has decided all under sin. Behold, he excepteth none: "all under sin," which also David saith Ps. 116, 11., All men are liars. But what truth should a liar speak? What pure thing should come from the unclean? says the wise man. Sir. 34, 4.

But that it is said, "Did not Caiphas prophesy the truth? [Did not, as Matth. 7, 22. says, many prophesy in the name of Christ and do many deeds?" I answer, they have spoken the truth, but not in a true way; they have done good, but not in a right way. For who is not convinced that a harlot has as good gold on her as a chaste, respectable woman, and that she also has such beautiful limbs? but she does not wear and use this so well. In the same way, those good works of wisdom, the

830 . V. L. m, 2S3-2SS. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 877-879. 831

Deeds 1) of gifts, since they are undeserved gifts of God, very good, but because they are not directed to the final purpose they should have, they do good, but not in a good way. Therefore, out of the good gifts of God come evil works, through our fault. Therefore Christ will say to them Matth. 7, 23.: Depart from me, all you evildoers. How could those be evildoers who have done such great good works, if they had not used the good in an evil way, even though they have benefited others through the evil use?

Seventh: If the just in grace cannot do good without sinning at the same time, how much more does the unjust do no good! and from this I conclude that every action of man is either good or evil, and that there is no intermediate (medium) and indifferent (neutrum) action. The antecedent 2) will be clearly proved by the following 2nd thesis.

Therefore, I now return to the matter at hand, namely to the thesis: Every Christian repents daily because he sins daily, not by committing gross offenses, but by not fulfilling the commandments of God. And to prove this, the saying of John 15, 1. ff. would suffice, which is set in the thesis that the heavenly vinedresser also cleanses the fruit-bearing branches daily. If they need cleansing, they are unclean: if unclean, they are sinners: if sinners, they need repentance. Therefore, the word of Christ belongs to them: Repent.

Secondly, the word of the same John in the first epistle Cap. 1, 8.: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. St. Augustine cites this saying in many places, and lays stress on the word: "we have," in the present time, that it does not mean: "we have had," but: "we have." Therefore, we sin daily, and daily we sweep out sin (purgamus): so we do penance, if you do not want to say that penance is not purification.

  1. virtuturn must be translated here as "deeds" because of the relation to Matth. 7, 22.
  2. Namely, that even the righteous in grace cannot do good without sinning.

of sins, contrary to the opinion of all who place repentance, which cancels guilt, as the most important part of penance. Finally, St. Augustine, based on this word of John, dares to say in the book "Of Nature and Grace": "If all the saints, gathered together in a heap, were asked whether they had sin, what else would they say," he says, "but: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"? But no sin is taken away without repentance.

Third, the word Ps. 32:6: For this shall all the saints pray thee in due time. Behold, every saint prays for the iniquity of his sin: but this, of course, is repentance; and it cannot be said that he prays for past sin, or for the punishment of past sin, but for the present. For, to show this, he added: "the iniquity of my sin," for this he will pray, namely, not for sin, by which also punishment is sometimes signified, but for the iniquity of sin, which is a guilt. For it is prayed for that which is to be forgiven, for that which is forgiven we give thanks.

Fourth, the word 1 Tim. 1, 15: Jesus Christ came to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost. He does not say: "I have been", but: "I am a sinner", according to the words Rom. 7, 18. f.: "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. The evil that I do not want, that I do. And v. 14: But I am carnal, sold under sin. Gal. 5, 17: The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. But to lust against the Spirit is sin, because it is forbidden by the commandment of God, "Do not lust." Therefore, this sin is quite actually sin and to be eradicated by repentance, as Rom. 6:6 teaches that the sinful body is to be destroyed and not to obey the desires of the flesh. But the desires of the flesh are sins and against the divine law, therefore repentance is necessary for them.

Fifth, Luc. 13:2 ff: Do you think that they were guilty before all the people who live in Jerusalem? No, I say

'832 V. a. Ill, 285-257. 36. Luther's explanations of sämmtl. theses. W. XVIII, 879-882. 833

He says to you, "If you do not repent, you will all perish. Behold, he imposes repentance on all. So Lucä at the last [24, 47.): Repentance and forgiveness of sins had to be preached in his name among all nations. Behold, the whole Gospel is nothing but a preaching of repentance: so the evangelical life is nothing but a repentance. Therefore Bernhard rightly says: "He who does not hasten to repentance shows by deed that he has no need of repentance, as if it were by far the most inconsistent thing that someone could exist who had no need of repentance.

Sixth, the whole Church, as Augustine testifies, to the end of the world, prays, "Forgive us our debts." But this is a word of repentance, so that Christ says Matt. 6:12, 15., "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses": he speaks to the apostles, holy children of God, and where are their trespasses? They are venial, but they would be mortal sins if they were not forgiven. There are, of course, certain people who talk that this prayer is prayed for the punishment of sins; one must beware of them as forgers of the word of God. For what will they say to the prayer: "Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done"? This also the most holy pray: but by praying they confess that they have not yet sanctified the name of GOD, that in them is not yet the kingdom of GOD nor His righteousness, but by this prayer they seek the kingdom of GOD and His righteousness, they confess that they have not yet done the will of GOD. But all these are debts that make us guilty (debita culpae), and sins against the law of God, who wants His name to be holy, to reign in us, that His will be done among us. And it is not to be believed that prayer is only for appearance: hence it follows that all pray truly and confess in truth that they lack this. And so it is clear that the prayer of the Lord alone teaches us, first, that we are sinners all our days and always sin; second, that the whole of life is a repentance and a prayer and a contrition.

From this follows further: against the decision of the Council of Constance that every action of man is evil apart from grace, since even the action of the righteous in grace is not good and also does not fulfill the commandment of God.

Finally, so many of the apostle Paul's exhortations urge us to put to death the members that are on earth, Col. 3, 5, and the works of the flesh, Rom. 8, 13, and to renew them through the renewing of the mind, Rom. 12, 2, and to wait for the body so that it does not become lustful, Rom. 13, 14, and to crucify the flesh with its lusts and desires, Gal. 5, 24. 13, 14; that we should crucify the flesh along with the lusts and desires, Gal. 5, 24. All of this is aimed at (as is clear) the need for constant repentance, because the sin of tinder (i.e. original sin) is constantly stirring and brings forth new desires, like the cursed earth thorns and thistles, Gen. 3, 18.

Other in the explanations (resolutorio) of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd thesis and 1) thesis. But I do not yet see that the opinion of this thesis is refuted: for even at Leipzig it has not been touched with a syllable. If you yourself want to deny their opinion, then it is necessary that you deny almost all the books of St. Augustine, which he published against the Pelagians, since he moves completely in all things in this opinion. It follows, then, that this is not a new opinion, as Eck slandered, but Eck's thesis, which opposes it, is a new and old error, which belongs to the heresy of the Pelagians; nor does a concilium have anything to set up against it, if it does not want to err, as it has often done.

2nd thesis.

To deny that man sins even in the good, and that a venial sin is such, not by its nature, but only through God's mercy, or that sin remains in a child even after baptism, is to trample Paul and Christ underfoot at the same time.

  1. Here, the more detailed designation of the thesis is missing (Weim. edition). - The explanations to which Luther refers here and below in the 11th thesis are the explanations of his Disputation von der Kraft des Ablasses; in this volume Col. 100 ff.

834 L. V. L. m, 257-2S9. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVM, 882-884. 835

This thesis conceives three things in itself: that sin is in a good work; then, that sin is not venial by its nature, but by the mercy of God, and that sin remains after baptism.

The first is presented like this:

Isaiah 64:6: But now we are all like the unclean, and all our righteousness is like an unclean garment. This single saying alone should stop the mouth and the gullet of all opponents, since it is quite clear that we are all unclean, and not only our unrighteousness, but also our righteousness is unclean before God.

But I know what they tend to oppose here, namely that the prophet speaks of our righteousness, which is from the law, which also the apostle condemns. St. Jerome also seems to lean toward this opinion. But the words of the prophet are clear: for he speaks in his own person and that of all the believing people, who were not justified by the righteousness of the law, but by grace, since they also ate the same food and had the same spirit of faith, as the apostle says 1 Cor. 10:3. For the righteousness of the law does not make a confession before God in humility: it does not accuse itself from the beginning, but puffed up it excuses itself and justifies itself, therefore it is by justifying grace alone that one says and confesses that one is impure and ungodly. Secondly, he does not say, "our righteousness" or "we," but "we all," and "all our righteousness": he excludes no one, and claims of no righteousness that it is pure. So this cannot be drawn to some who have not been justified by grace, nor to the legal alone, but to all and to all their righteousness. But it is certain that there were some among them who were justified by a better righteousness than the legal righteousness, and that at that time also there was at the same time a righteousness other than the legal righteousness, and yet he says that all are impure and all righteousness is defiled. Therefore this saying prevails, and the words thus revealed enforce that the declaration of any one, whoever he may be, must give way to their fully revealed sense.

But also that is said according to a bad way of understanding that the legal justice was impure in comparison to the evangelical justice, because in any case the ceremonial law was good and ordered by God. Therefore, the righteousness of it was by no means impure in itself, since at that time they were forced to keep it no less than the holy Ten Commandments. Therefore, those who speak of the righteousness of the Law as impure look only to the time of the Gospel, in which it is abolished, not because it is impure, but because it gave foolish people confidence against the grace of GOD, as the apostle teaches in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans. Therefore, as the ceremonial righteousness was good and right, and yet impure, so also their righteousness from the holy ten commandments was impure, however good it might be: for the prophet speaks for his time, in which the righteousness of the law was not yet abolished. Otherwise one would have to say that God had commanded them. To keep unclean things, which is abominable. So the word stands firm: "all our righteousness is unclean" and: "we are all unclean."

Secondly, 1) the word of Ecclesiastes 7:21: There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin. But this word also tends to be circumvented in such a way that the righteous sometimes does good and sometimes sins. But this cannot stand; for if ev had intended this, it would have been enough to say, "There is none righteous who does not sin." For what superfluous words should he have used, as if anyone could be a righteous man who acts in an evil way? For only the righteous doeth good, and of the doing of good he is called a righteous man: therefore, to indicate the defect, he adds, "who doeth good, and sinneth not." For when he speaks of works that are not good works (benefacta), he speaks thus Prov. 24:16., A righteous man falls seven times in the day, and rises again as often. Here he does not add, "A righteous man who does good."

Thirdly, 1) the passage Rom. 7:19: The evil that I do not want, that I do; the evil that I do not want, that I do.

  1. Cf. Col. 43 and 58 in this volume.
  2. Cf. above Col. 58.

836 V- a. Ill, 25 p. f. 36 Luther's Explanations of the Complete Theses. W. XVIII, 884-886. 837

The good that I want, I do not do. And further on [v. 22.For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, which is contrary to the law in my mind. 2c Here let us pay attention to the apostle: Reason and also the reputation of both the church and a council must give way to this, because here that is taught, the opposite of which I could not believe, even if an angel from heaven taught it. No one will be able to overcome this passage of the apostle, nor to evade it. First of all, one and the same man, Paul, the holy apostle, full of grace, has here at the same time pleasure in the law of God and at the same time he resists the law of God, at the same time he wants the good according to the spirit, but he does not do it according to the flesh, but the opposite: thus he sins while he does good. For to go against the law of God, who could dare to understand by it anything else than sinning? Not doing good, is that not against the law of God? But while he wants this good, he does not do this good, but the opposite evil. Since he is therefore never without reluctance, he never does good without an affliction, so he never completely fulfills the law of God. Therefore, that I say so, that unwillingness (noluntas 1) of the law of God is always in the flesh when the willing of the law of God is there; by this he does good, by that evil. The not willing is of the flesh, the willing of the spirit: therefore we ask that God's will be done on earth (in the flesh) as it is done in heaven (that is, in the spirit). In the same way he says [Rom. 7, 18.: I have willing, but I do not find doing. This is also what the scholastics say, that man is not inclined (difficilis) to good, but inclined to evil, and yet they dare to say that in a good work there is no sin, as if the inclination, which hinders a joyful and free love of the law, does not stand in the way of the law of God being done enough, which is only fulfilled by pure and free love. Ps. 1, 2: In the law of the Lord is His pleasure (voluntas), and 1 Tim.

  1. Cf. above Col. 59.

1, 5.: The main urüma (finis) of the law is love. Thus the 45th Psalm v. 8 says: You love righteousness and hate ungodliness. Therefore Paul concludes Rom. 7, 25: "So then I serve the law of God with my mind, but the law of sin with my flesh. What can be said more clearly: "The same servant serves with the same servitude the law of God and the law of sin"? Do you still deny that it is sin to serve the law of sin? With the same insolence (fronte) you also want to deny that it is something good to serve the law of God. Therefore, every good work of every man in this life is tainted with sin (vitiosum) because of the bondage of sin by which he is held captive in the flesh, so that he always remains a debtor to the law of God and a sinner, and is only blessed in the one thing that he exclaims with the apostle [Rom. 7:24, "I wretched man, who will deliver me from the body of this death? 2)

Fifthly. 3) The same opinion of the same apostle is found in Gal. 5, 17: The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. These are contrary to one another, that ye do not do the things that ye would. Is Paul not clear enough here either? To lust against the Spirit is sin and against the law of God. But these two things remain as long as the flesh remains: so they do not do what they want. They want to keep the law of God, so that they may not desire anything against the law of God, but they do not do so, nor do they fulfill this desire: therefore they remain sinners and do not do a work in which there does not remain a guilt or a lack in relation to the law.

But against this they lie down and say: "this lack is not actually sin, therefore one must keep the way of speaking and talk like most. I answer: "Your way is corrupt, because it is not

  1. In the Vulgate: äs corpore niortis üujus. In all Latin editions at our disposal, also in the Weimar: äs morts sorporls ünjns.
  2. Fourth in the complete editions. In the single editions no fourth precedes. This seems to be included in the third, where two proofs are given. (If. Edition.)

838 L. v. a. in, 260-262. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xviii, 886-889. . 839

Paul says that he is serving the law of sin and acting against the law. Paul says that he serves the law of sin and acts against the law. But nothing can be called sin in a more proper way than that which is against the law and serves the law of sin. So continue with your abusive way of speaking. But about this further down with the venial sin.

Therefore, 1) there is so much sin as unwillingness, aversion, reluctance, and so much merit as willingness, freedom, happiness. These two things are mixed together in our whole life and work. For we are not without the flesh, nor do we work without it. But whatever the flesh is, such it works. Since it is completely non-will (noluntas), there is already mortal sin and turning away [from God (aversio). But a complete will is not in this life: therefore we always sin while doing good, although sometimes less, sometimes more, depending on the flesh being more or less impetuous with its impure desires. This, then, is the reason why there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin; but there is such a righteous man only in heaven. But since man is not without this unwillingness, nor does he work without it, he cannot for that reason be without sin in a good work. For how can he work without it, since he cannot live and be without it? Therefore, the righteous man is like a rust-eaten tool that God has undertaken to smooth, which cuts badly as long as it is rusty, until it is perfectly smoothed.

Sixth. Here belongs the parable (Luc. 10, 30. ff.) of the Samaritan, who poured oil and wine into the wounds of a half-dead man and bandaged his wounds, but did he heal him immediately? No, but he ordered the innkeeper to take care of him until he came back. Therefore, the church is the inn where we are healed of sins daily after receiving the grace of baptism. And our works are such as are done by those who are full of grace.

  1. Cf. Col. 59 above.

who are beginning to get well, but are not yet recovered; therefore it is evident that they must be partly sick, partly well, but very different from those who do perfectly well. Therefore Christ, Matth. 7, 11, calls the apostles simply "bad", iudem he speaks: So then you, who are bad, can give good gifts to your children. But if they are bad, then the saying of the same Lord will stand firm Matth. 7, 18.: A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit, and only insofar do they bring forth good fruit as they are a good tree, and vice versa. But that this understanding or custom of speaking has been lost among the theologians, this is the cause that they have let go of the holy Scriptures and have begun to speak of these divine things in a human (that is, in an easier, as they think) way, and so they have gradually lost also the sense of the Scriptures, whose words they let go at the same time, as it were, as vessels, so that, knowing that in baptism all sins were forgiven, they immediately concluded that there was no sin left, and therefore called the tinder not a sin but a weakness, contrary to the express text of the apostle, since sin is forgiven there, not that it is not there, but that it is not imputed, as St. Augustine says. So in all truth sin is there, only that it is not imputed, because it has been begun to be cast out. Therefore, the imputation is taken away, but the sin itself remains until it is also expelled. We are in a phase, that is, in a transition, from sin to grace. Now, if you would cease to cast it out and consider it a non-sin, you are already no longer keeping the covenant of baptism, and the imputation of it comes again: for you have made the covenant to fight sin, and to wrestle against the devil and all his nature (pompis). If you understand this about the sins that are outside of you, and consider your sin that is within you to be no sin, then you neither understand the sacrament of baptism rightly, nor do you accept it. Therefore, the sin of tinder original sin is not different from any gross sin.

840 D. V. a. Ill, 262-264. 36 Luther's Explanations of the Complete Theses. W. XVIII, 889-891. 841

Offense after or before baptism, since it is equally against the Law of GOD as any other sin, except that it is not imputed.

Therefore, others may see for themselves what they have learned in scholastic theology. I know and confess that I have learned nothing but ignorance about sin, righteousness, baptism and the whole Christian life, nor about the power of God, the work of God, the grace of God, the righteousness of God, faith, hope and love. In short, I have not only learned nothing (which would still have to be suffered), but I have only learned such things that I have had to unlearn again, because they were completely contrary to the holy Scriptures. But I wonder if others should have learned in a more profitable way (foelicius). If there are some such, I sincerely wish them happiness. I had lost Christ there, now I have found him again in Paulo. .

Seventh, the parable of Matth. 13, 33. belongs to it: The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour, until it was completely leavened. The measure (satum) is a kind of Hebrew measure, which, as Jerome indicates, contains one and a half bushels. But what the three measures of flour are, now is not the place to say. Now it is enough that we human beings are the flour, the leaven is the hidden Christ, the grace given to us in the spirit of faith. But just as the leaven does not suddenly leaven the whole dough, so the grace poured in is not immediately spread through the whole body, but gradually leavening the whole man and making him like himself. Therefore, sin is left there, but because it has begun to be expelled, it is not imputed to the one who expels it. For this is that in baptism all sins are forgiven, namely, that they are not imputed, but not entirely removed. It is therefore a human error and a human sin that sin is taken away according to its essence (quoad formale): but the essence they call the deprivation of grace, the basic substance (materiale) the tinder.

itself or the nature (habitum). Only the imputation is taken away: the essence, however, remains as far as the basic substance remains, that is, the deprivation of grace is there as great as the remaining evil lust. For love must take the place of evil desire, which is not where evil desire is. The cause of the error is that they place only the soul and its nobler part as that with which grace has to do (subjectum gratiae); furthermore, that they distinguish flesh and spirit according to reason (metaphysice), as it were, as two self-existent things (substantias), while the whole man is spirit and flesh, only so far spirit as he loves the law of God, so far flesh as he hates the law of God. Thus health and sickness are next to each other in the same body or in the same place of the flesh. For this reason, as Solomon says Prov. 20, 9., no one can boast that he is pure in heart, because the flesh, which is the inclination of the flesh and evil desire, which 1 Cor. 5, 8. is the old leaven of wickedness, corrupts the whole man. According to Gen. 6, 3. my spirit shall not abide in man because he is flesh, he says, not: because he has flesh, because by the whole inclination of his heart he lives and weaves (carnem sapit) only in the flesh. Therefore, the new leaven, that is, love, is again mixed with this old leaven, so that he throws it out of the whole man, first from the heart, then from the whole body and all the members.

Eighth, that very strong testimony in Psalm 143, 2.: Do not go into judgment with your servant, because before you no living person is just. Here I ask whether that righteous one, whom they invent, since he has already been in the most "beautiful" merit, is to be counted among those who live, since the Psalm has spoken in general: "not a living one"? If he is counted among them, he will not be just before the judgment seat of God, as it says here. Why this? If he is without sin in a good work, he cannot be condemned by God, who is righteousness itself, who loves nothing more than righteousness, and it is not to be feared that the righteous judge will not condemn righteousness.

842 L. V. L. Ill, 264 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 891-893. 843

condemn. But if he is condemned, he is already not without sin and is found to have acted against the law of God. For only he is condemned who has not done enough for the law of God.

If, then, he who is a servant of God is not found righteous in the judgment of God, not even one of the living, among whom some must necessarily be very holy, if we believe that the holy church, the congregation of the saints, lives on earth, who nevertheless fulfill the law, what? do you think this is a frenzy among those who are so nonsensical as to claim that without grace and outside the church the law can be fulfilled by natural forces, according to the whole essence of the deed (quo ad totam substantiam facti), though not according to the intention of the governor?

Moreover, returning to the article of Hus, who was condemned at Constance, how great an error it is to say that there is an indifferent (neutrum) action that is not evil, since the action of the righteous cannot be justified before God! To them the word of Jeremiah 49, 12. can rightly be said: Behold, those who were not guilty of drinking the cup must drink; and thou shalt remain unpunished? Thou shalt not go unpunished. And 1 Pet. 4, 18.: If the righteous is hardly preserved, where will the sinner and the ungodly appear? And see what monstrosities follow from this. To the ungodly outside grace they ascribe not even a venial sin in his good works, but the same is only not meritorious: while here sin is so imputed to the righteous in a good work, that if he were brought before God's judgment, he could not be declared righteous (that is, a mortal and damnable sin); how much more, then, are the good works of the ungodly damnable and mortal sins, by no means indifferent (neutralia,) or mediocre (media,). And still they boast that scholastic theology is not contrary to sacred theology, although in this way the position of a sinner would be better than that of the righteous, since the latter did not sin in that in which the righteous sins.

Let us now see where the sayings of the holy fathers flow from.

Augustin in the 9th book of the Confessions says: Woe to the life of men, however praiseworthy it may be, if it should be judged with mercy set aside! What follows from this, I pray you? Is it not this, that every sin is by its very nature a mortal sin, but by the mercy of God alone is it venial? And this, of course, is no wonder, because all sin is against the law of God. But to be against the law of God is already the most serious offense, as much as there is in it. For that which is in any way contrary to the law of God must be constantly separated from God, since nothing impure will enter the kingdom of heaven Revelation 21:27. Furthermore, since not a jot will pass from the law that does not have to Matth. 5, 18., it is necessary that not even venial sin may remain. For Ps. 12, 7 the speech of the Lord is pure as silver tried by fire, which is purified seven times. Man must also be as pure, otherwise he will not be saved, because not one tittle will melt.

Therefore, it is again a serious error of the theologians who do not care at all about a venial sin and prate that a venial sin does not offend God or offends only in a venial way. If it is such a minor offense, why is the righteous hardly blessed? Why does the righteous not endure the judgment of GOD and cannot be declared righteous? Why are we compelled to pray so earnestly, and in no more casual or improper way: "Forgive us our trespasses", and: "Thy will be done, Thy kingdom come, hallowed be Thy name"? Is it not clear that these wretched theologians (theologistas) first extinguish the fear of God in men, and then put pillows and pads under their arms and heads, as Ezekiel 13:18. says, and remit prayer from them and dampen the spirit? It is not a matter of little importance (they may say what they will) if one deviates from God's law and will even a hair's breadth, nor is the divine mercy something small,

844 V- a. Ill, 265^267. 36. Luther's Explanations of the Complete Theses. W. XVIII, 89S-896. 845

which forgives venial sin. Thus, they consider the law and the will and the mercy of God to be something almost useless, so that prayer cannot be fervent and the gratitude of the righteous cannot be kindled. Let us therefore be on our guard against this Pharisaic leaven.

This, however, sufficiently demonstrates that Eck's second thesis is both erroneous and ungodly, since he denies that the righteous sins in every good work, or that the righteous sins mortally (looking to divine judgment), or that sin remains in a baptized person. For this he drew from human dreams, having neither read nor understood in the holy Scriptures what sin is, or what a good work is.

Again Augustin says in the 1st book of his Retractations, Cap. 19, in answer to the question whether all the commandments of God had been fulfilled by the apostles: All the commandments are fulfilled when that which has not been fulfilled is forgiven, for among these commandments is also that which the whole Church prays to the ends of the earth: "Forgive us our trespasses." You see that the commandments are not fulfilled by men with their deeds, but by God through His forgiveness. But what is forgiven in the works of the commandments but sin? But this is not a small pardon, which the divine majesty bestows. Therefore, they may refrain from belittling venial sin, for the remission of which not a man, not an angel, but the mercy of the eternal Majesty is necessary. Then it is not a small commandment that the same Majesty has commanded to pray, as Augustine says here, "Forgive us our trespasses." The divine majesty esteems venial sin so highly that, in order to eradicate it, she gives the commandment to implore her mercy, and a man wants to imagine that he is safe in this sin? Woe to the man through whom trouble comes!

Again, the same Augustine, in the 29th Letter to St. Jerome, speaking of the virtues, says: "And to summarize generally and briefly what concept I have of virtue, as far as the right way of living is concerned, virtue is love,

with which that which must be loved is loved. This is greater with some, with others less, with some not at all. But a complete love, which could not be increased as long as man lives here, is with no one. But as long as it can be increased, that which is less than it should be comes from a debt (ex vitio). From this indebtedness it comes Eccl. 7, 21. that there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin from this indebtedness Ps. 143, 2., -that before God no living man is righteous'; from this indebtedness that 1 Jn. 1, 8. 'if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves'; of this indebtedness, that even when we have gone so far, we must necessarily still say, 'Forgive us our trespasses,' although everything we have said, done, thought, has already been forgiven in baptism."

Does not this very clear statement of the most famous father confirm everything that has been said before, that he makes the evil desire that naturally remains from lack of love the cause of sin in every good work?

Since St. Jerome in the 2nd book against the Pelagians interprets the saying Psalm 32, 5: I said: "I will confess my unrighteousness against me", then you forgive me the iniquity of my sin. For this all the saints will ask you in due time. If he is holy, he says, how can he ask for iniquity? If he has iniquity, on what ground can he be called a saint? Finally he concludes, citing very many testimonies of Scripture, especially Job: "Behold our Job, who is blameless, about whom no complaint can be made, who abstains from all evil, with which end of righteousness he is crowned - that he needs the mercy of God.

The same in the first book: Then we are righteous, if we confess ourselves as sinners and our righteousness is not based on our own, but on God's mercy. Therefore, it is up to God's mercy and forgiveness, not up to man's willing and running.

Let us add the Gregory in his moral doctrine.

846 n V. a. m, 267-269. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 896-898. 847

First, about the saying, Job 9, 2: A man may not justifiably stand against God. He says: The holy man, because he sees that all the merit of our virtue is debt, if it should be judged strictly by a judgment that penetrates into the interior (ab interno arbitrio), so he adds correctly for the sake of it: If he has a desire to quarrel with him, he cannot answer him one for a thousand.

Secondly, the same about the word Job 9,12.: If he suddenly asks, who will answer him? For, he says, if judgment is passed without compassion, then in the inquiry the life of the righteous must also perish.

Thirdly, the same passage Job 9:15: "If I had anything righteous, I would not answer, but would stand before my judge: for, as we have often said, all human righteousness is shown to be unrighteousness when it is strictly judged, and therefore requires the asking after (post) righteousness, that, since it might have fallen down if it had been judged, it may stand by the mercy of the judge alone.

Fourth, the same v. 28.: I feared for all my works, because I know that you do not spare the one who is guilty of something. Behold, the holy man fears in all his works which are not evil (for such evil did not the holy man do, as the Lord testifies of him at the beginning of the book Job 1:8.), and perceives that he is in debt and has done too little. There Gregory says: what I have done openly I see, but what I have done inwardly, secretly, I do not know.

Fifth, ibid. Mob 9, 30. f.]: Though my hands shine as purely as they may, yet thou wilt dip me in dung 2c Gregory: For as long as we have the punishment of corruption upon us, we by no means attain true purity even by the very best works, but only imitate it. And further on: although I practice right works through effort, I still see in your knowledge that I am not pure. And at the end of the moral teaching: Where is there still room for blessedness under these circumstances, since our evil is purely evil as well as our good,

that we think we have can by no means be something purely good?

So you see that every good work is partly evil, even in such great men, yes, what is even more and something wonderful, how can both be true that Job confesses that he is a sinner, the whole book, since God praises him in the beginning Cap. 1, 8. exceedingly gloriously and declares him righteous? For God does not lie, nor does Job, since God, who cannot lie, undoubtedly praises him for his truthfulness. Job, then, is in all truth a sinner, as he confesses in truth; but he is also in all truth a righteous man, as God praises him: how can this be otherwise consistent than that he was indeed a sinner, a righteous man abev solely through the forgiving mercy of God?

But here some say, "True, no one is righteous when he is brought before God's judgment": "yes," they say, "in such a way even the angels are not righteous." I answer: this last is blasphemy, because GOD is wonderful in the blessed (Beatis) (as the apostle says) 2 Thess. 1, 10., and their righteousness is not to be measured according to the measure of our righteousness. For they are completely and purely righteous, even according to God's. But we, being born in sins and having put on sin as our nature, are not without sin until we become like the angels.

But the first proves for me, because that is why I said that no sin is venial by nature, but all are damnable, but that they are venial is due to God's grace, which is to be greatly respected. Therefore, so that the mercy of the divine majesty is not disregarded, it is necessary to make venial sins very great.

Let us also add the reason of what has been said.

It is necessary that this commandment be fulfilled Matth. 12, 30: "You shall love God, your Lord, with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength", so that not even the smallest letter or bag may fall apart. But since we have proved from the apostle, Rom. 7, 23, that sin and evil desire in the members are contrary to the law of GOD, we have to be careful not to let them get in the way of the law of GOD.

848 V- a. in, 269-271, 36. Luther's explanations of all theses. W. LVIII, 898-900. 849

it is clear that no one can love neither with all his heart, nor with all his soul, nor with all his strength. For where there is evil desire in the heart, in the soul, in the powers, not all the heart, not all the soul, not all the powers love, and they sin for the sake of it insofar as there is evil desire or sin left there, and so by this commandment God keeps all under sin, so that he may have mercy on all. Rom. 11, 32.

But here they have invented a gloss (interpretation) which is probably the most pernicious of all that have arisen in a thousand years, namely, that God does not require the perfect fulfillment of this and similar laws, although Christ Matth. 5, 18. clearly says that not the smallest letter nor one tittle shall perish from the law. Therefore it is to be feared that these teachers belong to those whom Christ describes by saying: "Whoever therefore shall destroy one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven Matth. 5, 19. So it is not necessary to say, "God does not require a perfect commandment" (for that is changing God's commandment), but rather, "He forgives what we do less." But He does not forgive those who snore, but those who are active, who fear and speak with Job Cap. 9, 28.: "I feared for all my works, because I know that You do not spare the one who is guilty of something." But they teach that he spares him who is guilty, saying, "He does not ask for it." Beware, therefore, lest you think that the whole commandment is not required of you, lest you fail to see how much you owe to God, and thereby become proud and lukewarm, and disgust yourself before his mercy, to which he has tried to urge you most strongly by a commandment impossible to you.

Finally, I reintroduce the Lord's prayer, which alone informs the soul more and better about free will, grace and sin, than all the books of the newer theologians and the quibbles of the disputations.

Whoever prays "Hallowed be your name" is undoubtedly asking for what he does not want.

because one must not play with fictitious words before God. If he does not, then he is a desecrator of the name of God. But do we consider it a small thing not to sanctify the name of God, but to desecrate it?

Likewise, whoever prays that God's kingdom come, which is righteousness and peace and is within us, as Christ Luc. 17:21 and Paul Rom. 14:17 teach, does he not confess that he is unrighteous and in need of righteousness? But only righteous and holy children of God pray such things.

So, whoever says, "Thy will be done," is he not confessing that he is rebellious against God? Or is it not a sin if the will of God is not done? Where is the free will now? Or does he not despair of himself here, flees to grace alone, only commits sin and confesses that the commandments of God are impossible for him? Where is the "doing as much as is in him" here, since the righteous pray and confess in so many ways that they are sinners? So this prayer is on everyone's lips, and yet the theologians, through so much effort and questioning, have not yet found out what free will, sin and grace are, what they do or are able to do. I have therefore rightly said that man must be suspicious of his works and, as it were, like a gout-ridden man, paralyzed in hands and feet, he must stand by the grace that produces works, although Eck has condemned this opinion with his appendages, as an exceptional proof of his ignorance.

^1^) Therefore away with these posts and human proofs which say, "One and the same action cannot be accepted by GOD and unaccepted, because otherwise it would be good and at the same time not good." For this I adduce from the sophisms of Scotus, that I may show how far they are from the truth, while they begin to measure these divine things according to miserable human reasons. For if they were not ignorant of the truth of Scripture, they would not say so. And if they were to accept the doctrine of grace, sin and free will, they would not say this.

  1. Cf. Col. 62 in this volume for the following explanation.

850 v- a- iii, 271-273. v. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvlii, 900-903. 851

If they understood their will correctly, they would not consider such quibbles to be good reasons.

I say accordingly: The same action is accepted and not unaccepted. But that it is not unaccepted (for I must use their words) is not due to the good nature of the act, but to the divine pardon: if it were not for this, none would be accepted. Therefore it is sufficiently clear that they do not know the divine mercy, and therefore they do not know Christ's, since they find a good work worthy of acceptance without the pardoning mercy.

Again they would like to say: "Why then is it said 1 John 5, 1. sund Cap. 3, 9.]: He who is born of GOD does not sin?" I answer: It is impossible that any child of God could sin. But still it exists that he sins, but because he is forgiven, therefore he does not sin, even if he truly sins, unless Paul was not born of God, since he says in Romans 7:25 that he serves the law of sin, or that even John lied against himself, since he says 1 John 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. There follows the explanation and union of the two opposing expressions as I have given it 1 John 1:9: But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. To those who so confess, he forgives and makes sinners not sinners, but to those who deny, he retains the sins and makes the righteous not righteous. Therefore, this is the description of a righteous man in this life: the righteous man first accuses himself. Therefore, Christian righteousness is an indictment of oneself. As soon as the self-accusation falls away, righteousness also immediately gives way. These confessors are led by Christ in his triumphal procession, "JEsus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews", that is, the confessor. This is the good and sweet word, which the apostle 1 Tim. 1,15. makes sound in the most pleasing way: "This is certainly true and a precious word, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost.

Therefore, my second thesis stands firm, and it is clear how sin remains after baptism, and is mortal sin in every good work (if mercy does not help), and that no sin is venial by its nature. Therefore, it is again affirmed that the actions of the ungodly are much more purely evil, and thus every action is either good or evil, contrary to the decision of the Council of Constance, that is, of the Thomists, who obviously had the upper hand there.

From this it is also concluded that the free will is purely suffering in all its doing, which is called willing, and that the distinction of the sophists is babbled in vain, that a good action is entirely of grace, but not totally (totaliter). It is, in fact, wholly and completely from God, because the will is only carried away, drawn and moved by grace. This pull, which flows over the limbs and powers, both of the body and of the soul, is its activity and no other, just as the pull of a saw that cuts wood is something purely suffering that befalls it from the sawyer, nor does it contribute anything to its pull, but nevertheless, since it is pulled, it acts on the wood, more driven than propelling. This sawing is called by (cum) the sawyer her work, although she is purely suffering. But about this more extensively in his time.

3rd thesis.

Whoever claims that a good work or repentance starts from the abhorrence of sins before the love of righteousness and that there is no sin in it, we count him among the Pelagian heretics, but we prove that he is also nonsensical against his holy Aristotle.

This thesis is firmly proved from the foregoing. For if it is true that no good work can take place before grace, that not even a purely good work takes place in grace, but repentance is naturally a good work, then it is necessary that this should begin with the grace that precedes it. For we are speaking of salutary repentance, not of the repentance of Judas or of the damned. It is therefore

852 L. v. ". in, 273 pp. 36. Luther's explanations of all theses. W. xvni, 903-905. 853

It is explicitly a Pelagian heresy to say that repentance precedes the love of justice. The love of justice, however, is a grace of God, not nature. But in order to show more clearly the ungodliness of Eck's thesis, let us elaborate a little further on the matter.

I have taught in the Explanations 1) and in the Sermon on Repentance 2) that the remembrance of sins before the love of justice is not beneficial to anyone, but harmful; therefore, care must first be taken to love justice: only then, out of love for justice, can sins be detested. Eck called this doctrine "modesty" 3) not heretical, but claimed that it was contrary to the Gospel and the Holy Fathers. Therefore, with a splendid title, which he placed in front of his theses, he announced (with the same modesty) that he would dispute "against the new doctrine".

Let us look at the apostle Paul who says Rom. 4, 15: "The law only causes wrath, for where the law is not, there is no transgression. And Rom. 5, 20: "The law came in next to it so that sin would become more powerful. And Gal. 3, 19: The law was given for the sake of transgressions. And 1 Cor. 15, 56: The power of sin is the law. By all this the apostle means that by the law sins are rather increased than taken away, and the more evil desire is forbidden, the more it is provoked. The clearest of all, however, is Rom. 7, 8: "Sin took its cause in the commandment and stirred up in me all kinds of lust.

So the opinion stands firm that without grace the law kills and increases sin: although outwardly it keeps the hand in check, yet inwardly it inflames the spirit against its will all the more. Since the sinner, who has been commanded before grace to investigate his sins, must of necessity

  1. In this volume Col. 101 ff.
  2. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 1220 ff.
  3. The play on words that Luther uses hrer cannot be well rendered in German. Mockingly, he has written here Leeiana rnolsstia (grumpiness) instead of Leeiana moässtla (modesty).

If he has to be mindful of the law of God, against which he has sinned, it is necessary for him to stir up the lusts again and hate the law, to which alone grace gives love. Thus it comes about that he becomes a hypocrite and worse than before, since he pretends to hate sins, which in truth he neither hates nor can hate, unless he loves the law before; indeed, he now loves sins more than before, and would also, if he dared, no doubt confess this himself. Therefore, by these pernicious and heretical doctrines the church is filled with hypocrites, since they seldom teach of the love of righteousness, but always of the hatred of sin; but how to attain to the hatred of sin they neither know nor teach.

And what am I dwelling on? Since my corner himself admits that free will before grace has no capacity except to sin, how can he be so nonsensical as to take the liberty of saying, in this Pelagian thesis, that he not only does not sin, but acts in accordance with the Gospel and the Fathers, who takes repentance from the abhorrence of sin, that is, takes repentance from sinning, since before grace nothing but sinning takes place in man?

Furthermore, this is also a scholastic opinion, that repentance must happen in love: thus love is rather than repentance. But love is pleasure in the law and in the divine will. If he understands his thesis in this way, of the detestation of sins flowing from love, what impudence and presumption is it to call this a new doctrine and contrary to the Gospel and the Holy Fathers? Therefore, I say, if he thinks that his thesis is contrary to mine, he holds a heretical, Pelagian opinion; but if he thinks that it agrees with it, he presumptuously and foolishly boasts that it is a new doctrine and contrary to the Gospel.

Furthermore, he does not understand his Aristotle, who, although he is a blind pagan, sees more clearly than my Eck that every virtuous act (actus virtutis) comes from free choice and will and love, and that the

854 D. V. a. Ill, 274-276. v. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 905-908. 855

The fact that sin is a deprivation and righteousness is a real thing is said by all*.* But that sin is a deprivation and righteousness is a real thing is what everyone says.

4. thesis.

God changes the eternal punishment into a temporal one, namely, that the cross must be carried, which neither canons nor priests have any power to interpret or take away, although they, seduced by harmful flatterers, may presume to do so.

I have not yet heard a refutation of this thesis, except that Eck's counter thesis says that this contradicts the Scriptures and the customs of the church. But whether he has another scripture and church, I do not know, perhaps he understands the church of the wicked Ps. 26, 5. and its abuse, and by scripture its bulls and letters. It is enough for me that the church is not able to do anything but pray in what God wants and does. She has the keys that she uses on earth, and I do not see how she can bind or loose that of which she has absolutely no knowledge, since it is claimed that knowledge is necessary for the use of the keys. About this abundantly in my "Explanations"; 1) if I will see these refuted, I will give in.

5. thesis.

Every priest must absolve a penitent of punishment and guilt, or he sins; likewise, a higher dignitary sins when he reserves secret things without the most just cause, however much the custom of the Church, that is, the flatterer, opposes this.

Also this thesis accuses Eck's sentence as contrary to the custom of the holy mother, the church. But I do not dispute about what happens, but what should happen. But that the priests are restricted by the bishops, and the bishops by the pope, that they are not able to do this,

  1. In this volume, Col. 100 ff.

what they should do: by what right this is done, that, I confess, I do not know. I see the custom, but demand the right, the divine right, I say; because instead of that I get human right and custom. For since elders and bishops by divine. Since elders and bishops are the same by divine right and were the same in former times, when they still provided for the people with preaching and ministrando, I do not see by what right the bishops, after they have left the office to the elders, have taken away the right of the elders with them, since they rose higher.

There are also many other things in the rights and customs of the Church, which I do not understand how they could have happened. One of them is the oath of the bishops, which they were forced to take for the pallium. The kind of oath the bishops are forced to take for the pallium and are imprisoned in complete servitude to the totally godless Rome. Of the kind is the papal month and the expectancies of grace (gratiae expectativae - expectances). Of the kind are the reservations of the cases and innumerable things similar to these. These happen, but the opposite should happen.

6. thesis.

Perhaps the souls in purgatory do enough for the sins; but that God requires from a dying person more than a willing death is asserted with the most trivial presumption, because it cannot be proven in any way.

Also this thesis no one has touched yet and I have written elsewhere 2) enough about these things; also it does not hurt much that Eck's theorem calls everything erroneous what I have set up in this thesis of mine, because many people talk a lot. Therefore, in order not to repeat the same thing, I refer to where I said it.

7. thesis.

Who shows that he does not know what faith is, nor what repentance is, nor what free will is, who prattles along that free will is the master of his

  1. In the "Explanations," in this volume Col. 132 ff.

856 V. a. IN, 276-278. 36, Luther's Explanations of the Complete Theses. W. XVIII, 908-910. 857

The one who dreams that someone is not justified by faith in the Word alone, or that faith is not taken away by any gross sin, is the one who does not act, whether good or bad.

Here I have indicated three errors of Eck.

The first is that the free will is the master of its actions, which is already sufficiently refuted by one saying of the apostle, Rom. 6, 20. 22: You were servants of sin. But since you have been freed from sin, you have become servants of righteousness. In this way, whatever state of life we may be in, we are servants either of evil desire or of love, for one of these two will rule in free will. Thus Christ says John 8:34: "He who commits sin is the servant of sin. Peter also says, 2 Petr. 2, 19: "For whosoever is overcome of sin is the servant of sin.

But if you would say, "In a certain sense it is true that free will is the master, if grace is not excluded," I answer, "Whether there be such a sense or not, it behooves a theologian to speak according to the custom of theology and the sacred Scriptures. And since they force all Christians under the rules of speech they have invented, why then are they such free despisers of the divine rule? I confess that the free will can be called lord, prince, bishop, king and any other arbitrary thing, but such is spoken at the risk of the grace of God and the understanding of the Scripture, which calls us by the word "servants" servitutis, and whoever understands the free will differently, does not understand it.

The second error is even more harmful and clearly shows that my dear Eck does not know what faith is, denying that man is justified by it alone; but he also does not understand what being justified means.

So we say with Paul, Rom. 1, 17: The righteousness that is before God is revealed in this 1) which comes from faith in faith, as it is written: The righteous

  1. I.e. in the Gospel.

will live of his faith. Or should the apostle have been instructed by Eck and his followers (ab Ec- cianis) that he should have added this strange explanation (glossam): "but not by faith alone"? Likewise Rom. 10, 10: If one believes from the heart, one is justified. See how here he attributes righteousness to faith alone, so much so that he mentions the heart alone and is silent about the other members that may work. If one confesses with the mouth, he says, he is saved, but only after he has already been justified by faith.

I will therefore say, to pass over these insipid antics of the sophists: No works justify or make a righteous man, but faith alone; but he that is justified doeth works. For thus the sense of Scripture entails that justification is earlier than works, and that works are done by the justified. For we do not, as Aristotle errs, become righteous by doing righteous works, but, having become righteous, we do righteous works, just as a man does not become a bishop by doing the works of a bishop, but, having become a bishop, does the works of a bishop. So it is not the works of faith that make faith, but faith does the works of faith. Thus, it is not the works of grace that effect grace, but grace effects works of grace. Hence it comes that God first looks at Abel (in whom He is pleased) and only then at his works Gen. 4:4. This is what the apostle wants, that we are justified by faith alone, not by works, even though we, as already justified, do not let works stand in the way. And therefore he dares to say further 1 Tim. 1, 9. that no law is given to the righteous, because he who is justified by faith does not need the law, but does works voluntarily. This way of speaking and understanding is never understood by such sophists who are drowned in their works. For when he says Rom. 2, 13: "Not those who hear the law, but those who do the law, will be righteous," he is speaking because they are considered righteous, not because they could be justified by works, and this is not the case.

858 L. V. a. Ill, 278 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, SI0-SI3. 859

To do the law is to fulfill the law, that is, to believe in Christ.

But that the letter of the apostle James 17 is quoted: "Faith without works is dead", first of all the spelling of this letter is far below the apostolic majesty and cannot be compared with that of Paul in any way; then Paul speaks of the living faith. For a dead faith is not a faith, but a delusion. But look at the theologians, they hold this one saying stiffly and firmly, and do not care at all that the whole other Scripture praises faith without works; for this is their custom, to attack (cornua erigere) the whole Scripture with a little snatched chunk (oratiuncula) of the text.

Therefore, those who boast of the title of theology should first learn what faith and works according to Scripture are, and not immediately condemn everything in which these faith and works according to Scripture have given offense against their outmoded opinions. If the people take offense at this, they may attribute it to their unfortunate studies, that they have not taught the people to understand the words of God and the way of speaking of the Scriptures (tropos), which is necessary for salvation; they themselves are the originators of such offenses. With great danger, works are preached before faith. But faith without works is preached without danger, because the people are willing and inclined to trust in works, and works easily outweigh faith. But where pure faith is taught rightly, works will come of themselves and without danger, if only they have first learned that more, indeed everything, lies in faith, which must work works.

It is frightening to see how ignorant even the theologians are, let alone the people, in the knowledge of the faith they profess: so full is the church of boasting with outward works that Christ seems to have said of our time Luc. 18:8: "When the Son of Man comes, do you think that he will also find faith on earth? In short, since faith is a right and good opinion of

If a man is God, but every opinion alone and for itself draws him to works, then there is no doubt that he who has faith does all works. For if an idea (opinio) and love of the woman does not leave one idle, but does more than is required without law and teacher, how should not faith accomplish much more the same? The world is governed by opinions alone, and a Christian should not be able to be governed by faith alone? Finally, who teaches the sophistical theologians to do, suffer, think, and shun so many and so great things for the sake of their opinions? Is it not only the inclination to their opinions? But elsewhere a more.

The third error is exceedingly ungodly, that he says her faith is not taken away by any gross sin, since faith is righteousness, but gross sin is the opposite, unrighteousness. But I know that he would like to hold up to me the little argument about infused and acquired faith: but is it proper for a good man, let alone a theologian, to know that someone's thesis is true, and yet to look for another meaning from which one can persuade that it is false, and that he would thus slander the truth because of an expression and the ambiguity of a word? What a splendid theology is this, if you would deny the sentence: "The dog is a barking animal" and say: "On the contrary, the dog is a constellation in the sky", since you know quite certainly that "dog" is taken by him in a different sense than by you!

To whom is this sophistical and hateful double-mindedness, or more correctly multi-mindedness, not detestable in a Proteus, let alone in a theologian? But since Eck says by the prefixed title that he disputes "against the new doctrine," I understand from this that, according to theological simple-minded speech, he does not speak of a faith other than that of which I have spoken; otherwise he would not speak against my new doctrine, and the title would lie. Therefore I say that this his antithesis is of all that I have ever seen the most heretical and godless, since it denies the only justifying faith against the apostle Paul and

860 V. L. Ill, 280 f. 36. Luther's explanations of all theses. W. XVIII, SI3-S1S. 861

denies the gospel of Christ and asserts that it is not abrogated by any gross sin. Furthermore, he defends free will as the master of his actions, against the Scriptures.

8. thesis.

It is, of course, contrary to truth and reason that those who die unwillingly are deficient in love and therefore suffer the horror of purgatory, if truth and reason are the same as the opinion of bad theologians.

This thesis has no refuter yet and I have said a lot about it in my "Explanations". In order not to arouse overkill, I do not want to repeat it.

9. thesis.

We know that bad theologians claim that the souls in purgatory are certain of their blessedness and that grace is not increased in them, but we are surprised at the highly learned people that they cannot give any reason for this belief of theirs that would be probable even to a simple-minded person.

This thesis has been attacked by Eck many times, but has achieved nothing, because no man can know what happens to the souls in purgatory. Through this confession of ignorance, I easily escape the counter-evidence of all, because no one can teach what he 1 Cor. 2:9 has neither seen nor heard and has not entered the heart of any man. We can have conjectures about this and similar things as much as we want, but it is only fitting for bad theologians to boast about what are only conjectures as the most certain articles of faith.

But to the reasons of proof, whose main and only force is this: here all merit is brought about, not there, I have sufficiently answered in the "Explanations" 2). Also, I did not say that they (the souls) deserved, but that the grace of the Lord was the only one.

  1. Cf. Col. 145 ff. in this volume,
  2. Cf. Col. 158 ff. in this volume.

The number of people is not increased, and I have said that it has not yet been proven that they are not in a state of merit. When this will be proven, I will give way.

10. thesis.

That the merit of Christ is the treasure of the Church, and that we are helped by the merit of the saints, is certain; but that it is a treasure of indulgences, no one pretends but a shameful flatterer, the extravagant who depart from the truth, and some fictitious acts or customs of the Church.

Here, a few things must be added to what I have said in the "Explanations" because of the explanatory Decretale of Leo. 3)

First of all. Even if the extravagant and declaratory sentences are as it may be, it is certain that it is not at all in the hands of the church or of the pope to issue articles of faith, nor even laws about morals or good works, because all this has been handed down in the holy scriptures. Therefore, it remains that ev alone has the power to declare articles, and to order ceremonies for the outward adornment of the church, which he can abolish again if the consideration of godliness should require it.

Furthermore, when explaining articles of faith, he must not use such people who are well practiced in human traditions, rights and opinions; they will not explain anything good, but theologians who are well learned and have proven themselves in life, as John Gerson also thinks; not as today certain papal flatterers lack the right way, that they without scholarship, without regard to good life, make statements from their head, as if they were sure that the Holy Spirit governs them. We admit that the church is not abandoned by the spirit of Christ, but by church is not understood the pope and the cardinals, nor even a council. Therefore, this thou-.

  1. Leo's X. Nova decretalia of November 9, 1518. (Weim. Ausg.)

862 L. v.". m, 281-283. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, sis-917. 863

The first thing to be done is to have confidence in the presence of the Spirit and in the certainty of judgments, and to act in fear, drawing on the Scriptures.

Secondly, I say that the merits of Christ are spirit and life; they are grace and truth, as John 1:17 says: "Grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ. Since it is not in the power of any man to distribute grace and truth, spirit and life, the pope or the church cannot distribute the merits of Christ, that is, grace and truth, and I hold this opinion and will hold it, even if an angel from heaven, let alone the pope, should say otherwise, since the whole church and all teachers unanimously deny that the grace of God is given through a man.

If you say, "He can turn the merits of Christ wherever he likes," I answer, "The merits of Christ are grace and truth, whether they are given or sold, distributed or given. For, however they may be used, they are nothing else than Christ's merits: therefore, just as a man cannot give them, so he cannot give them either, you may say what you will.

Again, you want to say, "he gives the merits of Christ office-wise." This I admit, but not for indulgences, because indulgences are contrary to the merits of Christ. The merits of Christ are grace and truth, which make him who obtains them better in spirit and more holy; but indulgences do not bestow anything good in spirit, but remit the good of the spirit contrary to the merits of Christ. Therefore may they look to their words and their custom. I say, with all deference to them, that, as the words read, the merits of Christ cannot be the treasure of indulgences, but, on the contrary, they are a treasure of things imposed (impositionum), and of punishments to be endured, entirely opposed to indulgences.

Therefore, I confess that they Christ's merits are given office-wise in absolution from guilt, for there the

The merits of Christ act on the word of the priest if the sinner believes, otherwise not at all.

Therefore, I do not condemn that explanatory decree, but leave it in its understanding. If, however, it should be interpreted as contradicting what has been said, I reject it and demand that an account be given of what has been said. Furthermore, show that you have the power to make articles of faith, or bring a proven revelation: Paul forbids me to believe mere unproven words.

11. thesis.

To say that indulgences are a good thing for a Christian is nonsense, because they are actually a good deed's affliction, and a Christian must reject indulgences for the sake of abuse, because the Lord says: "For my sake I cancel your transgression" Is. 43:25, not "for the sake of money".

The prophet calls Ps. 40, 5. the teachings of men, with which God is worshipped in contempt of His command, lying folly: how much more nonsensical are those who dare, although the indulgence is a remission of good works and salutary punishments, to advertise this to the Christian as a good, whose good consists in being full of good works and punishments of the cross in the image of His Lord Christ!

Furthermore, it indulgences is always an affliction to a work, in that what is given would not be given if they did not know that the indulgence would be returned for it. So they do their good because of their evil or because of their less good. It is certain that in this not God but man himself is sought.

Try it, and you will see that I am telling the truth. For in Italy, where indulgences are offered everywhere free of charge, no one cares about them, whereas in Germany no one would give them to you if you did not give them. So strange is the nature (ingenium) of indulgences that they prevail in Italy in a completely different way than in Germany.

864 in, 283-285. 36. Luther's explanations of all theses. W. xvm, 917-920. 865

Johann Eck contested this thesis in Leipzig, but in such a way that the whole indulgence almost dissolved into a murmur (in sibilum ierint), for he himself did not seem to respect it much, and yet God wished it had long been recommended as our Eck recommended it, then Roman avarice would have carried off less robbery and booty from Germany, then the Roman mockers of the peoples would not have been able to make such fun of the raw ignorance (barbaram ruditatem) of the Germans. Other in the explanations.

12. thesis.

That the pope can remit all punishment due for sins in this life and the life to come, and that the indulgence is useful to those who have not committed gross sins, is certainly dreamed by the quite unlearned sophists and corrupt flatterers, but they cannot demonstrate it in the least.

Also this thesis has not yet been attacked by anyone I have seen, except for the wind of Eck's thesis, which has not been followed by rain.

But because this thesis is also contrary to the last explanatory decree, which says: The church remits the punishments required by divine justice for sins, I say here: I have often said that the Church is capable of nothing but prayer against divine justice, if divine justice is not to be taken ambiguously. For I have no doubt that the punishments which the church requires of the sinner are at the same time required by divine justice, according to the covenant which he God has made with the church, saying Matth. 16, 19.: All that thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven. There he clearly says that with him is bound what is bound in the church, and so in regard to the sinner the righteousness of the church and that of God coincide. But in this way, it is not in accordance with the custom, which understands by divine righteousness another, separate righteousness of God, outside of the covenant, according to which the church has not laid down or interpreted. If the

If the explanatory decree should speak of this, then I say that I do not believe it. But I will let it be an opinion, as it the decree is also taken from opinions. For, as I have said, I do not accept new articles of faith, they may be established by whom they will, if there is not a proven revelation with them, nor an explanatory Decretal about any article, if it has not been explained by the holy Scriptures, of which that more legal than theological explanatory Decretal also has not even one syllable.

But here they argue against me that the prestige of the church is great and infallible because it is governed by the Holy Spirit; then also according to Augustine: "I would not believe the gospel if I did not believe the church. Here, of course, is a new sea of disputation to sail.

I say, as I said shortly before: that the reputation of the church is great and infallible, because it is governed by the spirit of Christ, this I confess with all my heart. But we owe this understanding to certain shysters and everywhere yes-saying theologians, that "church" is taken for the pope's clerk and penitentiariis (poenitentiariis) or magistrate of the palace (for the popes themselves seldom take care of these matters), since we speak of the whole general church, not of a certain small and sometimes the worst part of the Roman church. And that is why we have bulls and declarations from Rome that are worthy of such a church.

To the saying of Augustine, I say first of all that the mind extended by certain people is this: "I would not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Church, that is, I believe the Church more than the Gospel." And that this is their opinion is evident from the fact that they therefore ascribe to the pope the power to interpret the Scriptures, even to him alone. Furthermore, they oppose it Augustine's saying to all those of whom they hear that they doubt or oppose the letters or actions of the popes.

A more damning opinion, indeed, not even an equal godlessness, has neither Lucifer

866 L. V. a. Ill, 285 f. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, PP20-S22. 867

himself, nor all heretics together. For from this it follows that the pope and the scribes of the palace are above the gospel and therefore above God, while Lucifer only desired to be like God. By this new wisdom they set up the pope as the man of whom Paul says 2 Thess. 2, 4.: He exalts himself above everything that is called God or worship. For the church is a creature of the gospel, incomparably inferior to it, as Jacobus 1, 18. says: He begat us according to his will by the word of his truth, and Paul 1 Cor. 4, 15.: I begat you by the gospel. Therefore the same word is called the womb and womb of God, Isa. 46, 3: "You who are carried in my womb and lie with me in my mother, because we are born of God and carried by his powerful word.

If this is what St. Augustine would have wanted, as they impose on him through no fault of his own, who would not rather he had never heard the name of Augustine? Therefore we must go to the source. For St. Augustine writes against the Brief fundamenti of the Manichaeans, not of Vincentius, as those say, in the 5th chapter: "So much do they take care both of books and of words, that they do not care even to stir their foot to know the origin or the meaning." Further, the words of Augustine, which read thus, "I did not believe the Gospel if I were not moved by the prestige of the Church," are rendered by those great braggarts thus, "I did not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Church." Therefore it is not to be wondered at that so much trouble has been taken over the understanding of this saying, and that so many booklets of various interpretations have flowed from it. For it is a well-deserved trouble that those are tormented with many interpretations who do not think it worth the trouble to read a book or a writer, but try to guess the understanding from their heads, if a saying has been picked out and distorted somewhere.

First of all, it is a common phrase

(tropus) of St. Augustine, to say that he was moved by the appearance of this or that. For so he writes in the 1st book of the Retractations: "After I had read some interpreters of the divine speeches, whose reputation moved me" 2c. 1)

Secondly. In this passage he does not take the church for the pope or for Rome, but he understands by it the general church spread over the whole world, as he soon lets follow: "For I believed the gospel when it was preached by orthodox believers (Catholici).

So the content, intention and epitome of St. Augustine at this point is the following: "I do not believe you Manichaeans. Why? Because I do not read anything about you in the Gospel. But since the orthodox throughout the world abhor you, but extol the Gospel to me and preach it constantly everywhere, but I would not have believed the Gospel if the whole world, which teaches so unanimously, had not moved me to believe by this reputation of theirs, I am at the same time moved by the same reputation not to believe you, because I read nothing concerning you in the Gospel, which, moved by the reputation of the whole world, I believe." From this it is clear that this is what Augustine wanted, namely, that through such a great agreement of all, the Gospel and the Church could be proved and the heresies rejected, which are contrary to so great a multitude, especially where those who are dealt with accept the books from which this is proved.

That this is the opinion of St. Augustine will be obvious to anyone who compares the preceding and the following and observes the intention (scopum) of Augustine. In vain Gerfon wants to understand it, in vain Mayron, in vain also others of the first church, again others of the church with inclusion of Christ, the God.

  1. In the edition of 1520 and the following complete editions, the following addition is found here, most likely not originating from Luther: Then he understands by reputation (autoritutsrn) not power, as it is usually taken, but, as the best Latins, e.g. Pliny, used to attach "reputation" to wine and especially to precious stones, although they have no power over other things, as if one spoke: "a delicious opinion and value".

868 in, 286-288. 36. Luther's Explanations of the Complete Theses. W. xviii, 922-925. 869

In the Book of Confessions, he also says that he was not a little moved to believe in Christ because he had seen that the Holy Scriptures had been given such a great reputation by God that they were held in the highest esteem in the whole world. So also here he says that he was moved by such a great people, who agreed in the whole world concerning the gospel, in which he found nothing of the Manichaeans, therefore he could not believe the Manichaeans, who were detested by those of whom he saw that they received the gospel in such a way that their reputation moved him to believe that this was the gospel. And this, therefore, is not rightly said, that by the approval of the church the gospel is known, since Augustine says nothing about an approval, especially if one wanted to understand the Roman church, but it is said by the multitude in the whole world, which has no small standing, since this could not happen without the greatest miracle of God, in that so many tyrants resist, so many Christians lay down their lives, that the gospel should spread and grow in such a way. For if he had not seen this happen, he would not have believed the Gospel. What is this? Would you not believe if the whole world also raced against the gospel? I have therefore said that he speaks more to convict the heretics and to prove the Catholic faith (for that is what he was dealing with at that time) than of his own faith, which does not spring from the reputation of anyone, but only from the Spirit of God in the heart, although man is moved to the same by word and example. But because the heretics are so strongly resisted by this example of faith, as if to say, "The faith I have in the gospel I could not so defend against you, if I were not moved by this prestige of the church." And this is something similar: "just as I would not have believed GOtte if I had not believed Paul who was preaching," for Rom. 10:17, 14. faith comes from preaching. For how shall they believe, of whom they have heard nothing?

have heard? Thus the proof of faith comes only from the example of the whole church on the whole earth. For how could he persuade, even if he alone believed most strongly, if he could not also cite the example of others, and as strong an example as possible?

Therefore, "I did not believe" is necessarily understood to mean, "I could not be persuaded nor persuade to believe," otherwise he would be speaking quite falsely, since only the Holy Spirit brings anyone to faith. And here again I will bring a simile: John 1 Ep. 4, 20 says: "He who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God whom he does not see? since it is impossible for a brother to be loved if love is not first turned toward God. So this is the meaning: "it is not proven that one loves GOD whom one does not see, if one does not show that one loves the brother whom one sees." You see, then, how far those of Augustine were wrong who did not observe this way of speaking, and how inconsistently it was applied to the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church.

Again you may say Luc. 22, 32., "Christ prayed for Peter, saying, that thy faith cease not." If "cease" (deficere) is taken according to Latin speech, it is quite evident that Peter's faith ceased when he fell and denied Christ. Therefore, Peter's faith did not remain in Peter at that time, but in the Virgin Mary, and in the thief at his right hand it arose. For Peter has the same faith as all, as Augustine says in the 1st Book of the Trinity: "This is my faith, because this is the Catholic faith." And in this way the faith of Peter is none of the business of the Roman Church, because the meaning is that the faith of Christ (which is that of the whole Church), which was then in Petro, should never cease. But if "cease" is taken according to Hebrew for "to come to an end and cease altogether, and never be restored again," then it is clear that Peter's faith had fallen, but had not ceased, because it had risen again from the fall.

870 L. v. a. in, 288-2S0. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 923-927. 871

the. But from this personal faith nothing can be concluded for any bishop, nor does anything concerning this faith concern his successor, as much as the actual meaning of the words contains in itself.

13. thesis.

That the Roman Church is higher than all others is proved by the very cold decrees of the Roman popes that have arisen in the last 400 years; but against them are the proven histories of 1100 years, the text of divine Scripture, and the decision of the Council of Nicaea, which is the holiest of all.

I have already explained this thesis to some extent in the published explanation 1) and I will say more against future opponents. However, because this thesis is annoying in the ears of the pious, that is, of the envious and proud, I will again add some things, so that it does not go out without any proof (nuda). Therefore I prove first of all that according to divine right every city must have its own bishop, which I show from Paul, Titus 1:5, who says: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might fully establish it, as I have left it, and fill the cities back and forth with elders, as I commanded you. But that elders feast bishops, Jerome testifies, and the following text shows it, since it says v. 7.: For a bishop shall be blameless, 2c But also St. Augustin in the 29th letter to Jerome, since he wants to describe a bishop, adds the reason and says: Because it was a. City; as if to say, "It was not a simple elder, but a bishop, of whom I speak, because it was a city of which he was the head."

Secondly, I presuppose that Christ has, or once had, Christians at all ends of the earth, as in the outermost part of India and Ethiopia and in other regions, according to Ps. 2:8: The end of the world is yours, and Ps. 72:8: He will rule from the sea.

  1. This is the next preceding scripture, No. 35: Luther's explanation furthermore 13th thesis on the power of the pope.

to the other, and from the water to the end of the world.

Third, I presuppose that believing Christians can be perfect and poor, and let go of all their belongings so that they have nothing of their own.

I conclude:

Suppose these believers were at some extreme end of the earth, perfect and poor, do you think that Christ, who wanted his law to be gentle Matth. 11, 30., would have wanted his believers to bring, by such a long way and at such great expense, a bishop from Rome, provided with the pallium and confirmed? For by so doing, he would in truth have laid a greater burden on his church than he ever laid on the synagogue; indeed, he would have forced them to renounce evangelical poverty and, in contempt of his commandment Matt. 6:19, to take care and be concerned how they might gather together riches and expenses so that they might obtain the pallia and confirmations. For if it is a divine right to receive all the bishops of Rome, then it must not be broken because of any circumstance, whether of place or of wealth (rerum); and for this reason it would be necessary to break another divine right, namely, that we should not care for the other morning, as Matthew, Cap. 6, 34, teaches. For it is impossible that from so many ends of the earth so far a journey should be made by those who, according to the Gospel, are not to provide for the morrow; for they will not have the cost.

If you should say: "the Roman pope can transfer his power to the neighboring bishops", I answer: then it would no longer be a divine right that the bishops should be brought from the city of Rome, because a divine right cannot be changed or transferred to another by the one to whom it belongs. And why does he not transfer this power to the supreme bishops (primatibus) even today? For what is opposed to this but loss of profit and honor?

But imagine that any church was

872 V- a. Ill, 290-292. 36. Luther's Explanations of the Complete Theses. W. XVIII, 927-929. 873

captured by enemies, so that she could not send to Rome for a bishop. What should this do? If it is a divine right, the imprisonment does not excuse it, because the divine right is not bound to any thing, but is to be kept above all and in all things. If you say, "It is enough that they desire to send," I say, "Why is not this desire enough also in other bishoprics, which are exhausted 1) and located so far from Rome that they are forced to buy a bishop to their great detriment (against love)?

Secondly: It follows from the words of Paul [Tit. 1, 5.Secondly, it follows from the words of Paul Titus 1:5, by which he assigns to every city a bishop (who are now called pastors), that bishops, patriarchs, supreme bishops (primates), which exist today, are only by human right, which is also indicated by the decrees by which the Roman popes assign to themselves the constitution of all churches and dignities, and so, according to divine right, the pope is by no means higher than anyone else, or he is only higher than the pastors. Over the others, who are in the middle (mediis) or higher, he is a superior only by his right and custom, according to which he is also higher than the cardinals. And as one priest is not preferred to another by divine right, so no bishop to any other bishop. For all this is ordered by the Church.

From this it further follows that, since the one Roman bishop cannot take care of all parishes (over which alone he is the superior according to divine right, if he is a superior at all, as I have said), it is not to be believed that Christ wanted to oblige him by divine right to do the impossible, and that for this reason he is also not the superior over all by divine right. But if not over all, then for the same reason

  1. By the frequently repeated purchase of the pallia, as the Archbishopric of Mainz, which had to pay 20,000 gold florins for the pallium, had to pay this sum three times within 9 years and a few months: after the death of Archbishop Berthold, on December 21, 1504, after the death of Jakdb, on Sept. 15, 1508, and after the death of Archbishop Uriel on Feb. 9, 1514. The latter was succeeded by the well-known Albrecht of Brandenburg.

Over none in particular, and so by divine right all bishops of all cities are equal.

Furthermore, as we said in the beginning, the Council of Constance decided that the Council was above the pope, as it also preserved the custom of this decision by removing and installing the pope. But if the pope is higher than all according to divine right, then the council has committed and established a heresy, because it is heretical to condemn divine right and to declare the opposite.

Because you would now say: "The council does not install or remove a pope, but a man, since the papacy always remains", I answer: this is a ridiculous and tasteless little argument. For it follows that it does not depose the pope as pope, but only a man: thus a deposed pope must still be pope, because he remains the same as before, since nothing has been done against his pontificate. In short, it acts not against man, but against the pope as pope, because it takes the administration from him, just as it has the power to confer the administration, no differently than the pope himself installs a bishop, where he inferentially installs not man as man, but the bishop as bishop, by conferring on him the right of administration. Otherwise, it would also be said here, I have not appointed a bishop or a pope, but a man, since the bishopric remains. This pretense (larvas) they have invented, since they have made of "bishopric" a word, not of service, but of dignity (which, I do not know in which general real thing reali lies hidden).

If then the pope is of divine right, he may not be deposed in any way, whether he be evil or good, whether he be heretical or orthodox, but he must be tolerated until his death, just as David tolerated Saul, who was anointed king by divine right. Therefore, again, the decrees are mistaken and must be heretical, which state that a pope must be deposed for heresy, because they order something contrary to divine right, since there is no higher authority.

874 L. V. a. Ill, 2S2. Erl. 31, löö. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, S2S f.; 1048. 875

who can depose him. But if someone is higher, e.g. a council (which is true), he is already no longer higher than all by divine right, but receives this higher position from the human right of the council, from which he must have it changed again according to its discretion.

More (as I have said) I will raise when I am irritated, for one must still keep weapons for protection against the obstinacy of the envious.

Finally, I repeat what I said in the beginning, that I absolutely confess and defend the supremacy of the Roman pope, however great it is, has been, or will be, only that I know it is a new doctrine that one wants to fortify it by divine right, because none of the ancient fathers thought of this article of faith, who nevertheless investigated everything concerning our faith so godly and carefully and yet did not act or live according to it; but I will in no way suffer that they should all be called heretics. And from day to day I please myself more and more and become proud of it, that I see that I get more and more a very bad name. For the

Truth, that is, Christ, must increase, but I must decrease John 3:30. I look forward to the voice of the bridegroom and the bride more than I am afraid of the noise and clamor of the voluptuous voluptuaries (procorum 1), being sure that the people who are seen fighting against me, are not themselves the authors of evil, nor do I hate them, but Behemoth, that prince of evil, whom I recognize by his darkness, would like to become terrible to me if he could, and eradicate truth from his kingdom by taking occasion with me. But he who is in us is greater than he who is in the world 1 John 4:4, under whose leadership this enemy will do nothing, amen.

    • Praesens male judicat aetas, Judicium melius posteritatis prit.

The present time judges badly, the judgment of the posterity will be better.

  1. We cannot prove this word lexically. The reading is certain, because it is found in all editions at our disposal. Perhaps Luther instead of procerum = noble people, mockingly put this word so similar to the word poreorum, which gives the sense expressed by us.

*37. D. Martin Luther's recantation from Purgatory. )

End of July 1530.

A recantation from purgatory.

To all our descendants, Martinus Luther.

Grace and peace in Christ our Lord! Because I see that the sophists with all their diligence are hiding their false preaching, shame and abominations, so that they have corrupted Christianity, and now they are preening themselves as if they had a good reason for it.

never committed an iniquity; hoping, because we kept silent against them for a while, and fought with the spirits of the Reds, that they would sneak out of their hole of shame, and that all their blasphemous teachings and nature would be forgotten, and so, unpunished, unimproved, unawares, and unashamed, they would in time reintroduce all their doctrines of the devil.

*) In 1530 four single editions of this writing came out, three in Wittenberg, namely with Hans Lufft, Georg Rau (Rhaw) and one without indication of the printer; the fourth with Georg Wachter in Nuremberg. In the "Gesammtausgabe" it is found: in the Wittenberg one of 1554, vol. 7, toi. 436 V; in the Jena one of 1566, vol. 5, toi. 160 d; in the Altenburger, vol. 5, 291; in the Leipziger, vol. 20,237; in the Erlanger, vol. 31,184. According to the latter we have reproduced the text comparing the Wittenberg and Jena editions.

876 Erl. 31, 185-187. Luther's Revocation of Purgatory. W. XVIII, 1048-1051. 877

I must, on the other hand, again pull out the old register and bring their praiseworthy virtue back into the sun, so that it does not rot so blackly, but is well bleached, so that one does not forget it as they hope.

Because the desperate blasphemers and murderers shed much blood daily, lie and deceive, but do not want to honor God so much that they confess, atone for, or amend some things (which they themselves know and feel how they have erred in them and deceived the world). Yes, they do not want to give way in one piece; but rather, by sinning in the Holy Spirit, in defiance of the truth and of God Himself, they want to protect, defend and handle public lies that they themselves know well, and to murder, burn, persecute, rage, be mad and foolish about all those who do not follow such public lies as articles of faith: then I must, for the warning of our descendants (whether the world should stand any longer), place a register and stock for history, in which they will see what Luther was condemned about by the pope, and what the holy pope's teaching was, so that they will know to beware of it, if God gives grace.

I am also quite comforted by the fact that I will do a special service to the sophists themselves, because they feel so good now, and the skin is so much in pain, and perhaps they are almost hostile to me, that I have not yet painted them properly and enough, but have only torn them badly on a piece of paper; and for this reason they request that I should also paint them. God help me, and hear their desire. I will try it and start all over again from the beginning. And because the pure saints do not know why they cry out so, I will help them and give them to cry out, if God grants me life. And to begin with, I will first take purgatory before me, to expose their shameful lies; for I have never written anything special against them. And after that of the other lies and abominations, in the order 1) and order of each other.

  1. D. i. series.

Of the sophists lies and abominations with purgatory.

The first chapter.

They have a text, which is almost their cornerstone and best reason, 2 Maccabaeorum 12, 43. ff., which reads thus: Judas, the honorable, collected a tax, and sent to Jerusalem twelve thousand 2) drachmas of silver, that one should sacrifice for the sin of the dead, as he had a right and divine opinion of the resurrection of the dead. For if he had not believed that those who were slain would rise again, it would have been futile and useless to pray for the dead. Therefore it is a holy and good opinion to pray for the dead, that they may be freed from sins.

But you must not think here that the Sophists used this text as an epistle in their masses for the sake of the twelve thousand drachmas; otherwise evil thoughts would occur to you, as if they had done it out of avarice, and if this text had been their snow mountain, fright mountain, Schwotz and all silver and gold mountains: but they did it out of great love and devotion, to comfort the poor souls, and to honor God (not the shameful mammon); as can easily be seen from their works and fruits.

To the first.

Although this book Maccabaeorum is not in the number of the holy scripture, also by the old fathers is not accepted for holy scripture; as also the kind of the language itself shows enough: that with it their unfounded shameful lie may be sufficiently condemned, as they consider a text as certain and as article of faith, teach and preach, which nevertheless cannot be certain; in addition over such uncertain, rejected text the people heresy and murder, as if they had power to put article of faith, what and how they wanted: nevertheless we want this time to the abundance and to the service of the liars this

  1. That is, one thousand and five hundred florins. A drachma is five sword groschen or 30 lion pennies, Meissen. (Marginal gloss.)

878 Erl. 31, 187-189. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 1051-1053. 879

text, as otherwise a pious holy man's speech, who nevertheless might sometimes speak something good and true, although one is not obliged to believe it, because he speaks without Scripture and God's Word; and therefore is not to be condemned as a heretic.

But the first deliberate lie of the sophists, except the one now told, to make an article of faith from the uncertain book, is this: that they interpret this text to mean purgatory, and also want to justify and prove it with it, although neither word nor letter is in it about purgatory: but they penetrate and brew such a lying understanding from their own head, for the sake of the twelve thousand drachmas. The text says of the sins of the dead, and praises Judas for the article of the resurrection; that the good man who made this book wants to praise the noble article of the resurrection of the dead, which at that time (as well as still) was very despised. This is how the papists prefer purgatory. For they do not regard the resurrection as great as the twelve thousand drachmas, which shine before their eyes more than resurrection and eternal life.

The text itself shows that it does not think anything of the torment or purgatory of souls. For he says thus: "It would be vain and useless to pray for the dead where there is no resurrection. This clearly indicates whether there are sins of the dead that might harm them in the resurrection, but not before the resurrection. For before and without the resurrection he thinks it vain to pray for the dead. For if they do not rise, and before they rise, it is in vain to pray for them. So that this text is not only uncertain, but is also directly against their purgatory, misfire, or fire of lies.

Moreover, this is a loosely lazy dialectica, and does not follow and conclude finely: A dead man is in sins, therefore he is in purgatory. Wherewith shall one prove or enforce this consequence? The twelve thousand drachmas would do it; otherwise the text does not give it, so one helps to drive a lie into it. For the bodies of all the saints lie in the earth, having died in sin and in sins,

As St. Paul says in Romans 6: "The body died because of sin"; nevertheless it is not in purgatory; the devils are also in sin, and yet neither in purgatory nor in hell. Therefore it does not follow: Judas lets pray for the dead; therefore they are in purgatory. The prayer can certainly go, and also goes to the resurrection, and whoever points it to purgatory, speaks his own, without proof. This is as much as a blasphemous lie, especially because they want to make it an article of faith.

The other lie.

Although Judas would have done such a sacrifice in his time in the Old Testament, how come we have to do it afterward? Do we want to go back and become Jews again? Do we want to become Jews again? Who has given us the authority to make an example, even a commandment and article of faith, out of the work of a man (let him be holy), and to burn heretics for it? Is this not tempting God too high, and passing over God with unheard-of presumption? This text does not say that one must or should do it afterwards, or that God has commanded it; but only tells a story of what Judas did for himself; and we go on, quickly making a commandment and article out of it, out of our own thirst, iniquity, and willfulness, which God has not commanded us, but forbidden.

So did the Jews of old; when they found in Genesis (Gen. 22, 2.) how God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, they did not wait until God commanded them to do so, and, like the foolish, they quickly made an example, a commandment and an article out of it, sacrificed their sons and daughters until they filled the land with blood, and strangled all the prophets, who punished and defended them, just as the raging bloodhounds do now, and kill the innocent for the sake of fire, when they have no word of God for themselves, and also lead this text falsely, and still do not have the example of Judah (which they use). And even if it were an example, it would still not be enough for a commandment or article.

But it is the right minting spirit, that Dialectica and Theologia was in this also entirely

880 Erl. 31, 189-191. Luther's Revocation of Purgatory. W. XVIII, 1033-1056. 881

sophistical. For so he teaches: David, Gideon, Joshua and the like have slain the ungodly kings, and have done well in it, and are praised of God; therefore we also will and shall slay the princes, according to this very example, as these liars teach: Judas sacrificed for the dead, therefore we Christians should do the same. And it is uncertain whether Judas did right before God or not, because the whole book is uncertain and rejected by the ancients. But the twelve thousand drachmas have the heartache to make articles and commandments as they wish.

There is nothing more harmful in the world than where the work of the saints is used as an example, commandment, doctrine and article without God's command. For we are not to follow any example, since they had a special command, which we do not have. We have our command before us, as to believe, to love; in this we are all to remain the same, says St. Paul Phil. 3:15, 16, until he gives us something further, as he did to those. Since we have neither a word nor a command from God to believe in purgatory, it is an accursed blasphemy and lie to make a commandment and article out of it by ourselves, even if it were snowing and raining holy examples. If Judas did it 'out of his own devotion, let it stand on him; he is not our God nor teacher. Gideon also made an ephod out of his own devotion, but failed. Judg. 8, 27. And who knows whether Judas also had to fall and be slain because of his own devotion. Without God's word there is no joking with the work of men and the examples of the saints.

The third lie.

Is the very finest. Judas himself, of whom this text says, did not believe that there was a purgatory, nor could he believe it; for there was no purgatory in the Old Testament, nor in the New Testament, in the time of the apostles, and long after. And the Sophists themselves say that there was none in the Old Testament. Are these not fine faithful shepherds and teachers, who introduce a foreign text (besides the holy scripture), which they themselves must know and confess, that it does not speak nor can speak of purgatory;

yet out of their own thirst and iniquity, with wanton: Lies and deceit, interpret and force to confirm Purgatory, so furious and nonsensical, that they also put such their knowing lie to the article of faith, and murder the people who do not worship such obvious, knowing lie as God's word? Doesn't this mean that they have most brazenly sinned against the Holy Spirit, and have put certain lies of their own above God?

The fourth lie.

So they also lie in that they do not keep such a forbidden and uncertain example of Judas himself. For Judas, like a Jew, sacrificed according to the old law, which sacrifices have now ceased through Christ. And where Judas now lived, he should no longer do so. How then do our liars come to raise again this example of the old sacrifice, which has long since ceased? If they want to follow Judah, they must go back to the Old Testament and sacrifice sheep and oxen with the Jews at Jerusalem; otherwise the example is dead and nothing at all. Because Judas himself would not do it now, where he lived, and also did not believe in purgatory, it is an impudent blasphemous lie to follow his dead and now unfit example, to make an article out of it. If they wanted to follow the example of the Jews, they would have to be circumcised and forced to follow all the laws of Moses, so that Christ would be completely denied by them. "For he that keepeth the law in one piece must keep it in all." Gal. 5:3.

Now they go even further. They do not follow Judas' example, which they nevertheless praise; but crucify Christ for it, make Christ and the mass a sacrifice instead of the cancelled sacrifice of Judas. This rhymes well with Judas' example. But more about this when we come to the mass.

See now, the book is rejected and uncertain, the text says nothing about purgatory, and Judas has no word of God for himself, does not say it to us, does not believe in purgatory himself, and everything happened in the Old Testament where there was no purgatory.

  1. In the old editions: enhindern.

882 Erl. 31,191-193. V. Luther's Dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, roZ6-ioZg. 883

and such an example and work is no longer valid in the New Testament; so they do not follow his example either, invent the mass for a sacrifice, and nevertheless lead this text to purgatory. How disgraceful all this is, drunk and lying, and completely groundless with lies and blasphemies; yet they deliberately make articles of faith out of such lies (which Judas did not do in his sacrifice), and murder people over them as heretics; are these not cursed, disgraceful blasphemers and murderers?

They cry out: the church, church, church says it! that is also a lie. The church is a pillar of truth, says Paul, and is holy; therefore it is impossible that it should deal with such wanton, tangible, public lies. But the church, where such lies reign within, is its own church. For they read this epistle through all the monasteries, convents, churches, chapels, altars, in the Masses of Purgatory, as their missals testify, and in the daytime. Therefore, be sure that they are liars, blasphemers, apostate enemies of God, traitors to Christ and murderers, and beware that you do not participate in their lies and murders.

The other chapter.

They also have a beautiful text from the 66th Psalm v. 12, which reads: "We have passed through fire and water. Because the word "fire" is there, it must mean purgatory, and the word "we" means we poor souls in purgatory. Then you have certainly confirmed purgatory; now go and say that the Sophists speak without Scripture and are unlearned asses. But that "water" is also written there, you must meanwhile pay no attention, but look at the word "fire"; otherwise you should probably laugh, how the Sophists can bring water into purgatory. I tell you for certain that they are skilful people; everything here is done with the wise art and not with bad herbs.

Well then, I could well suffer that they thus juggled and deceived with the Scriptures, if they did it secretly with themselves, on their own adventure. But now there is such an earnestness (as I have said), that they are openly to be found throughout the whole of Christ.

They make articles of faith out of it, and people murder, burn, blaspheme and condemn over it; and with such sayings they found their accursed lies, and eat up the world's goods with it, and mislead the Christian souls miserably: for on such foundations stand almost the monasteries, convents, churches, altars all at once.

The first lie.

Everyone can now see in the Psalter itself that this saying does not speak of purgatory at all; but is falsely led to it by the lying sophists. It speaks only of the suffering of the saints in this time; as it says: "God, you let men pass over our head. Now the papists themselves say that not men but devils torment the souls in purgatory.

The other lie.

Thus the psalm actually belongs to the saints in the Old Testament, and was also made in the Old Testament and recorded in it; but purgatory did not yet exist at that time: therefore he cannot speak of it. How then can he prove it to us in the New Testament?

The third lie.

Those in purgatory will not offer those sacrifices of which the Psalm says, "I will enter your house with burnt offerings, I will prepare oxen and goats," which are Old Testament sacrifices, now all dead and gone: but pennies, pennies, florins, and twelve thousand drachmas will answer for it.

The fourth lie.

That the Psalm also says of water, as indicated above. But Mammon is able to turn all things in these holy Sophist churches, even lies, into truth, and to make a god out of the devil. They have found cold water also in hell, as they prove from Job 24:19, where he says, "They go in great heat from the snowy water; and let it be thought that souls must go from heat to cold, and again. But Job says: As the snow takes a

884 . Erl. 31.1S3-ISS. 37. Luther's recantation from purgatory. W. XVIII, I059-I06I. 885

End, and become water from the heat of the sun; so also the adulterers on earth perish in body and goods. But now it is an article of faith: that the heat of the sun and the water of the snow are in hell, you must believe that, or you are a heretic, for Job told the Sophists so.

But I wonder why they do not prove the purgatory from Daniel 9:8, since he laments so heartily and prays for the sin of the deceased fathers, so that God will forget them; and God Himself in the first commandment prophesies Exodus 20:5: "He will punish the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation"; so that He will admonish the children to atone for the sin of the fathers. From this also a purgatory is to be built, if it is so masterly carpentered from the example of Judah. And if they have such a sharp vision that they can see water in purgatory and snow in hell, even without glasses and lanterns, they should at least see the bright fire in such darkness. But I think it is lacking, that in these places there are not twelve thousand drachmas, nor of the sacrifice; where these do not shine, there is no purgatory to see, the right lantern is not there.

The third chapter.

Revelation Jn 14:13: "I heard a voice saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth; yea, the Spirit saith, that they may rest from their labor, because their works follow them."

This is the text that does it, that goes in the ministry of souls in the right pregnancy, and rhymes with the souls in purgatory so evenly that it is a pleasure to see: also it pushes the whole heretical teaching of Luther to the ground. For here it is clearly stated, "that their works shall follow them," that is, as they have done, so shall they be rewarded. But especially it is the works that are done after them through vigils and masses for the souls 2c What else should this text have to do in the ministry of the souls? For the fact that the same works follow afterwards, when one is dead, must certainly be true, is not to be believed; it is well seen, even so one hears it from the priest's mouth, when he speaks before the priest.

Dear friends, help me to pray for the soul of N. N., which is now celebrated with vigils and masses, so that God will consider the good works that have been done for him. 2c Yes, this following of the works has truly earned and hunted down many thousands of drachmas. But they are called the works of the deceased, because he ordered them and founded them, or others because of him.

Dear, just ask here all the sophists from all the high schools, foundations, monasteries, parishes, whether they believe that the souls they pray for are different in the Lord or not? they must say that they are different in the Lord. Because they do not pray for the unbelievers, who are not different in the Lord. There must be only true Christian souls in purgatory; the others are all damned. And it is also true that one should not nor can pray for the souls of unbelievers. That is one thing.

Now here the text says that such dead as die in the Lord are blessed; how then do they ask for money for the blessed? And whether they want to pretend a lazy gloss, that such souls are blessed in hope,^1^ ) not yet in essence, that is nothing; for their own glosses cannot prove it either: so neither does the text suffer it, which says, they are thus blessed, that they rest and are at peace; as also Isaias Cap. 57,^2^ ) 2. says, that the righteous (but a Christian is righteous, Rom. 1.),

  1. Erl.: would be.
  2. Here the old Walch edition erroneously offers 56, 2. This and other printing errors of the Walch edition, in this and in other writings, the Erlangen edition has reprinted, because the Bible passages have not been looked up by the editor. Already in the "Tischreden", Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, Introduction p. 38 s., we have provided evidence of the degree to which this was done there, and stated that Walch's comparison (as in Förstemann and Bindseil, so also) in the Erlangen edition had to serve to insert the biblical passages. The Erlangen edition played this game for a long series of years; we at least can throw it for the years from 1830 to 1854. The reprinting error given here belongs to the year 1842: Erl. Ausg., Vol. 31, p. 195; to the year 1830: "Matth. 10, 15. instead of: Matth. 10, 24. 25." Erl. Ausg., Vol. 27, p. 209 compared to Walch, alte Ausgabe, Vol. XVIII, Col. 1543; right after that aüf p. 210: "Joh. 8, 8. statt: Joh. 8, 48." 2c In Scripture alone: "Auf das überchristliche 2c Buch Emsers," Erl. Ausg. 27,221 ff, there are fifteen such errors.

886 Erl. 31, IS5-1S7. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, I06I-I063. 887

When they die, they go into peace, as into a bed; and Wis. 3, v. 1. also testifies: The souls of the righteous are at peace. So also the Scriptures testify from time to time, as of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Josiah, that they shall die in peace; and for this cause also they are called sleeping, and their death a sleep, throughout all the Scriptures.

And what especially does the whole New Testament say, but that he who believes in Christ is righteous? As Paul powerfully proves to the Romans, and John in his Gospel. Therefore he who dies in the Lord must be righteous and blessed, if it were not written here in Apocalypsis; or God himself would have to lie. And if the comfort and faith should be nothing, that he is blessed who dies in Christ, what then is our Christian faith? I would just as soon be a Turk, a Jew and a Gentile. What do such excellent, glorious promises of God help me, that whoever believes in Christ shall not be judged, John 3:16, but shall be righteous, blessed, holy, have forgiveness of sins and eternal life? Let us also seek another God, who does not lie and deceive us like this.

Well, this is the other thing, that they are blessed who die in Christ, as the text and the whole Scripture says here, and the mighty example of the butcher on the cross also testifies, to which Cyprian teaches in many places, which is now too long to tell. Now ask my dear sophists why they say that God should look at the good works that happen after them, and not at dying in the Lord. For he does not say that they will be saved by works, but by dying in the Lord: not by dying alone, but by dying in the Lord, that is, in the faith of Christ, which does it. Our dying alone will never do it; as deceivers everywhere deceive the poor people, who are judged and put to death for their iniquity.

Do you see what the twelve thousand drachmas are capable of? They obscure this beautiful, comforting, living saying by their shameful whispering and avarice, so that the Christians do not keep nor learn to die in the Lord, but deter them by their purgatory from such consolation that they must abandon faith in Christ, and such comfort

and promise, but instead rely on subsequent works, and die on them, and thus perish eternally. Behold, this is what the devil wanted with purgatory, that Christians at their end, when they need faith most of all and most urgently, would have to drop it altogether and rely on their own works, even though they had had such faith all their lives until then. And for such faithful teaching of the wretched devil, they have earned the world's goods and brought them to themselves, and thus their ingratitude for Christ's grace has been honestly paid for and well punished by the ungrateful world.

If you now ask why they ask for the blessed souls who are different in Christ, what do they want to say? They must say that God is not more than poorly simple holy; but the Pope is the Most Holy, therefore he gives the blessed souls much greater blessedness than God Himself. And if his devotional vigils, which they pray sincerely for the sake of God, were to do so, the blessed souls would have to be unhappy, and the quiet ones would have to be restless, even if God Himself had made them blessed in the first place.

How do you like these fellows? I mean, they hit the mark. Still it goes, who does not believe their lies, must be a heretic and burn. St. Augustine also says that it is a shame where one prays for the martyrs, because they are blessed. And this is also true. For, to pray for a martyr is as much to say, as, he did not die in GOD. God also does not keep His word, since He said that they shall be blessed who die for His sake, Matthaei 5, 2. ff., Luc. 6, 20. ff. and in many more places. But St. Augustine did not understand this article, which the Sophists teach that the following foreign works make the blessed, different in God, blessed. He is also certainly a heretic, and all who hold with him.

So the asses' heads, the sophists, look at all Scripture, that they publicly force the text against themselves, and nevertheless make articles of faith out of it, and murder the people over it. John wants to say this much: The Christians who die in the Lord are blessed, as also the 116th Psalm, v. 15, says: In the sight of the Lord the death of his saints is delightful; how

888 Erl. 81,197-200. 37 Luther's Recantation from Purgatory. W. XVIII, 1063-1066. 889

They are cursed and condemned before the world and must die as heretics, and therefore all their teachings and deeds must also be put to shame. But just as they die, and thereby go to salvation and glory beforehand; so their works will also go afterward, and also become glorious in all the world, as Paul also speaks of 1 Tim. 5:25. So John Hus was blessed for his person, when he died in the Lord: now his works follow after, and are now also called blessed and holy, which hitherto were blasphemed and condemned: for there remaineth nothing of the saints, not a hair of the head; all must follow after, and become blessed and holy also.

So they have also (because I am in the same 14th chapter) made a mistake when John Revelation 14:3 speaks of the 144,000 virgins who follow the Lamb, and make them physical virgins, when the text clearly says that they are images of men, and are therefore virgins, because they follow the Lamb. For thus he saith, "These are they which are not defiled with women: for they are virgins." Now if he meant females, he would have to say, "These are not defiled with men. And even if the most accurate teachers understand this to mean females, the text itself is clear before our eyes, and says: "They are virgins who are not defiled with women"; these must be men? Otherwise, what kind of virgin virtue would it be not to be defiled with women? Let it go its way; it is enough to see how the catmasters and murderers are so diligent in the Scriptures, and how certain they are of their drunken dreams, therefore they strangle the people so shamefully.

The fourth chapter.

Saint Paul 1 Cor. 3, v. 15. says: "He will be saved, but only through fire", (that is) through purgatory. Here you do not have to look at anything that Paul talks about before, and what kind of fire he means: but because you hear that he calls the word "fire", you do not think about it any further, nor look around, and badly believe that it is purgatory. So it is an article of faith, and you must be a heretic and die if you believe otherwise.

For the fire of the goldsmiths is water compared to this fire, since their fire melts little silver and gold, but purgatory melts twelve thousand drachmas; indeed, all monasteries, convents, churches, chapels, altars, with all their goods and honor, are melted out of purgatory. Therefore, to confirm the above, put it in the Scriptures where the word fire is written, and then do not doubt that the Scriptures speak of purgatory, and whoever says otherwise, let him be damned and burned, like a heretic.

But because my dear lord and friend, Johann Pommer, our archbishop in Wittenberg and probably in more places, has interpreted this text abundantly, and has powerfully chased away the apostles of purgatory and tyrants: so this time I will have directed the readers to the same booklet, in which they will find how honestly and well the blind leaders have dragged St. Paul's word into purgatory and with such shameful lies sucked out the world's good and deceived the poor souls so miserably; about which they have not yet repented or repented. Paul's word into purgatory and sucked the world's good out of it with such a shameful lie, and deceived the poor souls so miserably; yet they do not want to repent or repent, but remain obdurate protectors.

If anyone reads the text for himself, he will feel the great diligence and the faithful heart of the Sophists toward Christianity, as they earnestly sought the salvation of souls. For the text clearly states that it speaks of the preachers and teachers who are to build the Christian church with their doctrine, and calls some doctrine gold, silver, precious stones, but some wood, hay, straw: Not the gold, silver, precious stones, which women wear on their necks, nor the wood, hay, straw, which cows and calves eat; for the doctrine and preaching of the Christians will not eat a cow, nor hang a woman on its neck; which a cow may well reckon for itself, if it be not already a sophist: So also the fire, that the doctrines may be proved, is not the fire, that gold, silver, hay, straw may be proved, but another fire, which proveth in the day, in the which it shall be revealed what is right or wrong. But enough of that, and on to the Pomeranian booklet.

Because it is now actually certain that St. Paul speaks in this place of the doctrines.

890 Erl. 31, soo-sos. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII. 1066-1068. 891

I would like to know why they ask for the souls of the common Christian people, of which this text says nothing. And not much more do they let the common man ask for themselves, and do they themselves give money for it? For when Paul speaks of purgatory here, it affects only the teachers, preachers and pastors, that is, the clergy who have the office of preaching, and not the common Christian man. Is not this text then finely directed to purgatory? which speaks only of the fire that must be suffered not by the common man, but by the pastors, teachers, and clergy; and they seal and draw it on a fire that the common Christian man must suffer. Yes, dear fellow, Mammon is an almighty God and a learned theologian who knows how to interpret the Scriptures correctly, as you see here.

But here they cry out (and what else can they cry out?): The holy fathers and the Christian church have interpreted it thus, and understood it for purgatory, as Augustine, Gregory, and their many others; and also the great father himself, Mammon, the greatest coin-master on earth, who saw the twelve thousand drachmas shining in the Old Testament, and by his alchemy makes good for all the world out of the same in the New Testament. Here you should say, and notice it well: The dear holy fathers have not only in this place, but also in more places, guided the Scriptures according to their meaning and good opinion; not that they want to put articles of faith, nor have they murdered or condemned anyone over it; as especially St. Bernard often uses the Scripture sayings from the measure abundantly, although it is not the actual opinion of Scripture, and yet may be understood without harm so far that one does not make serious nor articles there. I must prove this with examples.

As if Augustine speaks, on Psalm 4, v. 9: In pace in id ipsum dormiam, and indicates with long words, that iä ipsum means God himself; although there is no such thing in Latin and Greek, much less in Ebraic. Should the good man

because he has no error there, but vain good Christian thoughts, whether they are not founded in that place, but elsewhere. But if a mad sophist were to base himself on this, and make an article of faith out of it, and burn the people over it who do not want to believe that id ipsum means God: do you think that this would please Saint Augustine, where he now lived? Do you think he would say, I have commanded it, and have for an article of faith what I say, and whoever does not keep it should be burned? Yes, beware of that; he should well say: Who has called you to make my words an article of faith?

Item, if St. Gregory says: five pounds (Matth. 25.) are the five senses, and two pounds are understanding and work, and one pound is understanding alone; and someone says: Dear father, do the animals also have five senses, how can it then be called five pounds, which Christ gives to his apostles? whom he not only sets higher than all animals, but also masters over all men's understanding throughout the whole world, and shall not give them anything higher than five senses, which they had before, and which the lice and fleas also have? Well, now St. Gregory teaches this; but do you think that he would have set this as an article of faith, and murder all those who do not believe it?

Item, when St. Jerome writes that virginity fills heaven, but the married state fills the earth. Do you think that he wrote this with such seriousness or in the opinion that it should be an article of faith, and that everyone should believe it? What could be said more unchristian and heretical than that the marriage state does not belong to heaven but to earth? If no married man should be saved, where would Abraham be, and all the fathers and apostles? And if virginity should help to heaven, then Christ and his faith should be nothing, and many heathens, who were unbaptized, unchristian and godless, would have to be in heaven; for they truly had many virgins. Who does not see here that

892 Erl. 31,202-204. Luther's Revocation of Purgatory. W. XVIII, I068-I07I. 893

St. Jerome speaks much too mildly 1) in this? Nevertheless, he did not mean it in a bad way, and is therefore not a heretic. But much less should it be an article of faith that forces us to believe such things.

Item, when St. Ambrose (Ps. 19, 3.) Dies diei eructat verbum: "One day tells another, one night announces it to another", thus interprets: one day, that is, one Christian tells another; one night, that is, one Jew tells another. . Do you think he wants to force me to believe it as an article, that day means a Christian and night means a Jew? since the psalm does not exist, nor does it suffer in the text.

Such a way of conducting Scripture is called catachresis, abusivus modus loquendi, a misunderstanding that one sometimes borrows a saying from Scripture, and with it makes a folly (as we call it), but without harming the text and the right understanding, which should have the seriousness without all folly. As one has made of the Alexandro of such farces very much, as: U non mutabis, donec plurale videbis: one should not throw away old shoes, one has new ones. Indeclinabile vulgus: the rabble is a naughty thing. However, it would be better to leave the holy scripture unadulterated with such antics, or to handle it with greater reason: for there is danger that one will finally get away from the text, and lose the right sense, and from the misunderstanding and antics become an article of faith, as the Sophists and Papists do here in Purgatory, indeed almost vainly have such catachreses in their articles.

And if Gregory, Jerome and the old teachers take a lot from Matth. 13, that the seed (God's word) of some carries thirty, some sixty, some a hundredfold, then they understand that thirty means the married state, sixty the widow state, a hundred the virgin state, which states are all three before in the world (without such seed of Christ), created and appointed by God. And it is ridiculous that Christ's word should not do more than give these three ranks that are there before. Well then, these things are yet sung and sounded throughout all Christendom. And

  1. I.e. unfit.

Whoever would take it seriously, there would be no greater heresy on earth: for Christ and his word would be and would be nothing more than what was there before, among all the heathen, the ungodly, and the servants of devils.

Who then will say that this must be an article of faith about which people are to be put to death? How much better to say that the dear fathers spoke such things thoughtlessly, but not in an evil, heretical way? For as St. Augustine says, "To err does not make heretics; but to err knowingly and obstinately makes heretics." "To err I may (he says again), but to heresy I will not." Why? He does not want to make error an article, nor to defend it, but to let himself be guided. I would have brought up more than a thousand such sayings of the dear holy fathers, in which they may have erred, and also may have had good thoughts, but not in the right place: in which they would not have remained stiff-necked, nor hard on it, if they had been reported otherwise: much less did they want to make articles out of it and condemn and kill Christians over it, as our nonsensical bloodhounds do.

And what can we say? We must not dare to follow all the work and word of our Lord Christ, who never committed any sin, nor erred or failed, as St. Peter 1 Epist. 2:22 and Isaiah Cap. 53:9 say, that he "committed no sin, nor was ever found false in his mouth. For I certainly may not fast forty days and walk on the sea as he did. Neither did he have house, nor home, nor wife, nor child, nor anything of his own on earth; nor did he command any to follow him. 2. He also taught about the three kinds of people, Matth. 19, 12, in which it is not necessary to keep everything. Why then should we be compelled, but for articles of faith, what the dear fathers do and say, without scripture, who may yet sin and err, yea, must often and daily sin and err, that they may keep the Lord's Prayer and the nineteenth Psalm true and right?

  1. I.e. something.

894 Erl. 31:204-20." V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 1071-1073. 895

And if they want to follow the example of the saints in all (even unnecessary) things, why don't they rather follow the Lord Christ Himself and let go of monasteries, convents and all their own property? Yes, see you in good health, come back tomorrow! Here it lies, it sticks and it clings. What serves mammon, we can use the example and word of the fathers; but what does not, that must be heresy. If you are torn, dear papists, let the devil mend you. Now it is no wonder that you all turn the sayings of the fathers into articles. So also the preacher monks have charged their Thomas Aquinas to Christianity, that all letters must be articles, which is full, full of error, until the high schools themselves could not stand it, and had to condemn some pieces of him, and had almost come to the point that we had to let articles of faith be, when a full monk's belly cured, or let a foul wind drive. But now everything is forgotten, have never done anything bad.

Now, if one leads the fathers on this text of Paul 1 Cor. 3 about purgatory, that is not enough; but they must further prove that the same fathers intended such things for articles of faith, and not for their mere thoughts: in addition, they must also prove that the fathers were commanded by God to set new articles of faith apart from Scripture, and to force the Christians to do so, or to kill them. Where this does not happen, all the fathers and saints, however great they may be, remain with all their doctrine and life under this saying 1 Thess. 5, 21: "Test all things, and keep that which is good"; for then the Holy Spirit casts them among the Christians and forbids them the power to put articles of faith.

St. Augustine himself confesses the same, and writes to St. Jerome thus: "Dear brother, I do not think that you would have held your books like the books of the apostles and prophets; for I read all the other books besides the holy Scriptures in such a way that I do not believe everything they say, no matter how learned and holy they may be. Unless they prove it to me with Scripture or with sound reason.

point out. In the same way I want to have readers over my books, as I am over the other books". Haec Augustine.

Since it is clear that the dear fathers often stumbled and had good thoughts in an uneven place, but were never heretical, stiff-necked, much less commanded, set or taught such their stumbling and thoughts to articles of faith (about which to burn the Christians); so it is easy to reckon how honestly and faithfully the sophists deal with the Christians, who out of their own foolish head, out of sacrilegious thirst and devil's input, without God's command, against the will of the fathers, without any cause, make everything they want to be articles of faith, in the holy fathers, and murder the people over it, disregarding and trampling underfoot the Holy Spirit, who says 1 Thess. 5, 21: Test everything and keep what is good. Then it must not fail, because they confirm the error of the fathers, without their will and command, that not the fathers, but they themselves are heretics, under the name and appearance of the fathers, as it is said, He that reproacheth lies, reproacheth still more. For he does not lie who speaks falsely or erroneously, but he who persists and acts stubbornly is a knowing liar.

The fifth chapter.

Here you have St. Gregory in his Dialogo, who is almost the first and most powerful one who instituted and caused the purgatory and the sacrificial masses: he shows many examples of the spirits that appeared, which he (as a good, pious, simple man) believed, and also believed in the flying lights and the spirits as if they were souls, which the pagans did not believe to be souls in the past, and now it is obvious that they are devils. And of these things he sets much, the good man, and believes everything, without Scripture and testimony of God. And this is almost the strongest and most fundamental reason for the whole purgatory, which all the world has followed, and has thus been torn down, so that almost no worship, no good work, no money has remained on earth, it has had to go to purgatory, and help the souls, and in my opinion no richer lie has come on earth than purgatory,

896 Erl. 31,206-208. 37 Luther's Recantation from Purgatory. W. XVIII, 1073-1076. 897

until they have betrayed themselves with the indulgence and pushed themselves to the ground.

Here I say, as above, let St. Gregory be a pious man, who held all this without heresy, nor forced anyone to do so, nor made an article of faith out of it, nor ever proved it with scripture or miracles. But how would I come to think that I should consider this an article of faith, over which I should have lost life and limb, which St. Gregory himself does not want to have considered an article of faith, has not commanded it to me anywhere, nor has he had any command to command it? But that one makes articles of faith out of it, and murders people over it, that is not St. Gregory's opinion, nor the opinion of St. Gregory himself. Gregory's opinion, nor of the Holy Church, nor can anyone prove it; But it is a boshastic addition, overkill, and the own little sin of the miserly, lying sophists, who saw and kill the world's body and goods, soul and salvation with it, and thus act out of their own thirst with dear Christianity not only as arch-heretics and liars, but as the desperate traitors, evil-doers, murderers, and blasphemers, who would rather have the whole world condemned by their lies than be without the twelve thousand drachmas.

And whether they pretend: The church has approved and confirmed such fathers' books; they themselves know well that the church, by confirming them, does not add more to the fathers' books than is written in them, as the sophists do here: nor do they themselves hold that everything is right that is found in a confirmed teacher. Exemplum de Thoma Aquinate. So this is also an addition, that the church makes articles of faith with her confirming; the sophists invent such.

Thus the pope himself has set in his spiritual right, from St. Augustine's Proverbs, 9. s. Noli, that one should not believe any fathers, because they prove it with the Scriptures. If one is to follow this spiritual law, then one must truly believe nothing of St. Gregory and Purgatory. For there is no scripture, but vain thoughts of one's own. But now again, where one does not believe St. Gregory of Purgatory, body and soul are lost. Is it not a strange

Wonder about the sophistical pabstacy? It wants its spiritual right to be believed, or one must be a heretic and burn; if one believes it, then one is a heretic again and must burn, because here it forces me not to believe St. Gregory, and yet to believe; which I now do, then I am damned and lost. So let the devil be a pope in my place! But all this is the fault of the sophists alone: for what they teach, the pope and bishops must believe, and the whole world; for the pope and bishops take little notice of teaching and preaching.

The sixth chapter.

There they have the whole scripture before them, with all letters and jumbles, and nothing is left before purgatory. For look at their vigils and spiritual testimonies, and you will find how masterfully they draw and interpret the whole Scripture to Purgatory. Everything that has ever been in the New and Old Testaments must be called purgatory. I must tell you here some psalms and texts, which they use in their vigils and pastorals, so that you can see how shamefully they have cheated God and the world.

They have chosen fifteen noble psalms for the vigil, which you may now read yourself in the German Psalter, I will show them to you. And if you find a letter in it that rhymes with purgatory or with the departed souls, I will no longer be worthy of any man. And how can they, because they are all made in the Old Testament, since there has never been any thought of purgatory? But they must now, Mammon can well teach them.

But it is these:

  1. the fifth: Lord, hear my words.

2nd The sixth: Oh Lord, do not punish me. 3rd: The seventh: In you, O > Lord, I trust. 4. The 23rd: The Lord is my shepherd.

The 25th: To you, O Lord, I rise.

The 27th: The Lord is my light.

The 40th: I wait for the Lord.

The 41st: Blessed is he who accepts.

The 42nd: How the stag cries.

898 Erl. 31, SV8-S10. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 1076-1079. 899

After these 9 psalms, they have 9 lessons from the book of Job, of which a special book would have to be written against them, as they draw them so blasphemously and shamefully. Then follow the Lauds Psalms.

  1. 51st: God, have mercy on me.

The 62nd: My soul is silent.

The 63rd: God, you are my God.

  1. 130th: From the depths.

5 Is 38: I said, now I must.

  1. the last three psalms.

Dear, take a sophist to you, and read all these Psalms of the Vigils, or one of them, and let him show you in which word of Purgatory it is said, or how many souls in the Old Testament were redeemed from Purgatory by it. For you can be sure that some of these Psalms, such as the 40th and 41st, go alone and nowhere else but to Christ's own person, as they are introduced in the Gospel of John 13, v. 18, and Ebr. 10, v. 5. The others all speak of the suffering and consolation of the saints here on earth, and there is no way to suffer the Psalms to waver (where it should be done seriously), so that they should speak of Christ and not of Christ at the same time, so that our articles of faith would become uncertain, and faith would have to fall, and all our consolation would come to nothing in times of need.

I will leave the vespers of the dead and the masses for the souls, but especially the blasphemous collections, in which they ask heaven of their benefactors: for it is groundless with lies and blasphemies in purgatory, so that others may also have something to think about in this, and whether they come back, I may further force them 1) and bathe them.

I am sorry for the noble and precious Psalms that they have to serve the stinking avarice and unseemly belly in such shameful, blasphemous, manifold misuse. First of all, that the right understanding of Christ and his saints must be darkened, prevented and corrupted for the sake of purgatory, and the hearts of Christians deprived of it; which alone would be cause enough for the extermination of all vigils, together with foundations, monasteries, chapels (if it would not be otherwise),

  1. d. i. zwacken.

so that no memory of them would remain. For the Psalms were made to exercise and learn faith in them, and not to deliver souls from purgatory through misunderstanding.

Secondly, that they must be sung and read in vain and in vain delusion, to mock God and to harm Him. For since purgatory is nothing, nor can it be proven, and yet one prays to God about it with these psalms, it is just as if I were to ask a prince for some prisoners in a tower, and he himself knew neither of the tower nor of the prisoners; then I would have to be nonsensical, or would certainly mock the prince as a fool, with beautiful words that do not rhyme with that. If they do not want to mock God as a fool, then they must certainly make purgatory certain beforehand: think God knows nothing about it, because he has never said a word about it. But when do they want to make it certain?

Thirdly, because they do not need the Psalms for faith, as they cannot from misunderstanding, it follows from necessity that they read them plainly, without heart, without prayer; and act with them as with a work, by which they want to drain the souls of God. Now a work in worship without faith is a real idolatry and temptation of God, as well as a mockery of God: so it is obvious that their vigil is not prayer. For if they wanted to pray in it, they would probably appoint other persons to do so, who would not act so frivolously in it, even so many psalms, lectures and sounds would be of no use everywhere; one psalm would do.

But in order to see that it is a work, so that the people's mouths are opened and the more money is carried, the best vigil must be the one that is the longest and the one that babbles the most; just as if God had a desire for great and much babbling, when he says in Matth. the sixth, v. 7: "When you pray, you should not babble much, like the pagans. And the priest, who says before the altar that God wants to see the good works that are done according to him, freely confesses that his vigil, mass and ministry is a work so that God should be reconciled, and may

900 Erl. 31, sio-si3. Luther's recantation of purgatory. W. xviii, 107g-um. 901

Christ's mediator nothing to it; God must well go away and hear them Himself, with their unbelieving works, without Christ.

Fourth, because such misunderstanding, vain labor, and unbelieving work is in their vigils, external misuse of these psalms must also follow, namely, that one sings and performs them with indolence, unwillingness, displeasure, and unwillingness, so that even such unwillingness spoils a work, even if it were done rightly and well in pure faith. For God wants to have happy and willing servants, and does not like forced and unwilling services. Now one sees before one's eyes how they sing vigils in monasteries and convents; there they cackle the dear psalms like geese cackle the straw, so that they do not make a whole word; as then the devil himself mocks them with the saying: It would have to be a poor devil to whom they should pray away a soul.

Fifth, because there is misunderstanding, error, unbelief, effort and unwillingness in the work, it must also follow that it must be sustained with money and done solely for the sake of money and not for the sake of God. Otherwise the work would be in vain and would not stand. And this is also the true God of the vigils; for this reason they are kept, otherwise they would not be seen. We can see that no vigil is kept without money, and is endowed with all special interest, and they sell it also truly impudently like another commodity, without it not having to be called bought. And you should see where the money turned, whether there should not also soon turn the vigils and Seelmefsen.

Of such blasphemous abuses and abominations I would well denounce more, if I were to reckon them against all the commandments and teachings of Christ; and the dear noble Psalms must serve for this purpose, and court the wretched idol Mamman, to seduce the souls of Christians; to mock and blaspheme Christ and God, and for all that help to devour the world's goods and to consume them shamefully with harlots and knaves.

And so that all the virtues of the papal church come together in one heap, they do not let them suffice with these abominations, that they

They misunderstand the Psalms, hinder faith and the consolation of the spirit, deceive the souls, mock God with faithless, foul, vain works, and serve their belly and mammon, robbing the world's goods with them and squandering them shamefully; but they go on, and whoever does not want to worship such abominations and consider them right, must be a damned heretic and burn. So they are children like their father. For how is it possible that he who is a liar should not also become a murderer? because the devil, his father, is a liar and a murderer, John 8:44.

And for the surrender 1) they make no conscience over it, repent and atone for it never, but defy God for it, and praise it as the highest worship, which will crown them above all saints in heaven for such murder, lies and bloodshed. And with such a piece they surpass the devil himself, their father, and improve his kingdom with it, since he cannot. For even though he is obdurate, he still cannot grasp the pride and defiance that God will reward him gloriously for his murder and lies in heaven, as they do, his dear little children.

So much will I have indicated this time for the supply or beginning of the histories, for the strengthening of ours and for the warning of our descendants, that they may have a knowledge of how the papacy teaches about purgatory and what virtue they have committed about it; and that they may know how to beware of it, lest they consent to its blasphemous abominations and make themselves partakers of all the blood that is shed by the papists. For he who consents to the work of the papacy must also take upon himself and be partaker of all the abominations, blasphemies, lies, murders, and seductions that are therein, even of all the innocent blood (as Christ says) that has been shed on earth from Abel until now. For it is One Body, One Spirit, One Will, One Exemplar of all holy murderers; I will be excused, and faithfully warned.

But what I have said too little here, I will say further in the article about the mass and others. For because they are ob-

  1. I.e. what goes beyond the measure.

902 Erl. 31.213. V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. XVIII, 1081-1083. 903

Psalms and proverbs may be drawn to their purgatory, how should they not draw more proverbs there? Can one draw the whole scripture (who wants to do it) on a lie. Mammon is the most powerful god above all gods, says Paul and Daniel; therefore it is no wonder that he also exalts himself above our God, and makes of the holy scriptures what he wills. For you should see that if Mammon were my God, that I could give enough of the twelve thousand drachmas, I would give them all to him.

I can convert sophists and heretics in one day and abolish not only purgatory but also the entire papacy before a moon has passed. Therefore, my doctrine lacks nothing except the divinity of the great god Mammon; if I had that, it would not be heresy nor error, but the dear pure truth. But now it is erroneous and heretical. Why? Because it is poor. Poverty is my error and heresy. That is enough of that; I will remain with my poor God, to whom be praise and thanksgiving forever, amen.

*Excerpt from D. Johann Eck's refutation of Luther's foregoing recantation of Purgatory. )

September 2, 1530.

At the beginning of this writing, the author, according to his habit and his deeply ingrained hatred of evangelical truth, violently attacks Luther, the great confessor of the same, accusing him of considering Purgatory to be something invented and unfounded in Scripture, as if he were falsifying Scripture, leading pious souls away from the true faith, and thus spreading a very dangerous and horrible error in Christendom. To counter this, and to refute it from the Scriptures themselves, he claims to have been urged by love and zeal for godliness.

But before Eck comes to the matter at hand, and undertakes to refute Luther's writing, in his opinion, he tries to show first and foremost how Luther contradicts himself. And this is his main effort in the first part. He tries to force the first contradiction out of the title, and thinks that it would not be correct, since Luther does not mention a recantation with a single word throughout the entire text. However, it is to be regarded as a retraction, insofar as the blessed Luther refers to purgatory in it.

and thus, as it were, does not want to recognize those passages in his first writings, in which he still asserts the same, as his own.

By continuing his refutation and referring to these passages, D. Eck accuses Luther of the second contradiction. But this is easily lifted by what has been reported from Luther's first writings, and since Luther himself has gradually changed in many respects, and in many a doctrinal point has gained a better insight, we Lutherans prefer to take the proof of his doctrine from those writings that he produced after 1523 or 1524, since, on the other hand, those who are of a papist mind take all their arrows that they unleash against Luther and his followers from his first writings. This is what D. Eck does here. He refers to the fifteenth thesis of the "Explanation and Proof of Luther's Disputation on the Power of Indulgences", which Luther had already published in 1518. One looks up the passage above in No. 11, Col. 146 ff. He also refers to the "Leipzig Disputation", which was held in 1519, in which Luther himself stated to him

*This writing, which is excerpted here, has the title: "Christenliche erhaltung der stell der geschrifft, für das Fegfeur, Wider Luthers lasterbüchlin. By Doctor Johan Eck. 1530." 24 leaves in small quarto. Printer and place of printing are not indicated. We are content to reprint here the excerpt written by Walch with some improvements, although the original edition is in our hands.

904 38 Eck's refutation of the previous paper. W. xvin, 1083-1086. 905

He had confessed that he firmly believed that there was a purgatory. Compare Walch, old edition, vol. XV, Col. 1198 ff. He continues with the "instruction of Luther on several articles, so him of his Abgönnern auflegt and zugemessen worden", edited in the year mentioned. See Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Col. 844. Likewise, his "Reason and Cause of all Articles, which are unlawfully condemned by the Roman Bull," which was brought to light in 1520, because Luther had made this confession about the XXXVII article: "I have never denied Purgatory, and I still hold it, as I have written and confessed many times. See Walch, old edition, vol. XV, Col. 1862. Finally, he also draws a passage from a sermon by Luther on the Gospel on the first Sunday after Trinity, Luc. 16, by the rich man, which Luther had printed along with several others in 1523. Because he claims in it that one does not commit a sin if one prays for the deceased, D. Eck draws a conclusion from this about the existence of the purgatory, which Luther did not doubt at the time. One finds the quoted sermon in our St. Louis edition, Vol. XI, where the passage referred to by Eck, Col. 1206, § 28 and § 29 can be read.

After D. Eck has finished with this and believes to have sufficiently proven the contradiction reproached to Luther from his own words, he turns in the other part to Luther's writing itself, which is divided into six chapters.

In the first, Luther merely dwells on the passage hon Judah the Maccabee, and accuses the papists of four lies, which Eck answers shallowly enough. For after he has made known his displeasure that Luther rejects the books of the Maccabees as apocryphal, which, according to Augustine's testimony, would have been included by the Church in the number of divine books of Scripture, he replies to the first lie: If there were nothing explicit in the text about Purgatory, it would be just as sophistical to doubt it altogether, as if someone wanted to deny that there were three persons in the Godhead, since the word "person" is nowhere found in Scripture, and as if someone wanted to argue that Christ did not prove the resurrection of the dead against the Sadducees with this saying: "Have ye not read that it is told you of GOD, saying, I am the GOD of Abraham, the GOD of Isaac, and the GOD of Jacob?"because not a word of the resurrection was thought of in it. If Luther continues and does not refer this passage both to Purgatory and much more to the resurrection, then he is wrong.

Eck says that Luther falsifies the text, in which it is clearly stated that it is a salutary thing to pray for the sins of the deceased, but not for the resurrection, which the ungodly would share just as much as the pious. Eck agrees with Luther that the conclusion that a deceased person is in sin, therefore he is in purgatory, is useless, provided the sentence is understood as such; the latter, however, wants to restrict it according to papal theology: a deceased person is in such sins that can still be forgiven, therefore he is in purgatory, because nothing impure enters heaven, and in hell, from which there is no redemption, forgiveness would not take place. But Eck completely rejects the conclusion: Judas prays for the dead, therefore they are in purgatory, and makes this conclusion: Judas prays for the dead, therefore he believes that there is purgatory; because if he did not believe it, he would not pray for the dead either.

To the other lie D. Eck answers thus: If we would do such sacrifices, we would not immediately become Jews. For if the ceremonial law of Moses had now ceased, this would not be of such a kind. Enough, therefore, that one could take a proof that one had believed in purgatory in the Old Testament, and there would be no reason why it should have ceased to exist in the New Testament. If, moreover, all that is written were written for our learning, the examples of others would also have great force, which is why Paul in the epistle to the Ebrews, and even Christ himself, referred so strongly to examples. As for the sacrifice of sons, the Jews did not imitate Abraham, who had received an explicit command from God, but rather the idolatrous nations. According to the examples of Joshua, David, and Gideon, the "wicked and God-rejecting" were allowed to be punished alive; Luther, however, would have seduced the peasants with his teachings, stirred them up, and then had them put down; Gideon's example, who had an ephod and all the priestly ornaments made, did not matter, because it had been done against divine command; of Judah, on the other hand, one nowhere reads that God had forbidden him what he had done, and therefore no one in the church had ever considered Judah's deed unjust.

To the accusation of the third lie he answers: Judas must have believed that there is a purgatory, because he wants one to pray for the dead that they might be freed from their sins.

906 V. Luther's Dispute with Eck. W.xvm,io86-io88.. 907

den. Since this prayer helps neither those who are in hell nor those who are in the limbo of the fathers, it necessarily follows that Judas must have prayed for those who are in purgatory. That there was no purgatory in the Old Testament would be a poem of Luther's, which obviously conflicts with Scripture; Eck refers to the custom of the Jews, who mourned their dead for forty days, and to the example of Joseph, who mourned for his father for seven days. That the sophists in the New Testament say that there was no purgatory in the Old Testament is wrong, since the teachers of the New Testament found clear traces of it in various passages of the Old Testament long ago, e.g. Job 10, 20. ff. 1 Sam. 2, 6.

D. Eck's answer to the fourth lie is short, and goes like this: it would not be necessary that, if one refers to examples, one should exactly orient oneself according to all and every circumstance of the same. If Judas had offered sacrifices for the dead in his time, we too could offer sacrifices in the office of the mass, now that Christ has instituted the sacrifice of his body and blood.

Since Luther has shown in the other chapter that the words Ps. 66:12, "We have passed through fire and water," are ridiculously used by the papists to refer to purgatory, and he again accuses them of four lies, Eck answers the first by saying that the teachers of his church consistently deny that the souls in purgatory are tormented by the devil. For such souls would have overcome the devil, and he would therefore have no more power and authority to torment them. Eck admits that the psalm is about the suffering of the saints, but he does not think that it follows: This psalm is about it, therefore it cannot be interpreted to something else. Otherwise, Luther's opinion, according to which he understands the psalm to be about the suffering of the saints, would also fall away, because according to the literal understanding, it contains a thanksgiving for the deliverance of the Israelite people from the hands of the Egyptians; But if this psalm, according to Luther's explanation, also speaks of the suffering of the righteous, but the souls in purgatory are also righteous and holy according to Luther, consequently this psalm would also have to be understood by such, since the suffering would be indicated by fire and water, and this would be much more sensitive with those in purgatory than with those who live on earth.

The remaining three lies are summarized by D. Eck, and he gives the following answer: Luther actually wrote this Psalm only about the saints of old.

If he wants to understand the Old Testament, he contradicts the interpretation of the Fathers, the superscription of the Psalm and himself, since he has applied it to all afflicted souls, to the martyrs and to the whole church in the book of his discussions. That one should not have known about purgatory in the Old Testament has already been examined. That the Psalm was written in the Old Testament, no conclusion could be drawn from it, therefore we must not prove Purgatory from it in the New Testament; Christ, the evangelists and Paul himself would have constantly referred to Moses, to the prophets and to the Psalms. If Luther goes on to say that those in purgatory would not sacrifice burnt offerings to the Lord, of which the psalm immediately reports; Eck is immediately finished with the answer: If one draws a single verse of a psalm to a certain doctrinal point, then it is not necessary to explain the whole psalm from it. Finally, the explanation of the words of Job Cap. 24, 19, according to which heat and snow water are understood as the punishments of hell, is quite natural: the context does not stand in its way: this can be explained with the words of Christ Matth. 22, v. 13, and has Jerome and the whole church for itself.

In the third chapter, Luther refers to the passage Revelation 14:13, but Eck did not get involved with it, and he did well to do so, because it obviously defeats the papal purgatory all at once.

In the fourth chapter, Luther comes to the passage 1 Cor. 3, 15, which the papists also forcefully interpret as referring to Purgatory, and Eck defends himself against Luther in such a way that he first presupposes his own explanation of this passage and then answers Luther's accusations. For since the latter holds that the text is about the preachers and teachers who were to build the Christian church with their teachings, Eck first comes up again with the Leipzig Disputation, in which Luther admitted that this passage could be understood of Purgatory (see Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Col. 1210), and then assumes that it deals with the fire of the last judgment; but then he claims that Paul does not speak both of doctrine and of works, and says: "Every man's work" (not the work of doctrine) "will be revealed through the fire. Since everyone works either good or evil, this text would also apply to everyone, and not only to teachers and preachers: the fact that the Fathers would have understood this passage in this way would be sufficient reason for the Roman-minded to be in agreement.

908 38 Eck's refutation of the previous paper. W. XVIII, 1088-1090. 909

But the passages from Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose, which Luther would have cited, conclude nothing, because it is known that the writings of the Fathers do not serve as proof everywhere, and they sometimes contradict themselves: the words, "we must not dare to follow all the works and words of Christ," would not be true. Of course, we could not follow Christ in all his works, especially miracles, but we could follow his words. In response to the passage from Augustine that Luther refers to, Eck says that Luther is referring to a different understanding; it is true that the fathers, out of humility, did not make much of their writings and did not hold them in the same esteem as the writings of the prophets and apostles; but if they all had the same interpretation, which no Christian has ever rejected, which furthermore agrees with other passages of Scripture and has been accepted by the entire church, then Luther would be going too far in wanting to punish all the fathers and the entire church itself.

The other passages that the papists used to cite for Purgatory, as Ecclesiastes 4, 14, Matth. 12, 32, Matth. 5, 26, 1 Sam. 2, 6, Ps. 30, 4.In the fifth chapter, he cites Gregory as the originator of the doctrine of purgatory, which Eck contradicts with great clamor, saying that the ancients had already thought of it hundreds of years ago, as David, Job, Judas Maccabaeus, Christ, Paul; But of the Fathers, Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, all of whom lived before Gregory; what Gregory writes of the apparitions of souls cannot be entirely rejected; if Gregory has these apart from and without the Scriptures, then he is not to be blamed.

and accepted and believed their testimony, this holy man had received a testimony from God Himself in His miraculous works, which He had performed through him, so that souls had been miraculously redeemed through him, as he told about himself. What Eck, in order to elevate Gregorius and to defend him against Luther, further brings forward, shall, since it is of equal importance, be passed over in silence.

There is still the sixth chapter left, and what Luther brings up in it against the papists, Eck recently answers in this way: he and his fellow Christians had enough that they knew some passages of Scripture, from which Purgatory could be proven; that in the Psalms, which had been chosen for vigils, no letter could be found that rhymed with Purgatory, Luther would again contradict himself, in that one could only read, among other things, what he wrote about Psalm 6, 4. But since the explanation of the first Psalms of David was also one of Luther's first exegetical works, this reproach is easily lifted from what has been reported above about the first writings of the blessed man, not to mention that he seems to speak merely in spray words in the place mentioned.

Since the answer to what else Luther objected against Purgatory is also of poor relevance, it is not worth the effort to dwell on it; only at the end of this it should be remembered that D. Eck assigned this writing to Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, and finished it on September 2, 1530.

910 "V- Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xviii. loso f. ' 911

*39 D. Joh. Eck's "Reply for Hieron. Emser against Luther's mad hunt," to Johann von Schleinitz. )

28 October 1519.

Translated from Latin.

In your name, sweet Lord Jesus!

Johann Eck wishes salvation in the Lord Jesus to the most reverend > Lord, Johann von Schleinitz, the most worthy bishop of the Church of > Meissen, his most reverend Lord.

  1. The holy Conciliar of Elvira 1) has salutary decreed that bishops, priests or deacons should not go hunting, which is mentioned again in the Decretals under the title of the Conciliar of Orleans (Aurelianensis). And St. Augustine calls hunting a loose art 2c, and St. 2) Jerome on Ps. 91. v. 3. says: Esau was a hunter because he was a sinner; and we find nowhere in sacred Scripture a saint who was a hunter; yet we find saintly fishermen. And what is this aiming at, most reverend bishop? namely, that Martin Luther, a priest and theologian and monk, plays the hunter; and it would still go (mite esset), if he hunted wild prey, wild pigs, deer or roe deer, in forests, drifts and sunny fields: but so he hunts an innocent man, namely Hieronymus Emser, a man who stands out in the Church of God by honesty, prudence and scholarship, and that not with barking dogs and gie-
  2. In the original Elibitanum: IHiberitamim. - This Concil took place in the year 305.
  3. In Latin: Lern. Hiero, for which probably löeatus Hieronymus is to be read, which we have put in bey text. The same case, that Leatns seems to be read in Lerntmräns, is repeated again in this writing, soon after the middle. Our suspicion becomes almost certain that in these two places UernUaräns is not noted in the margin, which Eck does otherwise without exception with all his sources.

Luther is not a man of the fierce bull-baiters, but of his unfortunate writings, his blasphemous mouth, insolent slander, antics, useless gibberish, lies, and other such horrid monstrosities. For by such arts, namely blasphemy, vituperation and insults, 3) Luther seeks to make himself famous, and thinks neither of the fear of God nor of his standing.

  1. But if you ask, most reverend bishop, what is the cause of Luther sharpening his blasphemous tooth 4) on my priest, who is such a respected man because of his righteousness and purity of morals, I will tell you: Your neighbors, the red-blooded and heretical Bohemians (for I do not speak of the faithful, who are worthy of all praise), have imagined that they have found in Luther a champion of their errors, and have made public prayers for Luther, that he may be victorious against me in the disputation at Leipzig, but God has not heard the sinners; they have also secretly sent some of their lights to be present at the disputation in Leipzig.

Luther had said: Some quite Christian and evangelical articles of Hus would have been condemned by the Concilio of Constance on the authority of quite godless flatterers: because Emser was now worried that the heretics and red spirits would mock the faithful, and boast of such patronage, he wrote a letter to the administrator of the Catholic Church at Prague, so that the righteous man, who holds so firmly and faithfully to the communion of the truth of our faith, would have something with which to

  1. ledoriis probably formed from laedo.
  2. Ibeoninum dentem (Horatii Dpist. lib. I" 6pi8t. XVIII, V. 78). From Theon, a Greek poet who was particularly addicted to shame.

*The Weimar edition vol. II, p. 657 mentions two special editions of this writing. One of them is, according to the printer's mark, printed by Martin Landsberg in Leipzig. It comprises 10 quarto leaves. The title is: Joannis Eckii pro Hieronymo Emser contra malosanam Luteri Vonationom responsio. The other has the title: Xd rsverendum )-!>>- oatoliMs eoolesiae VraMnn. administratorem, Hieron^mi Vmser oanonum lioentiati existola, äs disputatione läxsioa. O. Dolcii et Imtbori Quantum ad Loemos obiter deüexa est. - loan DoLii ad malesanam Imtberi venationem super dicta epistola. Lmserann, responsio. Soli Deo Gloria 16 leaves in quarto. Last leaf blank. - Emser's letter to Zack is included below in Emser's writings. Our translation is based on the second edition just described.

91239 . Eck's "Answer for Emser Wider Luther. W. XVIII, 1091-1094. 913

He could comfort and uplift his brethren and muffle the vain cries of triumph of the Rottengeister. Emser wrote with such earnestness and modesty that no good and wise man could have disapproved of such a writing, and for that Luther, if he sought the salvation of souls with equal zeal as he plunges a great multitude into ruin, should be greatly thanked.

  1. But the impatient brother, who is very quick in his habitual blasphemy, has written all too full of bile against him and made him a spectacle and a gossip, chasing his goat (Aegocerota 1) against brotherly love in the most impudent way and making a mockery of our faith among the Bohemians; and although some Wittenbergers write in the most biting way, because they have poison-soaked arrows, they still always lead in the mouth: Do not touch me, and do not want to be touched in the least. But since that biting man in the monk's habit would like to hunt me especially (plerumque), if only he had dogs to catch me, because he cannot catch me: so I have thought to destroy this hunt of Luther's to catch him in his ropes, yarns and nets, and rely on him who can save me from the hunters' rope and from the hard word. 2)

(5) For, first of all, he is surprised that Emser has become Luther's defender, since Eck scolded him in the dispute for being a defender of the Bohemian mob; this has never been Emser's opinion in his letter, for he does not ask so much about the boastful monk; rather, he has taken care of the Catholic Bohemians, against the spirits of the mob, and states that he has disapproved of the Bohemians' separation from the Roman Church. So Emser served the faith, but not Luther, in this: therefore he should not have been compared with Joab. And the comparison is certainly intolerable, that he dares to place such an honest and innocent priest at the side of the traitor Judas because of such a sincere, modest and Christian letter. And what he who swore to the Christian flag, what he wrote for the good of the faith, what he wrote for the comfort of the faithful, what he wrote for the eradication of schism and error, such a cowl (cuculla) attributes out of poisonous envy to the enmity of Emser, namely, that out of hatred against Luther he had given his soul to the devil. What does not an insolent monk subject himself to? Emser

  1. Emser had in his coat of arms the breast image of a buck.
  2. Ps. 91, 3, according to the Vulgate.

certainly did not want to harm anyone with such a letter, but to benefit the faithful. And yet, the cap and cowl wearer (Bardocuculla) goes against him so sharply, as if he wanted to precede Lucian in everything.

Luther then chats rather foolishly in his own way that Emser did not make his buck strong enough (sine foeno 3) and that he is not quite in the coat of arms (stsnunnts), which any fool could also mock at a prince's coat of arms (ludere 4); but believe me, Luther, he is also strong and strong (gerit foe- num) enough when it is necessary.

Afterwards he imagines that he is in great danger, but I know that he has long since been swallowed up by destruction, because he is very afraid that he will have to give victory to Eck, as the champion of Catholic truth. God grant that one day the verdict of the excellent high school in Paris will come out, so that he will not give the palm of victory to Eck (because I do not seek my honor), but to the truth, and that one day he will stop seducing the simple-minded Christians and filling them with error!

(8) But since he arrogates to himself the one Lord and head of the faithful, he says: "As my Christ lives and reigns! and this is indeed true; but he will only truly realize that he lives and reigns when he will punish him for so many heresies and aversions and perverse teachings that have arisen in the church (where he does not repent), and Luther dares to make Christ the author of this nonsensical and blasphemous hunt, as if the master of gentleness had ever taught such insolent vituperation and impudent blasphemy.

First he says: "My Emser, I ignore your flattery and Judas kisses; where he also dares to lie to me that I would not have attracted any words of Scripture at Leipzig, nor would I have known how to act, if some had been quoted. But when the disputation, which has been written down by very faithful notaries, comes out, and the verdict of the excellent high school in Paris, it will finally be shown how wrong the imaginary brother has spoken.

  1. Cf. Hörnt, Knt^rnrnni lib. I, snt. 4, v. 33. A bundle of hay was tied on the horns of rambunctious oxen so that people could beware of them.
  2. Here one sees that Eck, in order to play with Luther's name, always uses different forms of it, sometimes written in capital letters, sometimes in small letters. In this writing one finds: Imtberns, lottern", Imterus, ImMsrns, i,nä6rn8, lecker (- binäerns), Imäer., buäer, bmtber, buätzre, buttere, butbors.

914V . Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, ios4-io96. ' 915

10 He then blames Emsern for calling Luther Catholic and yet not wanting the Lutheran teachings to be approved by the Bohemians, and reproaches him with the children's rule: partibus ex puris etc. from mere things nothing can be concluded. from mere things nothing is to be concluded . But the hunter makes a false conclusion so that he can attack Emsern all the more freely. But the sincere reader sees sufficiently from Emser's letter that he did not want the heretics to mock the faithful and boast that they had Luther, the teacher of the Catholics, as the patron of their mob: therefore he cites how Luther himself had constantly denied this at Leipzig.

He further pretends that Emser considers this to be a proof: that everything that the Bohemians believe is heretical. Thus Luther perverts and falsifies the words of the priest of God with his lies: thus he also deals with the Holy Scripture; Emser never said this in the letter, but it is Luther's dream. In order that the braggart may blaspheme the innocent with all the greater insolence and make himself popular with the rabble, he treads small things (fimbrias) so broadly. We know that no one is so unintelligent and erroneous that he does not also like very many good things; as Emser also cites Beda for this reason. Therefore, the mad monk may not say here that this is Eck's or Emser's way of concluding, but he says that these are his Lutheran lies and dreams; we do not argue with such reasons, but he only invents such antics so that he should seem learned, but we unlearned.

(12) Therefore it is in vain that you prate why he should not also be called the champion of the Jews. I answer Luther here: If I found that he spoke of some articles of the Jews, which the church has condemned, as being catholic, I would call him just as much the champion of the Jews as of the Bohemians. So he vainly makes a pipe-strike by telling us that either everything the Bohemians hold is heretical, or everything they reject is catholic: since no one could establish this, he would have to be more senseless than a log, as Luther is.

That letters are sent to him from various parts of the world, which assist his excellent insolence, so that he does not recant: so may the protectors of error themselves see how well they do; for not only those who do evil, but also those who have their pleasure in those who do it, are worthy of death. Therefore, Emser was not moved to write by mere speculation, but by the appearance of the matter, and because it was known and obvious that public prayers were being made for Luther.

It is also known and evident how they have boasted of Luther; it is well known that they have sent letters of congratulations to Luther. So let the tongue-thruster stop shouting that there is no cause (nihili) for the theologians to fight with suspicion and fear against the heretics. The mighty hunter Nimrod (that is, the deceiver of souls, as the gloss between the lines of Genesis 10 says) makes such a prey for himself according to his will: may he then hunt his brain-minds and roebucks!

  1. It is once again wrong that the theologians needed these two reasons in disputing: namely, whether something pleases or displeases the heretics, but what the godless monk himself said too boldly and defiantly in the disputation at Leipzig: namely, that some Hussite articles, which the holy General Concilium at Constance condemned, were quite Christian and evangelical; which believer does not see that such wicked and diabolical speech is favorable to the errors of the heretics, that it pleases them, that they boast of it, and thus mock the Catholics? This is what the grammatical theology doctor, Luther, taught us with his new theology. He alone is a true theologian, and only Eck and the other theologians are nothing.

15 That the mad monk continues to blather that I am unlearned in the Scriptures: he does this according to his habit, that is, according to his foolishness, as if I had not given any reason for proof for the whole three weeks other than from the Hussite Articles. This blasphemous prank is well understood by the Leipzig gentlemen, and by all those who will read the disputation itself in the future.

16 Furthermore, he again lets loose a bull-biter, the cunning hunter, as if Mr. Emser had said or meant: he did not condemn Luther's teachings, but the Bohemians liked erroneous teachings, the authors of which they mistakenly considered Luther to be. Mr. Emser did not say this in his letter, but it may be as Luther dreamed on the straw. However, we want to consider this strong double conclusion of the strong hunter (cornutum cornuti), since he presents it as if Emser had meant that the Bohemians liked 'other' teachings than those they had read in his books. Just as if he had ever written books, except for some bad, not thought through (incoctos) and erroneous sermons, which he let go out to seduce the poor people. But Emser never claims this in the letter, but Luther took it for claimed, so that he would have an opportunity to lie (to hunt I wanted to say). But now to the strong reason of proof. If they, Luther says,

91639 . Eck's "Answer for Emser Wider Luther. W. XVIII, 1096-logg. 947

my teachings to be right, and Emser now falsely blathers that they have approved of them because he Luther refuses to defend the Bohemians: so it follows either that Emser is speaking falsely, or that Luther must have recanted his words.

(17) But, says David, I will break the power of the wicked, and the power of the righteous shall be exalted. The stone goat of the strong hunter shall be broken. For the Lord Emser certainly does not lie; but let Luicher see that he does not lie. He denies that he is defending the Bohemians, and yet he says and writes that the arch-damn Hussite articles are entirely Christian. What he now so often says with a blasphemous mouth, the monk still dares to write with an insolent brow, was impudently reproached to him by me, as if he thereby aided and abetted the Hussite heretics. Therefore, what he says afterwards, he wants the Bohemians, Turks and Jews to like his speeches: they certainly like it here that you despise the Roman pope and make him look like a bad mass priest. But, my Luther, what praise is this, to please the wicked? What will you do, if you also please the devil, the roaring lion, who goes about seeking whom he may devour?

018 But he raiseth up another horn, which shall fight against the saints, as against Daniel. If, he says, the Bohemians hold with me, they hold right. But I say against it: If the Bohemians hold it with you, they hold as they are; unless he also denies to me that even the Bohemians are heretics, as I hear that he spreads this poison with his Philip Melanchthon. So it is not a sin of heresy: not to believe the priestly sign (characterem), the change of bread and the like. That is why no heretic is among them, even if he says that he eats bread as common food in the reverend sacrament of the altar. That is why the tasteless 1) hunter in an inconsistent way mixes the Bohemian Catholic articles with the rejected and condemned ones. Therefore it is certain that they have boasted that in these articles, in which they depart from the Catholic Church, they have Luther as a champion. And in fact he is arch-Hussite. And it is not necessary for Mr. Emser to borrow Eck's memory in order to be mindful of the matter with which he is dealing, since he himself has more than enough wit, erudition and memory, as you, God-loving bishop

  1. In our edition xiäns, for which Wohl insixiäns is to be read.

Johannes, witness that he proved his memory in a finished speech on the day of your consecration. And even if Eck lent as much memory to Emser as Carlstadt, Luther's colleague, has in general, he would still have as much memory as Luther; but let the author of nature have the honor and glory of it!

19 That the dreamer - not the one of whom the arch-fathers say, "Behold, the dreamer is coming," but the one of whom the Lord says, "Thou shalt not hear the words of the same dreamer" - further writes, as if the Lord Emser had wanted the Bohemians to boast of foreign doctrines and their errors under the name of Luther: I do not read that in the letter. And who would not detest Luther's boasting, since he says that many quite Christian Frenchmen, Italians, Englishmen, Germans, Spaniards, boasted of his teachings? How when one donkey scratches the other? How when like and like meet like? I, on the other hand, dearest bishop, declare that I want to dispute Luther's errors, be it at the high school in Rome, or in Naples, or in Bologna, or in Paris, Toulouse, Louvain, Cologne or Vienna. Luther may choose; but it is to be noted, 2) that the verdict must be passed immediately, where we have been heard; if I lose, I will give him palm and lamp; also, after their pronouncement, I will reimburse him the costs. But if Luther is defeated, he shall only recant the errors, not cause any more trouble in the Church of God, and no longer deceive the people of God: so I will hunt with Luther on the right road, so that if the lion's chase (according to Jerome's prophecy) were a lonely forest donkey (he should have said in solitude), 3) it would thus be revealed who is a child and prince of darkness.

20 Our hunter lets out other dogs: that the Red Bohemians have publicly and daily, although unholy services for Luther, when he fought against me in Leipzig: that is certain and true. And although Luther cunningly pretends not to know anything about it, he knows very well why the Bohemians did it.

  1. In the text nö, which according to the sense, since Eck always insists on an immediate judgment also later in this writing, may hardly be read as von. We have resolved it with nota or notanänln. Cf. below § 41 at the end.
  2. As before with the name of Luther, so here Eck plays with the order name of the same: "Augustinian hermit." The lion is of course Eck, his prey the hermit donkey (onuMr srsrnitu); Jerome should have said: the forest donkey in the desert (in srsino), or, as Eck wants it understood: the donkey in the monastery.

918V . Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, iogg-iioi. 919

without doubt with Luther in the sentences disputed at Leipzig; even a man who is more foolish than Choröbus can understand this. 1)

So he blames Emsern that he should not have called him a Catholic. If you, good Luther, bear the name of a Catholic with displeasure, then we will immediately give you a suitable name that corresponds to your merits and will call you a Hussite. Are you then not baptized with a proper name? But what has Mr. Emser done in this, that he has not said that you have no damned Hussite errors, for such Hussite rot and pus in you often flows out; but only this, which you have at least said with your mouth (in your heart you are perhaps of a different mind), that you do not like it that the Bohemians deviate from the unity of the church, and that they do evil in this. But if Mr. Einser thinks in his heart that you are a heretic, then I swear to you by my right hand that he is not far from the truth. Nevertheless, in Scripture he has stuck to the sound of your words, with which you have denied that you are its advocate. But, my Luther, consider it well with thyself, and let thy venomous pursuit be, whether these words first originated in thy heart or in thy mouth? Then you will be a man, my Luther, who draws sweet and bitter water from one source.

22 He says: Emser is his Rufinus; so he wants to be a Hieronymus. He makes himself, if he wants, the king of the beans. Rufinus was something great (magna pars) among the teachers of the church, says Gennadius, but I will always prefer Jerome with John Picus to him. Here it is sufficiently clear that the defendant Emser neither contradicts himself, as this ridiculous cuckoo (cuculus 2) argues here with empty pretenses, nor even the gentleman Emser has attacked dreamed (somniarios**)** Bohemia, but those who argue against the Roman Church, red spirits and heretics: unless Luther wants to impudently say that the whole church is dreamed.

23 But how cunningly and deceitfully he assumes, as if the Lord Emser thought Luther's teachings were true; what intrigues does he use? What nets is he entangled in? Where did he ever say that your teachings were right? I

  1. A name found in Virgil, lA. 2, v. 342, which was used by the ancients as a proverb for a stupid and silly person.
  2. Here Eck plays with the monk's clothing by putting ououlus instead of 6U6uIIus.

If he were asked what he thought of your perverse teachings from the bottom of his heart, he would soon judge according to his erudition that they were ungodly and damnable. Therefore, the frenzy of this monk is to be wondered at, since he says: we would be found to be those whom the Bohemians had wrongly and falsely considered heretics. So also all Christianity and the Catholics in Bohemia must be lying, because they consider others to be heretics. So may Luther himself stop accusing Mr. Emser, such an honest and learned man, of lying, since he himself is not ashamed of any lie. For he did not write secretly, that the birds of the air might have brought his voice to him, but he had the letter spread by the press of the printer in a thousand copies: therefore the new prophet may not presume that the Lord has given him the gift to discern spirits, to fathom the mind of Christ and the depths of the Godhead. For "who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" "The law and the prophets go down to Johannem." I hold that Luther, with his atrocious and abominable doctrines, would sooner penetrate the depths of hell than know the difference of spirits and the depths of the Godhead.

(24) Emser says, according to the words of Beda, that the heretics mix the true with the false. Luther then goes on about him as if he had spoken against the holy Concilium at Constance, that some Hussite articles had been condemned quite unreasonably. But he may show where Mr. Emser has ever said this, where he has opposed the holy Concilium. Does he then think that others are as stiff-necked and insolent as he, who denies the holy fathers, the decrees of the Roman popes, the canons of the holy concilia so freely, yes, so insolently?

25 As for me, however, he blames me for two lies: first, that I despised the Council of Nicaea; in this he obviously does me an injustice, because it is known from the records of the notaries, and all Leipzig knows, that in the whole course of the disputation I not only did not deny or despise any council, but also did not reject even one holy teacher. Come, let us see who respects the church teachers more highly, whether Luther, who so boldly denies them and prefers his opinion to the old saints, Wider St. Clement's last canon, or Eck, who looks up to their sayings and admires their reputation.

920 39 Eck's "Answer for Emser Wider Luther. W. xvm, 1101-1103. 921

although I know that a holy teacher can be denied if several others are against him 2c Secondly. That he says that I want to master the Holy Spirit, because the Council at Constance declared otherwise, is quite wrong, because the articles I have cited are clear and obvious. And I do not think that Luther ever saw the declaration that the Council made by deputies about the articles, as I have seen and read it. For Luther is more attached to the branches than to the roots. So Luther should also know this, that three times as many errors of Husen and Jerome of Prague were moved and discussed at the Concilio, but at that time only thirty were condemned, as can be seen from the acts of Henry of Piro; likewise that of Johann Wickleff's articles only fifteen were condemned, since 223 of their articles, which had been condemned earlier in England at Oxford, were discussed, of all of which I have the copy. But Luther ties his rutches so that he may be deleted: even if I had explained the articles of the Concilium, he says that I would have become a master of the Holy Spirit. So you do concede, as you must also rightly believe, that the Concilium at Constance was governed by the Holy Spirit. Why then do you dare to say (at the instigation of the devil) that the articles condemned there by the government of the Holy Spirit are entirely Christian and evangelical? What furies seize you? what frenzy drives you? what will to blaspheme has come into you?

The present time will judge of both our writings, but posterity will judge better, since my book on the supremacy of St. Peter will soon come to light: I see the Lutheran scraps (frascas 1) of the sheets being consumed daily to make grocer's bags.

27 But let us consider the grammatical theologian's beautiful art of conclusion: You call me a Catholic, therefore you must at the same time assert that my teachings are Catholic; if you apply this to Cyprian, you will see how mutilated and invalid the conclusion is. Cyprian the Martyr has been a Catholic; and yet you will not set up his doctrine of the rebaptism of those baptized by heretics as Catholic. Mr. Emser did this because he believed Luther's mischievous words too easily, since he always says: He does not assert his own, but

  1. Because the Lexicon does not offer the word frascas, we had to guess. Eck probably wants to say: the scraps of sheets of Lutheran writings are consumed in the manner indicated by him.

He said that he was ready, if he were taught better, to revoke it; for he always affirmed this in writing, he assured it orally, so that Herr Emser, deceived by such deception, thought that he could still be called Catholic, although his teachings were wrong; as St*.* 2) Augustin excuses Cyprian adv. Donatist, de bapt. l. II. But behold, most reverend bishop, the weak mind of Luther! Since Mr. Emser had told that the Bohemians had held daily and public (although unholy) services for Luther, Luther was angry in his own way, and reproached him as to how he could say that services for the truth were unholy, or how he could say that services set up for lies were holy. The teacher of grammatical theology does not know that even the most wicked in all sects are said to worship. Furthermore, every Catholic knows that even heretics perform their services, because they hold mass, celebrate communion (conficiunt), baptize 2c. But such services are unholy, because the Lord says through the prophet: I will curse your blessings. The words are clear and bright with Mr. Emser, which Luther nevertheless perverts and falsifies with such slander, in order to satisfy only his hatred and his blasphemy.

28 Luther continues to boast that he also prays for Eck and Emser, as Christ commanded: Thy left hand shall not know what thy right hand doeth; and yet he boasts here as one who is perfect, that he prays for his enemies. I inquired diligently in Leipzig whether Luther held mass? because great feasts were coming up; but I could not be told that he had held one in the three weeks: although I would like to praise him more 3) because he shunned the judgment of the shepherd, namely St. Leo X, and abstained from it. But I pray that Luther's prayer will not harm me. God the Savior of the heart knows how we pray among ourselves. But Luther wants Turks to pray for his errors as well. Like the intercessors, so are the teachings, namely erroneous, impure and presumptuous, annoying and heretical.

The big boaster and blasphemous hunter boasts that he has now only made a start with bull biters, but wants to hunt the buck in the future with Albanian dogs (which, as the histories say, are supposed to be very cruel), if he will continue. The hunter is still full of threats, or has become a buck with the horn on his nose. Who wants to be afraid, he may go back-

  1. Instead of Lern. will probably be read Lsatus iias.
  2. Not laoäari, but lauäarirn.

922 V- Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 1103-1106. 923

The Lutheran wickedness pours out its immodesty and all its poison, and wants to catch, disembowel and flay our poor goat. 1) Mr. Emser is well versed in thorough theology, so he deals in the letter with some very clear reasons that he thereby proves and proves that the supremacy of the pope in the church is by divine right, because it was also in the Jewish church, as is known from Aaron. And this reason comes out in our book of Peter's supremacy well prepared for the dispute, therefore it is not necessary to send fresh auxiliary troops to such an insurmountable reason here, as it were. Because of the upper and lower millstone Deut. 24, 6. 2) I believe that Mr. Emser followed the gloss, which stands between the text, which speaks: the fear is meant by the lower millstone; because the old law was a law of fear. I remember to have read much about it; but in this short day also the hunter with his biting dogs must be completely caught. And indeed he the lower millstone was idle; the synagogue has been weighed down with great burdens, when compared with the church and bride of Christ. Therefore, Mr. Emser rightly thinks that as Aaron was above all priests, so rather the highest priest in the church must be higher than the others. But how did it occur to Luther, whom envy consumes, to accuse Emser, as if he did not prefer the new priest to the old, the fullness to the sign, the truth to the image? since such dreams and monstrosities of the wicked are not read by him, but Luther may have pondered it out of his own sick and harmful brain according to his own discretion. Therefore, because the supremacy of the priesthood was in the image in a sign, it will also be in truth and in fulfillment. Luther then adds nothing but mockeries, invectives and outrageous words that do not belong to the matter, in order to escape the truth, so that he may dare others, who are his equals in madness and folly, with the cup of vanity. This is also the reason why he shies away from the court, because he fears that his cunning, intrigues and deceptions will come to light and be judged, which he now mischievously covers up with great chatter, with teasing and buffoonery.

  1. In the original Zlndirs instead of Alnt-srs.
  2. An excellent example of the interpretation of Scripture by the two main defenders of the Roman doctrine, Eck and Emser!

(30) The opinion of the apostle was very well known to us, that Christ was the real high priest, but Aaron was a shadow. But this serves the Lord Emser's cause. For if supremacy has been in shadow, it must also be in truth. As for the splendor of the garments, that does not belong here at all, as priests can have delicious garments; at least I do not reject them at the service.

But here the hypocrite brings up a great difficulty (Gordium nodum nectit): namely, that in the Old Testament there was only one high priest, but in the New there are now two, namely Christ and his governor. Thus Luther never gets out of his foolishness; as if the Lord and his governor had to be counted for two. So there is absolutely nothing in the way. Christ is our head; however, there must be one to whom the faithful can visibly take refuge. Therefore, Luther blasphemes the new theologians in a very shameful way: they would be weary of the holy Son of God as the highest Lord. For there has never been a theologian who would have such a weariness as the liar accuses them of.

He then adds another reason, which rhymes well with the Lutheran head, for I know the man very well: with such sophistries he deceives himself and others who have pleasure in him. It is impossible, he says, that all peoples of the whole world can desire bishops from Rome and have them confirmed there. Foolish Luther, who has ever been so foolish as to say that according to divine right all bishops must be confirmed from Rome, in the Lutheran sense? But we deal with this difficulty (saxum) in the book of Peter's Supremacy, where we gloriously present the Lutheran antics.

The monk, who should take hellebore, always continues in the same rage. Mr. Emser had said: There is a pope both by the declaration of the holy Conciliar and by the word of Christ: "Feed my sheep." Then all Luther rages and rages, and it vexes him, because the Conciliar cannot make divine law. But Emser did not say that the Council had made a divine law, but that the holy Council had declared it so that it came from divine law. Thus the Nicene Conciliar declared the equality in the Godhead (homousian) against the faithless Arius, but did not make the equality; therefore Mr. Emser, after he had said quite learnedly that the Conciliar had declared it to be the supreme rule

924 39. eck's "Answer for Emser Wider Luther^. W. xvin, nos-iios. 925

from divine right, the divine right itself added soon after: "Feed my sheep." But more about that in our book of St. Peter's Supremacy! Therefore, I will not dwell on Luther's mockeries and perverse interpretations, which cause great dishonor to all archbishops and bishops, because there I will duly dismiss his deceitful conclusions and mischievousness. But I would like to wish, most reverend Bishop John, that you would urge all God-beloved bishops to such diligence in spiritual government that the insolent monk could not accuse the bishops of tyranny or laziness! But Luther will recognize his great ignorance from the book of St. Peter's supremacy, and if God gives him a better spirit, it will repent him that he has acted so insolently, scolded, erred, and in addition mixed up so many words.

34 The mad hunter continues to make an elephant out of a mouse, namely out of his completely trivial, miserable reason: that the church of Christ, after his suffering, was twenty years before the Roman church. But I deal with this in the book of Peter's Supremacy, where first the falsity of his assumption is exposed and then the weakness of the reason is completely exposed, so that it must fall into ashes, if it is not, like the Hussite bishop's hat, so surrounded with sorceries that it could not be burned by fire.

But he scolds Mr. Emser harshly, as if he contradicts himself by saying that Peter's supremacy is divine right, and yet everything is so slow among men. But, my dear shorn brother, let your stupidity go. Do you not believe that the dignity of the Roman pope is something human, and yet a power based on divine right? Does this conflict with each other, you satorque malorum (saboteur and sower of evil)? Admittedly, 1) this power is a human one, conducive to man's blessedness; but such sovereignty is also conferred by God. The prickly hunter does not like that Mr. Emser brings forward the example of the penitent thief who repented late: as if the example would not be exceedingly appropriate if we want to show that something happens slowly, but therefore not in a worse way. Therefore, Caiphas and Balaam are terrible examples for Luther, who is aware of the Holy Spirit's revelation in the holy Scriptures and the holy church assemblies.

  1. In the original prokseta instead of proksoto.

The Lord may say of Luther's vineyard: "A particularly ferocious animal 2) has churned it up Ps. 80:14.

Luther, who is always the same, also falsely imposes on Mr. Emser that Peter's sovereignty lay unused for a full twenty years. He never said that, but rather this: it does not harm the Roman church if St. Peter, in giving her this sovereignty, has been delayed twenty years. And who will conclude from this, if he still has his reason right, that Peter's supremacy was therefore idle, since he used it both at Jerusalem and at Antioch? Of this in the book of Peter's Supremacy. But he puts forward a dilapidated reason, which he did not hesitate to cite in Leipzig, namely that St. Peter had sent himself to Apost. 8 as an inferior. This was the reason of the godless Arius, namely that the son was inferior to the father because the father had sent him. So he also seeks a miserable remedy in Apost. 10, because Peter had given an account, as if one of the highest ecclesiastics, in order to avoid trouble, did not have to give an account of his actions. Thus the teacher of grammatical theology tears up the holy scripture.

(37) So also our forger, thirdly, corrupts the holy Scripture, since he blasphemously dares to claim that his Peter's saying was changed or confirmed by the reputation of Jacob Acts 10: since every grammarian, even a theologian, understands that nothing was changed in Peter's saying. Therefore Jerome has very well said: Peter was the author of this decree of legal things.

38 We do not regard as anything the buffoonish speeches that he makes out of those passages that he understands to be completely wrong and fundamentally corrupt. Let Luther argue with me in the presence of judges and try who has the more correct opinion of the divine law, namely of the holy scripture. Luther, as an excellent blasphemer, goes to writing, so that he can do his poisonous intention enough, but he shuns the court, after the manner of those who do not have a good conscience.

39 But who can bear the impudent lie of Luther, since he pretends that his sentence of the supremacy of the Pope is that of the Nicene Council? for in this he lies more than a Thessalonian or a First Tit. 1, 12.

  1. In the Psalm: the wild sows.

926 ' V. Luther's dispute with Eck. W. xvm, 1108-1110. 927

Nicene Council has never seen. I, on the other hand, show in the book of Peter's Supremacy that through the pronouncement of the Nicene Council the Roman Pontiff has supremacy over the entire Church. In it I refer the honest reader, so that he may grasp Luther's lies, to the canons of the very same council, to the letter of Julius Against the Arians, to negotiations such as those of the council at Carthage.

40 With the same lie he croaks: I would have fled these things to Leipzig, since all of Leipzig knows that this is a Lutheran fabrication and a pure, pure lie . fei. Therefore, I shut Luther's shameful mouth because of this holy Nicene Council in the book of Peter's supremacy.

I have often said, and I still say, that Luther never touches anything thoroughly; he tampers with the branches more than with the root. So he denied to me with his linguist Philipp Melanchthon with equal insolence that the books of the Maccabees belong to the Canon according to the regulations of the church, since none of them has ever seen the Canon of the church from the accepted books of the Bible. If they were not so proud and learned this from Eck, they would be more learned; if not, let them show me the Canon the register of divine writings; it shall not be up to me. It serves little purpose that he says: I will not be afraid of the very strong and shouting Eck. If you are not afraid, fight with me, stand on your feet, face me bravely before judges who are about to pronounce. So I also regard it as insignificant that he says: I cannot teach the holy scriptures blessedly. It may be enough for Luther that he teaches errors, aversions, heresies and anything else that may be more pernicious in an unfortunate way.

He boasts that he has occupied himself very much with the scholastic teachers. I will be dead if he understands one. What Jerome 1) says is quite true: Your presumption has deceived you. For although Luther is indeed weak in learning, he is strong in biting.

Afterwards, he comes to the conclusion that he wants to show Wider Emsern that he did not have everything in this matter at Leipzig that he had at hand. About this, compare his book on the

  1. In Latin Hier, which can be resolved both with Jeremias, and ntzt Hieronymus. Because the marginal gloss offers Hiero, i.e. Jerome, we have placed this in the text.

Pabst's violence 2), which is full of errors, with regard to the disputation at Leipzig, where it will be seen that he poured out everything he had, namely from the Acts of the Apostles and the Conciliar.

44 And there is nothing in the fact that the deceitful disputant pretends that I have always made objections (fuisse, oppugnatorem) for four days, as one. Anyone who reads the disputation will see that the sophist and Proteus cunningly, while he was the respondens defender of his theses, arrogated to himself the position of an attacker (munus opponentis) of my propositions, and hurled at me all the stronger projectiles, so that when it came to his turn to oppose, he had few arrows left, and only weak ones. With regard to this, I refer to what the notaries have recorded.

With the same arrogance he lies (cretisat), since he says: My reasons for proof were trite and mean stuff, and it had annoyed him in Carlstadt that he had countered my bad objections with such learned and rich answers. How dare you lie so obviously, you knave, who deserves a good beating (verberabilissime trifur)?

46 And how do you now, composed of intrigues, come and say: he Carlstadt's was so rich, since you regretted his meagerness, namely, that you had allowed such a dry, meager and forgetful man to enter the fray and the battlefield. Ask in Leipzig, and you will hear of Carlstadt's wealth, not in scholarship, which is quite moderate, but in his abundant reading aloud from books, as boys do. But even this untruth will be exposed when the disputation is published. This, however, I would like to believe to be quite true, that Luther was not at any disputation from which he would have preferred to leave. We know who hates the light, who flees the judgment! I had certainly expected to hear a deeper understanding of the Scriptures; but there I had to hear the Hussite Articles; and since I thought I would have to dispute with a Catholic and God-fearing gentleman, a theologian, I had to deal with a Hussite.

Here, however, Luther utters a ruinous word, since he dares to say: "That up to this day the proof of the Nicene Council has not yet been refuted. For at this council

  1. This refers to Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis, No. 36 in this volume.

928 39 Eck's "Answer for Emser Wider Luther. W. xvm, 1110-1112. 929

The fathers have decreed the opposite of what is laid down in the article of the Council of Constance. For heaven's sake! How dare a desperate and senseless monk! He attaches such a great stain to the most holy Conciliar, as if they had ordered contradictory and opposite things. Let this be far from the Holy Spirit who governed and guided the two Conciliarities! I have already said that the stupid monk 1) never saw the Nicene Concilium. I have also added this: that from the Nicene Conciliar the supremacy of the Roman Church, which the article of the Conciliar of Constance teaches, is clearly proven; as I show this extensively in the book of Peter's Supremacy. And there it will be seen that the Nicene Concilium cannot be a tydeus 2) for Luther, but he may rather choose an Arian apostate as his defender.

48 But he abuses the holy scripture with such great malice that he states that Judas had first the supremacy among the apostles, and then Matthias; that such robes deserve nothing but pitch, brimstone and fire. Therefore, who can stand longer with such inconsistent and ungodly stuff?

I am ashamed to say that the Roman popes sought this supremacy only in order to have the power to presume on any matter and to exercise tyranny, and thus to cause nothing but destruction by this power, which alone is given for building.

I firmly believe with the Holy Mother, the Church, that Peter was ordained by Christ to be the shepherd of the universal Church. I also believe that all who sit on Peter's chair have this power. I also adore the saying of the Lord Ex. 22, 28., "Thou shalt not curse the ruler of the people, for he that blasphemeth the ruler shall die." However, I am completely of the opinion that, although one should not curse an erring pope 3)

  1. BurdoenIIu instead of BurdoeuenIIu. The word durdi occurs more often in the meaning dull, stupid. Cf. Basilius Bader: Ddes. sruäitiouis sodolastieas 8. v. daräi.
  2. Dudens, Virgil, ^eueis, lid. IV, 479: A very strong hero, who alone overcame fifty men.
  3. Boutiüoi errauti. From this it is clear that Eck did not hold to the infallibility of the pope. Against this, the excuse that xoutiwx could not be translated here as pope, since it also often means bishop, could not help. For the preceding sentences clearly show that we are speaking of the bishop who is ordained by Christ to be the shepherd of the general church and who sits on the chair of Peter.

Luther's Works. Vd. XVIII.

not to flatter him, but to remind him and to punish him modestly. For Christ must by all means be preferred to all men. Thus Paul rebuked Peter, thus Jethro was sometimes wiser than Moses. But it is fundamentally false what Luther so impudently blurts out, that there is no power in the church but only to curb sin: since there is a power in it both to promote good and to keep evil in check. Otherwise, it would not confirm an innocent boy, ordain a righteous youth to the priesthood, hand the holy sacrament of the altar to a convert who is penitent and does enough.

It would also be a very important thing to deal with the abuses of the Roman court, which, according to Luther, are going on there. But I do not like this way of correcting, since Luther has not yet punished the Roman pope between himself and him alone, in what he already says to the church; therefore he regards Paul's word as good: "Do not rebuke an old man, but plead with him as a father"; but he considers this bad.

52 Finally, he spouts his usual venom, that the church has no sovereignty, basing himself on the very ill-understood words of Christ: "Whoever wants to be the greatest among you, let him be your servant.

At the end, Luther, who is now tired of the hunt, laments the outcome of the Leipzig disputation because it bears the fruit described by the apostles in 1 Timothy 6. But tell me Luther or another right 4) sower of Luther's errors: Who was to blame but Luther and his followers? Why did they not

  1. This passage is called in Latin: 8ed dient midi Inddsrns nut uli^uis ennoniens seminntor errorum Inddsruui (the last word probably instead of Indderi), with Eck's marginal gloss: Onnoniei indoeti Inderuni. With this, Eck aimed not indistinctly at the Canonicus Bernhard Adelmann at Augsburg. (Weim. Ausg. Bd. II. 657.) This became the occasion for a rebuttal to the present writing, which Luther himself did not dignify with a reply, on the part of Johann Oecolampadius, under the title: Ounoniei indooti Imtüeruni nd Aloriosissirnnrn, snxerdootissiinuin triuinxdutorsin mNAistrum nostrnin, rnuZistrurn dounnein Bokrnni, tükoIoAistnM. Wittenberg 1520. - We could therefore have translated the above passage as: "or any other canonicus who sows the errors of Luther." - Oecolampad's writing is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1513. From Luther's letters to Spalatin of February 27, 1520 (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix no. 52) we see that Oecolampad wrote to Melanchthon that of all the writings published against Eck, this one hurt him the most.

30

** **930V . Luther's dispute with Eck.- W. xvm. 1112-1114. 931

and calmly waited for the verdict of the excellent high school in Paris? That would have meant to seek the truth of faith: but you did not seek that, but a miserable haze of vain honor, the gossip of the rabble, a vain boast. And since this did not continue, and yet you would gladly wipe out the disgrace you had received, you laid yourselves on the most hostile and bitter vows of writing. And I testify before God and all the saints that I have answered such blasphemies quite unwillingly, since I desired nothing more than that the truth be revealed by the judgment of Paris, for that is why I disputed, so that I would not have to write. And now the opposite has happened: that, since I have disputed, I still have to write a great deal, lest the errors, heresies and perverse Lutheran doctrines, which are all too defiantly praised, hold an illusory triumph and seduce the simple-minded.

But let us hear the godly monk: We did not know that we were in the midst of wolves. What kind of people was Luther among in Leipzig? Among the councilors of the most illustrious prince and lord, Lord George, Duke of Saxony; among the members (senatores) of the Leipzig high school: and the greatest blasphemer dares to call such people wolves, to equate them with dogs and sows! And the vice that he has most in himself, namely, that he seeks fame, he pins on others. I have, God knows! striven for truth, therefore I have waited for the judgment. But the cowl did not seek truth, but glory. His inconstant, biting, vituperative and presumptuous way of writing is an obvious sign that the great speaker is a victor.

before he has won. I wanted him to sit still in the spirit of meekness and humility and wait with me in good peace for the verdict from Paris. He would certainly have had a peaceful man in Eck, and would still have him if he had kept silent and listened to what the masters of Christian truth had said about our opinions in the Athens of Christendom, namely in Paris.

55 I wanted to touch on this briefly in a hurry, most reverend bishop, because I have seen that Herr Hieron. Emser has been unduly mocked by Luther in such a way that neither his manifold and profound learning, nor his innocent life, nor his virtue, which is well known and proven to you, nor the priesthood, nor his prudent prudence deserve such an insolent and biting attack. And the honest reader will easily recognize all this, if he considers Emser's letter carefully.

But forgive me, whoever reads this, and you in particular, most esteemed bishop, if I have bitten the biter again; for one had to deal with the wild and angry hunter in no other way. For I had to force myself to deal with him somewhat harshly, which otherwise does not suffer my usual kindness.

57-. The faithful God creates what he has promised through the prophet, that the poisonous hunter Luther is taken away, and instead hunters of peace and salvation appear. As he says in Jeremiah 16:16, "I will send them many hunters, and they shall hunt in all the mountains, and in all the hills, and in the dens of the rocks: for mine eyes are over all their ways." Farewell, adornment of the bishops. From Ingolstadt, October 28. In the year of grace 1519.

A32 Erl. 37,380. 40^ Urtheil d. Pariser Theologen über Luthers Lehre. W. XVIII, 1114 f. 933

VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne, Louvain and Paris.

Two writings which belong in this section are found in the 15th volume > of Walch's old edition, namely:

a) Action of the University of Louvain against Luther, Col. 1582.

b) The doctrinal condemnation of Luther's books by some theologians at Louvain and Cologne, with Luther's reply, Col. 1589.

*40 The theologians' verdict in Paris on D. Martin Luther's teachings, with Luther's prefaces and postscripts. )

Anno 1521.

Preface.

In order that the Germans may also see how the theologians, not only in Germany but in all countries, have gone insane as if by a common plague, I myself have translated the verdict of Paris that went out against me, thinking it was not necessary to answer them. They are all so blinded that they cannot understand what is desired of them. I have not desired to know from them what their opinion is.

I ask for the reason of their opinion from the holy scripture; so the dear larvae go along, and instead of the reason they show what they hold as if no one had known it before. I ask for the reason of their opinion from the holy scripture; so the dear larvae go along, and instead of the reason they show what they think, as if no one had known that before. And proceed right here, as if I asked them: Where does Paris come from? and they answered me: Paris is a city; therewith my question should be answered. If these are not darknesses that one may grasp, then I do not know what darknesses are.

*) This writing appeared (after the first edition in Paris) first in Latin in 1521 in a separate edition in Wittenberg under the title: Determinativ HieoioZieae Daenltatis kurisieusis super cloetrina Dutüermna Iiaetenus per eam visa. ^poIoZia pro Dutüero aäversus äeeretum Darisiensium. The Apology is written by Melanchthon and attached to this edition organized by him. Luther received this verdict of the Parisians together with Melanchthon's protective writing at Wartburg Castle in July 1521. He himself wrote a preface and an epilogue to it, translated both writings into German and had already finished this work in the month of August. This translation appeared in Wittenberg in 1521 under the title: Ein Urtheil der Theologen zu Paris über die Lehre Luthers. A counter-judgment Doctor Lutheri. Schutzrede Philippi Melanchthon gegen dasselbe Parisisch Urtheil für D. Luther. A second edition appeared in 1522. - In Latin, this "writing is found in the Jena edition, Dom. II, toi. 443; the Schutzschrift toi. 451; in the Wittenberg edition, Dom. II, toi. 194; the Schutzschrift toi. 202; in the Erlangen, opv. var. urZ. Vol. VI, p. 30; the Schutzrede p. 58. German is this writing in the Wittenberg (1554), Vol. VII, toi. 177; Melanchthon's Schutzrede toi. 186 d; in the Jena (without the Schutzrede), vol. I, t<^. 539; in the Altenburger, vol. I, p. 825; the Schutzrede, p. 836; in the Leipziger, vol. XVII, p. 658; the Schutzrede p. 671; in the Erlanger (without the Schutzrede), vol. 27, p. 379. We have reproduced the text according to the Erlanger edition, comparing the Wittenberg and Jena, as well as the Latin.

934 Erl. 27, 381-SS3. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. LVIII, 1115-1117. 935

The Dean and Doctores of the Holy Scriptures of the University of > Paris, salvation to all believers in Christ, with pure love of the > truth.

Saint Paul, the chosen barrel, and evangelical trumpeter and teacher of the Gentiles, when he instructs his disciple Timothy that he should show himself before God as a workman who should not be ashamed of his work, but was proven, he admonishes him that he should avoid unspiritual and useless talk, because these almost 1) help the godless being. For where it has once been caught, the poison creeps on, and the freshness of Christian doctrine corrupts; for the doctrine of the heretics, where it takes hold of the hearts of the simple, continues to creep on all the time, and through deceitful entanglement of error, as through a tough bird's glue, wraps it up, and in time plunges it from the truth, into all too ungodly a being, and like the plague called cancer, it creeps on; which, when it seizes a living body, does not cease to take the next with it, until it corrupts it altogether. Many examples of these things can easily be told. For when the Christian church, the bride of Christ, was still young and began to flourish, there arose lying men and ungodly men, who, having fallen away from the truth, undertook to overthrow her faith; as there were Hermogenes, Philetus, Hymenaeus, and after them Ebion, Marcion, Apelles; then Sabellius, Arius, Manichaeus; But since it has grown old, and now hard before our times, Waldo, Wicleff, John Hus; so also in our times from the same generation of vipers have gone out, alas, evil children, who strive to break the bond of unity of the beautiful mother, who has neither spot nor wrinkle. Truly, they are like the young viper snakes. For just as they devour their mother's womb, and do not come out until they have killed the mother; so these also, by the deadly poison of their doctrine and pestilential poison, and many a fruit of their new little feet, in order that they may be esteemed to help and honor their mother, the church, they rather kill her as much as is in them, even though she is immortal. And even though they are the maidservant's and illegitimate children, yes, the devil's spawn, they do not suffer the free legitimate children of the mother, the church, until they poison them with their poisonous doctrines and pierce them with their 2) lost arrows; 3) only do diligence, as they have done the

  1. D. i. very. 2) D. i. poisoned.
  2. Thus the Jena edition instead of: "durchquellen" in the Wittenberg; in Lat.: eoutorgusaut.

The beauty and adornment of the mother stain and spoil. Whose face is and always will be full of favor and the most beautiful adornment. For she is as a queen standing at the right hand of her bridegroom, in a golden robe, surrounded with the covenant 4) of laws, ceremonies, sacraments, and all goods,^a^ ) which are useful for this and eternal life. Therefore, they do not stop tearing them apart with their poisonous writings and speeches, and work as diligently as possible to disguise them.

a) "Mark, the goods of this life." - This and the following > annotations marked with letters are marginal glosses, which are > attached in the original, but can also be found in the Wittenberg and > Jena editions.

Among them is one, probably the most distinguished, called Martin Luther; as much as may be inferred from many of his writings that have gone out under his name, so otherwise the title is to be believed. The same, like the transgressor Ahiel, who rebuilt the city of Jericho against the banishment of Joshua, he also wants to reestablish the aforementioned heretic doctrine, reinventede for this purpose. And because he has not learned to be moderately wise, he alone misses knowing more than all others who are and have been in the church. For he has been so bold that he has set his conceit before all universities;^b^ ) in addition, he despises the old and holy teachers of the church sayings; and that he increases the heap of his ungodly being, he means to make the statutes of the holy concilia lame; just as if God alone had reserved for a Luther the things that are necessary to the believers for salvation, which the church in former times would not have known; and just as if Christ had left his bride until this time in darkness and blindness of error. O a godless and impudent presumption, which one should have overcome with dungeon, banishment, even with fire and flames, more than with reason.

b) "A great sin to act against the universities. Take yourselves by > the nose, dear Parisians, for all your studying is that you daily > bring forth new things that have never been heard before." - Thus the > Jena edition; in the original instead of "Parisians" "priests", in > the Wittenberg edition: "Pharisees".

Is it not true that he who holds and writes in this way denies the essentials of the Christian faith and openly confesses a godless nature? ^c^) Is it not true that he confesses himself to be a godless and unbeliever, who denies the common faith, the holy teachers of the church and the sacred teachings?

  1. Bundwerk, an edging with various kinds of fur.

936 Erl. 27,383-385. 40. judgment of the Paris theologians on Luther's teaching. W. XVIII, III7-III9. 937

The people who refuse to believe in the Christian church. Whom will he believe who refuses to believe the Christian church? Or how can he be considered Christian who does not hear the church? For it has been said from the mouth of truth: If he does not hear the church, he is to you as a heathen and a public. 1)

c) "When i.e. egg! Just look, dear children, how the angry dean > of Paris lies that it stinks."

But this is a real nonsense of the heretics,^d^ ) that they force the Scriptures according to their will, and think that they alone have it, they alone walk according to the true Gospel, they alone will be saved, and that they seduce with themselves in false skill, and do not want to accept any teacher, however holy or learned he may be, yes, not even the church's sentence or decision, contrary to their understanding, which they have once presented to themselves in the Scriptures. This is proven by the nonsensical Montanus with his Prisca and Maximilla, who believed in the most un-Christian way that the future of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled in him, more than in the apostles. Likewise the unchristian Manichaeus, who, seduced by the vanity of Lucifer, became such a fool that he called himself the Holy Spirit sent by Christ. So also Secundinus, the same disciple of Manichaeus, who was allowed to freely say that Augustine and other Christians were mistaken, and pretended to pity Augustine, and wrote that he did not know what he should answer before the eternal judge, if he left Manichaeus. Such is the way of heretics. But because they do not want to hear the church (^e^ ), and do not allow them to submit their necks to the gentle yoke of Christian chastisement; therefore, by deception of lying and erroneous spirits, they fall into public error, and instead of faith they teach accursed blasphemies.

d) "That is, of the theologians to Paris."

e) "Merk, die Kirch auf Pariser Sprach heißt der Dechant zu Paris in > der hohen Schule."

Which all proves more clearly than the light of Luther, or who is the master of such books, which went out under his name; who, because he despises the church and the holy fathers' blessed teachings, he has become an arch-heretic, and a fully poisonous reviver of the old heresies. For where he teaches about free will, he follows the Manichaeans; in the repentance of sin, and what comes before, he follows the Hussites; in confession, the Viklefists; in the Ten Commandments, the Begards; in the punishment of heretics, the Cathars; in

  1. D. i. Publican.
  2. and evangelical councils to the Waldensians and Bohemians; in the oath he agrees with the heretics who rise up from the order of the apostles; in keeping the ceremonies of the old law he approaches the heresy of the Ebionites; In addition, from sacramental absolution, pardon, preparation for the sacrament of the altar, from sins, from the chastisements of purgatory, from the common conciliarities, he sows errors that are not to be suffered, and does not look at the Scriptures, but perverts them. He also speaks evil of the famous statutes of philosophy, of which he is ignorant, just as he speaks evil of the Christian church's authority and indulgences.

Above that, it was not enough for him to spit out such pestilential teachings, he also let a book go out, is the title right, which he called "Of the Babylonian Prison": it is full of so many errors that it could fairly be compared to the Alcoran. In it he strives with all the strength of his heart to bring back to light and awaken the old heresies, which have been extinguished and thoroughly rooted out, so that there was not one more sign, especially in the parts concerning the sacraments of the church. The same writer, whoever he may be, is a harmful enemy to the Church of Christ, and a cursed bringer back of the old blasphemies. For in the same book, by the same poet, the nonsensical errors of the Bohemians, the Albigensians, the Waldensians, the Heracleonites, the Pepucians, the Erians, the Lamperians, the Jovinianists, the Artotyrites, and other such desolate abominations are accepted, praised, and exalted. ^f^)

f) "As the angry dean says to Paris, otherwise it's a lie."

Therefore, we have recognized that it behooves us to counteract with all our might such poisonous and growing errors, which increase more and more every day, and we have wanted to clarify what we think about this teaching,^g^ ) and to proclaim our opinion about it to all Christians, so that (since God is before) the long-rejected, manifold un-Christian teaching does not continue to creep, as much as is in us; and that the deceitful teaching, emanating from the father of lies, does not poison the faithful people of God, we have diligently investigated through ourselves, and thoughtfully and willingly tried all the teaching attributed to Luther's name, and have certainly found out

  1. Lat.: ecclksiastieorura, i.e. of the so-called spiritual goods.
  2. I.e. the Albigensian.

938 Erl. 27, p8S-388. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, 1119-1122. 939

and judged that it is full of cursed errors, especially in the parts concerning faith and morals, and is seductive to the simple-minded people and unbiddable to the teachers, 1) and unchristian to the Christian authority and to the whole order of the clergy, unruly, publicly ambiguous, contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and perverted and blasphemous to the Holy Spirit. ^h^) Therefore, we consider them harmful to the Christian community, to be completely exterminated, and to be publicly commanded to the vengeful flames, and to drive the poet to public contradiction by all legal means.

g) "Right, methinks, not what the Scriptures think." h) "That is, > in the angry dean of Paris."

In order that all this may be made clearer to everyone, we have arranged some articles from the same writings in an order, and placed our judgment next to them; in this we have followed our ancestors' way, which is not alien from the way that the apostles held to discuss^i^ ) For when a question was put to them about the keeping of the ceremonies of the old law, they expressed in few words what they held, and have shown no reason in writing^k^ ) why they held so. Which way to speak, also the common Concilia care to keep; but what matters are recognized by us, especially which we now undertake to omit, are shown in the following register, according to which they belong together.

i) "Mark, Paris has vain apostles, and are like the first > apostles." > > k) "This you deny, they indicated the Holy Spirit, that they were > certain from Christ's promises and sending."

A register of matters, from some of Luther's books, extracted by the theologians at Paris, and first, from the book of the Babylonian prison.

Of the Sacraments.

From the statutes of the church.

Of equality of works.

Of the vows.

From the divine being.

The material is drawn from the other books of the same Luther.

Of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Of repentance.

From confession.

  1. I. e. insulting. Lat.: luzuM.

From absolution.

About the satisfaction.

Of those who go to the Sacrament.

From the certainty of the love had.

From the sins.

From the commandments.

From the Protestant Councils.

From the purgatory.

Of the Common Conciliis of the Church.

From the heretic punishment.

Of cessation of the old law.

From the war against the Turks.

Of the freedom of the clergy.

From the free will.

From the Philosophia and Schultheologia.

Articles from Luther's book called "Of the Babylonian Prison", collected and condemned by the theologians of Paris.

Martinus. The Sacraments Fund is a new thing.

Paris. This article, because it wants the sacraments to be recently invented by men and not instituted by Christ, is sacrilegious, unchristian, and publicly heretical.

Martinus. 2. the sacrament of consecration does not know the Church of Christ.

Paris. The article is heretical, and is an error of the poor of Lyon, the Albiger 2) and Wiklefists.

Martinus. All Christians have equal authority in preaching and in every sacrament.

  1. the keys of the church are common to all.

All Christians are priests.

Paris. Each of these three articles is abortive to the clergy, and heretical, and is an error of the aforementioned heretics, including the Pepucians.

Martinus. 6. the Confirmation and the Holy Orders are not sacraments instituted by Christ.

Paris. This article is heretical, and in the first part an error of the Albiger and Wiklefists, in the other part of the Heraclionites.

Martinus. The mass is believed everywhere to be a sacrifice offered to God; therefore Christ is called a host of the altar. But the Gospel does not let the Mass be a sacrifice.

Paris. This article in its other part, namely: "the gospel leaves" 2c is unchristian and blasphemous in the holy gospel; and heretical, insofar as we use the little word measure, as St. Gregory.

  1. D. i. Albigensians.

940 Erl. 27,388-391. 40. judgment of the Paris theologians on Luther's teaching. W. xvm. 1122-1124. 941

Martinus. 8. It is a public error that one confers or offers the mass for sin, for satisfaction, for the dead, or whatever 1) need of oneself or others.

Paris. This article is against the Christian Church, the Bride of Christ, scornful 2) and heretical, and is like the Erian heresy and the Artotyrian error.

There is no doubt that all the priests and monks of this time, with the bishops and all their superiors, are idolatrous, and walk in the most dangerous state, for ignorance, abuse and mockery of the Mass. .

Paris. This article is false and most vexatious, and mocks the whole spiritual state, set forth multiply and thorougly. And by pretending that no one is in the state of blessedness, because he agrees with such errors, he agrees with the unbelief of the Donatists, Asiatics, and Apostolics, who said that the Christian Church of God was only abiding with them.

Martinus. I firmly believe that the bread is the body of Christ, says Luther.

Paris. This belief of Luther's is inept, heretical, and condemned before time.

Martinus. It is unchristian and tyrannical to deny the laity both forms.

Paris. This article is erroneous, spurious, unchristian, and drawn from the damned error of the Bohemians.

Martinus. The Bohemians are not to be called heretics or peculiar, but the Romans.

Paris. This article is false, unchristian defense of the Bohemian unbelief, and is mockery of the Roman Church.

Martinus. Marriage is not a sacrament instituted by God, but invented by men in the Church.

Paris. This article is heretical and has long been condemned.

Martinus. 14. the union of man and woman, whether or not it is contrary to human law.

15 The priests are obliged to confirm all the marriages that are made against the Church or the pope's law, in which the pope may dispense, and which are not expressed in the Scriptures.

Paris. These two articles are false and abortive of the church's authority, and come from the damned error of the Waldensians.

Martinus. The whole power of the sacraments is faith.

  1. I.e. any one.
  2. Lat.: eontnmeliosn.

Paris. This article is abortive of the power of the sacraments of the New Testament and heretical.

Martinus. 17) What we think we receive, we certainly receive, the priest or sacramental minister does or does not do, scold 3) or curse.

Paris. This article is inept, and set from the wrong understanding of Scripture, and heretical.

Martinus. It is dangerous, even wrong, to think that repentance is the other table after the shipwreck.

Paris. This article is set freventlich, err, and foolishly, and to St. Jerome, who says so, unbiddable. ^4^)

Martinus. (19) If anyone confesses willingly or is punished, asks for mercy, and repents before any brother, I do not doubt that he is absolved of his sins.

Paris. This article, which indicates that the laity, man and woman, have power over the keys, is false, insulting to the sacraments of consecration and penance, and heretical, and agrees with the error of the Waldensians and Quintilians.

Bon the statutes of the church.

Martinus. Neither pope, nor bishop, nor any man has power to set a syllable over the Christian man, except with his full word. 5) What happens otherwise, happens from a tyrannical spirit.

Paris. This article prevents the subjects from dutiful submission and obedience to their superiors and prelates, and rebelliously breaks all human laws, and is erroneous in faith and morals, and is an error of the Waldenses, and agrees with the error of the Erians.

Of the equality of works.

Martinus. The works are nothing before God; or are all equal as far as the services are concerned.

Paris. This article is false and contrary to the holy scripture, and conforms to the error of the Jovinianists. >

Of the vows.

Martinus. 1. It is advisable that all vows be annulled or avoided.

Paris. This article is contrary to the teaching of Christ, and the holy fathers custom, who counsel the vows; and flows from the error of

  1. D. i. do joke
  2. D. i. dishonorable.
  3. I. e. with his consent. Lat.: oovssnsu.

942 Erl. 27,391-3SS. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, 1124-1127. 943

of the Lamperians, the Viklefists, and those who boasted of the Order of the Apostles.

Martinus. It is proven 1) that all vows are useless at this time, except for the glory of works and presumption.

Paris. This article is false, scornful of the monastic state]. and in agreement with the aforementioned errors.

Of the divine nature and form of the human body.

Martinus. In these last three hundred years, many things have been discussed badly, such as: The divine nature is not born, nor does it give birth. And that the soul is an essential form of the human body.

Paris. This article is wrongly and deliberately set by a man who is a stranger to the Christian Church, and is unbiddable to the common conciliis.

Articles drawn from Luther's other books, damned as above. And to the first from the

Conception of the Virgin Mary.

Martinus. The counter-article of this article: The Blessed Virgin Mary is conceived without original sin, is not rejected.

Paris. This article is false, ignorant and unchristian set Against the honor of the Immaculate Virgin.

About repentance and what comes before.

Martinus. 1. when the law is revealed or remembered, as soon as the increase of sins follows, where grace is not there.

Paris. This article, speaking of the grace that justifies, is false and far from the right understanding of Scripture, and is an obstacle to considering the divine law.

Martinus. The law before love works nothing but wrath, and increases sin.

Paris. This article is false, and offends the Christian ears, and blasphemes God and His laws, and does not agree with the opinion of St. Pauli.

Martinus. All works apart from love are sinful and damnable, and only unskillful for grace.

Paris. This article is false, freely set, and prevents sinners from their correction, and tastes like heresies.

Martinus. (4) He who teaches that one should do a good work or penance by hating sin.

  1. I.e. It can be proved.

If a man is a sinner before the love of righteousness, and the same is not sin, he is to be counted among the Pelagians.

Paris. This article is wrongly and ignorantly placed when speaking of the love that follows after the divine love or grace that justifies.

Martinus. (5) The repentance that is prepared with the investigation, collection, and displeasure of sins, as one contemplates his days in bitterness of soul, moves the heaviness, multitude, and lowness of sins, and the loss of eternal blessedness, and gain of eternal damnation, this repentance makes a glutton, even more a sinner.

Paris. This article is false and hinders the way to repentance, and is unlike the holy scriptures and teachings of the holy fathers.

Martinus. Neither with fear nor with love can man rise to receive the grace of God.

Paris. This article is erroneous in faith and morals, unchristianly taking away all preparation for repentance.

Martinus. 7) Without 2) the grace that first remits the guilt, man may not have a will to seek forgiveness.

Paris. This article is false and unchristian, and leads sinners into despair.

Christ has never forced sinners to repent with fear.

Paris. This article, called "compel" as much as "lead," as it is often taken in Scripture, is heretical.

Martinus 9: Fear is good and useful, though not enough, through which in time a habit of righteousness is formed. 3) These words of Augustine are followed by Luther's conceit 4): This is (he says), as it seems to me, a habit to despair, and to hate God, if grace is excluded.

Paris. This conceit of Luther about the saying of Augustine: "fear is good" 2c, is wrong, sacrilegious and unchristian, if one calls grace, as above, for the justifying grace; as then this Luther does.

Martinus. (10) If St. John the Baptist had taught that fear was the beginning of repentance, it does not follow that repentance begins with fear.

  1. In all German editions, probably erroneously, "In" instead of "An". Lat.: 8in6. In other writings of Luther, "an" occurs, i.e. without, e.g. Col. 296 of this volume.
  2. That is, a purely external justice.
  3. I.e., to believe; Latin: juäioium.

944 Erl. 27,393-395. 40 Judgment of the Paris theologians on Luther's teaching. W. XVIII, 1127-1129. 945

Paris. This article is publicly erroneous and mockinger in 1) the teaching of Christ and his forerunner, inspired by the Spirit. 1)

  1. "Behold, what boys they are!"

From confession.

Martinus. 1. the art of confession, as hitherto we have been taught to count the sands, that is, to investigate, collect and move all sin, to make a repentance, is a useless art, even an art to despair and ruin souls.

Paris. This article is false, unchristian, cold, and too close to confession, which is an art of winning souls.

Martinus. The confession, which now happens secretly in an ear, may not be proven by divine law, and it has not been before.

Paris. This article's first piece is false, said out of ignorance of divine law. The other is freely put.

Martinus. 3) The spiritually broken 2) is to be opened to God alone, 3)

If it is ever necessary to confess the secret sin of the heart, people should confess only those who have been in the work of a full 4) will.

The sin against the last two commandments is to be done badly from the confession.

Paris. Each of these three is mistaken in faith and makes unchristian confession.

Martinus. Man shall in no wise undertake to confess his daily sin.

Paris. This contradiction, because it states that it is presumptuous to confess the daily sin, shows it 5) to a sacrilegious courage, withdraws from the good work; therefore it is harmful.

Martinus. We are not justified by works, penance or confession.

Paris. This article, speaking of good works not excluding the faith of Christ, is erroneous and contemptuous of penance and confession, and contrary to the right understanding of divine Scripture.

  1. D. i. Wider.
  2. In the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions: "Der Geistlich gespreche. In the Jena and Walch editions: "Der Geistlichen Gespräche. We assume that instead of "conversations" we read "Gepreste" or "Gepreche". This word is masculine in Luther.
  3. I. e. Spiritual defect or lack is to be revealed to God alone. Lat.: Kxiritunlis äswotus 68t 8OÜ voo ux6ri6näu8.
  4. That is, they should confess the sins they have been determined to commit.
  5. In these two places, all German editions erroneously use "sie" instead of "es". This word refers to "Widerrathen" (6i8sua8io). The feminine gender of the Latin word may have caused the error.

From absolution.

Martinus. 1. Absolution is powerful, not because it happens, it happens by whom it may, he errs or does not err, but because it is believed.

  1. believe firmly that you are absolved, then you are certainly absolved, be it for your repentance, as it may.

If it were possible that the one who confessed did not repent, or that the priest did not absolve him seriously, but in disgrace, 6) if he nevertheless believes that he is absolved, he is truly absolved.

Paris. These three articles, according to their writer, are false, unchristian, ignorant, and inappropriate to the right understanding of sacred Scripture; and that he says, "let it be done by whom it may, he errs or errs not," and that follows: "not seriously, but shamefully absolved," they are offensive to Christian ears, mock the sacrament of penance, and are contrary to the statutes of the common conciliarities.

Martinus. 4. every priest must absolve himself from chastisement and guilt, or he sins.

Paris. This article, according to its writer, is false and contrary to the custom and teaching of the common Christian Church in matters concerning the Sacrament of Penance.

About the satisfaction.

Martinus. 1. God forgives and always remits sin freely, 7) demands nothing from us in return, except that we may live well from now on.

Paris. This article is alien from the opinion of the holy teachers, and draws the faithful by a vain foolish confidence of guilty satisfaction for sin, and is heretical.

Martinus. The apostle's opinion is that guilt and chastisement cease at the same time.

The prophet condemns with knowledge and will the opinion of those who prove the satisfaction, because he says: If you had wanted a sacrifice, I would have given it; but in the sacrifice you have no pleasure. Ps. 51, v. 19.

The prophet Micah mocks them who want to do enough by works. Mich. 3, v. 11. Cap. 6, 6. 7.

Paris. The first article of these three is scornful against St. Paul; the second against the prophet; the third against Micah, and are all false, unchristian, and blasphemous in the Holy Spirit.

  1. I.e. in jest.
  2. Instead of "ablässt nach" in the editions: "abläßt".

946 Erl. S7,3SS-898. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, 1129-1131. 947

Martinus. 5 Some boast that by the power of the keys the punishments required by divine justice are forgiven; I do not believe this to be true, and it will never be proven.

Paris. This article, in which he denies that by key power the punishments required by divine justice are forgiven, is false, annoying, and abortive of the key power. And since he says: "I do not believe that it is true, nor is it ever proved", he shows a sacrilegious and presumptuous mind.

Martinus. (6) It is a poem and a loose talk that some say that because the priest does not know the measure of the penitent's repentance, and therefore perhaps does not give as much penance as divine justice demands, it is therefore necessary to do enough for divine justice with one's own works or with indulgences.

Paris. This article is false, contrary to the custom and teaching of the Church, and paralyzes penitential repentance.

Martinus. The punishment by which God wants to punish sin may not be remitted by man or the pope.

Paris. This article is contrary, unchristian, and contrary to the authority given by Christ to the Church, and smacks of heresy.

To this matter is added an article of the Sacraments in common.

It is a heretical opinion that teaches that the sacraments of the New Testament give justifying grace to those who do not put a bar in front of them, since it is impossible to give the sacrament to those who already believe and are worthy. 1)

Paris. This article is wrongly, accidentally, and deliberately set.

Of those who go to the Sacrament.

Martinus. (1) A great and harmful error is when one goes to the sacrament, trusting that he has confessed, that he is not aware of any mortal sin, that he has said his prayer and preparation; all these eat and drink their damnation.

Paris. This article is unchristian, and too much of a hindrance to guilty readiness to receive the sacrament, and leads to despair,

  1. I.e.: It is impossible that the sacrament is given only to believers and worthy ones; there will always be unbelievers and unworthy ones among the recipients.

and is contrary to the teaching of St. Paul, even the faithful in such trust do not exclude God's mercy.

Martinus. 2. the examination, so that a man investigates and moves his sin, belongs only to the coarse, hard despisers of this sacrament.

Paris. This article is freventlich and vermeßlich set, unchristian and annoying.

From the certainty of the love had.

Martinus. The theologians teach evil, since they teach that we do not know when we are in love.

Paris. This article, so that is understood, as the faith does not know for certain, 2) of which then this writer speaks, is false, disagreeing with the holy teachers and the right understanding of the Scriptures.

Martinus. (2) Let every Christian beware lest he be uncertain whether his works please God. For he who doubts sins, loses all his works, and labors in vain.

Paris. This counsel to speak of certainty, as stated above, is sacrilegious, harmful, and contrary to the Scriptures.

From the sins.

Martinus. 1. the justifier sins in all good works.

All good works done to the best of their ability are daily sin.

Paris. These articles are both false and offensive to Christian ears, and slander good works.

Martinus. 3. That we do not always repent and amend is a vice or infirmity.

Paris. This article, if the offense is called sin or guilt, as the opinion of the writer would have it, is false and unreasonable, and set from an erroneous understanding of Scripture.

Martinus. This is the most deadly of all mortal sins, if someone believes that he is not guilty of mortal, damnable sin before God.

Paris. This article is false, unchristian, and leads to despair, and smacks of heresy.

Martinus. The theologians, who teach according to their rule how daily sins are separated from mortal ones, want to lead people's consciences to nonsense in the most pernicious way.

Paris. This article is foolishly and deliberately set, too close to the holy teachers, and in suggesting that daily sins are not distinct from mortal ones, it is heretical.

  1. Lat.: nesoiro osrtituäins üäsi " that one does not know it from the certainty of faith.

948 Erl. L7, 398^400. 40. judgment of the Paris theologians on Luther's teaching. W. XVIII, II3I-II34. 949

From the commandments.

Martinus. 1. He who denies that God has commanded us impossible things does evil, and he who says that it is false does more than evil.

Paris. This article is annoying, unchristian, and infamous to the Christian laws, and, as Augustine says, it is blasphemous in GOD.

Martinus. (2) The two last commandments of Moses alone are not fulfilled by anyone, however holy he may be; the others all fulfill them, but in these two they remain guilty and sinners, for they fulfill nothing in them.

Paris. This article is erroneous, unchristian, blasphemous to the laws and legislators, and disrespectful to the saints. 1)

Martinus. (3) All God's commandments are set more to rebuke past and present sin than to forbid future sin; for St. Paul says, "By the law we have no more than knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3, 30.)

Paris. This article in the first part is wrong, unjustified, and without reason. The other piece, that, as St. Paul says: "By the law" 2c is erroneous, contrary to the law and St. Paul's opinion.

Martinus. (4) Because no commandment is necessary to a man who has love, the commandment, "You shall keep the holiday holy," commands not works but rest.

5.. This third commandment, "Thou shalt keep the feast day holy," is abrogated, even all the commandments of the perfect Christian are abrogated: for to the righteous there is no commandment. (1 Tim. 1, 9.)

For the imperfect, whose old man is not yet dead, it is necessary that they be trained in certain works, days, 2) ways, such as watching, fasting, praying, chastening and the like, so that they may come to the perfection of the inner man. And when the body is mortified and brought into subjection, and the evil desires are killed, then the same exercises cease, and become so much less, as much as the inward man increases; so even that, when he becomes perfect, all shall fall away.

Paris. Each of these three articles is based on an erroneous understanding of Scripture, was rejected in the Concilio of Vienna against the Begards, and is heretical.

  1. I.e. he does them shame.
  2. In the Lat. dwdus; in the Erlangen edition instead "Ruhen"; in the Wittenberg and Jena "rugen", without preceding comma; "tagen" may easily have been read into "rügen".

From the Protestant Councils.

Martinus, 1. the word of Christ Matth. 5, V. 39: "He who strikes you on the right cheek" 2c and Rom. 12, V. 19: "You shall not defend yourselves. 2c are not counsels, as many theologians are seen to err, but are commandments.

Paris. This article is false, and all too complicates the Christian law 3), and is contrary to the right understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

Martinus. 2. Christians are forbidden to demand their rights before the court.

Paris. This article is wrong, annoying, contrary to divine and natural law.

Martinus. (3) Because a Christian should not love temporal goods, he should not swear for them.

Paris. This article is erroneous in manners, and smacks of heresy.

Martinus. The Jews are permitted to swear to the truth according to their will.

Paris. This article, if it is understood that "permitted" is as much as "fairly," is false, contrary to the divine commandment, and an old error of the Jews.

From Purgatory.

Martinus. 1. the whole holy scripture has nothing at all about purgatory.

Paris. This article is false, and almost increases the error of the Waldensians, and contradicts the opinion of the holy teachers.

Martinus. 2. it does not seem as if it is proven that the souls in purgatory are out of the state of merit or increasing love.

Paris. This article is false, unholy, and unchristian; and in that it pretends, "The souls in purgatory are beyond the state of merit or increasing love," it is erroneous in faith.

Martinus. 3. it does not seem as if it is proven that the souls in purgatory are sure and certain of their salvation all together.

Paris. This article is false and presumptuous; and in pretending that "the souls in purgatory are not certain of their blessedness," it is contrary to the tradition of the Church and the teaching of the saints.

Martinus. The souls in purgatory sin without ceasing as long as they refuse torment and desire rest: for they seek their own rather than God's will; this is contrary to love.

  1. D. i. makes the Christian law all too burdensome.

950 Erl. 27,400-402. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xvm, 1134-1136. 951

Paris. This article is false, unchristian, too close to the fairy souls and heretical.

Martinus. 5. the imperfect health or love of the dying has with it a great fear, and so much greater, so much smaller that is.

Martinus. The chastisement of the purgatory is terror and horror of hell and damnation.

Paris. These two articles are all false, unjustified and without reason.

Martinus. It is believable that the souls in purgatory, because of their horror, do not know in what state they are, damned or blessed; indeed, it seems to them how they are now going down to hell and damnation.

The souls in purgatory feel nothing but the lifting of their damnation, without yet feeling the gates of hell closed behind them.

Paris. These two articles are all wrong, offensive to Christian ears, wanton and unreasonable, and too close to the state in purgatory.

All souls who go to purgatory are imperfect in faith or health, nor would they be made perfect by putting away any chastisement unless sin, that is, imperfect faith, hope and love, were first taken away from them.

Paris. This article is wrong in all its parts, set in an unwarranted manner, and inconsistent with the right understanding of Scripture.

From the common conciliis.

Martinus. (1) A way has now been made for us to lame the power of the conciliationists, and freely to contradict their dealings, and to judge their statutes.

Paris. This article, if its author believes it to be quite contrary to the authority of a righteous concilii in matters concerning faith and morals, is spurious and heretical.

  • Martinus. It is certain that among the articles of John Hus or the Bohemians there are many bad ones, 1) the most Christian and evangelical, which all of Christendom does not want to condemn.

Paris. This article, so he talks of the damned articles of which this writer wants is

  1. I.e. simple, straightforward.

he wrong, unchristian, and too close to the holy conciliis.

Martinus. The two articles: "There is one holy Christian church, which is the gathering of the elect. Item: "The holy Christian church is only one, as only one number is of the elect", these are not of John Hus, but of St. Augustine super Johannem.

Paris. This article, according to the Hussite opinion, is falsely attributed to St. Augustine; but the articles, speaking of the contending church, of which it is said here, are heretical.

Martinus. The article: "the two natures, divinity and humanity, are One Christ", is to be admitted by the Christians. The same is also true of: "All human works are divided into two parts, that they are either good or evil. If a man is good and works, he does good. If he is evil and works, he does evil."

Paris. This article is false, and set out of ignorance of right theologia. But the first article, namely "the two natures" 2c is heretical. But the other, namely "all human works" 2c smacks of heresy.

From hope.

Martinus. Hope does not come from merit.

Paris. This article is false, leads to presumption, and is inconsistent with Scripture.

From the heretic punishment.

Martinus. Burning the heretics is against the will of the Spirit.

Paris. This article is false, set against the will of the Holy Spirit, and agrees with the error of the Cathars and Waldensians.

From attitude of the old law.

Martinus. All kinds of works of the old law may be done, if brotherly love demands it, and would not be done out of necessity of the law; in which case one may also circumcise himself without danger and with much merit. '

Paris. This article is hostile to Christian law, favorable to Jewish unbelief, and heretical.

From the war against the Turks.

Martinus. War against the Turks is God: Resist, who through them visit our wickedness.

952 Erl. 27,402-405. 40. judgment of the Paris theologians on Luther's teaching. W. XVIII, 1I36-II3S. 953

Paris. This article, commonly understood, is false, and does not agree with the Scriptures.

Of the freedoms of the clergy.

Martinus. So emperors and princes revoked the freedom given to spiritual persons and their estates, one cannot resist them without sin and unchristian.

Paris. This article is false, un-Christian, spurious, and paralyzes spiritual freedom, awakening and disturbing 1) to the tyrannical un-Christian.

From the free will.

Martinus. 1. free will is not a master of its works.

Paris. This article is false, contrary to the sacred teachers and all moral teachings, in agreement with the Manichaean error, and is heretical.

Martinus. 2 The sophists chat in vain that a good work is entirely from God, but not entirely.

Paris. This article is too close to the holy teachers who put it, before Ambrose, Augustine and Bernard, whom he calls Sophists. And by pretending that good works are entirely of God, and in no way of free will, he is heretical.

Martinus. Free will, when it does what is in it, sins mortally.

Paris. This article is annoying, unchristian, erroneous in faith and morals.

Martinus. 4. free will before grace is good for nothing but to sin and not to atone. Ex Augustino de Spiritu et litera.

Paris. This article, if it understands by "grace" the justifying grace, of which the writer reports, is erroneous, according to the Manichaean error, far from the Holy Scriptures, drawn from Augustine in a perverse and piecemeal way.

Martinus. 5 Free will without grace, the more it strives to work, the more it approaches injustice; from Ambrose.

Paris. This article, understood by grace, as above, is false, offensive to Christian ears, and draws from good works, and is wrongly and piecemeal drawn from Ambrose.

From the philosophy and school theology.

Martinus. 1. the philosophy of Aristotle of the moral virtues, of the same

  1. I. e. irritates.

Counter-measures, 2) of the deeds and inward deeds is such a thing, which cannot be taught to the people; is also no use to understand the Scriptures, because there is nothing more in it than word-grey, only invented in words for the purpose of quarreling.

Paris. This article in all his pieces is false, and is set as being by an enemy of the art, avoidable and incomprehensible 3) if one speaks of the philosophy of Aristotle; before in the things in which he does not disregard faith.

Martinus. 2) All moral virtue and visual arts 4) are not true virtues and arts, but error and sin.

Paris. This article in the first play, that the moral virtues are sin, is to be discussed as the one discussed above, since it says: "All works before love are sin." In the other piece, that "the visual arts are errors," it is publicly false.

Martinus. School theology is a false understanding of the Scriptures and sacraments, and has driven away from us the true true theology.

Paris. This article is false, impudent and arrogant, and hostile to right doctrine.

Martinus. In the sermons of Johannes Tauler, written in German, I find (says Luther) more pure and well-founded theology than is invented, or may be invented, in all the high schools of all school teachers, in all their high meaning writings.

Paris. This article, which Luther sets, is publicly frevelich.

Martinus. From the time when school theology, that is, false theology, began, the theology of the cross was interpreted and everything was reversed.

Paris. This article is wrongly, deliberately, and unreasonably placed, and is close to the damned error of the Bohemians.

Martinus. The Christian church has suffered the courage to tear up the Scriptures with inordinate damage from the school theologians for three hundred years now.

Paris. This article is set incorrectly, foolishly and maliciously.

Martinus. The school theologians lied badly that Aristotle's moral books are in agreement with Christ's and Paul's doctrine.

  1. D. i. Object (ovjoeto).
  2. I. e. unintelligent. Lat.: insixieEr.
  3. I. e. contemplative or contemplative science; Latin: seisutias spoeulativas, to be understood especially of Aristotelian philosophy.
  4. D. i. straight.

954 Erl. 27, 405-407. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xvm, 113S-1141. 955

Paris. With this article, its writer lies to the school theologians impudently and falsely, which is not true; although it is sufficiently experienced that Aristotle's mores in many pieces agree with Christ's and Paul's doctrine.

For this is done also the article from his book of the Babylonian prison.

Martinus. In Dionysius, who wrote about the celestial hierarchy, there is almost nothing of thorough teaching, and all his things are poetry in the same book, and almost equal to dreams. But in the book of Mystica Theologia he is harmful, more Platonic than Christian. And in Ecclesiastica Hierarchia he plays with allegories; which is a study of idle men.

Paris. This article is wrongly, sacrilegiously, and deliberately set, and too close to the holy man of great art, whom Damascenus calls the divine Areopagita, a disciple of Paul, the most holy and the most eloquent in divine things.

The Decision.

We, the aforementioned deans and theologians, have investigated all of this for a long time and have diligently recorded what the holy teachers held in this regard, which would be forbidden in Scripture and in the concilia. After which research, which we have often held in the Sorbona, 1) we have summoned ours on their oath and held a meeting; there it was decided and discussed with a unanimous mind. Finally, to top it all off, we held a common meeting at St. Maturin, had it proclaimed once again at their oath, held it there after mass, according to our usual manner, and once again, with considerable approval, vowed, proved, and confirmed the same, also still vowing, proving, and confirming; and that one should hold such things unobjectionably 2) we discuss and order by this our judgment. This was done in the year 1521 on the 15th day of April. For which testimony 3) we have printed our seal on the open letters, which are kept in our boxes and stores for eternal remembrance. According to which copy these are faithfully printed from our order, we confess. Haec illi.

  1. The university building in Paris. Cf. Tischreden, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, Cav. 67, § 4.
  2. I.e. unshakable, without wavering.
  3. I.e.: That is, the testimony.

Martin Luther's corollary speech.

Behold, Luther, write more books; go to Paris and get some rolls. Now do you know who you are? I mean, they once read you the right laudes? Do you still tickle the highly learned Magistri nostri? From now on you don't need a goat, a holhipler, 4) or a lottery boy. Now you see what our magistri are capable of when they get angry.

Well, what shall I do? If I say that the dean of Paris with his sophists are rude asses, I only give them cause to make an article out of it, and say: This article is false, foolish, sacrilegious, unchristian, propagandistic, erroneous, heretical, and too close to our Magistris nostris. What else can the angry lords of Paris do? Who could have imagined that there would be such children, such women, such fools in the school? I had ever wondered why the papists were so almost very ashamed of this booklet, and did not soon let it pass through all the presses.

Help God, what public lies are in there, how they pull my words after all their will, as if they were vain Emserböcke! That is not enough; where they do not find room to blaspheme me, they make room and force themselves inside, 5) saying: If Luther means it, if he wants it that way, if you take it this way, that way. Well, you burrowing asses of Paris! What saying in Scripture is not heretical, if one thus compels himself to it, rhymes, and wilfully pulls where one wants to go? I would like to say that Moses is a heretic, just as he says: God created heaven and earth, if he wanted to understand a sheep or an annual calf by creating.

Who has ever heard or read such arrogance that the asses of Paris compare themselves to the apostles and conciliis? And may write with an insolent brow: The apostles, without written cause, have judged; therefore they also want to do so: although they lie, and have not read the Scriptures through their eyes.

  1. An expression that Emser had used against Luther. Cf. Luther's writing "an den Bock zu Leipzig" in this volume, paragraph 7, for the meaning.
  2. I.e.: force themselves to do so.

956 Erl. 27,407-40S 40. judgment of the Paris theologians on Luther's teaching. W. XVIII, 1I4I-II43. 957

Smoke hole considered. For the apostles have neither set nor acted without cause. But I will report their counsel in due time. My spirit has not been far from them, when they have pondered the wise counsel, why they would not show reason; and the very thing they feared shall seize them. Now let us see the new apostolic example.

But if each one may condemn the other, and it is not necessary for him to prove the reason, the right and the cause, then it is also true for me, and for each one as well as for the other, let us play a fine game. Each one condemn, curse, chase away, burn, kill the other, take away his wife, his child, and what he has, then speak, as the scholars of Paris teach us, it is the apostle's example, they have also acted without a proven reason and cause, be it enough that they think so well. Thanks be to you, scholars of Paris! Thank you, King Francis of France, that you feed the world with so much expense such teachers.

Now, I also want to use the new apostolic example and Parisian law, and first of all, I want to try the same new apostles and teachers, and I also want to make a judgment about them, as it seems to me, without reason and cause, and this shall be:

The high school of Paris at its highest part, which is called the Facultät Theologiä, is from the top to the heels vain snow-white leprosy, the right, last end-christian main heresy; a mother of all errors in Christendom; the greatest spiritual whore, which is shone by the sun, and the right back gate at hell. It is proclaimed that at the time of the end of Christ all heresies that have ever been shall come into one basic soup and destroy the world; this I have in mind to prove about Paris, the Pope's, the right end of Christ's, greatest whorehouse, and to show that they are worse than Montanisten, Ebionites, and what they have called more heretics; whether God wills, they are, I would have desired long ago. For even though my dear Philip answered them masterfully, he touched them too gently and ran over them with a light plane. I see that I have to use the peasant's axes to cut over the rough blocks.

and they are right in the forest, otherwise they won't feel it. But I still don't want to act without reason.

But I cannot wonder enough what they have in mind, that among so many articles they do not remember the article of the papacy with a single letter; yet they persecute it, as the most distinguished, Sylvester, Eck, Rhadinus, Catharinus, Cologne, Löwen, and the two paper abusers at Leipzig 1) with all the papists, in the most outrageous way. They do not do it out of forgetfulness; for they have searched my writings so thoroughly that they have counted all my bones, and fence hard over the laws of men. So they do it also not from ignorance; because I have him 2) ever in my books de Captiv. Babyl. et Resolut. prop. 13., which they attract, as which they read and condemn, to good measure, that the pope and the papists cry murder over me, may have learned it only from such crying.

So I think they also condemn it; otherwise all their things would already be nothing, and there would be no good vein in them, if they considered it to be right, and they would keep quiet, would not threaten to testify to the truth, because they see such an uproar in the world rising above the one main article. For of the others there is as yet no tumult in the world, and the common man knows little about it. This will certainly be the reason why the papists do not like the verdict. For they see that their idol is abandoned even in it, and think: If Paris falls to the monk in the article, then Pope, Cologne, Louvain, and all the papists are too weak. In the same way, they abandon the poor wretched indulgence, which is the other most noble article, on which everything else has risen.

But they still think of their appeal. The pope has harmed them, so they want to take revenge on him and force him to plead with them, so that it will be said: No one but Paris has oppressed Luther. Therefore I will not have their votes; they do it for no love of truth. I will not be sworn with the boys, who have their

  1. This probably refers to Emser and Alveld.
  2. Wittenberg and Jena: "jnen".

958 Erl. 27, 409 f. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVHI, 1143-1145. 959

Let the Lord in hardships, not for the sake of God. And if I could with a good conscience, I would raise the papacy again to the defiance and suffering of the French perfidies. Well, there you have Sophists, Papists, Cologne, Louvain, Leipzig, the judgment of Paris; do a song dance about it, and be merry! You have lost your head, how finely you hop around with stockings. But in Latin, I hope, it shall come to day, what the boys are all looking for.

For my lords of Paris strive that they alone in the world may damn, set and do what they will, over friend and foe. Yes, dear donkeys, let you sit on the cushion and eat lampreys! If your belly gurgles and you leave a forz, urge us that it is an article of faith; then say that it seemed so to you and that it is the apostle's example. It is no longer valid to merely pass judgment, dear asses, as you have been accustomed to do until now; you have led the common man by the nose for so long, deprived him of body, property and soul with your teachings, that he can never suffer it, nor will, nor should, open his eyes, want to know the reason for your deception, which you have practiced under the name of the holy church, and are still practicing. The time is here that says: Speak rationem villicationis tuae. Luc. 16, 2.

However, I ask all who love Christ and are hostile to the end of Christ to be cheerful, to have good courage, to give thanks to God, and not to cease in their prayers for the holy gospel. We see God's miracles, that He wants to help us, and without our counsel and action blinds His enemies so deeply that they must be ashamed of themselves. For this booklet shall, if God wills, still in a short time disgrace all who refuse to listen to God's word.

strive towards. We have here their main piece, the highest school; they may now never deceive and pretend. It has come to light what they think of the gospel and faith, which they have covered up until now, and always said that they also teach the gospel, and that the old nose is the best.

My heart is glad and thanks God. Oh how thoroughly I begrudge the pope such patrons, he is worthy of none better. How he has corrupted and defiled us poor Christians with his laws! He has not regarded us differently, but as if we were not worthy of his secret chamber, where he pours all the filth and filth of his laws, which only want to go from him; and so many noble spirits have to harbor the stink, dung and filth, even with great food, toil and labor, with body and soul. That the saying of Jeremiah is fulfilled of us: "Those who have eaten saffron before must eat filth." (Luke 4:5) Satan has atoned for his great wrath and has cooled his anger against us, which he drew in the time of the martyrs, when the gospel was suppressed by his human law; as it says in the Apocalypsis about the great dragon. (Revelation 12:12, 17.)

But now God starts to pay him and creates such helpers for him, of which he must be ashamed in his heart. How shall his heart throb! How shall the evil spirit tremble, that he sees such a great light rising, and yet may not dim it! and the more he dims, the brighter it becomes and the more horribly his shame is exposed. Therefore let us pray with joy and all confidence: Manda, Deus, virtuti tuae, confirma hoc, Deus, quod operatus es in nobis. I hope that the last day is at the door, amen.

960 V. L. VI, 58 f. 41. Melanchthon's protective speech for Luther. W. XVIII, 1146 f. 961

*41 Philipp Melanchthon's defense address for D. Martin Luther against the angry judgment of the Parisian theologians.. )

1521.

Germanized by Luther himself.

Behold, thou Christian reader, what abominations of theologians this part of the world, Europe, begets. Before this year the Sophists at Cologne and Louvain condemned the gospel, and brought forward some naked sentences, neither fortified with reason nor with scriptures; but the same nonsense has now been far transgressed, in like manner (whoever they are), by those who condemned Luther at Paris: for I cannot be persuaded that such a thing was done by common consent of the whole assembly of theologians. I let alone that much less of those 1) is condemned. How much more harshly and unkindly Luther is treated by them! First of all, a bloody epistle is written beforehand, then on each article special, unchristian and unflattering additions. About this, several pieces of Luther are forced to the left 2); and from the same 3) one may deduce what kind of spirit, what kind of madness possessed the masters of this judgment. For the Holy Spirit of God does all things to turn it to the best. And finally, it is such a book, which no one would believe to be written in Paris. Because the common man considers it that in the same high school the Christian doctrine lives and reigns as in its own castle.

(2) For it cannot be denied that many brave men came from there in ancient times, and hard before our times Gerson, a man (as it seems) full of Christ's spirit. But, as I see, it goes according to the Greek proverb: In former times the Milesians were brave. And if the same now again

  1. Instead of "them" (in the Wittenberg edition: "jnen") it is probably better to read "those". In Latin iUW. This refers to the sophists at Cologne and Louvain.
  2. I.e., on the wrong opinion.
  3. Lat.: Kino, in which, as it seems to us, the preceding is summarized, namely: the bloody epistle, the by-products and the twists.

If they were alive, do you think they would know these judgmental, naughty offspring? In no way, but they would lament the fall of both this high school and of all Christendom, that they would see in the school reigning sophists instead of theologians, and defilers instead of Christian teachers; and would realize that this is the time which the church laments in Jeremiah (Lam. 1, 15.) and says: "God has taken all my bravest from me, and has brought such a time upon me, in which he contrives all my elect."

3 However, when I look at it now, it seems to me that Paris has not started to do evil now, but it has been wrong for a long time, when it started pagan art, and corrupted the Christian doctrine with human doctrine. For it is known that in Paris the unspiritual school doctrine was born, which they wanted to call a theology. And since it is admitted, nothing is left in Christianity; the gospel is darkened; faith is extinguished; the doctrine of works is 4) in decline. And so, we who are supposed to be Christian people, have not even become 5) Mosi's people, but Aristotle's people, and out of the Christian being, against all opinion of the spirit, has become a pagan way of living.

O God! you should see with spiritual eyes what damage has been done to Christianity by your school theology, which was born and raised in you, and which has received from you the other high schools of this part of the world, just as an inheritance. The world must (as Isaiah says Cap. 2, 8.) become full of oil idols. And indeed your articles testify how stiff-necked you have practiced pagan art from the beginning of the same school theology; among how few are you who belong to Christianity! For what does the article serve, that you have set: I run, be a

  1. Wittenbergers: are.
  2. Wittenberger: still.

*) In Latin: lüeoloZastrorum, which must be noted here, because the following apparent Christ breaks on this expression. - Where this writing is found in the editions, is already indicated with the preceding writing.

962 D. v. a. vi. 39-61. VI. Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xvin, 1147-iiso. 963

clumsy speech? Let there be no difference between these two sayings: Every man's ass walketh, and every man's ass runneth: The ass of a like man walketh. How honest and worthy teachers these are of a Christian high school!

(5) For this you have publicly stated that the pagan arts are necessary for Christianity. Which article of what kind of spirit 1) did he come from, do we not see? Namely, from him who wanted to have the gospel darkened by the teachings of men, and how this went so well for him is not known. For which high school has taught the holy Scriptures purely? But the Parisian school, which for so many years practiced pagan art, now never practiced pagan art, but 2) only helps in the small Logica. What is more pagan than the versor Tartaret, and similar writers, of whom Paris at this time has given innumerable? I have seen the books of John Major, which he wrote about the master of high senses, who is now among the theologians of Paris, as they say, the crown. I do not want to judge his life, but, dear God, what cartloads of alfenzerei are there? Through how many leaves does he dispute whether a horse is needed for riding? Item, whether the sea was created so salty by God. I will remain silent, however, how unchristianly he writes many things about free will. In this place he teaches not only differently from Scripture, but also differently from all school theologians.

Because the Parisians are such people, you should not be surprised, dear reader, that they are not almost gracious to Luther. They were nothing kinder in times past to their Gerson, who was nevertheless a great man in all things, since the Parisian school nevertheless stood better than now; what should they do now, now that everything is full of sophistical conspiracy 3) there! But I also know that there are nevertheless some who do not dislike Luther. But this is the way it is not only in spiritual but also in worldly affairs, even in spiritual affairs beforehand, that the good are the lesser part, and those are most powerful to whom it is least due; which the poet Homerus also saw, even though he was blind, when he says: "The worst lies above. Who does not know by which larvae of Reuchlin's cause was acted there? since it was also said that the whole school had judged; it is right for me, seven at the most 4) were theirs, and among them several monks who came together.

  1. Wittenberger: waser.
  2. D. i. gaukelt.
  3. I. e. haunting, empty appearance (kueis).
  4. Lat.: ack sununum.
  5. which, as they used to say, were then instead of the whole bunch. Who knows whether the same thing happened here?
  1. although it is not a matter of who they are that have judged. It is more important to see what they have judged. St. Paul says that we should not give way to the angels if they change the gospel (Gal. 1, 8.), and we should give way to these unsalted, well-fed magistris nostris, who have not yet learned their little logics correctly? Neither rulers nor princes may snatch the apostle away from the gospel (Rom. 8, 38. 39.), and should these larvae of men snatch us away? And what are they but larvae? Let the name Magister noster be accepted; let the name Paris be accepted; but no further than in their schools. In common Christendom nothing shall be accepted but the voice of Christ. He who does not hear it is not Christ (John 10:27).

(8) There is no great power in not answering them. Since they put nothing against Luther but bare articles; and he has thus fixed his thing with writings in all places, before in the book which he calls "Assertio über die Artikel, die Pabst Leo verdammet hat" ("Assertion on the articles which Pope Leo has condemned"), that it may not be esteemed unchristian, except by those who are themselves unchristians. However, I want to indicate one or two pieces, from which one may respect the others and appreciate the whole of their judgment.

  1. First of all, if the epistle is not written by a proper speaker, then the theologian who wrote it (whoever he may be) is indeed a fool from the bounds of the Bible; there is nothing in it but female fierceness and temper. How does it read? He alone wants to be wise, he despises us, he is a Manichaeus, he is a Montanus, he is nonsensical, one should force him with fire and flames; which also the anger did not let him speak right Latin. And here the common man also sees that this fictitious bunch of theologians lacks natural reason in that they say: Luther should be killed with fire rather than overcome with reason. Who should not laugh here at such feminine and all things monkish soft-mindedness 7)? And with leave, that it befits me to admonish the worthy gentleman, Ern Dechant: Be careful, dear Mr. Dechant, you are angry now, don't you know that the poet says: Grimm und Zorn stürzen die Vernunft? By grace and favor, the Cologne and
  2. Lat.: eonvenerant.
  3. D. i. flush.
  4. Lat.: impolentlarn - inability.

964 V. L. VI. 61-63. 41 Melanchthon's protective speech for Luther. W. XVIII, 11S0-1IS2. 965

Lions have never been so foolish; I almost believe it was said by some old people, and not without reason: The French have no brains.

They call Luther a heretic, not because he disagrees with the Holy Scriptures, but because he disagrees with the high schools, the holy fathers, the conciliis 1). On the other hand, the sayings of the high schools, the holy fathers, the conciliis, they call the main pieces of faith. Would that I could act against you here with your own statutes, if these things are hidden from you. What is more publicly known than that neither high schools, nor holy fathers, nor concilia may make principal things or articles of faith? For it may happen that not only the high schools, but also the holy fathers and conciliarities err. If you do not believe me in this, believe your Occam. How are you then so bold that you call man's delusion the main part of faith? Who does not know that Paul said: "No one can lay a foundation other than the one that has been laid" (1 Cor. 3:11)? There he speaks of the doctrines or main articles of faith. What new articles of faith do the magistri nostri of Paris want to add? Perhaps their own, the stinking ones that are made behind the stove?

But if there are no more articles of faith than those written in the holy Scriptures, why should it be unchristian to disbelieve the high schools, the holy fathers, and the churches? so far from it, that we do not disbelieve the Scriptures. Now Luther does not disbelieve the Scriptures, as you yourselves confess; why then should he be accused of being unchristian? He disagrees with the interpretation of Scripture as it has been accepted by the high schools, by the churches, and by the fathers. So I see well, this is the main thing.

(12) So I ask you all here, magistri nostri, whether the Scriptures are not given in such a way that one can understand their certain opinion without interpreting the concilia, the fathers, the high schools? Or is it not so? If you deny that the opinion of the Scriptures is certain in itself without glosses, I do not see why the Scriptures should have been given, because the Holy Spirit did not want us to know what He wanted us to understand. But why do the apostles so diligently provoke us to teach the Scriptures?

  1. I. e. contrary. Lat.: äissentit. In the Wittenberg edition, the spelling varies. Here "mishelt. In contrast, in the following § "misballen" and "mishallet". Further down in § SS of this writing: "mishellet". We also have this word in use: unanimously, mißhellig, Mißhelligkeit.

if their opinion is uncertain? And what will you say to this, that even the fathers did not want to believe them themselves, because if they confirm their thing by the Scriptures? Item, what do you say to the fact that the ancient Concilia never decided anything without Scripture? And this is also the reason why we distinguish between true and false conciliarities, that the true conciliarities agree with the clear Scriptures, but the false conciliarities do not agree with the Scriptures.

Therefore you must admit to me that the opinion of the Scripture is certain and clear, so that it interprets itself, where there is a dark place, beforehand in the things that the Holy Spirit wanted to be known and believed. He undoubtedly wanted the law to be known, as he commanded it to be written on the doorposts and pinned in the 2) place of the garments (Deut. 6:8). So he also wanted to know the gospel, that is, the way in which righteousness is given to us through Christ. For if the word of God is to be a rock upon which the soul surrenders, what can it think of it if it is not certain what the opinion of the Spirit of God is?

(14) If the opinion of Scripture is certain, it should be preferred not only to the high schools or fathers, but also to the churches which hold them otherwise, as the apostle teaches us in Galatians (1:8): "If an angel from heaven preaches to you differently from what we have preached to you, let it be forbidden. Therefore, Luther should be free to set the certain opinion of Scripture against the conciliarities, fathers and high schools. What do you sophists want to answer to this? What glosses? What little logics? What intricate conclusions do you want to raise? Either deny that the opinion of the Scriptures is certain; or grant Luther that he sets Scripture against all who hold otherwise.

15 But we do not admit to you that Luther is against the fathers or conciliarities. And that I say first of all about the Fathers, is not Luther's opinion of free will, of grace, if one respects the matter rightly, completely of St. Augustine? For he followed the same in all things in the Commentary, ad Galatas. There are both books available, which if someone holds against each other, he will find that they agree in the summa and main point. Perhaps one of them has something more pointed in some places.

  1. I.e. the outermost end of the dress. Lat.: kiinbriis. This expression also occurs now: Ortfeather--the first feather of the goose wing; Orttiegel--echiegel; Ortban---- the band attached to the handle of the epee.

966 L. V. a. VI, 6A-L5. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, I152-11S4. 967

or Subtilers said, and Luther much pieces more diligent, than Augustine. Hui, dear Magistri nostri! Break up and tear yourselves apart; but the same does not almost serve the cause.

16 Now see, in the main part, and precisely in this Luther has the most to do, Augustine is his companion 1), and not a common bad patron. For this he has all the witnesses of his opinion, as many as hold it with Augustine in the same disputation. But Cyprianus, whom he faithfully draws from the book on the Lord's Prayer, is with him. It holds with him, who wrote after Augustin, as he wrote the book de vocatione gentium; because it does not look so out that it is of Ambrosius. Item, Maxentius in 2) Greeks. Thus we accept the books of St. Augustine, which he himself most wanted to have accepted.

(17) I do not say this because I think it is important what the teachers have said (whoever they are, if the opinion of the Scriptures is otherwise known), but also to satisfy the self-willed who think that Luther wants to make all things new, when he does nothing else but bring us back to the Scriptures, even to the fathers, who came closest to the understanding of the Scriptures. But you, what are you doing? Is it not true that you do nothing else, but that Christian hearts grow up more in the formalities of Scotus, and connotations of Occam, than in Christ? And listen, you sophists, even though you will not understand it, you do not resist the rising light of the gospel other than as Jannes and Jambres Mosi did (2 Tim. 3, 8.). The same offspring is also the Sorbonite, namely, born from the Egyptian Sorbonite. 3) But how sincerely you hold Sanct Augustine's opinion against Luther, I will admonish you very soon after.

  1. Further, about the main piece of free will and grace is also that of the old fathers, that Luther does not want to have the law divided into commandments and counsels, which is the gossip we have only from school theology; which, since it began to measure the divine law according to the pagan art of Aristotle, it has, according to true Lutheranism, not measured the divine law according to the pagan art of Aristotle, but according to the pagan art of Aristotle, according to the pagan art of Aristotle.
  2. I.e. the one who agrees with him.
  3. D. i. at the.
  4. In the Table Talks, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, Cap. 67, § 4, Luther derives the name Sorbonne from sordis, i.e. apples near the Dead Sea, which outwardly have a very lovely appearance, but inwardly contain ashes. Here is perhaps an allusion to Ezek. 2, 6: soruvlna, stubborn, prickly thorns. Cf. also § 31 of this writing: Sorba.

For the sake of the divine commandments, which they only wanted. For which of the ancient fathers did not consider all the commandments set forth in the Gospel to be necessary, that we should not avenge ourselves? St. Hilarius says: The Gospels command that we should not take revenge. St. Augustine, in the book of the Lord's sermon on the mountain, calls it all commandments, which you call counsels, and disputes there that it seems to be a necessary commandment that we should not take revenge. And this opinion is also held by Chrysostom, who is so far from admitting vengeance that he does not demand a commandment more strongly. His Homilia exists, which, if you have leisure before your little logics, dear Magistri nostri, read it.

(19) But that the law does not agree with Aristotle's pagan art, we do not inquire; what is it to us what the same impure man has done? Should we hold Aristotle higher than Christ? But of this commandment of vengeance we will say more hereafter. So I would like to show in many other pieces that Luther agrees with the old fathers. But since everything that Luther wrote about repentance and satisfaction flows out of the piece about free will and grace, what is the need to go much further with the sayings of the fathers? Perhaps we wanted to light a lantern in the middle of the day, when one speaks.

(20) There are some things in Luther's writings that are not easily found in the books of the Fathers, such as those he wrote about the number of sacraments, confession, vows, and other such matters that are relevant to our times. For in the time of the fathers such things did not happen, and Christianity was then still clean, so that there was little doubt about it. They did not yet have the tyrannical laws of the popes. They did not have yet our dear Magistri nostri of Paris, yes, also not the articles of Paris that darken the Gospel. It was perhaps noon of the Gospel; but now it is evening, and at the same time with our sins, blindness, the most horrible punishment of our sin, has possessed the hearts, which has brought us human doctrine for the Gospel, and Sorbonian theology. Has not such a punishment in all places in the prophets of the Spirit of God been imminent in these times? And St. Paul says (1 Tim. 4, 1.): "There will come some who will depart from the faith, and will pervert the gospel through the doctrine of men"; and the like much more. But if these are not the Sorbonian theologians, I do not know what the apostle means.

968 L. V. a. VI. 63-67. 41 Melanchthon's protective speech for Luther. W. XVIII. I15L-I157. 969

21 So you see, dear reader, that Luther agrees with the old theologians in most respects; how much cheaper it is now that we should again push it on our dear Magistri nostri of Paris, that it is they who are fooling and prescribing such a theology for us, which the most famous teachers of Christianity have not even dreamed of! If it is unchristian to resist the fathers, nothing is more unchristian than the Parisian disputators, who, in the most important main points of theology, resist the fathers in the same way. A large part of the fathers call it sin and vice, everything that does not come from the spirit of Christ. But they call some moral works (as they speak) not only not sin, but also proper merits for grace. O blindness! A great part of the fathers say that the commandment of God may not be kept by human strength. But here, my reader, hear the disrespect 1) of God from the Parisians. They divide the fulfillment of the commandments into two parts, and say: one is able to fulfill them well, as much as it concerns the essence of the works, but not, as much as it concerns the opinion of the master: just as if the master demanded something more than the essence of the works.

22 O, would God, you Parisians, that I had to do such things with you in your Sorbona, that I would see whether you would also be ashamed of such coarse, stinking, such Sorbonian gossip. Dear Magistri nostri, it is not Luther's but your theology that displeases the fathers. You are concerned with the clamor that they are unchristian, all those who teach differently than the teachers of Christianity. And let this be said of the teachers and fathers. Now let us look at 2) the concilia.

(23) But what are the conciliarities that Luther opposes? You claim that his teaching is condemned by the oldest conciliarities. This is evident from the fact that you make him a Montanus, Manichaeus, Ebion, and what do you not make of him? But in this, either the writer of this epistle wanted to prove his art of writing letters, or there is nothing more malicious and insolent than the Parisian Sorbona. For who does not smell in what what opinion they heap the names of the old heretics upon Luther? Namely, that Luther's name would become most hostile. What a request, how boorish it is, is well understood even by those who are of sound mind.

24 For that Luther is compared to Montanus, who is he who does not see how not at all out of

  1. I. e. blasphemy. Lat. dlaspüsmias.
  2. Wittb. Edition: "lasse".

of a [sincere 3) opinion that happens? Montanus, who wanted us to believe him, relied on his own spirit: Luther, who wants us to believe nothing of him, but of the clear, bright Scriptures; do not boast of his own, but only of the Scriptures. You yourselves are much closer to Montano, who want us to believe the spirit of men, of concilia, of the fathers, of the high schools, more than the Scriptures; yes, you are nothing but vain people like Montanus. I speak of you sophists in Paris, who have omitted this judgment without Scripture, and boast that you keep the apostolic way: just as if it were known enough that you have the very spirit that the apostles had. But of this more hereafter.

25 I pray thee, thou Christian reader, thinkest thou that there is some Christian spirit in the Sorbona, which is ashamed of nothing at all to lie? For it is obvious, even to him, the Sorbona, that Luther and Montanus do not agree with each other; nor are they so bold that they accuse the good man with Montanus' name. Just as boorishly and carelessly they make an Ebion out of him. Ebion forced the ceremonies of the old law: Luther does not force them, but lets them be free, so that each one, according to opportunity, or if love demands it, may practice them and leave them without sin. And so St. Paul also holds in the last chapter to the Galatians, when he stopped the ceremonies and ways and let them apply equally and said (Gal. 6, 15.): "In Christ neither circumcised nor uncircumcised counts, but a new creature"; and 1 Cor. 7:18: "If any man be converted, called of the circumcision, let him not make himself uncircumcised:" that is, if any man be converted among them that keep the law, let him keep it with them: "but if any man be converted uncircumcised, let him not be circumcised." Circumcised is nothing; uncircumcised is also nothing: but the fulfillment of divine commandments. From this, I think, it is clear enough what the difference is between both opinions: also how honestly and respectably they have violated Luther's opinion in Ebion's heresy.

26 In the same way, they give Luther the name of Manichaean. The Pelagians did the same to St. Augustine when he testified to Lib. primo adversus duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, cap. 2. Luther is not ashamed of this disgraceful word because he suffers it at the same time as Augustine, although the Manichaeans had no more powerful enemy than Augustine. The school theologians are Pelagians, even more impure than the Pelagians; therefore

  1. In Latin: eanckicks.

9702- ". vi, 67-69. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xvni, 1157-1159. 971

It does not surprise us that you Lutherans chide a Manichaeus, who know nothing else but school theology, that is, twice Pelagian doctrine. And Augustine, how he excuses himself of the Manichaean name, is unconcealed from his protective speech Against the Pelagian Epistle; and in this passage he states more clearly that free will is nothing, as when he argues with the Manichaean Felix], 1) and if it is valid with you, he excuses us there as well.

But are our dear Magistri nostri of Paris so nearly blind that they seriously believe Luther's and Manichaeus' opinion to be one thing; what can be more blind than the people? Again, do they do it out of malice, that they impute to him that they well know it is none of his business; what can be more malicious than they? Manichaeus' opinion is more extensive than that it should be told here, which, if we believe Augustine, who states it in many places, is thoroughly contrary to Christian doctrine. But this much serves this cause: Manichaeus, who denies the free will of man, so that he says there is not an essential thing that would like to be improved and be susceptible to freedom; 2) Luther, who denies that he is free in such a way that he is an essential thing that is renewed by the grace of the Spirit and is redeemed from bondage. From these pieces, my dear reader, you may respect the others. For as honestly as they have driven these pieces, which I have narrated, upon Luther; so they drive them much more.

Let us come again, since we have left it. It is now clear that Luther's teaching is not condemned by the old conciliarists, because his and the heretics' doctrine is not at all one thing. Nevertheless, they should also have considered here: if Luther had agreed with the heretics, in which 3) and for what reason he was condemned in the heretical sects. For where has there ever been such a desperate heresy, which has acted evil in all things?

29 I do not write all this in the opinion that I am giving the old conciliis such great power that, if Luther opposed the bright Scriptures, which concilia they are, one should therefore depart from the Scriptures; but that I am admonishing the reader how much he should believe this great clamor of our dear Magistri nostri of Paris, when they cry out Luther condemns all conciliis that are holy and holy.

  1. These bracketed words are omitted in the German translation by > mistake.
  1. Literally: capable of freedom.
  2. Wittb.: waserley.

He is a Montan, an Ebion, a Manichaeus, an Antitorite, and the like.

30 But there were some papal conciliarities in this time of the Roman Antichrist, to which Luther confesses that he resists, but that the clear Scriptures are before him. 4) Why should he not resist them, since they contain so many unchristian things against the gospel? The Concilium of Vienna denies that the keys are common to the church. The Concilium of Costnitz denies that Christianity is the whole assembly of the elect. Item, the same Concilium states that some good works are apart from grace; which pieces strive against the gospel in a straightforward manner. Luther is rightly opposed to the concilium, if he has Christ for himself; those who have thus set against this Christ have not been Christ's, but the Antichrist's church.

  1. Do you think that the two councils of Lyons and Vienna have done nothing wrong? 5) who have confirmed the decrees of the popes, under which Christian may ever suffer the two chapters abolendam, and Venerabilem? What does it help that you theologians of Sorbona raise the conciliarities, you are nothing but vain Sorba? 6) You can never deny that nothing can be set against the Scriptures. But if something is set against it, it can be torn apart again. Therefore, allow Luther to weigh the laws of the Conciliar according to the Gospel; allow him to prefer the Gospel if something is set that teaches otherwise. Even the angels give way to the word of God; so should you also give way to it, the gates of hell, and the poor men from whom we have the papal statutes.

We did not ask anything about the high schools. For that all high schools 7) are heretics, proves the school theology alone. Dear Magistri nostri, now cry out confidently: he has blasphemed God, he calls the high schools heretics. It is right where they teach what is contrary to the Gospel. Now the school theology of the Parisians, which is now the only empress in all the high schools of this part of the world Europe, especially in Paris, is ever abhorrent. Therefore you should not be surprised, dear reader, that Luther is repugnant to the high schools, that is, how

  1. Sense: Luther resists the concilia by following the holy scripture.
  2. In the Wittenberg edition: Vienna. The Concil at Vienne took place in 1311.
  3. Cf. the note to §17 of this paper.
  4. In Latin alone: "schools", which we note here because of the 17th article of the next jesting script.

972 L. V. a. VI. 69-71. 41 Melanchthon's protective speech for Luther. W. XVIII, I1S9-I16I. 973

Micah (Cap. 1, 14.) says to the houses of lies. 1) But would you say, Who will believe that so many should err? All are mistaken who teach otherwise than the Scriptures, and all who praise unchristian school theology. But should so many err? Surely, even in Samaria, among so many priests of Baal, how few were Elijah? 2) (1 Kings 18:22) Set before your eyes the whole history of Judah and Samaria, in which Christianity is figured, how few prophets, how many idolaters there were! And at this last time, what a multitude of Sadducees and Pharisees, that is, priests, monks and disciples 3) one finds! Do we not see that the prophet Ezekiel Cap. 16, 44. said: "As the mother, so also the daughter"? we have followed, even transgressed 4) all the abominations of the synagogues, that they might be considered Christian, as the prophet says, held against us.

Now we understand, I think, how Luther is one with the fathers and the conciliar. But with the high schools the Christian faith does not let him be one. From this you may notice how highly learned these Sorba are, who call the main parts of the Christian faith the Fathers, the Conciliarities, and the schools; however, I see nothing at all, so they do not distort that the Fathers and Conciliarities are contradicted, but that the school theology is not dealt with honestly enough. And this is the right Hadermetze Helena, 5) for whose sake our dear Magistri nostri fight so dear. Why do you not write in your right Sorbonian preface from the way: We are magistri nostri, and teach school theology; what have we to do with Scripture, or Scripture with us? It is over with us and our kingdom, if we do not banish all those who reject school theology. We want all things to be considered 6) and mixed, so that the school theology does not fall, for if it is not preserved, then we are lost. Although Luther agrees with the old fathers and concilia, he shall still perish, unless ex rejects them and worships us. We are the chief pieces of the Christian faith, and not the Scriptures. And how should we fence with the man by reason, who denies the main pieces (that is, the dreams of our dear Sorbonian Magistri nostri)? He should be badly beaten and um-

  1. According to the Vulgate.
  2. Wittb.: Heliä.
  3. I. e. scholastics, school theologians.
  4. D. i. surpassed. Lat.: violruus.
  5. The wife of King Menelaus was kidnapped by Paris to Troy; hence the Trojan War.
  6. Latin: movenäa. Wittb. Edition: because of.

because he denies the essentials of the faith.

34 It would be unwise to call the Fathers and the Conciliar the principal pieces of the faith, since no other foundation than Scripture can be laid. What kind of wanton rage is this, that one wants to prefer Sardonic Comments 7) to Scripture? Let it not be a heretic who displeases the Scriptures; and let it be a heretic who displeases the French Sorbs. But let the fool's work have a good year. What is it that one loses so many words in such public matters? For what is more public, as I said above, that all conciliarities, all fathers, all schools of opinion, they are as they are, should give way to the clear Scriptures.

35 Let us continue to follow what is more in the Sorbonian epistle. They say: Whom shall he believe that refuseth to believe all common Christendom? Or, how can he be counted among the common Christians who does not want to hear Christianity? since it is said from the mouth of truth Matth. 18, 17: "If he does not hear Christianity, consider him a heathen and a publican" 2c I ask you, dear Magistri nostri, what do you call Christianity or the church? The French Sorbona? But how can the same be Christ's church, because it is far from Christ's word? when Christ testifies (John 10:27) that "his voice is known by his sheep". We call a church that is built by the Word of God, and is pastured, nurtured, educated, and governed by the Word of God: recently, which creates all its things from the Gospel, and judges all things according to the Gospel. "For he that is of God heareth the word of God." Again, "he who does not hear his word is not of God" (John 8:47). And since the Church is born of God's Word, it is also to be nourished by it without doubt.

Luther will recognize you as a Christian church if you teach the Word of God, but he will not recognize you if you present nothing more than your foolish and nasty articles. He hears the church, but only the one that teaches the Word of God. To the same knowledge he submits, who conquers all things according to the Word of God, who follows the judgment of the Scriptures and not the Sorbonian dreams. For what an abomination should the church be, if it were transformed according to any Sorbonian dreamer's comment? Which chameleon, which polyp, yes, which Proteus would be more changeable?

  1. D. i. poetries.

974 V. L. VI, 71-73. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, 1161-1164. 975

37 But since Christ said, "If he does not hear them, consider him a Gentile and a publican" (Matt. 18:17), is it not true that he intended the guilty to be tried before the church? He wanted him to be overcome with witnesses; he wanted him to be judged according to the commandment, especially according to the Gospel. But you condemn Luther before you accuse him and overcome him with scriptures. You produce naked articles without Scripture, without reasonable grounds, in which Luther is not sued but condemned. If all other things were already competent, is Sorbona alone the church, that it puts Luther out of the faithful congregation? You should accuse, not condemn; you should have denounced scriptural sayings, and not produce naked articles, and leave the judgment to the church. Now you even turn it around; all that is divine and human right, you do not accuse him, do not overcome him; but only condemn him, namely because you are our dear Sorbonian Magistri nostri. Let France be ashamed of the Sorbonne, which is so unchristian.

38 But I do very foolishly, that I act the Sorbona so dishonestly, if she gives new apostles at this time. For our dear Magistir nostri speak, they follow the apostles' example, in that they recite naked articles without reason of Scripture. And would to God that they did not give us the apostles in the piece alone! Christ Himself draws reason from the Scriptures, and wants to have Him believed for the sake of the testimony of the Scriptures. Sanct Paul reads sheer foreign words, that is, Scripture of the Old Testament. The sermons of the apostles, what are they but sayings of Christ, taken from the Old Testament? But now we are to believe only the one Sorbonne without all Scripture. Come out of the Sorbonne pit into this light, dear Magistri nostri, that we may see whether such foolish people also have eyes or foreheads. Where did you learn that it is an apostolic example to present doctrine without testimony? even as Christ himself would not let him believe without Scripture.

But let us see the apostolic and the Sorbonian deeds against each other. Apost. 15, 5. ff. it is written that a question was raised about the law of Moses. When the Holy Spirit, through various sayings of the Scriptures and public proofs and miraculous signs, had signified that the Gentiles should not be burdened with the law of Moses, the decision of the same freedom was made. Here I ask you, dear Magistri nostri: what miraculous signs, what sayings of the Scriptures have driven you,

to speak about Luther? Although we would not easily believe the signs, we will believe the Scriptures alone. Secondly, they were chosen to bring the apostles' decision with a living voice and to confirm the faith of the churches. But you, whom do you send out to the churches to explain to them the reason for your opinion? Thirdly, they made an epistle of this kind, in which they introduced the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and wrote thus v. 28: "It pleased the Holy Spirit and us. 2c But you, what kind of spirit do you introduce? 2c

  1. Listen, you deaf serpents, what kind of spirit do you lead as a witness of your doctrine to the whole world? The apostles brought in the Spirit of God, that the will of the Holy Spirit was known to them through the Scriptures; so also was the Spirit in the apostles known to the churches. What shall we think of your spirit? How? if someone spoke to you here, as he did in Acts 19:15: "I know Jesus, I know Paul, but who are you? How could the apostles, even though they bore witness to the Holy Spirit, still think that a mere epistle was not enough in such a great matter, but added a message, which the churches confirmed with many sermons? So now the churches want living preaching, not written decisions. And Peter wants the Christians to be able to give cause for their faith. The same is now demanded of you by the whole world, dear Magistri nostri.

It was already known before what Paris held in her school, your books are available, your school disputations are also available; now, however, one demands the reason and cause of your teaching. For these articles of yours against Luther could well have been gleaned by a child in German lands from Gabriel or Scotus. It is even hidden what Paris holds; but it is hidden why she holds thus. Luther does not desire to know your doctrine, but the reason for your doctrine, which he would undoubtedly not reject if he did not know it first. And that God would have you look into your hearts and consider that Luther deals with things that are far too great for one to believe the high school of Paris or Luther without the testimony of Scripture. All those who adhere to Luther adhere to him because they see how he rejects the gossip of men and teaches nothing but the holy Scriptures. They will also believe you when they see that you agree with the Scriptures, because they demand Christ, both from Luther and from you.

  1. you think you have the sap-

976 D- v- L- vr, 7L-7L41 . Melanchthon's protective speech for Luther. W. xviii, nsi-ii67. 977

Play like David, as the prophet says (Amos 6:5). But you sing and play yourselves alone; for this you stay at home. Luther proved his string playing, that is, his teaching to the whole Christian circle, with the approval of the Scriptures. It does not concern the Christians: We are Magistri nostri; we are Parisians; we are Sorbonian; we are the mother of all schools. For these are vain names, against which Germany has become almost entirely deaf. Therefore, I advise you, if you want to excuse this unchristian flaw of yours, explain the reason and cause of your judgment about Luther. Do not hold Luther's writings against your teachings, but as a sign and document of your teachings, unless you do not want to be considered Christians. Explain once by what spirit Luther was condemned by the Sorbonian apostles. Not only is the whole Christian circle waiting for this from you, but it is also demanded by the power and right of Christian duty that you teach why you have condemned each of them.

(43) And to make an end of it, I will show in one or two pieces what a lack of understanding of the holy Scriptures, what an unchristian thing there is in Sorbona, for from these one can easily judge from all the others. Luther thus wrote of free will that without grace it can do nothing but sin. And this is evident and bad, if one looks at the Scriptures. For St. Paul says (Rom. 8:7): "The will of the flesh is an enmity against God," for it is not subject to God's commandments, nor can it be subject to them. And those who are in the flesh cannot please God. And John 1:13: "Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of GOD." And St. Augustine, following the Scriptures, also teaches the same against the Pelagians, that is, against the Sorbonian Sophists.

44 But here the Sorbs pretend not to see the Scriptures, and excuse St. Augustine with a right Sorbonian gibberish, in which alone one understands the Sorbonian blindness. And if there has ever been any doubt in what kind of writings or arts Paris is skilled, this piece shall make it clear, in which it appears clearly that there is no one in the whole Sorbonne who has touched Augustine. What they are able to do in the Scriptures is easy to measure; since they have not seen Augustine, the common 1) teacher among the theologians. O Theo

  1. D. i. which is otherwise best known to theologians.

lies! O Sorbona! Augustine (they say), when he disputes about grace, that the free will may do no good without grace, he does not speak of the justifying grace. O blindness of all blindness, and vain blindness! of what grace does the same man speak? As he writes how Pelagius has so often wavered in the word "grace," he testifies that he demands justifying grace, or the Holy Spirit, which is poured into the hearts of the justified; he openly rejects natural graces; he does not know the special help of God, of which the Sorbonians say.

(45) And that we may judge the matter in depth, I ask you, Sorbon Sorbs, of what do you call it the justifying grace, or the sanctifying grace? Is it not true that it alone reconciles and unites with God? But if this is so, why do you then invent that without such pleasing grace something is pleasing to God? Your words and teachings contradict themselves. You take the name of grace that makes pleasant, but you do not take its meaning. But let us see in what way Augustine uses this little word "grace". I would like to copy his whole book de Spiritu et Litera; for there is not a leaf where he does not mention grace. But these are his words o. 4. äs Spir. et lit.: "But where the Holy Spirit does not help and blow in place of the evil desire a good desire, that is, divine love pours into our hearts, forsooth, it happens that this law: Thou shalt not covet, although it is good, only increases the evil desire" 2c Of what what kind of graces does he speak here? when he publicly says that one may sin nothing but without grace? Is it not true, he calls here the grace the divine love, poured into our heart? And you Sorbonians, what else do you call grace but divine love?

46 Dear one, let me acquire this from you, that you read Augustine, I do not say, but and but, but only look at it once. For there is not a leaf in it that does not punish your error. In the 19th chapter he introduces the apostle, speaking of grace, as he says: "Divine righteousness comes through the faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe." May these words also be forced on natural graces or special help? O you coarse clods and right Sorbonian magistri nostri! Who will believe henceforth that you have eyes or reason or brain, who in such clear light are so unconcealedly blind and err? I, by grace and favor! wonder here nothing so nearly (very much), as that

978 D. V. a. VI, 75-77. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, II67-II6p. 979

There is no one in the entire Sorbonne faculty who is aware of St. Augustine's opinion; that this may also be a sign that this book was omitted by one or two sophists, lied about under the name of the faculty.

(47) These French Sorbs show no more honesty in their judgment on the teaching of St. Ambrose, although it is known who he is, who wrote the book de Vocatione gentium, that he deals with it in a whole disputation, that what happens without grace is sin; and he explains himself what grace he is talking about. Among other sayings he also introduces the one that is taken from Jeremiah in the epistle to the Hebrews: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their hearts I will write it"; which cannot be forced at all on the special help of Sorbon, or on natural graces, so that no saying of Scripture so actually describes the grace that is given to us through Christ, which you call the grace that approves. Now I think it is clear how Luther led Augustine and Ambrose, and how wise the Sorbonne is, which we all here understand to be so grossly mistaken, that even the Louvain and Cologne have never been so grossly mistaken. O the unfortunate France, which has come to have such judges in sacred matters, who would be more worthy to sweep secret chambers than to handle the Scriptures!

From this opinion of free will flow the things that Luther wrote about repentance, and finally everything that he wrote about repentance. And we miserable ones, who in almost four hundred years have had no teacher in Christendom who could have described the proper way of repentance! Some have been deceived with fictitious repentance; some have had their consciences pricked and pierced with penances. Now, in the end, God's mercy has looked upon us and revealed the gospel to His people, and has straightened their consciences whom He has called. If you ask what benefit Luther has done for the church, you have it here in the summary: He has taught a right way of repentance and indicated the right use of the sacraments. Many consciences testify to this. But I will not now discuss the way of repentance or sacraments; for these Sorbs have only condemned Luther, not overcome him, neither with reason nor with writings. And Luther's doctrine persists invariably 1) and immovably, not only against the Sorbs, but also against the proselytizers.

  1. I.e. without wavering, unshakable.

sten of darkness. But if they deny with writings what Luther has taught, we will not fail to defend ourselves. For this Lutheran doctrine of repentance shall not force out of my heart nor out of the hearts of some believers any power of hell, let alone a Sorbonian or Papist one.

  1. It is not necessary to admonish the laws and conciliarities, but 2) because we have shown above that Luther is at one with the ancients. But that one may see how the Sorbonian Sophists so thorougly deny the divine commandments, we want to come back to it. They speak: The commandment of the forbearance of vengeance is too burdensome for the Christian law. O, the unchristian sophists, who measure the burden of the law according to the philosophy of Aristotle! Is not the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," also a burden to nature? So I hear well, it is to be dismissed, according to the opinion of the Sorbonian Sophists. The law to love God is also a burden. Well then, let us do away with it. O senseless, O unchristian people! It concerns you that Christ says: "Whoever breaks one of the least commandments shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven. Why did you not have this sense when you made so many laws of satisfaction? Are they not also burdensome to the conscience, which is tortured in itself? Above this you only think of new burdens, and those imposed by God you reject. Right, so you should fulfill the scriptures of the prophets, strengthening the sinner and afflicting the righteous. But that I pass over many things, and teach lately that it is commanded that we seek not vengeance, neither counsel, is clear from the saying of Paul 1 Cor. 6: "Now indeed it is a sin for you to have judgment among yourselves." But if it is a sin to recover one's goods in judgment, there is no doubt that it is commanded not to seek vengeance.

50 I have reminded you, Christian reader, that you should not be deterred from Luther's teaching by the reputation of Sorbona, which you have noted from one or two pieces. From these, which I have indicated, you may judge the others. For Sorbona is Sorbona. You should rather find Christ among the carpenters than among this people. It will henceforth be yours to demand with me cause and reason from the Parisians of their judgment, which if they omit, we will speak of ours also further. Vale. At Wittenberg in 1521.

  1. D. i. again.

980 V. K. VI, 78 f. 42. Mock Christ on the Paris Verdict. W. XVIII, I16S-I17I. 981

*42. joke about the verdict of condemnation passed by the stupid and godless Sorbonne against Luther. )

1521.

Translated from Latin.

Second judgment of the laudable theological faculty in Paris

about Philipp Melanchthon's protective speech, written for Luther in the first book. The causes of the first judgment are added in the second book. The third book contains several rules on how to understand the Scriptures.

Because, as the preacher Solomon well says, there is no end to bookmaking; of which this is the cause, that the outrage and obstinacy of the heretics does not rest on the wholesome doctrines and does not want to hear about the main sum of all things, which, as the preacher says, is the fear of God: As recently, when we publicly announced our final judgment on the teachings of one named Luther, and in it condemned a great many articles as obviously contrary to the Catholic faith, by which we convinced him that he was a harmful arch-heretic, since we feared that his vile poison would spread further: behold, one has come forward, called Philippus Melanchthon, who is infected by this heresy and is a harmful disciple of this harmful teacher; he has taken the liberty of writing a protective speech against us for Luther, in which he has attacked our praiseworthy faculty so mockingly, so disrespectfully, so arrogantly, that it is annoying, sinful and disgraceful.

Since we now consider that it is our duty and official duty to counter the aversions, we will firstly speak our final judgment on the protective speech itself; secondly, we will indicate to some extent the reason and cause of our previous judgment; thirdly, we will make some points on how the Scriptures should be understood.

so that one does not have to argue without end later on. And so we divide this book into three chapters or sections, according to the matters just indicated.

The first book

contains, according to the order, those articles which have been taken and condemned from Philipp Melanchthon's Schutzrede, together with the annotations of the

Paris Faculty.

1st article.

A protective speech for Luther against the angry judgment of the Parisian theologians.

This article is annoying, disrespectful and scornful. And in that it calls our judgment an angry judgment, insofar as it pretends that the magisters of the laudable faculty are angry, it is blasphemous and unchristian against the laudable faculty; therefore it should be destroyed by fire, sword and water, together with its author. But since he calls them theologasters, inasmuch as he means to say that our magisters are not righteous theologians, but only theologasters, which means as much as wild theo-

*This superscription is found in the Latin Wittenberg and Jena editions, but not in the original edition. In the latter, the title reads thus: votorruiuatio soouuäa alruao Daouttatis DbootoZiao karisiou. super ^poloAiaru ktaitippi Motauotatouis pro Dutboro soriptaua. unfortunately primus. Vnuoxa ost ratio äotorruiuationis prinaao. läver soouuäus. Dortius lider trabet Huasctam re^utas intetti^enäl seripturas. In Latin, this writing is found in the Wittenberg edition, Dona. II, tot. 207; in the Jena edition, Dorn. II, tot. 457; in the Erlangen, opp. var. ar^. Vol. VI, p. 79; German in the Leipziger, Vol. XVII, p. 681, translated by LI. Job. Jak. Greifs. Walch has used this translation in his edition. We have improved this translation according to the text offered in the Erlangen edition and closely followed the expressions that Luther himself used in his translation of the Urtheil der Theologen zu Paris.

982 A. V-". 79-81 VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, 1171-1173. 983

logens and who would be mere images of theologians, he is thereby disrespectful to the entire theological order.

2nd article.

In former times the Milesians were ricey. 1)

This article is suspicious because the author of the protective speech wrote it in Greek. But now the Greeks are heretics. And that he calls us Milesians is obviously wrong. For we are not Milesians, but Parisians. And insofar as he wants to say as much as if we were not brave people, he is mocking and offends pious ears.

3rd article.

You are nothing but vain sorba. 2)

This article is wrongly spoken, also Wider the grammar; for our school is not called Sorba, but Sorbona; and in so far as it seeks to mutilate the name of this laudable school, it is irreverent.

4th article.

O you rough (rudes) lumps and right SorLonic Magistri nostri!

This article, as far as the first part is concerned, is offensive to pious ears. And insofar as it understands the word rudes to mean the coarse blocks from which saws are made, it is all too mocking. But if the word rudes should mean so much as unlearned people, then he is annoying, and is belittling to the masters of theology and detracts from their honor. And as far as he says: "you are right Sorbonian people", which is supposed to mean that we were wrongly Sorbonian before, it is publicly wrong and erroneous, because we are always in the same Sorbona.

5th article.

Paris (Lutetia) is now no longer doing philosophy, but alfenzerei.

This article is very annoying and wrong. And in that he means that theology is alfenzerei with us, he is blasphemous against the Holy Spirit. And in calling us Lutetiam, he adds a stain to the good rumor of our laudable university, insofar as his intention is to compare it with filth (luto) and filth in which swine and swine defile themselves.

  1. D. t. brave.
  2. Cf. the note to § 17 of the previous paper.

6th article.

In the book of Johann Major there are cartloads of alfenzerei.

This article is foolishly and sacrilegiously put, in the piece that his intention and opinion is, as if one leads the Alfenzereien on large wagons; since the Alfenzereien are spiritual things, and the wagons are bodily things. But in the piece that he says that the writings of that highly learned man are alfenzerei, he speaks disparagingly and dishonorably against a respectable member of this university.

7. article.

This is the right Hadermetze Helena, for whose sake our dear Magistri nostri fight so dearly.

This article, in so far as it means that our magisters hold with harlots, it is very too close to them, infamous for them and is mocking. But in so far as he wants to call our theology a Helen, he is blasphemous against the Holy Spirit.

8th article.

Augustine spoke astutely in some pieces, but Luther spoke with greater diligence.

This article is unchristian and scornful against St. Augustine, thorously and haughtily set; all too conducive to the heresy of Luther, and brittle to the reputation of the holy fathers.

9th article.

Hui, dear Magistri nostri, break and tear yourselves.

This article is publicly a counsel of the devil, as he wants to persuade us to kill and tear ourselves apart. And in that it is spoken wishfully, it is cruel and murderous; because he wishes that we should burst, even as Judas Iscarioth burst. But now he that hateth his brother is a slayer of death.

10th article.

Light a lantern in broad daylight at noon.

This article is foolish, as it teaches that one should light a lantern in broad daylight. It is also suspicious because it is written in Greek. And inasmuch as the opinion is this, as if we were so blind that we could not see in broad daylight, it is disrespectful and mocking of the theological faculty.

984 L. V. a. VI, 81-83. 42: Joke about the Paris Uriheil. W. XVIII, 1173-H7S. 985

11. article.

Who did not want to laugh at this female and monkish incapacity (muliebrem et monachaIem impotentiam)?

This article is set wrongly, thurally and incomprehensibly. And insofar as it wants to say that we are women who are incapable of begetting children without the help of a man, it is mocking. And insofar as he wants to say so much that we ourselves are also incapable of begetting children, he is publicly false and erroneous. Most of all, however, he is dishonorable, insofar as he has this opinion, as if we were monks who had been cut, and thus had lost our manhood. For this is contrary to experience and contrary to the saying: Theologi lardant per bracam: theologi beget many children.

12th article.

Dear Mr. Decane, you are angry now.

This article is meant mockingly and differently than the words read. And in this it is obviously inconsistent, since it says: Vos estis iratus likewise

than when I say: ego currit, I run; which way of speaking has long been condemned by us. And in the part where he wants to say that many of us are equal as one, by saying: You, i.e. you who are many, are angry, i.e. you are one angry (iratius), he is publicly wrong and angry. And in that he speaks, De cane vos estis, thinking that we are begotten of dogs, he is scornful. And in that he wants to say that one should not be angry, he is unchristian, and weighs down the Christian law too much.

13th article.

Homerus also saw this, whether he was blind or not.

This article is publicly false and against philosophy, in that it speaks that a blind man has seen, and ascribes to the faculty of which someone is deprived a certain activity, which nevertheless belongs to a skill alone, as Aristotle speaks.

14th article.

Evil retains the upper hand.

This article is false and unchristian. And in that it is written in Greek, it is suspect of heresy. And in that its opinion is that evil is stronger than good, it is blasphemous.

against God, who is the almighty good. Likewise, he is also wrong in philosophy, for evil is nothing. But nothing cannot overcome something. And in that which is meant by our being evil, it is diminutive, brittle, and offensive to pious ears.

15th article.

What do we care what the impure man Aristotle says?

This article is diminutive to the most distinguished among the philosophers. And in that he says that he was not a mere man, and so much as to say that he was mixed with the devil, he is publicly false and insincere. And in so far as he wants to say that philosophy is impure, he is put forward by such a man who is an enemy of science and ignorant. For science has no enemy but he who does not understand it, says the pure man Aristotle, the most excellent light of nature, as our fellow-father Eck teaches. And in that he wants to say that he is not bound to the reputation of Aristotle, he is publicly sacrilegious, stiff-necked and disrespectful to the entire philosophical and theological faculty.

16th article.

We do not believe the signs, but the Scriptures.

This article is publicly sacrilegious and indicates a rebellious mind, and that is against the Holy Spirit and His signs; in that the Historia Lombardica and Vincentius in his Speculo Exemplorum, and the preacher monks in their Rosario use only the signs as proof.

17. article.

School theology alone proves that all schools are heretical.

This article is set in a foolish, presumptuous, arrogant, unchristian and sacrilegious manner, and thereby blasphemes the holy Church of God, and thereby also God. And by speaking of "the schools" in general, with the intention that they are not universities, but common schools, he is dishonorable and blasphemous, because he wants to understand by the masters all whipping masters, 1) ace shooters and bachants.

  1. The word 86uton68 will probably be kitchen Latin, derived from the whip, card whip.

986 D. V- a. VI, 83-88. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne rc. W. XVIII, 1176-1178. 987

18th article.

In four hundred years we have not had a teacher in Christendom who described the right proper way of repentance.

This article is unchristian and annoying, and against the Church of God scornful. And in that his opinion is that only the matter of repentance was naked without form, he is contrary to philosophy; because it is impossible that matter can stand naked (unless according to the Scotists' opinion), especially in such a long time of 400 years.

19. article.

Augustine talks about the justifying grace.

This article is false and contrary to the sense of our faculty, also contrary to our first judgment. And in that it says, "Augustine speaks," it is false; for Augustine writes, indeed he wrote long ago; but now he is dead and does not speak, at least with us.

20th article.

No one at the Sorbona read Augustinum.

This article is false and offensive to pious ears. And in so far as he means to say that we have not read this name of Augustine, he is publicly erroneous and contrary to experience.

The second book

contains the causes of the first judgment.

And first of all, it is to be noted that in the first judgment of our laudable faculty we publicly declared that we wanted to proceed in the same way as the apostles, who in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles wrote plainly what they thought, and showed no reason why they did so. The descendant of the heretic Reuchlin disgraces this praiseworthy example with great presumption (as our friend and co-father, Eck, wrote with truth), and disgraces our praiseworthy faculty in a shameful way by saying that we did not keep this way of the example mentioned, and that we lied and blasphemed, since we said of the apostles that they wrote what they thought, and did not say why they held thus. And makes every effort to prove that they did say why they held thus.

First, because they had signs and wonders that God had done among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabam, so that they proved, as from insurmountable causes, that circumcision and the Law were not necessary, because God justified the Gentiles before and without circumcision and Law, giving them the Holy Spirit only for the preaching of the Gospel. For Lucas says in the place mentioned that when they heard these things from Paul and Barnaba, they kept silent, not only because they had a reason for doing so, but because they were completely resolved and convinced of them. For how could they resist God?

Secondly, he endeavors to prove this himself from the examples of Peter and from his long speech that he gave there about this very thing. For the cause that moved Peter and his followers was this threefold sign. The first was that an angel appeared to Cornelius from heaven, even though he was neither circumcised nor under the law, saying to him that his prayer was heard and his alms were acceptable to God. The other sign was that he saw a vision in which a cloth was shown to him from heaven with all kinds of animals in it, and he heard the words: "What God has cleansed, you shall not make common. The third sign, that while he was still preaching in the house of Cornelius, the Holy Spirit had fallen upon those who were listening to him, without circumcision and law. By these insurmountable causes they were moved to write what was in their minds. And they did not conceal these causes; but, as Lucas says (Acts 15:12 ff.), "Then the whole multitude held their peace. "2c. Hence it comes to pass, that, as they write, they put the Holy Ghost first, saying, "It pleaseth the Holy Ghost and us." For they were sure, and the causes were very well known to all, that Peter also said, "Who was I, that I could resist GOD?" (Acts 11:17.)

Thirdly, he reviles us for having condemned without Scripture, since the apostles, especially James, stood up and publicly proved from the prophet Amos (Cap. 15, v. 15, 16) why they held thus.

Fourth, they sent the most distinguished men to deliver the letter, and to state the causes mentioned. Signs and scriptures in a rambling speech. And this, he says, was not done by us; and so he concludes that the noble faculty did not proceed after the manner of the apostles, but lied, and blasphemed the apostles and the Holy Ghost.

988 n V. a. VI, 85-67. 42: Joke about the Paris judgment. W. XVIII, II78-II80. 989

when they wrote that the apostles had not shown any cause why they had therefore kept.

Because this would be too great a disgrace for such a distinguished university and for such a praiseworthy faculty, that it should have cited the way of the apostles and not kept it, and thus have acted contrary to its own public declaration, also lied and blasphemed the apostles; Moreover, it would follow that she never considered Lucas in the Acts of the Apostles, since she publicly made her declaration under her seal, that she often examined and considered what the sacred teachers held in this matter, and only decided after frequent and careful consideration: This would bring unbearable disgrace to our university, which is a queen above all other universities.

Therefore, in order to excuse the laudable faculty and to shut the mouth of the sacrilegious disciple of the aforementioned heretic, we hereby declare and declare that we too have observed the aforementioned four pieces.

First of all, we have also had double signs. Some of them agreed with the signs that Barnabas and Paul had in common among the Gentiles. Some, however, had agreements with the signs that Peter had in his own right. And since we must begin with the more worthy, let us first consider the signs of Peter and those who agreed with them. And so it is: our Decanus of the laudable faculty is St. Peter in the laudable faculty. And he has three signs that require him to hold so that he cannot err, which are the register, the seal, and the almu- tium.^1^ . 1) Therefore, it is clear that the heretic has written against the laudable faculty in a very deliberate and impudent manner. But the common signs are these, and so be it: the remaining Magistri nostri, especially these two most excellent ones, Quercus and Beda, are St. Paul and Barnabas in our laudable faculty. Their first and greatest sign, however, is the Liripipium, 2) or, as the scholars say, Usüpsnäium, which is the most obvious and well-known sign, by virtue of which it is thus concluded: he has the Liripi-

  1. 44mutium is a garment of fur, which the French canons and other clergymen wore to cover the head and shoulders when performing their clerical duties, from which the coats of the deans at universities originate today.
  2. Urlpipium are bands or appendages hanging down over the back on the hood. The Windsheim Chronicle, lüö. I, 6UP. 44, says: läripipium 81V6 tvmpam rstro iatam ckuplwsm st odlougam Uadsus xsr äorsum ässesudsutsm.

pium, therefore he is a Magister noster, enlightened in faith; therefore he has the Holy Spirit. The other sign is that they sit on the upper catheder when they discuss and read; by virtue of this it is concluded: Christ says: they sit on Mosi's chair, everything they say to you, keep it; therefore, everything they say is true. But now these sit on the catheder, and teach thus, therefore they cannot err.

There is another sign, which many of them have among themselves. And these are the badges of honor which they received at their doctoral graduation, namely the ring, the beret, the book, the kiss, the gloves, and the berets which were handed out at the doctoral graduation; likewise also the burning lights, and above all the "HErr GOtt! dich loben wir" (Te Deum laudamus) which is sung at the decision; last of all the excellent doctoral meal. The last and most powerful sign is the entrance of the Lord Decan into the Sorbonne, when the pedellets go before him with their scepters and shout in a strong voice: Make way! for the highly respected and excellent Magister noster, the Lord Decan of the laudable theological faculty with our excellent Magisters. Make room for him, make room! And this sign must be chewed well; for it concludes correctly (formaliter) that our magistri cannot err; just as in the same way the pope cannot err, if it is concluded very correctly (formaliter): because six strong men with great pomp, in the middle of the day, carry him out of his palace on a straight and level street; how could he err on such a bright day and on a level street, and since he is carried so splendidly? So also our magistrates cannot err, because they also hold a splendid procession in broad daylight and on a level street, as the pedals go before them with their scepters. And so the two first signs are examined and decided with glory, and the laudable faculty remains with its honors and dignities.

Thirdly, the laudable faculty was also moved by scriptural passages, although not ex-plicite, but implicite, that is, although they did not cite the scriptural passages with clear words, they nevertheless understood them. For when the laudable faculty said that the law forbidding vengeance was too burdensome for the law of Christ, it implicitly quoted the saying from the 2nd Psalm: "Let us break their bands, and cast from us their cords" (namely, of GOD and of His anointed). Likewise the saying in Lucas (19, 14.):

990 v- a. vi, 87-89. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xviii, ii8o-ii83. 991

"We will not have this man to rule over us; for his citizens were enemies to him." And that of Jeremiah (23:33, 36), "What is the burden of the LORD?" when the LORD saith, "Call it no more the burden of the LORD: for every man's own word shall be a burden unto him, because ye thus pervert the words of the living God, the LORD of hosts, our God." Also the one in Job (21:14, 15): "They say to God, 'Get thee away from us, for we do not want to know thy ways. Where is the Almighty, that we should serve Him? Or what are we improved, if we call upon him?" From this it is evident that the praiseworthy faculty not only kept the way of the apostles, but did much more. For those only drew on the Scriptures with clear words (ex-plicite) a little, namely only a single saying. The praiseworthy faculty, however, has, as it were, drawn on all the prophets, even though they only understood (licet implicite) them, whose word was a burden to the Jews. And it is also more magisterial to cite many scriptural passages implicite, rather than only one ex- plicite. And in this way also the laudable faculty rests on more and better signs; for the signs of the apostles have soon passed away, and have been few of them: but the signs of the laudable faculty remain daily, and very many of them; for who could count all the Liri- pipia that have been, still find, and will be in the Sorbonne? But now Aristotle says: The good is the more divine, the more are those to whom it is common. And again, a noteworthy rule in topics is thus: The longer a thing lasts, the better it is. Consequently, the signs of the laudable faculty are better than the signs of the apostles.

Fourthly, we are surprised at the blindness of the wicked man who has written the protective speech, that he does not see what great men are everywhere, who praise and extol this judgment of the praiseworthy faculty in the most zealous manner by preaching, by writing, by shouting, by blaspheming, and who take such great pains that even many are angry with them, as if they were completely nonsensical about this holy service. But because he is blind, some must be named to him, that he may take hold of it. The first is Silvester Prierias, Magister of the Holy Apostolic See; after him was Cardinal Cajetan; and the third is our beloved fellow father Johann Eck, who took much trouble in this matter and also himself compiled the bull at Rome. The fourth is Thomas Rhadinus. The fifth a brother of Cremona. The sixth the devout brother Augu

stin Alveld. The seventh, it is said, was one called Hieronymus Emser, who wrote many good things against Luther in his mother tongue. Finally, our two beloved sisters, the Universities of Cologne and Louvain, condemned Luther with his teachings.

^1^) We also know that our dearest sister, the school in Leipzig, stands with us and is strongly zealous for the truth against the Wittenberg school. It also has for itself the illustrious Duke of Saxony, George, who is very concerned about this matter. But it the Leipzig school has one fault, namely, that it allows Greek to be taught and learned at its academy, so that it is to be feared that much evil may result from it. And that is why our laudable faculty did not want to pass judgment on the disputation between Eck and Luther, also because they did not send our masters any money for their efforts, and they did not want to pass judgment for nothing. That is also quite right. For "who ever goes to war on his own pay?" (1 Cor. 9, 7.)

Similarly, there are also many at other of our sisters universities who hold our party; as, at the University of Frankfurt, Conrad Wimpina, who is a very peculiar and so great Thomist, because he wanted to become a bishop, and he is now pulling the same rope with us (facit jam unam navem pro nobis). And at the University of Tübingen there is a subtle Scotist, Jakob Lemp, who, if he were as learned as he thinks he is, would be even above all our masters in Paris.

Behold, now go, thou Melanchthon, and write in thy foolish protective speech, which is filled with Greek, and heresy, that our laudable faculty has no excellent people who speak their opinion. What does it prevent that they have not been sent by us? Enough that they have come of their own free will to serve us. We also hear that the excellent man, Jacob Latomus of Louvain, has written admirably against Luther. Behold, all these men, who are with all truth the most distinguished, are despised by the man who wrote the protective speech, who has no reverence, who is insolent and very presumptuous.

Now let us also look for the signs together with which we prove that Melanchthon himself cannot know the truth. The first is because he teaches the Greek language. How is it possible that the Greeks can be good Romans and

  1. This paragraph is missing in the Jena and Walch editions. We have inserted it from the Latin.

992 D- ". vi, ss-si. 42. pamphlet on the Paris judgment. W. xviii, H83-1185. 993

Christians should be, who have always been rebellious, spleenful and heretical?

The other, because we hear that he is a youth who is not yet twenty-four years old. And of this and of such a boy is one to believe anything else than that he can be mistaken? And he does not leave it at that, but he dares to write against such an old, such a great, such a high, such a praiseworthy school. It is wonderful that the noble Duke Frederick, who is said to be a wise prince, does not see that the boy is acting foolishly, and tolerates him, since he should put him in the carcer until he comes to his senses again. For we, as far as our laudable faculty is concerned, have pity on his senseless and tender age.

The third sign is because it is said that he is not so big in body and stature as his master Lutherus. How can there be a great science in such a small body, as in the whole Sorbona, which is so great?

The fourth, which is the greatest of all and quite abominable, is that he is not a clergyman, but a layman, and not even a priest; and yet they say he is a baccalaureate of the Bible, and runs over St. Paul in the public school without the almutium, and the ordained priests are to hear a layman, and the pupil teaches his masters, the youth teaches the ancients, and a Greek the Romans. O perverse Wittenberg, you pervert everything and want to make a Babel out of the church.

In the last place, which we can hardly believe, he is a layman who has been professed; and behold, a layman who has a wife teaches the Holy Scriptures among the ordained priests, clerics and clergy, against the decrees of the Pope, who teaches that no one can serve God in a married state; therefore he has also forbidden the clergy to take wives, so that they can serve and study God (in the game of dice). Oh that Emperor Carl and the princes would destroy this Wittenberg with sword, flames and fire, and with all forces from the ground up, which starts such great changes and innovations in faith and morals and follows them. And it would be high time to do so, lest, since God is for! women and boys also begin to teach and become theologians and magistri nostri (as they already are). For then what will become of them but that magistri nostri will become women and boys and everything will be reversed?

From this we now make this conclusion "from the theorem of the affirmed": It is erroneous and it is

is a layman; consequently, he is an erring layman. And again: He is erroneous and he is a teacher; consequently, he is an erroneous teacher. And again: He who teaches is erroneous; consequently the teaching is erroneous. And on the contrary: The praiseworthy faculty is right; consequently the teaching of the praiseworthy faculty is right. And it is also public that this maker of the protective speech is a layman, a youth, an adversary, small in stature, a Greek, a maniac. Therefore it was impossible, and still is impossible, that he should know the truth. Therefore we also want to deal with him more gently, in view of the fact that he has been deceived by his harmful teacher, and we ask him to desist from his error and to listen to his superiors. And if he has no others, let him at least hear our sister Leipzig, 1) who will teach him well. And so much of the other book.

The third book

contains some rules on how to understand the Bible.

The Law of Moses commanded that the priests judge between leprosy and leprosy. And without the priest's judgment, no one was to be considered either clean or unclean. Thus in the New Testament the universities are arranged, among which our University of Paris has the priority, which is the mother of the teaching institutions (studiorum), which are to judge about the doctrines; and without their judgment no one is to be considered either a right-believer or a heretic. Now, in order to give instruction as to how such judgments are to be made, let us set down a few rules or articles.

1st rule.

The holy scripture is dark.

This rule must be taken as the basic doctrine of faith, therefore it must not be proved.

2nd rule.

One should not believe anyone who cites Scripture par excellence.

This is proven from the first rule. For everyone who cites the Scriptures cites darkness, hence:

  1. In the Jena edition: our sisters Cologne and Lions 2c

694 v. a. vi, 9i-93. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xvm. iiss-iiW. 995

3rd rule.

It is to be accepted according to the declaration of the masters of sacred theology, especially the Parisians.

This rule is clear from what has been said before: for they are ordained to judge between leprosy and leprosy. Secondly, because they have the liripipium, consequently they are enlightened in faith, and cannot err; as is proved above.

But since these rules seem to be new, let us illustrate them with examples. When Christ says John 8: "He that committeth sin is the servant of sin." The reason seems to be clear that the free will cannot do anything but sin; but one does not have to believe it, because it is dark, and one has to listen to what the magisters say there. So when Paul says in Romans 14: "Everything that is not of faith is sin," Paul seems obviously to condemn moral works; therefore one must expect what the laudable faculty will say. Yes, that is even more, the saying in the first book of Moses at the first chapter: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth", is so obscure that it could give rise to many errors, if it were not for the magisters who carry Liripipia; for one could read it that way: In principio cremavit (anftatt creavit), i. e. combussit, Deus coelum et terram: In the beginning God burned heaven and earth. Similarly (s could one thus read: In principio creavit Deus zelum et iram: In the beginning God created zeal and wrath; if he understood by zelum invidiam, that is, envy, as if God had created envy and wrath. And other such horrible errors could arise from the Scriptures, if the magisters did not keep a watchful eye on them and allow the mere Scriptures to be cited.

And it is not valid if someone wants to say that the Scripture is clear and distinct in some places; for the opposite is already proven from the first book of Moses at the first chapter, where it seems to be clearest of all. Also because it is certain that the Scripture is dark here and there; consequently the conclusion is valid everywhere, because it is of the same nature everywhere. Everywhere it is true, holy; consequently it is also dark everywhere. Just as in a similar case Aristotle says of things that are of the same kind; e.g. the parts are like the whole. As the whole water is wet and round; consequently also the drops are wet and round. Consequently, Eck did well when he did not want to hear Luther's writing at Leipzig.

Luther insisted that his and the fathers' explanation should be heard. Hieronymus Emser is also right when he proves according to these rules that the Scriptures are dark; consequently, one should not believe Luther.

Yes, see the wonderful necessity of the Magistri nostri. Also the biblical text would not remain if they were not. Behold, one, when he read the gospel Luc. 7, 40. where it is written: Si- mon, habeo^1^ ) tibi aliquid dicere; Magister, dic (JEsus said: Simon, I have something to say to you. But he said, Master, tell), he was deceived by the letter d, which was written poetically and heretically, and thought it was a 6 and a 1, and so he read, Simon, habeo tibi aliquid dicere, and Magister, clic. Another should read: Regem vestrum crucifigam?(shall I

kill your king?) and read for it: Regem vestrum crucifigavi; that was a very big mistake. Likewise another read decem muas for decem mnas minas And the like examples much. Therefore, one must be very careful about the mere writing; and magistri nostri must have a watchful eye on this.

Likewise, when Luther denied that one could not prove Purgatory with a clear saying from Scripture, he was cornered by the declaration of the Magistri nostri about the saying: Transivimus per ignem et aquam: We are

He went through fire and water. And by 1 Cor. 3, 15: Salvus erit, sic tamen, quasi per ignem: He will be saved, but only by fire. And Ps. 17, 3: Igne me examinasti: Thou hast tested me with fire. 2) For if we were to follow the mere Scriptures here, nothing would be proven. Similarly, the saying, "Feed my sheep," when used by one who is not wearing a liripipium, does not mean to be a pope, but seems to mean to preach the gospel. Likewise, the saying in Proverbs Cap. 27, 23: Diligenter agnosce vultum pecoris tui (Thou shalt diligently know the appearance of thy cattle) does not enforce confession unless there is a magister with the liripipio to explain it thus. And in short: if one sticks to the Scriptures as they are merely dressed, all universities would have to err and would have to be heretical; and there would remain no way to resist the heretics and the world would become full of errors.

  1. So here and at the same place in the Vulgate. In the Erlanger and the old Walch edition üavst.
  2. According to the Vulgate.

996 L. V. L. VI, 93-95. 42. Joke about the Paris judgment. W. XVIH, 1188-1190. 997

4th rule.

The sayings of the holy fathers are dark.

This rule must also be taken as a basis; however, it is proven from the Magister sententiarum, from the Gratiano, and from the efforts of all universities. For what else does the Magister sententiarum do than to explain the dark sayings of the fathers? Does not Gratianus do the same? Is this not also done in all universities? Yes, there is more darkness in the Fathers than in the Bible; in that they take far more trouble with that darkness of the Fathers than with the Bible, as is evident.

5th rule.

One should not believe anyone who cites the fathers par excellence.

This is proven from the previous rule; for anyone who thus leads the fathers leads darkness.

6th rule.

The sayings of the fathers are to be accepted after explanation of the Magistri nostri, primarily the Parisians.

This is evident from what has already been said. Therefore our laudable faculty did well when it condemned Luther for citing Augustine and Ambrose, where they speak of justifying grace in the way the words read; because, according to the Magistri nostri, they speak darkly, and are to be understood only of natural grace. Likewise, when Augustine says, "In all works, and even in love, there are defects if it is not perfect," he is speaking obscurely. But according to the interpretation of the Magistri nostri, he takes the deficiencies for imperfection. So, when he demands above the saying of Matth. 5, "one should not take revenge", one should also hold out the other cheek, he also speaks darkly. But according to the interpretation of the magisters who carry Liripipia, there is not a commandment, but an evangelical advice set there.

And so we have it that the Scriptures are dark in and of themselves, proving nothing in and of themselves; but also that the Fathers are much darker, proving much less in and of themselves.

7th rule.

The magisters who wrote about Proverbs are dark.

This is clearest through experience. Because no one agrees with the other, a

each is dark and unknown to the other. Therefore, some are Albertists, others Egidiists, some Thomists, others Scotists, others Scotellists, some Modernists, others Occamists, others Gregoriists. Yes, these are the very darkest, which is evident from the fact that neither in the Bible nor among the Fathers is such a great difference as among these.

8th rule.

One should not believe anyone who cites a sententiarius par excellence.

This is clear from the predicted rule. For everyone who leads the same, leads discord and the darkest darkness.

9th rule.

The sayings of the Sentenzenfchreiber (Sententiariorum) are to be accepted after the explanation of the Magistri nostri, particularly of the Parisians.

This is clear from what has already been said and from the sufficient classification: because otherwise there is no one who could be consulted in the decision of the disputes and doubt knots. And so the matter becomes clear. In explaining the obscure Scriptures, the Fathers themselves have become far obscurer, so that more effort must be made to understand and unite them with each other than they have made effort to understand and unite the Bible, as this is amply proved by Magister sententiarum, Gratianus, and all the universities, as we have said. About this the scribes, in explaining the Fathers, have fallen into the greatest darkness and discord, that they strive with it in vain, and it is an impossible thing that they should once be united with each other and brought to one understanding; nay, precisely on this they are anxious that they may depart from each other. See now that for the sake of extreme necessity one must have masters. Therefore we conclude with the last rule.

10th rule.

But the verdict of the laudable faculty is clear, must be believed and accepted as often as it is quoted.

This is clear from what has already been said. For the praiseworthy faculty alone makes everything clear: first the Scriptures; then the Fathers; lastly the scribes, and it cannot err. For the Liripipium and Almutium are not such.

998 L. v. a. vi, S5-S7. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xvm, 1190-1193. 999

Signs that can deceive. Consequently, those who follow the mere scriptures do evil. Even more evil do those who follow the mere fathers; most evil of all those who follow the scribes. For they go from one darkness to another until they abandon those, hear the praiseworthy faculty, and cling firmly to Liripipio; there is the light of the world and the unerring guide of faith and morals.

Finally, we have to consider some scruples. The first is that someone might think that the magistri nostri could not so badly pronounce from their heads, because Moses commanded to judge everything according to the law of the Lord, which some declare: not according to the sense of a man. Secondly, when God commanded Joshua to be commander of the people of Israel, He commanded him to do everything as written in the Book of Moses, Jos. 1. The answer to this is: Because these sayings are drawn from the Scriptures, therefore, according to the first, second and third rule, they are said to be dark. Consequently, by the law and the books of Moses must be understood that which natural reason prescribes, but most of all the light of faith, which is not inconsistent with the light of nature. And with both lights the Magistri nostri are illuminated.

But if anyone should quote this saying, Deut. 12, "Thou shalt not do that which is right in thine eyes, which we do here this day," where it seems that some are forbidden to follow the dictates of sound reason, the answer is that it is not so; but the words, "that which is right in thine eyes," are taken in two ways: once it is as much as, "that which seems right in thine eyes. And so Moses is to be understood when he says, "Thou shalt not do that which is right in thine eyes"; for the word "is" is there taken for the word "seemeth". In the other way, when the word "is" (est) is taken par excellence, it is taken noun, in its usual meaning (in suo actu exercitato). And so Moses does not take it, because it must be taken as it is right in the eyes of the magisters, and definitely (definitive).

Another scruple: Isaiah speaks Cap. 54, V. 13.: Dabo filios tuos universos Theodidac- tos, that is: "Your children shall all be taught by the Lord." And Paul speaks, "The spiritual judgeth all things." And Christ speaks Jn. 6:45, "They shall all be taught of GOD." And Jeremiah speaks Cap. 31, 33. 34.: "There will be

not to teach one another, nor one brother another, saying, Know the LORD; but they shall all know me, both small and great, saith the LORD. For I will put my law in their hearts, and write it in their minds; and they shall be my people; so will I be their GOOD." From this someone might think that even every layman, if he is a son of the church and spiritual, can judge of all things. To this is answered: Isaiah understands by those who are taught by the Lord, the masters of sacred theology. And Paul understands by the clergy the clerics, or the spiritual state, in which the magistri nostri are the most distinguished. So also Christ understands by those who are taught by God, the theologians, that is, the public teachers of sacred theology, who bear the liripipium. For a theologian takes his name from theos, that is, God, and logos, that is, ratlo, reason; because he is to teach and answer about God according to what natural reason tells him about Him. Just as Peter says, "Be always ready for responsibility" (reddere rationem, i. e. dictamen naturale, that is, What

your natural mind tells you) "against everyone who demands the reason of the faith and hope that is in you."

But if it be objected: Isaiah says, "All"; and Christ, "All"; and Jeremiah, "None shall teach another, nor one brother another." From which it follows that all Christians are masters of sacred theology, clothed with the liripipium, or that not only the masters can judge, but all who believe, and have the mind and spirit of Christ; and they are to be believed. To this is answered: This cause is very vexatious; and yet it does not conclude. But I, the Lord Decanus, would give half my liripipium for it, if Isaias and Christ had omitted this general characteristic "all" (but let that be said in secret); for it makes many stiff-necked. But the truth shall not be stuck. Therefore it is answered by a strange and exquisite distinction, namely, that truth is of three kinds. One is that which is decided by a jurisdictional decision, and this belongs before the pope and the conciliar authorities. The other is that which is decided by the magisters and by doctrines (magisterialiter et doctrina- liter); and this belongs before the noble universities. The third is that which is made known through the brothers (fraternaliter) and is secretly given by God. From this it is said: "By the truth according to the first and the second

1000 V- L- VI, 97 f. 42. Joke about the Paris judgment. W. LVIII, II93-I195. 1001

The first way must be held publicly; and of these two kinds of truth Christ does not speak, but of the truth according to the third kind; in which one should not hold publicly, especially if it is contrary to the first two kinds. And the reason is, because now confusion and disorder would result, that the superior should be silent and learn from the inferior.

But when it is said, Nevertheless Paul saith 1 Cor. 14:30, But if one revelation be to another that sitteth, let the first hold his peace"; where he clearly teaches that a private person shall be heard in public church, and he that teacheth publicly in church shall hold his peace. To this is replied: The word "the first" may be taken in many ways in this chapter, likewise also the word "he that sitteth." For the Scripture is bare here, and therefore it is dark. In the first way the word "the first" can be taken from one who has the preference according to status and dignity. And so it is not to be taken here: for it is a disgrace if a superior man should hold his tongue against one of lesser rank. In another way, "the first" means the one who is more in time, in nature, in order, as can be clearly seen in the postpredicaments 1). And in this way, those who are first in order are the lowest and the youngest, like the scholars who go before the prelates, as is seen in the processions. And these are to "keep silence against him who sits there," that is, against the magisters who sit as teachers on the catheder. And about this it is also taken differently. The "first" (prior) means the chief in the Carthusian house and in the orders of the mendicant monks. And these shall be silent against him that sitteth, that is, against their bishop, who hath a seat, that is, a bishopric. For it would be shameful to use the word "he who sits there" for everything that sits there.

  1. D. i. Subcategories.

because then the first or the superior (Prior seu Superior) would also have to be silent in front of the dogs and birds, because they want to sit when they want.

Finally, if one wants to say: The truth may be said by whom it may be, be it a private or a public person, it must be held publicly by all; because it is said by the Holy Spirit. So Christ speaks here: "All shall be taught of God"; consequently, whoever does not hear them does not hear God, who teaches them and gives it to them. Therefore, this exceptional distinction is of no use. To this is answered: We have already said that this cause is very vexatious, and yet it does not conclude: for a great and many inconvenience, which does not rhyme, would follow from it; namely, that the inferior should teach the superior. Therefore, whoever wants to answer this in general can say, according to the first and other rules, that this scripture is obscure, and that one should not believe it if it is cited in general without interpretation; but how it is to be interpreted, we want to leave that until another time, because of the vastness and shortness of time.

For now, this may be enough for an introduction on how to study sacred theology, so that everyone knows where to start, so that he does not go astray once he has settled on the sacred Scriptures and then gets lost in the darkness of them. And so the protective speech of Philip Melanchthon is hereby fundamentally overturned.

This was done in the Sorbona, in the manner, in the sense, of the persons, with the diligence, and with all the circumstances that are required and necessary for this action, and which we also used in our first judgment: except that we could not have kept it just the day, and just the month. But the fault was not ours, because they had passed, although we asked them, but in vain, that they should forgive until the matter was settled.

1002 27,8s. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin von Alveld. W. xvni, 119s f. 1003

VII Luther's dispute with Augustin von Alveld,

a Franciscan in the Barfüßerkloster in Leipzig.

*43 Augustin's letter from Alveld to Luther. )

Early April 1520. Newly translated from Latin.

Alveld announces that he will attack Luther, using only the Holy Scriptures.

JEsus.

Brother Augustin von Alveld, Franciscan, Lector of the Holy Doctrine > of God at Leipzig, sends his greetings to Brother Martin Luther.

Since you, dear Martin, have not yet observed the modesty due to any doctor, I have resolved to repay you in kind. But it is not fitting for a servant of God and for a divine scholar to start a shouting match and to revile. For with such weapons foolish women protect themselves. Receive me now, as is right, more modestly; but if it pleases thee otherwise, and if thou attackest me like a hound of hell, then thou shalt experience in me, as God liveth, a barking and biting dog.

For what you claim for yourself as permissible, I believe, is also permissible for me. Moreover, you deny almost all teachers, except where they come to the aid of your teaching. Therefore you will not hear me cite any teacher; so I do not want to hear you cite any either. But this you shall know, that you will find no faith with me, unless you will answer (resoneris) as a theologian - not as a teacher of language - from the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. I will attack you, not with learned words of human wisdom, but with the spirit and with the truth, so that the catholic and apostolic church may recognize how learnedly, how correctly and godly you handle the holy scripture, miss yourself of it and explain it. Farewell.

**Luther's writing "Of the Papacy in Rome, against the highly famous Romanist in Leipzig". )

June 1520.

Preface.

However, it is 1) something new come on the plan, after these years probably rained and a lot of new time adult. Many have

  1. D. i. again.

Until now, they have attacked me with invective and splendid lies; they have not nearly succeeded. Now, first of all, the brave heroes stand out at the market in Leipzig, who not only want to be looked at, but also stand up to everyone with a fight. They are almost well

*This letter is found in Latin in Cyprian's "Nützliche Urkunden zur Reformationsgeschichte", Theil 2, p. 162, and printed from it in Hofmann's Reformation History of the City and University of Leipzig, p. 148; likewise in the Erlangen "Briefwechsel" Vol. II, p. 37V. The time is inserted after the correspondence.

**This writing appeared in 1520 at Wittenberg and was reprinted several times in the same year, once also in Low German dialect. In the "Gesammtausgabe" it is found in the Wittenberg <1554), vol. VII, col. 241, Jenaer (1564), vol. I, toi. 262b, Altenburger, vol. I, p. 452, Leipziger, vol. XVII, p. 430, and Erlanger Ausgabe, vol. 27,^p.^ 86^ We have mostly followed the^Jenaer edition, but have not found it necessary,

1004 Erl. 27,88-88. 44. from the pabbacy of rome Wider Alveld. W. XVIII, 1196-1199. 1005

that such things have not occurred to me. They have the iron hats on their feet, the sword on their heads, shield and crab hang on their backs, the spears they hold by the edge and the whole armor is very fine and chivalrous in the new manner; and want to prove that they have not (as I accused them) lost their time in dream books and never learned anything 1), but hunt for such a prize as those who are conceived, born, suckled, cradled, played with, educated and grown up in the holy scriptures. It would ever be fair to be afraid of them, who could do it, that they would not have the effort and good opinion in vain. If Leipzig has borne such giants, the country must have a rich soil.

But so that you understand what I mean, notice that Silvester, Cajetan, Eck, Emser, and now Cologne and Louvain have shown their chivalrous deeds honestly on me, have gained honor and glory as deserved, have protected the cause of the pope and indulgence against me in such a way that they wanted it to be better for them. Finally, some have let themselves think that it is best to attack me, as the Pharisees did Christ, Matth. 22, 35. 2) They have raised one up and thought: If he wins, then we have all won; if he is overcome, then he alone is lost. And the highly learned, cautious Neidhard thinks that I should not notice it. Now then, lest all things fail them, I will pretend that I do not understand the game at all; please, if I hit the sack, they will not notice that I wanted to hit the donkey. And if they do not want to listen to this request, then I first make the following condition: if I were to say something against the new Romanist heretics and blasphemers of the Scriptures, that not only the poor underage clerk in Leipzig in the Barfüßerkloster, but rather the big-hearted ensigns, who are not allowed to give themselves to the day, and yet would like to become victorious under someone else's name.

  1. Thus the Wittenberg and Jena editions. The Erlangen edition: "gelehret".
  2. Thus the Jena edition; "have" is missing in the Wittenberg. and Erlangen editions.

I ask that every pious Christian man receive my words, whether they may be mocking or pointed, as spoken from a heart that has had to break itself with great sorrow and turn seriousness into disgrace 3) so that in Leipzig, where there are also pious people who save the Scriptures and God's Word with body and soul, such a blasphemer speaks and writes publicly, who does not respect and act upon the holy words of God more highly than if a stick or money fool had invented them for a little tale on carnival night. Because my Lord Christ and his holy word, so dearly bought with his blood, is considered a mockery and a fool's speech, I must let go of the seriousness and try whether I have also learned to fool and mock. You know, my Lord Jesus Christ, how my heart stands against such of your blasphemers; then I rely on you and let it prevail in your name, amen. They will ever let you remain a Lord, amen.

I realize that such poor people do not seek more than to get a name on me, they cling to me like dung to the wheel; they would rather have a shout with disgrace than stay at home; and the evil spirit of such people needs nobility to only prevent me from better things. But I let the cause be welcome to me, to declare something for the laity from Christianity and to meet the seducing masters. For this reason I intend to do more for them than to answer their chatter, and to conceal their names, lest they obtain what they seek, or become worthy of hope, as if they had been worthy to deal with me in the Scriptures.

What was the trade and the matter.

  1. we do a thing which, as much as in itself, is unnecessary, without which investigation every one would remain a Christian; but our idlers, who trample under foot all the main things of the Christian faith itself, must do such a thing, and trouble other people, lest they live in vain on earth.
  1. D. i. Joke.

1006 Erl. 27.88-so. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin of Alveld. W. xviii, 1199-1201. 1007

(2) Namely, this is the matter: whether the papacy at Rome, as it is in quiet possession of power over all Christendom, (as they say) came from divine or human order? And if this were so, whether it be Christian to say that all other Christians in the whole world are heretics and apostates, although they hold the same baptism, sacraments, gospel, and all articles of faith in harmony with us, except that they do not have their priests and bishops confirmed by Rome, or, as now, buy them with money, and, like the Germans, allow themselves to be fooled and fooled, as there are the Muscovites Russians, white Russians, 1) the Greeks, Bohemia, and many other great countries in the world? For these all believe as we do, baptize as we do, preach as we do, live as we do, also hold the pope in his honor, without giving money to confirm their bishops and priests; also do not want to be flayed and defiled with indulgences, bulls, lead, parchment, and what are more of the Roman goods, as the drunken, full Germans do; are also ready to hear the gospel from the pope or pope's messages, and yet may not happen to them.

(3) Now the question is, whether these are all cheaply called heretics (for of these alone and no others do I speak and act) by us Christians; or whether we are cheaper heretics and apostates, that we call such Christians heretics and apostates for the sake of money alone? For where the pope does not send the gospel and its message to them, which they would gladly have and receive, it is in the day that through bishops and priests confirmation is sought only for a useless power and money, into which they do not consent and are thus called heretics and apostates.

4 Now I have held and still hold that these are not heretics nor apostates, and perhaps better Christians than we, not all alike, just as we are not all good Christians.

  1. Belarus is a part of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
  2. Thus the Jena edition. The Wittenberg and Erlangen: "or".

sten. Now, after the others, the fine barefooted little book from Leipzig also disputes this and therefore walks on clogs, yes, on stilts; it lets itself think that it alone does not step into the muck; perhaps it would also like to dance who bought it a pipe. I must try something about it, and say first of all: Let no one be so foolish as to believe that it is the serious opinion of the pope and all his Romanists and flatterers that his mighty authority is of divine order; notice that everything that is of divine order is not held to the smallest letter in Rome, yes, it is mocked as foolishness, if anyone thinks of it; as it is in broad daylight. They may also suffer that the gospel and Christian faith sink to the ground in all the world, and do not think to lose a hair of it; in addition, all evil examples of spiritual and worldly wickedness from Rome, as from a sea of all wickedness, flow into all the world. All this is laughed at Rome, and he who mourns for it is a Bon Christian, that is, a fool.

5 If they were seriously concerned about God's order, they would have had many thousand more necessary things to do and do before, which they now laugh at and mock. Because St. Jacob says, Cap. 2, 10: "He who does not keep one of God's ordinances, pushes against all the others." Who would be so foolish as to think that they seek God's order in one piece, so that they all mock the others? It is not possible for a divine order to go right to someone's heart whom the others do not all move to the least. Now there are so many of them who hold the papal authority with such seriousness that no one dares to say a word about it, so that one of the other much greater, more necessary orders at Rome would not be so blasphemously mocked and scorned.

6 Further, if Germany all fell on their knees and prayed that the Pope and the Romans would take the same power and confirm our bishops and priests without money, for free, as the Gospel says: Gratis accepistis, gratis date: "Pray for free, for you also have it for free", Matth. 10, 8, and should provide all the churches with good preachers, since they are rich enough and have enough that they would like to have money for their own.

1008 Erl, 27, S0-S3. 44 Vom Pabstthum zu Rom Wider Alveld. W. XVIII, 1201-120t. 1009

And if one insisted that it was due to them out of divine order, we would certainly believe that they would all be stronger about it, that it was not divine order to have such trouble without money, than anyone ever has been; would soon find a little bell, so that they would unwind themselves, as they now find that they weave themselves in; would not let themselves be driven to it with all pleading. But because it is money, it must be divine order, which they may only think of.

The bishopric of Mainz has bought almost eight bishop's cloaks from Rome, each of which is worth thirty thousand florins; I am silent about the other countless bishoprics, prelatures and fiefdoms. So we German fools should blow our noses and then say that it is divine order not to have a bishop without Roman authority. I am surprised that Germany, which is half (so no more) spiritual, still has one penny before the unspeakable, innumerable, unbearable 1) Roman thieves, knaves and robbers. It is said that the end-Christ shall find the treasures of the earth; I mean, the Romanists have found them, that our lives and bodies are in pain. If the German princes and nobility do not do so with brave earnestness in the near future, Germany will become desolate or will have to eat itself. This would also be the greatest joy for the Romanists, who consider us no other than beasts and have made a saying of us to Rome, that is: one should lick the gold off the German fools as one can.

  1. the pope does not repudiate this blasphemy, all see through their fingers; yes, they hold higher over such chief worldlings than over the holy gospel of God, and pretend, as if we were fools to death, that it is divine order that the pope has his hand in everything, does what he wants with everyone, as if he were a god on earth, who should serve everyone (if he wanted to be or would be the supreme one) for free. But before they do that
  1. Wittenberger and Erlanger: untrewglichen; Jenaer: untrewlichen.
  2. In the editions "werden das". The Jena edition notes: the little word "das" seems to be superfluous.

they would much rather let this violence fall and not be divine order than any other order.

009 Sayest thou then, Why then do they fight so hard against thee in this matter? Answer: I have touched some higher things concerning faith and the word of God; they have not been able to overthrow them, even since they saw that Rome does not take care of such good things, they have also dropped them and seized me by the indulgence and papal authority, hoping to win the prize here. For they have known well, where money was to be found, that the main boys' school in Rome would fall to them and not remain quiet. Now D. Luther is a little hopeful and does not pay much attention to the Romanists' runts and grunts; that wants to break their hearts. My Lord Christ does not inquire, neither does Luther, and they think that the gospel must and should go on. Now ask a layman such Romanists and let them answer why they desolate and mock all divine order and whether they rage so horribly against it, which they do not want to show for what it is useful, good and necessary? For since it has been established, nothing else has arisen from it but the vain destruction of Christendom, and no one can point to any good or useful thing that has come from it. Of which I will say further, when this Romanist returns, and then bring the Holy See at Rome to the day, whether God wills, as he is worthy.

(10) I have said this, not to deny papal authority, but with a sufficient cause; but to denounce the wrong opinion of those who saw gnats and let elephants go, Matt. 23:26, "see the dust in their neighbor's eye and let their beams stand," Matt. 7:3, only that with other unnecessary things they want to kill others, and if they do not like them, they blaspheme heretics and, as they like, blaspheme; which one is this tender, pious Romanist at Leipzig, whom we will now look at.

I find three strong reasons for which the fruitful, noble booklet of the Romanist of Leipzig attacks me. The first and strongest, that he calls me a heretic, nonsensical, blind fool, obsessive.

1010 Erl. 27, S3-SS. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin of Alveld. W. XVIII, 1204-1206. 1011

nen, snake, poison 1) worm and the same names much more, not once, but almost throughout the booklet on all leaves. These abusive words, disgraces and blasphemies do not apply in other books; but where a book is made in Leipzig in the Barfüßerkloster, by a Romanist, in the high, holy observance of St. Francisci, there are not only good words of moderation. Francisci, there are not only good words of moderation, but also strong reasons to defend the Pope's authority, indulgences, Scripture, faith, and Christianity; and it is not necessary that one thing be proven with Scripture or reason, but it is enough that they are merely put forth by a Romanist and holy observer of St. Francisci.

Since this Romanist himself writes that the Jews overcame Christ Himself on the cross with such a reason, Matth, 27, 41, 42, I must also admit and confess that as much as reproaching, maligning, reviling and blaspheming applies, the Romanist has certainly overcome Doctor Luther, and must leave him this reason.

13: The other reason that I understand it in short words is natural reason, so it is:

A. Every church on earth, if it is not to fall apart, must have a physical head under the right headship of Christ.

B. Because all Christianity is one community on earth, it must have one head, and that is the Pope.

14 I have designated this reason with the letters A. B. for the sake of clearer understanding, also to indicate that this Romanist knows the Abc almost up to the B. Now I answer this reason: Since this matter is about whether the authority of the pope consists of divine order, is it not a little ridiculous that one wants to attract reason, drawn from temporal things, and make it equal to divine law, especially since this poor presumptuous man promises himself to act against me with divine law? For what worldly order and reason knows is far below the divine law. Yes, the Scriptures forbid that one

  1. D. i. toxic.

should not follow reason, Deut. 12, 8: "Thou shalt not do that which seemeth thee right"; for reason always strives against God's law, as Gen. 6, 5: "All thoughts and senses of man's heart are always toward the worst. Therefore, to subdue or protect God's order with reason, unless it is founded and illuminated with faith beforehand, is like trying to illuminate the bright sun with a dark lantern and found a rock on a reed. For Isaiah Cap. 7, 9. puts reason under faith, saying, "Unless ye believe, ye shall not have understanding or reason." He does not say, "Unless you have reason, you will not believe.

(15) Therefore this scribe would have kept his perverse reasoning at home, or would have found it out beforehand in the sayings of Scripture, lest he so ridiculously and perversely pretend to base faith and divine laws on mere reason. For this reason concludes that, as a physical community must have a physical ruler or it will not exist; so it also concludes that, as a physical community does not exist without women, so also Christianity must be given a physical common woman, so that it does not perish; that will ever have to be a willful whore. Likewise, a physical community does not exist without a common physical city, house and land; so one would also have to give Christianity a common city, house and land. Where will this be found? And indeed, in Rome they are eager for it, for they have made the world almost their own. Item, so also the Christianity should have a common bodily property, servant, maid, cattle, fodder and the like; because no community can exist without these things. Now behold, how finely reason 2) walks on its stilts.

16 A reading master should have considered such clumsy things beforehand, and prove divine works or order with Scripture, and not with temporal parables and worldly reason. For it is written that divine commandments are justified in

  1. Wittenberg and Erlanger: these.

1012 Erl. S7, S5-47. 44. From the Pabstthum at Rome Wider Alveld. W. XVIII, 1208-1208. 1013

and by itself, Ps. 19, 10, not from other external help. The wise man says of God's wisdom, Proverbs 11:2: "Wisdom has brought down all the arrogant with her own power; Wis 10:18, 19. It is shameful that we want to defend God's word with our reason, if we are to defend ourselves against all enemies by the word of God, as St. Paul teaches, Eph. 6, 17. Wouldn't that be a great fool who wants to protect his armor and sword in battle with his bare hand or head? It is the same when we want to protect God's laws, which are our weapons, with our reason.

From this, I hope, it is clear that the lazy reason of this chatterer lies quite low and is invented groundlessly with everything that he builds on it. But that he understands his carnival play better himself, even if I allow that a reason exists thoroughly without writing; yet none of these pieces exists, neither the first A nor the other B. Let us see.

  1. First, A says: Every church on earth must have one physical head under Christ. This is not true. How many principalities, castles, cities, and houses are found where two brothers or lords of equal power rule! Has not the Roman Empire for a long time, and many other empires in the world, governed themselves best without a single head? How do the Confederates rule now? Item, in worldly regiment there is no common sovereign, since we are all one human race having come from one father Adam. The kingdom of France has its king, Hungary its king, Poland its king, Denmark its king, and each its own king; and yet all are one people of the secular state in Christendom without a single head, and therefore the same kingdoms do not disintegrate. And even if no regiment were so, who would prevent a community from choosing for itself many overlords, and not one alone for equal power? Therefore, it is a bad pretense of such worldly, unstable parables to measure something in God's order, when it creates nothing in human orders.
  1. and if I again immediately allow the

How does it follow that it must also be so in Christianity? 1) I can see that in his mind the Christian community is like another worldly community. I can see that the poor dreamer thinks in his mind that the Christian community is the same as another worldly community. So that he publicly shows that he has never learned what Christianity or the Christian community is called. And such gross, thick, disturbing error and ignorance I would not have thought to be in any man, much less in a Leipzig saint; therefore I must first explain to this coarse brain and others, who are deceived by him, what is meant by "Christendom" and a "head of Christendom. But I must speak roughly and use the words they have drawn into their wild minds.

20 The Scriptures speak of Christianity in a very simple way, and in only one way; over which they have brought two others into use. The first way, according to Scripture, is that Christianity is called an assembly of all believers in Christ on earth; as we pray in faith, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, a communion of saints." This community or assembly is called of all those who live in right faith, love and hope, so that the nature, life and nature of Christianity is not a bodily assembly, but an assembly of hearts in One faith, as Paul says, Eph. 4, 5: "One baptism, One faith, One Lord." So even though they are physically separated from one another by a thousand miles, they are called one assembly in the Spirit, because each one preaches, believes, hopes, loves and lives as the other; as we sing of the Holy Spirit: "You have gathered together all languages into one faith. 2) Now this is actually called a spiritual unity, from which men are called a congregation of saints; which unity alone is enough to make a Christianity, without which there is no unity, whether of place, time, or person,

  1. "that it" is missing in the Jena; "it" is missing in the Wittenberg.
  2. Luther later expressed this in his translation of Vsni Lancts Lpiritns (in our hymnal no. 134) thus: Zu dem Glauben versammlet hast das Voll aus aller Welt Zungen.

1014 Erl. 27.97-gg. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin of Alveld. W. xviii, 1208-1211. 1015

Work or what it may be. A Christianity makes.

(21) Now we have to listen to Christ's word, who, when asked about his kingdom before Pilate, answers: "My kingdom is not of this world", John 18:36. This is a clear statement, so that Christianity is distinguished 1) from all worldly communities, that it is not physical. And this blind Romanist makes a physical, like the others, community out of it. He says even more clearly, Luc. 17, 20. 21.: "The kingdom of God does not come in an outward way, and no one will say, Behold, here or there it is. For perceive that the kingdom of God is within you."

22 I am surprised that such strong, clear sayings of Christ are even taken for carnival larvae by these Romanists. From which everyone clearly understands that the kingdom of God (so he calls his Christianity) is not at Rome, nor bound to Rome, neither here nor there; but where there is an inner belief that man is at Rome, here or there. So that whoever says that Christianity is bound to Rome or to Rome is a lie and a forgery, and is contrary to Christ as a liar; much less that the headship and authority is there from divine order.

  1. about this, he immediately proclaimed, Matt. 24:23, 26, the deception that now reigns under the Roman church name, saying, "many false Christs and prophets shall come in my name, saying they are Christ; shall deceive many, and do signs, that they may deceive the elect also; wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, here in these houses is Christ, believe it not; behold, out in the wilderness, go not forth. Behold, I have declared it unto you." Should this not be a cruel error, that the unity of the Christian community, drawn by Christ Himself from all fleshly, outward cities and places, and placed in spiritual places, is told by these dream preachers among the fleshly community, which by necessity must be bound to place and place? How is it possible?
  1. D. i. excluded.

What reason can understand that spiritual unity and physical unity are one thing? Many are the Christians in the physical assembly and unity, who nevertheless close with sins from the inward, spiritual unity.

  1. Therefore, whoever says that an outward assembly or unity makes a Christianity, speaks his own by force; and whoever draws the Scriptures to it, leads divine truth to his lies and makes God a false witness; as this wretched Romanist does, who draws everything that is written about Christianity on the outward splendor of Roman power; yet he cannot deny that most of this crowd, and especially at Rome itself, are not in spiritual unity, that is, in true Christianity, because of their unbelief and evil life. For if true Christians were to be in outward Roman unity, there would be no sinners among them, nor would they need faith or God's grace to become Christians, but the same outward unity would be sufficient.

25 From this it follows and must follow that just as "being under Roman unity" does not make Christians, so "being apart from the same unity" must not make heretics or unbelievers; and I will hear whoever will dispel this. For what is necessary to be, that must make a true Christian. But if it does not make a true Christian, it need not be necessary, just as it does not make me a true Christian whether I am in Wittenberg or in Leipzig.

(26) Now it is clear that the outward unity of the Roman assembly does not make one a Christian; so its expression (2) certainly does not make one a heretic or apostate. Therefore it must also not be true that it is divine order to be among the Roman congregation. For he who keeps one divine order keeps them all, and none may be kept without the others, Jac. 2, 10. Therefore it must be a public, blasphemous lie in the Holy Spirit who says that the outward unity of Roman authority is the fulfillment of some divine order.

  1. I. e. disassociation, separation; the "being outside".

1016 Eri. 87, ss-im. 44: From the Papacy of Rome against Alveld. W. xviii, 1211-1214. 1017

Order, so there are many in it who neither respect nor fulfill divine order. Therefore it is not heresy that makes one heretic here or there, but not believing rightly that makes heretics.

27 Now it is clear that "to be under the Roman gathering" is not to be in faith; and "to be outside" is not to be in disbelief; otherwise all would be faithful and blessed who are in it, because no part is believed without all the other parts of faith. Therefore all who make Christian unity or community bodily and outwardly, like other communities, are true Jews; for they also wait for their Messiah, that he should set up an outward kingdom in the named outward place, that is, at Jerusalem, and thus leave the faith, which alone makes Christ's kingdom spiritual and inward.

Item, if all the physical community has a name from its head, as we say: the city is Electoral, this is Ducal, this is Frankish; the whole of Christendom should also be called Roman or Peteric or Papal. Why then is it called Christendom, why are we called Christians, as from our head, and yet are still on earth? This shows that the whole of Christendom has no other head, even on earth, than Christ, because it has no other name than Christ. Therefore St. Lucas writes, Apost. 11, 26, that the disciples were called Antiochians before, but soon changed and were called Christians.

29 Next, as man is of two natures, body and soul, so he is not reckoned a member of Christendom according to the body, but according to the soul, even according to faith. Otherwise one would say that a man is a nobler Christian than a woman; as the bodily person of a man is better than that of a woman. Item, that a man is a greater Christian than a child; a healthy man a stronger Christian than a superior man; a lord, woman, rich and powerful man a better Christian than a servant, maidservant, poor man and subject; since St. Paul contradicts, Gal. 3:27, 28: "In Christ there is no man, no woman, no lord, no servant, no Jew, no Gentile; but," as to the bodily person, "all are equal."

(30) But he that believeth, and hopeth, and loveth more, is a better Christian: so that it is evident that Christianity is a spiritual community, which cannot be numbered among the temporal communities, as 1) little as spirits among bodies, and faith among temporal goods. It is true that just as the body is a figure or image of the soul, so also the physical community is a model of this Christian, spiritual community; that just as the physical community has a physical head, so also the spiritual community has a spiritual head.

Who could be so foolish as to say that the soul must have a bodily head? That would be the same as if I said: A living animal must also have a painted head on its body. If this writer had understood what Christianity was, he would undoubtedly have been ashamed to think of such a book. What wonder, then, that out of a dark and erroneous head comes no light, but only black darkness? So St. Paul says, Col. 3, 3, that "our life" is not on earth, but "hidden with Christ in God. For if Christianity were a bodily assembly, it could be seen in the body of every man whether he were a Christian, a Turk or a Jew; just as I can see in his body whether he were a man, a woman or a child, black or white. Item, in secular assembly I can see whether he is assembled in Wittenberg or Leipzig, here or there with others; but not at all whether he believes or not.

(32) Therefore let him who does not want to err be certain that Christianity is a spiritual assembly of souls in one faith, and that no one is considered a Christian because of his body; so that he may know that natural, true, right, essential Christianity is in the spirit and not in any outward thing, as it may be called. For all other things an unchristian may have, which never make him a Christian, except right faith, which alone makes a Christian. Therefore also is called

  1. Jenaer: as; Erlanger: therefore.

1018 Erl. 27, 101-103. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin von Alveld. ' W. XVIII, I2I4-I216. 1019

our name "believers in Christ" and on the day of Pentecost we sing: "Now we ask the Holy Spirit for the right faith of all most." In this way, the Holy Scripture speaks of the Holy Church and Christianity and has no other way to speak.

33 There is another way of speaking about Christianity. According to this, Christianity is called a congregation in a house or parish, bishopric, archbishopric, priesthood, in which the outward acts, such as singing, reading, and the chasuble, are performed. And above all, the spiritual state here is called bishops, priests, and religious, not for the sake of faith, which they may not have, but because they are blessed with external ointments, wear crowns, wear special clothes, do special prayers and works and mass, stand in choir, and appear to do all of the same external worship.

34 Although the word "spiritual" or "church" is violated here by the fact that such an outward being is thus called, since it concerns only the faith that makes the soul truly spiritual and Christian, the custom has nevertheless gained the upper hand, not to little seduction and error of many souls, who think that such an outward glow is the spiritual and true state of Christianity or the church.

(35) Of this church, where it is alone, there is not one letter in the holy Scriptures that it is ordered by God; and here I defy all those who have made or want to protect this blasphemous, damned, heretical booklet, with all its appendages, even if all the universities hold with them; if they show me that one letter of Scripture says of it, I will have all my speech revoked. But I know that they will not do it to me. Spiritual law and the laws of men call such a being a church or Christianity, but that is not what we are dealing with now. Therefore, for the sake of greater understanding and brevity, let us call the two churches by different names. The first, which is natural, thorough, essential and true, we will call a spiritual, inner Christianity. The other, which is made and external, we will call

are called a bodily, outward Christianity; not that we wish to separate them from one another; but at the same time, as when I speak of a man, and call him a spiritual man according to the soul, and a bodily man according to the body; or as the apostle is wont to call an inward and an outward man.

(36) So also the Christian assembly according to the soul is one community in one faith; although according to the body it may not be gathered in one place, yet each group is gathered in its own place. This Christendom is governed by spiritual law and prelates in Christendom. It includes all popes, cardinals, bishops, prelates, priests, monks, nuns and all those who are considered Christians in their outward nature, whether they are truly Christians or not. For although this congregation does not make a true Christian, since all the aforementioned classes may exist without faith, it never remains without some who are also true Christians. Just as the body does not make the soul live, so the soul lives in the body and also without the body. But those who are without faith and without the first community in this other community are dead in the sight of God, glittering and only like wooden images of true Christianity. And so the people of Israel were a figure of the spiritual people, gathered together in faith.

(37) According to the third way of speaking, churches are not called Christianity, but houses built for worship. And further, the word "spiritual" is applied to temporal goods; not to those that are truly spiritual by faith, but to those that are in the other, physical Christianity, and these goods are called spiritual or church goods. Again, the goods of the laity are called worldly, although the laity in the first, spiritual Christianity are much better and quite spiritual. Almost all the works and regiments of Christianity now follow this way, and the name "spiritual goods" has been so completely drawn into the worldly goods that nothing else is now understood by it, until they no longer respect either the spiritual or the physical church, but quarrel and fight over the temporal goods, like the heathen,

1020 Erl. 27.10S-I05. 44. from the pabbacy of rome Wider Alveld. W. LVIII, 1216-1219. 1021

and say they do it for the sake of the church and spiritual goods. Such perverse misuse of sayings and things has brought spiritual law and human law to the unspeakable ruin of Christendom.

38 Now let us see about the head of Christendom. From all this it follows that the first Christianity, which alone is the true church, may and can have no head on earth, and may be governed by no one on earth, neither bishop nor pope; but Christ alone in heaven is the head here and rules alone. This proves, first of all, that how can a man rule here that he does not know or recognize? But who can know who truly believes or not? Yes, if papal power reached here, he could take away the faith of Christians, lead them, increase it, change it, as he wanted, as Christ can.

39 Secondly, it is proved by the nature of the head. For the nature of every incarnate head is to infuse into its members all life, purpose and work, which is also demonstrated in worldly heads. For a prince of the land infuses into his subjects all that he has in his will and mind, and makes all his subjects feel the same mind and will toward him, and so does the work that he wills. Which work is truly called flowing out of the prince into his subjects, for without him they would not have done it. Now no man can instill into another's soul the faith and all the mind, will and works of Christ, but Christ alone. For no pope, no bishop can do so much that faith and what should have a Christian limb, arise in a man's heart.

Now a Christian must have the mind, courage and will that Christ has in heaven, as the apostle says in 1 Cor. 2:16. For this it happens that a Christian member has faith, which neither pope nor bishop has; how then should he be the head of it? Also, if he himself cannot give life to the spiritual church, how will he instill it in another? 1) Who has ever had a

  1. Jenaer einfließen; Wittenberger: einflüssen.

The head must inspire life. 2) Therefore it is clear that on earth there is no other head of spiritual Christianity than Christ alone. Even if a man were the head here, Christianity would have to fall as often as the pope would die. For the body cannot live where the head is dead.

  1. It follows that Christ may not have a vicar in this church; therefore, the pope is not, nor may he become, Christ's vicar or governor in this church. This proves true: for a governor, if he is obedient to his Lord, works, drives and instills 3) the very same work in the subjects that the Lord himself instills. 3) As we see in worldly government, that one will and opinion is of the Lord, governor and subjects. But the pope may not instill or do the work of Christ his Lord (that is, faith, hope and love and all grace with virtue) in a Christian man, if he were more holy than St. Peter.

And even if such conformity and probation do not hold the sting, which is founded in the Scriptures, St. Paul stands strong and immovable, Eph. 4:15, 16.He gives Christianity only one head, saying, "Let us become true," that is, not outward, but thoroughly true Christians, "and let us grow in all things in him who is the head, Christ; from whom all the members and the whole body are joined together, and one member clings to another in all the joints, by which one serves and helps another, each according to the measure of its own work, increasing the same body and improving itself, so that one may love the other more and more." Here the apostle clearly says that the improvement and increase of Christianity, which is one body of Christ, comes from Christ alone, who is its head. And where can another head be found on earth to whom this kind can be assigned? Since these same heads have nothing themselves, neither 4) of love, nor 4) of love, nor 4) of love.

  1. Wittenberg and Jena: flow in.
  2. Jenaer: einfleiffet; Wittenberger: einflüsset.
  3. In the issues: still.

1022 Erl. 27,105-107. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin von Alveld. W. XVIII, I2IS-I22I. . 1023

of faith. For this he said these words to himself. He told St. Peter and everyone. And where another head would have been necessary, he would have concealed it unfaithfully.

43 I know some who say to this and similar sayings that Paul was silent and did not deny that St. Peter was also a head, dare] to say that Paul was silent and thus did not deny that St. Peter was also a head, but that he "gave little milk to the unwise," 1 Cor. 3:2. See, they want it to be necessary for salvation to have Peter as a head; and they are so insolent that they say that Paul was silent about the things that are necessary for salvation. So the unreasonable goats must blaspheme Paul and God's word before they let their error be overcome. And this is called milk food, when one preaches about Christ. Christ, and strong meat when one preaches about St. Peter; just as if Peter were a higher, greater, heavier thing to understand than Christ himself. That is, the Scriptures interpreted and D. Luther overcome. Thus one must escape the rain and fall into the water. What good would such talkers do if we were to argue against the Bohemians and heretics? Truly, nothing more, except that we would make a mockery of ourselves and give them cause to think that we are all foolish, raving heads, and that their faith would only be strengthened by such foolishness on our part.

44 But if thou askest, If the prelates be neither rulers nor governors over this spiritual church, what are they? Let the laymen answer you, who say: St. Peter is a messenger of the Twelve, and other apostles are also messengers of the Twelve. Why will the pope be ashamed to be a messenger, if St. Peter is not higher? But beware, laymen, lest the highly learned Romanists burn you as heretics for wanting to make the pope [a messenger and letter carrier. But verily ye have a good reason; for apostolus in Greek shitteth a messenger in German; and so it calleth the whole gospel.

45 If they are all messengers of one Lord Christ, who would be so foolish as to say that such a great Lord, in such a great matter to the whole world, has only one messenger, and that he then makes other messengers of his own?

tions? Thus, St. Peter would not have to be called a twelve messenger, but a united messenger, and no one would remain a twelve messenger, but all would be St. Peter's eleven messengers. Where is the custom at manor houses? Is it not true that a lord has many messengers? Yes, when does it happen that many messengers are sent with one message to one place, as now over one city are priest, bishop, archbishop and pope, or what more middle tyrants rule in between? So Christ sent all apostles with equal full power into the whole world with his word and message, as St. Paul says, 2 Cor. 5, 20.: "We are messages for Christ"; and 1 Cor. 3, 5.: "What is Peter? what is Paul? Servants through whom ye have believed." Now this message is called pasturing, governing, being a bishop, and the like. But that the pope subjects all messengers of God to himself is just as if a prince's messenger stopped all the others and sent them according to his will, and he himself did not run anywhere; would that please the prince? he would probably realize it.

046 If thou wilt say, Yea, but one messenger may be above another; I say, One may be better and more skillful than another, as St. Paul was above Peter. But because they bring the same message, neither can be above the other in office. Now St. Peter is not a messenger of the twelve, but lord of the eleven, and a special messenger. What should one have from the other, if they all have the same message and business from one Lord?

47 Therefore, since all bishops are equal according to divine order and sit in the place of the apostles, I may well confess that from human order one is above the other in the outward church. For here the pope does indeed interject what he has in mind, as there is his spiritual law and man's work, since Christianity is governed with outward pomps; 1) but of these no Christians become, as has been said; nor are heretics, who are not under the same laws and pomps or human order. For so many a country, so many a custom.

  1. Wittenberg and Erlanger: der.

1024 Erl. 27,107-103. 44. from the pabbacy of rome Wider Alveld. W. xvm, 1221-1224. 1025

(48) All this is confirmed by the article, "I believe in the Holy Ghost, one holy Christian church, one communion of saints." So no one says, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, a holy Roman church, a community of Romans"; so that it may be clear that the holy church is not bound to Rome, but, as far as the world is, gathered together in One faith, spiritually and not bodily. For what is believed is not bodily nor visible. The outward Roman church we all see; therefore it may not be the true church that is believed, which is a congregation or gathering of the saints together in faith; but no one sees who is holy or believing.

(49) The signs by which it may be known outwardly where the same church is in the world are baptism, sacrament, and gospel, and not Rome, this place, or that place. For where there is baptism and the gospel, let no one doubt that there are saints there, even if they are only children in the cradle. But Rome, or papal authority, is not a sign of Christianity; for this authority does not make a Christian, as baptism and the gospel do; therefore it does not belong to true Christianity, and is a human order.

Therefore I advise this Romanist to go to school for another year and learn what is meant by a Christianity or a head of Christianity before he drives away the poor heretics with such high, deep, broad and long writings. But it grieves me in my heart that we have to suffer from such foolish saints, that they so insolently, freely and unashamedly tear up and blaspheme the holy Scriptures, that they presume to act upon the Scriptures, if they are not sufficient to guard the swine. Until now I have thought that where one is to prove something with Scripture, the same Scripture should actually serve the cause. But now I learn that it is enough to throw together a lot of scripture rips raps, it rhymes or not. If the way is valid, then I want to prove from the scripture that Rastrum 1) is better than Malvasier. 2)

  1. D. i. Raster, Leipzig beer.
  2. A delicious wine. In the Jena and Erlangen: Malmesier. - The Wittenberg edition also reads Maluasier here.

51 So it is also done that he writes in Latin and German that Christ is the head of the Turks, the pagans, the Christians, the heretics, the robbers, the harlots and knaves. It would be no wonder that all the stones and wood in the monastery would look at the wretch to death and scream at him for the sake of such horrible blasphemy. What shall I say? Has Christ now become a whoremaster of all whorehouses, a chief of all murderers, of all heretics, of all scoundrels? Woe unto thee, wicked man, that thou hast thus set thy Lord to blaspheme before all the world.

The poor man wants to write about the head of Christianity, and with great foolishness he thinks that head and Lord are one thing. Christ is indeed Lord of all things, of the pious and the wicked, of angels and devils, of virgins and harlots; but he is not a Head, but only of the pious, believing Christians, gathered together in the Spirit. For a head must be implanted in his body, as I have proved from St. Paul, Eph. 4, 15. 16. 3) and the limbs must hang out of the head, have their work and life from it. Therefore Christ cannot be the head of any wicked church, even though it is subject to him as a lord. Just as his kingdom, Christianity, is not a physical community or kingdom, but everything that is spiritual, physical, infernal and heavenly is subject to him.

53 Thus we have that this blasphemer has blasphemed and reviled me in the first cause; in this other cause he has blasphemed Christ much more than he has blasphemed me. For though he greatly esteems his holy prayer and fasting against me, a poor sinner, yet he has not made me a whoremonger and a chief rascal, as he does Christ.

54 Now follows the third reason, where the high majesty of God must be used and the Holy Spirit must become a liar and heretic, so that only the Romanists remain true. The third reason is taken from Scripture, just as the other is taken from reason and the first from unreason, so that things may ever be done properly; and it reads thus: The ancient

  1. This "have" is in the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions.

1026 Erl. 27,10S-111. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin of Alveld. W. XVIII, 1224-1226. 1027

Testament has been a figure of the New Testament. Since the latter had a physical chief priest, the new one must also have one, otherwise how could the figure be fulfilled? Christ said, Matth. 5, 18: "Not one letter, not one tittle shall pass from the law, but all must be fulfilled. Haec ille.

55 A more foolish, foolish, blind book has never occurred to me. Earlier, someone wrote the same against me, so crudely foolish that I had to despise it. But because they have not yet become funny, I have to speak crudely with coarse heads. I can see that the donkey doesn't understand string playing, I have to put thistles in front of him.

First, it is public that the figure and the fulfillment of the figures have i.e. behave against each other like a bodily and spiritual or external and internal thing, that everything that one has in the figure is seen with bodily eyes, that fulfillment must be seen with faith alone, or is not fulfillment. I must prove this with examples. The Jewish people went bodily out of the land of Egypt by many miraculous signs, as it is written in Exodus, Ex. 17, 37. This figure does not mean that we should also go bodily out of Egypt; but our soul by a right faith comes out from the sins and spiritual power of the devil; likewise, 1) the bodily assembly of the Jewish people means the spiritual inner assembly of the Christian people in faith. So they drank water from a bodily rock and ate bodily heavenly bread with a bodily mouth, 1 Cor. 10:3, 4; so we drink and eat with the mouth of the heart from the spiritual rock, the Lord Christ, if we believe in Him. Moses hung a snake on a tree, and whoever looked at it was healed, John 3:14; Numbers 21:8. This means Christ on the cross; whoever believes in Him will be saved. Henceforth, the whole Old Testament, what it has in bodily, visible things, means in the New Testament spiritual, inward things, which one cannot see, but possesses in faith alone.

  1. In the old editions: the same.

St. Augustine understood the figures in the same way, since he says about John 3: "There is such a difference between the figure and its fulfillment, that the figure gives temporal good and life, but the fulfillment gives spiritual and eternal life. Now the outward splendor of Roman power cannot give life either temporally or eternally; therefore it is not only not a fulfillment of the figure, but also inferior to the figure of Aaron, who 2) was of divine order. For if the papacy gave eternal or temporal life, all the popes would be blessed and healthy. But whoever has Christ and the spiritual church is truly blessed and has the fulfillment of the figure, but only in faith. Because the outward splendor and unity of the pope may be seen with the eyes, and we all see this, it is not possible that he should be the fulfillment of any figure. For the fulfillment of the figures must not be seen, but believed.

Now behold, are not these his masters, who make the chief priest in the Old Testament a figure of the pope, who is also more in bodily splendor than that, and shall therefore a bodily thing fulfill a bodily figure? That would not be different, because figure and fulfillment would be the same as the other. If the figure is to exist, the new high priest must be spiritual, his adornment and adornment must be spiritual. This also the prophets saw, when they said of us, Ps. 132, 9.: "Thy priests shall be clothed with faith or righteousness, and thy consecrated ones shall be adorned with gladness." As if to say, Our priests are figure, are clothed with silk and purple outwardly; but thy priests shall be clothed with graces inwardly. So here lies the wretched Romanist with his figure, throwing together so much writing for nothing. For the pope is an outward priest, and is understood by them according to outward power and adornment; therefore Aaron may not and cannot have been his figure; we must have another.

59 Secondly, that they nevertheless grasp how far they are from the truth: if they are already

  1. Wittenberg and Erlanger: which.

1028 Erl. 27, UI-U4. .44. from the Pabstthum zu Rom Wider Alveld. W. XVIII, 1226-1229. 1029

were so wise that they had given the figure a spiritual fulfillment, yet it would not stand; for they would have a public saying of the Scriptures, which would bring together the figure and the spiritual fulfillment; otherwise every one might make of it what he would. The third chapter of the Gospel of John, v. 14, teaches me that the serpent, hanged by Moses, signifies Christ. If this were not the case, my reason would invent strangely wild things from the same figure. Item, that Adam was a figure of Christ, I must learn not from myself, but from Paul, Rom. 5, 14. 15. Item, that the rock in the wilderness signifies Christ, says not reason, but Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 4. So that no one else interprets the figure, but the Holy Spirit Himself, who has set the figure and fulfilled it, so that word and work, figure and fulfillment and both explanation are of God Himself, not of men, so that our faith is founded on divine, not human works and words.

  1. What deceives the Jews, because they lead the figure according to their head, without Scripture? What has seduced many heretics, because the figures laid out without scripture? Even if the pope were a spiritual thing, it is still not valid that I would make Aaron his figure, unless there is a saying that publicly says: Behold, Aaron was a figure of the pope. Who else would prevent me from thinking that the bishop of Prague was figured by Aaron? This is what St. Augustine said, that figures are not valid in a dispute unless there is Scripture next to them.

Now this poor chatterer lacks both, has no spiritual, inner high priest, in addition no saying of the Scriptures; falls blindly therefore, from own dream and takes before a reason that Aaron was St. Peter's figure, since the greatest power lies to establish and prove; babbles with many words, the law must be fulfilled and no letter must remain. Dear Romanist, who doubted that the old law and its figures must be fulfilled in the new one? One beought nothing to your mastery in this. But here you should let yourself be seen and prove your high

Art, that the same fulfillment happens through Peter or the pope; there you are silent like a stick, where it is necessary to speak, and talk, where it is not necessary to talk. Have you not learned your logic better? You try i.e., prove the majores upper propositions that no one disputes, and take for certain the minores lower propositions that everyone disputes, and conclude what you will.

62 Listen to me, I will teach you your logic better and say with you in agreement: Everything that is figured in the old high priest must be fulfilled in the new one, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 2. Now you say further: St. Peter or the pope was figured by Aaron. Here I say: No. What will you do now? Be almost learned, take to help all Romanists in a heap and bring a letter or tittle from the Scriptures to it, then I will say, you are a hero. On what foundation have you now built? On your own dream; and you boast that you want to act against me with writings. It would not have been necessary for you to deceive me in this way, but I would still have been a fool.

63 Now hear me also further: I say that Aaron was a figure of Christ, and not of the pope. I do not say this out of my head, as you do: I will establish it both rightly, so that neither you, nor all the world, nor all the devils shall overthrow it. First, Christ is a spiritual, inward priest; for he sitteth in heaven, and prayeth for us as a priest, teaching us inwardly in our hearts, and doeth all things that a priest ought to do, between God and us, as St. Paul, Rom. 3, 25. 8, 34. Ebrews per totum through the whole epistle, saith: and so the figure of Aaron is bodily and outward, but the fulfillment is spiritual and inward, and concordeth agrees together. Secondly, that I do not gather the same out of my head, I have the saying, Ps. 110:4: "God hath sworn, and will never repent: thou shalt be a priest for ever after the manner of Melchizedech." Do you also bring such a saying from St. Peter or the pope. For that this saying is said by Christ, I hold, you will not deny, as St. Paul, Ebr. 5, 2. and many places more, and the Lord Chri-

1030 Erl. 27,114-116. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin von Alveld. W. xvm, 1229-1231. 1031

stus himself, Matth. 22, 44, by himself. So we see how finely the Romanists deal with the scripture, make of it what they only want, as if it were a waxen nose that one would like to pull back and forth.

Now we have that Christ is the supreme priest in the New Testament, confirmed with scriptures. About that even more clearly holds them both against each other, Aaron and Christ, Paul, Ebr. 9, 6. ff, and thus says: "Into the first tabernacle the priests went every day to perform the sacrifices; but into the other the high priest of the year went only once, not without blood, which he offered for his sin and the sin of the people; that the Holy Spirit might signify that the way to the right holy tabernacle was not yet made manifest, while the same tabernacle lasted; which was an image or figure that was needed at that time. But Christ, who came to be a high priest in spiritual things to come, and entered into a greater and much wider tabernacle, not made with hands," that is, not of the temporal building, "neither with the blood of goats or oxen, but with his own blood only once, having thereby invented an eternal redemption."

65 What do you say to this, you esteemed Romanist? Paul says Christ is signified by the high priest; you say. St. Peter. St. Paul says that Christ did not go into a temporal building; you say that he was in the temporal building at Rome. St. Paul says he entered once and invented eternal salvation; make the figure all spiritual and heavenly, which you make earthly and bodily. What will you do now? I will give you advice: take your fist, strike him in the mouth and say that he lied, that he is a heretic, a poisoner, as you do to me; then you will be like your father Zedechias, who also struck Micheas in the mouth. Do you see, you wretched blasphemer, where your mad senses and your counselors have led you? Where are they now, the great Hansen, who have been repeating my sermon of both forms? It has served them right. They would not hear the gospel nor suffer it; so now they shall hear the lies and blasphemy of the evil spirit for it, as Christ says to the Jews, Joh. 5:43: "I am come

in my Father's name, and you have not received me; another will come in his name, him you will receive."

66 But if you say, "Besides Christ, St. Peter is also figured through Aaron," I say, "If you don't want to, you can say that the Turk is figured through Aaron. I say: If you do not want to leave it, you may say that the Turk is figured by Aaron; who can prevent you? because you like to chat so uselessly. But you have promised to fence with scriptures, so do that and leave your dream at home. For this purpose, where one fights about faith, one must not fight with wavering scriptures, but those that are certain, simple and clear must serve the cause; otherwise the evil spirit would throw us to and fro, so that we would not know where we would end up; as happened to many in the words Peter and Peter, Matth. 16, 8.

67 It would have been a little less lying and blasphemy if you had said that Aaron was Christ's figure and Peter's figure as well. But now you scream at the top of your voice and say that Aaron was not Christ's figure, but Peter's; you strike St. Paul in the face with insolent words. And lest something of complete nonsense should ever remain, you say: Moses was a figure. And this not only without all Scripture, cause and indication, just as if you were more than God, that everything you speak should be taken for the gospel; but also against all Scripture, which makes Moses a figure of the law, as St. Paul does, 2 Cor. 3, 7. It is not necessary to speak of this further now, you may strike him in the mouth again, as you are insolent and sacrilegious. You have sucked such poison from Emser in his heretical and blasphemous booklet, to which, if God wills, when Junker Eck comes with his Jauch 1), I will give a deserved answer. You will not lead me out like this, dear Romanists. If I can't resist it by force, you shall never bring me any writing for you. I can still, praise God, walk on the grass.

68 Now I think it is clear that the third reason of this Romanist is heretical and blasphemous, as God openly contradicts the Holy Spirit, calling him a liar, destroying Paul completely. For since Christ is through Aaron

  1. Jenaer and Wittenberger: Juchen; Erlanger: Jugend.

1032 Erl. 27,116-118. 44. From the Pabstthum zu Rom Wider Alveld. W. XVIII, I23I-I234. 1033

St. Peter may not be meant by it. For what the Scripture ascribes to Christ, that must not be ascribed to any other, so that the Scripture may remain constant in a certain, simple, unconflicted understanding, on which our faith may be built without all wavering. This I allow to happen, that Peter is one of the twelve precious stones, Ex. 28, 15, which Aaron carried on his chest; so that it may be meant that the twelve apostles, certainly chosen in Christ and known from eternity, are the highest and dearest part of Christianity: but I do not allow him to become Aaron in any way. Item, I allow St. Peter to be one of the twelve lions that Solomon had at his royal seat, 1 Kings 10:19, 20, but Christ alone must remain the only King Solomon for me. I let the twelve apostles be the twelve fountains in the wilderness of Elim, Ex 16:1, so that the light cloud and the fiery pillar are nothing else but Christ Himself. As little then as one has authority over the other among the twelve, so little has St. Peter authority over the other apostles, and the pope over other bishops and parish priests by divine order.

One more thing, dear Romanists, and therewith an end. I ask for a gracious correct answer: If Aaron has been a figure of the pope in bodily authority, clothing and place; why has he not also been a figure in all other bodily things? applies One bodily thing, why do not all others apply?

It is written that the chief priest should not take a widow or an orphan, 1) but only a virgin for marriage, Deut. 21, 14; why then is the pope not also given a virgin for marriage, so that the figure would be fulfilled? Yes, why does the pope forbid the entire priesthood to marry, not only against the character, but also against God, against law, against reason and nature, of which he has no authority, power nor right, which the church has never commanded, nor can command, and makes Christianity full of harlots, sinners and wretched consciences out of his own will, without need and cause, as St. Paul said of him.

  1. I.e. violated persons.

says, 1 Tim. 4, 1. 2. 3.: "There shall come in the last times them that depart from the faith, and cleave unto the doctrines of devils, in hypocrisy with false imaginations, and having consciences marked with marks, which shall forbid the marital estate, and command not to eat that which God hath created. "2c

(71) Did not St. Paul here take the spiritual Roman laws, where the priesthood is forbidden to marry, and commanded all Christians not to eat butter, eggs, milk, or meat on the appointed days? when free will is left by God Himself to all Christian estates to eat and marry as they wish. Where are you now, Romanist of the Observance, who so nearly whine that not one letter of the figure must remain, everything must be fulfilled? Yes, where is the pope, St. Peter's successor, who has a wife, also St. Paul and all the apostles?

The old high priest did not have to have his hair shaved off, Deut. 21, 5. Why then does the pope have a plate made for him and all the other priests? Where is the figure fulfilled here up to a letter? Item, the old high priest did not have to have any part of the land of Israel, but lived only from the sacrifice of the people of Israel. Why then does the Roman see now rage after the whole world and has not only stolen and robbed land, cities, even principalities and kingdoms, but also misses to make, set, depose and walk all kings and princes as it wants, as if it were the Antichrist? Where is the figure fulfilled here?

Item, the old high priest was ruled by the kings as a subject; why then does the pope let him kiss his feet and wants to be king of all kings, which Christ himself did not do? Where is the figure fulfilled here? Item, the high priest was circumcised. And that I make it an end, if this means to fulfill the figure, that it happens bodily in the new testament, as in the old: why do we not become Jews again and keep the whole law of Moses? Must we keep it in one piece, why not in all? so not in all, why in one?

74 And if you ever want the New Testament

1034 Erl. 27, 118-120. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin of Alveld. W. XVIII, 1234-1236. 1035

If the new testament were to be raised in temporal splendor, more and higher than the old, would it not be like reason that there should be more than one high priest in the new testament, so that it would be more honest and more splendid than the old, which had no more than one? If reason should judge here and follow it, what do you think they would do? 1) Item, there were many holy men in the time of the old high priest, who were not under him, as Job was with his own; for he was never alone. Item, the king of Babylon, the queen of Saba, the widow of Sarepta, the prince Naaman from Syria and many others against the exit of the sun, with theirs, who are all praised in the Scriptures. Why does hie not hold the figure in all the letters? And why] does the pope not want to let any be Christians, to be subject to him and to buy lead and wax from him, as his Romanists want? Or do the Romanists have the power to interpret the figure as and how much they want, without any writing?

Do you not yet see, dear Romanist, how blind envy and hatred have made you and your kind? Would it not have suited you well if you had remained 2) in your monastery, had prayed your vigils, until you had been called or driven to the cause? You do not know what figure is or is called, and you boast of the whole holy scripture a public master. Yes indeed, a master to corrupt them, to blaspheme GOD, and to revile all truth. Come again, dear Romanist, and I will cover you with may and give you to those who sent you for the new year.

I will also say one thing apart from 3) Scripture. In all the estates that God has ordained, there are always some who will become holy and blessed, and there is no estate without living saints on earth, as Christ says, Luc. 17, 34: "Two will be in one bed; one will be accepted, the other abandoned". 2c Now if the papacy were of God, it would not be possible for a pope to be condemned.

  1. The Wittenbergers and Erlangers: would.
  2. So the Wittenberg; the Jena and Erlangen edition: hältest.
  3. So the Wittenbergers: the Jenaers and Erlangers: outside - outside.

because only one person is in the same state at all times, and thus whoever becomes pope would be certain of his blessedness, which is contrary to all Scripture.

Now let us see how the pious people act the holy words of Christ in this matter. Christ says to St. Peter, Matth. 16, 18. 19.: "You are or are called Peter; and on Petram" (that is, on the rock) "I will build my church. And unto thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." From these words they assigned the keys to St. Peter alone; but the same St. Matthew, 18:18, has displaced this erroneous understanding, since Christ says to all in common, "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Here it is clear that Christ interprets Himself and in this 18th chapter explains the previous 16th chapter, that the keys are given to St. Peter instead of the whole church, and not for his person.

  1. so also Joh. 20, 23: "He breathed into them, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. In these two sayings against some, many have tried to get some authority for St. Peter, but the gospel is too clear in the day, and so far they have had to let it remain that in the first saying, Matth. 16, nothing special was given to St. Peter for his person. And so many of the old holy fathers understood it. Also the words of Christ before he gave the keys to Peter show that he did not ask Peter alone, but all of them and said: "What do you think of me? Peter answered for all of them and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", Matth. 16, 15. 16.

Therefore, the words of Christ, Matt. 16, must be understood according to the words of 18 and John 20, and one saying must not be strengthened against two, but one must be justified by two. It is a stronger test where there are two, because where there is only one, and one is just.

1036 Erl. 27,120-122. 44: Vom Pabstthum zu Rom wider Alveld. W. xvm, 1236-1239. 1037

two and not two follow or yield to one. Therefore it is evident here that all the apostles are like Peter in all authority. This also proves the work beside the words. For Peter never chose, made, confirmed, sent, or governed any of the apostles, which should have been the case if he had been their leader by divine order, or if they had all been heretics. Above this, all the apostles could not make St. Matthias and St. Paul apostles, but had to be made from heaven, as Apost. 1, 24. 26. and 13, 2. how could St. Peter alone be Lord over all of them? And no one has yet bitten open this little nut; they will also be so merciful to me without their will and leave it whole for a while.

80 And as this Romanist boasts that the Roman See has remained, even though its power has often been challenged, I in turn boast that the Roman See has also often and still strives and rages for such power; but it has never yet attained it and, God willing, will never attain it. And it is a real carnival fame that one may boast that it has remained with him constantly, which he has never had before. Why does the dear Romanist not also boast that the city of Leipzig has never been taken from him, where he does not have a house? It would ever be an equal glory. That's how one chats; what falls into the mouth must come out. Therefore I say, the Roman tyrants have argued against the gospel, to make the common power their own; but Christ's word has remained, when he said, Matth. 16, 15: "The powers of hell shall not be able to oppose it. Now if it had been of divine order, God would not have left it, it would have been fulfilled once. For he says, Matth. 5, 18., "that not one tittle nor letter shall remain, it must be fulfilled." But no letter has ever been fulfilled by Roman power over the whole of Christendom.

(81) Nor does it help to say that it is not the fault of the Roman, but of the heretic, that it is not fulfilled. Heretics or no heretics; what is divine order and permission, the gates of hell are not able to hurt.

He is so strong that he can and will fulfill it without the thanks of all heretics. Since he has never done it and still leaves it unfulfilled, regardless of so much seriousness, diligence, effort and work, cunning and mischievousness, which the Romans have done, I hope it is sufficiently decided what the authority of the pope is before other bishops and pastors; it is human and not divine order. Christ's kingdom has been throughout the whole world at all times, as it is written in the 2nd Psalm, v. 8, and 19, v. 5-7; but there has never been an hour entirely under the pope. Despite who says otherwise.

  1. Although all this is thoroughly true, we also want to nullify their useless fables, and thus say: Even if it were not true that the two sayings of Matthew and John, which make the keys common, should explain the one saying of Matthew, which reads as if the keys were given to Petro alone, the matter will not get any further than that it is doubtful whether the one saying should follow the two, or the two the one; and I defy two sayings as strongly as they defy one. But in the doubt we are 1) sure, and it is up to us that we may have the pope for a head or not. For where something hangs in doubt, no one is not a heretic, he holds this or that, as they all say themselves. And so their reason lies down, and they may raise nothing but such an uncertain doubt. Therefore they must either leave these sayings all three as unfit to confirm their cause, because they weave in doubt; or they must lead other sayings, which publicly show us that the two shall follow the one; this they shall leave to me, and offer them defiance.
  2. but I will keep sayings, that I may prove that the one saying shall follow the two. For thus says the law, and Christ draws on Matth. 18, 16. from the 17th chapter of the 5th book of Moses: "Every thing shall stand by the mouth of two or three witnesses, and no man shall die by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
  1. D. i. again.

1038 Erl. 27,122-124. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin von Alveld. W. xviii, 1239-1242. 1039

for the sake of one witness alone. Because I have two witnesses against one, my cause must go forward and the one saying must follow two, that Peter did not receive the keys as Peter, but instead of the church, as Matth. 18 and Joh. 20 clearly say, and not Peter alone, as Matth. 16 seems to say.

I am almost astonished at this high presumption, that they want to make a ruling power out of the key power, which nevertheless fits together like winter and summer. For governing power is far more than key power. The power of the keys reaches only to the sacrament of repentance, to bind and loose sin, as the clear text says, Matth. 18 and Joh. 20, but governing power is also over those who are pious and have no one to bind or loose, and has under it preaching, exhorting, comforting, taking mass, giving the sacrament and the like.

Therefore, none of the three sayings is added to the authority of the pope over all of Christendom, because they only wanted to make him a confessor or penitentiary or banishment master, so that he alone would rule over the wicked and sinners; which they do not want. Also where this word should confirm papal power over all Christians, I would like to know, if the pope sins, who may absolve him? so these words, as they say, subject everyone to the pope. He must, of course, remain in sin; and it is not fit that he should give his authority over himself to another, for he would otherwise be a heretic, as a trafficker against divine order.

Some have invented that the person and the office of the pope are two different things, as if the person were subordinate and not the office. This is glittering, but it holds as glittering goods do. For in their laws they themselves have forbidden with great clamor and splendor that no lower bishop may confirm a pope, in which not the office but the person is placed in office. Since here the person is not subject to anyone, he is certainly not subject to the absolutist either; but in all their dealings, things, creatures, minds, they have a dizziness, that otherwise they would not be subject.

i.e. different, now say so; and because they force the words of God, they lose the right mind, that they do not know where they remain, and thus go astray themselves, yet want to rule the whole world.

Therefore, let every Christian man consider that in these sayings neither St. Peter nor the apostles are given authority to rule or to soar above. What then is given in them? I will tell you. The words of Christ are all gracious promises made to the whole congregation of all Christendom, as it is said that the poor sinful consciences shall have a consolation where they are dissolved or absolved by a man; and thus the words extend only to the sinful, stupid, afflicted consciences, which should be strengthened thereby, if they believe otherwise. Now, if the comforting words of Christ, made good to all the poor consciences of the whole church, are drawn to strengthen and establish them by papal authority, I will tell you how it reminds me.

It reminds me just as if a rich, mild prince would open his rich treasures and give freedom to the poor, needy, to get what they need. And if one of these poor people, a mischievous one, were to take liberty for himself alone, not allowing anyone to take liberty, but being held captive according to his will, he would lead them to it and interpret the prince's words to mean that he alone would be given liberty. Can you see what the gentle prince would think of the rogue? If you cannot think it, then listen, as St. Matthew, Cap. 24, 48-51, says of the same servant: "Where the mischievous servant shall say in his heart, Ha, my lord abideth long without; lift up, and smite his fellowservants, eat and drink with the prassers, the lord of that servant shall come in the day when he thinketh not, and in the hour which he knoweth not, shall divide him, and give his reward among the gleamers; there shall be his weeping and gnashing of teeth."

  1. Now behold, as this servant interprets his master's opinion, so do the Romanists interpret the words of God; and yet not until they interpret in the very best way. For where they are quite foolish, they do likewise, as if

1040 Eri. 27,124-126. 44: From the Papacy of Rome against Alveld. W. xvm, 1242-1244. 1041

If the same servant sold not only his master's charity in his use; but as if he changed the goods, and for grain gave chaff and gravel, for gold copper, for silver lead, for wine poison. So it is still a grace that they own the keys to the pope so 1) that we may buy them with money and all that we have. But when they preach their laws, authority, excommunication, indulgences, and the like, instead of the gospel, then all misfortune reigns. This is what the Lord calls the fellow servants to be beaten by the evil servant who should feed them more.

  1. That then every man may have a right distinction of right and wrong understanding in these words of Christ, I give a rough similitude. The high priest in the Old Testament had a special garment from divine order, which he was to use for his office. When King Herod rose up against the people of Israel, he took the same garment to himself; and though he had no need of it, yet he himself took authority over the use of the same garment, and had to buy it from him, for which they had a right from God.

91 So now too; the keys are given to the whole community, as has been proved above. Now the Romanists go about, and though they have no need of them themselves, nor exercise their office, yet they themselves take power over the same use of the keys, and one must buy from them with money, which is our own, given by Christ: Let them not be satisfied with this; but the words which Christ saith of the keys, they do not interpret to the keys, nor key custom, but to their assumed power and authority over the keys. That therefore the power of the keys, freely given by Christ, is now caught in the power of the Romanists, and both powers are to be understood by one word of Christ; just as if Herod had said that Moses had spoken of his power, when he speaks of the garment of the high priest.

(92) So also a tyrant might snatch a will to himself and draw the words, so that the estate is given to the heir, so that he would be given power over it.

  1. i.e. to appropriate, to give as one's own.

The same will, whether he will let it follow the heir for free, or sell it. It is the same with the authority of the keys and the authority of the pope, understood by the same word; so that the two things are not only different, but also the authority is more than the authority of the keys, nor must it be one thing.

  1. But that they say that the bodily authority of the pope is set in the words, since Christ says: "On the rock I will build my church", Matth. 16, 18. understand by the rock St. Peter and his authority: I have moved many times 2) and now recently say: First, that they must prove that the rock is called an authority. They do not and can not do it; nock they therefore chat from their own head, uno shall call everything divine order, what they drool.

94 Secondly, the rock may not be called St. Peter, nor his authority, because of the word of Christ, which follows, saying, "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now it is clear that no one is edified in the church, nor resists the gates of hell, by being in the external authority of the pope. For the majority of those who hold fast to the pope's authority and build themselves on it are possessed with all the power of hell, full of sin and wickedness, and some of the popes themselves have been heretics and given heretical laws, yet they have remained in authority. Therefore the rock must not be called authority, which cannot stand against the gates of hell, but only Christ and faith, against which no power can do anything.

95 But that the authorities remain, although some fight against them, that is, they did not stand against the gates of hell. For the Greek church and all other Christians in the world have remained in this way; the Muscovites and Bohemians, and even the kingdom of Persia, have remained for more than two thousand years, and the Turk for almost a thousand years, although they have fought against it.

  1. Jenaer: Fürgelegt; Wittenberger and Erlanger: verlegt, d. i. widerlegt.

1042 . Erl. 27, 126-128. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin of Alveld. W. xvin, 1244-1247. 1043

nigfaltiglich. And that I tell thee more, that thou, as a Romanist of high understanding, shalt be justly astonished: The world in its wickedness has existed from the beginning and will exist until the last day and forever, although God Himself with all holy angels and men preaches, writes and works against it without ceasing. If you think so, dear Romanist, defy God and all the angels, that the world has stood against all its words and works.

Shouldn't you, wretched, blind Romanist, learn before you write something that means: to stand against the gates of hell? If any existence is as much as existing against the gates of hell, then the devil's kingdom exists in greater numbers than God's kingdom. But this means to stand against the gates of hell: not to remain in an outward community, power, authority or gathering, as you talk about the Roman community and unity; but to be built up in a firm, right faith in Christ, the rock, so that no power of the devil can suppress it, even if it has a greater multitude and needs countless quarrels, cunning and violence against it.

Now the majority of the Roman church, and some popes themselves, have wilfully left the faith without dispute and live in the power of the devil; as is the case today, and thus the papacy has often been subject to the infernal gate. And should I say it rightly, the same Roman authority, since the time it has presumed to hover over all Christendom, has not only never come to this, but has also become a cause of almost all apostate heresy, discord, sectarianism, misbelief and all the misery that is in Christendom, and has never yet become free from the gate of hell. And if there were no other saying that proved that Roman authority was of human and not divine order, this saying alone would be enough, since Christ says: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against his building on the rock." Now the gates of hell have often held the papacy, the pope has not been pious, and the same office, which several times stood without faith, without grace, without good works; which God would never allow to happen if

in Christ's words the same Pabstism would be understood through the rock. For then he would not be true in his promise and would not fulfill his own words; therefore the rock and the building of Christ, founded on it, must be much different than the papacy and its outward church.

Accordingly, I say more, the Roman bishop is often deposed and appointed by other bishops. If his authority consisted of God's order and promises, God would not have permitted it, for it would be contrary to His word and promise. And if God were to be invented in a word that is inconstant, then faith, truth, Scripture and God Himself would be lost. If God's words are constant, they must prove to me that the pope has never been among the devil nor among men. Here I would like to hear what my dear Romanists may say against it. I hope they are struck with their own sword, like Goliath, 1 Sam. 17, 51. For I can prove that the papacy has not only been under the devil, but also under bishops, even under secular power under the emperors. Where has the rock stood here against the gates of hell? I leave them the free choice: the papacy lies in these words, or God is a liar. Let them see which one they want to choose.

It is not enough for you to turn around with words and say, "Even though the papacy is under the devil, devout Christians have always remained under him. I say: Christians remain under the Turks, too, and in all the world, as they did before under Nero and other tyrants. What does that help? The papacy and the pope himself must never again be under the devil, if Christ's word is said of them, that it is a rock against the gates of hell. Behold, thus our Romanists lead the Scriptures according to their mad larvae. What is called faith must be called authority to them; what is called building spiritually must be called outwardly emblazoning to them; yet they do not want to be heretics, to make all others heretics. They are Romanists.

100 There is another saying in their part where the Lord says to Peter three times: "Feed me my sheep", Joh. 21, 15-17.

1044 Eri. 27,128-131. 44. From the Pabstium at Rome Wider Alveld. W. xvm, 1247-1249. 1045

Here they are first of all excellent masters and speak: Because Christ said to Peter in particular, Feed me my sheep, he has given him authority over all. Here we will see what trouble, toil and work they have to do in order to obtain the same.

101 First, we need to know what they mean by "pasture. To "feed" in Roman means to burden Christendom with many human, harmful laws, to sell the bishops' cloaks in the most precious way, to snatch annuities from all fiefdoms, to draw all endowments to themselves, to make all bishops servants with atrocious oaths, to sell indulgences, to protect the whole world with letters, cops, lead, wax, to forbid preaching the gospel, to occupy the whole world with knaves from Rome, to bring all quarrels to themselves, to increase quarrels and strife; In short, let no one come to the truth freely and have peace.

But if they say that by "pasture" they do not understand such abuse of authority, but the authority itself, this is not true. I prove it thus: For if one only raises a little voice against such abuse with all the force at his disposal, they rage and threaten with thunder and lightning; they cry out that it is heresy and that they are speaking against the authorities, that they want to tear the unholy skirt of Christ; they want to burn heretics, rebels, apostates and all the world. From this it is clear that they do not think of "pasturing" in any other way than such wolfing and slaying. But meanwhile they want to think that "pasture" does not mean such wolfing, and see what it is.

They have a sharp, high, subtle speech when they say that person and office are not one thing, and that the office nevertheless remains and is good, although the person is evil. From which they conclude, and must also follow, that Christ's little word, "Feed me my sheep," means an office and outward power, which a wicked man may well have, and the office makes no one holy. Let this be welcome, and let us ask the Romanists: He who keeps and fulfills Christ's word is certainly obedient and pious, and will also be blessed, "for his words are spirit and life," John 6:68. If then "to feed" means to sit on top, and to have an office, even if he is already a knave: it follows that,

He who sits on top and is the pope, he feeds. He who feeds is obedient to Christ. He who is obedient in one thing is obedient in all things and is holy. So it must be true that whoever is pope and sits on top, he is obedient to Christ and holy, be he a knave, a rogue, or whatever he likes. Thanks be to you, dear Romanists! Now I realize first of all why the pope is called Sanctissimus Most Holy. This is how Christ's word is to be interpreted, that boys and rogues are to be made holy, obedient servants of Christ, just as you above make Christ the chief knave and whore-keeper.

104 Further, if "to feed" means to sit on top, then again "to be fed" must mean to be subject, that as "to feed" means to rule outwardly; so "to be fed" must mean to be ruled and, as they say, to live in Roman unity. So also it must certainly be true that all who are in Roman unity, whether evil or good, must be saints indeed, because they are obedient to Christ and let themselves be fed. For no one can be obedient to Christ in one thing, but be obedient in all things, as St. James says Cap. 2, 10. 2, 10. Is this not a fine church under Roman authority, where there are no sinners and all are saints? Where will the poor indulgences remain, if no one needs them anymore in the Roman unity? Where are the confessors? With what will the world be treasured, if repentance ceases? Yes, where are the keys, if they are no longer needed? But if there are still sinners among them, they must not be pastured and disobey Christ.

What do you want to say here, dear Romanists? Blow the whistle. Do you see now that "to feed" must mean something else than to have authority; "to be fed" something else than to be outwardly subject to Roman authority, and how foolishly Christ's saying "Feed me my sheep" is drawn to Roman authority, and to fortify outward unity or gathering?

Christ also says John 14:23, 24: "He who loves me keeps my words; he who does not love me does not keep my words. Turn up your ears, dear Romanists. You boast that the word of Christ, "Pasture

1046 Erl. 27,131-133. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin von Alveld. W. xvm, 1219-1252. 104?

my sheep" is a commandment and word of Christ; we ask, where are they that keep it? You say that even the boys and the husks keep it. Christ says: "No one keeps it, unless he loves and is pious. Become one with Christ in these matters, so that we may know whether you or he is to be punished for lying. Therefore he that loveth not the priest, nor is godly, feedeth not, neither keepeth the word of Christ: neither is he a priest, neither hath he any power, nor any thing that is comprehended in the word "feed," whatsoever it be. For Christ stands firm here and says, "He who does not love me does not keep my word"; so he does not pasture either, that is, he is not a pope, as they interpret it. Thus it comes about that the very sayings against the papacy are those that are used for the papacy. This happens to those who act on the holy word of God according to their mad head, as if it were foolish speech, and want to make of it what pleases them.

But if you say, "A subject can be obedient to secular authorities, even if those authorities are not pious; 1) why should anyone not be obedient under the pope's authority? Therefore, grazing and being grazed need not be obedient and disobedient; grazing can of necessity comprehend obedience in itself. Answer: Scripture does not call worldly authority pasture, nor is there a public saying of God to someone that he should rule worldly in the New Testament; although no power arises without his secret order. Therefore, St. Peter calls these authorities "human orders", 1 Petr. 2, 13, that they rule without God's word, but not without God's counsel; therefore, it is not necessary that they be pious.

(108) But because here is God's word: "Feed my sheep," neither the shepherd nor the sheep can do enough with this word, unless he is obedient to God and pious. Therefore I let bishop, pope, pastor be what they want; if they do not love Christ and are pious, the word "pasture" does not concern them; they are also another thing than shepherds and pastors, which are meant in this word. For this reason it does not suffer.

  1. Wittenberger and Erlanger: be.

that such words of Christ are drawn to the outward power, which ohn 2) itself may be no other than obedient.

This is also what Christ wanted. For when he says to Peter three times, "Feed my sheep," he asks him three times before, "Whether he also loved him;" and Peter answers three times, "He loved him." That it is obvious: where there is no love, there is no pasture. Therefore the papacy must be love, or it must not be pasture; and where the little word "pasture my sheep" sets the papacy, it follows that as many as there are popes, so many there are who love Christ and pasture the sheep. This is also true, for in former times all bishops were called popes, which is now only applied to the Roman ones.

But here, see what our Romanists do, if they cannot get past these words of Christ, and must admit with great displeasure that no one can say that he loves Christ, as the clearly expressed words of Christ stand. Oh how they would like to call him a liar or to deny him; but, if they are hard pushed before the head, so that their brains are dizzy, hear what they say. They say that Christ demands love in the office of the priest, but not the high love which they call deserving of eternal life, but rather the lowly love, as a servant loves his master. Behold, such Comment 3) of love they speak freely therefore out of their own head without all Scripture; and yet want to be seen that they deal with me in Scripture. Tell me, dear Romanists, all melted into one heap, where is there a letter in Scripture about love, since you dream of it? If Rastrum could speak to Leipzig, he 4) would easily overcome such dizzy heads and speak better of love.

But let us see further. If there must ever be love in the papacy, where does it remain if a pope does not love Christ at all, but only seeks his benefit and honor in the papacy, as there have been many, indeed almost all, since time began? Still

  1. Thus in all editions available to us, written "on". Should perhaps "on" be meant?
  2. D. i. Fündlein, Erdichtung.
  3. namely "the grid", the Leipzig beer.

1048 Erl. 27,133-135. 44. from the pabbacy of rome Wider Alveld. W. XVIII, 1252-1254. 1049

you have not escaped, you must confess that the papacy is not always, but has fallen many times because it was without love. If it had been set by divine order in these words of Christ, it would not have fallen. Turn where thou wilt, and these words shall give no piety; or must piety so often not be in Christendom, as often is there no love in the pope. Now you yourself have said that the person may be evil and the office nevertheless remain; on the other hand you confess and must confess that the office is nothing where the person is evil, or must let pasture be something else than pontificality. And this is true; let us see what you can do about it. But let every man beware of the poisonous tongues and devilish glances that devise such love.

Christ speaks of the highest, strongest, best love that there may be. He does not want to be loved with a false half-love; it must be loved completely and best, or nothing. And the opinion of Christ is that he instructs all preachers in St. Peter's person how they should be skillful; as if he should say: "Behold, Peter, if you preach my word and feed my sheep with it, hell, the devil, the world and everything that is in the world will rise up against you, and you must put on it life, limb, property, honor, friends and everything you have; you will not do this, because you love me and are firmly attached to me. If you begin to preach, and the sheep receive the pasture, and the wolves come in to you, and you flee as a hireling, not daring to live, leaving the sheep without pasture to the wolves, you would much rather never have begun to preach and pasture. For if he who preaches the word falls, who should be at the head, then everyone is displeased, the word of God is put to the highest shame, and it happens worse to the sheep than when they had no shepherd. Christ is serious about the pasture of the sheep; pay no attention to how many crowns the pope wears, how he rises in all splendor above all the kings of the world.

Now tell whoever can, whether the papacy has such love, or whether Christ has established an idle authority with such words.

what the papacy is like? No doubt it is a pope who preaches with such love, but where are they? I also have no saying that causes me so much pain in my preaching as this one does; I do not feel much love, I am overloaded with preaching. They blame me for being biting and rough; I am worried that I have done far too little for him. I should have better attacked the ravenous wolves, who do not stop tearing, poisoning and perverting the Scriptures to the great destruction of the wretched poor sheep of Christ, whom I would have loved enough, I should have shown myself justly different against the pope and his Romanists, who with their laws and gibberish 1), letters of indulgence and foolish works destroy God's word and faith much more; make laws about us as they wish, so that they catch us and then sell them to us again for money; they can weave money cords with their mouths, boast that they are shepherds and pastors, when they are really wolves, thieves and murderers, as the Lord Joh. 10, 8. 12.

I know almost well that the little word "love" makes the pope and his Romanists stupid, tired and weary, they also do not like that one presses hard on it, because it pushes the papacy to the ground. Doctor Eck in Leipzig also grew weary of it, and who should not grow weary of it, if Christ Petro strictly commands no grazing, unless there is love? He wants to have love, or grazing shall be nothing. I will also wait a while and watch how they want to heal the sting. If they prick me with willows, I will prick them much harder with love; let's see which one advances.

This is the reason why some popes are so artificially silent about the word "love" in their ecclesiastical laws, and why they blow out so big the word "pasture"; they think that they have preached with it to the drunken Germans, who should not notice how the hot porridge burns in their mouths. It is the same thing that pope and Romanists do not like to suffer questioning and investigation of the reason of papal power,

  1. Thus the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions; Jenaer: Schwetzen.

1050 Erl. S7,135-137. VII Luther's dispute with Augustin of Alveld. W. xvm, 1254-1257. 1051

and must act angrily, sacrilegiously and heretically whoever, not content with their bad words, asks the reason.

But to ask whether God is God, and to search out all His secrecy with unmistakable iniquity, they may well suffer, and it is none of their business. Whence comes this perverse game? From the fact that, as Christ says, John 3:20: "He that dealeth evil fears the light." What thief or robber likes to be diligently investigated? So, no evil conscience likes the light, but the truth loves the light and is the enemy of the night, as Christ tells me there: "He who deals in truth comes to the light," John 3:21.

Now we see that the two sayings of Christ to Peter, on which they build the papacy, are stronger against the papacy than any others, and the Romanists cannot come up with anything that does not make a mockery of them.

I will leave it here, and let what the wretched Romanist spouts more in his little book, because I have overturned it many times before, and now also several others in Latin. I find nothing in it, for he covets the holy scripture with his useless slobber like a snotty child, is in no place powerful of his words or even understandable.

  1. Thus my opinion of the papacy is done: Since we see that the pope is in full power over all our bishops, to which he has not come without divine counsel (although I do not think that he has come by the gracious, but rather by the wrathful counsel of God, who permits the plague of the world, I do not want anyone to resist the pope, but to fear divine counsel, to honor the same authority and to bear it with all patience, just as if the Turk were upon us, it can be without harm. But I argue only about two things.

120 The first. I will not suffer men to set new articles of faith, and to reproach, blaspheme, and judge all other Christians throughout the world for heretics, apostates, unbelievers, only that they are not under the pope. It is enough that we

Let the pope be pope; it is not necessary that God and his saints on earth be blasphemed for his sake.

The other. Everything that the pope sets, does and does, I will receive in such a way that I first judge it according to the holy Scriptures. He shall remain under Christ to me and be judged by the holy Scriptures.

Now the Romans come along and set him above Christ and make him a judge of the Scriptures, saying that he should not err; and everything that they dream of in Rome, yes, everything that they are allowed to do, they want to make articles of faith for us. Not enough of this, they want to set up a new way of faith, that we should believe what we see in the flesh, since faith is by nature of things that no one sees or feels, as St. Paul says in Heb. 11:1. Roman authorities and the church are ever bodily and are seen by everyone; and since God is before, where the Pope would come, I would freely say that he would be the real Antichrist, of which all Scripture says.

If these two remain for me, I will leave the pope, yes, help make him as high as I want. If not, he shall be neither pope nor Christian to me; whoever does not want to leave it, make an idol out of it, but I will not worship him.

I would like to see kings, princes and all the nobility take hold of this and lay down the road for the boys of Rome and take away the bishop's cloaks and fiefs. How does the Roman avarice come to snatch away all our fathers' endowments, bishoprics and fiefdoms? Who has ever heard or read of such unspeakable robbery? Do we not also have people who need them, that we have to make the muleteers, the grooms, yes, the whores and the knaves of Rome rich with our poverty, who do not consider us otherwise than for stick fools and mock them in the most outrageous way?

It is infamous that the Russians have desired to come under the Roman collection; then the holy shepherds of Rome have fed the same sheep of Christ in such a way that they did not want to accept them, they commit themselves to perpetual interest, I do not know how many times a hundred thousand ducats.

1052 Eri. 27,1S7-I3S. 44. from the pabbacy of rome against alveld. W. xviii, 1257-1259. 1053

They would not eat of the pasture, and remained as they were, saying, If they should buy Christ, they will save it until they come to him themselves before heaven. So you, you red whore of Babylon, as St. John calls you, Revelation 17:1, make a mockery of our faith before all the world and want to have the name as if you wanted to make everyone Christian.

It is to be pitied that kings and princes have such poor devotion to Christ, and His glory moves them so little, that they allow such horrible disgrace of Christianity to prevail, and yet see that they think nothing of Rome, but only to become nonsensical for and for, and increase all misery, that there is no hope 1) more on earth, but with the temporal power. Of which, when the Romanist returns, I will say more, now it has been enough to raise, God help us that we open our eyes once, amen.

The blasphemies and abusive words, so that my person is touched, although there are many of them, I want to have given unaccountably to my dear novelist. They do not impugn me, I have never intended to take revenge on those who revile my person, my life, my work, my being. I myself know almost well that I am not worthy of praise. But that I am sharper and more passionate about the Scriptures than some may suffer, no one should blame me, and I will not deny it.

Only those who want to reproach, blaspheme, and judge my person and my life are forgiven. But let no one expect from me either forbearance or patience who wants to make a liar of my Lord Christ, preached through me, and of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in me, but Christ's

  1. In the editions: "no hope not".
  2. In the editions: "still".

I will answer the word with a cheerful heart and fresh courage, no one regarded; for this God has given me a cheerful, undaunted spirit, which they will not dampen for me, I hope, forever.

But that I have named Leipzig, let no one think that I want to put the praiseworthy city and university in disgrace with it. I was forced by the pompous, arrogant, fictitious title of this Romanist, who boasts of being a public reader of the entire Holy Scripture in Leipzig, a title that all of Christendom in the world has never attributed to it, and that has attributed to it city and city council; and if he had not given his little monkey book into German, to poison the poor laity, he would have been considered far too lowly. For the coarse Müllersthier cannot yet sing his Ika, Ika and lays himself uncalled in such things, which the Roman See itself with all bishops and scholars might not have executed in a thousand years.

I would also have thought that Leipzig would have been too delicious in his eyes to smear his slobber and snot on such a laudably famous city; but he lets himself think that he is not a bad Fritzsch. 4) I can see that if I were to allow the coarse heads all their courage, the bath attendants would also write against me in the end.

But I pray that whosoever will come unto me, prepare himself with the scriptures. What is the use of a poor frog puffing himself up? even if he should burst, he will not be like an ox. I would like to be out of the matter, so they force themselves in; I hope God will hear us both, help me out, and leave them in it, amen.

To God alone be glory and praise forever and ever, Amen.

  1. D. i. Lector.
  2. Thus the Jena edition. The Wittenberg edition: Fritz.

1054VII Luther's dispute with Augustin of Alveld. W. xvm, 1259-1261. 1055

45th Augustin Alveld's sentences,

which was discussed in Weimar in 1522 on the day of Fabian and Sebastian January 20. *)

On the day of Fabiani and Sebastiani after noon at the twelfth hour, a Barefoot friar in Weimar will discuss these conclusions theses in Our Lady's Church.

I. Christian freedom is submitting to all human creatures for the love of Christ, as an heir and joint heir with Christ in heaven, otherwise a free life is an animal life.

II. to live a life in the community of the Barefoot Brothers is entirely apostolic by divine right; to speak otherwise is to deny the works of the apostles, and to spit in the Gospel of Christ, and blaspheme in the Holy Spirit.

III. to live as the Rule of the Barefoot Brothers indicates is to live as our Savior Christ willed, lived and taught with His Apostles; to contradict this is to deny the Gospel of Christ and otherwise crucify the Son of God.

IV. Christian spirituality is not known by dress, but is proved by virtues, such as poverty, kindness, humility, steadfastness, gentleness, mercy, truth, justice, chastity, purity, chastity, patience, love; against which the Gospel teaches.

  1. D. i. sonst.

Blaspheme and deny Christ, stone Christ with the Holy Spirit and St. Paul.

V. He who follows Christ in poverty, chastity and obedience does not depart from Christian spirituality, but truly appears in it, and flourishes and bears evangelical fruit. To contradict this is more than wickedly to censure the gospel and to put on shame after the manner of wicked men.

VI. to be clothed in lowly garments, but not in precious ones, is sufficiently conformable to the gospel of Christ and the doctrine of the apostles, "than to be unseemly adorned with seeming, adorned, cut X, and gold-covered coats or garments; to contradict this is to accuse Christ with Paulo of falsity.

VII. to build monasteries in which evangelical life is lived, and to avoid the harmful threefold covetousness of this world which is superior to him, since one experiences the strife of the flesh and the spirit, and recognizes the pure from the impure, the animal from the spiritual, is right and Christian and apostolic; to contradict it is to condemn, defile and blaspheme the whole holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament in a vile and audible way.

**46 D. J. Lang's Sentences against Alveld's Weimar Disputation. )

Germanized.

I. Christian freedom is not being bound to any place, time, or work, according to the Gospel and the teachings of Paul.

II. To prefer the life and rule of the Barefoot Brothers to general Christianity, as it is now, is to deny Christ.

III To live as the Barefoot Brothers live, who are deep in superstition, is nothing other than rejecting the Gospel and Paul.

IV. The true service of God is neither helped nor harmed by little and bad, nor by delicious and splendid clothes; rather, it consists in faith and love.

V. He who walks in true evangelical poverty and chastity according to his station, in obedience to God, can only be said to follow Christ, even if he takes a wife and never begs.

VI. We maintain that neither apparent, nor respectable, nor even lowly garments contribute anything to devotion; but we judge everything from the spirit and from faith.

VII. We do not approve of building monasteries, as they are now, unless the old usage is restored in them and schools are established for the young and the young at heart, so that no one is forced by vows, but serves freely.

*) These sentences are found in Kapp's Nachlese nützlicher Reformationurkunden, Theil 2, p. 516.

**) These sentences are found in Kapp's Nachlese nützlicher Resormationsurkunden, Theil 2, p. 527.

4056 L. v.". v. 397 f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. xvm. 1301 f. 1057

VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus,

a defender of the condemnation of Luther's teachings that took place in Louvain.

*Luther's refutation of Latomus' justification for the murderous sophists of the school of Louvain. )

June 1521.

Translated from Latin.

Granted to Justus Jonas.

JEsus.

Martin Luther wishes the respectable Mr. Justus Jonas, provost of the > Collegiate Church in Wittenberg, his superior in the Lord, salvation > in the Lord!

I, my dearest Jonas, also wanted to wish you good luck for the office you recently took up 1), but since I could not be present myself, I decided to send this Latomus of mine to you. But it is no longer such a one who reviles the knowledge of languages, for this Jesbi to Nob is beaten to the ground by the power of our Abisai 2 Sam. 21, 16. 17., so that you have nothing to fear; not even such a one who still justifies the crime of the Lion murderers by the malicious make-up of a feigned modesty and by unfortunate clever expressions as a belated lawyer - for you have seen yourself, as I believe, how this man boastfully leans only on his lord, the pope, and his bull: but I send

  1. In 1521 Jonas became professor and provost at Wittenberg. Cf. Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, 7th ed. Vol. Ill, p. 75.

you such a one, who, purified by Luther's cleansing agent, now seems to have more peace from the goblins and ghosts, by which he was driven around until now and used to drive around pious souls. If they had given this "reason" at the right time and had consulted with these wise people before the deed, as was proper, they would neither have condemned nor burned my books, nor would they, like the fools, have consulted about them only after the deed; this much, I hope, I wanted to have accomplished. Latomus teaches me in this little book of his how easy it was for them to gossip in their corners in the absence of Luther: that is heretical; that is erroneous; what they would not have dared to touch publicly if they had not relied on power.

Moreover, I am also convinced that Latomus would never have given this splendid "reason" if the bull had not fueled his confidence. Relying on it, he boasts that his deed is approved, still dreams of the old and outdated terror of the bulls, and therefore believes to have terrified the whole world with his little book, so that he already dares to fight against Lu-

*This work appeared in Wittenberg in August 1521 and in a second edition in the following year. Of the complete editions, they bring the Latin Wittenberg, Dorn. II, lol. 223; the Latin Jenaer, Dorn. II, lol. 400; and the Erlanger, oxx. varii nrZ. V, x. 397. In German translation (which was replaced here by a new one according to the text of the Erl. edition) only Walch.

1058 L. v.". v, 3S8 f. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. xviii, 1302-1304. 1059

The people of the city are not allowed to play games with the frightening words of God's scripture. But I do not want that such a deed would not have been approved by such a bull. Again, I would not want that I would not have been condemned by such a bull. Everything is in perfect harmony: the bull, the cause, the judge, the lawyer, from whose communion and contagion may the Lord Jesus protect me and all pious souls. Amen.

But you cannot easily believe how reluctantly I tore myself away from the peaceful writings of Christ 1), with which I was busy here in this Patmos of mine, and wasted time reading the antics of a prickly and thorny sophist, because I saw a man who, sophistically from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head, and still inflated by the water bubble of the bull, wrote with such confidence that he no longer thought he needed either diligence or deliberation. He was content to chatter away what he had read or what just came into his mouth. But there is nothing more annoying than answering such people, because one can neither exercise one's mind nor further one's erudition, and yet one is forced to waste the best hours. I suppose that man believed that Luther was either brought to the side or condemned to eternal silence, and that they could now again freely take over all the world with their sophistical tyranny. Because of the fall and the diminution of this tyranny they blame me not a little; and would to God that this fall had been a complete one, so that through this perfect guilt, which is seven times in vain (if we believe the most holy popes who omit the bulls), I could sin until death.

But I am afraid that while we are bravely arguing about grace and good works, we are depriving ourselves of both grace and works. When I see these terrible signs of the divine wrath, I have for

  1. Luther translated the New Testament at the Wartburg, but here the interpretation of the Epistles and Gospels from Advent to Epiphany (church postilla) is meant, as is evident from the conclusion of this writing. Cf. also Luther's letter to Melanchthon of May 26, 1521, Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, appendix, No. 79.

I have no other desire than that my head be given fountains of tears Jer. 9:1, so that I may weep for this utter desolation of souls that this kingdom of sin and destruction brings about. The monster of Rome sits in the midst of the church and pretends to be God; the bishops flatter him, the sophists pay homage to him, and the hypocrites do everything for him; meanwhile "hell has opened wide its soul and opened its jaws without measure" Is. 5:14 and Satan plays with the destruction of souls. And there is none among us who will stand up earnestly and with tears in the day of this fury and oppose it like a wall for Israel Ezek 13:5. Therefore I am full of displeasure at these blasphemous people like Latomus, who sophistry in these serious matters and force us to leave better things to occupy us with their raging nonsense, and invoke upon their exceedingly hard foreheads the word Ps. 6:11., "Let all mine enemies be put to shame, and greatly terrified, turn back, and become ashamed suddenly."

But in order not to delay you with a letter that is too long, I will answer the main points of Latomus' preface with another introduction. But you take this testimony of my attitude toward you and ask the Lord for me, that I also may be saved (for so I dare to speak with the apostle Rom. 15, 31) from the evil and unbelieving people who are in this Babel, and that a door may be opened for me to the praise of the glory of the grace of the gospel of his Son. But I also pray the Lord to give you his Spirit, so that you may not deliver the pestilent decrees of the Antichrist, which you have been commissioned to teach, with any other intention than what I have told you, namely, that you may be an Aaron, clothed in holy garments, that is, armed with the words of the Holy Scriptures, and with the censer of prayer, go out to meet this desolator in the midst of this Roman fire, by which the whole world is now burning, but which shall soon be extinguished by another fire from heaven, through the future of our Saviour.

1060 D. V.". V. 3SS-4OI. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. xvm. 1304-1307. 1061

for which we are waiting. So you, dear brother, shall do that you teach that one must unlearn what you teach, and they shall know that everything which the pope and the papists set up and hold is to be fled as deadly things. For since we cannot by force eradicate this public common evil of the world, and are compelled to administer such godly offices of Babylon, there remains only this, to administer them in such a way that we recognize them as quite different, namely, as ravagers and enemies of insatiable cruelty quite contrary to our Fatherland, the heavenly Jerusalem; lest we should be in agreement with those who are perishing, in whom the gospel of the glory of God is obscured 2 Cor. 4, 3., laughing at our captivity also, and flirting with it.

And do not consider your office small, since you have to present the salvation and life-giving gospel of Christ after the poisoned dung of the pope and his exceedingly mad nonsense, so that the youth may have an antidote against this poison, the smell of which already kills man, until it learns to reject evil for itself and to choose the good. This Emanuel is commanded to you. So be manly and strong and do not be afraid of this Baal Peor, since he is hardly a Beelzebub, that is, a mosquito man, if only we believe, because JEsus Christ is the LORD, highly praised forever, Amen, who may complete and strengthen you and his little church with you. In him farewell.

At the place of my sojourn in a foreign land, June 8, 1521.

To the preface of Latomus.

First Latomus accuses me of having submitted my writings from word to word to the pope from the very beginning; but this he fabricates according to his sophistical audacity. I regret, however, that I submitted so seriously. At that time I really did not have any other opinion about the pope, conciliarities and universities than the one one usually hears. For although much of them seemed to me inconsistent and quite remote from Christ, I nevertheless put a rein on my thoughts for over a decade, according to that saying of Solomon Prov. 3, 5.: "Do not rely on your intellect." I always believed that there were still theologians hidden in the high schools, who would certainly not remain silent if these teachings were ungodly, and I also believed nothing less than that there were hardly anywhere else as coarse lumps and asses, moreover as mischievous, as now appears, as to lions.

But my courage grew under the trade with the knowledge of things when they betrayed their ignorance and unworthiness so excellently by taking offense at the sign that is contradicted Luc. 2, 34. If they had not revealed it so abundantly and had not kept it to themselves longer

they would certainly have made me foolish to the end. But thanks be to my Lord Jesus Christ, who, for the sake of this challenge, has honored me a hundred times over with this knowledge, so that I am now completely convinced that the pope is the last abomination, who has been predicted by the entire Holy Scripture as the Antichrist, but the universities are the most horrible Satanic schools, in which theological sophists, those Epicurian sows, lead their rule.

He says that I am far from the evangelical modesty that I teach, especially in the book in which I just answered the sophists of Louvain, because they had doctrinally condemned my books. But I never demanded that anyone should consider me modest or holy, but that everyone should accept the gospel, while I gave everyone permission to pounce on my life at will. But my conscience boasts that I have never harmed anyone's life or good reputation, only the ungodly and blasphemous teachings, efforts and attacks against the word of God I have attacked quite sharply. As I do not apologize for this, I am not without example. John the

1062 k.v.a.v, 401-403. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. xviii, 1307-1309. 1063

Baptist Luc. 3, 7. and after him Christ Matth. 23, 33. calls the Pharisees "viper-bred" with a very immodest and harsh invective against such learned, holy, powerful and honored people, that they themselves say that he has the devil. If Latomus had been judge here, dear, what judgment would they have expected? Elsewhere Christ calls them blind men, Matth. 23., liars Joh. 8, 44., wicked and children of the devil Joh. 8, 44.. But Paul, dear God, how far is he from evangelical modesty, since he curses the teachers of the Galatians Gal. 1, 9., who were, I believe, great men; others he calls dogs Phil. 3, 2., impudent talkers Tit. 1, 10., deceivers Col. 2, 4. 8.; furthermore he scolded the magician Elymas to his face a devil's child, full of all cunning and mischievousness Apost. 13, 10..

Nor do I believe that the sophists have a right to judge my disposition, since they see that my work is not different from that of the apostles, of Christ, and of the prophets; but evangelical modesty is in our time, according to the teaching of such people as Latomus, when one speaks with bended knee before the godless and godless popes and sophists: "Gracious Lord! Your Grace acts well"; "Most excellent Magister noster, 1) Your Exaltedness speaks well." But if you call them as they are, unlearned, stupid, ungodly and blasphemous against God's word to the unspeakable harm of godliness and souls, then you have violated the whole gospel.

By the way, if one flattered them, even though one would kill all men or throw the whole world among themselves, one would not be immodest. For when would Latomus ever accuse the pope of immodesty, who drives his frenzy through so many wars and wicked actions? Does the evangelical modesty and immodesty depend only on the worship of the papal idols and sophistical fools?

  1. By this expression the university teachers are designated, since the judgments of the universities usually began with the words: Magistri nostri. Luther himself leaves this expression untranslated in his German writings, e.g. Jen. Ausg. (2nd ed.), vol. I, toi. 647 d.

heads off? Moreover, this modest driver and praiser of modesty, Latomus, not only does not accuse that bloodthirsty bull, whose cruelty every godly person detests, even if it rightly condemns, but praises and extols it, leans on it and boasts about it. These are those bloodthirsty and false ones Ps. 5, 7., who feign modesty in words and gestures and yet crave for nothing but murder, terror and blood. Never-, no one will persuade me that this is a sincere and humble man who can please this bull. I would rather be frank and not deceive anyone by flattery; I can testify to that. My outer bark may be somewhat hard, but my core is soft and sweet; for I mean no one any harm, but would like to know that everyone is well advised along with me. Furthermore, as my hardness harms no one, so it deceives no one; he who avoids me will have nothing to suffer from me; he who endures me will profit. Solomon says in Proverbs, 28:23: "He that punisheth a man shall afterwards find favor more than he that feigneth."

Then, to add to my guilt, he cites a certain old man who seemed wise to him and who discussed the question of how to rebuke the Roman bishop. His own opinion is that one should neither be completely silent nor completely talk out of it; but how this is to be accomplished is beyond his understanding. No wonder; he had to show himself grateful to such a high bull, for whose sake one must not know even what the children know, and in turn must know what even the angels do not know. For Latomus, the master of theology, who professes with this title to know divine things, which he also defends in this book as the cleverest of them, this wretched man does not even know the human things that occur in daily use, nor does he know what to advise the souls in danger; Yet he is certain what the souls in purgatory are doing, who are completely removed from our perception, of whose condition the holy Scriptures bear no witness, while they want all their and the pope's teachings to be abundantly contained in the Scriptures.

1064 L. v. a. v, 4W f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. xviii, 1309-1312. 1065

But, my dear, let us leave the sophists to their ways, for nothing suits them but hypocrisy, flattery and lies. Let us listen to the old man who seemed so wise to him. He prescribed three ways: first, that the princes and cities cease to demand improper things, and that they reject what should be offered unduly; then one should first begin to remedy in oneself what one blames on the pope, since it would be impertinent not to bear a fault with which one is afflicted in a prince; the second way is prayer; the third: Toleration. So much for that way.

The first way, then, is wishing, that is, a thought that we think, for example, if the donkey could fly, the donkey would have feathers. So let us think like this: If no one would demand unworthy things, the pope would be better. But why don't we also think like this: If the pope would improve himself, then nobody would dare to demand something unworthy? But what should happen in the case where the pope (which is usually the case) is not challenged, but rages out of his own foolishness? then if, which is the greatest thing, he does not care about the gospel and does not do any of the episcopal works that are written in 1 Tim. 3? Or is it enough here also to think: If no one would ask unworthy things? Doesn't everyone in the whole world already think just like that, not only what the wise When prescribes, but also what I have added? For who does not wish that? But what is he able to do further? For who can keep princes and cities in check (except the power of God, which he teaches to seek in the second way through prayer)? But neither does he advise anyone to try; for it is the fault of princes and nations that the pope is evil. Let us rather think: If the devil should stop riding him, he would become good; and let us blame it on the devil that the pope is evil. You could use this advice also for yourself and think: If God would, I would be blessed here and in the life to come! This would be the best way to get to heaven.

Therefore, the world already goes beyond the first advice of this wise man. And now, for whom do people everywhere pray more than for the pope? Likewise, whose tyranny does one bear more equanimously than that of the pope? Where is the advice of this wise man? How glorious an idol does he make of the pope, this so wise man, that the sheep should first begin to feed themselves, and the people to prepare their own way, and the shepherd the pastures, and the leader the path? But see how finely he also agrees with his poet Latomus. Latomus thinks that one must not be completely silent; the wise man, on the other hand, thinks that one must be absolutely silent. Here I would like to know which of the two is lying, the poet or the poem? For either Latomus lies that he considers him wise, or he lies in this: he means that one must not be completely silent. But even the wise man himself does not remain the same; for once he advises to remain silent, and yet again he makes a whorehouse out of the pope by saying that he lends improperly and that one must reject what is offered unduly.

How finely Hilarius said, it would be difficult to defend the cause of truth against the ungodly, if prudence would only give as much advice as ungodliness takes upon itself. But further, let us consider the secrets of this holy flattery. One must tolerate in the prince the vice (he says) with which he himself is afflicted. In order, then, that all should be silent (for the commandment of this wise man of Latomus to be silent is a general one), all must be afflicted with the same vice, even against their will; or at least those who are not afflicted with this vice are permitted to punish. Why, then, does he call these silent? I am heartily inclined to such a skilful and considered gratitude against this approving bull; but since this admittedly witty game is actually directed against Luther, I would like to be instructed as to what vice he Lutheri has in common with the pope as prince? Or does he want to make me guilty of all the Roman crimes? But, since he who is called to preach the gospel to all creation

1066 L. V. a. V, 404-406. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. xvm, 1312-1314. 1067

must proclaim, I ask if the pope is not a creature? So why is it not allowed to tell him the truth publicly and freely? But enough of this; this flattery has its reward, worthy of its appalling stupidity. Therefore let us leave this seven times stupid and blasphemous wise man and let us be instructed as free confessors of the free gospel should be instructed; and let us keep and do so:

The greater a ruler is, especially a prince of the church, the less one should tolerate his vices but punish him severely. For it does not befit the word of God to be bound for the sake of a man 2 Tim. 2, 9; nor does it know any respect for the person. Thus Ps. 119, 46. says, "I speak of thy testimonies before kings, and am not ashamed"; and Ps. 2, 10. He punishes them, saying, "Be ye therefore wise, ye kings, and be ye chastened, ye judges of the earth." Examples are all the prophets who, called from the common people, punished the kings, priests and especially the prophets. Who does Christ punish in the Gospel? The common people? Or not rather the great ones alone? What, then, is this pernicious flattery of Latomus, which seeks to obscure these examples for us, and lies that he does not know what the schoolchildren know!

But Christ was God. It is true, but he humbled himself and took the form of a servant, and did not punish as God, but became an example to all preachers that they should spare the common people, but not the princes, because the people's misfortune comes from the guilt of the princes. But may one remain silent because of the fact that evil rulers rule out of God's wrath, as Latomus flatters? He judges, in contrast to Christ, that one should spare the prince and not spare the common people. Truly, a splendid judge of things, who measures vices not according to merit but according to persons, and holds the people responsible for the vices of princes. For he does not teach that vices should be punished or concealed because they are vices, but because they are found in great or small persons.

What do these enemies of the cross want other than that the scandal of the cross should cease? since they know well that the common people can be punished without danger, but the princes cannot be touched with impunity. But they are hirelings, dumb dogs that cannot bark Isa. 56, that see the wolf coming and run away Joh. 10, or even make common cause with the wolf. Not so Christ, who hangs in the hedge with his horns Gen. 22:13., whose descent touches the mountains so that they smoke Ps. 144:5., who puts the head of Behemoth in a fish trap Job 40:26., who dares to reach into the terrible ring of his teeth Job 41:4., who pierces his cheeks with a rod Job40:21., and kills the lions with Samson. In short, all Scripture testifies that the voice of the LORD breaks the cedars Ps. 29, 5., that he will go over the mountains of Israel, the oaks of Bashan, over all the high towers, and just about everything that is great Isa. 2, 12 ff., as is clear to every child, though it is beyond the understanding of a master in Israel.

Reverence is due to the Highness, I confess, but only without prejudice to the Word of God, which is God Himself, whom one must obey more than men. But if one is to bear the vices of any authority, this can only be the case with those of the worldly authority, not with the ecclesiastical; not only because the ecclesiastical is not of GOD, as the worldly is. For God does not know this people of the popes who rule today, since he has only appointed in his church preachers of the gospel and ministers of the word; but they are also not appointed by men, but have rather set themselves up against the will of God and of men, like the giants before the flood. But it is also not to be borne because the vice of a worldly authority is without danger for the souls; but a bishop who neglects the word, even if he were holy, is a wolf and apostle of Satan. He who does not watch for the sheep against the wolf is in nothing different from a wolf.

But even though we know that the devil does not sleep when the bishops sleep, we flatter them, yes, help the devil,

1068 D- V. a. V, 406-408. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1314-1317. 1069

by defending them and killing and condemning those who wake them up and remind them of their duty. Dear one, how can one continue the frenzy? Therefore, let him be cursed thrice who does the work of the Lord here carelessly Jer. 46:10 and flatters the priest, who makes common cause with the infernal wolf and looks through his fingers, and has no pity for the ruin of so many souls of his brothers, who were bought with Christ's blood and now perish so miserably. If Latomus had written nothing else, with this one infernal counsel he has amply shown that he is full of the satanic spirit. How can there still be hope that these sophists read, understand and teach the holy scriptures with pious intentions? How can they decide about the Christian doctrine? Moreover, what salvation can be expected from those to whom such a council seems wise, which consists of nothing but nothing but the words of Satan himself? who considers the cause of the church, the vices of the shepherds and the salvation of souls to be so insignificant, as if it were only the fault of a worldly tyranny, which only corrupts the body or the fortune? I, poor man, am very much afraid that I have been much too gentle and modest against the pope and the bishops, these playmates and companions of the devil, and that I myself have not yet sufficiently considered those thousands of souls that the Antichrist, with his bishops and sophists, the very last abominations of the world, is constantly corrupting.

But a riot is to be feared and those are not getting better after all; so Latomus says. What a Jewish speech! For they also feared that Christ would cause a riot, and yet they were not a whit better, yea, they were worse; should Christ then have kept silence? And who told you that those did not become better? Is this a theological justification: those will not hear, therefore you must be silent? The rebellion that destroys the body is feared, but the rebellion that destroys the soul is defended! Thus that wise man fears where there is nothing to fear, to prefer the peace of the body to the eternal salvation of souls. Who could fight this vile slave, this rejected parasite with

his most atrocious advice? It is such people whom the pope rightly approves; it is such people upon whose judgment books must be condemned and burned.

Never is a riot less to be feared than when the Word of God is taught; for God, who is a God of peace, is then present. If the idols, the popes, do not want to hear this and continue to strengthen their tyranny with prohibitions, condemnation and burning, and then a riot or other accident overtakes them, then one has to laugh and mock them with wisdom, Prov. 1, 26. The guilt then does not lie in the said word, but in the godlessness, which does not want to listen to the warnings and punishments of wisdom, as it says there. But lest Latomus escape with the excuse that he speaks not of the gospel, but of punishment: we know that Christ himself could not teach the gospel without punishing; and wisdom speaks that her punishment was hated and blasphemed Prov. 1:29, 30. It is the salt of the earth; it bites to cleanse; chastises to heal; chides to save; kills to make alive. He who teaches otherwise does not preach the gospel, but babbles his flatteries.

Let us now come to another point. In order to honor Löwen's nonsense, he does not want to absolve me of the suspicion that I have taught heresies under the pretext of disputation; for one should not disputate about what has been decided by the prophetic and evangelical writings, as the Roman bishop Leo's words read, which he quotes widely; fodthermore, my way of disputing is not scholastic, but heretical, because I have taken it up, not to seek the truth, but to fight it. But so that you may know here how Latomus writes his own, I say again that I have disputing from the heart from the beginning, before I knew that our magisters were fools and swine; for after that I have not said (as they themselves confess) that I disputing, so that I have even offered myself to the fire. Never

1070 L. v. a.v, L08f. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. xvm, 1317-1310. 1071

there has been such hypocrisy in me that I would have pretended that I wanted to dispute about what I knew I had to claim, how this honorable man lies. But even if it had seemed that I wanted to argue in a malicious way, on what grounds would this not have been allowed? Because this Leo said it? Who gave Leo the power to forbid it? The faith of Latomus and the sleepy nature of the sophists? Well! did Christ never answer the Jews when they maliciously tempted him? Or is Leo's word more valid than Christ's example? This is the constant and unrestrained frenzy of the sophists, that they raise the words of men, but conceal the words of God.

But the following is even cuter: Leo does this only so that the opponents should not dispute, but he does not forbid them to answer. Latomus turns this to mean that it is not necessary to answer the opponent, and this is the very wise advice of the Louvain school to proceed against Luther. If the Turk overtakes us with war, which he is absolutely not allowed to do, and does not want to desist from it, then we want to send the theologians of Louvain as envoys to him, who are to say to him: You are not allowed to fight, otherwise we will condemn you; then we will let him rage and boast of being victors. Therefore the counsel and commandment of Paul Titus 1:9 is no longer necessary, that the bishops should keep the sound doctrine of godliness, that they may be mighty to punish the gainsayers, and to shut them up; but it is enough that they may not dispute, and that the simpletons and idols may be safe. Yea, let us now lay down prayer, and all weapons of the spirit, and cease to resist even the devil, and say unto him, It is not lawful for thee to offend the church. And this is how we act in reality. This is the faith of Latomus, in which he acts the sayings of the Fathers.

But what is this presumption and presumptuousness of so humble a man, that he so brazenly proclaims his thing to be prophetic and evangelical? For Leo's words are lukewarm

The prophets and evangelists were lions. So the prophets and evangelists were Lions? Luther did not know this at all, nor does anyone except Latomus know it, which is a great miracle. It is just as presumptuous that he claims that my disputation contradicts the truth, because he, as an infallible judge and evangelist, understands by truth the views of the Lions; while the foolish Luther believed that this was a matter for the judge and not for the party. But it is also a sophistical pomposity and murderous fervor that he says that one should not have looked through the fingers of my errors; which, however, no one has ever proven as such, or still proves today. But it was enough that the opinion of the prophets and evangelists of Louvain was the truth that was opposed to them.

The content of the sayings of this council at Louvain, which Latomus describes in this preface, has been, as can be clearly seen: We are magistri nostri; we are the judges; we cannot err; the whole world is subject to us; what we say is an article of faith, is evangelical and prophetic. Have I not clearly predicted all this in my little book against them, which Latomus here confesses? If I were the enemy of this faculty, I would not be able to go more strongly through the arrogance, pomposity, presumption, ignorance, stupidity and malice of this concilium than Latomus does here in this glorious preface; so much does every tittle breathe a Moabite arrogance and a more than sophistical presumption. For he does not speak of this controversial question differently, as if this matter had always been completely undisputed, so that Latomus makes us such excellent asses almost gods; of course, so much wind could a single bull drive into a single bubble. 1)

That erroneous books should be burned, I agree with and approve of; but not those that have not yet been proved to be erroneous, such as the presumption of the new prophets da-.

  1. Sense: The bull of the pope could blow out the latomus so.

1072 L. V. a. V. 4VS-4II. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1319-1322. 1073

hertobt. For I, too, have burned papal books, so that our magisters might see that it takes neither art nor intellect to burn paper, which our kitchen boys and servants can also do. Fire (they say) does not disprove evidence. In the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 17. they did not burn the books until they knew, according to recognized truth, that they were forward. Our magisters followed what was easier, but what cost effort and labor they left to the hearts of the faithful; for the sentence stands firm: The lions do not err.

Moreover, it grieves me that Maximilian, at the time when the Sophists were martyring the books of the Jews, did not turn their attack on their own heads and exterminate all their sophistical caterpillars, locusts, vermin, frogs and lice and bring them to the unified and pure Scriptures. For this would have been by far the most salutary counsel, far more necessary than that a great fuss should have been made about the books of the Jews, who pursue their cause fiercely with such mad and foolish articles that I was quite ashamed that so great a fuss should be made among us about these trivial things by our prophets and elders under the name of Christianity. But we deserved no better thanks then than we now hope will soon be given us. Nevertheless, it pleases me exceedingly that the pope has approved the verdict of five universities in this matter; for what could this high and glorious see, the worst opponent of Christ, have done that would have been more worthy of him?

What he means by saying that in the article they condemned, "The saints did not live without sin," they did not condemn the antecedent clause, but only the consequent clause of a bad consequence (consequens malsequentae consequentiae), and that he is surprised that we do not fear the judgment of the whole world, since we attack them for the sake of this condemned article: I do not quite understand. Perhaps he wants the world to guess in advance their secret dialectic, which he also uses in his book, as we shall see; perhaps he will also expound this there. Meanwhile I laugh at his

Rejoicing and his triumph, that he boasts that he has quoted the fathers contradicting me, not rarely, but frequently; not above, but thoroughly 2c, unless (he says) they wanted to claim that the same had spoken contradictory things. For Latomus does not believe that we want to claim this 1), since he is sure that we are not prophets; therefore he sings a song of triumph: Yay, yay! Woe to the conquered! But while they read the fathers, whom they used to despise, we were not idle either and found that they have been very often men, erring, contradicting themselves and sleeping, so that also this triumph of Latomus is built on sand and will collapse as soon as I will attack his book.

Finally, the extremely polite drinker drinks me the foretaste of his booklet and says that some of my articles go against the basic articles of faith. So let us also drink to this nice toast, and you will see what the basic articles of faith are for lions.

The first [article,

which the Louvain have unjustly condemned] is:

God has commanded the impossible.

The honorable and sincere man acts in such a way that he does not allow me a breath, not even the addition of the word "us" or "without the grace of God", which he cannot deny that it is added in my books. But we ask, what kind of a strict and ungracious fundamental article of faith is this, which denies that the fulfillment of God's commandments is impossible for us, that is, for our powers without the grace of God? Did Paul, or Christ, or Moses establish the same? No; but a certain human decree, taken from Jerome, which reads as follows:

"He who says that GOD has commanded impossible things, let him be accursed." This ambiguous and dark word of a man is raised so high by the sophists that they, of all the

  1. Instead of Ä886rturus, ÄL86rtnr08 will be read.

1074 L. v. L. v, 4ii^i3. VIII. Luther's controversy with Latomus. W. xvni. 1322-1324. 1075

The people who are deprived of their senses only cry out: "Cursed, cursed, cursed," so that you can already tell by their voice that they are racing. One must give way to this human word and remain silent, no matter how obvious, clear and abundant scriptural verses may argue against it. Not even a syllable of an illuminating gloss is permitted to this so tender little decree, but it must be thrown open as strictly as it reads, forced upon all ears and impressed upon all hearts, to the greatest danger for faith and the knowledge of the grace of God, for no other reason than because it is man's statute and our magistrates are accustomed to judge according to it as an infallible guideline. For free will has received no little power from this decree.

Moreover, this basic article of faith is as impudent and ambitious as a Romulus who did not want to let his comrade and brother Remus rule with him in common dominion. For there is also another decree, quite godly, which stands beside this annoyance and reads thus: "Whoever says that we can fulfill the commandments of God without God's grace, let him be accursed." This poor decree has no one to raise it up, exalt it, inculcate it, and impose it, but it must (as I have said) yield dominion to its brother. This is not a fundamental article of faith, and according to it even our magisters judge and condemn nothing. Why is that? It is just too divine and almost all writings of the magisters contradict it.

Moreover, consider the extraordinary equity of our magistrates. Since it was not enough for them that this poor decree remained hidden, they made an addition in order to render it powerless by a fat gloss and to suppress it completely, and said: The commandments of God are fulfilled in two ways: in one way according to the nature of the deed; in the other according to the intention of the governor. How splendidly they turned their noses up at the truth by inventing this subterfuge! For that is why they no longer considered grace necessary to fulfill the commandments of God, but only to fulfill the intention of God, which is imposed beyond the commandments. God namely

lich, as an unjust driver, is not satisfied with the fulfillment of the commandments, but demands that they be fulfilled in grace, so that grace is not grace, but a kind of compulsion. For to the law of God the free will has done enough, but God is not satisfied with it. This is the most ungodly and blasphemous opinion; but (as I said) this is how one deals with this unfortunate decree.

But if you in pious zeal wanted to soften the first sentence "He who says that God has commanded the impossible" that the impossible is also taken in a double way, namely either in grace or out of grace, then they resist with hands, fire and sword and do not allow it to be touched at all, but if you do not confess it as it reads, they cry out: 'Heretic, heretic, heretic! for he denies the decrees of the fathers, he does not believe the holy church and does not keep the fundamental articles of the faith! Dear, what else can you do here but let this viper breed ripen to its unquenchable hellfire? Or can you still doubt that this sophistical society is the school of Satan? See how confidently this bubble of Latomus holds out such a decree to me, and how he, after the manner of the Magistri nostri 1), conceals the other; namely, because he wanted to deceive the ears of the whole world, only so that it would not be found out that the Lions acted ungodly.

Yes, even more. See how much they have attributed to this ungodly and blasphemous gloss. They teach that so much can be accomplished by the works that are done according to the nature of the deed, if they are done with all natural powers, that God necessarily and infallibly bestows grace upon them. This means to do as much as is in us, while Paul and after him Augustine resound with such thunderous voices that man without grace only becomes worse through the law, because the law works wrath [Rom. 4, 15.) and has come along so that sin becomes more powerful [Rom. 5, 20.), so that through this god-robbing doctrine, they can destroy the whole of God.

  1. msAistraliter uostraliterHue.

1076 D. V. Ä. V, 413 f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII. 1324-1327. 1077

The New Testament has been destroyed and we wretches, who are Christians in name only, have been led to believe that Christ is good for nothing but to teach us.

For what need is there to tell what they are fooling about an unformed, acquired, general and particular faith, as well as about their basic articles of faith here? It has now come to this, that although it is impossible to fulfill the commandments of God without grace in regard to the intention of the one who is territorial, you nevertheless have it entirely in your hand and it is exceedingly easy to obtain grace through the works that you do according to the essence of the deed, so that free will already prevails not only in the works of the essence, but also in the intention of the one who is territorial himself, that is, completely in the grace of God himself; for it is entirely in his hand to come to grace or not to come.

Hence comes the morally good, the neutrally good, and, what shall I say? they have so many fundamental articles of faith as they have sayings of the fathers, decrees of the councils, ordinances of the popes, opinions of the magistri nostri, that you can see how the world has been ruined by a whole flood of such fundamental articles of faith; what do you think will be their conclusions and inferences from this? And since this is the seven times wicked theology of the newer ones, so that no one can deny it, this unclean and impudent mouth of Lion still dares to stick out the rebuke and to sound into the world: the same was taught by the ancients what these newer ones teach, and still continues to bring the sayings and opinions of both into agreement with each other, in order to unite Christ with Belial and to mix the light with darkness 2 Cor. 6, 14. f..

But if we look at how powerful scriptural sayings are forced to give way to this annoyance, it is the whole execution of Paul, Rom. 8, 3. ff.: "For what was impossible for the law, because it was weakened by the flesh, God did, and sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.

and condemned sin in the flesh by sin, that righteousness required by the law might be fulfilled in us." Here you see how he claims with clear speech that it was impossible for the law to fulfill the righteousness required by the law in us; unless you also enforce here that by the righteousness of the law the intention of the governor is to be understood. But if it was impossible for the law, which is given to help, how much more is it impossible without this help of the law! yes, it was so, quite impossible, that the help of the law rather became a hindrance. For he says that the law was weakened in this impossible, that is, not fulfilled because of the sin of the flesh; or they would also have to say here that it was not fulfilled according to the intention of the governor. But then it is not the fault of the flesh, by which, as he says, the law is not fulfilled, but the fault of the intention of God, who, not satisfied with the fulfillment, also demands grace; and thus the law is rather strengthened by the flesh, but only weakened by the intention of the one who is territorial.

O blasphemous and furious words! But, as I said, this divine saying of Paul had to remain silent under words and rust, 'so that the decree, this fundamental article of faith, would retain its dominion. Thus it says Apost. 13:38: "By this is preached unto you forgiveness of sins, and of all things, whereby ye could not be justified under the law of Moses: but whosoever believeth in this is justified." The apostle did not have so much knowledge of the Greek language that he could have said, "By which it was very difficult for you to be justified," so he was forced to say it was impossible.

Likewise Apost. 15, 10. Peter says: "This is the yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." What do you say, Peter? They could not bear it? Did they not bear it according to the nature of the deed? Have they not been circumcised, sacrificed, and kept all these things? I see that you do not know the basic articles of faith and in many ways you are talking against the theology of Louvain. But it will be Latomus

1078 L. v. a. v, 414-416. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. xvm, 1327-1329. 1079

object here: Peter speaks of circumcision, as is clear from the beginning of this chapter. But could they not have been circumcised? He speaks rather of the law of Moses; for so it is written shortly before v. 5: "And there came out certain of the Pharisees' sect, which had believed, and said: They must be circumcised, and commanded to keep the law of Moses." Behold the yoke that Peter calls unbearable. But what decision does he finally come to? "But (he says) we believe to be saved by the grace of the LORD JEsu Christ, even as they also" v. 11. And you have, O Peter, no essence of that which can bear the yoke and compel the grace to be there?

I pass over what he says to the Hebrews Cap. 7 about this impossibility not only in one place. Even Christ, after he had said, Matth. 19, 24, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, and his disciples, horrified that it should be impossible to attain blessedness, said, "Yes, who then can be blessed?" did not know this fundamental article of faith, therefore did not deny this impossibility of beatitude, but rather affirmed it, nor did he modify it to the effect that it was merely difficult, but spoke thus v. 26., "With men it is impossible; but with GOD all things are possible." For he said this not merely of the rich, but in answer to the question, Who can be saved? Since, therefore, in the New Testament only the ministry of the Spirit is supposed to prevail, that is, the preaching of grace, as the apostle says, it would have been desirable either that Jerome had never uttered this word, or that it had remained buried in obscurity; For it behooves Christians to proclaim and confess only the glory of God, that is, our impossibility and God's possibility, as Christ says here; and all aversions must be removed that could set up or flourish the free will - and of this kind this little decree is probably one of the most excellent - so that the honest knowledge of God's grace and our misery may be preserved.

But it may have moved man that I said: Not all of God's commandments can be perfectly fulfilled in this life even in grace. This is not my opinion, but Augustine's, in the 1st book of his Retractations, Cap. 19, of which we will deal below. But by saying that it does not happen, I have not denied that it can happen; and the magnificent sophist has not even learned so much from his logic that he knows that "not happening" is something different from "not being able to happen. I have said: It does not happen; he puts in: Therefore you have said it cannot happen. Who doubts that God can give someone such a great grace that he fulfills the law perfectly, as we think of the blessed Virgin? even if he does not do it for everyone. If the little decree contradicts this, it goes to the gallows and is cursed.

But here he suffers from another error, from which all sophists always suffer, and that is that he wants to prove something by that which is yet to be proven, 1) which is the most erroneous way of disputing, in which also this whole book of Latomus moves. For it is the constant folly of the sophists that they take what they should first of all prove and substantiate and presuppose it as an infallible fundamental article of faith, as in this place. Latomus should have proved above all that fulfilling the commandments of God perfectly means that one is sufficient for the commandments of God in everything, so that no forgiveness is necessary. For Augustine and I deny this, and Scripture also denies it. But he, without hesitating in the least, certainly goes along as if he had a fundamental article of faith that cannot be proved (indemonstrabile), and while he believes that he devastates everything with the sword of the spirit, he plays a ridiculous game before us with the chaff and stubble of his opinion. Yes, not even his little decree has this opinion; since we say that all the commandments of God are fulfilled, not by our doing perfectly, but by the abundant

  1. petitio princixii.

1080 b. a. v, 416-418. 47. refutation of latomus. W. xvm, 1329-1331. 1081

God's forgiving mercy. Here nothing is impossible; indeed, everything is quite perfect; and we say something better than if we claimed that everything is fulfilled without the forgiving mercy by works alone. And he should also have proved (as I said) that his expression "impossible" signified what he thought. But they themselves also confess that in this life no perfect grace is given to anyone, but that it is always increased; but since grace is given only for the fulfillment of the commandments of God, it would also follow from this that they are not fulfilled insofar as the grace of God does not become perfect. But because our magisters say this, it is not worthy of condemnation; if Luther were to say it, it would be an error.

Second article:

Sin remains even after baptism.

He condemns this article on the authority of St. Gregory, although I have proved it by the testimony of Paul, Rom. 7. But he, who erroneously takes the proof from what is to be proved, 1) interprets sin here not as sin, but as weakness, as if he had contended that it must be interpreted in such a way, as if either Paul had not known with what words he had to speak, or I was not allowed to use his words. If we look at Gregory's proof, he says, "Christ saith, But he that is washed is clean altogether: nothing therefore remaineth of the uncleanness of his sin, because he that redeemed him declared him clean altogether." I pass over Latomus' sleepy talk, since he promised that he would weigh the testimonies, not count them, that is, to speak according to sophistical artifice, he would not weigh them, but count them. I now confront Gregorius. Tell me, dear Gregory, where does Christ say what you say? Did you not have to bring the words of Christ in their wording? Thou sayest, He that is washed is wholly clean; but Christ saith thus, He that is washed must not, but wash the feet, but is wholly clean John 13:1o. Whence this uncleanness of the feet

  1. petitor prineixii.

after washing? Does he not affirm that he is completely pure in such a way that he still needs to wash his feet? What is this but that in baptism the sin is completely forgiven and yet still remains? As Paul also says, Rom. 7. Throughout life the feet are washed, even those who are completely pure, as he says v. 14: "You shall wash one another's feet."

Does this passage not speak for me and against Latomus? All sins are washed away, yet there is still something left to wash. The saying is clear. How, then, can anything be washed away except because it is forgiven and abated by grace? How can anything still need to be washed except because there is still in truth uncleanness left in its nature? But about this later; here Latomus had to be deprived of his confidence, in order that he might see that the fathers had sometimes been men, and then in order that he might recognize his quite erroneous way of disputing, which I have called the proof from what is to be proved (petitionem principii), since he should first have proved that "to be wholly pure" is so much as that no sin remains after baptism. Nor do Gregory's words enforce this, or, if they do, they must be denied. But they come out with the words of the fathers, into which they have put their own opinions, like the ass under the lion's skin, wanting to make us fundamental articles of faith, not according to the opinion of the fathers, but according to their own, which they impute to the words of the fathers, these deceitful workers 2 Cor. 11:13.

Third article:

"One need not confess all mortal sins to the priest."

Of this he says, he is damned by a general concil, consequently he is damned; the conclusion is good, from Latomus on his wise. But what scripture has the concil for itself? If a council is valid without scripture, and it is enough that only the people with bishop's caps and plates assemble, why do we not assemble the

1082 D. V. L. V, 418 f. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1331-1334. 1083

and stone images from the churches, put pointed hats and bishop's caps on them and say that there is a general council? Is it not fundamentally wrong for a council to act or decide without God's word? But I now say even more and deny by all means that one must demand a confession, in my booklet published on this subject in German, which I also want to translate into Latin as soon as time permits. For human statutes are to be completely removed from the church, of which also Latomus confirms in his dialogue that they can be abolished again by men; but this confession is nothing else than a tyrannical compulsion of the popes, which has no basis in Scripture.

The last article:

"Every good work in the holy pilgrims is sin."

Hui, how inconsistent stuff he makes out of this article, which seems to him, such a great man, to go straight against the passage of the Athanasian Creed: "Those who have done good will enter into eternal life." Here, however, he triumphs in earnest, so that he asserts that one should be ashamed that one demands an account from them in such matters. Finally he even threatens, the furious man, so that no one would want to keep it with me. This is what the Jews did before Pilate (John 18:30): "If this man had not been an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you. Truly, they are fools and impudent people who did not believe our magistrates of Leuven at their mere hint, as if they were such people who either wanted something bad or could err like other people, especially since the bull-bishop also approved of their deed, namely one water bubble (bulla) the other (bullas).

But behold the unworthiness of man, who everywhere declares sin (of which I speak in a good work) to be such as they call a damnable one; for only this goes against the saying, "But they that have done good shall enter into everlasting life." For they themselves admit that a

They even assert what Gerson says: No venial sin is venial by its nature, and there are more taking away than giving graces of God; 1) but it is only venial through the mercy of God. And about which one should be surprised, Latomus does not deny at the beginning that in every good work there can be venial sin, such as negligence; and yet it is not absurd with them to put sin in this way in a good work, not even against the creed, for no other reason than because I have not said it, but they have said it.

But this too I will later wrest from them, and perhaps they will freely admit that it is uncertain whether any work of all men is without sin, however good it may be; for they will probably not force any man to claim such a thing of his good work. And behold, what is uncertain may yet be, and perhaps it is so, even according to their opinion. But if another says it, it is inconsistent and contrary to the creed, that they think nothing more inconsistent can be said. For this uncertainty compels them not to assert the opposite as certain, and therefore not to deny or condemn the proposition (propositum). For the sayings of the Fathers, which he who proves from what is to be proved (petitor principii) introduces, he draws all to where he does not prove that they belong, namely, that in a work there is no sin, however much those the Fathers may say that they the works are good, they do not condemn 2c For of this I also deny nothing. But briefly, dear reader, you can take this preface of Latomus as the image of a sophist; for here you see the image of a sophist splendidly painted, which consists in that he feigns modesty in gestures and words, but otherwise bristles with such great pomposity, presumption, arrogance, malice, unworthiness, presumption, conceit, ignorance, and stupidity that nothing surpasses it.

  1. plures Zratias Del xrivativss tzuam xositivas 6886.

** **1084 L. V. a. V, 4IS-421. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1334-1336. 1085

The first article attacked by Latomus is this one:

Every good work is sin.

First, he introduces unseemly things, second, he opposes them with the opposite, and third, he dissolves my foundations. This is his own division. In order to drive this Sanherib back to his country, I will start from the last point and first defend what is mine.

In order to take away from me the most glorious passage, Is. 64:6, where it says: "We are all like the unclean, and all our righteousness is like an insolent garment," he treats it in such a way that it can be of no use either to him or to me, by making it uncertain what it is to be understood by. He states that some understand it of the Assyrian captivity, others of the Babylonian, and still others of the Roman captivity of the Jews. He himself, however, joins Jerome and Lyra in the latter. Finally, fourthly, he claims that it should be admitted that the passage refers to the faithful, but he takes recourse to the synecdoche 1) and wants "all our righteousness" to be as much as "some righteousness", according to a figure of speech that frequently occurs in Scripture. Since he does not present anything certain and since Jerome's testimony is not sufficient, since he, as he himself writes to Augustine, almost only uses the opinions of others in his interpretations, the opinion is left undecided.

And this is first of all answered to everything what he bases, concludes and builds on this opinion. For one must argue with certainty. Therefore this testimony must be uncertain for Latomus and useless against me. Hereupon I must endeavor that it be certain and strong against him; and first of all I admit and prove that it speaks of the captivity of the Jews and in the person of the captives, not of the Assyrian captivity, for by this the city of Jerusalem was not laid waste, nor even the tribe of Judah taken captive, as in this place the pro-

  1. A trope, since the whole stands for the part or the part for the whole.

phet weeps. If I can now prove that it cannot be understood from the Roman one, I have forced that it must be understood from the Babylonian one. Let us now first look at the passage itself Is. 64, 5. ff.:

"You met the happy and those who practiced righteousness and remembered you in your ways. Behold, thou wast angry with us, because we sinned, and abode long within; but we were saved. But now we are all as the unclean, and all our righteousness is as an unclean garment. We are all withered as the leaves; and our sins lead us away as the wind. No man calleth thy name, or riseth up to hold thee. For thou hidest thy face from us, and letest us languish in our sins. But now, O Lord, you are our Father, we are clay, you are our potter, and we are all the work of your hands. O Lord, be not angry with us, and remember not our sins for ever. Behold that we are all thy people. The cities of thy sanctuary are become desolate; Zion is become desolate; Jerusalem lieth ruined. The house of our holiness and glory, wherein our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire; and all that we had of beauty is put to shame. O Lord, wilt thou be so hard unto such, and hold our peace, and smite us down so much?"

Latomus, of course, as an exceedingly strong jumper, bravely jumps over the wall that stood in the way of his opinion in the words: "yet we were helped"; which cannot be understood of the rejected Jews, but is undoubtedly spoken in the person of the elect and faithful. When he then came to the word: "You met the joyful one," to which he had said: "Who then is he who practices righteousness, whom the Lord meets as a joyful one? if this word, as Martin wills, is understood by every believer at every time," he suddenly fell silent, as if he had bitten on a pebble, so that one does not know what he is asking, perhaps fearing that he might miss the interpretation entirely.

Latomus with his own says it will be this

1086 V. a. V, 421-423. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1336-1339. 1087

said in the person of those who looked to Jerusalem and the Temple, whose restoration they desired, so that they might sacrifice and praise GOD in it, as their fathers did. This I affirm to be true, not because they say it, since I do not believe them, but because the text that compelled them compels me also; otherwise, why would he the prophet have increased his lamentation with so many words, and set forth the desolation of the city with such diligence before GOD, if he did not ask that,' that GOD would have mercy on the city and restore it? He uncovered the wound to the physician, of course, with the request to heal it. Moreover, to the words, "And all that we had of beauty is put to shame," he added, "O Lord, wilt thou be so hard to such?" What does this, "Thou wilt not be so hard," mean other than: Let it not lie so? For if he never restored it, he would indeed have been very hard on what was once desolate. Is it not therefore certain and quite clear that with these words for the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple is prayed and sighed? fönst I fehe no reason, why he should have it in such a way to lead, to put to the heart, to make important and insistently emphasize. Thus, with the obstinate sophists, one must doubt even that which is known in itself until it becomes certain.

It follows from this that with these sighs and words, prayers were made for such a thing as could be restored; for the Holy Spirit is not so foolish as to admit praying for something that is obviously impossible. But it was already established that according to Christ God was not to be worshipped on a mountain, nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth, as Christ speaks Joh. 4, 24. This future mystery was also revealed by the spirit of Isaiah in such a way that no one else after David has recognized and prophesied it so clearly. Likewise Haggai 2, 10. foretold this last house. And Daniel Cap. 9. foresaw that the determined desolation would come to the end after Christ, so that it is impossible that it will be taken away again, as the Jews expect. Therefore, this weeping and invocation cannot be postponed to the times after Christ.

The only reference is to the time of the Babylonian captivity, where hope, longing and prayer for the restoration of the city are rightly attributed to the spirit.

This is also to be noted, lest we ascribe blasphemy to the Holy Spirit, as if He sometimes spoke in the person of the ungodly and blasphemers. In Ps. 109 it is decided that the prayer of the Jews in the Roman captivity will be sin and abomination. Then Christ says in the 16th Psalm that he would not take their name in his mouth v. 4. So how should the spirit of Isaiah in the person of the blasphemers offer their blasphemies before God with such great humility, such pious confession, such sincere heart and zeal? For his prayer would also have to be sin and blasphemy. The Scripture does indeed say that the Spirit prays through the saints in relation to the ungodly and for the ungodly, but never in their person. He is the Spirit of the body of Christ and stands by the saints in their weakness, sighing and praying for them [Rom. 8, 26st What kind of prayer this prayer of Isaiah is, who does not grasp it with his own hands? So Christ wept over Jerusalem, but not in the person of Jerusalem; so also Paul Rom. 8. for the Jews, but not in the person of the Jews; but here Isaias makes himself the person of those with whom and for whom he prays.

Since it is therefore dangerous to assert something that has no example in Scripture, we must assert only what it contains. Let us confess that the Spirit of the Body of Christ never speaks, works, lives and remains in a foreign person, that of the devilish body, but always in a person of his own body. The one who praises God cannot represent the person of the one who blasphemes God, since the one who represents the person of someone and the one whose person he represents must agree at least in word, attitude and desire, if they cannot agree in ability and works. But between these Jews and the Spirit of God there is an irreconcilable contrast, while the Spirit, if he had spoken through Isaiah in their person, would likewise still speak today and much more, since his words

1088 L. V. L. V, 423-425. 47. refutation of latomus. W. XVIII, 1339-1341. 1089

and the present need urges them most strongly. Nor can we deny that they are words of the Spirit, since they are written in the holy canon. But because they are of the Spirit, they are godly, and faithful and holy, which does not fit the person of the Jews at all (as you see). If he only spoke the words of the wicked, their opinion could still be tolerated; but praying and acting in their person, that cannot be tolerated. He speaks in Isaiah the words of the proud Babel and Assur and Sanherib, he tells in Ezekiel the words of the great dragon in the river and many others, but he never leads another person than the godly and his own.

Moreover, it is clearly stated in the text: "Behold, we are all your people. Or do we not know what that means: to be God's people? These Jews are now no longer His people, as it is said in Hosea [1, 9.): "Call him LoAmmi not My people; for you shall not be My people, and I will not be your God." And again Isa. 64:8., "But now, O LORD, thou art our Father; we are clay, thou art our potter, and we are all the work of thy hands." But are the Jews children and not rather enemies? Are they the potter's clay, who do not want to be formed? For they do not recognize the potter. Are they the work of his hands and not rather even Satan's work? Also the sophistry does not apply here that they should call him in a common way father, potter, creator. The prophet speaks in the spirit, and the words come forth from the fervor of the spirit, in which God is only the father of children who believe, just as we also worship the Father in the spirit in the Lord's Prayer. Therefore, especially in the New Testament, he does not hear the name "Father" without the spirit, which would certainly be the case if this were said in the person of the Jews, since (as I said) the need for it is pressing and the words are still there.

From this, I think it is sufficiently clear that this cannot be said in the person of an unbelieving people, which will become even clearer when we see the meaning of these words.

But the fact that he now claims that such all

Common expressions in the Scriptures usually have the sense that they are to be understood only by some, as e.g. the sentence: "All seek their own", since Titus and many others were not such people, and so also here under the expression, "all our righteousness is impure" wants to be understood: only some righteousness of some people: so here either the malice and spitefulness makes Latomus blind, or he must be especially stupid, not only because he plays with inappropriate examples, but also because he pulls here completely without reason this figurative idiom by the hair. If it were so free to play with figurative idioms according to mere arbitrariness without providing a reason, what then prevents that one also gives a new sense to all things? So I would also like to say that the saying Ps. 1:3: "And all that he doeth prospereth," can be understood in this way: only some things prosper; and Ps. 2:12: "Prosperity to all that trust in him," that is, only to some who trust in him; further Ps. 5:7: "Thou destroyest liars," that is, only some. And, beloved, what kind of antics could be made after this in the holy Scriptures? It was not for such a great theologian as Latomus to say that something could be said in this way, but that it must be said in this way. The question is not what arbitrariness can do in the fool, but what conscientiousness must do in interpretation, especially since he boasted with such full cheeks that he did not want to count the testimonies of Scripture, but to weigh them and to accuse Luther of citing them badly. Does that mean weighing the testimonies? Does that mean convicting of bad citing, if he only says: I can understand it this way and that way? Didn't I accuse those sophists up to now of this very mistake, that they could understand everything in such and such a way, but never wanted to understand it as they should? This does not mean to refute the opponent, but to nullify the holy scripture.

While he is then so vividly mindful of this figurative way of speaking in this passage, how roughly does he snore, on the other hand, in the following passage where it is said: "No one calls on your name or sets out to hold you"? Could he not also imply here that there were only some, that is: some,

1090 L. V. L. V. 42S-427. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, I34I-I343. 1094

and many do not call your name? This would have prevented him from having to make such a silly and unrhymed digression in order to prove that there had never been a lack of those who had called upon the name of the Lord at all times. Or perhaps this figurative way of speaking does not take place in negative statements? Does it not seem to be set Is. 57, 1.: "The righteous perishes, and no one takes it to heart; and holy men are raised up, and no one heeds it"? Did Isaiah not understand this, who just said this? Or is it only allowed to Latomus to make figurative speech wherever it pleases him, and to make none wherever it does not please him? For the wise man realized that "all our righteousness is defiled," spoken without a picture, would conclude against him; therefore it had to be avoided. On the other hand, the other: "No one calls on your name", if it is spoken figuratively, would not resolve against Luther, therefore the saying had to be taken away from him. And such a great man, however, did not think how by this arbitrariness and audacity he would give his opponent ample opportunity to turn this against him. For with the same authority, I too can turn these two figurative expressions around, so that soon both expressions, soon only one of them, may be figurative and not figurative. But is this the way to handle the Scriptures?

Again, this excellent theologian puts the saying: "All our righteousness is defiled", which he had attached in a figurative sense to the believers, afterwards without image to the Jews, since they were finally destroyed. From these they interpret this passage to have people of whom they could claim without image that all their righteousness is defiled. Thus Latomus arrogates to himself the liberty of dealing arbitrarily with the sacred Scripture, even when he speaks in earnest and argues for the faith against the most shameful heretic. If I were a heretic (which Christ forbid) and saw that such foolish antics were being made against me, I would hold my opinion and consider everything they have suspicious for the sake of their own inconstancy and silliness; for I could not believe.

I have never known them to seriously and truly believe this to be true, so now I condemn and detest it their thing all the more.

But now, let us do this lionizing and new way of theology, and I will throw the whole matter of Latomus over the heap and overcome it with one word. For as often as he fraudulently concludes with the testimonies he cites that a good work is not a sin, I take refuge in the subterfuge that instead of the whole I put the part (synecdoches) and say: A good work is taken for good only in part; likewise also sin is taken for sin only in part; for thus he himself puts the part for the whole and says, -eternal righteousness of some is not well done. What then will be easier than my victory, which is won with the weapons of the adversary himself? Behold, that is, after the manner of Louvain and Latomus, to draw the meaning of Scripture from the context, the sequence, and the circumstances of the text; and yet it is high treason to call them blocks and sticks.

Therefore, away with this lionizing stuff (lovanitas) and right wind-making (vanitas), let us rather substitute here Augustine's saying, which agrees with truth itself and common sense: "A figurative speech proves nothing." Though he said it in reference to sacred images of things, yet it may be applied quite appropriately to the grammatical images of words. For in no Scripture, much less in the divine, may one hunt for images according to mere arbitrariness, but they must be avoided, and one must rely on the plain, pure, and original meaning of the words until circumstances themselves, or some apparent inconsistency, compels one to acknowledge an image. Otherwise, what Babylonian confusion of language and words would arise in the world? Then it would be better to be mute than eloquent. We want to show this by rough examples, because our Löwen magisters have become all too doltish. When the poet speaks: 1)

Then the Trojan Caesar will arise from a beautiful lineage:

  1. Virgil, läd. I, v. 286.

1092 D.v.a.v,427f. 47. refutation of latomus. W. LVIH, 1343-1346. 1093

and one wanted to take here the expression figuratively, as if Caesar was said for many Caesarea, then you can this freely after your arbitrariness; but do you throw such a thing also to the linguists? Again, the other verse: 1)

Romans, you shall rule the earth's peoples with authority:

you can argue that it is to be understood without all figurative expression by a single Roman citizen; but what will the linguists say to that?

Thus it is said in Ps. 16:11: "You make known to me the way to life"; here you can also say according to your brain that earthly ways are to be understood, on which we tread with our bodily feet; but instead of the way, you are at the same time following an error. But what need is there of more words? We admit that everything is full of figurative ways of speaking, but, in order to meet them, fine observation is necessary, which, however, cannot be sufficiently guided by a certain rule, although I have not yet found an example of such figurative speech in those general expressions, as Latomus poems here. We have these two things to guide us, the inconsistency of the content and the nature of the words. For the fact that, for example, the sword at the side, Ps. 45:4, and the two swords of the disciples, Luc. 22:38, do not mean one of iron, is proved more strongly by the circumstances under which these words are spoken than by the inconsistency, although this also applies; again, when it is said that he who leaves his wife receives her a hundredfold in this life, the inconsistency of the thing compels us not to understand it of bodily leaving and receiving.

Thus, in the present case, it is not enough for my Latomus to say that this can be understood figuratively, namely, all for some; I will not tolerate any figuration until he has proved the inconsistency or the necessity of the circumstances, but I will force him to understand it in the simple, proper, and original meaning: all our righteousness be impure; he must do this, I say, because in the whole of Scripture

  1. Ibidem, I^id. VI, v. 851

no inconsistency is found that would be contrary to it. And so this testimony still stands unconquered, mocking the attempts of Latomus and his rash boasting, and proving that all our righteousness is impure, and that every good work is sin. Nevertheless, I am surprised that here he has completely forgotten his subterfuge, which he uses in all other things; for he also recognized here that impurity is nothing other than an imperfection, as he does with the words error and sin, with the same right, according to which they tend to impute new essence to things and new meanings to words, just as they please. But the magnanimous hero once hoped to become more famous by a more respectable victory than he has become by his other evasions.

In addition to the fact that this figurative way of speaking cannot take place here, there is the other reason that it is the rule in Scripture: where it has simply and most perfectly established a general proposition without any hesitation, with the exclusion of any synecdoche or particularity (particularitate) (that I say so), it is not satisfied to have asserted the general proposition, but it also adds the general proposition in the negative. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:12, 11, from the 14th Psalm: "They are all gone astray, and have all become unfit; there is none that understandeth; there is none that inquireth after God; there is none that doeth good, not even one." Here Paul observes this rule and reinforces it by simply concluding all Jews and Greeks, that is, all the children of men, under sin. For if the synecdoche were not excluded here, the apostle's whole discussion would fall away at this point, and he would prove nothing for the necessity of grace, which is what he intends. Another testimony of the same apostle Rom. 4, 7 is the saying from the 32nd Psalm v. 1. 2.: "Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, in whose spirit is no falsity." Behold, for a complete

  1. In the original: illustris.

1094 L. V. L. V. 428-430. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1346-1348. 1095

and round forgiveness, it was not enough that he had affirmatively said that they were forgiven and covered, but he also adds that they are no longer imputed, and that there is no falsehood in his mind. In the same way it says Klagel. 2:2: "The Lord has destroyed all the dwellings of Jacob without mercy," to show that nothing precious was left behind; and Ps. 28:5: "He will break them and not build them," so that it would not be understood as if he wanted to break them only in part. It is, of course, a very sweet synecdoche and necessary figurative expression, a symbol of both the love and the mercy of God, that while it is sometimes said that he strikes or destroys, it is to be understood in such a way that he does not destroy completely or strike all; for he touches the whole when he touches a part of it.

So also in this passage, according to the same rule, Isaiah puts many assertive phrases together with negative ones and says: "We are all like the unclean, and all our righteousness is like an insolent garment. We are all withered like the leaves, and our sins lead us along like a wind." Now follow the negating sayings: "No one calls on your name or sets out to keep you," that is, all our righteousness is so impure that with you the righteousness of no man counts for anything, as if you could be stopped in your wrath by it. Therefore, Latomus' frivolous little sin is here thrown over from the bottom of the heap.

But I say this, not because I would have admitted to Latomus that in the passages brought by him the figure of speech of the synecdoche is present, but because I confess that this figurative mode of speech is frequent in the Scriptures. And let the sophist see with what light chaff he struggles against a great rock, so that his posies may be easily overcome in more than One Way. For I do not remember to have seen a synecdoche in general sayings in any place of the Scriptures. But those whom Latomus teaches, he himself forces on the synecdoche, which they do not have in the least. Moreover, he refutes himself by saying,

Such words would have to be applied to their subject; as for example in the saying of Isaiah 13, 5: "To destroy the whole land", of course not the whole earth is to be understood, but only the land of Babylon. So in the gospel Luc. 2, 1. "all the world" is estimated, but of course not the whole earth, but only the whole Roman Empire. Likewise Matth. 27, 45: "Darkness fell over the whole land" is only understood of the land of the Jews, since the Roman writers do not think of such darkness, with the exception of that fabulously chattering Dionysius in Heliopolis, whose existing letter is, in my opinion, fictitious. Moreover, he draws "all righteousness is impure" on the people in the Roman captivity, without synecdoche.

Thus the passage Is. 1, 5: "The whole head is sick" 2c, does not contain a synecdoche for a double reason, firstly because it is general, secondly because the negation is added: "There is nothing healthy in him" 2c And, as Paul interprets Rom. 9, this applies to the Jews who are still left after Christ, in whom in truth the whole head is sick and there is nothing healthy in him; but so they were already in Christ's time. For he speaks against those who were then outside Christ and remained. So also the saying of Jeremiah 6:13, "For they are all covetous, both small and great," applies only to the multitude of those who are covetous, 1) to the exclusion of the pious; just as also the saying of Paul, "All seek their own," applies only to those who are his object and aim. For otherwise Paul, when he includes all men under sin in Romans 3 and says that all lack glory in God, would have included himself, Abraham and all the pious in that saying; but he spoke against those who acted without true faith. Therefore, as I said, Latomus plays with silly examples, plagued by the evil conscience that is aware of the error from which he would like to escape, but cannot. For it is an obvious proof that he has been overcome by the invincible truth, because the wretch, after so many

  1. corpus avaritiae.

** **1096 L. V. L. V, 430-432. 47. refutation of latomus. W. xvm, 1348-1351. 1097

The people of the world look for a way out, and so fearfully at that. Ah, a conscience that stands in truth does not tremble and change like that; the wretched sophists look for such excuses too late.

But here is the figurative way of speaking of the synecdoche in the Gospel Matth. 12, 40.: "So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the midst of the earth"; as well as Matth. 27, 44.: "Likewise also the murderers reviled him, which were crucified with him"; and exceedingly clear Ps. 78, 18.: "And they tempted GOD in their heart, that they should require meat for their souls." This is said to rebuke, as it were, the whole people of Israel. On the other hand, in Ps. 105, 40: "They asked, and he sent for quails," 2c, it is said in praise of them, but both times by means of a synecdoche, the whole for a part; above all others, however, this figure of speech prevails far and wide in the prophets. But in this place the word of Isaiah cannot be so restricted to some, because he includes himself, does not speak to others, as it happens in the aforementioned passages, but he makes a prosopopoeia 1) of persons speaking of themselves, and speaks: "all of us"; "all our righteousness"; he does not speak: "you" or "your" 2c

But now it remains how this can be attributed to the believers. And I believe that it is not necessary to prove that they were faithful and pious, since they obeyed God at the word of Jeremiah and went into captivity, some voluntarily, others forced. For the flesh of Christ and the apostles was still in them, 2) for which alone we can say that they were pious and faithful, since it is rightly believed that throughout the whole human race, in the order of its flesh, up to the virgin mother, it was a holy and chosen seed. I want to summarize it therefore first briefly, and then make the text.

  1. prosopoxosia, personal poetry, i.e., when inanimate things are regarded as persons and allowed to speak.

2s I.e. Christ and the apostles were still to be born from the people of the Jews.

I have taught that our good works are such that they cannot bear the judgment of God according to the saying Ps. 143, 2: "Do not go into judgment with your servant, for before you no living man is righteous." But since his judgment is true and righteous, he does not condemn works which are altogether without fault; for he does wrong to none, but as it is written Rom. 2:6., "He will render to every man according to his works." Therefore it follows that our good is not good, unless his mercy reigns over us, which forgives; but that it our good is evil, since his judgment is against us, which gives to every one his due. This is the way to teach fear and hope in GOD. But this wisdom of godliness my detractors condemn and inflate their works, deprive people of the fear of God and hope, and make them arrogant with their pernicious teachings by inventing a good work worthy of praise, reward and glory, as Latomus also barks here.

I have also proven this breathing with this passage of Isaiah, and quite correctly, as far as I can see so far; yes, it stands even firmer for me now than before the foolishness of Latomus. For Isaiah wants, since God is angry and cast His people into captivity and desolation, that God now acts with them not according to His mercy, but according to His judgment, yes, in His wrath. And although there are also righteous and pious men in this judgment, whose righteousness could have been considered pure, outside the judgment under the rule of mercy, it is of so little use to them now that they are like the very last and most impure sinners. For the Lord does not acknowledge them in his wrath, but gives the righteous along with the wicked, and will not be held back. But what does he do but hold those who are righteous and make them appear as if they were not righteous? In this judgment, however, because he judges righteously and truly, they must necessarily be righteous and yet impure at the same time. And so he shows how no one can rely on his righteousness, but only on his righteousness.

1098 L.V.Ä.V, 432-434. VHI. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1351-1353. 1099

on God's mercy. In this sense also Job Cap. 9, 22. speaks: "This is the one thing I have said: he kills both the pious and the wicked." For he does not speak of a fictitious pious man, and yet he does not kill him unjustly. So also here Isaiah understands the truly righteous and pure. For the Spirit speaks in the spirit of the pious, not of fictitious righteous or in the person of fictitious righteous. It is the truest righteousness and yet, as it were, impure, because it suffers everything that the impure suffer, not innocent before the righteous God, but innocent before men and in our conscience.

In this sense it is also said in Ps. 44, 18. f., where those who endured much evil say: "All this has come upon us, yet we have not acted unfaithfully in your covenant; our heart has not fallen away, nor our walk departed from your way", that is, what he says in Jeremiah Cap. 49,^1^ ) v. 12 says: "Behold, those who were not guilty of drinking the cup must drink; and thou shalt go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you must drink also." In what way did they not fall under judgment, and yet they had to drink? Namely, in their conscience and before men, as was the case with Job, whom the Lord testifies there as innocent, while in the 9th chapter he says quite differently, otherwise the righteous God would not have chastised them. For Jer. 30,^2^ ) 11. he again says: "I will chastise you in judgment, so that you will not consider yourself innocent." So we all sin before him when he should judge, and perish when he is angry, while yet, when his mercy covers us, we are innocent and pious, both before him and before all creatures. This is what Isaiah says here.

It should be noted that the one who does righteousness does not mean the one who does righteousness, as in Ps. 15:2: "the one who does righteousness"; he calls all such righteousness unclean; but the one who does righteousness.

  1. In the original: Cap. 48.
  2. In the original: 31.

He is the maker, that is, the author of righteousness, so that righteousness may be found in his days, as it is said in Jer. 23:5, "There shall be a king who shall reign and establish justice and righteousness in the earth"; and Ps. 119:121, "I am over the righteousness and justice." For it is happy and joyful times when there are authors of righteousness, who, however, must necessarily at the same time be dispensers of righteousness. And this whole passage laments just that, that although there are good and righteous, they nevertheless cannot establish righteousness in this time of wrath, by which the wrath of God would be subdued and stopped, but they are destroyed together with the wicked, since their righteousness is considered to be nothing, because the wrath of God does not allow them to accomplish anything at all; how then this passage can be further elaborated at my peril.

"You met the joyful" 2c When the times are joyful and righteousness flourishes, which is definitely the realm of your grace, then you are also gracious, you meet them and receive them with open arms, they call on your name and you hear them, they set out and find you, they hold you and you spare them all, as in the time of Moses in the wilderness. Then is found: to walk in thy ways, then is found: to remember thee, to praise thee, and to thank thee for the benefits that are poured out. But now, when your wrath is raging and the times are sad, we are nothing but sinners, you are not met, not found, nor held. Though there be good and righteous, yet there is none among them that riseth up and taketh hold of thee, or calleth thy name for us; for neither dare they: here is no praise of thee for good deeds, but only lamentation for our evil. And as at the time when righteousness flourished, the sins of others also became white as snow, and thou didst not punish them, yea, thou didst not reckon them sins, so at this time of wrath, when righteousness has perished, thou also holdest all our righteousness to be impure, and punishest it at the same time with the sins of others, and dragest them along with the evil, thrusting us into the power of our

1100 L. V. L. V, 434-436. 47. refutation of latomus. W. XVIII, 1353-13SS. 1101

unrighteousness and allow us to receive what our sins have earned, so that we are all like the unclean. Thus, when mercy is taken away, our sins carry us away like a wind, against which all our righteousness is powerless.

So also the people say of an enraged prince: No one dares to say anything to him about this matter or to intercede for it, not even children, nor wife, nor friends. So now he complains about the so great wrath of God, that he also treats all righteousness of all the godly as if it were sin and impurity, and they may not and could not call upon or bow to him. But it is quite dull to understand this passage of the godly righteousness of the ungodly, compared with this exceedingly fervent and vehement prayer, which, if it could ever be prayed in a puffy way, can be prayed today, where there are many godly people. But the Antichrist, the pope, has such power that he drags even the elect not only into the evil of punishments, but also into error; and there is no one here who will stand up, stop and call on the name of God for us wretched ones.

That this sense agrees quite nicely with the following, I think, is quite obvious, and it has this defect with my people, like Latomus, that they believe that the Holy Spirit does not speak seriously, but only puts on a kind of fictitious righteousness. But then he would not complain that it would become impure, since it would already be impure. Here he confesses that righteousness is intact, and the question is how it becomes defiled and unclean, in that it does not suffer what tends to be the case with true righteousness, but the opposite, because it does not rise up and hold on to the angry God in the day of wrath, with which it is nevertheless able to do everything in the time of grace. Thus, the wrath and the severity of the judgment take away the righteous with the unrighteous; mercy alone saves all who are saved. Therefore, my dear, you see, I believe that this passage with all that follows, with the actual meaning of the words, with the simplicity and unity of the sense, without the extensive variability of the Lion

of the sophists, is in my favor and is unshakably established, mocking the bark of this Scylla. It is certain, I say, that a good work is impure by its very nature when the cloud of grace is taken away, because it alone, by the pardoning mercy, is hooked for pure, worthy of praise and glory.

Therefore, this passage not only supports my opinion, but also offers an example of this teaching. For the good works outside the pardoning mercy are as we hear Isaiah complain here. And yet, if they were not really unclean and evil, the righteous judge would not deal with them in this way. From this we see how abundant God's grace is over us, how He is gracious to the unworthy, so that we may be grateful from the innermost heart and love and praise these riches of God's glory and grace. This service to God and knowledge of the truth, however, these key-makers and petty sophists, who alone claim to be the illuminators of Scripture, hasten to destroy, while they do nothing other than tear it into many pieces and make it ambiguous and obscure.

This is also an answer to the pompous mockery of Latomus, which he uses to call Luther a very inconsistent man, because I said that this passage does not only apply to the Jews, in whose person I confess it was spoken, but to the saints of all times. This same spirit that Isaiah has here in his time and in his tribulation was also in Job, was also in Abraham, in Adam, and is still in all the members of the whole body of Christ, from the beginning of the world to its end, in every man's time and in every man's own tribulation. Or perhaps Paul 2 Cor. 4, 13. should not have said: "So we also believe, therefore so we also speak"; because he did not have the same rapture (ecstasin) and at the same time as David Ps. 116, 10.. The times, things, and bodies, even the tribulations change, but the same spirit, the same mind, the same food, the same drink of all through all remain. Or, if they do not get this

1102 L. V. E. V. 436 f. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1355-1358. 1103

If the Psalter falls, this shall be my advice to the murderers of Louvain, that they burn the Psalter of David and make a new one, which praises our triumphs over Reuchlin and Luther; for that one tells the old deeds of the Jews, which no longer fit us who are now alive (novos). You blind men and moles, look the Scripture of God in the face, judging by the works and not by the spirit, just as the Jews, standing in the wilderness at the entrance to his tabernacle, saw nothing but the back of Moses, who entered the tent of the covenant of the Lord.

Let's move on now:

Since I had said that this could not be understood by righteousness of the law, which rather puffs up, but does not sigh humbly, as this passage sighs, Latomus says, I presuppose wrongly, since the whole text refers to the arrogant Jews, who ask for temporal deliverance. And this false opinion he proves with splendid prestige, that is with the opinion of Latomus, who believes that this passage is to be understood by these Jews. So these people dare to build on themselves and condemn everything. Therefore, the Holy Spirit must sometimes be haughty in the person of the arrogant and speak peevishly before God. Moreover, Latomus presumes to add in the same presumption that the preceding chapter is to be understood by the same, by the arrogant, who speak arrogantly Isa. 63:17, 19: "Why do you let us, O Lord, err from your ways? We are the same as before, when you did not rule over us," while Isaiah speaks in the same context, in the same spirit.

Furthermore, since I had said that the righteousness of the law is not evil, and only condemned its use, for which it is blamed, Latomus again shows how learned he is in the Scriptures, and introduces the saying 2 Cor. 3, 10.For even that part which was glorified is not to be regarded as clarity against this exuberant clarity"; after that he thinks that I have not understood the saying Ezk. 20, 1) 25: "Therefore I delivered them into doctrine, which is not good".

  1. In the original: 19.

see. If he dealt with me verbally like that, I would think he was joking if he was good, or mocking if he was bad. But for the sake of others, let us say a few things about it. Many have the conviction that Paul is dealing in this passage with ceremonial righteousness, which is abolished, while he is speaking of the whole law and compares law and grace with each other, but not law with law. The error comes from the fact that they consider the gospel to be a doctrine of laws. In short, there are two offices of preaching, one of the letter, the other of the spirit; the letter is the office of the law, the spirit that of grace; the former belongs to the old, the latter to the new testament. The clarity of the law is the knowledge of sin, the clarity of the spirit is the revelation or knowledge of grace, which is faith. Therefore, the law did not justify; indeed, since it was unbearable to human weakness, grace is still covered with it to this day on Mount Tabor. For no one can endure the power of the law if grace does not serve him, therefore Moses was forced to cover his face. Therefore the Jews do not understand the law until today, since they seek to establish their own righteousness and do not want to have it made a sin that they bowed under the righteousness of God. For this is the effect of the clarity of the law, that all become guilty, as it says Rom. 3, 9. Gal. 3, 23.: "He shut up all under sin." Thus the law is the power of sin 1 Cor. 15:56, works wrath and kills Rom. 4:15; 7:11. But the spirit makes alive.

So that Ezekiel says, "I delivered them into the doctrine which is not good, and into the judgments wherein they could not have life," refers to the whole law, not only to the ceremonies, just as Paul's saying, "That part which was transfigured," refers to the same whole law. For the whole law was holy, right and good, as Paul says Rom. 7, 12. But for us, what is good cannot be good because of our infirmity, nor does it make us alive, but kills us; for even God Himself, the highest good, is no good for the ungodly, but the highest

1104 v-"- V 437-439. 47. refutation of latomus. W. xvin, 1358-1360. 1105

Terror and torment, as it is said in Hos. 5:12: "I am a word to Ephraim, and a maggot to the house of Judah," and v. 14. "I am as a lion to Ephraim, and as a young lion to the house of Judah."

It is therefore an error of our magisters, who know nothing at all in the Scriptures, neither what law is, nor what grace is, neither what ceremonial is, nor what legal is, ever understood; therefore they become ashamed and conclude one thing for another. So I say, just as the law of the ten commandments is good if it is kept (that is, if you have faith, which is the fulfillment of the law and righteousness), so it is death and wrath and not good for you if you do not keep it, that is, if you have no faith, however much you may do its the law's works. For the righteousness of the law, even of the ten commandments, is unclean and abolished by Christ, yea, more than the ceremonial law, for this very [righteousness of the law) is properly the covering before the face of Moses, which is taken away by the glory of faith. So you will keep the ceremonial law, however good it is, if you keep it, not by works but by faith, that is, if you do it in such a way that you know that righteousness is not in it but in faith. On the other hand, it is not good, death and wrath, if you keep it apart from faith, and is as much as if you did not keep it. It is clear, then, that the whole law is the killing letter, but the life-giving spirit is grace in faith in Christ.

Since he gave them the law of the letter through Moses and not the law of faith, he God in Ezekiel 20:25 rightly says that he did not give them a good or life-giving teaching, since it could not make anyone good and alive. But grace is the law of life, which makes good, alive and righteous. And so Paul wants the ministers of the New Testament to be ministers of grace, not of the law, because their ministry is not the ministry of Moses, for that was already done, but the ministry of Christ, that is, to preach the clarity of grace. And I would like to hear from our

How do they know that Ezekiel and Paul, 2 Cor. 3, speak of the ceremonial law? Will they not refer to their head alone or to the testimony of a man? For these impure swine go about tearing out the sayings of Scripture without thought and understanding them as they please, and yet they presume to fight for the faith without first examining their weapons to see if they are painted or real.

But since I handled that passage of Isaiah: "All our righteousness" and "We are all unclean" in such a way that I urged it to be a general one, because it says: "all" and "we", "all" and "our", this hair-sharp dialectician reverses the proof and speaks: One must rather conclude thus: he does not say "all," but "we all," nor "all righteousness," but "all our righteousness," since he wants this to apply only to the godless Jews, not to believers or to all. This is already sufficiently refuted, since it is based only on the mere vacillating opinion of Latomus, but I have proved that it fits mainly to the believers, and just to the best.

But the so rich theologian has another evasion (he says): "Supposing he had simply said 'all righteousness' and 'all are unclean,' this is still to be drawn to a part, to some," again calling upon his protector, either the hyperbole 1), or the synecdoche, here. But if you say to him: from where do you prove that here is a figurative way of speaking and must be accepted, he answers: "Because it is found in other passages of Scripture (as was proved above), like [Is. 1, 5.): Here you see again that the magister Latomus is free to invent figurative sayings in every passage without distinction and to play his game with the Scriptures according to his will; and this is called to lions: to weigh the testimonies of the holy Scriptures according to the magisterial way, to teach thoroughly and to overcome the heretics happily. For according to this magisterial way I also will easily defend that this saying of Je-

  1. I. e. the exaggeration of a thing.

1106 D. V. 8. V, 439-441. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. xvm, 1360-1363. 1107

saias denotes only One godless Jew, and will also deny Latomus that he can make their righteousness impure from this passage and apply this passage to them, and in this way: If he says, all your righteousness is unclean, I answer, it is, for the sake of figurative speech, to be confined to some only, like the saying, "the whole head is diseased." But let us admit these some, and suppose there were two, and say to them: All your righteousness is unclean; they will answer, no, it is a figurative way of speaking, where the whole is taken for the part. Do you not think, dear reader, that we have done splendid theology? For since it is enough for Latomus to say in the argument that there are similar things in Scripture, I believe that, since he once read that a virgin gave birth, he will make virgins mothers as often as he likes, satisfied that he can show that this once happened in some place.

Now behold the pretension and the manner of the sophists, by which they accomplish nothing but to make everything ambiguous and inconstant. Their own little decree: "Cursed be he who says that the commandments of God are impossible," they enforce with such severity, with such obstinacy, as the words read, that they do not allow a single syllable of a godly interpretation, making heretics of the whole world, if anyone should even complain against it. Why is that? Because it is their thing, taken from men and a purely human word. But as soon as one uses the Scripture of God against them, they are full of innumerable excuses, there is nothing they could think of that would not immediately be an article of faith, and yet they think nothing simple, constant and uniform. I believe that if Christ were to call from heaven today: Luther's opinion is true, they would still find a distinction of the true, so that they would not be forced to return to the right way. But you, dear reader, can take those unfaithful eyes of the fornicating woman Prov. 7 as a testimony that with our magisters there is not even the striving for simple truth, but only for manifold truth.

and inconstant mockery. If I were to work my way through opinions, parables, and diverse interpretations like this, I would not want to be a Christian. For how could I hope to find grounded truth in these storms and floods? So what remains? Without doubt, since Latomus cannot prove that there is a figurative way of speaking here, he will be forced to admit this saying without a picture in the simple and proper meaning and that all our righteousness is defiled and all men are unclean without the mercy of God.

Latomus also attacks another passage, namely Eccl. 7, 21: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin." Here he even threatens me at the end to cease to put a stain on the glory of the saints, because, according to him, the glory of the saints is to be their work without sin; as they say Ps. 3, 4. "Thou art my glory," 1) that is, thou art my good work without sin, and Ps. 89, 18.."For thou art the glory of their strength", that is, thou art their good work without sin; namely, that we make ourselves gods, as they said, Ex. 32, 23: "Make us gods"; which is actually said of good works, which those saints of Latomus boast about. And with this agrees Isaiah 2,^2^ ) 8.: "They worship the work of their hands, which their fingers have made." For the saints of God become ashamed before God in their works and boast in Him alone, as Jeremiah 9, 23. says: "Let not the strong man boast of his strength," and Paul 1 Cor. 1,^3^ ) 31.: "Let him who boasts boast of the Lord." But, as I have said, our magisters speak in this way with too much prudence, so that the thoughts of their hearts might be revealed, that they might have higher thoughts of godliness than the prophets or apostles could conceive. For what Latomus sincerely thinks of faith and works is sufficiently proved by his mouth, which overflows with that of which the heart is full; nature here precedes art, so that he could not conceal it.

  1. Thus the Vulgate. In the German Bible: "You are the one who sets me in honor.
  2. In the original: 3.
  3. In the original: 10.

1108 L. V. a. V, 441 f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. xvm, 1363-1365. 1109

The consequence, the circumstances and (as he calls it) the thread of the speech has left aside here the extremely clever hunter of the testimonies, because he noticed the danger, therefore he first took his recourse to the interpretations of others and then after his kind to another passage of the scripture. Nevertheless, if I had nothing except this saying, I would not insist on this opinion either. But I have based it on it, because I could not present anything satisfactory against it, as Latomus cannot either, nor, as I believe, any other. Because the passage therefore seems to belong here in clear words, and also because no other meaning can be found in it by us, I have connected it, until the Holy Spirit gives a more perfect interpretation, with those who are clear and infallible. I have also often tried to evade it with such glosses on which Latomus relies (elusi), but it has always stood firm, resisted it, and agreed in great agreement with my other passages. For while Latomus adds nothing new, he believes Luther saw nothing of it, and this credulity was enough to cause him to write.

It is easy to say that the saying, "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin," is as much as 1 Kings 8:46, "There is not a man who does not sin." But while in that passage he (the Holy Spirit) connects "a man and a righteous man", further "doing good and not sinning" with each other, in the Book of Kings, on the other hand, he simply says: "man" and simply: "not sinning", so Latomus escapes by fleeing from what follows and from the circumstances, which he had promised to follow after all. But I, who observe them, firmly maintain that it is not my business, as a man of understanding, to assert that "man" and "righteous man," likewise "sinning and doing good" and "not sinning," are one and the same thing. But I fully admit that if Latomus held this passage against me and acted as a defender of this opinion of mine and claimed that man is almost always described in the Scriptures in the evil sense, then I would be wrong.

The meaning is taken for sinners, as Gen. 6, 3. and 8, 21.: "Man will no longer be punished by my Spirit, for he is flesh", and Paul 1 Cor. 3, 4.: "Are you not carnal?"; 1) likewise often: "I speak in a human way" Rom. 3, 5.; likewise: "Of a human day" 1 Cor. 4, 3. and Ps. 82, 7.: "You will die like men" 2c, he would have truly frightened me.

The passage should therefore have been rejected with clear scriptural claims that it did not contain this meaning, or it should have been given way to, if it teaches the same thing that many other sayings do. For it is a testimony, but in its mouth the word will stand only if a second or third saying agrees with it. Therefore, since I do not know how to resolve this passage, I will get rid of its requirement by giving way to it, since other and clearer testimonies will be added until the Spirit reveals that man is as much as righteous man, and doing good and not sinning as much as sinning. So long, however, I will follow what the words say, since (as I said) I would not follow them, but leave them undecided, if they alone were present. But the affirmation of this sense is safer than the denial, even if it alone says this in the whole of Scripture, because in this no one sins when he accuses before God his good works as useless, sinful, even as none at all, and with Job fears all. On the other hand, it would be dangerous, even ungodly, if he praised and extolled only one work before Him. This reason even forces to accept this sense, even if the saying, as Latomus wants, only spoke so for appearance. Now, however, since he goes into it with clear words, and there is only the fear that it might contain something hidden, and the meaning is neither quite dark nor quite clear, the meaning that agrees with godliness, or even no meaning at all, must have preference over one that is godless.

In addition to this, also here in Hebrew "the one who does good" is the one who is the author that good is there, so that it is not only an inherent (perso-

  1. In the Vulgate: Are you not "men".

1110 D° V. L. V. 442-444. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. xvm, 1365-1368. 1111

nalem), but an effective, outwardly gratifying good (bonitatem.), and yet he says that such a one sins, how much more must he make him who exercises the good a sinner! If, however, my knowledge of the Hebrew language were to find credence, I would maintain that in the Hebrew this sense lies, for it reads thus: For there is no man righteous on earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. The first part: "there is no man righteous on earth" certainly proves what Latomus quotes from the books of Kings: There is no man that sinneth not; yea, it proves still more, as is before the eyes. What follows then sets apart that such a one sins even when he does good. For the Hebrews know that the connective word is used superfluously in such expressions, e.g. Gen 17:14: "If a child is not circumcised in his flesh, and his soul is cut off from among his people"; also Ex 12:1, 15: "Anyone who eats leaven, and his soul perishes from among Israel"; so also here: "He that doeth good, and sinneth not" is as much as: he that doeth good, sinneth not.

But Latomus has not refuted this, which forces the consequence, since I said that it seems superfluous that Solomon still adds to a righteous man and speaks, who does good and does not sin, as if another would be righteous, who does not do good; because what he thinks to have made a mockery of falling and sinning has no weight at all. For it is not according to what Beda or any man says that I ask, but according to what they ought to have said. But one must pay attention to the Scripture of God, not only what is said, but also who says it. Nor does it help him that he brings in the other passage from 1 Kings 8, since he was told that he must first prove that this passage has the same opinion and proves against me. For he was not allowed to put something next to it which does not belong to the matter, but had to refute it. Otherwise, why did he not also introduce the saying: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? And how many times,

  1. In the original: 13.

I ask, must one tell him that he should not put next to it, but against it? just as I have not put next to it and the like, but contradictory to those passages. I do not listen to it, so And so is said elsewhere, but that is what I want to hear: elsewhere the opposite is probably said. He does away with his "one can say so" and brings instead the common "one must say so.

And this he must do. For since they have judged, condemned, and burned, and have also been approved by the bull, it would be exceedingly shameful for them that they have based themselves only on what can be said in this way, and have not shown that it must be said in this way. For what will the world think when they show themselves that they have passed such a certain judgment on something so doubtful, have carried it out, and have had it approved? And who would not affirm that Latomus, that defender of truth, when he should have given reason and cause and defended the truth, had become publicly disgraced, and had written with no other intention than to sophistry and ridicule, but not to teach or to defend. For that is too crudely to engage in sophistry and to put the understanding and judgment of the whole world to the test. I do not want anything of mine to be said in this way, but everything that does not have to be said in this way, let it go there and remain to be disputed. Even if Latomus could bring it about that what I have brought forward would not be compelling, this would not suffice for those who give an account, not for those who condemn, not for those who have burned what is mine, as if it not only did not enforce, but should not have been said at all. What frivolity or stupidity is this, that when you have made it the object of your argument to speak of Christ, you immediately take up another song and sing of the Trojan Hector?

Among other things, he also chats against Luther with sophistical (dialecticis) quarrels, as if he were without all logic and ignorant in dialectics, and says: "It is an equally bad conclusion: 'It is not a righteous man who

1112 D- v-v, 444-446. 47. refutation of latomus. W. xvm, 1368-1370. 111Z

He sins with one and the same action, as this conclusion: 'There is no man who lives and does not see death'; consequently he lives and dies at the same time. Or as if someone said: "There is no man who wakes and does not sleep," and one would conclude that he wakes and sleeps at the same time. Likewise: "There is no man who lives and does not eat"; therefore he eats at all times when he lives. So far that one.

Dear, give me one of the schoolboys of Latomus, who has heard one day of dialectics, to test before him his teacher's skill. Say, boy: Is every such conclusion good, that from something impossible everything results what one likes, as the first beginnings have in Aristotle? For example, is this a good conclusion: 3 and 2 are 8, therefore the devil is God, according to the rule: On something impossible follows everything arbitrary. For as soon as the antecedent sentence is correct, the final sentence must also be correct. Is it therefore not just as correctly concluded: There is no man who lives and does not see death, consequently he lives and dies at the same time? For if the antecedent proposition is impossible, since no living man can see death, then from the same antecedent proposition follows also the converse of the conclusion, namely: consequently he does not live and die at the same time. Likewise: There is no man who wakes and does not sleep. Consequently, he wakes and sleeps at the same time. Is this not a correct conclusion? But the opposite also follows: therefore he does not wake and sleep at the same time; for the antecedent is impossible, since the man who wakes cannot sleep; but not vice versa. Does it not also follow that there is no man who lives and does not eat; therefore, if he only lives, he eats and does not eat; yes and no, and all that one only wants to infer? Why then does your teacher deny these conclusions and condemn them? Why does he fool thus in so serious a matter? Or has the bull also approved this glorious deed? Therefore, dear reader, see how blind this sophistical spitefulness is, that it does not grasp even these pupilish beginnings and the common sense.

But it may be some pendant

of Latomus (Latomaster): "Our glorious magisters have willed it so: There is no man who lives and does not see death even in the future' and 'There is no man who wakes and does not even sleep', that is, at any time other than when he is awake; and 'There is no man who lives and does not even eat', but not at any time when he is alive: "There is no man that liveth and eateth not even," but not at any time when he liveth. For from this it does not follow: consequently he lives and dies at the same time, wakes and sleeps at the same time, lives and eats at the same time."

Thanks for the good lessons. But this is to free our splendid magisters from one inconsistency and to plunge them into two others. The first of these is that they do not know grammar, nor do they know the difference between the expression of the present and future time, in that they express a future thing by the present time, at the same time concealing many epithets, perhaps as a punishment for having previously slandered the knowledge of language, and now cannot express these sensations (passiones) of the soul, which, according to Aristotle, as the dialogue of Latomus has it, are the same in all, and, as they intended, are speechless. So I admit that this conclusion is very bad: There is no man who lives and will not see death (as the 89th Psalm has v. 49.), or does not see death at times, consequently he lives and dies at the same time. Equally bad is the conclusion: There is no man who wakes and does not sleep at times, therefore he wakes and sleeps at the same time. It does not follow: There is no man who lives and does not eat at times, therefore, when he lives, he eats. But against whom do these ridiculous conclusions argue? Did Luther say: There is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin at times, therefore he does good and sins at the same time? Who may force this epithet "sometimes" upon me? Who would dare to add it to Solomon?

And this is the second inconsistency of our magisters, of which they are almost always guilty, which is called petitio principii 1). And because Latomus uses it so often, I will not be annoyed.

  1. To use as evidence that which must first be proved.

1114 L. V. a. V, 446 f. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1370-1373. 1115

I would like to leave it to Latomus to remind man just as often whether he could perhaps learn at least some rule of dialectics from this dispute. I say, then, that Latomus should have proved that Solomon's saying included the epithet "at times," thereby limiting sin to the evil works outside the good work. But he, as if it were already proved, takes and proves in the most erroneous way what is denied by what is denied.

. But even if these errors were not, he stumbles in the way of stating something in itself or as something accidental. For I have willed (which will make all the hairs of our magisters stand on end), and I now say, that sin, if one speaks of it in itself (praedicatione perseitatis), is inherent in good works as long as we live, just as the ability to laugh is in man (I speak after the manner of Aristotle, but not of the Sophists, who do not yet know what is "in itself" or "own suffering" propria passio in Aristotle), but eating, sleeping, death are in man only when one speaks of the accidental (praedicatione per accidens). As therefore it does not follow that man has the ability to laugh all the time, consequently he laughs all the time, so it also does not follow that man lives, consequently he wakes, eats and dies all the time. However, just as follows: Man lives, therefore he has the ability to laugh, to eat, to sleep, to die 2c, so also follows: Man does good, therefore he sins. For the man doing good is the basis (subjectum), the sin his suffering, as from Solomon was put to the basis.

Therefore, I want to manage such inferences of being-self better than Latomus and prove my inference with true examples and with necessary ones as necessary. In this way it follows quite correctly: There is no sophist in Leo who treats the Scriptures and does not twist the sayings and does not condemn the truth, consequently in the same action he treats the Scriptures and twists them. For it is the manner of the sophists to treat the Scriptures at times, but it is peculiar to them to pervert and condemn them. Thus it also follows correctly: There is no theological bungler (theologista) at Louvain who

preach, and not speak fables and his dreams, therefore, as often as he preaches, he fables. For a theological bungler presumes the word of God, but his peculiarity is to teach fables instead. Likewise: There is no hypocrite in Louvain who says mass and does not worship an idol; consequently, as often as he says mass, he worships an idol; for all precepts are necessary and intrinsically so, since they cannot be otherwise. You will forgive me, dear reader, this silly talk of mine, and attribute it to Latomus, who was not afraid to slander the truth with such antics in such a serious matter. I wanted to pass over these quibbles, but, mindful of the splendor and the bull, I feared that simple people would believe that these foolish antics were really any good. If they were valid, they would convict my opinion of an incredible inconsistency. That is why he had to be rewarded what he deserved. These are the people whom the pope approves of and calls the faithful cultivators of the Lord's field, only to my displeasure, not out of pleasure in them, which they alone boast about.

But that he adds Jerome, who teaches, "There is no man who does not sin," is as much as if he were not constantly without sin, that is, there is no righteous man who does good who does not sin, must be understood in such a way that he sometimes sins, as one reads of David that he did all the will of the Lord and yet sinned at times. Again, here Latomus brings his, "It can be said so," and yet does not prove that it must be said so. Dear, who doubts that the saints sin at times? But Latomus should have proved that such was Solomon's opinion in the present saying. His second mistake in this passage is that he concludes from something similar. The third error is the petitio principii, because he does not prove the similarity beforehand.

I admit the attracted opinion of Jerome, but I deny that this is the same and same opinion of Solomon. What is to be done now? I, too, will again shout at Latomus: "Do you hear, Latomus, your reasoning that you adopted

1116 L. V. L. V, 447-449. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1373-1376. 1117

is this: A good work is not sin, and the proposition: a good work is sin, you must refute, not prove that: the saints sin sometimes; also not that, refute: the saints never sin. For no one is arguing with you about this. Now Jerome does not even think of this saying of Solomon in this passage, let alone prove that it has the meaning that Latomus brings from it. It is a very tasteless conclusion: Jerome says that the saints sometimes sin and are not always without sin, therefore Solomon wants the same thing when he says: There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin. Why don't you also say: Paul says that a virgin does not sin when she marries, therefore this is the same as Peter says: "Dear brothers, watch and be sober"? You draw conclusions and do not prove them; then you want to force the meaning of one passage into another passage by your own power, as if the whole world had to believe you without any testimony. Bring together as many passages as you want, but be mindful that you must also prove that they have the same opinion that you want them to have. For this, my dear Latomus, was the task you took upon yourself; if you have not accomplished it, you have accomplished nothing. It stands my opinion and my Solomon still firm, and you will be transferred as murderers and robbers of God. But whether Jerome treated correctly the saying, "David did all the will of God," and yet sinned at times, in that he says that God said "all will," but did not add "continually," I leave undecided, since it does not belong to what is before us. We say that all of God's will is done in such a way that He forgives each of our works, as Augustine says: "The commandments of God are fulfilled when that which is not done is forgiven." Here we are not disputing those gross sins with which even the saints sometimes sin, but the daily one that clings to us, just as they themselves speak of a venial one. Jerome's interpretation seems rather harsh to me: all, that is, at times or most, of the saints' sins.

time; however, I do not condemn them because of that figurative way of speaking the synecdoche.

Then he obviously errs in accusing Paul as if he either sinned or did not do a good work when he wrote to Timothy concerning the parchments and as often as he thought of the necessary needs of this life. Now where is that boaster here, 1) who said he wanted to weigh the testimonies, not count them? It is a mistake, I say, to claim that Paul did nothing good in this. Paul himself says much better Col. 3, 17. 1 Cor. 10, 31.: "You eat now, or drink, or whatever you do, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". The ordinary life of the righteous is nothing but good works. For not one claw of his sheep did Christ leave in Egypt. I say this so that the sophists may know that the holy fathers, as they sometimes sinned, which Latomus proves from Jerome in the example of David, so also they sometimes erred, which I prove here in Jerome. Accordingly, their testimonies have the greatest value if they are based on clear scriptural passages; if not, they should not shout to me and boast as if they had won because the testimony of some saint was on their side. We are in the controversy where one must rely on divine and indeed certain and obvious testimonies. Human testimonies, however, may have their validity in confidential persuasion and in a speech to the people.

However, because he uses Paul as an example who did a good work without sin, we also want to undertake this personification (prosopopoeiam). So let us imagine St. Paul or Peter praying, or teaching, or otherwise doing a good work. If the good work is without sin and without any fault, he can stand before God with due humility and say thus: "Behold, Lord God, this good work I have done by the help of your grace; there is no fault or any sin in it, nor does it need your pardoning mercy, which I also do not ask for; furthermore, I want you, according to your true and

  1. Thraso, a boastful officer in Terence.

1118 D. V. a. V, 44S-4SI. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1376-1378. 1119

the most severe judgment. For I can boast to you that you cannot condemn me, because you are just and true; yes, I am sure that if you do not deny yourself, you will not condemn it. There is no more need of mercy, which in this work remits guilt, as your prayer the Lord's Prayer teaches, which here is utterly empty of content, but only justice, which crowns the same."

Do you not shudder and sweat, Latomus? It is certain that all this can be said by such a work-driver, yes, it must be said, because one must speak the truth, especially before God, because one must not lie even for the sake of God. But the truth is that a work that is without sin, worthy of praise but not in need of mercy, does not fear the judgment of God, indeed, may already trust and hope in the Merk itself and the gift of grace received, because we have something that we can even hold up to God Himself and His judgment and truth. Therefore, we do not have to fear Him anymore, nor trust in His mercy. Is it not so, Latomus, that all this must follow and happen? For even if God destroys good creatures, he does not condemn and reject them. So, of course, he could also destroy such a saint with his work, but he still cannot condemn or reject him, because the truth remains firm: "Thou lovest righteousness, and hast ungodly nature." [And so, through the grace of God, we have something that we can hold up against God in this life and before the judgment and safely set aside both His mercy and His judgment.

And where is then the saying Ps. 143, 2.: "Do not go into judgment with your servant, for before you no living person is righteous"? Or is "no living person" a synecdoche here, that is, many or some living? But also Paul says 1 Cor. 4, 4: "I am aware of nothing (see the good works), but in this I am not justified". How not justified, since in a good work there should be righteousness and no sin? Surely you have preached the gospel with all your strength, you have, as Latomus says,

collected a collecte with all virtuous circumstances, which are also demanded by Aristotle. Surely you cannot deny that this work was good, so how are you still a sinner in it? Or are you not a sinner, since you do not call yourself justified in it? Or do you even lie, that you do not call yourself justified, while you are justified? When you hear Latomus, you should not say, "Neither do I judge myself, but it is the Lord who judges me," but you should say, "I judge myself because a good work does not fear his judgment, for he is righteous. So either people like Latomus blaspheme God's mercy and judgment with their works without sin, or you, Paul, lie, even blaspheme yourself the truth taught by them. It cannot stand together: I have a work without sin; and: in this I am not justified. Do not make God unjust, that a good work without sin does not justify. For what should he condemn in it? imperfection? but this is not sin, but a punishment which increases the goodness of the work, so that it may even be better to have many such imperfections than few.

But you say: Jeremiah says Cap. 17, 16: "But I did not flee from you, my shepherd, because I did not desire the days of men, you know that; what I preached is right in your sight", and 2 Kings 20, 3: Hezekiah says: "O Lord, remember that I have walked before you faithfully and with a righteous heart, and have done what is pleasing to you. I answer: but he does not say that he has not sinned just in these things, expressing almost the same opinion as the apostle, "I am well aware of nothing," I have done what was pleasing to thee and all that I was commanded, but in this I am not justified. He speaks only as far as he is conscious. Moreover, the saints in the Psalter and everywhere else invoke the judgment of God for their cause against the opponents. And yet, those who are blameless before men and their conscience are not justified in this before God, but in another, namely in Christ. Therefore, if the Apo-

1120 b. a. v, 451-453. 47. Refutation of Latomus. W. xviii, 1373-1331. 1121

How much more are Hezekiah and Jeremiah not justified in what they say, since it is much greater and more perfect not to be aware of anything than to walk in the truth and do what pleases God. For these can still be conscious of something, as Latomus also proves from Jerome.

Incidentally, it is quite another matter about the Word; for there also Paul dares to say that God cannot lie, nor deny Himself, for the Word is His, not ours, on which we can stand with confidence, even before Him, and say: "I know that thou canst not condemn this, for it is justified in itself, it is not even conscious of any thing, it does not fear thy judgment, nor seek mercy; moreover, we can also hold it against thee, since it is according to thee in all things. "2c But in the use, service, and treatment of the Word we cannot, because here what is ours is added. Therefore Jeremiah well saith, "That which I have preached is right in thy sight." Moreover, we must die for the word, since we are so certain that it is the pure truth; but who should dare to die for its good work, which would be without all error? For even Paul, when he said to Timothy 2 Ep. 4:7, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith, henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me in that day," does not say that he is justified in this, but speaks similarly, as Hezekiah, on condition of mercy, by whose beneficence, being unconscious of anything, he expects the crown of glory. All believers do the same, for hope does not expect wrath but glory, as Titus 2:13 says, not in works but in the mercy of God.

But how? if Latomus and his people wanted to slip away here and say: We do not want it to happen this way, because no one is sure whether he has such a work. What do I hear? Are we stoics or academics, that

we don't think anything is certain? Truly, I do not believe that they are so great. For what would be more inconsistent than to teach good works and at the same time not know what good works are, or yet not be able to show an example. For Paul 1 Cor. 4. by no means doubts, neither David; for he saith not, I am doubtful; but, "I am not aware of anything." And Hezekiah saith not, I am doubtful whether I have done that which is well pleasing in thy sight. And David, Ps. 7:9, saith not, Judge me according to my doubt; but, "According to my righteousness which I have." Again, Paul 1 Cor. 4. doubts not whether his works be in sin; for he saith not, But in this I doubt whether I am justified; but thus, "In this I am not justified." And David saith not Ps. 143:2, Who knoweth whether any living man be justified in thy sight; but, "For in thy sight no living man is justified." For who would be persuaded to do a good work, if he had to doubt what a good work was? Who would want to run in doubt, or on the uncertain, as the apostle speaks 1 Cor. 9:26., and make air-strikes knowingly and premeditatedly? Then there would never be peace in truth, since one must have good works, and no one would know in his whole life when he had them.

Therefore, God has advised us in the best way, since He made us certain of both, teaching Gal. 5:22 that good works are manifest, "but the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace," 2c, and Matt. 7:16: "By their fruits you shall know them." Again, he makes us certain that they are not without fault and sin (lest we put our confidence in them), so that in every work we cannot with doubtful and deceitful confession acknowledge ourselves sinners and be found to have mercy Isa. 57:1, according to the Vulgate; 1 Tim. 1:13. Furthermore, that we might have an unfailing peace, he has given us his word in Christ, upon which we may confidently lean and be secure from all evil. For against the word even the gates of hell with all their sins can do nothing. There is the rock of our refuge, there we can also with Jacob

1122 D. V. L. V. 453-455. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1381-1383. 1123

to wrestle against God and dare to force Him with His own promises, His truth and with His own words (so to speak). For who will judge God and His word? Who also wants to accuse or condemn faith in his word? So let my people, like Latomus, cease to tarnish the glory of God and keep their blasphemous mouths in check, nor set up for ourselves the idol of our doubtful and unbelieving work, lest we too turn our honor into the likeness of a calf eating hay Ps. 106:20.

At the end he is unwilling that they were accused of not understanding what sin is according to the use of the Scriptures. Let us see, he says, in the Scriptures what sin is; then he takes sin in four ways, first for the cause of sin, secondly for the effects or punishment of it, thirdly, the sacrifice for sin, fourthly for the guilt itself, by which the soul becomes guilty. And I wonder why they did not take the same also, fifthly, for the reward of sin; then these fertile discerners, so that we would have the whole Aristotle, could also have taken sin itself and sin as accidental. If I now wanted to ask here: what is this scriptural passage in which this quadruple of sins appeared to Latomus? he answers that Origen and Ambrose call the devil sin, and Augustine the evil desire remaining after baptism or its incitement. From this I conclude that Origen, Ambrose and Augustine are the holy scriptures, in this way not only the gods are increased by the good works, but also the scriptures of the gods are increased by the sins. For what would the gods be if they did not also give us holy writings? Then he denies that he is called a sinner who has sin of the second kind, that is, evil desire or its impulse after baptism.

But let us leave these monstrosities and come to the point. Here I advise you, my dear reader, to be free and a Christian who does not listen to the words of any man.

has sworn, 1) and a constant confessor of the Scriptures. If she calls something sin, beware that you are not moved by anyone's words, since they who want to speak better deny sin itself and want to call it sometimes an imperfection, sometimes a punishment, sometimes a defect, by which they weaken and mock the words of God, since the Scriptures have nothing of it. But you believe that the Holy Spirit knew well how to express His things with suitable words, so that He did not need the little feet of men. For it is unbelievable how Paul torments the sophists by calling Rom. 6, 7 and 8 the evil desire still remaining after baptism sin and not punishment. If they could, they would buy this word with a lot of money.

St. Hilarius rightly held that one may not assert anything apart from the heavenly precept; but whoever would attempt this would either not understand it or would not let others understand it, which also happened to these people with the word sin in this passage of Paul. But the sophists do not realize how inconsistent and implausible it is to call sin the punishment of sin in this passage, and that this cannot be taught on the basis of any other testimony of Scripture, which should be the case in a dispute, so that the opponent's mouth would be shut, as Paul commanded Titus. But not only can they not teach that sin is punishment in this passage, but above all, not even Leo's way of doing theology is able to teach anything here, that at least one other passage would be brought forward from Scripture in which sin similarly denotes this punishment, if he also did not give force to this passage that it is to be understood by such a sin. But since this is the crux of almost the whole question, and the whole confusion of the misshapen mass of Latomus boasts of these gimmicks and ambiguities of the word sin, we must deal with asserting the truth in such a way that the opponent has no more opportunity to challenge it.

  1. In the Erl. Edition: iraturu, which is probably just a printing error, instead of: iuratum.

1124 D.v. L. V. 4S8f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1383-1385. 1125

mock them, but he has, if we cannot prove by Scripture that sin must not be 1) distinguished in this way and must not be taken ambiguously. In truth, neither they nor we can prove this. Therefore, we must remain with the plain and consistent meaning and not go beyond it until a clear passage of Scripture compels us to go beyond it. We must therefore start this a little higher.

Above all, do not doubt that sin is not taken in many ways in Scripture, but in a single, very simple way, and do not let the garrulous sophists deny this to you. But sin is nothing other than that which is not according to the law of God. For the saying is certain, Rom. 3:20: "Through the law comes knowledge of sin," just as, conversely, through sin comes ignorance of the law; for sin is darkness that is illuminated and revealed by the law, so that it can be recognized. But we gladly assert this and rejoice that Scripture very often makes use of grammatical figures, the synecdoche, metalepsis, metaphor and hyperbole; indeed, in no other Scripture are there more frequent figurative modes of speech. Thus, throughout Scripture, heaven is only a simple and definite word denoting the upper world building (maolljuam); yet it is set Ps. 19:1 by a metaphor for the apostles. What the earth means as a simple word everyone knows, but metaphorically it denotes the ungodly who are trampled by vices and all evil. Now, if someone wants to claim that these words nevertheless have many meanings, I answer, "If you will, I do not object, but then what is this dictionary you have that is supposed to teach us the words? since such figurative expressions are in the arbitrariness or, so to speak, in the

  1. Walch had correctly added this little word "not", which is missing in the original.
  2. Synecdoche: a part for the whole, or the whole for a part; metalepsis is a trope, since what follows stands for what precedes; metaphor is an image in a single word, while allegory contains images of things (cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. 22, Tischreden, cap. 52, § 3); hyperbole is exaggeration.

Are they at the pleasure of those who use them? As Horace teaches: 3)

Dixeris sZrsZis, votum si eulliäu Verbum Usäckicksrit zuueturu uovum.

In German: Man kann etwas herrlich ausdrücken, wenn eine scharfsinnige Gedankenverbindung ein bekanntes Wort zu einem neuen macht.

For example, everyone considers flag to be a simple word, but if I say cross flag or flag of the word, everyone sees that a new word has been made out of a well-known word in an excellent way, and if someone wanted to make these splendid new formations into his own meanings, what would come out of it? Will you therefore write in your dictionary: Flag sometimes means the applied cross and the preached gospel? Persius calls the onion clothed with an undergarment (tuumaMm). Is therefore to be written: Note, undergarment means an onion skin?

Therefore, I do not like those Hebrew linguists who attach so many meanings to one word, after the procedure of those Chaldeans Onkelos and Jonathan, whose occupation seems to have been to extract for the unlearned what the Scriptures express with the most beautiful and delicate figures of speech and to render them with a coarse and simple expression. Hence, in this language, those ambiguities have arisen without cause, and a kind of Babylonian confusion of words. For by this diversity the mind and spirit are extraordinarily distracted. If only one simple meaning had been established (as often as it can be done) and all other images and fanciful ways of speaking had been set aside, all this confusion could have been removed in a calm and easy way. Furthermore, one would also help the memory and the intellect in an extraordinary way and at the same time take in the mind with sweet pleasure. For I do not know what power is inherent in this figurative way of speaking that it so powerfully enters and makes an impression, so that every

  1. Of Poetry, v. 47 f.

1126 D. V. E. V, 456-458. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII. 1385-1388. 1127

Man by nature likes to hear and speak figuratively.

Doesn't it sound much more sweet Ps. 19, 1.: "The heavens tell the glory of God", than that: the apostles preach the word of God? And when Moses, 5 Mos. 4, 19. speaks of the heavenly bodies, which should not be worshipped: "That thou worship them not, and serve them, which the LORD thy GOD hath ordained unto all nations under the whole heaven." If you render the Hebrew word in its simplicity with the inclusion of metaphor, you certainly cannot hear anything sweeter, more powerful, more complete; for so it reads in Hebrew: "Which the LORD thy GOD hath ordained to all the peoples under heaven to love." I pray thee, what an instruction to godliness? what an excitement of the senses? what delight is there not in this word? that God, the Lord, has given those stars of heaven to all nations, as it were, to flatter and caress them, so that by his sweetest and most tender goodness he might lure them to himself, and by these gentle benefits invite them to love him, as a mother caresses her child on her knees.

If you now come to me here with double meanings and claim that this word at this point actually means "he has distributed" or, as our translator Vulgate translated, "he has created," then I must indeed yield to you, but how great loveliness you have thereby at the same time robbed me of and, as it were, thrust me out of paradise onto earth, in that you speak all too actually and without a picture, while in the picture I also possessed your meaning no less with pleasure! For the fact that 1) share, portion, lot, inheritance is said of it, who does not see that this comes from the fact that God shows himself friendly to everyone according to his need and makes his caresses our share, so that you can say: This is a demonstration of love by God for me and my share, and therefore the meaning of the word division seems to have been extracted by a metalepsis. To this also belongs the saying

  1. From "to divide out"; from xartior is derived xortio, pnrs.

Gen. 49, 7: "I will divide them in Jacob." But Ps. 5, 10. says: "With their tongues they pretend", instead of with their tongues they caress, which retains the graceful word. Therefore, what you make into three words, as it were, divide, caress and create, you could have summarized with greater grace and clarity in a single word, according to the usage of the authors, who either applied the image or abolished the figure of speech.

Thus, when it is said Deut. 6, 7. "And thou shalt tell it unto thy children," it sounds stronger if thou hadst said [according to the Hebrew[, "And thou shalt sharpen it unto thy children." 2) For that it is not to be a simple narration is proved by the following: "and speak of it when thou sittest in thy house, or walkest by the way, when thou liest down, or risest up." If you want to say against this that "sharpen" does not refer to words, but to iron equipment, so that here this word must mean in the proper sense "to repeat, to tell, to say emphatically," I will admit that, but I still want to believe more in the former than in the more agreeable and perhaps sole meaning. For the emphasis of this word seems also to have been emulated by Paul 2 Tim. 4, 2. where he says, "Stop, whether in season or out of season; punish, threaten, exhort." What does this mean other than that the word of God must be constantly driven and inculcated, sharpened and kept shining, so that no human ordinances find their way in and blunt the word of God and that the word of Ecclesiastes is applied 10:10: "When the iron becomes blunt and the edge remains unsharpened, it must be sharpened again with power.

And Ex. 32:25, where it is said, "Now when Moses saw that the people were made bare; for Aaron had made them bare for the reproach of shame, and had set them bare among their enemies" according to the Vulgate, I will not be hindered from rendering the same better thus, "And Moses saw that the people were made bare (for Aaron had made them bare by his babbling, that he might set them fine)." To this word emulated

  1. Thus in the German Bible.

1128 D. v. a. v, 4S8-460. 47. refutation of latomus. W. xvm, 1388-1390. 1129

Paul to the Galatians 5, 4. 11. and said: "You have lost Christ", and: "The trouble of the cross has ceased", that is, the trouble is over, now no longer active, and also Christ is no longer active in you. In the same way, Aaron with his calf had brought it to this point with the people that it was neither driven by God, nor did God work in it, but, detached from all divine works, it was prepared for the glory of its own righteousness. Do I not summarize in this word beautifully not only the nakedness itself, but also what it is and indicates? namely, that it would come, as Aaron had also done there, that the priests would withdraw the people from the law of GOD and, if it were now free from the divine effects, would set it up in their the priests' own works; as Paul also speaks sGal. 6, 13.: "They want you to be circumcised, so that they may boast of your flesh." For Moses touches this glory when he says that the people were made loose by Aaron, and yet made to his shame, that he might be branded with it himself, since at his instigation the people had become so; which Jerome expresses, "for the shame of filth, and had put it merely among the enemies," which yet has no reference either to the matter or to the wording, for one wanted to make everything ambiguous, which I will not deny. From this word 1) the king of Egypt has the name Pharaoh, because he is the king of such a people, which was free from the works of God and only active in its own works.

Now one more thing. In Psalm 119. the word "consider" is frequently repeated; e.g. v. 24., "Thy testimonies are my consideration"; and [v. 16. 117.This is expressed in various ways in different versions, but I can easily summarize them all in one meaning, namely, what is usually expressed in German: "freundlich zu ihm thun, fein zu ihm stellen," 2) as it is written in Genesis 4:4 ff: "Und der HER sahe graciously an Habet und sein Opfer; aber

  1. Namely from
  2. Given in German by Luther himself.

Cain and his sacrifice he looked not graciously upon." Else Prov. 8, 30.: "I had my pleasure daily"; and again v. 31.: "My pleasure is with the children of men." Isa. 17:7, 8: "In that day shall a man cleave unto him that made him, and his eyes shall look unto the Holy One in Israel, and shall not cleave unto idols." Further, Isa. 66:12: "On their knees shall they keep you kind"; again, Isa. 6:10: "And blind their eyes." I pray you, all these meanings may be right, so that one and the same word "consider" may mean to keep, to have one's pleasure, to look upon, to keep kindly, to dazzle, and perhaps more. But is it right to make so many meanings out of one word, when you could either combine all of them, or most of them, into one meaning and change them just by figurative speech? God saw Habel," that is, while he was doing this, he inclined his mind toward him. "Wisdom has her pleasure daily," that is, while she does this, she inclines her mind to all and ingratiates herself in a kind way with the children of men. In this way, man turns sweetly to God, as a mother caresses the child on her lap and fixes her gaze on his gaze and caresses herself against him. Thus he blinds their eyes, making them now voluntarily fix them on their aspirations, and they are thus closed. Thus "your testimonies are an afterthought" by turning only to them with contempt of everything else. In short, I sum up all this diversity by turning to things, judging, preparing, gladly and from the heart.

This I want to have said for the purpose of proving that the Scriptures are full of figurative expressions; but we must not therefore make as many meanings and words as there are figurative ways of speaking, for what need is there of figurative ways of speaking? And to return to my task, Christ, being sacrificed, was made sin for us, but in a figurative sense, being in all things so like a sinner, condemned as such, forsaken, and put to shame, that he differed in nothing from a true sinner, but that

1130 D. V. E. V, 460-462. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1390-13S2. 1131

he did not himself commit the guilt and sin he bore. Thus in the 69th Psalm v. 5 he says: "I must pay that which I have not stolen"; so that there is no doubt that he confesses them as his own, he says there v. 10: "The reproach of those who reproach you falls on me"; and again v. 6: "You know my foolishness, and my debts are not hidden from you." But there must be in the metaphor a difference from the real thing; because similitude (similitudo) (as they say) is not exactly the same with the thing (identitas). And what is transferred is transferred according to similitudinem, otherwise it would not even be a transfer. And Paul looked at this when he said Rom. 8, 3: "God sent His Son in the likeness (similitudinem) of sinful flesh"; and Hebr. 4, 15: "He was tempted in every way, as we are (pro similitudine), yet without sin." And in this rendering there is a metaphor not only in the words but also in the content. For in truth our sins have been transferred from us and put on him, so that everyone who believes just this has in truth no sins, but, transferred to Christ, they are swallowed up in him, since they now no longer condemn. Just as the figurative way of speaking is more charming and powerful than the simple and coarse, so also true sin is troublesome and unbearable to us, but the transferred and metaphorical one is exceedingly pleasant and salvific. Therefore, as Christ is in truth called the rock by the apostle, 1 Cor. 10:4: "But the rock was Christ," so also Christ is in truth sin. Likewise Christ is the brazen serpent, the paschal lamb, and all that is said of him; but therefore we do not say that "brazen serpent" are two words, any more than "rock." No one has ever said: Paschal lamb means in one way a piece of cattle, in another way Christ. No one has said: Aaron means Christ in one way, the son of Amram in another way. No one has said, David is in one way the son of Jesse, in another way Christ; Solomon is in one way the son of David, in another way Christ. And yet we say with truth

Christ is David, Solomon, Aaron and all those models of the Old Testament. And because of this Christ, who is made sin, also what is similar to him (sua similitudo) is called sin, namely the sacrifice of the Old Testament, so that not the difference but the similarity with sin remains in everything, which gives rise to figurative ways of speaking and makes the word common. But they treat the word sin in such a way that its four kinds are more unequal than heaven and earth. By this inequality the mind is dulled, the soul is confused, and the whole grace is ruined, both in word and in substance. In this way Paul speaks, where he speaks of sin in Rom. 8, 3. "And he condemned sin in the flesh by sin," that is, by that sin for which he made Christ; since our sin was transferred to him, he condemned our sin; about which we will now see.

We say, then, that the sophists do not in truth know what sin is according to the language of Scripture. For in calling it a punishment, they imagine it to be something quite different from sin, which the Scriptures do not do; for, as has been said, Christ was like sin in everything, except that he did not commit sin. For all the evil that is in us after the deed of sin, namely fear of death and hell, Christ felt and bore; but that little sin of theirs of an accusation (reatus) and imputation to punishment they themselves do not understand. For Christ felt that imputation and was like the one who is imputed in this way, although without guilt. But what is this imputation that should not be felt? It is nothing. Therefore, Christ (as said) at that time was not different in anything from the very last sinner who had already received the sentence of death and hell and was now to be condemned. That imputation was in force, the only thing missing was that he did not deserve such imputation and, without having done anything, was handed over to it for us; although this matter must be dealt with and grasped more by feeling than by words. Yes, we say still further, the Sophists grasp well to some extent.

1132 L. V. k. V, 462 f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. xvm, 1392-1395. 1133

what the essence of sin is, namely offense against God and transgression of the law of God; but how it is constituted, according to the category 1) of size, nature, relationship, activity and suffering, of this they know nothing here. Therefore, I will deal with it here in such a way that I will only answer once to everything that Latomus has brought forward, so that the booklet will not become excessively large if I go through everything in detail; for one must spare the reader.

So, to speak very roughly for the sophists, let us deal with sin according to their categories, whether they might follow us. Sin without metaphor, wherever it may be found, is in truth sin according to its nature, and the one is not more sin than the other, according to the peculiarity of the being, which does not tolerate more and less. But one may be greater and stronger than the other, just as one being is greater than the other; for the fly is not less a being than man, the weak man not less than the strong. Furthermore, lest they catch me in words, I take "being" here not according to the custom of Aristotle, but according to that of Quintilian, in such a way that of every thing in the world one can first say what it is, then how great, then how it is constituted, and so on; as Aristotle also always observes, as often as he discusses something; but the Sophists also assign to each category its essence (quidditatem). For thus, if one wants to deal with justice, one must arrange the main points (locos) of speech according to the categories, first, what it is, according to its essence; then, how great it is, how it is constituted, to whom it belongs, what it deals with, what it suffers, where it is, at what time it is, what it has, how it behaves. For this understanding of the categories would, in my opinion, be immensely useful for eloquence, for memory, for the mind, and for the knowledge of things, if it were properly practiced; but it is completely unknown to the sophistical schools.

  1. The philosophers distinguish different types of statement, which they call categories. Aristotle has ten of them: essence, size, nature, relation, place, time, circumstances, ability, activity, suffering.

This essential sin (as said before) the sophists understand to some extent; but after baptism and after the infusion of God's power, it is such that it is not yet completely nothing, but it is broken and subdued, so that it is no longer able to do what it was able to do. But what was it able to do? It made us guilty before God, plagued the conscience tyrannically and dragged it from day to day into greater evil. It was powerful in size, nature and activity, it ruled in place and time, because everywhere and at all times, in all powers, at every hour it kept the upper hand. In the category of suffering, however, it was nothing, for it did not bear the punishment of the law; it did not even want to be touched. Then she had knocked out her seat in the heart, turned her face downward and hurried toward hell. Furthermore, her relationship was the very worst, because she opposed grace, an object of God's wrath and anger. Thus she ruled; we served her.

But when the kingdom of God had come, this kingdom was divided, the prince of the world was cast out, and the head of the serpent was trampled down except for the yeast and a few remnants, which are to be exterminated. Thus, after the children of Israel entered the land of Canaan, all the kings were killed and their power was trampled underfoot, but the remnant of the Jebusites, Cananites and Amorites remained (as Judges, Cap. 1, is written), a natural and genuine part of those extirpated peoples, but in such a way that they were servants, but did not rule or equal the children of Israel, whom later David, when the kingdom was established, completely exterminated. Thus, having been called into the kingdom of faith through the grace of baptism, we too attain dominion over sin, all its powers having been crushed. Only in the members there still remain remnants that murmur unwillingly and have the kind and nature of their exterminated race about them, which we must eliminate by our own struggle. But this will happen when our David will sit on the throne of his majesty after the fortification of the kingdom.

Around this leftover sin revolves

1134 D. V. a. V. 463-465. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. LVIII, 1395-1398. 1135

the question between me and the sophists, whether it is in truth to be considered sin or not? And, as it is said, they cannot deny that it is called sin by the apostle, as they would like, therefore they take refuge in the interpretations and distinctions of the fathers, so that they have even brought it about that the word of Paul is silenced in the whole world and there is no one left who calls this sin by the name as Paul calls it; making this out to be an inconsistent and dangerous name, as if the Holy Spirit had not been careful enough, or had not known the right words with which to speak of his own things without danger, and to teach us to speak.

Therefore, in order to reintroduce the use of the Pauline word, let us here deny all the sayings of all the fathers in one heap, they may call this remnant evil desire, weakness, punishment, imperfection, error or whatever else they want. We hold up to them our apostle Paul, that is, the apostle of the Gentiles, the so fruitful writer, who calls it not only sin in one place, but sin at all times, and never punishment, never imperfection, never weakness. Even Augustine, although he is the highest of all, was not allowed to change Paul's word and invent another one for it.

So we say: If they prove, whether from the inconsistency of the opinion, or from the context, that this sin is not truly sin, then we will yield and admit that sin in this place does not mean sin, but punishment, but otherwise we will not yield even to an angel from heaven who would say otherwise. What more do you want, you sophists? And I certainly consider the fathers excused, who, partly in temptation, partly forced by necessity, firmly denied that sin remained after baptism, because they argued with those who downright denied grace. Therefore, in order to emphasize it grace, they claimed that all sins were taken away. And their speech was very fine and puffing with the subject of which they were dealing, for

the opponents argued with regard to the prevailing sin and denied that it is taken away, which is ungodly; for in truth the whole sin is erased, that it now absolutely no longer prevails. Yet Augustine himself in many places calls it plainly, both error and sin, e.g. in the Epistle to Jerome, wherein he says that no one has so great a love in this life that it should not increase. "And that which is lacking underneath is a defect," he says, and then goes on to say, "For the sake of this defect no living person is justified before God. For the sake of this defect, if we would say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. For this fault there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not find." So much for Augustine. Here you see that Augustine also understood this scriptural saying in such a way that the one who does good sins because he works in the love that is not yet sufficiently established, which he calls error, by explaining that nothing else is lacking in such a work than complete love. Is this not clear enough?

But also Latomus cites some of the same, where he always refers to the same opinion as an error; although I, as I said, do not absolutely believe Augustine, so that the opponent does not say that I only rely on him, where he is in my favor. For my sake, he may contradict himself, as Latomus enforces, that does not deprive me of anything. However, since Latomus was struck on the head by these thunderbolts, so that he was out of his mind and not with himself for a long time, and saw that he had condemned Augustine in Luther, which all the sophists could not see before the presumption 1), he thought when he finally came to himself again: What shall I do? It is a shame to be defeated. This is what I want to do; I want to imagine that the Latin language, together with the Greek and Hebrew, has been wiped out by the power of my dialogue 2) on the entire globe, or, if there are still some surplus languages, that they have been destroyed.

  1. ante tsiEi-itatsm, i.e. before they vermefsentlich burned Luther's books.
  2. This refers to Latomus' writing published in 1519: vs trinru UnZnarnm, 6t studli tÜ6oloZIoi ration6 äialoZnL.

1136 D. V. a. V, 465-467. 47. refutation of latomus. W. XVIII, 1398-1406. 1137

I will say: just as I say of this sin that it is not sin, so that is not a language; for the pope has approved of our deed; so it will be easy for me to force all the rest of the world to get the meanings of the words from the theological faculty of Louvain. Therefore, because the word "error" occurs so frequently in Augustine that it is even more hostile than the word "sin" in Paul, we have decreed and commanded by virtue of our faculty that it should mean an error as we want it to mean, namely, an imperfection, not something that is lacking and yet need not be lacking, or something that would go against the law of God. But if anyone should say otherwise, let him know that he will fall into the disfavor of the bull and into its tail 1). Given under the seal 2c

I ask you, my dear reader, who are astonished that I thus play my game against these sophists, whether my grief is not justified at such outrageous presumption and insolent intrigues? Should I not mock them? since they are not satisfied to have the Scriptures of God, the sayings of the Fathers, the convincing reasons for mockery, but also continue to muzzle the whole world and virtually turn all men into beasts, as if we did not even understand our language. All centuries, the whole world calls "fault" also that which is contrary to moral virtues, and the expression is quite common of vices and virtues, even their Aristotle calls sins no other than "faults". And yet they dare to step out, want to deny our, their, divine and all things, and speak to the face of all that "error" is not only not said against virtues, but also not against grace. Then behold, lions, your murderers, the enemies of languages and of truth; and you, Roman Antichrist, behold, your planters!

Therefore, let us despise these whores and join Augustine with Paul; what the latter calls sin, the latter calls

  1. I.e. that he will incur the wrath of the Bull's adherents.

Fault. But error, we know, is something that has guilt and reproach and is worthy of punishment, even in bodily things. This is what the whole Latin language says. Let us therefore hear Paul on sin, who Rom. 8, 3. f. thus speaks: "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemning sin in the flesh by sin, that righteousness, required by the law, might be fulfilled in us, who now walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." What does this mean: sin is condemned by sin? We have said that Christ was made sin for us, as it is said in 2 Cor. 5:21: "He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become in him the righteousness that is before God." Here he puts both kinds of sin in both places: the metaphorical or allegorical is Christ; a sin by which he condemned our real sin. For that our sin is taken away, to whom do we owe this but to Christ, who was made sin for us; not at all to our powers or merits, but to the sin of GOD, that is, to Him whom GOD made sin? I ask now, why did he not say, "he destroyed sin," but carefully puts, "he condemned sin"? Because we do not believe with the Louvain sophists that Paul lacked the words, who was to be a chosen armor, foreseen to speak also in chosen and proper words. Who then is condemned? Then he adds, "in the flesh," by which he virtually asserts that it is sin in the flesh, but damned. He is condemned who has not only been caught in the act of highway robbery or committed a serious crime, who has not only been caught and imprisoned, but who has been judged and led to execution after a death sentence has been passed, so that nothing more can happen to him than that he be put to death, even if he has not yet been executed. What virtue has such a murderer?

So also through baptism sin is caught in us, judged, and completely debilitated, so that it is powerless, and is given over to complete destruction. But whoever consents to this damned sin, he perishes

1138 L. V. Ä. V, 467 f. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1400-1403. 1139

John 16:8, 11: "The Spirit will punish the world for the judgment that the ruler of this world is judged. We must believe that sin is condemned and that this judgment is right, and carry it out. But what are the bonds of this captivity? Is. 11, 5: "Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faith the girdle of his kidneys." So it is said in Ps. 68, 19: "Thou hast ascended on high, and hast caught the captivity; thou hast received gifts for men." But who does not know that a robber, when he is free, is a robber in the same way as when he is a prisoner? But his power is extinguished, so that nothing is weaker than he, since death is very near to him, he only cannot do what a robber would like to do; he is therefore miserable, but still a robber, for if he were let go, he would do what a robber does. So also sin in us after baptism is really sin, according to its nature, but only in its essence, not in its extension, not in its nature, not in its activity, but in suffering completely. For there is absolutely the same impulse to anger and to pleasure in the godly and the godless, the same before grace and after grace; but in grace it does nothing, apart from grace it reigns. Therefore Paul saith Rom. 8:2, "The law of the Spirit, which maketh alive in Christ JEsu, hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Why did he not say, "has made me free from sin and death"? Has not Christ made us free at the same time from sin and death? But he Paul is talking about the actual work of the law of the Spirit, which is to accomplish what Christ deserved. Christ, however, has absolved and freed all at once from sin and death, earning for us "the law of the Spirit which quickeneth." So what has this Spirit of life done? He has not yet set us free from death, he has not yet set us free from sin; but he will set us free from it one day; for we must still die, still labor in sins. But from the law of sin and death he has set us free, that is, from the kingdom and tyranny of sin and death, so that sin does exist.

but has lost its dominion and is unable to do anything; and death is still imminent, but since it has lost its sting, it can no longer harm or frighten. See already two passages in which Paul calls the evil that remains after baptism sin.

Therefore Paul commands Rom. 8, 13. and Col. 3, 5. to kill the members that are on earth, anger, shameful lust, avarice and the like, using clear words and calling them no longer just sin but by their own names: Wrath, shameful lust, avarice. But these new linguists will persuade us that these are not names of vices and sins; for the apostle writes to the saints and believers. They may therefore imagine that shameful rutting is not a vice in this place, but a punishment of sin and a certain imperfection, not against the law of God. Was it not also a punishment of sin before baptism? Why was it sin then? Or did the imputation alone change the matter and the essence? Therefore, you will have to fill almost the entire Paul with new words and scratch out the old original ones. Thus Rom. 6:12: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to render unto it obedience in the lusts thereof." What could have been said more clearly? Sin is in the body, and the lust for it, but one should see to it that it does not reign. Here is already the third passage. The fourth is there v. 14: "For sin shall not have dominion over you, because ye are not under the law, but under grace." Behold, he writes to such as live under grace, saying that sin shall not have dominion over them; which must be understood worse, not of the outward, but of the inward. For who can resist the outward and prevent another from sinning? The fifth passage there v. 6: "Our old man is crucified together with him Christ, that the sinful body might cease." Our man, he says, is crucified, and yet the sinful body must cease in the same people, in us. In no way does he mean to say that he Christ destroys the imperfect body or the sinful body. Behold, there we have five clear-

1140 D. v, K. v, 468-470. 47. Refutation of Latomus. W. xvin, 1403-1405. 1141

There are only a few passages in which Paul mentions sin, not counting those which we have not yet listed, where he uses individual names of sins. And these smoke-selling, miserable people want to force all these heavenly thunderbolts to give way to them, on an invented, miserable explanation, which they have put forward from their own head and which has not even been proved with a single scripture. For of the seventh chapter, which belongs entirely here, we will deal below.

What now? Are we sinners? Rather, we are justified, but by grace. Righteousness is not based on the forms of condition, but on the mercy of God. For indeed, if you take away mercy from the pious, they are sinners and have true sin; but because they believe and are under the realm of mercy, and sin is condemned and continually killed in them, it is not imputed to them. Such is this exceeding glorious forgiveness through baptism; and certainly, if the matter be considered attentively, it is almost greater to count him righteous who is still afflicted with sins than he who is altogether pure. May it not be said, then, that baptism does not take away all sins? In truth, it takes away all, not according to the essence, but only mostly according to the essence and the whole sin according to its powers, at the same time it also takes away the same daily according to the essence, so that it may be destroyed. And I am not the only one or the first among men after the apostles who says this. The words of Augustine are: "In baptism all sin is remitted, not that it is not, but that it is not imputed." Do you hear? There is still sin after forgiveness, but it is not imputed. Is it not enough for you that this unspeakable mercy of God justifies you completely from all sin and keeps you as if you were without sin, only that you should continue to kill what is already condemned by Him and set near death? Latomus, then, shows an inconsistency, and forces that the apostle is not to be understood of true sin in the proper sense of the word. But, you will say, the "not

To be imputed" is as much as no sin. This is what I want, that it should not be attributed to the nature of the work, but to mercy, which does not impute it. But Latomus sets aside the pardon of mercy altogether, and wills that it be not sin according to its nature; but this is a robbery of God.

Hereby, I believe, it is defended that every good work is sin, if mercy does not forgive. For even they themselves cannot deny that the fruit bears the nature of the tree. But of the tree it is already proved that it is not without sin, though it is already condemned and forgiven; therefore also its work is not without sin, though it is condemned and forgiven. Here also Augustine says in the first book of his Retractations, Cap. 19, where he discusses whether the commandments of GOD are fulfilled in this life, and concludes, "All the commandments of GOD are fulfilled, if that which is not done is forgiven." Does he not clearly say here, not by the works done, but by the forgiving mercy of GOD would the commandments be fulfilled? But what is forgiven if not sin? So it is clear that the sophists hang on to mere sophistical twisting of words when they say it is not sin, and yet admit that it is called sin by Paul, so that according to them you can say: the good work is not sin and yet is that which is called sin. In the same way before from the impossibility: The commandment of God is not impossible and yet is that which is called impossible; as if you imitated Demodocus in Aristotle and said: The lions are not fools, but they do what fools do, namely, they make such a game that they do not allow the words "sin" and "impossible" to be used publicly in any sense at all, for no other reason than because they have contradicted, lest our magisters should be disgraced by the truth.

And because we have talked about sin here, I want to remind the reader in advance, so that he may have something to answer briefly to all the objections of Latomus. First of all, notice how Latomus goes along in everything-

1142 L. V. L. V, 470-472. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1405-1408. 1143

as if the sin I claim is nothing and as if it has long since been overcome, as is the way of the sophists to triumph before victory and to assume in the most erroneous way that which is first to be proven as proven. Therefore, whatever he can gather from the Scriptures and the Fathers, in which it is denied that the faithful sin, that, he believes, belongs here, so that he may refer me. So you use Paul's word to Romans 6:12: "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body", so that you know that it is something else, sin reigns, and something else, sin is reigned. Do you understand? For so you can also say, after the manner of Latomus, that it is something else, wanting sin, and something else, performing sin, while it is the same sin, such as theft or murder. Say, then, when he comes with clouds of testimonies: Lord Counter and not Hunter of Testimonies, you prove very well that there is not sin ruling in the saints or their works, but you do not prove that ruled sin is not there, like the one to which Paul points when he says: "Do you not render obedience in their 1) lusts"; their, their, do you hear it, Mr. Latomus? Theirs, that is, sin, which shall not reign in the body, and yet is in the body with its lusts. For Luther never said of the reigning sin that it was in the saints; so you do not do right that you promise something different than you deliver; you want to refute Luther and refute some dream image that you have made.

Z. For example, when Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 28: "If a virgin is free, she does not sin; and if you are free, you do not sin." This is what Ew. Glory states against Luther, and you do not prove that it is the same with: "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body"; consequently he speaks of reigning sin, which the whole context proves, because he speaks of the saints,

  1. According to the Vulgate. In some editions of the German Bible, e.g. the Weimar of 1686 and the Hirschberg, Rom. 6, 12: "in their lusts" refers to "sin" as it is taken here; while other editions have: "in his lusts" referring to "body".

in which there is no sin. Did not Luther also say, much stronger than you, according to 1 John 3:9: "Whoever is born of God does not sin and cannot sin"? For being born of God and sinning contradict each other. "The virgin freeth and sinneth not" is less than "she cannot sin". Paul expresses this in Rom. 6, 14: "Sin will not be able to reign over you," that is, you cannot sin, "because you are not under the law, but under grace."

For even Latomus, who says, "If a virgin is free, she does not sin," and Luther, who says, "If a virgin is free, she cannot sin," cannot deny that a free virgin sins in the performance of the duty of the flesh, as all unanimously declare, and Ps. 51:7. proves, "Behold, I am begotten of sinful seed, and, my mother conceived me in sins." How, then, does the freewoman sin and yet not sin? Or does Latomus mean to limit the word "free" to mean that it is only used in betrothal before the conjugal meeting? I do not believe that he wants to practice his sophistries so openly, but he may do so. What then does he want to say to the commandment that he Paul sends there before v. 3: "The husband owes the wife friendship, likewise the wife to the husband"? Does he not here teach the work of generation in sins of which David speaks? But the free man surrenders to this work from the heart. But also Latomus says that the saints sin more often, so also a virgin can be free, that a venial sin runs along; consequently, a virgin who frees, contrary to the apostle's teaching, must sin.

But behold the bold apostle, who, without seeking the consent of the theological faculty at Louvain, goes on to say v. 5., "Withdraw not one from another, except by the consent of both for a season, that ye may have leisure to pray; and come together again, lest Satan tempt you for your unchastity." What are you doing, Paul? Without the letter and seal of the theological faculty of Louvain, you dare to assume unchastity in the saints, and

4144 L. V. a. V, 472-474. 47. refutation of latomus. W. XVNI, 1408-1410. 1145

even in those whom you teach that they should have leisure for prayer? Truly, you are a Tatian, defender of the Cataphrygians 1) that you entangle marriage with sin, yes, not only marriage, but the saints of God. And all the ballast that Latomus cites in inconsistencies against Luther now falls on you, and it will come to such a point that your books will be burned, then afterwards a terrible bull will prove those faithful cultivators of the Lord's field right, and Latomus will stand up and prove in a detailed justification that that unchastity is not unchastity, but weakness and punishment. And when Satan tempts them, he tempts them not to unchastity, but to weakness. Then if by any chance they have consented to unchastity, they have consented not to sin but to weakness and punishment, and therefore if they sin, they will not sin. Behold what a shameful heretic you will be.

Moreover, it must happen hereafter that all divine commandments have not forbidden sin, but the weakness and punishment of sin; and a new theology will come into the world, that it is sin to consent not to sin, but to weakness and punishment. And God will not have forbidden to shun sin, but the weaknesses and punishments of sin; and the meaning of Paul Rom. 6, 12. will be: Therefore do not let the punishment of sin reign in your mortal body, or: Therefore do not let weakness reign in your body, to obey it in its lusts. Again, sin must consent to that which is not sinful and condemned. Truly, a whole new reason for sin! The weakness is neither sin, nor condemned, and yet, if you consent to a thing that is neither condemned, nor establishes guilt, you have sinned!

Therefore, if these sophists had wanted the pious souls to be counseled, they would have left aside all twisting of words and would have simply explained the matter as they did.

  1. Perhaps this refers to the "encratites" who abstained from marriage as a work of the evil spirit. Cf. Guericke's Kirchengeschgesch, 7th ed.

is presented something like this: Behold, my dear brethren, we confess that good works please God, and that we are altogether saved by them; but they are not so good that they are without sin, but that they are done in strife against sin. For in this very thing the whole good work consists, that sin is in us, and we contend with ourselves, that it reign not, and we render not obedience to its lusts. For although the severity of God's law might also require this, that this struggle not be in us, because He did not create us this way from the beginning, for "God made man righteous; but they seek many arts" (saith the wise man [Eccl. 7:30.), for through this evil we are hindered from being completely in His law, and that part of us which contends with us is contrary to His law: yet He has promised mercy and forgiveness to all who at least do not agree with this part, but fight against it and seek to destroy it. This endeavor pleases God, not because it is worthy of him, but because he has had mercy on us and promised to accept us.

Therefore, do not puff yourself up or become arrogant; you have cause in yourself to fear judgment and severity and to take refuge in mercy alone. For by their mercy, not by your running, your works are good. You must therefore judge yourself differently according to the severity of God's judgment than according to the gentleness of His mercy. And you will not separate these two points of view in this life. According to the former, all your works are stained and impure because of the part of you that is hostile to God; but according to the latter, you are completely pure and righteous. And that thou mayest be so, thou hast the sign of baptism for a witness, wherein all sins are forgiven thee in the fullest truth; forgiven, I say, wholly, but not yet all taken away. For we believe without a doubt that in it there has been a forgiveness of all sins; but we act and expect daily that there will also be a remission and a complete destruction of all sins in every respect; and those who work toward this end do good works. Behold, this is my faith, well this

1146 L. V. a. V, 474-L76. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1410-1412. 1147

is the Catholic faith. But the sophists, who combat this, deal with it by setting up for us a confidence in works, and by weakening both the work of divine mercy and of divine judgment, as it is said of them in the 10th Psalm v. 5., "Thy judgments are far from him." And therefore they also pervert the fear of God and our trust; otherwise they would still be to suffer and to bear, if they did not seek to destroy and desolate this our fallen lot and chief bulwark of blessedness, and in lesser things do their antics or be senseless.

But, you will object to me, this is your and a new distinction between a ruling and dominated sin, which is set up according to your arbitrariness. I answer: If it is so, then despise it, I do not want to argue about words, you make yourself another one; at least the word "ruling sin" is not my invention, but a saying of Paul. Call thou that which reigneth not by what name thou wilt, though for me also the saying speaks, Gen. 4:7: "But leave not thou her will, but reign over her." Here, certainly, sin is described as a subject. But even the sophists are forced to admit that venial sin is something different from mortal sin. And while they claim that the venial sin does not harm, does not rule, does not condemn, they nevertheless call it a very real and actually so called sin. They do not make it a sin of a different kind or nature because the former is mortal, the latter venial, but claim of each that it is a deviation from the law of God and contrary to the law of God. And I ask nothing more than that they permit me to call that remnant after baptism sin in the same way as they call the venial, namely, that this remnant is in need of mercy and is by its nature evil and a fault; if you consent to this, you have also made it the sinner a ruling one and have served it and sinned mortally. In this I have Paul in the already enough mentioned passage Rom. 6, 12. for me, from which I do not want to be torn away.

I say they cannot deny that after baptism two evils remain, sin and the lust for it. Paul's words are clear, sin, the tinder itself, is the natural evil, and lust is its impulse. This, he says, must not be obeyed, that must be destroyed, "that the sinful body," saith he, v. 6., "may cease." So they may call those two as they please, but they are not to deny that Paul says such things. Killed and destroyed Paul wants them to be, because they are condemned to death, consequently they are evil faults and sins. For infirmities, perishable things (mortalitates) and punishments do not fall under a commandment, nor can they be placed in our free will. For who could kill death and punishments but God alone without us? But commandments are given about sins and that which makes us guilty. So when He commands us to kill, not to obey them, He certainly does not understand punishments, not things subject to corruption, not weaknesses, but sins. For what kind of a law would that be: You shall not obey weakness; you shall not obey fever; you shall not obey hunger and thirst; you shall not obey nakedness and bonds, or the evil desire for any of these things? are these not also weaknesses, punishments, transitory things? but sin, the sinner, and their whispers, which are also sin, shall not be obeyed.

But it is foolish for us to labor with so many words in a matter so completely obvious, since we have the apostle who asserts it in clear, explicit words as sin and evil desire. He who is not reassured by Paul's words, will he be persuaded by ours? Rather, what would they have done if Paul had spoken darkly, and had put for sin evil or weakness? or instead of obeying and not ruling, had said watch or abstain? just as Peter speaks 1 Ep. 2, 11., "Abstain from fleshly lusts," how sure, how glad triumphs would they have celebrated here? But now, since they cannot resist the light and the day, they seek to cover clouds over it, and at the

1148 L. V. s. V, 476 f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1412-1415. 1149

The fathers were not to create darkness in the light of day, so that sin would not be sin and so that it would appear as if Paul had lied. And even if the fathers seemed to be in favor of this, one must not adhere to them, but rather to Paul, even if they had spoken the truth, because they speak darker and more ineffectually than Paul. Paul's words are too clear to need any interpretation; indeed, they are darkened by every interpretation. However, although, as I said, the Fathers also sometimes call this sin and error, they speak more often of the prevailing sin.

Therefore I would like to answer our sophists, who fight me with the sayings of the fathers, thus: You prove quite clear words with dark ones and discuss divine with human. Therefore, because even your Aristotle has forbidden this, to prove the unknown with the unknown, the dark with the dark, let alone the clear with the dark, I convict you as clumsy disputants, who in the whole trade and at all times do nothing but set up as proof in the most erroneous way what is still to be proved. The summa of Luther's answer and refutation against Latomus' reasoning is this: If in the cited passages of the Apostle Paul it can be proved that the word sin is not sin in the true and proper sense of the word, Luther falls; if it cannot be proved, Latomus falls. But it cannot be proved except by certain sayings of the fathers, which contradict each other, and which, moreover, are human, even if they do not contradict each other; divine sayings must be preferred to them, without whose testimony nothing may be asserted as certain: consequently Latomus and all his things fall, and Luther stands with all his things.

However, I praise Latomus' loyalty and constancy. Once he had taken it upon himself to defend the cause of the stubborn sophists, he does nothing that would be unworthy of the wisdom and stubbornness of a sophist, but pulls, corrupts, twists, forces everything divine and human that is against them wherever he pleases. We have already seen this above, since so many testimonies of the Scriptures prove that it is unworthy of us.

possible to fulfill the commandment of God, that there can be nothing clearer. But, like the deaf vipers, they block their ears against it Ps. 58, 5. and turn away their eyes, only to keep this their only decree before the people, which they once brought forward: "Cursed be he who says that God has commanded us impossible things." This human word must prevail, this must be approved by all, this must not be shaken with any explanation. But the divine thunderbolts must be concealed and left lying around, yes, even arbitrary interpretations of any jack must be allowed. A man's word is holy and venerable, but God's word is exposed to desecration.

So also here; while so many holy thunderbolts testify that sin and evil desire still remained after baptism, as they e.g. also call anger, pleasure, avarice, indifference with such names. While so many holy thunderbolts testify that there is still sin and evil desire left after baptism, as, for example, they call anger, lust, avarice, and indifference by such names with which, according to the conception of all men, sins and faults are called in every language, these insolent foreheads nevertheless rise up, cover their ears, close their eyes, and turn away their hearts, only so that this human word of theirs may fill all ears, that this alone may claim the place against which no one may even complain, namely, that only punishment and weakness remain after baptism. In the face of this, divine revelations must remain silent, Paul must give way to this, our daily experience and that of all the saints must also give way to this. If they do not do this, then they should put on a mask and under the term sin imagine an imperfection and weakness, and be careful that they do not make themselves comfortable with our interpretations. For this also Latomus has confessed above, that the saints many times sin (in his meaning of sin) unawares, out of ignorance, and in other ways, what Paul calls "the lusts of sin in the mortal body," to which we are not to obey, that is, not to consent. For one cannot give assent to anything ignorantly, or in haste, or contrary to his will; for indeed he said that they sin contrary to their will. But because Paul calls this sin, he is forced to understand sin as punishment,

1150 L. V. a. V, 477-479. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, I4I5-I417. 1151

and that for no other reason than because the spirit and not a man has said it, so that it is entirely at the discretion of the sophists what must be sin and what must be punishment. Dear, whom should such more than Moabite impudence not inflame?

But you will object: Do you then not believe the sayings of the fathers? I answer: I shall believe? Who commanded that one should believe them? Where is a commandment of God concerning this faith? Why then did they themselves not believe their fathers? especially Augustine, who wished to be free and commanded that all should be free with respect to the writings of all men? Because the Sophists have imposed on us such a tyranny and captivity of our liberty, until they have even forced us not to contradict the twice accursed Aristotle, but to submit to him: should we therefore remain forever in this slavery, and not breathe a sigh of Christian liberty at last, and sigh for our Scriptures after returning from this Babel? But they were saints and put the Scriptures in the right light, you say. Who then has proved that the Scripture was made light by them? how, if they had darkened it? On what grounds do you prove that they have made the Scripture light? Do you want to say in Löwenisch or Kölnisch: It seems so to me, and so they say? For my sake it may seem so to them and they may say so, but let them prove it to me or stop forcing their vain words on me. I am not commanded to believe their dreams, but the words of God. Only One is the Master, Christ, and the fathers are to be tested according to the guide of divine Scripture, that it may be known which they have made light, and which they have made dark; as Paul commanded 1 Thess. 5, 21., "Test all things, and keep that which is good"; and 1 Cor. 14, 29. "But let the diviners speak, two or three, and let the others judge." He who commanded all things to be tested did not exempt any man, not Augustine, not Jerome, not Origen, not even the Antichrist, the pope.

But the dark writing needs explanation.

Leave it where it is dark; keep it where it is clear. And who has proved that the fathers are not dark? Again, your "It seems so" and that "They say"? For what do the fathers also but seek and bring forward the clearest and plainest testimonies of Scripture? Poor Christians, whose word and faith are still based on interpretations of men and expect enlightenment from them; this is frivolous and godless. The Scriptures are common to all, clear enough, as far as it is necessary for salvation, also dark enough for spirits who want to search rashly. Let each one follow his calling in this rich and common word of God; but let us either reject the words of men or read them with judgment. This is enough on this saying, and left more than enough.

Third.

He turns to Paul, Rom. 7. Here Latomus confirms my opinion most strongly and reveals how he did not write this book out of zeal for the truth, but with the intention of corrupting and deceiving the world, only to turn away from himself the disgrace of murdering and robbing God. For no matter how defiant and stiff-necked he is in other respects, he goes through Paul's words so pale and trembling, silent and cautious, as if he feared with every little bag that some abyss might open up and swallow the poor little sophist. But after he had survived these dangers and come into his field, where he had free play, there he gathers together the sayings of the fathers, as if he thought it a miracle that a reader who is persevering and idle while sitting can patch together and pile up much that does not belong to the matter, perhaps hoping and intending to scare me off by the quantity, that I would not write again, since a book of quite infinite size would be needed to answer his individual points. But this hope will deceive him, because since my scriptural passages have been proven, he is just thereby thrown down, so that a special answer to all individual points is not necessary. The sum of Latomus' evasion is therefore this: That,

1152 ' L. V. L. V, 479-481. 47. refutation of latomus. W. xvm, 1417-1420. 1153

What is said here by Paul proves nothing else than that after baptism there still remains a weakness, which may be called sin; but that nevertheless the Spirit, when he governs this weakness, works the good in such a way that it is not to be regarded as a sin worthy of condemnation, nor that therefore man sins in a good work, or serves sin.

Here you see, first of all, how Latomus only wants to drag the matter out, to distract the reader from it, and to waste time by treating a completely different question than the one he is talking about. For he has taken upon himself to treat the question of sin pardonable by mercy; for that I speak of this, he himself has testified in more than one place. And with all and after all this clamor of testimonies he comes to the following conclusion: Behold, it is not a damnable sin; whereas he should have concluded thus: Behold, it is not a sin, not even a pardonable one, not even one for which mercy would be necessary. Just as if you had rebuked me for calling laughter a venial sin, and then, after you had spewed out all your zeal and wasted your sweat, you would finally say to me with a sigh of relief: Behold, laughter is not a mortal sin. In this way also Elihu disputed against Job Cap. 18. But do you consider it a small test of patience to endure such unworthiness, deceitful plots and artifices from those who set themselves up as teachers of the whole world in such a holy and necessary matter? I do not complain now that they do not know what sin is, but that they so maliciously dissemble and say that they know it very well, and with their insolent lie deceive so many godly hearts.

But the frightened and fleeting sophist gives me confidence. I will set Paul before his face, so that he cannot escape; I will chase after him and seize him, and will not turn back until he perishes Ps. 18, 38. Either Latomus shall kill Paul, or Paul shall kill Latomus, who leans in vain on human help. I ask first of all: Am I, as a Christian confessor of the gospel, allowed to

To call sin what the apostle Paul calls sin? I am not discussing what the meaning of sin is, I will come to that later. I simply want to be answered whether I am allowed to use this Pauline word? If it is not permitted, eradicate Paul; but if it is permitted, why do the sophists shout against me with such cruel words because I have called a good work sin? Is it not also lawful for them to call a good work imperfect and weak? What now? Are they going to force me to use their words? Or why don't they want to be forced to use my words and Paul's words? They will not call it sin; well! and I will not call it weakness and imperfection. "But yet the holy fathers took sin for imperfection and weakness." Well! but who will compel me to use the words of the fathers? who will compel me to let Paul's word go? Or perhaps they want to say, because it is inconsistent and dangerous? But this is not against me, Luther, but against Paul and the Spirit of Christ.

But you don't need the word sin the way Paul did. Who told you that? The comparison of the fathers with you. Who made this comparison? Us! Who are you? Who has made you sure that you are not mistaken? Perhaps because the bull approved of you? Yes, who made you sure that the fathers interpreted the word of Paul correctly? Do you hear, what are you murmuring? So you see that everything the sophists have put forward so far comes from their own head; but with you Latomus, as the leader of the sophists, I have to speak especially. The cause weighs on your shoulders, for you lead such and such a great cause as neither Cicero nor Demosthenes led. I accuse you before God and men as murderers, robbers of God, murderers and violators of Christian divinity. So do not think that you can still argue and play your game; it is a serious matter that we are conducting.

Because you are seized in disgrace (because in the beginning you were seeking glory,

1154 L. V.". V. 481-483. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1420-1422. 1155

This is the reason why you roar, thunder, rage, and with your ears closed you do not want to hear anyone, but with nonsensical shouting you only raise this: There is no sin, there is no sin, there is no sin in a good work. Therefore, all that I bring up, interpret and expound is nothing. Only against such a word you rage so, for no other reason than because you have condemned it and fear that it would be resurrected by Paul to your shame, so that Latomus with unbelievable impudence interprets just this word set by me in all places for damnable and mortal sin. What is supposed to mean only a weakness in Paul, he interprets everywhere with suppression of my own interpretation as badly and spitefully as possible, since he even confessed that I speak of a forgivable one, in that he wants the world to believe that I call sin what he himself wants to be considered sin, this honorable and truth-loving man. Again, in Paul, he interprets it so weakly as to nullify the word altogether. What a powerful writer Latomus is, who has the right to sharpen and suppress the words, not according to the intention of the scribes, but according to his will! But I promise thee and all the world that I will not use the word otherwise than Paul, for which I invoke the name of the Lord to resist me if I should use it otherwise. What more do you want? But I will keep the word itself, but I will not keep your words and the words of the fathers, you must know that. I will, I say, call sin what you call lack or imperfection; will you force me otherwise? I do not care for your clamor, however boisterous, which I see you make not without cause, lest you be defeated and be found to have wantonly plunged yourselves into so great a disgrace; but this you should have considered before.

Let us now come to the meaning of this word. Paul calls sin that which remains after baptism; the Fathers do not call it sin, but weakness and imperfection. Here we stand at

a crossroads; I will follow Paul, you will follow the fathers. I exclude Augustine because he really calls it a mistake and injustice with round words.

We now come on to the main point of the dispute, namely, whether such sin, or, as you will, such weakness, by its nature, or by the forgiving mercy alone, is not contrary to GOD and His law. Is this not the short epitome of our argument? I have Paul's expression for me. Everyone knows what the denotes, namely, that which by its nature is against GOD (if it is not forgiven). You have, as it seems to you, the fathers for you, who are to claim that it is not contrary to God and His law by its nature. First, you do not prove that this is the opinion of the fathers, but all that you introduce can easily be rejected by me when I say they speak of sin not 1) except mercy. For they say quite rightly: this sin under mercy (so I would say according to my way of thinking) accuses absolutely no one, does not condemn, does not harm, has absolutely nothing in common with sin apart from mercy. Do I not also say so, Latomus? What kind of theft from God is there with me, since we have come together at the goal, that each of us claims, I: this sin has no evil in it, you (as you call it): this weakness has no evil in it. Why do you rage so against me and accuse me so harshly, since you cannot prove anything from the fathers other than what I have said? Is it because I do not follow your head, since you condemned and burned me without judgment? But I am neither frightened nor made flexible by audacity and fire, dear Latomus.

But after all, there may be among the Fathers some one whom I have not yet seen, for I know Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory and Bernard, so that you hold so many clouds 2) before me in vain. But it may be one who claims that what is left after baptism belongs to his

  1. Walch has correctly noted here: It seems that the little word "not" is missing.
  2. I.e. pile of testimonies.

1156 L. v. a. v, 483 f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. xviii, 1422-1425. 1157

nature is not against God, nor against His law, and who denies that it is not against God and His law by the forgiving mercy of God alone. If you were to find such a one (but I hope you will find him in that which gives birth to a mule), what did you promote? What aligned? What conquered? Who will make me certain that this is Paul's opinion? Or will I not be at liberty to doubt his the church father's opinion? May I not murmur thus to myself: The man is indeed holy, but how if he were a man, and were here putting forward human things? Who knows if there is not something else hidden in the apostle, which he does not see? Especially since Paul calls it sin so freely and openly, who, if he had wanted to, could have spoken just as he speaks. Who gave him the right to interpret a law to us and to demand that it should be understood in this way? Let no man among you lay down a law, saith Christ Luc. 11:46; Matt. 23:4. Would you, O Latomus, with your sophists condemn this thought of a godly heart to fire or rope? How, if he could not do otherwise, and just cause were there, because he is certain that GOD speaks in Paul, whose words are to be reverenced, but not to be violated? With that church father he is not sure whether God or a man is speaking.

What shall we do here? You will say: We want to go to reason and common sense. I thank you for that. So we are rid of the reputation of all men in this matter. Your reason will therefore be such that it boasts of flowing from an article of faith, namely, that we believe that in baptism forgiveness of all sins is given to us, as Paul teaches in many places. For this is the reason which your fathers also have, and it pleases me. But what is it that Paul cared so little about this reason that he called what is left after the forgiveness of all sins sin? But the fathers he is said to have induced to deny sin, as you say. You have invented a distinction of sin to save that reason and the word of Paul, since you have

you could in no way bring these two into agreement with each other, and yet you cannot prove this very distinction with any passage of Scripture, but it is a human finding, as you cannot deny, but (as it seems to you) a necessary one because of the reason given before. Is it not so? Do I not understand your things? and against them I have set up nothing by mistake or ignorance, so that I would not have needed you at all as a master.

If now, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, I should have found a way that both the conscience against the articles of faith would remain unharmed, and Paul at the same time would remain unharmed, and would not need to make any violent and outrageous change with his word, but to take it simply, actually, and in the right way in the meaning that it can have elsewhere, thereby also satisfying the reason that urges you to take away the right meaning of the word in this passage alone, that is, in Paul, and nowhere else in Scripture: would you deny it to me? And if you would not accept it, would you also deprive me of my joy, since we would agree beautifully in the epitome of things? But I would not be dissuaded from the simple understanding of the words of God; if I could understand them in a good sense, without detracting from the faith, I would not give way to your little human fist.

But thou sayest, If we agree in the main, why dost thou bring up unholy innovations in words, and art not agreed with us without vexation? I answer: Because I would rather drink from the spring than from the brooks; will you deny me this? For there are two things that concern me. First, that I want the Scriptures pure in their power, undefiled by all men's touch, even the saints', unmixed with all earthly addition. For it is you who have not avoided unholy innovations in the words, as Paul says 1 Cor. 1, 10., but have mixed these holy delights of God with earthly additions.

1158 V. L- v, 484-^86. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. xvm, 1425-1427. 1159

that want to season. But my soul is disgusted with Ezekiel Cap. 4, 12. 14. to eat bread covered with man's dung; do you know what that means? Secondly, that you also have not been able to treat this mystery of grace and sin with clear words and clear, nor to understand it, nor to love it, and so you have become chalky, pale, sad and sluggish in praising and loving God. For a human word added to the divine is a cover for the pure truth, yes, as I have already said, it is human dung by which it is covered, as the Lord illustrates in Ezekiel. It is the manna that must be kept in the golden jar, not thrown around in the hands of men and touched with it.

You will say, "What is this way of yours? I will share it, although I suspect that it will not please you, who pine for garlic and arrow and already suffer from a spoiled taste. But it is enough for me that you cannot refute this way, but it can convict you of twisting God's words to such an opinion that they have no other place. Everyone knows how shameful it is to hear this from Christians, let alone from theologians.

The Divine Scriptures deal with our sin in two ways, one according to the Law of God, the other according to the Gospel of God. These are the two testaments of GOD ordained for our blessedness, so that we may be freed from sin. The law does not deal with sin in any other way than by revealing it, as Paul says Rom. 3:20: "Through the law comes knowledge of sin." This knowledge teaches two things, the corruption of nature and the wrath of God. Of the former Scripture says Rom. 7, 7: "I did not know sin without the law. For I knew nothing of lust, where the law had not said, Let not thy lust be." For that shameful tickling it called not sin by nature, but its evil use of another body, as profanation, adultery, fornication; so it calls anger and avarice not sin,

but its use in theft, deceit, reviling, murder, and likewise in other things. And I do not know that sin is ever taken in Scripture for these works which we call sin. For it seems almost only to call the underlying leaven so, which brings forth the evil works and words as its fruits. For this sin reveals the law quite actually, since it was unknown and dead before, as Rom. 5, 13. says; it also lies very much hidden alive under the apparent works of the hypocrites. For Paul says Rom. 11, 32. that by the Scriptures all men are resolved under this sin, though it can never remain hidden, lest it bring forth its fruits, in one in this way, in another in another. But you cannot indicate an evil work, under which you could decide all men. More about this elsewhere. Of the other (namely the wrath of God) Rom. 4, 15. says: "The law only causes wrath", because Gal. 3, 10. says: "Cursed be every man that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them"; and Rom. 5, 12.: "Death through sin"; and Rom. 6, 23.: "Death is the wages of sins." So far, then, does the light of the law instruct us, and teach us that we are under corruption and under wrath, and decree every man to be both a liar and a child of wrath. But we might have despised corruption and been pleased in our evil, if the other evil of wrath had not driven away this foolishness, and increased with terror and danger of death and hell, that we had no peace in the former evil. And anger is by far a greater evil for us than corruption, because we hate punishment more than guilt.

Therefore, the law reveals a twofold evil, an inward and an outward one; the one that we put on ourselves, sin or corruption of nature, the other that God puts on us, wrath, death and curse. Let these two be, if you will. Guilt and punishment. But under these terms, we have treated guilt and punishment all too weakly and coldly, and I know

1160 D- V. a. V, 486-488. 47. refutation of latomus. W. XVNI, 1427-1430. 1161

not what relations and imputations are invented. According to the Scriptures, we call gross and full of sin, or guilt, or inward evil, the whole corruption of nature, in all its members, which is evil and inclined to evil from youth, as Genesis 6:5 and 8:21 are written. And this wrath is so great that what seems to be good is of no use, e.g. arts, gifts, prudence, bravery, chastity, and whatever other natural, moral, and intellectual gifts there are, in which the common sense of man could not perceive any fault, so much so that today even our theologians count these things among the good, and ascribe nothing evil to them. Only that which is done apart from grace does not deserve the kingdom of heaven, but neither does it deserve hell or punishment. They would be ready to assert outright that such things could also deserve heaven if they had not heard a certain sound about the necessity of grace, for they think that there is nothing lacking in it that the law requires, but only that which grace insists upon. They teach that the law has been done enough, but not the gospel.

They add that this good is so great that it deserves grace according to equity (de congruo), and infallibly, and thus becomes a completely good thing, even if not actually deserved, yet by its own merit. 1) To this is added that God himself does not deny that these things are good, as this cannot be denied in truth, but he rewards them and adorns them with temporal benefits, as dominion, fortune, fame, good reputation, dignity, honor, pleasure and the like, in such a way that not only the cover of one's own appearance, but also of divine retribution is added to the natural blindness, which does not know the truly good, so that it insists certainly and most stubbornly that these things are good. This is what the prophetic ministry has mainly worked on, and all prophets have been killed because they rebuked these things and demanded a truer good. Because the prophecy has been nothing else than the

  1. si non xropno merito, tarnen xer xroxriurn raeritum.

refined exposition (expolitio) and (that I say so) practice and application of the law or, as it is called in the concluding speeches ([syllogismis), the subordinate (subsumptio), which should pronounce how every good work occurred, whether it was truly good or not quite good. Therefore, we read that in the ancient books many things are rejected that we marvel at. With this, God warned them not to follow their opinion, but to listen to His voice. That is why he always raised up prophets for them, who in these good things (that I say so) would bring the law into practice and show, as it were by examples, what the law would be.

The law alone, therefore, shows, of course, not that these things are evil in themselves, for they are God's gifts, but that they are in evil use because of the very hidden root sin (radicale peccatum), by which they trusted in these things, and boasted in the imperceptible evil, as this most inward evil of sin still does and always will do, since one should trust in God alone, please Him and boast in Him, as it is said in Jeremiah 9:23. It says: "Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, let not a strong man boast of his strength, let not a rich man boast of his wealth." For all these things are good, scattered in vain, more often over evil than over good, so that the 73rd Psalm v. 2. complains that because of them he almost stumbled, and his tread almost slipped. But all this (as I have said) is decided under anger and cursing, and it is of no use, and so does not prepare for grace according to what is due (de congruo), that it rather hardens the heart, so that it does not desire grace or consider it necessary. As the 119th Psalm v. 70. says: "Her heart is curdled like milk" Vulg.. Better in Hebrew, "Their heart is thick as sea." This people is actually accused in Scripture of ungodliness, of unbelief, of being hard-necked, because they did not humble their untamed minds in these respectable good things, could not recognize either the law or their sin in them, but always thought that they were doing GOD a service in them above all other truly righteous people. To these will be in vain

1162 L. V. L. V, 4L8-4L0. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1430-1432? 1163

These are "the bloodthirsty and the false" Ps. 5:7; 55:24. In short, they think they have fulfilled the law and they have no need of grace (as I said), except for a certain superfluous thing that God demands. To these Moses is veiled, they do not bear his shining face (ooroutavi luoism) [2 Mos. 34, 29. 30. 35J; in so great wisdom, goodness, righteousness, godliness they do not want to be evil, nor can they recognize that they are, because they do not hear. So you see how incomparably higher the law is than natural reason, and how deep sin is, the knowledge of which the law teaches. These, then, are all under wrath, because they are all under sin.

The gospel, on the other hand, treats sin in such a way as to take it away, and in this way follows the law very nicely. For the law introduces sin and overwhelms us with it through knowledge of it. In this way it has caused us to desire to be freed from it and to desire grace. For the gospel preaches and teaches two things, righteousness and the grace of God. Through righteousness it heals the corruption of nature, namely through righteousness, which is a gift of God, namely faith in Christ, as Rom. 3, 21. says: "Now without the law is the righteousness that is valid before God"; and again Rom. 5, 1.: "Now that we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God" 2c and Cap. 3, 28: "So then we hold that a man is justified by faith alone." And this righteousness, which is opposed to sin, is generally taken in Scripture for the innermost root, the fruit of which is good works. The companion in this faith and righteousness is grace or mercy, the favor of God, against wrath, which is the companion of sin, so that everyone who believes in Christ has a gracious God. For we would not be quite joyful in this good of righteousness, nor would we esteem this His gift great, if it were alone and did not make us a gracious GOD. I actually take mercy here to mean the favor of God, as it is due, not the favor of God.

a quality of the mind, as our moderns teach. But this grace finally works true peace of heart, so that man, healed of his corruption, also feels that he has a gracious God. This is what makes the bones fat and the conscience happy, secure, undaunted, that it dares everything, can do everything, so that it even mocks death in this trust in the grace of God.

Therefore, as wrath is a greater evil than the corruption of sin, so grace is a greater good than the health of righteousness, which we have said comes from faith. For everyone (if it were possible) would rather lack the health of righteousness than the grace of God. For forgiveness of sins and peace are actually attributed to the grace of God, but the healing of corruption to faith. For faith is an inward gift and good, which is opposed to sin, which purifies, and the leaven in the Gospel Matth. 13, 33., which is hidden under three bushels of flour. But the grace of God is an external good, the favor of God, opposed to wrath. These two things are distinguished in Rom. 5:17: "For if because of one man's sin death reigned through One, much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through One, JEsum Christ." The gift in the grace of One he calls faith in Christ (which he also more often calls a gift), which is given to us in the grace of Christ, that is, because he, as the only one pleasing and acceptable among all men, had a gracious and kind God, so that he could earn for us this gift and also this grace.

In the first chapter of St. John v. 17 John the Baptist says: "The law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ;" and before that v. 14: "Full of grace and truth." Thus the truth which flows from Christ to us is faith, but grace accompanies faith because of the grace of Christ, as he prefaced v. 16, "Of His fullness have

1164 L. v. L. v, 490-492. 47. refutation of latomus. W. xvm, 1432-1435. 1165

we all took grace for grace." What grace? For what grace? Our grace, that God would be favorable to us, for the grace of Christ, by which He is favorable to Him. For, he says, the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. So we have two goods of the gospel against two evils of the law, the gift instead of sin, grace instead of wrath. From this it follows that these two, wrath and grace, behave in such a way (since they are apart from us) that they are poured out wholly, so that whoever is under wrath is wholly under all wrath, whoever is under grace is wholly under all grace, because wrath and grace concern persons. For whom God receives into grace, He receives wholly, and whom He is favorable to, He is wholly favorable to; again, whom He is angry with, He is wholly angry with. For he does not divide this grace as he divides the gifts; he does not love the head and hate the feet, nor is he favorable to the soul and hates the body. And yet he gives to the soul what he does not give to the body, he gives to the head what he does not give to the feet. So also in the whole church, which stands in the same grace of God, as Rom. 5, 2. says: "Through whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand" 2c He is diverse and manifold in His gifts. So also vice versa, to whom He is not favorable He is not favorable at all, and yet He does not punish him completely, yes, one remains completely under wrath through One sin of a member, but another remains completely under grace through One gift of a work, so that grace, as said, may be widely separated from gifts, because the grace of God alone is eternal life according to the Vulgate, Rom. 6, 23, and wrath alone is eternal death.

Now let us come to the point. The righteous and the believer undoubtedly have grace and gift; the grace that makes him completely comfortable, that the person is thoroughly pleasing, and wrath no longer takes place in him; but the gift that heals him from sin and all his ruin in soul and body. It is therefore exceedingly ungodly to say that a baptized person is still in sins, or that all sins have not been completely forgiven.

be given. For what sin is there, if God is favorable and does not want to know any sin, and if He completely accepts and sanctifies the whole person? But this is not due to our purity, as you see, but only to the grace of God, who is favorable. Everything is forgiven by grace, but not yet everything is made whole by the gift. The gift is also poured in, the leaven is mixed, works to expel the sin that is already forgiven the person, and to expel the evil guest that he has permission to expel. However, while this is happening, it is called sin, and is really sin in its nature, but already a sin without wrath, without law, a dead sin, a harmless sin, only one must persevere in its grace and gift. Sin is not different from itself, according to its essence, before grace and after grace, but there is a difference in its treatment. For it is treated differently now than before. How was it treated before? That it was there, and was recognized, and burdened us; now it is treated that it is not, and is cast out. But for its sake it is and remains sin, really and by nature. Yes, it is ingratitude and insult to the grace and gift of God to deny that it is really sin. Grace, of course, has no sin because the whole person is pleasing, but the gift has sin because it sweeps out and fights. But also the person is not pleasing, nor does he have grace, except for the sake of the gift, which strives to sweep out sin in this way. God does not make imaginary sinners blessed, but true sinners; he does not teach imaginary sin to kill, but true sin.

Behold, this simple and Pauline way of understanding and speaking is what I seek and want in the treatment of sin and grace. It is pure and clear, is understood without any difficulty, does not require any distinctions, and is wondrously sweet and clear, opening up the whole of Scripture. Here it is not necessary to say that sin is taken for weakness in Paul, yes, it is necessary that it is taken for true sin, so that the grace and gift of God are presented purely and according to the truth.

1166 L. v. a. v, 492 f. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. xvm, 1435-1438. 1167

can. If anyone denies that it is really sin, he blasphemes the gift of God and is ungrateful. Thus I say and teach that every man know that he has in every work as much sin as sin is not yet cast out in him; as the tree, so the fruit, so that he may not boast before God of his purity in himself, but boast in the grace and gift of God that he has a favorable God, who does not impute this sin and has given the gift above by which he casts it out. Therefore, he confesses the truth that if he were to be judged according to the nature of the work, without grace, he could not stand before His God's face, but now, because he leans on grace, there is nothing to accuse him of. Is this then as dark as the immense volumes of the sophists compiled on sin and grace? Or do not already Paul's word and godly faith and reason, which seemed to enforce that sin must be taken for punishment, agree beautifully? What is easier than to say that sin is treated either according to the law or according to the gospel? If it is treated according to the law alone, it is death and wrath; if according to the gospel alone, it is grace and life, but it remains really and essentially sin under both. Therefore, the sayings of the fathers, which deny that there is sin in a righteous person, are all to be understood according to grace, but not according to the nature of sin, or according to the law, for Christ has made us free, that we are already no longer under the law, but under grace.

But you will say that the holy fathers deny sin and you do not prove that sin must be taken here in this way. I answer: First, I do not understand and teach anything ungodly and what does not rhyme with faith. Do you not admit this? And I will prove it in more detail. Furthermore, I prove that sin is taken everywhere in Scripture as I take it, therefore I prove strongly that it must be taken this way, since without the example of Scripture nothing may be asserted in matters of faith. Then you prove

in two ways nothing. First, you do not prove that the fathers say that sin should not be taken or cannot be taken as I take it, because they call it weakness and deny sin. Sin, but one can assume that they did this by not having the essence of sin in mind, but the grace of God, and you have nothing to oppose here. Yea, if they deny even from the bottom of their hearts that it is sin according to its nature, yet they do not prove it, nor is it an article of faith what they mean or say; yea, they speak dangerously when they speak without the example of Scripture.

So that sin means only guilt 1), you neither prove that they want this, nor do they prove that it must be so. You have invented the very dark word guilt (reatus) here, and want it to mean sin in essence. But the Scriptures are simpler, and have in easy and clear speech only: corruption and wrath. Thus you do not prove that forgiveness of all sins, washing away of sins, and what else they rightly say of the glory of baptism, is the same as that no sin remains in their nature, nor do they themselves prove it. But all this is opposed by Paul, and also by Peter. The latter says 1 Pet. 2:11, "Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;" but the former Gal. 5:17, "that sin in the mortal body lusteth against the spirit;" and they enforce that the sayings of the fathers have their reference to grace, which is favorable to the baptized, and to the gift, which is opposed to sin, not to the nature of sin or to the law. And so, dear Latomus, all that you have put forward is void and refuted, scattered like dust before the face of the wind. Since in my opinion the godly doctrine is favorable, the words of Scripture agree with it, and in it there is simplicity and integrity in words and things, I will not let the word sin be taken away from me in all men and all their works in this life, although I confess that according to the grace of God they have no sin and no law.

  1. reatus, actually: state of accusation.

1168 L. V. a. V. 493-495. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1438-1440. 1169

nor have any evil work. Whoever does not want to follow me, let him leave it and follow others, but let him know that his thing is based on human grounds, not on divine testimonies. I will not suffer that people believe Augustine, who explains the apostle, more than the apostle himself, who repeats sin so often.

Now let us see how the Scriptures agree with this opinion. In the last 24, 47 Christ says that repentance and forgiveness of sins are preached in his name. Why was forgiveness of sins not enough? Does it not agree that repentance is the change of corruption and constant renewal from sin, which faith works, the gift of God and forgiveness? The gift of grace is that there remains no sin of wrath. For he does not teach that the fabricated repentance of the sophists should be preached, which lasts only for an hour. As long as preaching lasts, as long as one lives, one must repent and be renewed, so that sin may be cast out. Can you adapt these two things of weakness and punishment in the same way? Who would repent of his weakness? Who would renew the punishment? The same says the word of John the Baptist, which Christ repeated Matth. 3, 2.; 4, 17.: "Repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." What is this but changing one's life, which faith does, which sweeps out sin, and being in the kingdom of God, which brings about the forgiving grace? For this is what John calls Matth. 3, 8. "righteous fruits of repentance", when sin is swept out and not outward works are pretended. The simile Matth. 13, 33. of the leaven and the three bushels of flour agrees so well with this that nothing could be more appropriate. But it is not so, if you call sin only weakness and punishment, yes, then you have already made it dark with these words, that you can neither see nor understand the simile. Here also belongs the parable of the half-dead man who was healed by the Samaritan, completely and in the first place. He was not healed all at once, but he was healed all at once.

The Levite and the priest, the servants of the law, saw him but did not help him. The law (as I have said) brings knowledge of sin, but Christ makes well through faith and brings again to the grace of God.

Joh. 13, 10. belongs to this: "He who is washed is completely clean", namely by grace, and yet he washes the feet of the remaining sin by faith, which is active. Here also belongs that we are branches in Christ Joh. 15, 2., who is the vine, because we bring forth fruit as pure in everything, and yet the heavenly vinedresser cleanses the pure, so that he may bring forth more fruit.

Of all this, you cannot rhyme anything with punishment and weakness, because immediately the sense of washing, cleansing, healing is lost, only that one could draw here the indefinite venial sins. But this is a superficial sense that prunes the leaves but does not cut out the root. And, as the simile gives, which Latomus introduced, such a way of healing is like cutting off the hair, where it grows again anew. But it is not the gift of God that tries to kill the roots and not the deeds, but it purifies the person himself, so that these venial sins cease, or at least sprout in a lesser degree. You resist the venial sins in vain if you do not extinguish the sin that is the tinder for them, from which they sprout. Sin always desires, but you resist its desire if you not only resist its impulses, but also kill it yourself, which happens through the gift of faith, which kills, crucifies, and exercises with various sufferings the old man of sin, as the apostle calls him. Here also fits the image I used above, that the children of Israel, after they came into possession of the land of Canaan, did not exterminate the remnants of the Amorites, Jebusites and Cananites. These remnants had no other nature than the nations themselves. But these our opponents teach that the weakness and the punishment are not evil either, much-

1170 L. V. L. V. 495-497. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1449-1442. 1171

more useful and to be endured, just as if it were not to be swept out.

So I conclude, since Paul Rom. 6, 12. "sin in your mortal body", v. 14. "sin will not be able to reign", v. 6. "the sinful body cease", Rom. 8, 2. "hath made me free from the law of sin," Rom. 7, 13. "sin worketh," v. 23. "sin opposeth," "sin taketh captive," v. 25. "serveeth the law of sin," 1 Cor. 7, 5. "unchastity," 1 Cor. 5, 8. "the old leaven of malice and mischievousness," Eph. 4, 22. "the old man," Col. 3, 5. 8. "wrath, evil desire, covetousness," Heb. 12, 1. "the sin so ever clinging to us,"-in short, since Paul everywhere calls it by the name sin and error, yet even if he had called it sin only ONCE, I would not yield to any angel. For, since he constantly asserts the same thing in so many places, who are those people that they should force me to put their interpretations into the text and eradicate Paul's words? I do not want their opinions, and confidently say that sin is in us and in all our works as long as we live here. So if my lions had heard me before and had paid more attention to God's word than to the word of men, they would certainly have recognized the truth more purely, which would have saved them from such a horrible blasphemy, desecration of the sanctuary, crime and shameful deed that they would not have burned Paul's word so boldly. But I still give them the choice that they go into themselves, acknowledge their error, give God the glory, confess their follies, which they cannot protect with any reason, and behold, everything shall be forgiven them. For I will very gladly have fellowship with them, and never remember their evil, as I do not want God to remember mine. But if they persist in what I desire, I will surely consider them accursed. The Lord will see whether my banishment is more or less than the tasteless, bloodthirsty, God-abusing, in short, the most worthy bulls of the Pope and Rome. Amen. Herewith, I believe, it is duly stated, defended and justified what I have said.

in relation to this article in my resolutione, which Latomus challenges, and that all things of Latomus are nothing but ignorance in Scripture, then also mere speculations and proofs from what is to be proven.

One more thing I want to add, so that I help this matter with reason and experience. I disputire with sophists. We want to come from the rule to the example, so that we are not stoics, who described such a man as a wise man, as they had never seen him, as also Quintilian condemns such an orator. I ask whether they dare to provide such a man who can say of a good work he has done, this is without sin, even in the way they themselves speak of sin. I do not believe that they themselves, or any man, would dare to have this opinion of his work. If they say that no one can, what do they accuse me of so horribly, since they themselves hold the same, nay, say more, than I? For I have not spoken of venial sin. What then is inconsistent in saying that in every good work there is sin, since they themselves admit that in most there is certainly sin, and in a few there is no sin, even since they speak without example, according to the rule alone? If it is not inconsistent in one or many, how can it be inconsistent or impossible in all? Are we not then beautiful doctors, since we teach the rule without example? But they will say: It is uncertain whose work is good without sin, but we do not doubt that it is without sin. So what do we do? Do we lead people into uncertainty with our teachings? Or is it not unreasonable to teach the uncertain in the church? When will there be peace in our hearts? What should we do in the meantime? Should we pray for forgiveness of sin in a good work, or should we praise it before God? There is danger if it is sin and one does not ask for forgiveness. Again, there is danger if one asks for forgiveness where there is no guilt, or if one does not believe that there is guilt. For one would lie and ask for what one believes should not be prayed for.

1172 L. v. a. v, 497f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. xvm, 1442-1445. 1173

The author must confess that the work is in need of forgiveness and thereby do him an injustice. Should one put it in doubt? So one should also pray uncertain things, not only do them? Give thanks, Magistri nostri, for leaving everything uncertain 1) and not even making certain whether everything is uncertain.

But that may go by. An example of this rule: A good work is without sin. This is entirely lacking in this life, because Paul (as we have said) does not dare to claim this of his works, since he says 1 Cor. 4, 4.: "I am well aware of nothing, but in this I am not justified." But we must be certain; therefore God in His grace has provided us with a man in whom we should trust, and not in our works. For although he has justified us through the gift of faith, and through his grace has made us inclined, yet he has willed that we should lean on Christ, lest we should be without steadfastness in ourselves and in his gifts; lest even this righteousness which we have begun should fail us, unless it hang on the righteousness of Christ and flow from him; Lest any incomprehensible man, having once received the gift, should already be satisfied and secure; but he willed that we should be drawn to him Christ more and more every day, that we should not stop at what we have received, but should be completely transfigured into Christ. For his righteousness is sure and steadfast; there is no wavering, there is no falling away; he is the Lord of all things.

Therefore, as often as Paul preaches faith in Christ, he preaches it with wonderful care, so that righteousness is not only through him and from him, but also to him, that he brings us into himself and glorifies us, and as it were puts us into hiding until the wrath passes. Thus Rom. 5:1: "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Behold, faith is not enough, but the faith that hides itself under the wings of Christ and submits itself to His

  1. In the original: nihil incertura. Instead, we have followed the reading of the Jena edition: nihil nisi incertum.

Righteousness; and again v. 2., "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace." Again, he so teaches faith as to cast it under the wings of Christ; also Col. 1:19, 20: "For it was well pleased that all things through him should be reconciled unto himself." See: Through him to him. And again v. 20., "In that he made peace through himself by the blood of his cross." Behold: By the blood of his cross through himself. What else does the apostle mean by these words than that the vague faith of the sophists is not enough, which is thought to work according to the gift received? But this is the faith that makes you a chick, and Christ a mother hen, that you may have hope under his wings. "For salvation is under his wings," says Malachi Cap. 4:2, so that you do not lean on the faith you have received, for that is fornicating; but you should know that this is faith when you cling to it, being presumptuous of it, because it is holy and righteous for you. Behold, this faith is the gift of GOD, which obtains for us the grace of GOD, and blots out that sin, and makes us blessed and sure, not by our works, but by Christ's, that we may stand and abide for ever, as it is written 2 Cor. 9:9., "His righteousness abideth for ever."

But you may say: You seem to be at loggerheads, since you agree on the main point, and neither of you claims that the remnant after baptism is condemnable, whether it be sin or punishment. I answer: As to the purpose we agree, namely, that it is harmless; but by no means as to the thing itself. For they ascribe to nature what is God's grace; this must not be suffered. Furthermore, they make men sure that they do not sweep out sin. They also diminish the knowledge of the mystery of Christ, and thereby also the praise and love of God, by not considering the goodness that is spread over sinners, that grace is poured out on them most abundantly, but they make nature innocent. If there is nothing else to the contrary, they speak without the Scriptures, they do not understand.

1174 L. V. a. V, 498-soo. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1445-1447. 1175

They also destroy the integrity of Scripture without cause and obscure the understanding of things. That is why it loses its simplicity and becomes an annoyance that leads us far away from it. This is what happened when we first accepted the interpretations of men, as if they were godly and clearer than Scripture. Finally, for this interpretation, too, another interpretation was given, so that there was already no measure nor goal to increase the interpretations of the interpretations, and to draw us into the greatest confusion of words, until at last we knew absolutely nothing more of Christian things and even believed that pagan folly was equal and useful to our things.

These aversions and heights must be removed, and the paths of Zion, which have mourned long enough, must finally be trodden again, and we must be fed with the pure wheat of the simple and pure Scriptures. You see that Latomus here also makes everything uncertain with human interpretations, except what men and philosophers have otherwise already brought up, to such an extent that he believes he may also interpret this passage of Paul in a twofold way, both from the man under the law and from the man under grace. But this is not teaching, but confusing the souls. The opinion of those who claim that Paul is speaking of the man under the law, since the words are clear and bright Rom. 7:22, 25, that he delights in God's law and serves God's law with his mind, is to be rejected and rejected altogether. This cannot apply to an ungodly person who resists the law of God with all his strength, as he taught in the 3rd and 5th chapters. My advice would be, whoever cannot hold the holy scripture in a certain sense, stay away from it. It is safer not to know the Scriptures with the laity than to have them uncertain. It is unbelievable how great discomfort Satan causes a dying man by having it ambiguous, so that I believe that the sophists are instigated by the devil to make it uncertain by their ambiguities and games.

So we ask here: Where is that hunter of testimonies who wanted to give a reason for our holders of the master's degree at Louvain? Does he not himself assert nothing but uncertainties? Does he not deal with it alone, that Luther's opinion is contrary to his doubtful opinion? But those who condemned and burned were quite different people, namely those who wanted it to be their pronounced, certain and infallible opinion that not only this could be said, but that also this must be said. And for these poor Latomus speaks nothing, although he promised to speak for them alone, and was so confident that he boasted that one should be ashamed to desire reason and cause in such a certain matter. But, as I have said, they did not rely on their reason, but on the bull, that they dared to come forth, and when they came forth, sought nothing but to mangle the Scripture and smear the mouth of the whole world with theirs: One can say so. If only they had had this opinion also in regard to their raging action and had said: It can be condemned and burned in this way, but we do not yet say 1) that it must be condemned and burned in this way, their work would correspond to their words. Who does not see what they declare themselves to be? who have condemned as certain that about which they themselves still confess that they are uncertain. For although the holy fathers sometimes doubted and differed in the sense of Scripture, yet they never added this frenzy, that they asserted that, and condemned and burned that which differed. Therefore the reasoning has not yet come to light, which is promised by this hunter. For by mocking Luther and his opinion, he does not prove his own, nor does he refute mine, but makes both uncertain, since the twofold argument he presents cannot be true. Therefore, I conclude that our magisters were mad when they condemned me and did not know what they were doing.

  1. Instead of: 86ä non, dnrn äieirnns in the original Will probably read nonäuin äloirnus.

1176 V. a. V, 500-502. 47. refutation of latomus. W. XVIII, 1447-1450. 1177

did. This is witnessed by their lawyer Latomus, who wrote this book for the sake of it, so that this would no longer remain hidden from the world.

Since I had said that opposing the law is nothing other than sinning; not doing good is against the law, he answers: That Augustine dares to claim that it is not sin if there is not consent. Then he adds: There is also nothing damning in them, because they do not sin. See the worthless sophist, how he falsifies everything! Who does not see that Augustine is speaking here of mortal sin, which is committed by consenting to the desire to sin, but he does not deny that these impulses are venial sins. However, Latomus invents that this is against Luther, not because he does not know that I speak of such sin, which is not mortal or venial, but because he, excited by malice, wishes that my thing be so understood. And now what a dialectic of Latomus is this: there is nothing damnable because they do not sin, so also from the antithesis of the consequence follows the antithesis of the antecedent. Those who sin commit sins, so there is something damnable about them. This means to interpret the apostle Paul in a Louvain way. They claim that a venial sin is without condemnation, but they make my sin of which I speak a condemnable one.

Nor do they think it worth the trouble to remember how often I have introduced what Paul says, that there is nothing damnable, even if there is some sin, because he had sent so much of sin beforehand; but therefore there is nothing damnable, not because there is no sin, as Latomus lies, but because they are in Christ JEsu, as Paul says, that is, the little chicks rest under the hen and under the shadow of his righteousness, or, as Paul Rom. 5, 15. more clearly, they have grace and gift in his grace. Then they also do not walk after sin or after the sinful flesh, that is, they do not consent to sin, which they really have. For God has provided them with two very strong and firm foundations so that this sin will not bring them to condemnation, first Christ Himself as a mercy seat (as Rom. 3:25 says),

that they may be secure under his grace, not because they believe and have faith or the gift, but because they have it in the grace of Christ. For no one's faith would stand unless it were based on Christ's own righteousness and sustained by His protection. For this is true faith (as I have said), not an unlimited (absoluta) or rather obsolete (obsoleta 1)) (absoluta) or rather obsolete (obsoleta 1)) quality in the soul, as those who invent, but who does not allow himself to be torn away from the grace of Christ, nor does he rely on anything else than that he knows that he Christ is with God in grace and cannot be condemned, nor anyone who relies on him in this way. Of course, this remaining sin is something so great, such an unbearable judgment of God, that you cannot stand unless you oppose Him for yourself, whom you know to be without all sin; this is what true faith does.

The other is that after receiving the gift, they do not walk according to the flesh and do not obey sin. But the first is the main and strongest foundation, although the other is also something, but in strength of the former. For God has made a covenant with those who are in Christ in this way, that when they contend against themselves and their sin, there shall be nothing condemnable about them. It is not because there is nothing damnable, as Latomus contends, that they do not sin, or that there is no sin in a good work. This the sophist, without and against the clear text of Paul, invents from his own head. But he says Rom. 8, 1.: because they are in Christ JEsu and do not walk according to the flesh, obviously speaking of mortal sin. The sophists deal only with the weakening of this sin, which God makes so great that He wants His Son to be held up to Him, and urge and drive all men to Christ by this exceedingly severe judgment, so that they trembling, despairing and sighing give themselves under His wings. But those who deny this sin make sleepy and secure people who rely on the good they have received; thereby they also make Christ's grace worthless.

  1. Absoluta - obsolsta a play on words.

1178 L. V. L. V, 502 s. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1450-1452. 1179

and the mercy of God small, whereupon must inevitably follow coldness in love, sloth in praise, and lukewarmness in gratitude. They know absolutely nothing of Christ.

Therefore, beware of those most pernicious people and learn that the works of God are great, wonderful and glorious. Therefore, know that you cannot make this sin great enough, for no man has ever been able to fully comprehend or understand the evil of it, since it is infinite and eternal, so that you may know again that the works of God done for you in Christ are immeasurable, since he has predestined for you in Christ such a mighty grace that does not allow you to be corrupted by such a great evil. And even though you are worthy of such a great evil, through the grace of this man you shall not only not be corrupted by it, but also finally be delivered from it. The glory of grace must be exalted, and it cannot be praised highly enough, so that Paul exclaims 2 Cor. 9:15: "But thanks be to God for his unspeakable grace." Do not listen, then, to the cold and dull hissing of the sophists about good works without sin, about infused faith, about acquired faith, about free will; these are dreams and antics against this serious matter. You must let yourself be drawn to Christ, as Isa. 2, 10. says: "Go into the rock, and hide yourself in the earth, from the fear of the Lord and from his glorious majesty"; and in the Song of Songs, Cap. 2, 14: "My dove in the holes of the rock, in the clefts of the stone." Do not be mistaken. The greatness of the protection shows sufficiently how great this sin is, if you do not think that Christ, the Son of God, is a wooden image. All the saints tremble before this judgment, and if they do not have Christ as their protector, they are lost. And we still argue and play,' whether there is sin in good works. Of course, we are so wise in regard to the terrifying eternal majesty that when we speak of it, we speak of it as of a man.

After that, the discerner goes on and says: "From two causes, the error that is

seems to be against the law of God, not sin: first, when the use of reason is absent, as in the case of madmen, sleepers, children; second, when one does not agree with him, as in the case of virgins 2c Who does not see here, again, that not the lions are defended, who have condemned' Luther because of the sin in the saints, which is enslaved by the grace of God, but some fictitious dream gods, who have condemned him, as if he had taught that there is a mortal sin in a good work. Up to now no sophist has made me so completely weary as this Latomus, such unworthiness is in this man and such nonsense in gimmicks. For he is not so stupid that he does not understand that I am not talking about such a sin, in regard to which he cites the sayings of the Fathers and babbles about it himself, since he often testifies that he knows it, but it is pure impiety that he boasts against his own testimony that I have talked about the damnable sin, and makes the world believe this (as I have said).

It is of this kind that he does not call the inclination to evil a hindrance to virtue, nor something evil, nor sin, but (he says) it has even benefited the martyrs for good. What do I hear? It benefited them for good, so it is not sin. You see how excellently the sophists would like to blaspheme the grace of GOD. For what is due to the grace of God, they most impudently attribute to sin. The devil, as a tempter, uses the saints for good, so his temptations are neither evil nor sins. One must overcome the evil of inclination, so it is not evil. I beg you, how much this sophist tests my patience! Really, if I have sinned a little in the booklet which I published against their verdict of condemnation, I atone for it abundantly here by having to bear their unbelievable stupidity, ignorance and malice. For the inclination to evil is sin for its own sake, because it resists the martyrs and makes them suffer, although the power of grace shines out more through it.

1180 L. V. L. V, 503-505. 47. refutation of latomus. W. xvm. 1452-1455. 1181

one looks at the judgment of God. It is mercy that spares; it is God's gift that overcomes. But you, dear reader, see what an outrageous deed I have been guilty of, that I have portrayed these people as those who are more stupid than the blocks.

And he adds that sin is only voluntary, especially the sin of the deed, so there is no sin in a good work. The conclusion applies from Latomus to Latomus; especially because Gregory says: God would never destroy the vessels of wrath if voluntary sin were not found in them. And why does he give ruin as a reward to children and the ignorant? But Gregory also speaks here of vessels of wrath and of their sins, which Latomus understands of the sins of the saints in a good work, how else could he introduce it against me? How else would he speak to the matter? For he attacks the sin which I have named, and proves through Gregory that this is no sin, because it can be done by will alone. But I am tired of it. Away with the exceedingly tasteless intriguer, who understands neither me, nor himself, nor the Fathers, nor the Scriptures even a hair's breadth, and if he understood them, would not want to understand them. In this whole book, nothing has been done right, except that the murderers of Louvain and the antichrist bull are given a worthy advocate.

Now let us look at the apostle himself, and consider their interpretations, set beside them, that we may learn how many new words immediately arise. "We know" (he says Rom. 7:14. ff.) "that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin," that is, as those say, I am weak and punished, sold under punishment. Then "spiritual," because it is said in contrast, will be the same as sound, redeemed from punishment without punishment. Further, "For I know not what I do" (that is, I suffer punishment), "for I do not do that which is good" (that is, freedom from punishment), "that which I will, but that which is evil" (that is, punishment), "that which I haste, that I do. But if I do that which I do not want, I consent" (that is, I am free from punishment), "that the law may be good" (that is,

that it fei impunity). "Therefore I do not do the same, but the sin" (that is, the punishment) "that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" (that is, freedom from punishment). "I may want to, but I do not find the good to accomplish. For the good" (that is, freedom from punishment), "that I want, I do not do, but the evil" (that is, punishment), "that I do not want, I do. But if I do what I do not want, I do not do it, but sin" (that is, the punishment), "which dwells in me. So then I find in myself a law, which I will do that which is good" (that is, freedom from punishment) "that evil" (that is, punishment) "may cling to me. For I delight in the law of God" (that is, I am unpunished) "according to the inward man. But I see another law" (that is, punishment) "in my members, which contradicts" (that is, punishes) "the law in my mind" (that is, my impunity) "and takes me captive" (that is, drags me to punishment) "in the law of sin" (that is, in the punishment), "which is in my members. I wretched man, who will deliver me from the body of this death?" (that is, this punishment) "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with my mind I serve the law of God" (that is, I am placed under impunity), "but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" (that is, I am placed under punishment). "So then there is nothing condemnable" and so on.

Does that mean to explain Paul, if I also admit that it is well and rightly said this way? But the fathers spoke in this way. But did they order or command that one must speak in this way? Is it not necessary to obey God more than men? Paul commands and had the right to command 1 Tim. 6, 20.: "Avoid unspiritual loose talk" (novitates), and that you should speak as He Himself speaks, and stick to the holy, traditional words. For what is unspiritual? Is it not that which is not holy? But human things are not holy, but then they are also new, 1) because they do not come from the

  1. "New" refers to novitatss in the Vulgate.

1182 L. V. s. V, S08-S07. VIII. Luther's dispute with ^Latomus. W. xvlll, I4SS-I457. 1183

Apostles is set. Neither can you argue with me that the word homousios 1) was accepted against the Arians. It has not been accepted by many, and indeed by very famous people, that Jerome also wished it to be abolished, and so little did they escape the danger through this newly raised word that Jerome complains, 2) he does not know what poison is hidden in the syllables and letters. For the Arians are much more concerned with this word than with the Scriptures. And also Hilarius could not answer anything else than that by this word exactly that was expressed which was the right thing, and the whole Scripture contained this. But this does not happen in the present case. For in no place does Scripture use the word sin for this punishment, but on the contrary everywhere for evil, which is contrary to the law of God, so that even the similarity (according to which Latomus alone is a theologian) does not hold here.

Yes, even if there were a similarity and the example applied, one would not have to refer to it, but credit the fathers for having once used an unspiritual word without Scripture. Otherwise, if one introduces the example, one might change the whole Scripture into other words, as the Sophists have done. Now if my soul hated the word homousios, and I did not want to use it, I would not be a heretic. For who could force me to use this word, if I only hold the thing which was established from Scripture at the Concilium? Although the Arians have had evil opinions in matters of faith, yet this demand of theirs has been very good, may it have sprung from evil or good sense, that in articles of faith no unspiritual (profanam) and new word may be introduced. For the integrity of the Scriptures must be preserved, and a man must not be so presumptuous as to begin with

  1. Inadvertently written by Luther instead of Cf. our introduction to this paper.
  2. Cf. Jena edition, 3rd ed., vol. VII, 243 b.; Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2702.
  3. Speak more clearly and more loudly with his mouth than God has spoken with his mouth. He who does not preside over the words of GOD, who speaks for himself in divine things, only do not think that he will understand the words of a man who speaks of strange things. No one speaks better than he who understands best; but who could understand things better than God Himself? Yes, how much is it that man understands about divine things?

Rather, let the wretched man give glory to God, and either confess that he does not understand His words or refrain from desecrating them with his own new and own words, so that the lovable wisdom of God may remain for us in real form. Therefore, let the fathers say what they can; I want the words of this Paul in this passage to mean what they say, and I despise their inventions of accusation (reatibus) and guilt and such gimmicks, which darken the understanding more than help it. Light, manifest, and faithful are the words of the apostle; those burning and strong shining suns have no need of human torches. You say that there is no accusation, there is no guilt, therefore there is no sin, and you feel as if you have spoken beautifully, since you speak in the darkest and, as Nehemiah says Cap. 13, 24, Asdodian 4) and according to the language of any people and have already forgotten the holy and fatherly language. Therefore, away with the foreign languages and let us reintroduce the native and genuine one.

For why do you not say much more purely and lightly: There is not wrath, but grace? Therefore the sin there does not condemn, although it is real sin. The evangelist John drank right poison, but it did not kill him, because the power of faith was there, which did not make the right poison something other than right poison, or punishment, or weakness, but prevented it from harming. If another had drunk it,

  1. The reading of the Jena edition sincerius seems to us better than that of the original securius.
  2. Incorrect in the original Asotiee. In the Vulgate XMtiee, in Hebrew rvnwVyr.

1184 L V. L. V, 507 f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1457-1460. 1185

he would have truly died. Christ says Marc. 16, 18., "If they drink something deadly, it will not harm them." He did not say, so it will no longer be deadly, but, it will not harm, because they will drink in my name. Otherwise, what glory would there be in the miracle if it ceased to be deadly when drunk? The Chaldean fire was indeed fire and remained so, but it did not injure the three men Dan. Cap. 3., not because it could not burn and scorch, but because it could not do so to them, while it utterly consumed the others before the furnace.

Thus this sin is true sin, because it subjects all others to wrath Rom. 5:9, but these do not, because they have the antidote, but these do not, namely the gift of God in the grace of the One Man Jesus Christ, with which they do not walk according to the flesh. Is this not so clear and easy that no one can be so clumsy as not to grasp it very easily? On the other hand, those subtleties of accusation, guilt, of the form and essence of sin, of deprivation, of skill, of deed, of expulsion, of infusion, of forgiveness, of qualities, of forms, of objects, of inward and outward goodness, of inward and outward wickedness, of charge, of merit, of the nature of good, of pleasant, of unpleasant (deacceptati), - who can hear all the voices of these frogs and flies, much less pattern them? Even those who are the teachers (magistri) of the others do not yet grasp it in harmony, let alone that the poor people could receive from them a correct knowledge of what sin and grace are, for here one must have swallowed even the utmost filth of philosophy and ten times shit before one can understand what accusation (reatus) or guilt is. These inconsistencies and monstrosities of the sophists may pass away.

Therefore Paul rightly says Rom. 7:14: "But I am carnal" (he does not say I was carnal), "sold under sin." Prove to me, then, that "carnal" in Scripture means subject to penalties and infirmities. But he calls himself carnal, not

because he is entirely carnal, but according to the mind he is spiritual, according to the flesh carnal, as according to the mind free from sin, according to the flesh sold under sin, as he says v. 25: "So then with the mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Here do not be misled by Latomus, who sets two wills. It is one man Paul who confesses both of himself in one and the other relation; under grace he is spiritual, but under the law carnal; it is the same, even the same Paul in both positions. The gift makes him spiritual and under grace, in the grace of the One Man JEsus Christ. Sin makes him carnal, but not under wrath, because grace and wrath do not agree, nor fight each other, nor rule over each other, as the gift and sin do. So also Rom. 7, 15., "For what I do I know not," as a carnal man, but I know it as a spiritual man. How else could he say of himself that he does not know what he is doing? Then he calls what he does evil; thus he understands the evil he does, but according to the flesh he does not know what he knows according to the spirit. For he really believes that sin, which rages in the flesh, is something good, which he desires, and makes it appear so to man, and does not see how evil it is. V. 15. 19.: "For I do not do the good that I desire, but the evil that I hate, that I do." Behold, he understands the good and the evil, but the spiritual Paul so understands, and wills, and hates. But the carnal one does not understand the good, and does and loves the evil instead of the good.

Now let Latomus bring forward scripture proving that carnal means something different here than in other passages, and as grammar and plain meaning requires. He proves that evil and good mean something different in this passage than in other passages. He proves that to want, not to want, to hate, to do means something different here than in other places. Since he cannot do this, and since their meaning in this place is not contrary to godliness, he must prove that they are different.

1186 L. V. a. V, 508-S10. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1460-1462. 1187

Why should we be moved by human interpretations? For just as he who is only partly fleshly, as I have said, is actually called fleshly, so is he a man who is a frail or small man. If a man's head is wounded, we also rightly say that the man is wounded. And he that smiteth the foot of a dog, of him it is rightly said, he smiteth the dog. So Paul does not know because he does not know according to the flesh; and he works because he works according to the flesh; and he does evil because he does according to the flesh. And it is evil because it is against the spirit and good. But for this reason one can quite well say that he works, he does, he is evil, he understands completely, even though he does not work completely, does not do completely, does not accomplish all evil, or understands only in part. Just as a man is not unwounded because he is not wounded and killed in every part, and you have beaten a dog just as well if you have not beaten and killed it in every part, you have wounded, beaten, if you have wounded even the smallest member of it, according to the true and real meaning of the word. Therefore here is also quite actually sin, although it does not kill, condemn, subject the whole man to wrath. For grace and the gift preserve man so that he cannot sin, that is, consent to this sin and be lost.

You will say: But you do not prove that sin is taken in this way elsewhere, namely, that it does not condemn. I answer: This is also not necessary and I have not undertaken it. I have only to do with the fact that sin in this place means the same as everywhere else. But that I say that sin is treated differently here is none of the business of the meaning of "sin," for Scripture takes sin everywhere in the same way, but it does not everywhere treat it in the same way or describe in the same way how it is treated. Here it says sin happens, elsewhere it is forgiven, elsewhere it is punished, elsewhere the punishment of sin is postponed, elsewhere it is concealed, elsewhere it is confessed, an

derswo, it is denied. And who could enumerate the actions, the suffering and the accidental of sin? Thus, in this passage, what sin does and suffers under grace is described. It is not denied that it is sin; indeed, this passage assumes that sin has happened and is there. Here it is said that, being conquered, it rebels against the Holy Spirit, of which elsewhere it is written that it reigns as the victor. It is absolutely the same sin everywhere, but not everywhere it is able, does and suffers the same. But that the Scriptures elsewhere take sin in the same way, as far as the meaning is concerned, I have proved above from Paul, who takes it Rom. 6 and 8 in this way; also Rom. 7, Gal. 5, 1 Cor. 5., Eph. 4th, 1 Cor. 7th, Col. 3rd, Ebr. 13th, as he calls them unchastity, pleasure, wrath 2c, and 1 John 1:8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." But the adversaries cannot even muster a jot for their meaning.

Now let us follow Paul further Rom. 7, 16.: "But if I do that which I do not want, I consent that the law be good." A wonderful composition; he consents to the good law, but not he whole (totus), because he does not do as a whole man what he does not will as a whole man; here also it is not the whole man who consents, who does, who wills not; but the same who consents to the good law, does what he wills not, that is, contrary to the good law which he wills; v. 17.: "I therefore do not the same." Who is the "I" who does not do this now, of whom it is soon said that he does? Certainly the "I" who am spiritual, who am now regarded according to this "I" in grace, which does not permit me to be estimated according to sin, according to which I am carnal. All is washed away, and now there is another "I" than before grace, where after sin I was esteemed wholly carnal. V. 17.: "But the sin that dwelleth in me." Thou dost not, and yet that which is in thee doth? Your hand strikes me, and you do not strike me? It is true, because it does it against my will, and after that I am esteemed.

1188 L. V. a. V, 510-SI2. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1462-1465. 1189

But I really do it, because a part of me does it, but I am not judged by it. The hand does evil, and it would be imputed to me if my mind were not innocent. But therefore it is evil what the hand does, only that it is not imputed. But it is not imputed because of the innocent mind. So sin is truly sin, but because the gift and grace are in me, it is not imputed, not because of its innocence, as if it did no harm, but because the gift and grace reign in me.

[V. 18: "For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." Because it is my flesh, not another's, therefore that which dwells in it is said to dwell in me. How Paul moves most sweetly between the flesh and the spirit, alternating between the two in the most pleasing way with the most impertinent synecdoche! For sin dwells in the flesh and is truly sin. For the Jebusite dwells within our borders, and will be a mote in our eyes, and a stumblingblock by our side, if we do not seek to cut him off. What is the mote in the eye but a timber before the face, whereon thou mayest stumble if thou walkest carelessly? Thus sin has its daily activity before us and confronts us on the way and also tempts us to the side; if it is not swept out manfully, we push ourselves and are brought into trouble by it. It is a very evil guest, and yet it dwells in the flesh, in us, in our land, in our borders. Therefore, there is nothing good in the flesh, I truly say, nothing good, not only punishment, but sin.

[V. 18: "I will, but I do not find the good to do. He explains himself more clearly, how the spiritual man in sin does not do evil, but wills the good, and yet he does not accomplish this willing because of the sin that dwells in the flesh. But this willing is not nothing for its own sake, because he does not accomplish it, just as, on the other hand, sin is not to be regarded as nothing evil, because it dwells in the flesh, although my "I" does not do it, but sin itself. Both

I say, an evil thing happens and yet it does not happen. It happens because sin does it; it does not happen because my mind does not do it, does not want to do it, but would not do it because sin does it. I ask you, would he describe such a great struggle between the punishment and the spirit with such great care? But this again argues against the sophists. They may say, where in Scripture is ever punishment (by which they intend to turn out that they do not wish to be forced to call it sin) taught as such a thing as must be fled, resisted, condemned with so great zeal? It is not the punishment that Scripture commands not to be borne, and therefore all this evasion is of no avail. Both their interpretation and their text, their things and their words, are all contrary to the use of all Scripture, contrary to the opinion of all the godly, so that from their interpretation follows an inconsistency no less than that from which they tried to escape in the text. For it is inconsistent to assert what you can nowhere find or prove, but are forced to hear all that is contrary to it as one alone.

[V. 19: "For the good that I want I do not do, but the evil that I do not want I do. But if I do that which I would not, I do not do the same, but the sin that dwelleth in me." Behold the faithful herald of faith! He repeats and carefully inculcates, pointing as it were with his finger to that word, "But if I do that which I will not," because it seemed too obscurely said above, where, having similarly said, "But if I do that which I will not," before concluding, "So then I do not do the same," he interposed, "So then I consent that the law be good." Here, however, he soon concludes, "If I do it, since I do not will it, this unwillingness certainly proves that I do not do it after all, and yet it happens in me, so it necessarily does the sin that dwells in me, so that no one can understand this passage other than the spiritual man, nor even those who practice evil works. For he says here that one is hindered by the other, but still in such a way that

1190 L. V. L. V, 512 f. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1465-1467. 1191

the spirit prevails and is attributed to him that he does not do evil, does not want it. For he does not reverse the sentence, that he should say: For not the evil which I will, that do I; but the good which I will not, that do I; but if I do the good which I will not, now I do it not, but the grace that dwelleth in me. For this is what the flesh would have to say if it ruled over the spirit that resists it. But now that the Spirit complains and accuses the flesh, it is evident that it is not the flesh that reigns, but that it is burdensome and unruly to the reigning Spirit. For nothing speaks for the flesh, but against the flesh; but this a carnal man does not do, who stands apart from grace. Therefore, the grace of God does not impute this work of sin, because he really does not do it, and yet it is in him, and he himself really does it, as has been sufficiently said.

[V. 21: "So now I find in me, who will do good, that evil clings to me." For it is not another who wants to do good than the one to whom evil clings. The spiritual man wants to do good as a whole man (totus), but the carnal man clings to him as not even a whole man (minus totus). [V. 22. 23. "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, which is contrary to the law in my mind, and takes me captive to the law of sin, which is in my members." Here he explains himself most clearly. For delighting in God's law takes place only in a godly and righteous man; he who is not righteous does not resist the law in his members, nor is it in him to resist. But he does not call the law of the spirit a natural law, as they say, but he opposes it to the law in the members, rather he calls the will of the spirit that delights in the law of God; to this he opposes the law in the members, which delights in the law of sin, so that the law in the members is also the will that opposes the will of the spirit. But he calls it contrary, and thereby certainly indicates evil, not the

Punishment, but Her guilt; for evil is to resist the law of God. Now he does not say, 'not obeying, but resisting, which is more grievous, lest you should slight the sin that remains after baptism, which is great and is taken away by a great gift of God, and is forgiven by a great grace, for the sake of the spirit that does not resist, but delights in the law of God.

And that last one is even more terrible, "that it takes captive". Behold, I beseech thee, with how great centner-loads and power of words he magnifies this sin, which so mitigates and abolishes that one. It is not alone, does not live alone, does not want alone, does not do alone, does not resist alone, but even rages and takes captive. I ask you for God's sake, are these trivial things? And who does not feel that this happens in him? Who has not ever felt the raging thoughts and impulses of pleasure and anger, however unwillingly and unwillingly? Their rage is untamed, yes, about which one will be surprised, it does not rage so in the ungodly, because they do not withstand its onslaught, they yield and obey it and therefore they never experience how great work, how great complaint it is to wrestle against sin and to rule over it. This attack requires a severe military service, therefore Christ is also called the Lord of hosts and a king mighty in battle, because he not only endures these great attempts by his gift, but also overcomes them.

Behold, therefore, the greatness of the gift and grace of God, that so great an evil is not condemnable to the godly; the evil thoughts of the godly are stronger than those of the ungodly, and yet they do not stain, do not condemn them, but those the ungodly stain and condemn them. Why is this? Is not the same sin on both sides? Really the same sin, but the godly have the antidote, those do not. Therefore, the godly do not sin in their sin's stronger attack, while those sin in the lesser, not because there is no sin on either side, but this is the glory of God's grace, not of their wickedness.

1192 V. a. V. 513-515. 47, Refutation of Latomus. W. XVIII, 1467-1469. 1193

Nature. When grace ceases, it really condemns; now grace hinders, that it may not condemn the evil nature. Ps. 115:1: "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory." It is not, as the sophists rave, that such a raging adversary of the law of GOD is not a sin, it is not punishment, it is not weakness, but a great sin, as the 19th Psalm laments, saying v. 14., "I will remain innocent of great iniquity." Let this glory be far from our purity. But he says "take captive," not because the spiritual man is taken captive, but because nothing is omitted by the part that 1) belongs to sin, so that the spiritual man is taken captive, as he himself says Gal. 1, 13: "I disturbed the church of God," since it is impossible that the church should be disturbed. But he did not omit anything, as much as it was in him, that she would be disturbed. Therefore he does not say here, she resists and I am taken captive; she takes captive and I am not taken captive. For if he had said this also, the sense would compel to understand, according to the flesh, as he said, that he was sold and carnal, according to the flesh; in such a manner he says, he is taken captive according to the flesh, and this meaning, as the simpler, pleases me better.

V. 24.: "I wretched man, who will deliver me from the body of this death?" Here he calls sin death, that is, the greatest complaint, figuratively, and speaks like the 2nd Book of Moses, Cap. 10, 17th, where Pharaoh asked that the locusts might be taken away: "Ask the LORD your GOD, that yet only he will take away this death from me." For he calls sin by its most hateful name, as he also calls locusts, because of its urgent, ungodly, incessant, indomitable raging, by which it leaves us with no peace in this life, but constantly forces us to stand in the battle line. For Paul does not fear Latomus's sleeping and

  1. In the original: yuoä sx parts pseeati sst. In the Jena edition: yuoä sx parte Mod xseeati sst. We have followed the latter reading.

dormant types of behavior. 2) Augustine also did not want what Latomus interprets for him. It is true that we do not always rage in one passion; anger does not always burn, lust does not always rage, envy does not always torment, but one follows the other. And when all are asleep, lukewarmness and sloth do not sleep. Even when you are hard at work, pride is awake. And as I have said most truly: As we are not without the flesh, so we do not work without the flesh, so we are not without the defects of the flesh, nor do we work without them, as Latomus so foolishly concludes from the particular or individual: At times the passion rests, so there is not sin in every good work, when he should have said: At times all rest, and all sin sleeps, which is impossible. For the flesh is a living thing and is in constant motion, changing as the objects change.

But that there is no sin in sleep is also due to God's grace, not to nature. Admittedly, there is no damnable sin, but the fact that there is sin does not stand in the way of the fact that the use of reason cannot be there. But it is sin that we cannot sleep purely. Why have we not remained in a right condition, in which we could have slept purely and done all things purely? The drunkard's drunkenness does not excuse him if he sins something through it; why did he not remain sober? Therefore, for our sake nothing is held to our credit, nothing of us is pure, but only by the grace and gift of God. What excuses the children who are not baptized from being eternally damned? 3)

[V. 25: "I give thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Paul gives thanks, not to his righteousness, but to the merciful GOD, and that through JEsum Chri-

  1. habitus. What is to be understood by it, results from the following at the end of this paragraph.
  2. We have followed the reading of the Jena edition, pure instead of pura.
  3. Walch: This is also still an error of the first times from the Pabstthum.

1194 D. V. E. V, SIS-SI7. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1469-1472. 1195

stum, our Lord. For he always holds this up to God, under whose wings he hides himself, in whose grace he rejoices and boasts of God's grace and gift. But he desires to be delivered from this body. For he does not say, who will deliver me from the death of this body, but from the body of this death. Because he sees that in this life the purity of the Leo saints is not possible, and yet he desires to be pure, therefore he desires to die. An ungodly man does not say this word, or if he says it, he does not say it for 'this reason. For because of the punishment he would not cry out like this, would not call for death like this, but sin weighs him down too much. So you see that this passage applies to the most holy ones, and that they suffer the unruly and raging sin, so that we learn not to weaken God's grace by weakening our evil, by denying that this is sin, by human interpretations; but by magnifying and exalting it as much as we can, so that it may come to light that such confession and magnification is the work of God, who is marvelous in his saints and does all his will in them, since we seem to have sin, and really have sin. For His will is not the sin that is in us, but our sanctification 1 Thess. 4:3 from that very sin.

So Paul summarizes how the life of a godly man is in this temporality by saying v. 25: "So then I serve the law of God with my mind, but the law of sin with my flesh." "I" is one and the same man. And this is not hindered by the objection of Latomus, who thinks that this may be understood like that above, "There dwelleth in me, that is, in my flesh, no good thing." Paul himself interprets this in this way, since he says, "I serve with the flesh the law of sin"; if you would not, as a dainty interpreter, still add and say: My flesh serves with the flesh the law of sin. For what should be said by this? The words are too clear to suffer a sophistical distortion. I myself, he says, no other. After that he says, I

serve; not merely that I have sin, but I serve it, or, which is just as much, my flesh serves it. But what does it mean to serve sin? Is it not doing her will? Is it not doing against the law of God? But this is what the flesh does when it opposes, when it captures, when it rages. For so it serves sin, but because the spirit does not obey, nor is defeated by its raging, therefore it does not condemn. The service of sin becomes void, all its efforts are thwarted, but therefore it is not that it is nothing, or that this service is not evil, or that the flesh does not sin through this evil service, even though it serves in vain and its master, sin, does not have the upper hand; rather, for this reason it deserves to be crucified and killed itself, so that it may stop serving in this way. Rom. 8, 1.: "There is therefore nothing condemnable in them which are in Christ JEsu, who walk not after the flesh." Truly, nothing condemnable, but not: nothing sinful (peccati), but some sin is there, not of that which Latomus alone imagines he knows, by which the Spirit ministers to sin, apart from grace, but to sin, which would be such if grace and the gift were not supreme in the grace of one man. The nature of sin is really in them, but it is now unable to do what it was able to do otherwise.

Latomus must therefore bring such a passage of Scripture that to resist the law of God is not sin, but a punishment or a weakness. For enough has been said of what he says from Augustine, that man therefore does not sin, as it must be taken, namely, he speaks of sin apart from grace. This is what the clumsy dialectician introduces against me, who speaks of sin within grace, as he does everywhere and in all things, and asserts in the usual way what he should prove, as if he had conquered, that sin within grace does not exist among men. If he does not bring a scripture, we will force him to be satisfied with the simple and proper meaning of the words, that to resist the law of God is truly to sin. Thus he must prove,

1196 L- v- a. v, 517-519. 47. Refutation of Latomus. W. xviii, 1472-1474. 1197-

that "to be taken captive under the law of sin, and to be a slave to the law of sin" is as much as to be weak and not to sin, otherwise, taking the words as they are, we have proved that it is the same as sinning, everywhere, in everyone who is said to serve sin or its law. As Christ says John 8:34, "He that committeth sin is the servant of sin," and 2 Peter 2:19, "For of whomsoever a man is overcome, of him is he a servant," and Paul himself Romans 6:17, 18, "Ye were the servants of sin;" "now that ye are made free from sin, ye are become the servants of righteousness." So here Paul himself is a servant of sin, but because he adds "with the flesh," he obviously distinguishes between "serving the simple sin" (which Latomus alone wants and which he imagines he knows) and between "serving sin with the flesh."

It is not true what Latomus teaches, that sometimes sin is not served, and this is not true, either simply in the service of sin, or in the service of sin with the flesh. For all that he does who is a servant of sin is sin. It is the master of his person, and the service is a name, not of a work, but of a state, which sums up all the endeavors of the whole life, just as it is something else simply to serve God than with the flesh. The righteous simply serve God, for that concerns the person, but the hypocrites serve Him only with the flesh, because they serve only with works, not with the faith of the heart. And as these are damnable hypocrites, so are those (that I say so) wholesome hypocrites, who serve sin with the flesh, and they are evil in appearance, but good in truth. But even the outward works of the hypocrites are not nothing, but really useful and good, because they are useful to the creature of God; so also the sins of the righteous are really evil and harmful, because they are works of sin, and as the good works are of no use to the hypocrites, so their sins do no harm to the righteous. Because, therefore, I have said: How can he work without the flesh or the will of the flesh, who cannot be without the same? holds.

For does not Latomus counter Paul's saying 2 Cor. 10:3, "Though in the flesh, we do not walk according to the flesh"? 1) As if this were walking according to the flesh, since we do not work without the flesh. By this he means to have nullified the likeness I have given of a rusty instrument, so nothing at all sees this sophistical way. Paul serves sin with the flesh and yet he does not walk according to the flesh. However, this persecutor of the testimonies does not lead Paul correctly either, because Paul says 2 Cor. 10, 3: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not walk after the flesh" i.e. carnal way. But the meaning is the same.

But what is it necessary to go through all the things of Latomus one by one, since from all these statements all his is abundantly refuted and confirms mine? For I have shown sufficiently that Latomus places himself entirely on the assertion of what he should prove (petitio principii), since he does not want sin to be taken by me differently than he takes it himself. With deliberate malice he perverts both my sayings and those of all the fathers, since, where they speak simply of sin, he draws them to mean that it is said against sin in grace, or he applies what is said of the sin of the whole (that I say so) to the sin of the part. He does this because he and his sophists have never known what grace and sin are, what law and gospel are, what Christ and a man are.

For whoever wants to speak of sin and grace, of law and gospel, of Christ and man in a Christian way, must speak almost in the same way as of God and man in Christ. He must be very careful that he expresses both natures of the whole person, with all its characteristics, and yet be careful not to ascribe to it what simply belongs to God, or simply to man. For it is something else to speak of the incarnate God or of the man made into God, and something else to speak simply of God.

  1. According to the Vulgate, not correctly cited by Latomus, as Luther immediately notes.

-1198 L. V.". V, 519 f. VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus. W. XVIII, 1474-1477. -1199

and to speak to man. Thus, sin apart from grace is something different from that in grace, so that you might imagine that grace or the gift of God is veiled in sin 1) and sin is taken up in grace as long as we live here, that sin should now no longer be sin because of the gift and grace.

But this is a consideration which must be treated with more leisure. Therefore, I will leave it here until I have more time and can also refute the other things. For what he claims about penance and indulgences is worthless, since he proves everything from human writings. For neither Gregory nor any angel has had power to establish or teach anything in the church that cannot be proved from Scripture. And at the same time, I believe that the above sufficiently proves that scholastic theology is nothing other than ignorance of the truth and a nuisance that is set beside Scripture. It is also indifferent to me that Latomus accuses me of ingratitude and insults against St. Thomas, Alexander and others. For they have done badly for me. Nor do I think that I lack sense, even Latomus will admit that, and my diligence is certainly not hidden. But I have said to my counsel that a young man should avoid scholastic philosophy and theology as the death of his soul.

The Gospels are not so obscure that they cannot be understood by children. How then were the Christians taught at the time of the martyrs, where this philosophy and theology did not exist? How did Christ himself teach? Saint Agnes was a theologian at the age of 13, as were Lucia and Anastasia, from what did they learn? For the studies of the universities have not, to this day, produced any martyr or saint, in so many centuries, from so great a number, who proved that their way of teaching was pleasing and right to God, as those from private schools have produced multitudes of saints. The

  1. imxsooatiLealuni, actually: ignited.

philosophical and scholastic theology is recognized by its fruits. For in regard to Thomas Aquinas, I doubt very much whether he is damned or blessed; I would rather believe that Bonaventure is blessed. Thomas has written many heretical things and he is the author that Aristotle reigns as the destroyer of the divine doctrine. Why am I deceived that the bishop of the bull has elevated him among the saints?

I therefore believe that I too have a not entirely unskillful judgment in these matters, because I have been educated in them, have investigated the opinion of the most learned contemporaries, have thought through the best writings of this kind, am at least somewhat learned in the holy Scriptures, and have been tested to some extent by experience in these spiritual matters, which, as I clearly see, was lacking in Thomas and all those who write and teach similar things. Therefore let everyone who wants to accept it be warned by my counsel; I do what I have to do and remind again with the apostle Col. 2, 8.: "See to it that no one deprives you through philosophy and loose seduction" (I interpret this confidently and confidently from the scholastic philosophy) "according to the doctrine of men, and according to the statutes of the world" (these are the rights of the bulls and what else is instituted in the church without the Scriptures), "and not according to Christ." Here it is clear that Paul wants Christ alone to be taught and heard here. But who does not see how the high schools read the Bible? Compare those who have read and written about the opinions of teachers (sententias) and about philosophy with those who have written about the Bible, or teach the same (since it should have flourished and reigned as the chiefest of all), and you will see how the high schools respect the word of God.

But I return to you, my dear Jonas, and send this Latomus away from me to you, so that he may no longer be a burden to me, since I have already begun to interpret the Epistles and Gospels in German; that is the cause that it has been a nuisance to me to read and answer his filth. If it seems good to me, I will answer everything at another time; only, as a banished person

1200 L- v. a. v, 520 f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. xviii, 1477-1479. 1201

Lack of books and carry the judgment of the heretic magistrates, 1) by which they wanted to force the Jews onto the mere Bible. For the Bible alone is with me. Not as if much depended on my having books, but for this they would be useful to me because I must see whether the sayings of the fathers are also honestly attracted by the opponent. For he cites Dionysius for the fact that one should "ask" God for the departed, since the latter writes of "praising", as I remember very well. And why does not one of you answer the rest? either you or Andreas Carlstadt? Why doesn't Amsdorf come forward? Don't you all have to defend the honor of the gospel as well? I have crushed the head of the serpent, why can't you crush the body?

For example, as he interprets the word, Job 9, 28.: "So I fear all my pains": "I fear", that is, I observe; and the word, Ps. 143, 2.: "Do not go into judgment with your servant" 2c, where the prophet prays against the judgment of God, which he interprets thus: The whole life of God is without sin, and the whole life of no man is without sin, therefore he does not want to be judged according to the

  1. This brings Luther back to what he said towards the end of his answer to Latomus' preface about the burning of books by the sophists. According to Luther's intention, the above expression is ambiguous, namely: magisters who condemn others as heretics and yet are themselves the worst heretics.

To be judged by the life of God. Therefore, he makes the judgment of God, or the face of God before which one must appear, the life of God. But where is it taken this way in Scripture? So any part of our life that could say: Go to judgment; 2) it would certainly have to belong to a different number than those who are called all living. But does he not introduce the fathers? But were not the fathers also men? Couldn't any of you easily refute these and similar antics? The judgment of God is the work of God, by which He does not compare His life with us, but tests ours. Otherwise, what kind of inconsistency would it be that eternal life should be compared to that which lasts only a moment? Much and almost everything is of this kind. For I would like you to do something for the word, too, so that I could have leisure and finally serve the poor people. You recruits must also be trained, and that would be best done while I am still alive, where I can perhaps still help a little. But, I beg you, there is the book, take it. How happy I am that I no longer have to keep it with me! Farewell. From my Patmos, June 22, 1521.

  1. According to the above words of Latomus, not the whole life, but a part of it is without sin.

1202 L. V. s,. IV, 3 f. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1479 f. 1203

IX. Luther's dispute with Emser.

48 Letter of Hieronymus Emser about the disputation in Leipzig, insofar as the Bohemians were occasionally remembered in it,

to D. Johann Zack in Prague. *)

August 13, 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Here our goat without hay (is quite gentle), but in one thing he lacks: Lucas Cranach's hand has not painted him for us.

To the venerable father, Mr. Johann Zack, Doctor of Laws, > administrator of the Catholic Church at Prague and provost at > Leitmeritz, Hieronymus Emser, Licentiate of the Holy Canons, wishes > Heil!

That Christ's spirit dwells in you, venerable father, shows your life worthy of Christ, but it is especially evident that you, although once born in the Bohemian land (a land, I say, of superstition and Babylonian confusion), would have considered it a small thing, that you had reborn your biological parents to Christ and at the same time saved yourself with them from the paternal errors, if you had not also been able to do justice to the fact 1) that you had also purified your fatherland itself and that whole Bohemian region (as it were like a second Hercules) from the native abominations.

  1. We have here with Löscher and the Erl. Ausg. 8ntngeres read, instead of 8atnMr68 what the old editions offer.

and Christ with shouts, exhortations, pleas and punishments, and at times with little less danger than once Paul himself. But at last virtue has conquered hatred, and it has gained the upper hand to such an extent that, since the unfeigned zeal of your fatherliness was so often seen, the epitome of church affairs (as much as is left there) and the whole dignity of administration has finally been transferred to you alone. There, in this Bohemian world of yours, which is flooded by torrential rain, thunderstorms and raging waters (as with a flood of water), which is torn into the depths by obvious currents of error that increase from day to day, you steer, as it were, as a second father Noah, with only a few righteous people who recognize Christ, that spiritual ark, that is, the most holy Church of God (which, according to Catholic and apostolic custom, is the most holy Church of God).

ritum, be it by some fate fato,

or by the intercessions of the patron saints, and especially of St. Wenceslaus among so many pirates still floating there on the tides), un-

*) This manuscript was published only once in a single edition, printed by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig. The title is: I>6 cki8pntntion6 Iäx>8i66N8i: qnLntnin nä Lo6ino8 obit6r ä6Ü6xa 68t. lipmtoiu Hi6ron^nii Drn86r. - No8t6r Nie Il6AO66ron mno to6no: P666nt in nno: Huod non 68t I,u6N6 Iin6L cknota mann. Below it Emser's coat of arms (in the shield and on the helmet the forepart of an ibex) with the inscription: ^rinn Hioronvnn Lni86r. In addition, this letter is printed together with Luther's reply, his "Zusatz zu Emsers Bock", in an edition without indication of printer, time and place. On the title of the same is a very good facsimile of Emser's coat of arms. This edition, which is described in the Weimar edition, Vol. II, p. 656 under L., is in our hands; likewise the edition in which our letter is printed together with Eck's answer for Emser, which we have already described in more detail in the first note to No. 39 in this volume. In the "Gesammtausgabe" this writing is found: in the Wittenberg, lorn. I, toi. 342; in the Jenaer, l?oin. I, toi. 367; and in the Erlangen, opp. var. ai-A., vol. IV, p. 3. In Löscher, Reformations-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 660. We have replaced Walch's translation with a new one and based it on Luther's edition, with comparison to Eck's, which has many printing errors.

1204 D- v-4-6. 48. Emser's letter on the Leipzig Disputation. W. xvm, lE-iE. 1205

with the rudder of faith. Would to God, yes, would to God, that the wretched daughter of Babel, that is, this unhappy and erring Bohemia of yours, since you rule it, 1) would finally move from so many cliffs and storms into the safe harbor. Would God that it would finally become wise and come to its senses and, since it sees the last day at the door (novissima providens), turn to the Lord, its God, and return. Dear God, what is this so tough bird glue, with which it hangs so stubbornly? Is it gold or silver? But they may hear Christ, who says Matth. 15. 2): "What would it profit a man, if he should gain the whole world, and yet lose his soul?" Or is it freedom, or rather 3) the pernicious licentiousness in sinning? But they may at least believe Peter, since they do not trust the followers of Peter, who says 1 Pet. 2, 16.: "Not as if you had liberty to the cover of wickedness." Or else is it the pleasures and lusts of the flesh? But they may remember whither this abominable pleasure, not limited by any creed, has brought some of their own (even princely people); or how many crimes and what abominations the presumption which despises the Godhead (superos), and the delusion which once left the right road, has in a short time brought up among them. I call God Almighty to witness that I do not say this without tears. For what true Christian and lover of brotherly love should not grieve over the ruin of so many brethren? over such great harm to souls? over the fall and ruin of so illustrious an empire? finally, over the dishonor and blasphemy of the divine majesty? Or who should not be ashamed that the old noble spirits of Bohemia, a people once distinguished by such great bravery, famous for so many victories, with whom once was the supremacy and the head of the earthly empire, has been brought to the point that, while every single people tenaciously holds to some religion, here in one kingdom the nobles practice a different worship than the citizens, and in one and the same house the father of the house worships in a different way than the members of the house, and often even in one marriage bed the man worships God in a different way than the woman? in general, however, that the by far

  1. remiMlitß, actually: ruderst.
  2. Thus in the old editions: Matt. 16, 26.
  3. In Eck's edition totius, in the others we have followed: potius.

The majority of them put God in the back, leave the word of life, and lend their ears only to craftsmen and henpeckers, also to a kind of lamentation women, and that in subterranean corners (which are quite suitable for the most gruesome darkness)? And among these leaders and guides they dare to dispute against the insurmountable truth of the Church, which is built on the firmest rock of Christ by the blood of so many martyrs, by such firm foundations of the apostles: like a mosquito against the elephant, or a beetle against the eagle! Did Wenceslaus, who used to be their duke, do the same? Did the old Bohemian bravery and the Bohemian nobility submit to it? Or does not rather this prophetic word fit them Klagel. 1, 1. 4.: "How the mistress of the nations sits so alone, the princess of the countries! Her priests groan, for (as follows a little later Cap. 4, 1.) the stones of her sanctuary are scattered in front in all the streets! The noble children of Zion, clothed in precious gold, how they have become an earthen vessel!"

But they would perhaps like to say (as there are some people who are shrewd enough to excuse their errors) that they are by no means alone or without a Theseus, 5) since they even have a representative of their party from among ours, the Doctor Martin Luther, an 'outstanding man' above all others, who both hits the hidden meaning of the Holy Scriptures (as with a divine magic wand) and interprets them according to their liking, who would also be able to effectively counter the fiercest opponents. 6) That is why, when he recently debated in Leipzig, they held public prayers to God and daily (though unholy) services (sacra fecisse); they boast of this before the people.

O miserable Luther, if, trusting in their cursed and abominable services (piacula) and not rather in the constant contemplation of the Scriptures (to which, as they say, he had been untiringly zealous from his earliest years), he had entered into a fight with the bravest of the theologians, Eck! Indeed, this Martin rejected nothing more persistently than this false suspicion that some harbor about him, and nowhere did he confront Eck like this.

  1. In Eck's edition: sudterrunei; we read sudtsrraneis with the other editions.
  2. Theseus, king of Athens, a strong hero who slew the Minotaur on Creta and freed Ariadne.
  3. Latin: ooruieuiu 06ul08 potis sit

eonüZere - who is also capable of pecking out the eyes of crows.

1206 L. v. a. iv, s-8. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. xvm, I4W-I484. 1207

He resisted the challenge of the Czech people, when the latter, whether in jest or in earnest (it is uncertain), alluded to the fact that he was a patron of the Bohemians. With his own mouth he condemned their sacrilegious separation from the apostolic see, and publicly and solemnly declared that in this he did not agree with them and would never agree with them. Therefore, the wretched people may desist from tormenting heaven or approaching it with prayers in vain. For they do not have the divinity (divos) so ready to help them in their prayers that either you, venerable old man, or the others among you who are still inspired by love for Christ, should throw down your arms (hastam) or lower your courage because of this disputation at Leipzig, and there is no reason why these red spirits, be they Picards or those who have separated from the church (schismatici), should deceive themselves with false joy or raise the comb because of it. Yes, much more they may be ashamed that they, since also their defender (as they falsely boast) says no to it, nevertheless do not 1) go into themselves, and are rigid like marble, not otherwise: ac si dura silex aut stet Marpesia cautes 2) [as the hard pebble does not give way, nor Marpesian rock.

And since the disputation itself (as I freely confess) served more for argument than for edification, it seems to me that at least the only fruit of it is that even Martin, a man of truly rare learning and knowledge (on whom, like on a wall, everyone placed their hope), deceived them in this hope with such rounded words, with such a steady mien, yes, even with such astute reasoning, deceived them in this hope, so that he not only publicly confessed, but also, with a certain spirit of indignation, disapproved of the Bohemians' inflexibility and obstinacy against the Roman pope, namely, by asserting that nothing should be considered so important as to separate us from the unity of Christ and the church.

But for this reason, too, they cannot be pleased with themselves that the same Doctor Martin, out of a godly opinion (as I would like to believe), said that he was surprised that there were so many people who insulted the Bohemians in an arrogant manner and even cursed them badly, but there was no one to admonish them from error with kind writings, especially since the human spirit is much more likely to be guided by loving behavior than to want to be forced by threats or terror.

  1. nee is missing in Eck's edition.
  2. Virgils ^onois, lib. VI, v. 471. - Narxosus a mountain of marble on the island of Paros.

For just then, Eck, the incomparably (extra aleam) learned theologian, cited several as proof (ad calculum vocavit), such as Capistranus, Cusanus and other old men (to say nothing of the newer ones and also of your own exceedingly salutary sermons here), who reminded them of their errors not with vehemence, but in the spirit of God and with Christian gentleness, and tried to bring them back to the right way. And yet they achieved nothing more than when someone tells a story to a deaf person. Therefore, there is no reason for them to use the strict nature of our people as an excuse. But, what should prevent, as the apostle says 2 Tim. 4, 2., in season and out of season, to tackle people who are stiff-necked, and to try everything beforehand, but to give them up 3) and let them go? For for an evil branch an evil wedge must also be sought; and Odysseus also tore his weeping comrades away from the lotus tree against their will and drove them to the ship. A doctor is not blamed if he even uses iron or fire to restore health. And it will be of much more use to those who oppose them, however sharply, than a thousand others who remain silent to their destruction, as a scolding friend is better than a silent enemy. That Tantalus in the Gospel the rich man realized this too late, when he finally could not cool his languishing lips himself in hell and only asked that someone be sent to his brothers, giving as a reason that they might not also come to this place of torment. But it follows immediately what an unhappy rejection he had to endure, since it is said to him Luc. 16, 29., "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear the same." Something similar is inculcated in us by Christ Himself, who in the same Lucas 110:10 f.] says to His disciples, "But if they receive you not, get you out of the city; shake also the dust from off your feet for a testimony against them." By these passages it is sufficiently given to understand, both how dangerous a thing it is to stop up the ears, and to shut out once the Christ who knocks of his own free will, and also that the Bohemians cannot complain that ours did not take care of them; but that ours, on the contrary, can say Matt. 11:17., "We whistled unto you, and ye danced not."

Now may these people go who boast of

  1. In the old editions deploratos instead of äoxloratos; with Löscher and the Erl. Ausg. we have assumed the latter.

1208 V-". IV, 8-10. 48. Emser's letter on the Leipzig Disputation. W. XVIII, 1484-1486. 1209

in their malice, and let their intrigues and lies sound before the people, that this disputation, which was held at Leipzig, subscribed to their errors, which, however, did not happen in the least, and nothing is further from the opinion of both parties. Since I myself have been a spectator and listener in this matter from the twin egg, 1) as they say, to the Trojan horse, I consider that it is fitting for a priest of Christ's good to bear witness to the truth, since even worldly men write about this matter and the public judgment is not infrequently guided more by favor (calculis) and luck than by certain reason. In addition, the writings of some do not even show knowledge of the rules of language, let alone diligence and judgment. 2)

If anyone too subtle should insist that Luther could not have been on the side of the Bohemians, since he publicly claimed that some articles of John Hus were Catholic and had been evil condemned, I would reply with Beda that even if this were admitted to John Hus, it was still characteristic of heretics that they mixed the true with the false; yet they would be punished, not because of the truth they have spoken, but because of the falsehood and obstinacy of their minds.

But that the same Martinus with the mentioned John counts namely the supremacy of the pope to human things and claims that it is not from GOtte: so this has not yet come to maturity (adhuc in herba), or that I use a more familiar saying: The thing still hangs in the balance (adhuc sub judice lis est 3). And Martin himself (even though he has everything upward and

  1. Horace, xoötwa, v. 147. A proverbial expression for "from beginning to end". According to the fable, Clytemnestra and Helen emerged from the same egg. Helen was the cause of the Trojan war, the Trojan horse the end of it.
  2. In the Lutheran edition here is the marginal gloss: Rudeat üie Rubens. Namely, Rubeus, a man without scholarship and power of judgment, had on August 13, 1519, a report on the Leipzig Disputation, or rather a flattering writing against Eck and a vituperative writing against Luther and Carlstadt, which is full of the grossest blunders. It is found in Löscher, Ref.-Acta, Vol. Ill, p. 252. - In Eck's edition, the marginal gloss reads: Rubeat bw äeUrus biseoläus 6UU1 U6UÜU6. By biscoläus 6UU1 U6UÜU6 is likewise Rubeus designated. The Reiuo, who had written against him, is a Wittenberg Privatdocent, Joh. Montanus from Hessen. Cf. Waldau, Emsers Leben und Schriften, p. 40 f.
  3. Horace, ^rs xoötwa, v. 78.

If he turns downward and puts the whole sharpness of his mind to it), he has not hardened his mind with such a great stubbornness that he would not give way if he were convicted with better reasons. Nor does it matter to the Bohemians if he should also obtain it, because even then they would have to obey. For that Luther preaches quite constantly that even according to human law, in order to prevent divisions, the pope's sole rule is necessary, and he must be obeyed everywhere by all. Also in his recently published Explanation 4) he admitted that this was the will of God. But I add, however, without anyone's disadvantage (because an Accius counts as much to me as a Titius), this conclusion: miserable would be the lot of the Christians, if it were worse than that of the Jews and pagans. For it is known that not only the Romans, but also wild nations acknowledged that they had received their higher and lower priests from the gods. Now, if anyone finds the nymphs of Melesagoras, or the Egeria of Numa, or the cave of Minos, or anything else of the kind to be of little faith, I do not care, if only it cannot be denied that the high priesthood of Aaron was instituted by God Himself, and that through him God added to the honor and adornment of the priesthood the adornment of purple, scarlet, silk, silver, precious stones and gold, and that this high priestly office, transferred from one to the other, passed down to Caiaphas. Although he led a wicked life, he prophesied because he was the successor of Aaron and the high priest of that year, and Christ was not ashamed for our sake to be his subject even unto death. With this, of course, he wanted to indicate that we also should not be ashamed to be subject to the priest for his sake, even if he should be godless. Peter also clearly commanded this (1 Petr. 2, 18.), and he also seems to have commanded it, since he says (Matth. 23, 2. 3.]: "On Mosi's chair sit the scribes and Pharisees. All things therefore whatsoever they say unto you, that keep, and do: but after their works do ye not." Therefore I easily persuade myself that since so great an honor has been done to the lower millstone of all institution (instrumenti), which was completely idle and was finally abolished: so also the cause of the upper [millstone), namely of the New Testament, will be in no way inferior, but the highest priest of it at the same time with its right-

  1. To the 13th thesis. No. 35 in this volume.

1210 L. V. L. IV, 10-12. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1486-1488. 1211

The papal successors were appointed in the same way or even better (feliciori), both by the interpretation of the holy concilia, and by this word of Christ alone [Joh. 21, 17.But the custom of the popes, to feed themselves more than the sheep, and to fish for gold more than for men, was imposed by the devil and was an entirely false charge of the shepherd (adulterinum pastoricium), and perhaps the deserved punishment for our sins.

But that the election of the pope is itself a matter of human right is not wrong, be it that a man himself appoints his successor, as Peter did Clement, be it that the whole people do this, as in former times, be it that only the clergy elects, and from this only the cardinals, as today, be it that it is also done by order of the emperor or without his order: For that all this serves to set the divine intention in motion, and that it is changed according to the circumstances of the time, there is nothing in it, nor may divine law (to which one takes refuge, as it were, as a holy anchor) not be changed for that reason. But the fact that Peter or his successors did not turn to Rome until after twenty years or more does no more harm to their power than the fact that he ascended to heaven with Christ only after forty days did to the blessedness of the Shepherd. For human things move slowly, and as Virgil says:

Any excellent work, sublime in future times, > > It has a difficult beginning and always a slow growth.

Maro himself also fits very well here, if you read like this:

The establishment of the Roman See offered such hardships. 1)

This, however, I have meant to report to your fatherhood about the mentioned fight of the two very eloquent theologians, as far as it refers to your Bohemia, so that, if vessels of ungodliness should spread such a thing, which is not true here, among the people there, in order to deceive the souls of the simple, you may at least not doubt by my words that it is false, void and fictitious, and you may fortify the brothers, who are still with you in Christ, in the Lord.

  1. The verse in Virgil, lid. I, v. 33, reads: Dantas moli8 srat Uoinanain eonäsrs Mntsrn. Instead of the last word Emser has put ssäsm.

But with regard to the other contents of the disputation, some have already brought the matter before the public for various motives and with various intentions, so I am happy to dispense with it, both because that is not our office and because various judgments in such matters promote resentment and discord more than they eliminate it. We read that it happened between Xenophon and Plato, who were once very great men in every worldly wisdom. For when two eminent greats strive at the same time to the heights, they furnish (as Gellius says) a sort of image of competition with each other; but almost always, when certain great minds have equal or nearly equal fame in the same endeavor, a different opinion of them arises among their different patrons.

But in order for my letter to return to your Bohemia, get up, I beg you, you man of God, since God has given you to them as a native (domesticum) teacher of sound doctrine and as the helmsman of His ship, - get up, I say, and with sails and oars bring this ark back from these sandbanks (if it does not want to suffer shipwreck deliberately) into the previous harbor, that is, into the bosom of the holy mother, the Church. For this you owe to God; this you owe to the fatherland; this you owe to our Christian state, nor can you obtain greater grace from God elsewhere, nor hope for a richer reward from Him for any other cause. Now, even if some ravens, having satiated themselves on the carrion of their perishable goods, do not want to follow, since they do not think that the Temessian guardian spirit 2) will one day come, at least the peaceful doves may return to you, bringing with them the green branch of faith, by which they will be added anew to the tribe of Christ's cross, and according to his word again become One Sheepfold and One Shepherd, so that after Babylon is destroyed, the walls of Jerusalem will be built. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but the word of the Lord abideth for ever. Be well, and kindly receive this letter as a witness of my constant devotion to you, and overcome as a blessed one in Christ.

^3^) From Leipzig on August 13, in the 1519th year after the birth of Christ.

  1. This is the name given to Euthymus, who forced the hero of Temessus to give back with usury all that he had taken by force and wrong.
  2. This place and time designation is missing in Eck's edition, but is found in Luther's.

1212 V. L. IV, 12-14. 48. Emser's letter on the Leipzig Disputation. W. XVIII, 1488-1490. 1213

Sapphic poem of the same about the same disputation.

Africa's river Nile does not bring up so many New Abominations, as > the battle to Leipzig gave birth to critics, full of mockery and > stupidity, Useless writers. > > What devil mixes this mad rage into holy things? and who may, O > misfortune! In such a great battle now the teachers of divine wisdom > rush?

Prince of peace, Lord Christ, who teaches peace, school fights against school, and in all places our old nature is now banished, otherwise highly honored!

Before the rude people know the arbitration, they judge boldly: but the wise judge gives rich praise, after consideration, to every side.

Flee hence, envy! of the ghosts fighting Stay far away from here and the hard speech.

For blind rage against God and brother kills love (amorem).

*49. D. Martin Luther's addition to Emser's Goat. )

End of September 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Martin Luther sends his greetings to Hieronymus Emser!

And who would ever have believed of you, my Emser, that you would be such an erudite and astute theologian, indeed, that everyone would be surprised, such an honest and faithful defender of Martin, whose name you so zealously and admirably save from the disgrace of the Bohemian heresy, unbidden, and yet not to your credit (opportunus)? O of the new wonders! I, who was shouted out (delirabar) as a Bohemian by Eck in his nonsense, am justified by Emser, who is much more hostile to me than many people like Eck: he

denies that I am a Bohemian! Who has caused this whirlwind, this striving for disunity between Eck and Emser? Who gave Emser this gracious disposition against Luther, especially so quickly, and that after such a great or even worse spitefulness than a Timon could have, since Martin did not think of it at all and disliked Emser more and more from day to day?

Be sure, my good artist (Daedale)! Martin has a heavy cold and a desert head, he does not understand this prank; in simplicity he recognizes Emsern as an equally simple man, so that he heartily

*) The original of this writing is a print published by Johann Grunenberg in Wittenberg, end of September 1519: ^d aoZoeerowin Lmsorianurn Llartioi I^ntüori additiv. 12 leaves in quarto, last page tar. In another old edition, without indication of printer, place and time, Emser's letter to Zack sammt dem Sapphischen Gedichte Emsers mitgetheilte in the previous number is prefixed, which is then followed by "Luthers Zusatz" without separate title, beginning with the address to Emser. The title of this edition is: ve disputationo Inpsl66N8i, Quantum ad Lo6ino8 oditor deüexa 68t. Lpistola Hioronvrni Drn86r. ^d aoZoeorowru üoasorianurn Martini I^utüori additiv. - Roaster the ^oZoeeron sino ko6no, poeeat in uno, Huod non 68t Imeao linea dueta nianu. 16 leaves in quarto (last leaf blank), of which our writing fills 11H leaves. Below, the coat of arms of Emser, the forepart of an ibex, in the shield and on the helmet. Above right in a plate: Arraa HioronMd Lrnsor. This edition is in our hands. From the first edition, the writing is printed in Löscher's Reformation Acta, vol. Ill, p. 668. It is also found in the Wittenberg edition of 1545, Dorn. I, tol. 345 a. This is followed by the Jena edition of 1556, Dorn. I, toi 370 a. In the Erlangen edition, opx. var. ars., vol. IV, p. 13 is a mixture of the texts of the first edition and the Jena edition, as the Weimar edition says: "With unbiased inclusion of obvious errors in the latter." Finally, this writing is found in the Weimar edition, vol. II, 658 ff. We have translated according to this. - In the offprints, the superscription is missing. The Wittenberg edition adds underneath:

Wider den Bock Emsers Martin Luther:.

Behold, here lies the goat without hay, without horns and claw, leg, > hair, nerves, blood, flesh, hide he has no more.

1214 2. v. a. iv, 14 f. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. xvm, 1490-1492. 1215

believes that he wrote the letter for this purpose, so that Martin would be praised by everyone by the Catholic name in the best possible way, namely as a patron of heretics, and who was overcome by Eck at Leipzig as the most shameful coward.

What shall I repay for this grace? In the meantime, out of gratitude, I compare with you the extremely brave and famous prince in David's army, Joab [2 Sam. 3, 27. 20, 8. ff.Your tongue is so much like his sword, and your manner like his robe, and this beautiful service you render me is so much like his work, which he gloriously accomplished on Abner and Amasa with great glory, even though he is not counted among the heroes of Israel 2 Sam. 23 because of a certain sleepiness of the writer, for the sake of this glorious deed. Or if this comparison is too far sought to please you, who are a licentiate, not of the sacred Scriptures, but of the sacred Canons, you will not disdain the comparison (analogiam) with him whom all men know Judas Iscarioth, whom many consider the first among the apostles, yet without prejudice to the veneration for your goat, who fights so valiantly for the bravest corner, and this to your honor, who may also be compared to the prince of the apostles, that as he delivered up Christ to the Jews with the sign of peace, so also you betrayed Martin under the sign of praise to the whole world as a heretic and shamefully conquered.

Does not your unhappy conscience realize how futile your not too cunning envy is after me? What have you achieved with your letter but to reveal to everyone the sickness of your feminine mind? that, since you think the worst of me and make moves, there is not a vein of paternal blood, 1) or so much manliness and masculinity in you that you would like to go to battle against me in open combat and with flying colors.

I knew well that your enmity, of which you were completely on fire in Leipzig, was much too ordinary.

  1. Nothing of the buck nature. (Weim. ed.)

I know that she would be more powerful than to restrain herself and not give birth to what she conceived, but also much too ignorant and cowardly to weigh anything freely and publicly. Therefore, if the fear of Christ, who teaches me not to grieve so much because you wanted to harm me and could not, as because you harmed yourself, which you certainly did not want to do, did not keep me from grieving, I could repay you abundantly in kind, and make a good hunter for your goat. And since you are looking for a Tiburtius 2) I must see to it that Tiburtius also finds a Torquatus; whether you, if you are thus caught in the work of your hands, may suffer for the damage to your poor soul, which you have quite shamefully handed over to the devil for the sake of hatred against me, although you are a priest of the Lord (as you boast) and a witness of the truth.

So I have read your ibex, or billy goat, or stag (for there is nothing in the word with which you name this quite unfortunate monster), of which you write poetry:

Here is our buck without hay (it is quite gentle) but in one it is > missing: > > Lucas Cranach's hand did not paint it for us.

Do not despair, my Emser, it is a venial fault (peccatum), which is not committed against the divine, but perhaps only against the rules of language^3^ ) and art of speech: which also, because poets and painters always have the same freedom to take out everything, 4) will easily be held to your credit, where they are not too angry about the fact that you have added the neck of a horse to a human head.

  1. Didurtius, A6H. VII, 670 an adjective formed by Didur, Dipur is called Asnsis, lii). VII, v. 630 the proud one, because the inhabitants still dared to wage war with Rome around the year 400 after the building of Rome, since this was already powerful. - Manlius Torquatus received this nickname because he slew a Gaul in a duel and took his necklace.
  2. By the form usFoosron, Gen. utzAoesrontis instead of u6A006r08, Gen. usFoosrotis. (Weim. Ausgabe.) - But since arumrnatiou includes more in the ancients than at present, what Luther says will probably also refer to the expression: in uuo, used inappropriately in reference to a goat.
  3. Horace, xoatioa, v. 9.

1216 D. v. a. iv, is-17. 49. Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. W. xvni, 1492-1194. 1217

  1. and instead of a barrel, which you wanted to form, you brought out a little jug, 2) since even to me, who am neither a teacher of language nor of oratory, nor a painter, this especially seems to be something that cannot be justified by anyone, not even by Roman and the highest indulgence, that you rather took away his hay 3) than his horns, and at the same time hid this your Hecuba 4) so unhappily. For although your goat is both hayed (that I say so) and horned for Martin, it would be fitting for one who praises honestly to present a hayed one without horns rather than a horned one without hay. In addition, there is this misfortune, so that he depicts your mind rightly and the Emser rightly, that the goat is not whole; but, as the poet 5) calls Priam, whose head was cut off, a torso and body without a name: so also I, who see the hideous picture of my not whole Emser, with cut off body, could say: It is a trunk, and a name without body, that is, an appearance without truth, which indeed seems something at the head and beginning, but is nothing at the body and end. And so that nothing should be missing from the horrible monster, that buck, which is worth seeing, is not only emblazoned on a single, but on a double field. Thus everything comes out by a fate and undeniable (certa) providence in such a way that Emser had to be painted by his own coat of arms at the same time.

What shall I poor man do now? If I tacitly accept the praise, it seems as if I had revoked my whole doctrine and was so inferior to Eck, the defender of error and enemy of truth, that he alone would have remained on the plan, but I will be completely proclaimed a Bohemian heretic, especially by the nose-wise and foreigners. But if I reject it, I will be accused not only as a Bohemian, but even as a patron of Bohemia among the people and my people, and at the same time of a very big

  1. Horace, Lrs xoattau, v. 1. 2.
  2. Horace, xoätioa, v. 21. 22.
  3. Pushy oxen had hay tied on their horns. "Without hay" therefore means gentle, not bumpy.
  4. Here as much as dog-like rage (Weim. ed.).
  5. Virgil, 11k. II, 557.

I am guilty of ingratitude against Emser, because he wanted to free me from such suspicions through his magnificent ibex. Since Emser is playing a nice game in such a way to my shame and to the detriment of Christian truth, the otherwise so excellent preacher of Christian love, I am in the greatest danger, and have ruin before me on both sides, and sing with Micah 3, 5.: "Those who bite their teeth, and yet preach peace;" and with the Psalter 28, 3.: "Who speak kindly to their neighbor, and have evil in their heart." But my Christ liveth and reigneth! my Lord and God, praised for ever, who knoweth how Marc. 12, 13. ff. to refute with One Word the disciples of the Pharisees, and the sendlings of Herod, who attacked Him with a like goat. There is no science nor counsel against the Lord; as long as I boast of him, what can men do to me?

Therefore, my reader, whoever you are, give a spectator, because we want to hunt this buck. Perhaps Christ will give our bow this noble game.

First of all, my Emser, I pass over your flattery, that you praise me as a man of peculiar learning: I say nothing of the kisses of Iscariot, 'with which you bite among the Bohemians, that I am the only one who meets the Scriptures, and that alone, who can effectively meet the fiercest opponents. 6) For I acknowledge the jibes of your brave theologian, who is quite learned; who, since he could neither adduce the words of Scripture during the whole disputation, nor, when he had put them on, treat them rightly, covered himself like an ostrich with the same shrubbery, and quite cleverly pretended that I did not accept the testimonies of the fathers, which he himself neither understood nor wanted to understand. For there was no other way open to him to cover up his ignorance of the Scriptures, especially before the common people, than to say, since the Scriptures were abandoned and despised: I peck out the eyes of the crows (as you say, dainty speaker). But keep this way of learning theology to yourselves, that

  1. Literally: "He who can peck out the eyes of the crows. Luther refers to this immediately in what follows.

1218 L. V. L. IV, 17 f. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1494-1497. 1219

you guide the words of God according to the judgment of the words of men. I, with Paul and Augustine, treat the words of men according to the judgment of the words of God. I would rather be accused by you of being too cautious (cunctator) in the words of men than be praised for despising the words of God.

Here listen to me: According to what new religion do you praise the tree, and yet rebuke the fruit of it? Or do you not peck out the eyes of the crows, or rather, contradicting Christ, the leader of all men, do you not read thorns and thistles from the vine and the fig tree Matt. 7:16? Do you not understand what I mean? You call Martin a Catholic and say that he does not want to be the defender of the Bohemians; and you are right in this: but why are you so exceedingly displeased that my teachings are approved by the Bohemians? as if, according to the new art of conclusion of your corner (for he also uses the same method when he expounds something), he who said something that would be approved by the Bohemians must necessarily be a defender of the Bohemians, or the speeches of him who refuses to be their protector must please the Bohemians enough. You are a master of arts and worldly wisdom. Do you not remember "that from things which stand alone (pg-rtibus 6X puris) nothing follows"? What else do you seek with these illusory conclusions, by mixing the general into a particular, and this again into that, than that I am either a Bohemian, or must have revoked everything that is mine? Do you speak so ambiguously 1) and slippery that you leave it to the reader to understand everything possible, but reserve to yourself to answer for everything? Have you learned this from your canons, to speak thus against your neighbor? Do you not think that I too, speaking in such a way, could praise you in such a way that one could consider you stingy, the other generous: one chaste, the other a fornicator? If to praise coldly is as much as to blame among scholars, how much more must I blame your

  1. iL66äi8 8uper aristas - you walk on the tips of the ears.

Do you consider the doubtful and deceptive appearance (üZurutu larva) of an ungodly praise as more than a triple rebuke? And by making no distinction between my teachings, you certainly seek to defile everything at the same time by your exceedingly impure tongue. Do you see now that I understand by what very crude trick you are setting traps for me, you priest of the Lord and witness of the truth? My ship has experienced all kinds of winds so far, now I also have to sail against the northeast wind 2) which drives away the clouds by deceptive blowing.

But since you consider this to be your proving ground and, as they say, your Lydian principle: what pleases the Bohemians is heretical; I wonder in what way you too could escape this, that you do not feist the Bohemians' patron, who holds, teaches and defends so much that pleases them. Yes, dear, make us conclude, according to this Eck's inference, that the sacraments of the church, the whole Scripture, the holy fathers, everything is heretical; because that pleases the Bohemians. Yes, the Bohemians like much more, Christ himself, the saints and all good creatures of God, therefore they are heretical according to the very firm conclusion of Emser's inference.

If what pleases the Bohemians is heretical, then those who like the Bohemians will be heretics. But here I would swear that Emser would be a heretic who could easily please either gold or a pretty woman 3) of the Bohemian mob: yes, even the popes would not want to free themselves from this case of heretical wickedness, not even the bull that is read on Green Thursday. With such ridiculous reasons in such a serious matter you excellent theologians infect our common people, so that according to your opinion, as soon as you mention the name of a Bohemian, he must immediately be a heretic whom you make a heretic.

  1. Caecias, the northeast wind draws the clouds to itself; hence the proverb: It draws evil to itself, as Caecias draws the clouds.
  2. For the explanation of the passage Köstlin I, 792 refers to I-ntkeri oollo^nia, sä. Linä86i1 I, 152, where it says: Lrns6ru8 86onrn Nadnit LoNsnaiourn 8oortnra. (Weim. ed.)

1220 L. v. a. iv, is-2o. 49. Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. W. xvin, 1497-1499. 1221

yet you are not fratricides and blasphemers.

But since these monstrous proofs of your darkness have once come to my attention, let us go further into the spitefulness of your ignorance. Why do you not also accuse me of being a Jew or a Jew-defender, that is, excuse me, since I deny that I stand with them, but they themselves confess that much is theirs which I constantly defend? Is it because you leave this task to the brethren of your luminary, who can find the books heretical and disreputable to heresy (haereticaIes) as they please? For what would they not find who search so diligently? Since now also the Jews please us again in many things: so we must be declared Jews according to Magister Emser.

One more thing. If everything that pleases the Bohemians is heretical, then by virtue of the conclusion from the opposite everything that displeases them will be Catholic. But they detest the priests' lechery, splendor, avarice, and courtliness beyond measure. From this it follows that the Roman church today is fundamentally Catholic, in which all this reigns in a heaven-sent way. Ah! my Emser, how many Catholics of this kind will you find? I believe that you yourself would be quite arch-Catholic and would persecute the heretics most severely if you could show that these teachings of the Bohemians were false and heretical.

Finally, letters from the most learned people come to me daily from various parts of the world, wishing the truth happiness, and fearing only one thing, that I, tormented by the persecution of you and your like, would desist from what has been happily begun, and make a retraction. What do you want to make of such people? Ask Eck's conclusion: they, too, will be patrons of the Bohemians, for they, too, read no other books of mine than the Bohemians.

O wretched and worthless theologians, and idols of the world! who are ignorant of the Holy Scriptures, and cannot protect the ecclesiastical opinions with other weapons than that you fear, indignantly

and childishly and womanishly suspect that the teachings will please the heretics. Do you think that one should fight against heresies with fear, suspicion and displeasure? Thus you make a mockery of the knighthood of Christian truth, which is like the tower of David, on which hang a thousand shields and all kinds of weapons of the mighty, as terrible as the spires of armies. And we also see that this way of overcoming the heretics has become very widespread, that is, that the truth has almost been destroyed, because they have prevented it from contending and conquering out of suspicion that it would please the heretics.

Therefore you and your theologians have invented two new doctrines (looos), which neither Aristotle nor Cicero, the most glorious authors of the doctrine of the sources of evidence (loxieorum), could have found, which doctrines are of such a nature and so great that they can take place of all others in all kinds of speech; these are: the liking and the disliking of the heretics. For trusting in these, Emser and Eck accuse me of being a heretic, according to their unbelievable experience in their oratory: and it is not at all necessary here to investigate whether what they like is heretical? It is enough, if one suspects that it pleases them, then one must immediately stir up the mob: so the heretics are overcome, the church is defended, and the truth of the faith is preserved; so that what is written in Isa. 3, 4. is fulfilled: "I will give them boys as princes, and women shall rule over them. So you see, my Emser, that you have learned these monstrosities from Eck. For even he, as he knows nothing in the Scriptures, had no stronger reason for Leipzig than that from these doctrines, in which he has pleased you.

But because thou art a goat, thou shalt easily go out of this yarn unto me, saying, I do not condemn thy doctrines, neither am I unwilling that they should please the Bohemians, but that they should like erroneous doctrines, which they falsely think to be of thy origin.

First. Did you then so completely despair of all men's reason that you hoped that you could win them all over with this insipid and

1222 L. v.". iv, W-22. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. xviii, iiss-isoi. 1223

What is the consequence of this, if they have approved of my teachings, and you now prate that they have approved of them unjustly because I have refused to be the administrator of Bohemia? If they have now approved my teachings, and you now prate that they have approved them unjustly, because I have refused to be the administrator of the Bohemians: what else follows from this but that you either lie impudently, or that I have revoked my teachings?

Furthermore: Did I say to your idol, the Eck, in Leipzig, as you write with an insolent brow, that I do not care what the Bohemians think of me? Did I not say so often and many times that I could not defend the division and the errors of the Bohemians, which your Eck reproached me with the same insolence? But does it follow from this that I have rejected the agreement of the Bohemians with my teachings (which can be no other than those printed in my books)?

And so that you know that I am not at all afraid of your not at all cunning reenactments, then take this to heart, and mock or destroy it, if you can: I desire, wish, pray, give thanks, rejoice that my teachings please the Bohemians, and would to God they pleased also the Jews and Turks, yes, would to God that they pleased also you and Eck, and you discard your godless errors! What do you want to do here! Do you want to excuse me as a Jewish, Turkish, Emserian and Eckian patron, because I absolutely refuse to defend your and their things? What do I care about that? If the Bohemians are of my opinion, then they have the right opinion: but I have not approved of their division or errors, nor have I needed your intercession to be cleansed of this suspicion, that is, to be soiled with it. For I hope you will be glad that the Bohemians hold with you in the confession of the Trinity, of Christ and in all other articles of faith. Why, then, are you not first concerned for yourself, send out a letter of protection for yourself by clearing yourself of the suspicion that you are not the protector of the Bohemians? If you do that

If you consider it foolish and unnecessary, out of what love did it seem necessary to you to do this for me without being asked?

So you see that your malicious envy is recognized. For since you knew that the Bohemians praise and approve nothing of me but my teachings, you, as a happy orator, put down their praise in such a way that you say that I do not want to be the patron of their errors; as if they had ever praised that. It is a splendid adornment of an orator (says Cicero) to speak appropriately: but you, by wanting to refute the boasting of the Bohemians about my teachings, which is very good, refute the boasting of their errors, which you invent under my name. Wouldn't that mean making a speech at a sea-butt 1) where the animal would lie on your right, and you, turned to the left, would praise the sea-butt excellently? Rather, if you want to praise a cross-eyed person in the future, don't praise a pigeon, so that it doesn't seem as if you had lost effort and expense in learning the art of oratory, or rather borrow something from Eck's memory, so that at least at the beginning of the speech you can remember what it is about. Rufinus once used the same artifice against Jerome. For since the latter liked Origen in many pieces, that ludicrous example of Emser's art of conclusion made him, through ungodly praise, a defender of all Origen's errors. Thus also you, my Rufinus ("Hieronymus" I wanted to say: the sameness of the work misleads me more than the sameness of the name is useful to me^2)^ ), in such a way excellently demonstrate: "You Luther do not defend the Rotterian Bohemians, therefore they falsely boast that you have written true things." Therefore, my Emser, use another reason to refute the Bohemians: for with this lame refutation you make a mockery of the Catholics among the Bohemians.

  1. uä riiomduM; from a satire of Juvenal. Cf. the note after the middle of the third paragraph in the text No. 68 of this volume.
  2. Sense. You. have the same name with the church father Jerome, of whom I have just spoken, but because your work is so similar to that of Rufinus, I could easily make a mistake in the name and address you "Rufinus".

1224 D- V- k. IV, 22 f . 49. Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. W. XVIII, 1502-1504. 1225

You escape me again through another nook. "I do not say," you say, "that your teachings are praised, but, strange things and their own errors under your name."

First. Who told you about it? Are you so completely free to invent crimes of any man, and only for the purpose of violating the innocence of others with the invented guilt of some innocent people? Shouldn't a historical writer, especially a priest of God and a witness of truth, investigate all this and not make up stories from his brain? How? If they now deny that they have ever praised anything other than my teachings, which are spreading through the countries, of which many very good Christians in France, Italy, England, Germany and Spain also boast? Did you think they would be silent to your so bold lie?

But if it were true what you dream, that they praise other doctrines in my name, how is it that I have not heard of it, who is most concerned? Or, if we are the last to know the evil that concerns us, then you, who care so much for my name, should have reported it to me and made it known what kind of doctrines they falsely boasted of under my name, so that I myself (which would have made a much greater impression) could have written against them and defended my name. But you, good Rufinus, child of darkness, who do not know this, or pretend not to know it, have not only not taken care to make it known to me, but rather have given me a double wound, each of which is quite painful, since you both suspect me of heresy and portray me as a man who would bear such exceedingly evil suspicions with all patience, by coming out in my defense without in any way welcoming me for it and wanting to argue against what you do not know.

But even after such wounds I ask: show me at least now what false doctrines those boast in my name, so that I may know for which you are expelling me.

and for which I have to give thanks. Why are you silent on this? Bring them forward! Don't you bring anything? Well, then, we will beat them out against your will.

I ask you: whether you believe that your words are true, since you write: the Bohemians have prayed for me publicly and held daily (although unholy) services, while I was recently in Leipzig in battle? For I am silent about why you wanted to bring this to the people: because you cannot play on my nafe, you red (call^1)^ ) Rufinus, rather black. Is, I say, this true or not true? There is no need to be silent here, because you are a priest of the Lord and a witness of the truth. So it must be true! So it follows without doubt that the Bohemians, according to Emser's opinion, believe the same with me in the sentences that were disputed at Leipzig, as far as you write publicly that they want to keep me unharmed in it by their public worship. These then are the false doctrines which the Bohemians boast in my name and in which they boast me as their patron. Have I caught our goat here, or not? Where is now your mouth 2) - it would soon have driven out of me - which claimed that I am a Catholic? Do you see how careless hatred is? Since you wanted to write, you should have thought of the proverb: A liar must have a good memory, and you cannot escape me here, that one does not clearly see that in your heart you consider Martin to be nothing but a heretic, and yet you call him Catholic with your mouth, whose teachings you in turn condemn as heretical with the same mouth. So you are the man who in Jacobus 3, 11. makes bitter and sweet spring from one well. For it is not likely that the Bohemians are so mad that they would have wanted to pray publicly for me for the sake of a cause other than the one I was defending at that time; you also speak of no

  1. rutus, used of persons, always means a redhead. MZor, on the other hand, means here, like horat." 8ut. IV, v. 84, a godless, insincere person.
  2. Luther omits a stronger expression than "thy mouth" which he had wanted to use. (Weim. edition.)

1226 L. V. L. rv, 2K-2S. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1504-1506. 1227

Nor were my sentences so obscure that one might think they had not seen and recognized their meaning, because even your Rubeus 1) was able to understand them.

Therefore, my Rufinus, you should have written clearly how you thought and wanted it to be understood, namely that Martinus was a heretic: so you should have done as an honest and truthful man. For what is the point of accusing only those of heresy who boast of the patron whom you praise? Do you not think that the Bohemians are men and not cattle, and will say to your goat: "What does this stinking goat refute? What does he contradict himself? Is he chasing a deer buck, or one of his figments, and the bohemians he formed in his sleep? He catches the clouds and trifling things. We praise Martinus, whom you make out to be Catholic. What do we have to do with errors? We approve of Luther's teachings, which he defended at Leipzig and made known in the books he issued. But you argue with ghosts and are a ridiculous monk. What do you want to say here, my Rufinus? Will you, because you are a priest of God, go and rejoice that you are worthy to suffer disgrace for your Lord, namely for him who is the father of lies, whose witness you are to speak the truth in the office?

If now you also consider my teachings to be true, then the Bohemians may rejoice that they are proven to be catholic and very good Christians by their patron Hieronymus Emser, the priest of God and witness of truth, because they have held public services for the truth. So may Rome mourn, so may Eck, the exceedingly brave theologian, the unfortunate defender of the Roman Church and the apostolic see, this buck's teacher, rage, because they are invented as such people, who, in a lying and unreasonable way, have declared the Bohemians to be heretics.

  1. Johann Rubeus, a miserable scribbler from Eck's party, whom even Emser denies judgment and necessary knowledge of the language; the writing to which Luther points, without the dedication to Bishop Conrad von Thüngen, see Löscher, III, p. 252 (Weim. ed.) - Cf. our note on Rubeus in the previous writing, Col. 1208, note 2.

have held. Yes, the Bohemians may be sorry that they have been praised by a lying and two-faced man, and they may be glad that they have been rebuked by the same. Have you not now yourself become a defender of the Bohemians, which, as you so loudly proclaim, I have so strongly rejected? Learn, my Rufinus, the word of the wise man Weish. 1, 7. ff.: He who speaks unrighteous things cannot be hidden, and the justice that is to punish him will not be lacking, for the ear of heaven hears all things, and he who hears all things knows such speech. For the world is full of the Spirit of the Lord. Likewise Ecclesiastes 10:20: "Curse not the king in thine heart, neither curse the rich man in thy bedchamber: for the fowls of the air carry the voice, and they that have fittest do repeat it." Know this by your example as true words. For who do you think has revealed your heart to me and given it to be revealed, but he who has given us to know even the thoughts of Satan, the difference of spirits, even the mind of Christ and the depths of God?

How? what do you do with the testimony of Beda, since you do not deny that John Hus mixed falsehood and truth? Do you not show either Beda or yourself as a patron of the Bohemians? by admitting, not only against the Concilium at Constance (on which alone your miserable, exceedingly brave theologian relied), but also yourself against the same, exceedingly brave one (which is intolerable), that some true articles were unjustly condemned: by which you throw all the power and victory of Eck to the ground, and in everything are like-minded with me.

Therefore, if you are wise, write to the administrator of the Catholic Church in Bohemia, 2) that he should bring the erring ones back to the fold of the Church: so that he may do this to his, your and all our ridicule: nevertheless, admit to the heretics (as you do) that John Hus mixed true and false things together, that is,

  1. Johann Zack, to whom the preceding writing is addressed.

1228 L. V. a, IV, 25-27. 49. Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. W. XVIII, 1506-1508. 1229

that the Concilium at Constance has condemned some of its articles in an ungodly way, according to Beda's testimony. For then you will be a true disciple of your master, who, in order to make me a Bohemian heretic, also first despised the Nicene Concilium, and in it, as he received great testimony, was considered by you to be fundamentally Catholic, then also declared the one at Constance, by becoming a master of the Holy Spirit, anew and completely differently. This is how you use to refute the heretics, that you become worse heretics, and make us all their proverb, by swallowing cameos to cow gnats; this is how thoughtful you are! so much do you care to deny and condemn many and great things of the Catholics, lest you seem to approve a few things of heretics, and proclaim as heretics those who approve them, and all this not out of hatred against any man, but out of zeal for the truth, for the glory of God, and for the glory of the holy Roman Church.

But also you scribes seem to me to be a little originator of the Bohemian obstinacy by writing such cold and inconstant things: for to refute coldly and carelessly (pigrs), what is that but to confirm twice? One must, according to Paul Tit. 1, 11., shut and shut the mouths of the adversaries with all diligence. Furthermore, I do not know what kind of sleepiness and weariness is evident in the writings of ours, because of the confidence and certainty that is based on the opinion of the mob, which clings to our words, and on the authority of the Roman Pontiff, who approves of ours. We write in such a way that even though what we write does not promote anything, it is enough that it pleases our people and the Roman Pontiff. And this is the purpose of our writing: we fear nothing so much as that something might slip out that might offend the Roman Pontiff. For this reason it happens that, as we do not write frankly, so we do not write anything.

  1. In Latin: corvi tul ovum Isgitimum - the true egg of your raven.

Now look at the words that are true testimonies of your unwise spitefulness, even though they are lies themselves. You claim that I am a Catholic, therefore you must at the same time also claim my teachings as Catholic; and what is this fury of your godlessness that you are not only indignant that services are held for Catholic teachings, but even call them unholy, detestable and curse-worthy? Do you realize what a confusion, yes, what a sea of monstrosities follows from this statement, so that I could easily claim for its sake that you are worse than all heretics and devils? For what should he not do who declares unholy the worship that is held to be true? Granted that the Bohemians are heretics, but if they pray for the truth, may you call their worship unholy? Or do you think that the worship which is done for lies is holy? What do you think of my prayer, which I do very fervently for you and for corners, since I seem to be a heretic to you and to him? For I do not know (you may believe it or not) whom I have to thank more, and for whom I would like to pray more devoutly, than for Johann Tetzel, the originator of this play, whose soul be in peace! and for you and Eck, and all my adversaries; because I see that the adversaries are of so much use to me. So then, unhappy envy, let worship be held for my teachings, even by a Turk. Resist him not Luc. 9, 50.: he that is not against you is for you, Christ hath said. Or first prove that I am a heretic and that my teachings are heretical, lest you in mad fury put the devil above God and lies above truth.

I mean, O reader! I have caught this buck, although I have not let loose on him all the bull biters, 2) indeed, not even all the greyhounds. It is the first hunt. He is still tender, so I also had to drive neatly with him; but at another time, when he continues-

  1. M0I0881 bull biter; V6ltr68 greyhounds (Weim. Ausg ). - In Horace, Lxoä. VI, 5. 6. the molos8U8 is called a shepherd dog; in LaÄ! Vadsr, ll?ti68suru8 krud. 80U0I. 8. V. ouni8 as: large male sheep. Virgil, OkorZ. Ill, 405, praises them as excellent domestic dogs; but they were also excellent for hunting.

1230 L.v.L.iv,27f. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, IS08-IS1I. 1231

drives, he is to be chased with Albanian dogs. 1)

But that he is a prisoner, thou mayest prove by this sign, that thereupon, as befits a prisoner and a man torn to pieces, he voluntarily confesses what he has concealed in the whole chase, for he disputes my sentence as a heretical one, and refutes my reasons; for this abomination he has secretly nourished within himself until he was hunted down and captured. Let us then sweep out his bowels and destroy (concidamus) all his dung, and after flaying his skin, offer him as a burnt offering to the Lord, where he desires his other.

By his conclusion (coronidem), which is in a frightening way completely Maccabean 2), how gloriously he triumphs over the heretic Martinus! But he concludes thus: Misery would be the lot of the Christians, if it were worse than that of the pagans and Jews, of whom it is known that they have attributed their priests to the gods. Who can stand before the face of this quite indolent cold? How creeps so exceedingly lazy both the sense and the speech! But I do not yet understand sufficiently what you intend with this exceedingly eloquent conclusion, unless you wanted to bring me into the suspicion as if I denied that the priests of the church had to be thanked to GOtte. However, I believe that you will not find one, even among the pagans, in all your poets, who pretends that someone was once the sole ruler over all the pagan priests of the whole world by divine right: for you mean that, and you show it by saying that they acknowledged that they had received their priests from the gods, as much as I learn from the new art of speech; especially since so many religions everywhere also dispute among themselves, according to the testimony of the holy Scriptures.

But it is good that you yourself do not do anything about it.

  1. canibus. The Albanian dogs were considered

In ancient times they were considered to be particularly strong and wild, so that they were capable of overcoming lions and elephants. I, 8, eap. 40 tells that the Albanians gave Alexander the Great two such dogs as a gift.

  1. Maccabean, that is, he seeks to reopen his old source of money to the pope from 2 Macc. 12, 43.

ask if your conclusion in this piece should not hold (corruet). So you go to the old forest and to the highest adornment of the dispute, namely to Aaron, of whom you boast, almost as a victor: one cannot deny that he was appointed by GOD . To this assumption the inference is attached: "Since so great honor has been done to the lower millstone of the old institution," you say, "which was completely idle and was finally abolished (so beautifully and learnedly do you also do theology under the rhetorisir, playing with wonderfully appropriate mysteries), so also the cause of the upper millstone, namely the New Testament, will be in no way worse." So he speaks!

I pass over the inconsistency, yes, the impiety of the lower and upper millstone, by which you new theologian narrest, as if the old and holy synagogue had been idle and had been thrown down; not to mention that even the natural (corporalis) lower millstone cannot be called idle, because it does more than the upper one, whose power and impetuosity it must endure. Furthermore, God has also prevented that not one of the millstones is taken away and becomes idle. For this is how Eck's theologians tend to play with the Scriptures, no matter how seriously they treat them.

Let us proceed to the matter itself. This seems to you a worthy honor for the New Testament, if it also had its Aaron, a mere man, adorned with the same splendor of clothes, days and ceremonies. For this I thank the astute interpreter of the words of God. For, shall the truth in nothing be distinguished from the model, the spirit from the letter, the fullness from the sign, the new priest from the old? But O of the exceeding shameful honor of the New Testament, if it shall be like the old in such honor! Whose ears, I pray thee, can bear this? Didst thou not think, poorest Ems, when thou beganst this work, that thou wert sewing forward a subject which exceeded thy powers? Did you not think of your Horace's rule 3): To consider long what the shoulders could or could not bear?

  1. Horace, ^rs xostiea, v. 38. 39.

1232 L. v.". iv. 28-M. 49. Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. W. xvm. is-isi3. 1233

I ask you, unfortunate Canonist, have you not read the Apostle to the Hebrews Cap. 9.? And if you have read it, why have you despised it? But if thou hast not read it, what doth the sow want in the sanctuary? The apostle, I say, who treats of the honor and glory of the New Testament by the strongest and most glorious reasons, proves most beautifully that Christ, the Son of God, is the supreme priest instead of the old high priest, and a better testament mediator, and that he has entered into the holy place, having invented an eternal redemption by his own blood. The old things were only patterns, shadows, images and models of the future priest of Christ, but Emser wants them to be brought out again and taken for the truth itself.

So it is not the splendor of the clothes, or the greatness of the power, that has been the glory of the New Testament, but only an example, and now a disgrace. The spirit reigns now, which does not need such shadows, nor is adorned with them. This glory our Emser does not want, but brings again the honor of the flesh and the shadows from the old testament, so that the church may not be without honor, that is, without shadow, since the Spirit foretold in regard to the priests of Christ as distinguished from those Ps. 132, 9.: "Let his priests be clothed with righteousness, and his saints rejoice." And again Ps. 132:16, "I will clothe his priests with salvation. "2c (By this the Spirit declared that the adornment and honor of the priests of old were merely figurative); and Christ says Luc. 22:26, "He that will be greatest among you, let him be least. But Emser, who is full of a better spirit, wants us to understand by righteousness and salvation gold, purple, precious stones, honor, power, dominion, principality, which in the Old Testament and the lower millstone would be idle and abandoned, that is, accepted in the New Testament. Why, then, is the autocrat so active and splendid in such things, if they are, according to your words, idle and forsaken? But why should he not be busy and splendid in them, since Emser teaches him not to abandon what is to be abandoned, and to use what is idle for his business?

to hold, that he may be at once the old abandoned and not abandoned, the idle and yet not idle millstone?

So you see how Paul and Emser agree so beautifully. You think that it is worse for the New Testament if it is not equal to the old one in splendor and outward holiness; but Paul considers it a disgrace if it is equal to it. Furthermore, since the apostle is speaking expressly of the New Testament, and describes the high priest of it as the sole ruler, he has certainly deceived us, and has not done enough for the matter before him, that he has not also recommended to us Peter or the Roman pope as the second sole ruler, especially since this article is considered so important that faith and the New Testament cannot exist without it, since the whole faith falls away if one article of it is overthrown. But let them go! They are blind men and leaders of the blind, ventral servants (animalia ventris).

Therefore, as in the Old Testament there was only one, not two high priests, nor any governor of the high priest: so it must also be in the New Testament, so that the truth would correspond to the model, and so it would be seen that the high priest of the Old Testament not only contributes nothing to the supreme rule of the Roman pope, but of all things proves most contrary to it, and furthermore that all mysteries, which are depicted in the old high priest, cannot fit to anyone else than to Christ. So we have the lovely part (gratitudinem) with the new theologians that it disgusts them to have the Son of God as a holy autocrat and priest for the honor of the New Testament, and they rather choose the honor of the Old Testament in a human child, a sinful autocrat, which, since it serves nothing to the spirit, is certainly not instituted by divine but by human right, since, according to Emser's teaching, the one who was instituted by divine right nevertheless lies idle and abandoned according to the same right.

Not even this do you consider, that it is quite impossible that the peoples of the whole world should

1234 D- V." IV. 30-32. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1513-1515. 1235

should only ask Rome to confirm the bishops, as they now consider a custom according to divine right. But let him be accursed who says that Christ has bound us to impossible things; for here the long way and the greatness of the cost hinder. But a divine right does not have to be prevented by anything, not even by death.

The other piece of your conclusion (corouiäis) was this: the sole rule of the pope was proven by the interpretation of the concilia, and probably already by this word alone Joh. 21, 17.: "feed my sheep." Who, you? Emser? Surely you do not dare to say that something becomes a divine right through the interpretation of a conciliar? Where did you learn that? Who has ever spoken so nonsensically? Everything that men order is human. But what do I argue against a brain that does not yet understand what is divine or human right?

Then, now that I have such a good teacher of the art of language, I know that: "feed my sheep" means as much as "be the sole ruler and master over all". Perhaps later one must hope for a new Emser's Kabbalah 1). Dear! Was not Peter already an apostle, and all that he could be, when he heard the word: "feed"? he heard a word of service and work, not of dignity or power. Rather tell your autocrats that the word "feed" concerns them and no one else, and that he is a heretic who feeds apart from them. For this must be so, if therein lies the autocracy, and none shall feed but the Roman Pontiff: and then, if he feed not himself also, he shall be a heretic. But see, if thou sayest this, whether they do not call thee the greatest heretic.

  1. A Jewish secret doctrine full of superstition, which was widely spread from the eighth to the fourteenth century, first in Palestine and Persia from the eighth century, then also in Italy, northern Spain, southern France and southern Germany from the eleventh century. The main Kabbalistic books are: the Sepher Jezira, Hechalot and the most famous: the Sohar. Earlier we have had in our hands the "Sepher Jezira", in which it is taught to "create" by using the different names of God, as well as God, as Rabbi Meir is said to have created a three-year-old calf by using it.

of all, that you would so burden the autocrats with the pasture, that is, with the autocracy of the New Testament, with a quite unbearable burden, which they would rather leave to any enemy, even to the Turk.

But this is how you deal with the scripture, as with the elements of Anaxagoras, that everything becomes everything and everything comes out of everything. Therefore it is not to be surprised if "graze" means for you violence and dignity, without any co-meaning of graze: so sharp-sighted observers are you in your linguistic art and theology. And it does not help you here the ungodly mind of your interpretation, through which some chatter, "We are considered to have done that which we have done through others." For if by this word an idleness is prepared for those to whom something is commanded, we destroy the force of all Scripture: for so, after this example, any one may say to the one who is in the field, "I will go idle, and do it through another." So also one may say to God, "I will not feed, but will commit adultery, kill, steal; but will cause another to feed, not commit adultery, not kill, not steal. Who could not keep this? So why do we mock the word of God?

So the mind must be this: if the popes themselves do not feed, pray, govern, then they are not popes, but idols, both before God and before men, and the word "feed" does not concern them at all. If this is said to you, and you cannot answer it, you pass it over with deaf ears; meanwhile you fill the ears of the people with a mishmash of foreign words, so that it does not appear as if you had been overcome, and nevertheless do not take pity on your poor conscience, which you force to lick against the prick, and against its will to bark against itself, that is, against the truth.

But how could I pass over the very loveliest piece or balm of Emser? since you have not heard my little reason (rLiiunouIam), by which I obtained at Leipzig that the Church of God for twenty years, before the Roman Church

1236 L. v.". iv, 32 f. 49. Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. W. xvin, isis-rsis. 1237

The fact that the power of Peter or his successors was not turned to Rome until after twenty years or more does not harm the power of Peter or his successors, any more than it harmed the blessedness of the Shepherd that he ascended to heaven with Christ only after forty days. For human things go along slowly."

See, my Emser, if you have not said this under the carousing; or you punish yourself, like Balaam 4 Mos. 22. ff., with your own speech. Thou sayest, Human things go slow, and this thou sayest of the monarchical power of Peter. Is then the autocracy human? Dear one, stop striving against the truth that speaks through your mouth. You are already affected by so many examples, as one who does violence to the truth in his heart, and yet you do not improve: and do not allow yourself to be moved, so that it so often comes out against your will. Beware lest, when you so often do violence to the truth, it should not even depart from you, so that you can never again obtain it; it seems that you want to be blinded by courage. If Caiphas and Balaam had not withstood the truth they themselves spoke, who would be more blessed than they? These are terrible examples for you, I testify.

And is then the divine right of your autocracy something so small to you that you compare it with the postponed blessedness of the One Shechard? Why then do your autocrats, Peter's successors, not only not suffer to be compared with the situation of a man, but not even with the church in the whole world, defending the rights and liberties (privilegia) of the Roman church so valiantly and godly that they also prefer all Greece, and Bohemia, and France, and other countries, and are even more ready to destroy them with their own thunderbolts (I am speaking with the canonist) and to put them under ban, than to suffer that their will ("the power" I said) should only be postponed for a moment, or be subjected to someone else.

or be changed? See, then, that thou thyself be not ungodly against such zealous advocates of divine right, who spare neither the temporal life nor the eternal blessedness of the whole world, that only divine right be not postponed or entered into for one hour, to which thou dost concede a standstill and postponement of twenty years, by comparison with the blessedness of a very wretched butcher, as thou couldst have compared it with the postponed glory of Christ.

It is therefore no wonder if Peter and Paul become heretics in our time, since Peter, with a very evil example, made the sole rule, rights and liberties of his church, and the whole upper millstone, which is truly busy today to crush the nations, completely idle and abandoned, since he had Apost. 8, 14. with John as an inferior, since he sent Apost. 11, 2. ff. he let himself be forced to give an account also as a subordinate, since he let Apost. 15, 7. ff. he had his opinion changed and confirmed by the reputation of Jacobus, who should have defended himself with his own blood and rather have thrown heaven and earth together 1), than to leave such an exceedingly evil example and heretical deed to his successors. But Paul also lets himself be sent by the Macedonians and Corinthians to deliver a collection to the saints at Jerusalem: and is therefore certainly and rightly a heretic, for a divine right must be defended to the death, even with the loss of the whole world, just as you would rather lose everything than kill and commit adultery. They are quite right: but you and Peter are acting most wickedly and heretically; you by granting a respite, but he by doing what is contrary to divine right, the word of God and the gospel, which must not be interrupted or postponed even in a single point.

But if your zeal is so burning to instruct me and the Bohemians, you must not only tell me your things, but also refute ours. So put your hand to it, teach us your wisdom. My thesis from

  1. Cf. Virgil, Aen6i8, lid. I, v. 133.

** **1238 L. V. a. IV, 33-33. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. LVIII, 1518-1520. 1239

of the supremacy of the pope is not mine, but that of the Nicene Concilium, which the Roman popes esteem equal to the Gospel. You must therefore reject this conclusion: "Martin is a heretic in the opinion of this thesis, therefore the Nicene Concilium is also heretical." And if you do not repel this, I will make you heretics with your corner, patrons of the Arians, and blasphemers of the Roman Church: and not by slippery, ambiguous, and dissimulated words, but by a clear saying. You know how your extremely brave theologian, when he heard this, wanted to pass it over with silence, how he fled, how he searched, how he sneaked, and yet he is still silent today; yes, even you, his extremely brave disciple, are silent, who nevertheless made the interpretation of the Conciliar a divine right for us. You have made the interpretation of the Conciliar a divine right, as if the whole matter did not rest on this; but you bring up many other things, but you want to pass over the one that you feel is driving you most into a corner.

I could hardly hold my laughter when I read your magniloquent exclamation: "O miserable Luther, if, trusting in their cursing and abominable services, and not rather in the constant contemplation of Scripture, he had engaged in a fight with the bravest of theologians, Eck!" Whom do you refute here? The Bohemians, perhaps? Who told you that they prayed because they thought I relied on their worship? But my Stesichorus 1) wavers so between vituperations and praises of Martin that he is not very unlike a drunkard in speech; and as much as I hear, you wanted me to argue in reliance on the well-regarded Scriptures.

Who, my Emser, has ever fought happily who relied on his learning or strength, except you alone in this letter? I know the saying Ps. 46:10, "It is the LORD who controls wars." Likewise Judges. 5, 13. 20.: "The LORD himself hath contended; from heaven was contended against them." I have never argued either with the

  1. A Greek excellent lyric poet.

Bravest still want to argue with the weakest, my whole purpose has been to remain hidden in the corner. But now that I have been seized by a single disputation note, as a rag, and forcibly dragged into the public, I believe that it has happened this way by God's will, and so, my Emser, I will not be afraid of your exceedingly brave and great screamer (vocalissimum) Eck, nor will I despise you completely powerless or any other completely unlearned adversary. Then I would be a poor Luther in truth, if I, according to your advice, argued in confidence on the contemplation of Scripture, and not rather and completely on faith in God, who alone works in me; although I cannot deny Christa his gift and confess without all hope that I am at least able to do something in Holy Scripture, which, however, as I confidently believe, your brave Eck cannot yet teach profitably in right order and in right understanding. For this is not taught in school theology. It is all God's free gift and grace, by which no one becomes more pleasant, just as little as by the beautiful form of the body.

I, too, am truly at home among the scholastic teachers. Therefore it is quite right that he is also praised by you as extremely brave and hearty. But believe me, he would appear much less praiseworthy to you in this respect, if he only understood a little of the initial principles of divine doctrine, or, as one says, the elements (principia) in the holy scriptures. He has shown this sufficiently in the Leipzig disputation; this can also be seen in his books "von der Gnadenwahl" 2) and "mystische Theologie" 3); he bravely tackles everything and first of all the highest, so that I fear that he will miserably make a big fall.

In short, you yourself know that empty barrels resound more than full ones. I do not desire to be called very brave, and as one who has

  1. Eck's Chrysopaffus, published at Augsburg in November 1514. Cf. Wiedemann "v. Johann Eck," p. 453.
  2. D. vion^siivsINeolo-

Aia IN). I. Ivan. Lolrius OonanEiNarios ackjeoN pro. NNeolvAia noZativa. Cf. Wiedemann "Eck", p.495.

1240 D. v. a. iv, 35-37. 49. Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. W. xviii, 1520-1523. 1241

I do not begrudge corners this praise, because each of us should be so constituted as to be praised by a better name than this, namely, by Christ's name, in which the strongest is the weakest, and the weakest the strongest, as it is said in Joel 3:15, "Let the weak say, I am strong."

You also write in my praise: I would have turned everything up and down, and would have put all the sharpness of my mind into it, and would have claimed that the supremacy of the Roman pope was not from God. Here I could treat you rightly, as you deserve, if I did not believe that you, afflicted by spite, do not know what you are saying. I believe, I say, that by the words, "is not of GOD," you mean, "it is not of divine right." For thus you explain the words of right as a canonist and orator with a very beautiful short saying (chria) and an interpretation. For what more blasphemous lie could you tell against me than that you say that Martin assumes that the supremacy of the pope is not from God, that is, from the devil? And indeed, when I consider your other things, since I see that you are always doing the nastiest things against me, I could almost come to believe that you wanted to pin this stain on me. For as careless as spite is in regard to itself, so cunning is it in regard to another's harm: meanwhile, according to Christ's teaching, I will take such speech in the mildest sense, until thou continue to show thyself.

But who showed you, my Emser, all my armory? When did you rummage through all my storerooms? I would have nothing left to put on it? Did it seem to you, then, as if I had poured out everything at Leipzig Prov. 29:11 and swept everything out, that I had been, as Solomon says, the fool who pours out his spirit altogether? But the wise man keeps to himself for the future. Did not rather your corner do this, who for four days drove the clouds of his bulls on me, which I was hardly able to oppose (oppugnator kui) for one day? How gladly would you build your corner a triumphal arch: and do you not consider that you are lacking in

Art and costs were missing! How, if I had hardly paid out half in Leipzig? Has anything been done there about the reputation of the conciliar? Has the Acts of the Apostles on this matter been examined as it should have been? What new thing has Eck brought forward that the first beginners of theology do not read everywhere in the Summists and Sententiaries 1)? For it was this trite and embarrassing stuff of his that made the disputation most annoying to me, above all others that I have seen. I was also displeased with Carlstadt that he presented such rich and stately refutations to his miserable and ludicrous reasons. In short, I did not attend any disputation from which I would have preferred to leave, for I had come with an exhausted spirit to taste new heavenly (coelestis numinis) juice of God and to see what miracles Eck would do with you. And why is it that to this day neither he, nor yours, who faithfully help him, can overthrow my certain reason from the Nicene Council? How often has he, wanting to make a mockery of such an insurmountable reason, talked about Greeks, heretics, and red spirits, but has never been able to do it? For it is certain, and will always be certain, that the Nicene Fathers must be heretics with the general church, if the supremacy of the pope is by divine right, which 2) established the opposite of the article of the Council of Constance, in which alone its strength consisted: but what it is good for, I have already sufficiently shown at that time, and can still sufficiently prove; for the Nicene Council has not yet been discussed in all the articles that belong here. For this was my Tydeus 3) against many soldiers of hay and straw, when I saw how, with the greatest astonishment of all men, the mountains that wanted to give birth produced only a ridiculous little mouse, and I disliked that so much time was wasted. For the whole matter should have been settled in his hour.

  1. Summists, those who make excerpts; sententiarians, collectors of pronouncements of school theologians.
  2. namely the fathers of the Council of Nicaea.
  3. Tydeus, a strong hero who alone overcame fifty men who had ambushed him. Virgil, Ud. VI, 479.

1242 L. v. a. iv, 37 f. IX. Luther's controversy with Emser. W. xvin, e-e. 1243

if one had not had to listen to the mishmash and nonsense of almost all Summists of Eck, so that it would not have the appearance (and you have always been most careful about this appearance), as if we did not want to or could not dispute.

But that at least you believe that I am still capable of something and am not completely exhausted, I will also add a conclusion that is not unlike yours, and perhaps in a more probable way should deal with this glorious supremacy of the pope. So pay attention.

How if Matthias, the last among the apostles, had been and was the first among the apostles? For I will soon persuade you of this, if you will only allow me to interpret the Scriptures according to your and Eck's needs. For according to the Gospel Matth. 20, 16. the last are the first and the first the last, therefore your Peter, since he is the first, must become the last, and my Matthias, since he is the last, must become the first.

In addition, it is a strong confirmation that he was chosen to take the place of Judas, the betrayer Acts 1:15 ff. He was the father of the disciples and Christ's steward over them, who carried what was sent Joh. 12, 6., and had and administered the goods of the apostles and Christ's property (patrimonia, - inheritance) just as today the Roman pope administers that of the bishops, priests, monks, also of kings and princes, so that he seems to have been in truth the second (secundarius) high priest of the church and the predecessor of the Roman pope, with whose office he agrees better than any other apostle: so Matthias is really pope and governor of Christ, since according to Aristotle the same doing is as much as the same being, and the cause is recognized from the effect.

But this is also a strong reason that Christ calls him a leader in the Psalm and says Ps. 55, 14. according to the Vulgate: "But you, my comrade in spirit, my commander and my acquaintance"; which he says of no other apostle.

In addition to this, it is not written of any other apostle that he has the dignity of Bis

The first one is the one who has had the bishopric than Judas and Matthias, as Peter says, Apost. 1, 20: "And let another receive his bishopric!" but also the saying Joh. 6, 70: "One of you is a devil." According to the Hebrew, "one" means "the first," as Gen. 1:5: "And evening and morning became one day"; and Matth. 28:1: "On one of the Sabbaths," that is, the first. So if he is the only bishop, commander, first and steward, what else is left but that he is the governor of Christ?

Let us add the cause. Almost always those who fell were put in the first place, as Lucifer, Adam, Cain, Esau, Ishmael, Reuben, Onan, Saul, Ammon, and many of the like; which was done that God might scare the proud and lift up the humble: therefore Judas also seems to have fallen from the first place. Therefore the apostles were least afraid that he would betray Christ, because he was the first and foremost of the twelve.

You see, my Emser, that I still have enough stock, which you have not yet seen: and that this has as good an appearance as your best things. What do you think, would I be able to prove (facerem) everything, if I, just as you, under "rock" wanted to understand the supremacy, and under "willows" the autocracy, and similar, what you want, to twist the scripture in such a way? How, if you had had such probable things?

But since we have had to deal with the envy and the machina of the common adversary, I ask you to listen to me patiently with regard to our common confession. We have the story of the Romans and the Bohemians before us. Dear! Let us deal with both of them for once without any partiality. I, too, want the Roman pope to be the first among all, and that all should honor him; I do not want the separation of the Bohemians. But that the Roman pope is supreme by divine right, that I do not want to believe in any way, nor will I ever confess it. If you want to know why, listen. The Roman popes and their flatterers have been seeking for many years that they might be the supreme authority from

1244 D- V. a. IV. 38-40. 49. Luther's Addition to Emser's Bock. W. XVIII, 1525-1528. 1245

divine right over a concilium and over all in the whole church, yes, even over the general church. What do you think they were seeking with this endeavor? This, of course, that, because one may not judge, correct and rebuke him who is supreme by divine right (as they think), a power to presume on every thing in all things would now prevail, as it is today, and that in the church of God the terrible thing, as Hosea [6, 10. and in the holy place of abomination Dan. 9, 27. Matth. 24, 15., that is, an unpunished wickedness and safe freedom to sin. But what would come of this but that the church would become desolate and perish? For by this power, which was given only for edification, they would seek nothing but destruction.

But since we all owe more to Christ, that is, to truth and righteousness, than to any man, it is certain that truth and righteousness must not be preferred to an erring and godless pope. And with whom therefore this truth, righteousness, and Christ are, he is higher than the priest, and must both resist the priest, and admonish and amend him; otherwise he is guilty of sin against Christ, to whom he hath preferred a man, and of ungodliness to the truth.

Do you see what this serves? First of all, it condemns the opinion of the most ungodly flatterers, who chatter away that one should not say to the priest who sins, "Why do you act like this? But what do they seek but that we conceal the word of God from wickedness, and esteem a man higher than Christ's commandment? Furthermore, this overturns the ungodly doctrine of those who say that one must not judge a superior; as some decrees of the popes fool. Dear! Why should he not be judged? Is it because he is the Supreme? But the word of God is over all; and if the lower has it, but not the superior, then the superior must give way to the lower; as 1 Cor. 14:30 says: "But where it is revealed to him that sitteth, let him that is first hold his peace".

so that he would not have to hear what Ps. 14:6 says: "You revile the counsel of the poor, but the Lord is his confidence. Were not the prophets inferior to the kings and priests? yet they judged, punished and corrected them, so that it is also written of Jeremiah Cap. 1:10 that he was "set over nations and kingdoms to cut down and to plant, to break down and to build." Add to this that there is no other power in the church but to resist sin, with binding and loosing; therefore, wherever there is sin, there also is this power, according to Matt. 18:15, "If thy brother sin against thee." And here no pope can exempt himself from it 1): for if the violence does not bind or loose in the case of one man's sin, it will not apply to any other, and it is utterly nullified (evacuata), because there is no cause of difference.

And here I will speak boldly and, which you will be very surprised about with all the flatterers of the Roman pope, and perhaps declare it to be a heresy, I say that the popes are obliged before all (primo), with the guilt of a mortal sin and the punishment of eternal damnation, to resist such pernicious abominations of the Roman court, by which everything that is Christ's is sold everywhere, the nations are sucked dry, the bishoprics are devoured by the bishops' cloaks (palliis), the priesthoods by the annals, and it in no way excuses them that the pope is supreme, because they owe more to the supreme of all, Christ, that is, to the truth, than to him: and if they see that this truth is overthrown by the pope, and do not hasten to help, they are guilty of all the mischief which the pope causes, either by wanting such things, or by overlooking them.

The same belongs to all of us, for we are all bound with like obligation against Christ's honor, except that we must first heed Paul's word 1 Tim. 5:1., "Rebuke not an old man, but admonish him as a father." But if he will not yield to him that beseeches him, what thinkest thou that he Paul shall otherwise counsel to do, but

  1. full exvutere, actually: to pull out the neck.

1246 L. V.". IV, 40-42. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1528-1530. 1247

Mt. 3, I0]: "Avoid a heretical man"? It is not the power of the Pope or any bishop that rules in the Church, but the Word of God, which is bound to no one, completely free, a King of kings and Lord over all lords. The power of the pope is a service and not a dominion.

Therefore the most Christian high school of Paris is to be praised in many respects, which, more concerned about the care for the prince, about everything the truth, and the word ruling in the church, than about the serving power established by the word, resists Leo the tithe, or rather the flatterers raging under the name of Leo X, by interposed appeal before all, as Paul did to Peter, Gal. 2, 11.

And would God that after this most Christian example all bishops, all elders, shepherds, princes, authorities, yes, all Christians would do the same, as often as they see something monstrous coming out of Rome under the name of the pope against the Gospel of Christ. For all men must stand by the gospel above all things, and not yield to anyone, not look through the fingers of anyone, not favor anyone who does anything against the gospel of Christ, whether father or mother, as he says Match. 10:37], "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." For when does the pope suffer that something is done against him for the sake of a bishop? Does he not want to be preferred as superior to all bishops? Why should he not also suffer that the gospel is preferred to him, and that he is judged according to it, whoever it may be? Will he want the gospel to depart, so that obedience may be rendered to him? Far be it from him, unless he no longer wants to be counted among the Christian shepherds, but among the pagan tyrants. For then that word of the apostle would have to be said 1 Cor. 5:12, "What business have I of them that are without, that I should judge them? Judge ye not them that are within?"

So the rule of the Christian life according to Peter is clear 1 Petr. 5, 5, that we should all be subject to one another. By saying "all" he excludes no one, and it is not enough to be humble,

But it must also be shown and proven in work and in truth. St. Gregory, too, says very well in the Decrees that we are all equal, and only guilt makes the inferior, as it is also said in Psalm 122:5: "There sit the chairs of judgment."

Therefore, where there is guilt, there is already judgment, and he is the inferior with whom it is, against all who have no guilt. Did not the Roman popes also sometimes show this about themselves (exhibuerunt), who were accused, justified or condemned by the judgment of others? What then is this new frenzy, to establish this by divine right, that sin shall reign in the church with impunity under the title of higher rank (moritutis)? Or do they make the divine right the lid of impiety? Furthermore, the pope is not the lord of the church, but a servant and steward, but she is lord and queen, and Christ alone is the Lord. Neither is he the bridegroom, as some slander, but Christ is the bridegroom. Therefore the church, which is one body with her bridegroom, is mistress of all the other members, and subject to no member, but to her bridegroom alone; the others are all subject to her, as to the queen and bride.

Accordingly, attach as much serving power to the Roman popes as you want; only you may not set up such a one for me out of divine right, who is subject to no one, he may be good or evil. For that is what those godless, wanton blasphemers of divine right seek. Believe me, when they will see that they cannot claim this power by divine right, but will hear that they are subject to every Christian everywhere where they have acted against the gospel, it will happen that they will not want to be the sole ruler in the church, neither by divine nor by human right. For who in such a high position would want to be subject to so many lords? Doubt not also, there will then be many more people who deny it and say: the autocracy is not divine right, than there are now who champion it: then my opinion will be safe enough.

1248 L. v. a. iv, 42-7-44. 49. Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. W. xvin, 1530-1533. 1249

"But," you will say, "in this way no bishop will be the superior by divine right, and there will be no power or higher dignity in the church." I say, indeed, there is no higher position; for Christ forbade it, saying Marc. 10, 44., "He that will be chief, let him be your servant!" But the violence is a servitude and a service. Therefore the power of the church is far different from the power of the world: the former is a power to serve, the latter a power to rule. ' Thus saith the apostle 1 Tim. 3:1, "He that desireth a bishopric desireth a good work." "A good work" (saith he); but works come to servants and laborers. Now they call it "a good work," that is, "a good idleness." But it is enough for me now that I have shown that divine right does not attach to the pope that which they understand by divine right, namely, that he is subject to no one, not even to him who has the truth; and that he who before all Christians is subject to unpunished arbitrariness and willing desire to sin, yet who before all should be bound, subject, and a servant.

If you should now say: "Although one might improve man, the dignity itself is higher by divine right", then I come here to my actual field, that I show that it is such a higher position, which no man would ever want to have, and that it is something far different to be a superior, and to be a superior by divine right. But about that in due time!

Finally, my Emser, we see that this unfortunate disputation has such an end as is worthy of such a disputation, namely as described by the apostle 1 Tim. 6, 3. ff. and said, "If any man teach otherwise, and abide not in the saving words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the doctrine of godliness, he is darkened, and knoweth nothing, but is addicted to questions and wars of words, out of which proceed envies, strife, blasphemies, evil suspicions, scholastic quarrels of such men as have their senses disturbed, and are deprived of the truth, who think that godliness is a trade." You see, I say, that our disputation there is so painted that even an Apelles could not have written it in such a way.

could paint. We have done it only in one thing, that we did not know we were in the midst of wolves, and have made true the gospel of Christ Matt. 7:6, "Ye shall not give the sanctuary to the dogs, neither shall ye cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and the dogs turn and rend you." This is what happened to us with you.

Now that we see this end, what more evil shall we add to the former evil? Rather, let us pray together to the Lord that what has been to the contempt and harm of truth through our fault may be turned again by His mercy to the destruction of the spite and vain honor that has been so brazenly sought there, so that I fear there will be a great wrath of God upon it.

Henceforth I will debate with them that love the truth more than their glory; or if I must be sent into the midst of wolves, the Lord will give grace that I may keep the simplicity of doves, and the prudence of serpents, that is, that I may neither hurt nor be hurt, and be wise in good, simple in evil: and if I had not wished to observe this even now, what names, thinkest thou, which thou hast well deserved, could I have put upon thee? You can hardly believe how many jokes, how many taunts, how many mockeries the old Adam has given me against you; but which my Christ has suppressed again, because he did not despair that you would finally let go of your spitefulness, and henceforth (where there is still something left) write a lamb rather than a capricorn, or at least undertake something in which a test of your understanding and your erudition would be perceived, and which, if not to the godly, could be useful to the diligent reader.

How long, I pray thee, shall I lose the time and trouble by the indulgences and the violence of the Roman Pontiff, things that are not at all 1) to the faith in GOD

  1. In Latin: äis äia xason-two octaves away].

1250 L. v. a. iv. 44 f. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. xvm, 1533-1533. 1251

and belong to our bliss? namely, we live in such an unfortunate time. Johann Reuchlin has already lost many years uselessly through the same misfortune for the sake of a cause, which, the more I look at it, seems to be equally or even more paltry, so that in my cause this example causes me a great fright, that from such a useless cause (lana caprina), from which nothing at all comes out for the church or the salvation of souls, whether it loses or gains, so great lakes of sins, so much evil gossip, so many outbursts of jealousy have broken out, the expense

And to say nothing of the work. "Behold, what a small fire, what a great forest it kindles," says James 3:5. But woe to those restless devils who cause such mischief and rage without cause against the blessedness of the brethren. Let us, I beseech you, also fear an equal or worse misfortune from this tragedy. I have often wished to be silent with the peacemakers, but against the shouters and raging people I still have a living confidence, which Christ gives me. I want to love everyone, but fear no one. Farewell!

*50. to the goat at Leipzig Doctor Martinus Luther. )

Probably the end of January 1521.

My greetings to the Bock in Leipzig!

If I had called you a goat, my Emser, you would certainly have written a book or two about it, and showered me with all kinds of lies, blasphemies and words of shame, as is your way. Now you yourself, with coarse letters, so that everyone knows, call yourself a goat, and threaten no more than to push, and say: "Beware, the goat pushes you"; so I may well, I hope, also receive you with your favor and grace as a goat; although it would have been unnecessary for you to write it on paper; it is well seen in your whole being that you are a goat; to the fact that you could not push more than that, your little books and speech point superfluously. But do you not think that I would like to answer your frivolous threat and say: Dear donkey, do not lick! God forbid the goats that wear their horns braided in silk; with me, God willing, there is no need.

Have you never heard the fables, when the donkey cried out with the lion, and some animals fled from his cry, so that the

The lion turned to him and said, "If I did not know that you were an ass, I would have been afraid of you myself. You see daily that I am not afraid of those who have more skill and understanding in one haav than you in body and soul; nor do you dare to defy me and frighten me, so that you may prove strongly that you have confused reason with unreason and have become a goat out of a man.

What would you do in the holy scripture, you unreasonable goat, not to interpret it according to the letter that kills, 2 Cor. 3:6, but according to the spirit that makes alive, as you boast in this little book of yours? You are almost unable to say in German what you have in mind; your words are so clumsy, disheveled and desolate. And as far as I can see, you do not know and will not learn for a long time what letter, spirit, death and life mean in the Scriptures. Thy spiritual rights shall not teach thee; so shall not thy goat's head itself know. This is the other sign, that thou hast put off the man, and put on the goat; thou art a Licentiat sacrorum Canonum,

*) Under this title the writing first appeared in Wittenberg, 1521. In the collections it is found: in the Wittenberg edition (1554), vol. 7, lol. 142; in the Jena edition (1564), vol. I, lol. 360; in the Altenburger, vol. I, p. 556; in the Leipziger, vol. XVII, p. 60S; in the Erlanger, vol. 27, p. 200.

1252 Erl. 27,202 f. 50 To the Bock at Leipzig. W. XVIII, 1535 f. 1253

and a prohibitut sacrus scripturus; 1) you will remain so.

But methinks I see thy just cause to write, and regard not that thou doest it out of presumptuous art and understanding, which thy conscience denies thee without doubt, and which I will show thee in all honesty, when thou hast now cast out, and the time shall be for me to scrape the goat's horns; But from the beginning of my name, through no fault of my own, you have received such hatred toward me that I have often wondered how a man could bear and live with such hatred; although it appears to your body not a little that you are also almost a land-ruining proverb because of this hatred, and an example to all haters.

This same evil will forced you to write the first book against me in Bohemia, in which you condemn me as you know; to which I answered you and truly unknowingly met your grief and grind; for at that time I was not aware of your Bohemian nature; God knows that. Then you became angry at first and wrote the other book, 2) because of which all scholars have become hostile to you, as you know, you poured out so many public lies and whole loads of abusive words, 3) that I had mercy on you and did not want to answer.

Since that time, your unspeakable hatred cannot be satisfied, cannot stand still, cannot stop taking revenge; you have written the third book against me of Thomas Rhadinus, in addition to many evil letters; 4) and that your poisonous heart

  1. This is a play on words that Luther allows himself with Emser's title of office: one who is allowed to teach the holy canons (lüeSutmtus), but one who is forbidden to teach the holy scriptures (kro1iiditatu8).
  2. This refers to Emser's writing: V6imtion6 I^uterianaasskrtio . In the Jena Aus

gabe (1564), vol. I, fol. 360 d, the marginal gloss here is: "Diese Antwort D. M. L. ist nicht fürhanden" ("This answer of D. M. L. is not available"), which the Altenburg and Leipzig editions have reprinted. But it is obvious that Luther is not talking about his answer here, but about Emser's answer. Luther did not answer the same.

  1. In the original: you pour out.
  2. This refers to the following writing, with regard to which Luther suspected that Emser had written it under a fictitious name: RUackini loäisoüi
  • ack Mustriss. 6t inviotiss. prinoipss 6t populos derumniae in Llartinuua I^ntsrum - natiouis xloriaua vlolantsra oratio. L-oraas. ÄlaLoeUius. ua. !

I am afraid that your hatred, and nothing else, will kill you before you see that you do not create and are despised by me. How could anyone believe, you wretched man, that with such inhuman, unruly hatred you could understand the pure, good Scriptures, which you neither read nor studied? Help God from heaven, how deeply you are blinded. Won't you even think that God is your Lord and Judge, and change your bitter, hateful heart?

Now, because I have hitherto remained silent to your lies and vituperations, you let yourself think that you have won, and that I could not answer you. Perhaps you are also encouraged by the fact that the bull is your hope that I should never write, and that you alone could shield and overcome on the plan with the larvae without conflict and without danger; and yet you boast that you want to suffer as a priest of God, my Holhippellen, 5) which is the reason why I am not able to answer you.

Augusti. 1520. quarto; reprinted in the same year in November at Cologne and in October at Leipzig. Luther also expressed this assumption several times in letters. Emser, however, denied that he was the author. Later it was learned that there really had been a Dominican Rhadinus in Rome, who came from a count's family. Cf. ^adrieii Oentikollum I^uttier. p. 697, and Waldau, "Nachricht von Hieronymus Emsers Leben", p. 42 f. The proof that there had been a Rhadinus in Rom, however, does not yet exonerate "Emser" from the suspicion. Luther held on to it very tenaciously. For the first time he voiced it on October 20, 1520 in a letter to Michael Marx (De Wette, I, 517): "That the Italian booklet of Thomas Rhadinus is by Emser, that proves both the spelling and the slobber." And still on February 27, 1521, he writes to Spalatin: "You cannot yet talk me out of the fact that Rhadinus is Emser, dear Spalatin, we also have our reasons." The only evidence we know for the statement made by Walch in his introduction to the 18th volume, p. 90, that Luther later doubted it, is the fact that Luther, in the enumeration of his opponents, separates Rhadinus from Emser in about October 1521, assuming that the two paper abusers at Leipzig are to be Alveld (or Murner) and Emser. Cf. De Wette, II, 85.

  1. holhippellen - common scolding of a scoundrel. This meaning is derived from the passage in Emser's writing to which Luther refers here: "Regardless of whether the opposite party will be angry about it and again judge me like the holhuppen, because I can well bear frivolous people's scolding for God's sake. We also encounter the expression "holhypler" (Wittenb. Ausg., Vol. 7, col. 185) in No. 40 in this volume, in the first paragraph of the "Folgerede Martin Luthers" zu dem Urtheil der Theologen zu Paris, Col. 955.

1254 Erl. 27, 203-205. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W, XVIII, 1536-1539. 4255

I have suffered and kept silent from you three times now, and you do not see that in all your books there is one abusive word after another, so that everyone says there is no more blasphemous writing than yours. And you also want to be famous for it. Since with you, too, such raging, senseless raving is called patience and suffering, and you can reverse all things and give them new names, it is no wonder that you also make of the holy Scriptures what you will. But behold, I will not be silent from now on, nor will I allow you to defile the holy scriptures with your goat's trunk, as you have begun; perhaps one day you will be paid what you have long borrowed.

There is only one thing I wish you would stop lying and write the truth. For it is not strange to me whether you know nothing in the Scriptures; but that you like to lie so much is unpleasant for you, God's priest, and makes me reluctant to answer you. I will allow you to blaspheme and rebuke, but I know that your kind and hatred are not lascivious.

This first sixth 1) you shall not hear, my goat, as if I had not been able to expect the end of your booklet; but because you write that I have put myself to flight before you, and thus you drive here exceedingly confidently, as if I would do nothing to it, but let you triumph, that you know it shall be otherwise, if God wills. For if you had taken care of my answer, you would undoubtedly not have presented such a shabby rag. Therefore, because your certainty makes you too careless and industrious, that you do not see for yourself what you are slurring and spouting, and because I have the intention not only to answer you, of which you are not worthy, but also to take cause to give Christian instruction from the spirit and the letter, since you do not understand a jot of it; I will admonish and awaken you, so that you wake up and do not take the sword by the edge, as you are doing now with great certainty, but by the

  1. Sheet of six leaves.

Take the booklet with both hands fastest, and take your fellow spirits to you, to write something at the end of the booklet, which is serious and worthy to answer for, and your best comes out, that it is not necessary to write many useless books and endure the people. You are still far from where you want to go, dear Bock.

If you should tell me that what the Scriptures teach hangs on goose feathers, and what you spin out of the teachers who have erred many times and out of your horny head should hang on chains; this I will also represent, if God wills, and answer your blasphemous mouth, which so lightly reviles and desecrates God's word. Be fresh, take small and great swords. You have three books and several letters to answer for, especially several unchristian lies, which should make you tired of your thrusting, or you must lie even more. I also want to take a vacation and let my mind run free to you. Therefore, dear Bock, do not think that you are alone on the plan.

I know well that it is not good to deal with an insolent blasphemer and liar according to the proverb:

Hoc scio pro certo, quod si cum stercore certo, Vinco vel vincor, semper ego maculor. 2)

For the sake of truth, I still have to wait for your intemperate, unending vituperation and blasphemy. If you could write something else, you might write it. Therefore I must bear patience and let it slag and snow what your restless hatred will teach you. I have also rumbled many times; but besides that, I have written several good things without rumbles; but you can do nothing but scold and blaspheme. But let's go here, dear goat, it doesn't help to look for good with you.

Fiat voluntas Domini, 3) Amen.

  1. I.e.: "This I know for certain, that when I fight with evil, whether I am victorious or defeated, I am always defiled."
  2. I.e., "Let the will of the Lord be done."

1256 Erl. 27, 205-207. 51: To the Bock's reply at Leipzig. W. xvm, 1539-1541. 1257

*51) On the trestle at Leipzig response Doctor Martin Luther. )

Probably February 1521.

To the firm and strict H. E., 1) my special favorable master and > friend, D. Martinus, my good fortune.

Strict and firm lord and friend! I have received Emser's torment 2) to the bull at Wittenberg in addition to your writing. And although many advised me against answering him as a public liar and blasphemer, I did not want to refrain from doing so, so that the sow's belly would not be too big to show him his lies. For he is such a coarse head that, although he imposes vain lies and nothing honest, he nevertheless believes that he has a right cause and has won; it was not fitting for me to remain silent, because he directs all his lies to the disgrace of my doctrine. I did not want to keep all this from you in good opinion. I hereby command God.

The first one. He wants to show what kind of bird I am. It is necessary for him. For even though I am not pious, God has so far protected my life that no one has been able to reproach me with truth, and these two years so many lies and liars have come to shame on me that it will cost Emsern art and effort to report him. But I have an advantage over him, I may not tell anyone what kind of bird he is, he is known by his song and feathers; as his rumor smiles, so do his books. It is a mercy, where liars and boys scold me.

  1. H. E., as the title indicates, a nobleman, probably the councilor Haugold von Einsiedel from Surrey. Already Seidemann, in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 492, has expressed this opinion by stating this letter as addressed to him.
  2. Sheet of four leaves.
  3. I.e.: dares to believe.

He has now let print twice. Latin and German, and otherwise chatted back and forth, as I am supposed to have said: I did not start the game in God's name, it shall also not end in God's name. What should he do if he knew something thoroughly about me? How then should his Christian love, of which he prides himself, burn against me, if he is so restless in this poisonous, self-invented, insolent lie; he would like to take a murderous stab at it and desecrate all my books and teachings in an instant and appropriate them to the devil. But you missed and the blade got into your fingers. You wretched man, how are you so bold to torture and swear by God's holy name that you do not act against me through hatred, envy and lies, if your heart and conscience know otherwise. Hold still, I will spread your feathers a little and also show yourself to yourself; for others already know what kind of bird you are.

It happened in Leipzig at the castle in the chancellery (for I have a freshly good memory of it), when the Eck's Practica dealt with the disputation according to his advantage and my disadvantage, and we saw that the honor was sought by the opponent more than the truth, and I hoped until that time that they had begun it in God's name, as I had; then I spoke with miserable words and a saddened mind: This thing was not begun in God's name, nor will it come to pass in God's name, as the outcome has proven. Now everyone sees that this prophecy of mine has been fulfilled, for what the disputation has brought forth is all too much in the day.

I can testify to these words of mine, not only with those of ours who were there, but also with those who were not there.

*Under this title, the text was first published individually by Johann Grunenberg in Wittenberg in 1521. For a more detailed determination of the time, see the introduction. In the complete editions: Wittenberger (1554), vol. VII, col. 143b; Jenaer (1564), vol. I, toi, 361b; Altenburger, vol. I, p. 558; Leipziger, vol. XVII, p. 611; Erlanger, vol. 27, p. 205. The attribution is again in Erlanger, vol. 53, p. 55, and in De Wette, vol. I, p. 546. In these last two editions it is, as we think, set too early, namely in January.

1258 Erl. 27,207-20S. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. xvm, 1541-1543. 1259

but also with Emser's own conscience, who also stood there, and the envy from his face immediately burned and sparkled with great malice.

Therefore I despised this public lie, never wanted to answer for it; thought the holy priest of God and Christian lover would once be ashamed himself of such a public impudent lie and fear, if I and ours were silent, that the table, oven and vault of the chancellery would shout about him and cry: Emser, do not lie yourself to death! The lie is too big for a versifex 1) and wind poet; for I do not like to write against those who I know are decided by their own conscience and knowingly stink and lie.

In addition, the holy priest of God knows well with everyone that not I, but Eck has begun the disputation; how should the word then be on my beginning? For I can boast and prove that in all of this I have never started anything with anyone, that I am always unwillingly torn and driven by useful, salutary business; that many pious people have also taken pity on me to defend and protect me with much noble loss of time against my lying and malicious adversaries, who wantonly invited me upon themselves to hunt their honor on me; and when they failed, they wanted to throw the guest out with dirt.

They shall, however, if God wills, invite me without their thanks, as they have invited me, or let me go from them with honor and atone for and pay for the courage shown in me by the evil enemy's incitement. They shall not and will not dampen my game in this way; I hope to God that they will; and before ten years pass, Emser, Eck, Pabst with all their liars and deceivers shall realize whether they or I have begun in God's name, even if they burn my books and me for it.

So my words have not been directed at me, but at Eck, Emser and the Leipzig theologians, whom the holy priest of God has perverted to me in the Jewish way, as the Jews interpreted Christ's word from the emperor,

  1. Verse maker.

Interest and temple building, to prove his Christian love. And write, I have said that it was not started by me in God's name; martyr and swear to it that he is not doing it out of hatred and envy, and the holy name of God must serve him for his poisonous lies and be disgraced because of it.

Do you know your feathers, you noble bird? Who will believe that you write a true word, when you not only lie so shamefully and wantonly, which I have worked so hard to get out of you; but also by unchristian tortures and swearing you drive such poison into the innocent hearts without fear and bring such death of your lies under the living name of God into so many Christian people? How should you rage and stink, if you had seized me with one letter as bravely as I have seized you in this lie!

The little piece that you write that I said: "The devil strikes" is also of the same truth as yours, that the poor common simple-minded people are annoyed by my teaching. My Emser, whoever wants to make me a coward does not have to attack me with lies. These three years so many lies have been invented about me, as you know, and all of them have been disgraced. Because you also deal with lies, there is no fear with me that you should penetrate through with honor, even if it lasts for a while.

That you and Eck, Pabst and the whole Behemoth are offended by my teaching, be praised and blessed to God. But I have not yet experienced anything else, through the writings and testimonies of many pious people, except that my teaching is comforting, useful and beneficial to the simple, afflicted, imprisoned consciences, and the unworthy thank me so warmly and praise God that they have experienced the time to hear such a word. Christ says Matth. 10, 24. 25.: "The disciple shall not be better than the master. If they have called the father of the house Beelzebub; they shall call the servants so also. As they hear my word, so shall they hear yours," John 15:20. He was also offended by his cornered goats, Emser goats, wolves and serpents and such unreasonable raging beasts; but the sheep heard his voice.

1260 Erl. 27, 20S-SI1. 51 On the Bock's reply at Leipzig. W. XVIII, 1543-1546. 1261

So also my Annas, Caiphas, Herod, Judas, Pharisees, Scribes and the pious, noble, tender people must be angry with me; there strike happiness. Christ says, Matth. 15, 14.: "Let them go, they are blind and blind leaders." And if someone had already said, as you lie about me, that the devil strikes into your and your like evil-doers' anger, it would not have been a mortal sin, although I do not say it.

Therefore, dear liar, I did not say, as you accuse me, that I so despise the aversions of the simple that I would let the devil strike at them; you think of that, to describe me, as you write, as an arrogant, 1) haughty person. It hurts you in your heart my cheerful, great courage. But I am, and will, if God wills, also remain, against you and Eck, Pabst and your bunch, also the devil, with God's help, in a constant, arrogant, undaunted spirit, and defy and despise you as the unintelligent, blind heads and poisonous liars, and would that your ugly eyes should see my daily, cheerful courage; although the hearing offends you almost enough. Nothing shall help you your envy, sorrow, rage, and all that evil you may undertake. Because I do not humble myself before you angry, bloodthirsty tyrants and do not accept your lies and poison, I must be arrogant. So Christ and John also had to have the devil before the Jews Matth. 11, 18. Joh. 8, 48.

But if I knew that my teaching (which cannot be, because it is the gospel itself) would be harmful to a simple-minded person, I would rather suffer ten deaths than let such teaching go or be unrepealed. It would have to be a villain, even worse than Emser himself, who would not be heartily sorry for the poor people's annoyance. It would also have to be an unchristian who would take on the tyrants' and Pharisees' anger. But whether I am an arrogant man, because that is not the case

  1. The reading "hochtrabenden", which is found in the Jena and Erlangen editions, is a printing error, because Emser has written "hochtrabenden". This printing error could occur extremely easily, because in the old printings b looks like an inverted g.

I do not want to fight hard against anything that concerns my doctrine but my person. I have said several times before: my person touches whoever wants and how he wants; I do not pretend to be an angel.

But my teaching, because I know that it is not mine but God's, I will not leave anyone unaccountable. For there lies my neighbor's and my blessedness in God's praise and honor. But I respect that one should believe my Wittenbergers, who see my being daily and deal with me, more than the absent liar Emser. I know this well, as I am daily warned in writing not only by my fellow residents, but also from many countries, that I should not make myself so mean to everyone; and they scold my too settled spirit, as which everyone also presents himself with danger of life; no one has also given me a haughty spirit, but only Emser, whom I should believe, as my enemy, who tells me the truth, as one speaks, if he had not made himself such a public liar that one would want to grab it.

For this I mean, the thing that lies on me alone, where no more than nature would be in me, should ever humble a lofty spirit. It is considered impossible by many that I may live with such a being. Now I have so much to do that six years ago three would not have been enough for me; so now, by God's grace, I am fresh, healthy, cheerful and courageous, even idle. Which no doubt my Lord Christ does through the prayers of godly people, without my merit, in defiance and sorrow of all the enemies of God's word, that they may become like their fathers, the Jews, if God wills it, of whom it is written: "They have provoked me to anger by a strange God; so will I provoke them to anger by a strange people," Deut. 32:21.

Item, you also write, I have forbidden not to be obedient to the pope and authorities, and after the manner of your obdurate lying, you will not be red in the face of so many of my books, in which I teach clearly otherwise, even in the book of Capt. BabyI. ft,Of the Babylonian Captivity"], which nevertheless is the very worst of all

1262 Erl. 27,211-213. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1546-1548. 1263

shall. So you lie about my presence, about my absence, about my books; on all sides you are a liar. I have burned the pope's books because of the same article, that he takes away the obedience of the authorities; and you say that I forbid the same.

So I have said: The pope and bishops have no power to burden Christians with their laws; but suffer and bear, as much as it may be without sin and danger, their unlawful violence from the Untern. I have written this not in one place, but in many.

You will not lie to me about the book of Thomas Rhadinus, dear liar! Your slobber and soap cannot be hid like that, even the art in it, which you praise as your own, is also painted similarly to you, not different from your crude, incomprehensible cops in philosophy and theology, as you shall find out. If there were art in it, I would not attribute it to you. Who will believe you that you are serious about touching the abuse of the spiritual state? Why did you keep silent about the atrocious abuse of indulgences and Roman pomps, and still keep silent today? And you do not attack any of my books, because in them I have not attacked any state, but only the vices? What do such lies of yours reveal to you? Thou confessest the vices and iniquities of the classes, and yet holdest thy porridge in thy mouth, and yet wilt thou be praised as pious and the enemy 1) of iniquity?

But I see that because the water wants to go over the baskets and virtue goes down with the unrighteous, you pretend to save the state; but you mean to strengthen vice and unrighteousness, as happened in the Costnitz Concilium. But we will undoubtedly be instructed about this in your delicious, elaborate booklet, which began with lies and will also be completed with lies. I can tell you many more such lies that I have kept silent so far. Only do not beat yourself up too much; the chips will fall into your eyes in heaps. Therefore I ask you for God's sake, my Emser, once again, would you moderate yourself of the lies.

  1. Thus the Jena edition; in the Wittenberg "Freund".

and revoke these lies, so that you do not try God too high. You cannot harm me, I know that well, and I would rather have you recover than perish.

And that I may owe thee nothing, which a Christian is bound to do to his enemy, because I see that thou wilt set thy soul upon it, and like an angry bee forsake life; I will give thee leave in these writings, as I did before to one of mine enemies, and the choice to be angry or to laugh, and admonish and exhort thee when thine hour shall come (for we are all uncertain of a moment), that thou be not afraid nor despondent at my image and remembrance; that what thou hast done to me be without hurt unto thee, thou shalt boldly rely upon it. I will have done my part for the salvation of your soul; and even if, through the intervention of the evil enemy, you would now despise and laugh at my commandment and bless yourself from it, as I am well aware, remember it when the time and the need come and do not be afraid.

So I also want to have commanded all my enemies herewith, who do not yet know or have not yet experienced what the last need and fear teaches. I know what I speak now; the time will come that they will also know it, God grant, without their ruin; and do not presume that I will revoke one letter of my teaching, God grant, you will become cousin, sister or brother-in-law, you will become sheep or remain goat. It is not a matter of revoking here, but of putting life and limb into it, my Emser; that and no other. God help me with his graces, amen.

And that you yourself may grasp how you lie, and write against me not out of love of truth, but out of pure raging hatred, I will say further: If I were so possessed, since God is before, that I still said I had not begun it in God's name, what do you see against it? Because you cry out that you only want to touch my teaching without hatred. How many are those who teach the truth for the sake of money, good and honor? Have you not read that on the last day some will say to Christ, Matth. 7, 22. 23: "Lord, do we have the truth?

1264 Erl. 27,213-21p, 51. on the buck's response to leipzig. W. XVIII, 1548-1551. 1265

But to them he will say, "Depart from me, you workers of iniquity. So that he proves that they have not acted in his name, as they boast. See to it that you too are not their companion, who so nearly boast and swear that you began it in God's name.

Item, Balaam, 4 Mos. 24, 15. ff., did the most noble prophecies, not in God's name, but for the sake of good. Christ says, Matth. 23, 2. 3., one should listen to the scribes who sit on Mosi's chair, whether they were wicked; which without doubt you must confess that they did not teach in God's name, but for the sake of benefit and honor. Is it not true that you and all papist hypocrites and liars rely on this reason and say all together: one should not despise miserly, unchaste, ambitious prelates and teachers, and summa summarum, one should not look at the life but at the teaching? Now it is not possible that these can rule and teach in God's name; but, as St. Paul says of them, Phil. 2:21: "They seek all their own profit." If you want to destroy all those who do not teach and rule in God's name, how much will you keep of the spiritual state, and where will you stay? I hope you will not want to have your teaching read or kept according to your holiness, for what would it be but mere superstition?

St. Paul, Phil. 1, 15. ff., boasts and is glad that the gospel was preached by some unruly, ambitious people, even by the enemies of the gospel, only to destroy the gospel. But thou, more precious and holy than St. Paul, thinkest to press my doctrine, where thou wouldst but raise an evil word from me; that thou mayest understand how thou, being blinded, seest not thy hatred and malice. Because you despair of the matter and do not like to break off my teaching, you turn your trunk and jaws on my life to desecrate it, so exactly that you also lie in wait for my word, because you

  1. The Jena edition: ehrsüchtige; the Erlangen: ehrgyttige --- ehrgeizige. The Wittenberg wrong: ehrgüüge.

you cannot blame any work; you intend to write against my teaching and you write against my life. I mean, you got into the carnival and became the poet, as Horatius writes about, who pretended to make a barrel for him, and became a jug out of it. Just as he pretended to preach about love, and preached about the goose. Of course you do not have donkey's ears, as you yourself say; but see that you do not have donkey's brain and heart when you act so carelessly and without understanding.

If I had wanted to touch your life, do you think I would not have found something to write about? I could prove from your other book Assertio 2) that you confess that you bore hatred towards me, and out of hatred towards me wrote the first book of praise towards Bohemia; which you also deny so often in the same book, and always speak against your own mouth, in no place write without lies. But I have not wanted, nor do I want yet, to have anything to do with your or anyone else's life. I do not deal with life, but with teachings. Evil life is not almost harmful, because of itself; but evil teaching is the greatest evil on earth, which leads the souls with heaps to the 3) hell. Whether you are pious or evil does not concern me; I will attack your poisonous, lying and contrary to God's word doctrine, and with God's help I will counter it.

And that your deep art and great holiness may be astonished and blessed before me poor sinner and great fool, I say further and confess that I do not boast that I have ever started anything in God's name, as you boast with such high duties. How do you think now, Emser? Now let your pen crack or all the bells ring and shout loudly: It is all the devil's work that is in me, as you would have liked to have done in this murderous stab out of great love. Dear Emser, my heart is thus done that I hope I have begun it in God's name; but I am not so bold as to judge it and exclaim that it is certainly no different. I

  1. D. i. Emsers "Aufrechterhaltung seines Bocks", the refutation against "Luthers Zusatz zu Emsers Bock".
  2. In the old editions: gen Hölle.

1266 Erl. 27,215-217. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. xvm, 1SSI-1SS3. 1267

I would not gladly suffer God's judgment over it, but I crawl to His mercy and hope that He will let it be started in His name; and if something unclean has been done to me, because I am a sinful man, living in the flesh and blood, that He will graciously forgive me and not judge me harshly.

This is how cowardly St. Paul makes me, 1 Cor. 4, 4. when he says: "I am not aware of anything; but by this 1) I am not justified. Neither do I judge myself; but God is he that judgeth me"; and David, Ps. 143, 2. "Lord, enter not into judgment with me; for there shall no living man stand justified before thee." But you, impudent, cowardly hero, far above St. Paul and all the saints, who have neither flesh nor blood, but are spirit and God, take it freely on God's last judgment, you do it all in God's name and without hatred, and offer equal defiance to the terrible judgment of God. Rather, strike him a cliff and pluck out his beard. 2)

It would perhaps be right that, where you were walking in the street in Leipzig, all the bells were rung and roses were placed under the feet of the new saint. And when you have signed me over, I ask that you also touch the last, divine, terrible judgment and write against it, as that would do you injustice, if your conduct would not be done in God's name; and entreat God, as you do, to enter into judgment with you. For you alone, before all men, have judged yourself and awarded yourself the crown, and you alone will be found justified.

Where do you want to go, Emser? Do you not see how your hatred blinds you, that you do not understand your own word and work? I have not read more frightening, more horrible words, so that my ears immediately shake at the fact that you are taking upon yourself God's final judgment. And if I had no reason to believe that you are lying and pretending everything you say and pretend, this horrible appeal of yours to the last judgment would be all too sufficient for me. For it can not be from

  1. Jena edition: will.
  2. Thus the Jena edition; the Wittenberg and Erlangen: also.

go to a right true heart, or all scriptures must be false. High swearing shows deep lies. But you meant to acquire faith by lying, and you have done so that your faith will be utterly disgraced. Who will believe you in one piece, when you call upon God's judgment with a false heart and lying words? But if you do not lie, your blindness is there and takes away your faith. For what good thing should you do in the divine Scriptures, if you are so stupid and blind that you do not understand your own word and heart, and God's judgment, and speak like a mad, drunken man?

Therefore, my advice would be that you remain a versifex and write your shameful verses; whether you lie or err would be without harm. For God's word and the Scriptures are too high for you, you start too horribly. I will also give thee notice to credence thy booklet, which thou liftest up, and complainest that my doctrine is so broken down, that there is no house where there is not a rebellion and dissension against me. My Emser, who has asked you to give a noble testimony against yourself to my doctrine? How could my doctrine be better strengthened than by such a confession of its worst enemy? God drives you, like Caiphas, Joh. 18, 14., that also your hatred must speak my best, just as you mean to speak the very worst. I have no stronger proof and miraculous sign for my hope that I began in God's name and teach the right word of God, than that it has been spread so quickly throughout the world, without my doing and seeking, and through innumerable resistance and persecution of all authorities and scholars, and is causing dissension. And if it had not done so, I would have long since become despondent and weary.

For that such work and rumor is the true nature of the divine word is testified by Psalm 147:15: "God's word runs swiftly"; and Christ, Luc. 21:15: "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your opponents shall not oppose nor contradict"; and Matth. 10:34, 35, 36: "Ye

  1. d. i. in turn.

1268 Erl. S7,218-220, 51. To the Bock's reply at Leipzig. W. XVIII, 1SÜL-15S6. 1269

do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. [I am not come to send peace, but sword and strife. For I am come to divide the son against the father, and the daughter against the mother; and to make man's enemies his own household."

If my teaching works in the world, as the enemy himself confesses, how can it be better for me than to hear it? Is it not a wondrous God who turns Balaam's malediction into benediction, and my enemies' gloom into my comfort, their defiance into my strength? Behold, how well thou, O thou handler of the holy scriptures, dost comprehend the divine word, the manner and the works! You want it to come in peacefully, to make no quarrel and to annoy no one. But Christ says. No; it may not and will not be so. If your first sixth is so grossly foolish in the beginning, what will the twenty that follow do? What you write will be vain foolishness and blasphemy, I think. You want to write little books and don't know how to begin; you intend to act God's word and don't know what his way is, where it ends 1) or serves; how do you think, dear goat, how did you push me so finely? Hope, you will push me in all pieces in such a way.

This is also the reason why I firmly believe that the pope's and all the sophists' theologians' books are in part the devil's teachings, because they were received with quiet peace and all honors, without contradiction of the world, and were feared and held higher than the holy gospel. Had they been of God, they would have pleased the lesser part, and would have become houses of dissension and martyrs 2) because of it. And you, holy priest of God and Christian lover, pretend to write peaceful doctrine that shall not offend, and invoke the Last Judgment. You do it without hatred in God's name. Dear, make St. Simeon a liar, since he says, Luc. 2, 34: "Christ is set up as a sign to be contradicted, and many will take offense at him.

  1. lenden --- to direct, turn, guide.
  2. In the old editions: Märterer.

bump, fall and rise." All the quarrels and wars of the Old Testament were a figure of the preaching of the Gospel, which must and should cause quarrels, disagreements, quarrels and rumors. In such a nature Christianity stood in the times of the apostles and martyrs, when it stood at its best.

It is a blessed strife, rebellion and tumult that God's word awakens; there comes right faith and strife against false faith; there come again the suffering and persecution and the right nature of the Christian people. So that such things do not happen, Emser thinks that one should preach other peaceful things. This is what the late Christian at Rome wanted for a long time and unfortunately achieved; which St. Paul calls operationem erroris, strong preaching and faith of error, 2 Thess. 2, 11.

For such preaching John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burned at Costnitz; for their doctrine also drove the goats and wolves to their heads and caused an uproar, so that in a council, when Emser's god, pope and cardinal were discussing how one should defend against their doctrine, especially against both figures in the sacrament, the Florentine cardinal came out and said: "Let the beasts eat and drink what they will, but they want to reform us and teach us the law, so let us fight against them." And the game went according to the same advice.

Just as my Cardinal St. Sixti 3) at Augsburg also did and pretended: If I only revoked the indulgence, there would be no need for the other, they probably wanted to find a distinction and an evasion. Thus they seek God's honor and the truth. Therefore, although Emser drags out the Aristotle and presses on me with the name of Hus and Jerome, I should rather be ashamed of Hus, because of Aristotle's honor, will gladly leave him the liar and jack Aristotle, find him in the pigsty or ass stable, so that Hus remains for me, who now, resurrected by God's grace from the dead, torments his murderers, the pope and his papists, stronger and more than when he was alive. And if Pabst and all Pabst's liars should burst

  1. Cajetan.

1270 Erl. 27, 220-222. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. LVIII, 1556 f. 1271

with malice, they must hear John Hus saying into their noses: You Christian murderers may shed innocent blood, but you will never keep it silent 1). Abel, who was too weak for his Cain alive, tortured him first of all when he was dead, Genesis 1.

4, 13. 14. I hope that it will also happen to me that I, like Samson, > will also be able to read Judges. > > 16:30, do more harm to them in death than in life. For Christ's death > also did more than His life, as He says, John 12:24: "The grain of > wheat abideth alone, except it fall into the ground and die: but if it > die, it bringeth forth much fruit." > > It also does not bother me that he says it is a prophecy of a monk who > is supposed to turn the world upside down. St. Paul and Peter are > strong enough with me against all false prophets, both of whom have > proclaimed the deception of the pope and his own. Even where I have > the clear Scriptures, I respect none of them.

  1. i.e. to silence.

Prophet, even if he came from heaven, because St. Paul, Gal. 1, 8, said: "We should not believe an angel from heaven, if he teaches differently than the gospel. But that the pope and his fellow tyrants have taught otherwise is evident. Hus has proven it, and so have I and many others; I will prove it even better. God help me.

And you, Emser, have wantonly presumed upon this matter, which is none of your business, and mixed yourself into it without need; I will watch you come out. You have stirred my pen anew, you will ever endure the game, and your name shall be told in many more books; do not complain. But if thou wilt revoke thy error, and depart from 2) hypocrisy, thou shalt soon make me silent and still. If not, do what you like. God help his truth. Neither to me nor to you, but to God alone be praise and glory, amen.

  1. In the old editions: "des".

52: To the super-Christian, super-spiritual and super-artificial book of Goat Emsers at Leipzig Answer D. M. L.

In it also Murnar's, his journeyman, is commemorated. *)

End of March 1521.

Dear goat, don't poke me.

Preface.

Behold, Bocks Emser, are you the man with the long spear and short rapier? God forbid fork pricks, they make three holes. Bocks Emser, you are a strange man of war to me! St. Paul described, Eph. 6, 11. ff., four divine weapons, a sword, a helmet, a coat of armor, a shield; of which

You may not use more than one sword. And because St. Paul has taught you too little, you improve the armor with a long spear and short rapier, and fly to me with bare head, bare breast, bare belly, as if I will do no more than, kneeling before you, let me stab the naked knight and say: Mercy, Squire Bock, be merciful to us alive.

To this you swear by your priesthood,

*) Under this title, this writing appeared twice in a single edition, > one time with Johann Grunenberg, the other time without indication of > place and time. In the collective editions: Wittenberger (1554), vol. > VII, col. 148; Jenaer (1564), vol. I, toi. 366d (this leaf has the > wrong number 361); Altenburger, vol. I, p. 556; Leipziger, vol. XVII, > p. 609; Erlanger, vol. 27, p. 221.

1272 Erl. 27, 222-224. 52. Response to the supra-Christian. Book of Emser. W. XVIII, IS57-IS60. 1273

like Hannibal by his god, you would not stop writing against me. Bocks Emser, that you would also have sworn the oath, like the armor, improved by your horns and beard, like Socrates by his dog; that would have been quite a philosophical oath, almost frightening to me, because you recently found the Aristotle in the donkey stall with Christ, as you boast. It wants to be serious, I see well, because the long spears and short swords are coming, which I, as unnamed by St. Paul, have not provided myself with until now.

In such earnestness I must hold to the armor, helmet and shield that Emser leaves lying. Not that he despises it, as everyone knows, but that he does not need it, for he has a thick skin, a hard head and a hardened breast, so that he can resist not only me, but also the Holy Spirit. But St. Paul discusses 1) the weapons in such a way that he calls the helmet "a helmet of salvation"; the armor or cancer "an armor of righteousness"; the shield "a shield of faith"; Emser does not need any of these, he has enough in the most holy father Pabst, as a creature should have enough in its creator. Therefore, he also introduces the holy carnal law, more than divine law, and takes the sword with the long spear and short rapier and so nakedly attacks a cunning cuirass, 2) that is, the heretic Martin Luther. What do you think? I mean, the goat is a man and a noble hero, he may truly dare.

Now I put on my armor in God's name: the armor or cancer of righteousness is what Paul calls the righteous, innocent life that does no one wrong, or, as they say in German, a good cause and a good conscience. For thus St. Peter teaches 1 Ep. 4, 15. 16.: A Christian should live in such a way that he may not be justly persecuted and suffer persecution only for innocence. Just as the cancer or shell guards the breast and gives courage against the stings; so he who has a good cause and conscience and is righteous does not fear, relies on it, and is courageous against his enemies. So

  1. örtert - explained.
  2. A cuirasser on horseback, i.e. a soldier on horseback equipped with a cuirass.

St. Paul says in 2 Cor. 1, 12: "Our abandonment or glory is our good conscience, that we have lived in the world simple-mindedly" 2c This armor is not necessary for the goat; for it is too heavy for him to carry, he likes to go without cancer, good things and conscience; is enough for him long spear and short sword of blasphemous words and lies.

But now the evil spirit is angry with pious, innocent people, and also seeks to pierce their good things with long spears and short swords, that is, to reproach and disgrace them before the people with great lies and cunning interpretations, as Bock Emser does to me; nor is there any thing so good that one can boast of it before God, "before whom no one is innocent," Ex. 34:7: so the shield of faith is necessary, that it may stand in God's trust; and though every man be turned away by poisonous tongues, yet let him not be faint-hearted and faint-hearted, put not his trust in human assistance, nor in his own right, but in God alone, who will perform it well.

Therefore Paul says: "In the shield of faith you can quench all the fiery spears and arrows" (would have called Emser's short rapier too) "of the wicked one." He does not say "fiery darts of the evil one" and "extinguish" for nothing. For the lies and false pretenses of the evil-doers are so malicious, hot, and deceitful that if they could set the whole world on fire, they would do it and their hearts would burn up with great hatred 4); of them one says in German: Ei, wie bitter und böse meint er's. (Egg, how bitter and evil he means it.

Therefore, the righteous must command and trust in God, and thus extinguish the fiery spears in the shield of faith. St. Paul often tried and experienced this from the Jews. I have not experienced it from any of my enemies, except from Eck and Emser, both of whom are well armed not with bad but with lost fiery spears; but they have not yet been able to harm me. And if there were not a faith, such fiery spears should indeed be

  1. I.e. poisoned.
  2. approaching - almost.

1274 Erl. 27,224-226. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1560-1562. 1275

burn one's heart out than has happened to many. Nor does Emser need such a shield, for he knows how I have not used lies against anyone: but I do, for I have not read or heard more fiery, more wicked lies in my life than Bock Emser's, as we shall see.

Over this is necessary the "helmet of salvation". The Savior or salvation is Jesus Christ, who becomes a helmet when we judge and comfort ourselves according to his example and form it before our eyes, as Paul says, Hebr. 12, 3: "Remember him who suffered such opposition from evil men, that you may not be weary in your faith." And he made himself a helmet, saying Matt. 10:24, 25., "Remember my word which I said unto you: A servant shall be no more than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you" John 15:20. Just as the helmet makes one secure and at peace in the heart, so also when a Christian remembers his Lord Christ, that he too has been so persecuted, he becomes secure and content, and lets go what is going on, and says cheerfully, "There must be a rascal who would have it better than his dear Father and Lord! Bock's Emser does not need this helmet either. But at the end of the book, he paints a picture of it and places it at his feet, asking so diligently that anyone who did not know him would think he was serious; but the head remains bare, that the "regents of the air" ever have free open access.

But he takes the "sword", the word of God, and pretends not to cut with the scabbard, that is, with the letter, but with the edge, that is, with the spiritual mind; as he then from the Bünden 1) well knows spiritual, better than German and Latin, as a true disciple of Aristotle. But if I wanted to take the same sword from him with my armor, I don't know where he lusts it; I see nothing in the whole book but vain long spears and short swords of a bareheaded, naked, bare liar and blasphemer. It must also be a clever sorceress who told him such a dream that the

  1. from the fret - flush.

Sheath is called the letter and the cutting edge the spirit; but I mean, it has found its holy priesthood such and everything else in the ass stable with the Aristotle.

Well, the donkey's skin is itching and he is too comfortable, we want to reach for the things. He has shown three great wisdoms in this tender, noble little book. The first is that he does not attack any of my books, in which I deal with scripture and doctrine; but that in which I present with little scripture my mere faithful counsel to the German nobility, to whom, being sufficiently understanding, it was not necessary to show my doctrine, but my good opinion and admonition. Here I will (said the goat) seize the monk in the bath, and put in honor, because I do not bite any of the other little books.

The other, since he did not yet trust him in such merit, he invented to write a big book and to introduce many sayings, which all have a lot of trouble to answer. Thought: If I write a small one, one would soon see Emsern, as happened to me before. For it is difficult to hide great foolishness under little paper.

But now that I am writing and introducing a lot, everyone must say: "How learned is the goat in Leipzig! I mean, he gave it to the monk and did a little thing with the famous swordsman. Once upon a time, a monkey saw a shoemaker cutting leather; as he was leaving the workshop, the monkey ran over, as is his way, cut the leather and ruined it all. So, when my goat saw how I was inserting scripture and teachers in some books, he thought, "I can do that, too," and thought it was enough to carry what he found in a pile, just as his peers had destroyed and crushed a lot of scripture.

The third, since that was not sure enough either, he first of all makes use of Emser's right spiritual understanding, pinches out my words where it seems to him, smears his poison on them, leaves what is going on and follows, so that my opinion and his poison will not be noted. He does all this out of supra-Christian love and high spirit; in addition, he invokes the holy blood of Christ, prays for me that he would redeem me from the error that Emser teaches me, and that I teach contrary to sense; so that everyone should say: Ei, be-

1276 Erl. 27, 226-228. Reply to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1562-1565. 1277

God forbid, does Luther teach such poison? O, blessed be the goat of Leipzig, which shows us what kind of bird he is! These are the "fiery spears and swords of the evil one," as St. Paul says, so that he would gladly set the world on fire against me. But it does not help; God has built too great courage against this and has given me a good shield, which I will now try, so:

Where I said that much sorrow followed from the forbidden marriage of the priesthood, he thus interprets as if I taught how God punishes the world for the sake of chastity; and proves here his super-Christian wisdom, introducing a lot of Scripture where God punishes unchastity, as if no one had read that. With this he wants to show off, I teach unchastity and curse chastity. His raging hatred is so blind that he cannot consider that no one will believe him, does not see and does not hear my books, publicly available, from which even a child could make him a liar and a villain.

Item, that I have advised not to endow monasteries more, but less, 1) he aims at: Luther has taught, one should not keep monastery vows, throw off caps, run out of the monasteries. If these are not fiery malicious spits, I do not know what fire, malice and spits are. Item, since I have taught Christian liberty and advised how we should be courageous, he implies that I have taught pride, and pours out his art, how the holy scripture teaches only humility; that if Emser had not come, then no one would have known that the scripture teaches humility. Thus, according to the supra-Christian, supra-spiritual interpretation of Bock, Luther teaches Emser vain unchastity, pride, disobedience, and such unrighteousness. So he blames me for saying, "I did not begin it in God's name," and, "The devil strikes," so that the simple are offended by my teaching.

The whole book is full of these pieces and spiritual interpretations, so that I can't help but think that it has happened to him what I have long been worried about, that the unmistakable hatred has made him furious and nonsensical, that he has no

  1. less - to make less.

I have neither wit nor sense anymore; I cannot think that there are still people on earth. It has probably happened before that a raging hatred has made a man raging and furious, as the poets of Hecuba fable. But if he is not nonsensical, I must not call him a lying boy who lies wantonly and out of pure malice, which he knows to be otherwise in the eyes of everyone. So he scolds himself publicly in this booklet before everyone; there are ever my books available, I refer to them.

In this way John Hus and Jerome of Prague were also burned at Costnitz; whom, since they were not able to contradict honestly, they put on a false opinion, as the clear evidence of both writings and booklets show. Just as Christ, when he said Matth. 22, 21: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's", he must have said that one should not give interest to Caesar.

And St. Stephen, Apost. 7, 48, 49, preaching how the temple at Jerusalem was not the right house of God, but Christ made a right house of God through faith, and thus said: "God does not dwell in made houses of men, as he says through the prophet Isaiah 66, 1. 2.: 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what house will you build for me? On a quiet and humble heart my spirit will rest." 2c Since they could not contradict this clear saying in any way, they "appointed false witnesses who said: He had blasphemed God and the holy temple," and so he had to die Apost. 6, 13.

So my goat also, full of the same Jewish spirit, because he could not deny that much misery has come from the forbidden marriage of the spiritual state; as I have said that even the children on the gaff sing about it and say: for this I have introduced the clear saying of St. Paul 1 Tim. 4, 3, so that I prove that the pope has been an apostle in such a law of the devil, that everyone, not only Emser, must become dumb because of it, and nothing can answer it, he breaks out to the side and hits me with the edge of his spiritual mind; blames me,

1278 Crl. 27,228-23". IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1565-1567. 1279

I have taught that God punishes the world for the sake of chastity and calls me and my Greeks, who have not accepted the commandment of the devil, to stay at home; let this be my answer.

But is it not a strange thing about the world! If I were once found to have lied, to have been false, and to have been so grossly deceived, all my teaching and honor, faith and loyalty would be completely gone, and everyone would take me for a knave and a dishonorable villain (how cheap). My enemies still have the good fortune that, even though they lie about me without ceasing, without stopping, and are publicly disgraced, they are still not let go of them, and everyone still waits to see if they will catch me once; since it is obvious from their wanton lying that they do not act against me out of God; that even if I were already full of devils, their thing would still not count for anything, since they do not put their hands on God, but rather try to cast out devils with devils Luc. 11, 15. 20.. They are forgiven for all their lying and fooling; if I had wavered a hair's breadth, everything I had ever said would be heresy. And if they are not able to do so, they still cling to me and are busy with my sharp, biting letter; they cannot forget the pin in my eye, but no one wants to remember the big beam in their eyes Luc. 6, 41.

Therefore, I truly need God's help. I, a mere human being (who cannot live without infirmities), should close a round circle without some scratch, and not stumble at all; if I am driven into the game without my will. But you, the great crowd, which forces itself to it, has advantage with vain, scratchy, hole-rich, loose pieces existing. 1) But it must be so, as it is written: Hohel. 2, 2.: "As the roses among the thorns, so my friend among the daughters"; and Ps. 110, 2.: "Thou shalt reign in the midst of thine enemies." I stand alone in the midst of them; they in the ring, many against one; that one may see how easily the strong unconquerable truth increases its honor in the lie, and how with much effort and labor the unstrengthened 2) lie increases its honor in the lie.

  1. I.e. that it exists with 2c
  2. I.e. powerless.

acquires disgrace in the truth. So my goat would have acquired enough shame in other things with pleasure and joy; but in the truth he had to recover it with great raging and blustering.

Although this is enough to answer Bock, since his unchristian lies and false swearing are clear from what he has written in his mind and spirit; for against the recognized devil there is no fencing, but only blessing and fleeing: It is time that the evil spirit, which does not cease to lie through Bock Emser's mouth and to blaspheme the divine truth, is pulled out and brought to light, and that his disgrace is brought home in reward, and that Emser is brought to an understanding with his own, which is called the saying of Isaiah, 33, 11.Concipietis ardorem et parietis stipulam, "You conceive with a fire and give birth to no more than a straw." The great mountains should also once recover from a child, as the poets write, and when everyone took a great child like a mountain, it became a mouse, and everyone laughed at it. This is where the saying comes from: The mountains get pregnant and become a mouse.

So my goat Emser has also threatened to thrust, long spears, short swords and swords sharpened, and the great butt war has gone over the poor paper, which has thereby been increased to the secret chamber and into the pharmacies; although such honor is also too much to the unchristian lies, blasphemies, oaths, 3) happened against the holy word of God.

From the priesthood of all Christians.

Since I had proved so clearly with strong and solid scripture that all Christians are spiritual and priests, that Emser also did not dare to write a lie (of which I am justly astonished), so that he would blaspheme the same, and had to allow it without his thanks, he has nevertheless shown his mastery, divides the scripture interpretation into two parts and says: I cut with the sheath; he wants to cut with the edge. Here let us go to

  1. In the old editions: Oath.

1280 Erl. 27, 230-232. Reply to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1567-1570. 1281

He will let us see a special masterly piece. He takes before him the saying of St. Paul, 2 Cor. 3, 6: "The letter kills, but the spirit makes alive"; and teaches us thus: He who understands the Scriptures according to the letter and not according to the spirit, would rather read Virgilius or some other heathen fable; for he reads his death. And so does Luther; he follows the letter and lashes out with his scabbard, and does not teach the spirit.

Dear, let us remember, here stands the main piece of Emser's theologians, and on this plan it will be: won or lost. From this follows and must conclude the holy priest of God, first of all, that St. Peter taught the letter and death, when he says, 1 Petr. 2, 9: "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom." From this saying I have proved that all Christians are priests. For Peter said this to all Christians, as the words clearly read and express by name the people. If I teach the letter and death and fence with the scabbard, since I have spoken these words to St. Peter, this disgrace does not concern me, but St. Peter. So I ask the high priest of God to tell me in these words of St. Peter which is the letter and which is the spirit, unless he wants to say that there is neither letter nor spirit in them, which he undoubtedly does not do.

He says: Whoever interprets these words of St. Peter to mean that all Christians should be priests in the same way as they are ordained by bishops, cuts with the scabbard, takes the letter and follows a deadly mind. For St. Peter speaks of the inward, spiritual priesthood, which all Christians have, and not of the ordained priesthood. Here I answer: It is true that St. Peter speaks of the spiritual priesthood; yes, further I say that he also does not speak a tittle of the ordained priesthood; therefore his words also may not be a scabbard or deadly letter, as Emser dreams; but whoever drives St. Peter's word on the ordained priests, keeps neither scabbard nor letter of it; it is wrong and nothing.

everything that he does. St. Peter's words have only a simple sense, where they go with letter and spirit. But Emser does not know what letter means; therefore he makes separation and what he desires from God's word. In addition, he makes him dream that there are two kinds of priesthood, a spiritual and an ecclesiastical one, which he calls ecclesiasticum; and thus he thinks that Peter's words may rhyme with both, and the danger is only that one rhymes them with the righteous one, and he punishes me for not rhyming them correctly.

All this is pure error and blindness, and Emser might well have stayed at home with such blind grips. I have never said that St. Peter's word applies to his invented priesthood, which he calls ecclesiasticum, and which I will henceforth call "ecclesiastical. I did not say that all Christians are ecclesiastical priests: therefore, if the holy priest of God had put his glasses on his nose and looked at my booklet correctly, he would not have had to interpret such lies to me. Also, if the foolish dream existed, since St. Peter's word meant two kinds of priesthood, one with the letter and scabbard, the other with the spirit and scabbard, then the whole ecclesiastical priesthood would be a deadly and harmful thing; because it is signified by the deadly letter. As Emser himself says, St. Peter speaks only of the spiritual, living priesthood. For what is not spirit does not live and is dead.

Again, because he gives me the deadly letter and yet calls my priests the living ones, as Peter speaks of, he calls the living ones deadly and his deadly ones the living ones; he is false to himself, does not know himself what he is saying, makes his own priesthood deadly himself and desecrates it higher than anyone has desecrated it. This is what happens to the leaders of the blind who want to act on divine Scripture and wield the sword of the spirit, which is too heavy for them; and it happens as they say, "Who put this man to the sword?

Therefore, to avoid the foolish dream of the Emser, it is to be known that the Holy Scriptures, especially in the New Testament, since the figures are out, do not speak more than of One spiritual

1282 Erl. 27, 232-235. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, IS70-IS73. 1283

I have also written of the papacy that it writes no more than of a spiritual church. And the priesthood, since Emser dreams of it, and the church, since the papists write of it, rhyme into the Scriptures, as life and death join together. And offer defiance here; if Emser brings me a letter from Scripture that calls his ecclesiastical priesthood priesthood, then he shall have won; but he shall let me have it.

The Scripture makes us all priests, as it is said: but the ecclesiastical priesthood, which we now in all the world distinguish from the laity, and call the priesthood alone, is called in the Scripture ministerium, servitus, dispensatio, episcopatus, presbyterium, and in no place sacerdotium nor spiritualis. This I must say in German: The Scripture, I say, calls the spiritual and priesthood a ministry, a care, an office, an altar, a guard, a hat, a preaching office, shepherds. Let us prove this thoroughly. St. Paul to St. Timothy says 1 Ep. 3, 3.: "A servant of God shall not grieve"; there he calls Timothy a "servant of God" in a special way, that he preached and gave spiritual direction to the people. Item 2 Cor. 11, 23.: "If they are Christ's servants, so am I"; and 1 Cor. 4, 1.: "Dear brethren, we do not want to be held more by the people than as servants of Christ and house servants over his spiritual goods." And Christ Matth. 24, 45-47. sets much of the same house servants.

Now the word "priest" comes from the Greek language, in which presbyteros means senior in Latin and the eldest in German. German; therefore, that in former times the spiritual regiment was always with the elders, as also a city councilmen, in Latin Senatus, have the name from age. Young people have never been good for the regiment. So "priest" is a name of age and not of rank, does not make priest or clerical man. Thus St. Peter says, 1 Petr. 5, 1.5: "I, the elder, beseech you, my fellow elders, to feed the flock of Christ which is with you"; item: "Ye young men shall be subject unto the aged." This must be called in German "den Priestern oder Geistlichen" (to the priests or clergymen), because of the wrong usage of the words.

"Bishop" also comes from the Greek language, whom they call Episcopus, which in Latin is called speculator, in German a warder or watchman on the watch; just as one is called a Thürmer or houseman on the tower, who is to watch and see over the city, lest fire or enemy do harm. So every parish priest or spiritual ruler should be a bishop, that is, an overseer, a watchman, so that in his city and among his people the gospel and the faith of Christ are built and remain against the enemies, devils and heresy. Thus says St. Lucas, Apost. 20, 17, 28: "Paul called the priests of the church," that is, the elders of the Christians of Ephesus, "and said to them, 'Look to yourselves and to the host of Christ, over which the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to feed the church of God, which He purchased with His blood.'" Here it is clear that the elders are called bishops, that is, overseers of the Church of God, that is, of the Christians, which is God's people.

So Emser also knows from St. Jerome that priest and bishop are one thing in Scripture; for St. Paul says, Titus 1:5, 6: "Thou shalt set priests in every city" (that is, an elder over it), and soon after speaks of the same priest: "But the same bishop shall be an unpunishable man"; clearly calls priest, bishop, elder and guardian one man. But that now bishop, parish priest, priest, chaplain, canon, monk and many more of the same names have such a difference, no one should be surprised; for it all came from the way that no word of Scripture remained in its right understanding. Therefore the bishops, who are now, do not know God and His Scriptures. It is thus made by man's laws and order, and in time has become so deeply established that such a spiritual state is thought to be founded in Scripture; when it is more than twice more worldly than the world itself: because it calls itself spiritual and pretends to be, and there is nothing behind it.

That is why I called this priesthood ecclesiastical, because it came from the order of the church and was not founded in Scripture. For this is how it happened in the past

1284 Erl. 27,235-237. Answer to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1573-1575. 1285

And it should be so, that in every Christian city, since they are all equally spiritual priests, one of them should be chosen as the oldest or most learned and pious, who would be their minister, steward, keeper, guardian in the gospel and sacraments; just as a mayor is chosen in a city from the common crowd of all citizens. If plates, consecrations, anointings, garments made priests and bishops, Christ and the apostles would never have been priests nor bishops.

Now step out, Emser, prove a saying or a letter that our priests are called Sacerdotes ecclesiastici ecclesiastical priests or religiosi spirituales spiritual clergy, then I will gladly approve and praise your jugglery with the sheath and edge of two priesthoods. You are ever obliged, before you become a defense man, to indicate what you want to defend and where it comes from. Although this time your high, spiritual mind has shamefully forgotten this, you defend and do not know what, how and where. You are a Licentiat sacrorum Canonum and a Prohibitat sacrae Scripturae. Licentiam permission you have to babble what you want; but prohibition denial you have that you cannot prove anything.

But you know very well that I am not moved by the fact that you have drawn some of the fathers' sayings on your dreams with your hair; and even if they agree with you, it is not enough; I want to have the holy scriptures, because I also fight against you with scriptures. In addition, the fathers are nothing to you with me, because you have proven beforehand that they have never been wrong. You will do this when the donkey gains horns and the goat becomes a sheep. And when thou hast done the same, I will nevertheless say, No holy father hath power to ordain and make an article of faith or sacrament, which the scripture hath not ordained and made, and will not respect thy long straw spear of custom, and thy short waxen sword. Christ did not say: I am Emser's long spear and short sword; nor: I am habit and usage; nor: I am Ambrose, Aristotle, the and the teacher. But therefore he said: "I am the truth" Joh. 14, 6.. Because Emser

I will wait for the three main pieces, the spear, the sword and the sword, and for the spear to be the first.

From Emser's long spit.

Your long spear is Goliath's spear 1 Sam. 17, 7., and your short sword is Joab's sword 2 Sam. 20, 8. 10.. Where habit would be enough, the heathen would have the very best excuse, who have been accustomed to worship idols for more than four thousand years. You should first prove that the habit is right and from God; so you think it is enough that it is called habit. And that I suggest to you new philosophers also something from philosophy, you should not prove prius per posterius [the earlier by the later, et principium petere and prove with what is to be proved. I challenge the priesthood, which has been a cause and lifter of this habit; and not again. Thus you answer me by the habit. This is just as if I said, The skirt shall make the tailor, and the shoe shall make the cobbler. See, you have such a deliciously clever philosophy that it would be enough if Mr. Thomas Rhadinus, Emser's sister of some brother, had spoken it; for he also philosophizes in this way.

Who doubts that from the beginning the ecclesiastical priesthood has had different dress, manner and work than other common Christians, and in it a public custom has been brought up to us, and is kept? should therefore the same constant custom be sufficient to make two kinds of priesthood in Christendom? Why does not also many kinds of priesthood make so many kinds and habits of the collegiate churches and monasteries, since none concords with the other, and yet remains a constant habit in all? So learn, dear Bock, that no habit may change or negate anything in the Scriptures and articles of faith; but it remains only in outward changeable works and offerings, in which neither Christian nor priestly status, but only offices, services and such works are stated and performed. Thus ordination does not make a priest, but it makes priests.

1286 Erl. 27, 237-239. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIH, 1575-1578. 1287

servants; and the plate, casel, 1) mass, sermon proves not a priest, but a servant and officiant of the common priesthood.

We are all priests, together with the whole multitude, without the bishop's consecration; but by consecration we become other priests' servants, ministers, and officers, who may be deposed and changed; just as in the collegiate churches one priest is another's provost, dean, cantor, custodian, and the like. But that the ecclesiastical law does almost nothing more than make such ministers priests and clergymen (that it is also called there by ecclesiastical law), raises and drives such a thing too high and blinds the words of the holy scripture and that no one is called priest and clergyman more than such clergymen, does not exclude me; yes, it is therefore to be burned and destroyed. Traditions hominum, laws of men, have always harmed and obscured divine laws; as Christ, Matth. 15, 3, and Paul teach in all places. Therefore you would have saved Bock the leaden sword until you cut butter or soft cheese.

It is true that the holy fathers called the ecclesiastical priesthood the priesthood. How should they do it? It had already been established that the laity and the rulers were separated in such a way that they had to be called each by its name. So, if I should now preach about the rulers of the churches, who would understand me, if I did not call them priests, ministers, clergymen in the usual way? It started from the chapter Ebr. 5, 1. that our regents are called 8acerdotos priests, because there it says: Omnes Sacerdos ex hominibus assumptus etc.. "Every priest taken from among men" 2c; which, speaking of the Old Testament, is drawn to the New Testament for the sake of the same donor. But if the dear fathers had written about it, they would have called it differently and according to the Scriptures, and would not have defended it with sacrilege.

And that you also try your own spear and sword, whether it stings you or me harder, so give me answer. You yourself say

  1. Casel - chasuble.

All of you, that the priest may celebrate mass and give bread, not in his own person, but in the person of the whole church; to this end the truth, your conscience, necessity, and the unanimous speech and faith of all the world compel you, so that whether the priest is not pious or devout and worthy (as no saint is worthy enough), Christianity may exist and be worthy. Who then is the right priest? the one who does it as a servant, or the one in whom he does it? Who is the priest who does the work and sends it, or the servant who carries it and brings it? The priest is a messenger and servant in the work; so someone else must be the right priest. I think it is clear enough that we are all priests, and that these priests are not different priests, but servants and ministers of the common priesthood (as it is said above), and that there are not two priesthoods in Christendom, as you have dreamed. Behold, so it is with the drunken fencers, who take the sword by the edge and the spear by the point, and make ridiculous grudges 2).

As I have now written several times, by the pope's damned law and regiment it has come to this, that the precious common names church, priest, clergy and the like are turned from the congregation only to the very smallest bunch, which we now call spiritual and priesthood and their thing of the church thing, so that we are all together church, spiritual, priests, as much as we believe in Christ, and they are only servants, ministers, caretakers, shepherds, guardians, watchmen. And so I think Bock Emser's dream of two kinds of priesthood lies in the sand and quat. 3)

But I am surprised that you, wise man and victorious knight, are not ashamed to fight against me with habit in matters concerning Christian faith and God's word; you juggle with long spears and swords, when habit is the weakest and commonly ridiculed argument even in worldly affairs.

  1. i.e. lumps. - In the Wittenberg and Jena editions (also in the Erlangen edition) the reading "gruntzen" is found, which may also be found in the original print. But we consider this a misprint instead of "Grumpen" i.e. crumbs, lumps. Already Dietz, in his Wörterbuche zu Dr. Martin Luthers deutschen Schriften, s. v. gruntzen has marked this word at this point with a question mark.
  2. d. i. Dirt.

1288 Erl. 27, 239-241. Reply to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1578-1680. 1289

ment is. Everyone is waiting for you to attack me with writings 1); then you leave the writings and fall on the custom. But I feel well that the must of the holy burnt right, of which thou art an unworthy licentiate, in which much of the custom is set, have not let his goring like and have pushed out the bottom of the barrel, lest thou with Elihu, who also mocked the holy Job Job 32, 17. 18., choke with great art. What mayst thou teach us, that this priesthood by habit hath hitherto abode? what peasant and child seeth and graspeth not the same? Take a spoon and taste for yourself what you say.

If the priesthood has arisen and remained by habit, it can be abolished by human force and arbitrariness by another habit, as can happen to all habits; so it certainly follows that it is not of divine order. For divine order does not hang on to any wavering habit, and cannot be changed by men. This is also true, so I have also said and still say that such an external priesthood has no basis in Scripture, but is thus called and held out of long custom. Behold, how finely thy spear stings me; thou wilt write against me, and writest for me, against thyself. This is what your overbundling warfare does. Thou bearest the spear by the point against thee, and runnest upon me with the handle, and thrustest through thee.

But tell me, Emser yourself, does this seem to you to be a Christian habit, that you call yourselves something other than what the Scriptures call you? Are you ashamed of your name? Or is the Holy Spirit not good enough that he may call you, and you be content to be called by his name? Despise them, and invent your own names, so that whoever reads the Scriptures cannot know you, and must say, "Where did the foreign people come from? St. Paul calls every city parish priest a bishop Tit. 1, 7., that is, a guardian, priest and elder, ministrum, dispensatorem, and not a sacerdotem priest; so you call bishops, who now are not, for

1) Writings, i.e. scriptural passages, scriptural testimonies.

secular princes, sacerdotes who read Mass and pray Horas 2), turn and turn God's word as you will. And just as you have expressed yourselves of the work, you are also ashamed of the names; and to cover this, you put on yourselves the glorious, dignified titles Sacerdotes and Ecclesiastici and the like.

Nevertheless, do not be content that God and we allow you such wickedly perverse habits and look through your fingers, pretending to urge us to approve and sanction it as if it were right and the Holy Spirit's own work, if it is your own will of courage and the Holy Spirit's contempt; want to make long spears and short swords out of it; shall be right for no other reason than that you have devised it, and the Holy Spirit shall be wrong, depart from you and have been your fool. You scream and lie at the top of your lungs about me, how I blaspheme and desecrate the head of the church, the pope and priesthood, which I have never done. For I also have suffered and honored the violence of the Turks (whom you want to eat) and all unjust violence. But that you with your pope blaspheme Christ, God and his Holy Spirit, pervert all their words and works, and play with them in no other way than as jugglers play with their heavens, I shall call you grace-junkies, adore you and thank you humbly.

I must have done it out of hatred that I do not want to preach your new and self-invented way based on Scripture, and it is not enough that I let it remain and go outside of Scripture in its dignity; but you do it out of love that you snatch God's Scripture for your own doing 3) and mix us in and out of it what you only desire. God must follow you and make a mockery of you, 4) and I meant that you should follow God and make His children. Nor shall we alone suffer such reproach of our Lord from you, but together with the Jews we shall say to him: Ave, Rabbi Judaeorum "Hail, King of the Jews!

  1. The prayers that had to be performed at certain hours according to the Canon.
  2. The Wittenb. and Erl, edition: Eigenthum.
  3. Putzen or Potzen, a scarecrow. Cf. Jenaer, Vol. I, 501 b.: Hanffpotzens.

1290 Erl. 27,241-243. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1580-1582. 1291

nig"], Matth. 27, 29. and consider such abominable mockery as the highest honor of God. Woe to you, end-Christ, and to all your apostles and priests!

So you must confess with me that this priesthood is not taken from Scripture. For what exists from custom is already known without Scripture and being God's order; but likewise, if it is confirmed by the teaching of fathers and men, it is 1) known that (it) is not from Scripture; because custom and the teaching of men are other things than Scripture. This is answered by the long spear and habit, which, if it were a Christian habit, should ever have a little ground in Scripture, and of the Spirit's sword yet a smell. But now that it is a louder habit, what is it but a carnival play? But I do not want to mock you yet, as I would like to. Perhaps you could not find the sword before Shrovetide, so I will hold it in your favor until we come to it in the third play. However, I give you time and space, as long as you yourself want; and not only to you, but to your whole papal sect, which you call yourselves the church of God. Dear, turn diligently and search; may St. Aristotle and the sacred burnt law help you to find the sword, then pick it up and strike freshly at the heretic Luther, ever hitting him with the edge.

But be careful that you do not hit yourselves in the cheeks. Yes, because I'm afraid you won't find it, in the meantime hit yourselves with straw sacks; it will be all right for this Shrovetide. For God's sake, I pray that everyone would think too kindly of me. Who can deal with the childish, foolish, blind heads, who dare all things and can do nothing, with constant brave earnestness? They are the ones of whom Christ, Matth. 11, 17, says: "If you sing to them, they do not dance; if you complain to them, they do not weep"; neither seriousness nor scolding helps in dealing with them. This coarse goat-head pretends to fence with the sword, and since he has only named it, he speaks: Now let's do the

  1. D. i. in turn.

Put down the sword and pick up the spear; he never picked it up before and will not pick it up again. Who can tolerate such crude foolishness in such serious matters? so that they may lead the people by the nose and smear their mouths. I mock (as I hope) those who mock my God and His words and works, as Elijah mocked Baal's prophets 1 Kings 18:27.

And that I end that the sword of the spirit, the divine word, is valid in all disputes, no one doubts; but that habit, if it were equally good, and the doctrine of men are valid, Emser should have proved before. Now he leaves the sword, which is valid, and leads custom with the doctrine of men, which are not valid. Where is here the high, great philosopher Mr. Thomas Rhadinus, who found Aristotle in the donkey stable? Did not Aristotle teach that it is not right to prodanäa P6r proba-väa probare prove the thing to be proved by the thing to be proved, and potero prirwipia (presuppose the thing to be proved as proved)? These are the clever ones who lure our dear youth to philosophy, and know as much about it themselves as they do about theology; take money from them only so that they come from them less knowledgeable than they were when they came to them. Surely it would be a virtue that you coarse asses could do your own philosophy, which you praise so highly. This is a ridiculous guild to me, since no one knows his own craft well. So the sword also goes into your fingers.

From the leaden sword of Bocks Emsers.

But that his spear and sword may not only be blunted and refuted, but also completely destroyed, I will report that it has happened to him as to a dreaming man who finds a spear and sword in his sleep and fights hostilely; when he wakes up, it has been a dream. This I have experienced, how all those who write and do against me bring with them a stupid heart and a despondent conscience, that they are afraid of the Scripture, which they know well, as it is unknown to them.

1292 Erl. 27,243-245. Answer to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1582-4585. 1293

They would not have to touch me with writings 1) nor would they be beaten with writings. Then they devise a new lie, find swords and spears and such foolish things, and say: The Scriptures are so dark that we cannot understand them without the interpretation of the holy fathers; therefore we must follow not the text, but the glosses of the fathers. And that is called here Emser not with the scabbard, but with the cutting edge. If then they bring up a saying of the fathers against me, they ring all the bells, beat all the drums, and shout hostilely, they have won, plug both ears and eyes, want to have the whole scripture blocked and muffled for me.

If I then feel such zag and flight of light, how can I be afraid of the blind moles that shun the light? They force me to think that they know nothing in the Scriptures; therefore it happens to them as it happened to the old frog, to whom the young frog complained, how a large animal, an ox, had come and had trampled all the frogs to death; then the frog was angry and puffed himself up and said: How now, am I not also so large? No, dear mother," said the frog, "even if you burst. So also my goats blow themselves up with their own breath, wind and spirit, and when I come with the ox's foot, as the scripture says, I kick them so that they quack.

So that such gossip may be recognized, I ask them again: Who told them that the fathers are lighter than the Scriptures and not also darker? How if I said that they understood the fathers as little as the Scriptures? I could stop their ears both against the fathers' sayings and against the Scriptures. But this does not bring us to the truth. If the Spirit spoke in the fathers, he spoke much more in his own Scriptures. And whoever does not understand the Spirit in his own Scripture, who will believe that he understands him in another Scripture? This is what it means to sheathe a sword, when it is not only grasped in itself, but also in the words and phrases of men; it soon becomes blunt and darker than before. Nor does the em

  1. Writings - Scriptures.

ser call hewn with the edge. His skin slithers before the bare sword; but it does not help, he must like.

Therefore it is to be known that the Scripture without all gloss is the sun and all light, from which all teachers received their light; and not again. This is evident when the fathers teach something, they do not trust their doctrine, worry that it is too dark and uncertain, and run to the Scriptures, take a clear saying from them, so that they illuminate their thing; just as one puts light into a lantern, as Ps. 18:29: "Lord, you illuminate my lantern." Likewise, when they interpret a place of Scripture, they do not do it with their own mind or word (for where they do this, as often happens, they commonly err), but bring in another place that is clearer, and so illuminate and interpret Scripture with Scripture. As my goats would well find, if they read the fathers aright; but now they run over and regard neither scripture nor fathers aright, it is no wonder that they know not what scripture or fathers teach.

I cannot bear it that they thus revile and blaspheme the Scriptures and the holy fathers; blaming the Scriptures for being dark, when all the fathers give it the brightest light and take it from them, as David, Ps. 119, 105: "Thy word is my light." Again, they give the light to the fathers, that they may illuminate the Scripture; so all the fathers confess their darkness, and only illuminate Scripture with Scripture. And this is also the right art, that one should compile the Scriptures rightly and well; which father can do this best, he is the best. And one must read all the fathers' books with modesty, not believing them, but seeing whether they also speak clearly and explain the Scriptures with bright writing. How should they have overcome the heretics, where they would have argued with their own glosses? They would have been considered fools and nonsensical; but since they led such clear sayings, which needed no glosses, that all reason was caught with them, the evil spirit itself with all heresies had to give way to them.

It is another study in the Scriptures, when one interprets dark Scriptures and figures; this is called a pastoral work, when one

1294 Erl. 27, 245-247. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, IS8S-I588. 1295

some merry minds, as the wild beast, seek and sow; but the study that is for warfare is to be known in the Scriptures, as Paul saith [Tit. 1:9.The study that serves for warfare is to be known in the Scriptures, as Paul says Titus 1:9, to contend mightily and richly with clear sayings, than with a bare drawn sword, without all glosses and interpretations; as the golden spears in Solomon's temple signified, that the adversary, overcome with the bright light, may see and confess that the sayings of God are alone, and need no man's interpretation. For whoever does not believe the clear Scriptures will certainly not always believe any of the fathers' sayings.

From this it follows that one should not believe any teacher, and that the Emser's sword is only a foolish poem; but one should see whether they lead clear scripture, and follow it; so that no more than the mere sword, the word of God, rules with everyone. This is what St. Paul taught us when he wrote 1 Thess. 5:20, "Try all doctrine, and whichever is good, keep it." He did not say that one should keep any doctrine; but try all and keep the good one. Emser, however, means with his sophists, as Eck at Leipzig also foolishly pretended, that one should not try or test the teachings of the fathers, but accept them with all diligence; although everyone knows that they have all been wrong many times.

But if we are to test, as St. Paul says here, what else are we to use as a testing stone but the Scriptures? It must be clearer and more certain than the teaching of the fathers. How else can we test and judge from it which is right or wrong? The goat, being much more learned than St. Paul, wants to reverse this; he pretends that we should not follow the mere text, but the interpretation of the fathers, and makes the fathers judges and testers of God and divine words; so that he proves how true it is that no foolishness is alone. Such jugglery has never been heard from the ancient fathers; it is a new discovery of the pope and his sects, the high schools, that they do not want to see the Scriptures merely, but according to the fathers' interpretation, so that they may escape the sword.

And because the goat has become a new philosopher, I must also give him his Aristo

teles and prove how learned his Rhadinus is inside. Aristotle wrote, and nature teaches the peasants without Aristotle, that one should not prove dark and uncertain things with dark and uncertain, much less light with darkness; but what is dark and uncertain must be illuminated with light and certainty. Because all the fathers prove their things with the Scriptures, it is not to be believed that they were so mad and nonsensical (as would follow from Emser's philosophy and sword) that they took the Scriptures for a dark mist (as Emser reviles and blasphemes), so that they made their doctrine clear and enlightened it; but they have certainly considered the Scriptures to be the main light and the clearest and most certain, to which they refer and rely as the most public and clearest doctrine, which should judge and test all doctrine.

St. Augustine also did this and wrote that he did not believe any teacher, no matter how holy and learned he was, because he proved his teaching with Scripture or clear reason. From which we learn 1) how the fathers are to be read, namely, that we should not pay attention to what they say, but whether they also lead clear Scripture or reason. But Emser and the Pabst's sect are not to be blamed for shying away from doing and suffering such things, and for inventing other little stories. For if they were to let themselves be forced to prove their cause with clear writings, help God, the abomination would be found, and they would never want to deny that their sect was the regiment of the end-Christ, seducing all the world under the name of the church and priesthood; as I will once bring to light, if God exists. That is why it is almost necessary for them to blaspheme and revile the Scriptures, to push them under the bench and pretend that they are a dark mist, that one must follow the interpretation of the fathers and seek the light in the darkness. One should not need the teaching of the fathers any further than to come to the Scriptures as they came, and then remain with the Scriptures alone. Thus Emser thinks that they should also remain beside the Scriptures as something special, as if the Scriptures were not enough for our teaching.

  1. In turn.

1296 Erl. 27, L47-249. Reply to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Book of Emser. W. XVIII, I588-I5S0. 1297

But to see even further the wondrous art of the dear goat, if the scripture is a dark mist, what dare you fence with it against me, and pretend to hit me with the edge? Can you blow cold and hot from one mouth? Is the Scripture both a dark mist and a bright light in your head? Because you take three different weapons, the sword, the spear and the sword; the sword cannot be the spear or the sword. And therefore, where you wield the sword, that is, God's word, you must not wield the sword, that is, the interpretation of the fathers. How quickly have you changed your mind, saying that the word of God is a dark mist, that we cannot rule it with our reason, and yet you rule it when you wield the sword? Yes, I realize that you have stripped your reason in the piece that no one can do what you can do, that is, that you no longer have reason, so that you may be like those who have reason. You see what I mean, you noble goat; how careful you are in your writing!

It also follows from the three weapons that you want to make us spiritual with the words and teachings of men. For if the spear and the sword are something else than the sword, and the sword is the word of God, which alone is truth, then the spear and the sword must be the word of men and lies. For what is not God's word is a lie, Ps. 116:11: "All men are liars." Therefore I have said that your spear is Goliath's spear and your sword is Joab's sword. But if the sword is also God's word, interpreted by the fathers, and the spear is also God's word, then they are not three different weapons, but only one, namely, the sword, which is in all three. For with you another thing can happen, let alone a sword in a sword. I think you went to school too foolishly, the donkey read you over. I wish you would stay at home with your dreams and your own little friends, and practice such frivolous jiggery-pokery in your verses, leaving God's word in peace, which cannot stand such frivolous poems.

We have no more, because One Word That

is spear, sword, sword and all weapons, so that we may fight against the opponent, which is the holy word of God. Hereby you see, I hope, your monkey game with the three weapons. Another time take such a thing before you, which you can prove with writing or reason, then your carnival will be laughed at less. Of the spear and sword no one knows to say but your dream. And so you are answered to all teachers you may lead, be it your very first named Aristotle, plus Gerson and Scotus. And if thou hast not enough, take a calendar before thee, and make the number great, lest meanwhile it be known how thou shalt shun and flee the Scriptures, as the devil the cross.

They themselves have invented a reason to fasten such a spear and sword, so that they may not remain with the Scriptures and be found more unlearned than the laity. For they have no shame where Scripture is concerned; they know well that their customs and doctrines of men are as butter in the sun, and thus they say: "Yes, not everything is written in Scripture that is to be done in the church, but Christ commanded the apostles and their successors to teach and to order, as St. John says, John 21:25. John says, Jn. 21:25: "Many more signs hath JEsus wrought, which are not written in this book: and if it should be written all, I suppose the world would not understand the books." Behold, the fine interpreters of the holy Scriptures, 1) how prettily they can weave a quest 2) and excuse to their shame from the leaves of this holy fig tree and gospel.

Therefore, just as if they had done all that is written in the Scriptures, and were too little written; so that no one (except Christ) has yet fully fulfilled one tittle of the Scriptures. John speaks thus:

  1. In the original printings, the word "Scripture" is probably only missing by mistake, which the Jena edition has designated in the margin as an insertion.
  2. In the old prints: "a questing". The expression is probably derived from yuaestio. The verb "questen" occurs in the meaning: to arouse questions, to cause disputes.

1298 Erl. 87,819-251. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, I5S0-I5S3. 1299

Christ's miraculous signs are not yet all written; and do not say that all things are not written which we are to do. Yes, he clearly states soon after what we are to do, and says John 20:31: "But these signs are written that you should believe"; which faith is also the work that we Christians are to do, as he himself says John 6:29. So these commentators come along and say: not everything is written that we should do. John says of Christ's signs; so they interpret it as laws and works of men. Christ's miraculous sign and our deeds are to be one thing. Thank you, you good fellows, you know how to interpret the Scriptures well; and Emser in particular, who does not hit the letter here, strikes me with the edge of the spirit, just as if he had proven the elevation of the saints by the saying Ps. 150, 1: Laudate Dominum in sanctis ejus "Praise the Lord in his sanctuary". That God may command you blasphemers for once; how miserably you imitate us!

And if it were already said of the laws and works of men, which may not be, should one therefore strive to write so many books that the world would not understand, and to carry out the very things that the apostle wants to have left behind? Indeed, there is enough written in Scripture that there is no need to have more commandments and laws; indeed, there is no authority left on earth to make Christian laws, as I have proved many times. And if those who pretend to do so were speaking from the Spirit, they would undoubtedly not so blasphemously pervert this saying of St. John to their false cause. What a distortion gives clear testimony to the spirit out of which they claim to be lawmakers.

They have another saying, John 14:26, where Christ said at the supper, "The Holy Ghost, whom my Father shall send in my name, shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." Here they pretend that Christ did not leave it all written in the gospel; do not see the clear words of Christ; for he thus speaks, "the Holy Spirit will remind you," not what you are to set and command, but, "what I have commanded and said unto you." So again Christ's commandment must mean as much as men.

Commandment. The disciples could not grasp and bear all that he said to them at that time; therefore he said that the spirit should tell them again what they had forgotten and not understood John 16:12, which is what happened. Christ was so diligent 1) to prevent anyone from establishing the law of men in his church, that he also wanted to say all things beforehand, even though they were not remembered or understood. The Pabst's sect still turns it around and wants to lead it to human laws, what Christ preached against human laws; nevertheless, they do not want to be heretics, but masters of all Christians.

The pope's sect is up to its ears in Manichaean heresy about this piece; they also pretended that the Holy Spirit was promised to teach more than was written in the Scriptures; which St. Augustine masterfully overcomes against Felix and proves that it was all fulfilled and written through the apostles what the promised Holy Spirit was supposed to teach.

Item, since Christ says to the disciples Luc. 10, 16.: "He who hears you hears me", they also imply that they may make laws as they wish; and drive us with the same word into their law, yes, into their money net; although Christ only speaks of the gospel, which he lays out for the apostles to preach, and for us to hear. So, since he says to Peter Matth. 16, 19.: "What you will bind, shall be bound", they also draw from this, the pope may make laws as he likes; so Christ only says the words to bind and loose from sins. Thus they all base their thing not only on their own fabricated lies, but also (which is unmistakable) on the perversion, poisoning and defilement of the holy divine word, and yet they alone want to be masters of all Christians, to heresy anyone 2) who does not worship such their abominations and blasphemies.

Therefore, it is an atrocious, unchristian blasphemy on the part of Emser that he does not want the Roman custom and law to be kept any less than they are in the Scriptures, even though they are not common to all of Christendom.

  1. D. i. prevented.
  2. I.e., to make a heretic.

1300 Erl. 27, 251-2SS. 52. response to the supra-Christian. Book of Emser. W. XVIII, I593-IS9S. 1301

  1. are still kept, because Greeks and Oriental Christians (whether Emser's and Pabst's sect is annoyed) have not accepted them; and even if they were already quite common Christians, it would not be an error of faith not to keep them. To keep the laws of men does not make a Christian; to leave them does not make an un-Christian; although it is not right what the mob keeps and does, to despise without cause and wantonly; again, it is also tyrannical and inhuman, yes, diabolical, to burden without cause, drive and force with the laws of men a Christian, let alone a whole or large mob.

Therefore I let the laws of the pope and of men be kept, whoever would and would want to, where it would be possible that the faith and God's word would not be suppressed thereby. But I do not want that, to keep silent, that one makes a fear and distress out of it and calls all those damned sund] heretics. heretics who do not keep them, even if they otherwise keep all articles of faith. As Emser also confesses here, that I do not touch any article of faith; and yet will not let myself be a Christian. In baptism we did not swear and pay homage to the pope, but to Christ; if he leads us into imperial law, human law, violence, hands, dungeon, death and all suffering, we are obliged to follow. The pope has also sworn to him not to teach us his own word, but Christ's word, and to go ahead. If he does not do this, he is a murderer and a thief; as John 10:1, 8 calls such wolves Christ himself. Now let us hear some of his lies.

First, he lies that I want to cut off the head of the church and then cure the body. Such his own coincidence, like the spear and sword, has pleased him. In the same book, I wrote nothing about the papacy, but only about its improvement and annoyance. That is true, in other books I have written, required by their hustle and bustle, that the Pabst is not out of God's order; I hope I have also received it without Emser's thanks. Thus I have not rejected him, as the liar Emser lies, and my little books clearly prove. If I had wanted that at that time, why should I have

  1. I. e. made known.

then give advice to reform the pope's position? So that I have ever proved at that time that I want him to remain 2) and hold; otherwise I should have said that he should not be reformed, but destroyed.

Even if the pope would already become equal to other bishops, which will not happen before the last day (because Christ himself must depose such an enemy, whom we cannot reform), the head of the church would not be taken off, as Emser lies. He thinks he has won that the pope is the head of the church; there is still a long way to go. "Christ is the head of the church" Eph. 5:23, the pope is often a heretic and a knave, and that it is quite disgraceful of Emser to give the church a heretic and a knave as its head, which is much worse than if he cut off its head. Also the pope commonly dies, and yet the church does not live without a head. For as she lives without ceasing, so must her head live without ceasing.

Emser lies again that I wanted the hands of laymen to be washed in the blood of priests; vain fire seeks his holy priesthood and Christian love; and if I were dead, he would be allowed to pass off such lies as truth, as Hus did. So I wrote against Silvester per Contentionem, as the noble poet and rhetor well knows. If heretics are burned, why should we not much more attack the pope and his sects with the sword and wash our hands in their blood, where he teaches what Silvester writes, namely, that the Holy Scriptures have their power from the pope. As I do not like burning heretics, so I do not like killing a Christian, I know that is not evangelical. I have indicated what they would be worthy of, where heretics are worthy of fire. Nor is it necessary to attack you with the sword.

The nobility and secular power can well advise such women 4) and childish people with a letter and order, if he only despises your tyrannical mirror fencing and false ban, and lets you say: So shall it be

  1. remain here probably in the meaning: let remain.
  2. like all people in general.
  3. D. i. female people. -

1302 Erl. 27,253-256. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1595-1598. 1303

you must well follow. Even though you stand up to it with burning, banishing, raving and raging against the public truth, it looks as if you would like to make a Bohemian example of yourselves and fulfill the prophecy about which it is said that the priests are to be slain. If the same rumor happens to you, you must not blame me; just go on, you are on the right track. Where there is no counsel, there is no help. You should soon realize whether you will thus dampen the game, even if it is ruled and snowed by all the bishops, Emsians, Ecks and popes. I hope you have seen to it that no one should disturb the pope but yourselves, his creatures, as the prophet says Dan. 8:25.

But tell me, dear Emser, if you are allowed to write that it is necessary and right to burn heretics, and you think that you do not soil your hands in Christian blood here; why should it not also be right that you, Silvester with Pabst and all your sects should be strangled most shamefully, if you are allowed to write not only heretically, but end-Christianly and, which all devils are not allowed to say, that the Gospel is confirmed by the Pabst, and its power is in the Pabst's power, and what the Pabst does, the church has done? Which heretic has ever condemned and annihilated God's word in the abyss at once? Therefore I still say: If heretics deserve the fire, you should be killed a thousand times with the pope. Nevertheless, I do not want it to happen. Your judge is not far away, he will find you well and unruly; do not let your wait be long. But I would rather that you come before him with repentance and penance, God help you, amen. But I would rather that the Roman Curtisans, 1) like other thieves and robbers, were fed by force, where they otherwise do not want to leave it.

That you also swarm that I disgrace the priesthood, and pretend that St. Paul was consecrated by the apostles and St. Peter carried a plate. St. Paul was consecrated by the apostles, and St. Peter wore a plate, and you spout many useless words about the consecration and priesthood, and that "spiritual" means three things, spirituals, ecclesiastisum, reIigiosum, and not all Chri-

  1. Courtiers.

The most spiritual, spirituales, I let flow by, so that I am not laughed at with you. Would you like to say that laying hands on the head means more than consecrating. Who can prevent you? If you have not told more than lies, and as some preach. St. Bartholomew prayed rosaries and Our Lady's Psalter. I do not need logic here. Spiritual I call Spirituales and pious Christians; Ecclesiatisum, religiosum I do not know in this trade. I meant, it should once the bare sword hit me with the edge; so neither scabbard, nor sword, nor man is present.

So you also lie that I have made all laymen bishops, priests and clergymen in such a way that they may also do the office as soon as they are not called; keep silent, as pious you are, that I write next to it: No one should refrain from being called, except in the case of extreme necessity. And what shall I say? There is almost one lie after another in your book. I fear you must lie, blaspheme, hate and rage yourself to death. In the past, it was good to write against the heretics, who, even if they were mistaken, nevertheless, as honest people, let the lies stand and got to the point. My persecutors let go of the matter and, like the boys, only give in to lies. So that you do not get tired of hearing your lies, let us do something good again, from the letter and spirit, which is your main piece in this book.

From the letter and spirit.

St. Paul, 2 Cor. 3:6, says: "The letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive." This my Emser draws and interprets to the effect that the Scriptures have two senses: one external, the other hidden. And he calls the two senses written and spiritual. The written sense is supposed to kill; the spiritual sense is supposed to make alive, relies here on Origen, Dionysius and several others who have taught in this way; thinks he has almost got it right, should not look at the light scripture. Because he has the doctrine of men, he would also like me to follow him, to abandon the Scriptures and take the doctrine of men. I do not want to do that, even though I may also be in error.

1304 Erl. 27, 256-258? 52 Answer to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1598-1600. 1305

and will give cause in this very example, and show clearly how Origen, Jerome, Dionysius and some more have erred and erred in this; and how Emser builds on the sand, and that it is necessary to hold the fathers' books against the Scriptures, and judge according to their light.

First, if their opinion were correct, that the spiritual sense makes alive and the written sense kills, then we would have to confess that all sinners are holy, all saints are sinners. Yes, Christ himself with all the angels would have to be alive and dead at the same time. We want to make this so clear that even Emser, with all his lying powers, should not resist. And take before us from St. Paul, Gal. 4, 22: "Abraham had two sons", Isaac and Ishmael, from two wives, Sarah and Agar; this is said according to the written sense and letter. Now this is the meaning of Christ, God the Holy Spirit, and all the angels and saints, who hold fast that it is according to the written sense and letter; and it is truly so. How now, Emser? Where is your Origen? Dear, say here, are you another man who does not cut with the scabbard, and only wounds with the edge, that the letter and the written sense kill Christ and the Holy Spirit with all the angels and saints? What could anyone say more blasphemously than that the truth in all Scripture is deadly and harmful, as Emser rages here?

Again, that Abraham is Christ, the two wives are two testaments, the two sons are two testaments people, as St. Paul interprets, Gal, 4, 24, this is the spiritual sense (as you say). Now not only the saints have the same sense, but also the worst sinners, yes, even the devils in hell. So now, my Emsian, strike freshly with the edge, say that all devils and boys are alive and holy, because the spirit makes alive. Now confess rightly, is it not true, if you take this piece of Origen, Dionysius, Jerome and many more, you have taken almost all their art? Is not the Scripture clearer here than all of them? With which I try, judge, set them all down, so that no one can deny it,

Because with the same saying of St. Paul, which they have for their reason? namely 2 Cor. 3, 6: "The letter kills, the spirit makes alive"; what do I do here for glosses? Is the text itself not so clear against them that everyone must say yes?

So one must act in the whole scripture, also in the old figures. As, that the Jews were not allowed to eat sow nor hare, therefore, that the sow and hare did not chew the cud, that was the written literal sense. Now David, all the holy prophets and Christ himself with his disciples understood and kept it, and if they had not understood and kept it, they would have been against God. How then did the letter not kill them?

Again, that the sow means carnal doctrine, or what one wants to interpret spiritually through it, may well be understood by great mortal sinners, and the devils before that almost well understood; how then do they not become alive from the spirit? Where are you, man with the cutting sword of Leipzig? Dear, go and write more of me, as I have vowed the ceremonies, they are sanctae, justae, bonae, a bono Deo datae sheilig, gerecht, gut, vom guten GOtt gegeben]. Of course it is so, as you now see and must confess yourself. Did I not tell you that you do not know what is spirit and what is letter in the Scriptures? That thou wouldst wait for thine own, and leave the scripture in peace. Now see what good it does to raise up many teachers and build on their Scriptures.

Further, St. Paul, Rom. 7, 14. 7., says: "The divine law is spiritual, but I am carnal"; and names one of the ten commandments, namely: Non concupiseos, "thou shalt desire no evil"; disputes there with rich words and wisdom how the same spiritual law kills. What do you want to do here, Emser? Where are you, man with the spear, rapier and cutting sword? St. Paul says here that the spiritual law kills; you say that the spiritual sense makes alive. Pipe up, let your art be heard! Which is the written, and which the spiritual sense in this commandment, Non concupisces? You cannot ever deny that no other sense is understood here than that which these mere

1306 Erl. 27, 258-260. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1600-1603. 1307

And he ever speaks of the evil lusts of the flesh; nor does St. Paul call the law spiritual, saying: it is dead; and you say that it would be better to read a poetical fable than such a sense of the Scriptures. Thus St. Paul means: whoever understands any other than this scriptural sense of evil lusts, understands nothing at all in this commandment. How finely Emser agrees with St. Paul, like the donkey with the nightingale! One must act in such a way of all God's commandments, be they ceremonies or others, small or great, that it is even obvious how Emser is so pitifully lacking here and less than a child can in the Scriptures.

Also, such his erroneous, false mind lasts to the disgrace of the whole holy scripture and his own great disgrace. All teachers' diligence and effort is nowhere else executed, but that one invents the written sense; which also applies to them alone, that also Augustine writes: Figura nibil probst, that is, Emser's spiritual sense is not valid; but this is the highest, best, strongest and, in short, the whole substance, essence and reason of the holy Scriptures is such that, if one were to do away with it, the whole Scriptures would already be nothing. But the spiritual one, which Emser inflates, is not valid in any dispute, does not hold the sting either, and nothing is attached to it, if no one knew it, as I have proved in the Book of the Pabst. For if no one knew that Aaron was spiritually Christ, there would be no power in it, nor can it be proved. Aaron must remain badly Aaron in the simple sense, unless the spirit itself interprets it differently; which then is a new scriptural sense, as St. Paul to the Hebrews, Cap. 9 and 10, makes Christ out of Aaron.

How then are you 1) so bold, Emser, that you may say that this written sense is deadly! 2) you turn the page, not even knowing what you are saying, that it is better to read a fable of Virgil than such a sense of the Scriptures. That is just the whole scripture condemned, and the devil's lies or fables preferred to the holy word of God; since they do not appeal to anyone.

  1. "nun" is missing in the Jena edition.
  2. d. i. chat.

that has a meaning that is valid without this one, which you teach as deadly and to be shunned. This is called striking with the edge, and rightly Emser's spiritual interpretation; this is how one should strike the heretic Luther. Turn over the page, Emser, and you will find it; the meaning that you call spiritual and living is just that, if one adheres to it alone and lets the written one go, it would be better to read a poet's fable for it; for it is dangerous, and without it the Scriptures exist, but without it they cannot exist. That is why Origen was justified a long time ago in having his books banned; he gave himself too much to the same spiritual sense, which was not necessary, and abandoned the necessary scriptural sense. For in this way the Scriptures perish, and one never again makes good theologians; the one right main sense that the letters give must do it alone.

The Holy Spirit is the most simple writer and speaker that is in heaven and earth, therefore his words can have no more than a simple meaning, which we call the written or literal sense of tongues. But since things, by his simple words, mean simple things, something further and other things, and thus one thing means another, then the words are over and the tongues cease. 3) So do all other things not mentioned in Scripture, since all God's works and creatures are living signs and words of God, as Augustine says, and all teachers. But this is not to say that the Scriptures or God's Word have more than one meaning.

The fact that a painted picture means a living man, without word and scripture, should not make you say that the word picture has two senses: a written one, which means the picture; a spiritual one, which means the living man. So, even though the things described in the Scriptures mean something more, let not the Scriptures therefore have two senses, but let them keep the one to which the words refer, and then give the spirits of the walkers leave to interpret the words in many different ways.

  1. "also" is missing in the Jena edition.

1308 Erl. 27, 260-282. Reply to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1603-1605. 1309

But that they watch, and do not chase away or hide themselves, as happens to the gem-stealers, as also happened to Origen. It is much safer and more certain to stick to the words and simple mind, there is the right pasture and dwelling of all spirits.

Now see, how fine Emser drives along with his ambivalent Bible, makes that none remains certain. Since St. Peter 1 Ep. 2,9 says: We are all priests; he says: Let it be said in the spiritual sense, not in the written sense. But if I ask, why not in the written sense? he says, because the written sense is dead. No one hears what he says, and does not see how he himself first of all disgraces his priesthood; teaches clearly that it is not the living, spiritual priesthood, but the written, deadly, harmful priesthood, that it is also better to be a poet-priest than to be such a written priest. For that which is not spirit does not live, nor is it understood by spiritual sense, so it must certainly be deadly, harmful and worse than pagan and understood by letters, if the high supra-spiritual Emserian theology is to exist otherwise. Therefore it would be good for a blacksmith to remain a blacksmith, a versifex a versifex, and let those wield the spiritual sword who have strength and marrow in their fists and arms. The Scripture does not suffer such splitting of the letter and spirit, as Emser outrages, there is only a simple priesthood and a simple mind in it.

Many sensible people have erred here, who call the letter an obscure word, as Augustine also did in his day. As if I said: Emser is a coarse donkey; and a simple-minded person, who followed the words, understood that Emser was a right donkey with long ears and four feet, he would have been deceived by the letter, if I had wanted to indicate by such a flowery word that he had a coarse, incomprehensible head. Such flowery words are taught to boys in schools and are called schemata in Greek and figurae in Latin, because they are used to disguise and decorate speech,

  1. In the Wittenberg and Jena editions: "who" in the sense of "which".

just as one adorns a body with a jewel.

The Scriptures are full of the same flowers, especially in the prophets. So John and Christ, Luc. 3, 7, call the Jews genimina viperarum, serpents, and St. Paul calls them dogs, Phil. 3, 2; Ps. 110, 3: "The dew of your children will come from the mother of the dawn"; item v. 2.God will send out of Zion the scepter of your power," which means that Christ's children will not be born out of a woman's womb or womb, but without man's work, like the dew from heaven, out of the morning glories of the Christian church. Item, Christ, Matth. 5, 13: "You are the salt of the earth and light of the world." But St. Paul does not mean such a letter. It belongs to grammar and children's school.

If you can now humble yourself and not despise me so much, listen to me, I will do to you as I owe my Christian duty to my enemy, and my God's gift will not be alien to you 2); I will teach you this matter better than you have received so far (without speaking of glory) from any teacher, except St. Augustine, if you had read him, de Spir. et Lit. All that you call spiritual sense with Origen and Jerome, you will not find one letter in the whole Bible that agrees with you. St. Paul calls it mysteria, hidden, secret senses; therefore the very oldest fathers called it anagogas the supplying mind.

(i.e. remotiores sensus, separatas intelligentias; sometimes also allegorias, as St. Paul himself calls it Gal. 4, 24. But there is still no spirit, although the spirit gives such things, as well as the letter and all goods, as we see in 1 Cor. 14, 2: "The spirit speaks the secret senses." But here some, out of ignorance, have given the Scriptures four senses, literal, allegoric, anagogic, tropologic literal, spiritual, deeper, figurative, 3) that there is no reason anywhere.

  1. i.e. withdraw.
  2. Cf. Table Talks. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1341; Cap. 52, § 5.

1310 Erl. 27, 262-264. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1605-1608. 1311

Therefore, it is not well called a scriptural sense, because Paul interprets the letter much differently than they do. Those who call it a grammatical, historical sense do better. And it would be better to call it the tongue or language sense, as St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14, 3. ff, reads; therefore, as the tongue or language reads, it is understood by everyone. For which 1) language or tongue hears that Abraham had two sons by two wives, Gal. 4, 24, remains in the same sense, thinks no further than the tongue or language gives, until the spirit moves on and opens the hidden mind of Christ and two testaments and people. This is called mysteria (mystery, like Paul, Eph. 5, 32., mysterium means Christ and the church in one flesh; but of man and woman the scripture and letter reads, Gen. 2, 24. But here it is necessary that each one does not seal mysteria from himself, as some have done and still do; the spirit must do it itself, or it must be proven from the scripture, as I have written in the booklet of the papacy 2).

Therefore Paul's saying, 2 Cor. 3, 6: "The letter kills, the spirit makes alive", rhymes with these two senses: written and spiritual, just as Emser's head rhymes with philosophy and theology. But how and why Origen, Jerome and some more fathers also drew and forced this saying, I will now leave aside; they probably drew more sayings in this way to defend the Jews and heretics, as everyone publicly knows and can prove. But this is to be thought too good for them, and not to be followed in it, as the unclean beasts do, who have no difference in the fathers' work and doctrine, and pick up everything they find, until they follow them only in the parts where the dear fathers as men have stumbled, and let them go, where they have acted well; as I would easily prove in all doctrines and lives, which are now held the very best.

Now let us take the saying of the spirit and

  1. which - who these.
  2. This refers to Luther's writing against Alveld, No. 44 of this volume: "Vom Pabstthum zu Rom wider den Romanisten zu Leipzig.

letters. St. Paul in the same place does not write a bag of these two senses, but of two kinds of sermons or preaching. One is of the Old Testament, the other of the New Testament. The old testament preaches the letter; the new preaches the spirit. And lest, like Bock Emser, I say my dream, let us hear the apostle's own clear words, as he says of the ministers or preachers of the New Testament, which are thus, 2 Cor. 3:3 ff: "Ye are an epistle of Christ, made and written by our preaching, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables of flesh of the hearts. Therefore, we have no need of a foreign letter of ark to you. We trust in GOD through Christ; not that we are skillful enough to remember anything of ourselves; but our skill is of GOD, who has made us skillful to be ministers and preachers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter killeth, but the Spirit quickeneth. "2c

Are these not clear words of sermons said? Here we see clearly that St. Paul mentions two tables and two sermons. Moses' tablets were made of stone, since the law is inscribed with God's fingers, Ex. 24:12 31:18; Christ's tablets (or, as he says here), Christ's letters are the hearts of Christians, in which not letters, as in Moses' tablets, but the Spirit of God is written through the Gospel preaching and apostleship. Now what is all this said? The letter is nothing else, 3) but the divine law or commandment, which was given in the Old Testament through Moses and preached and taught through Aaron's priesthood. And therefore it is called the letter, that it is written with letters in the stone tablets and books, and remains a letter, gives also nothing more. For no man is made better by the law, but only worse; because the law neither helps, nor gives grace, but only commands and requires to do that which man is neither able nor willing to do. But the spirit, the divine grace, gives strength.

  1. In the old prints: not different.

1312 Erl. 27,264-266. Answer to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1608-1610. 1313

and powers of the heart, yes, makes a new man who gains pleasure in God's commandments and does everything he should with joy.

This spirit cannot be written in letters, cannot be written with ink in stone or books, as the law can be written; but is only written in the heart and is a living writing of the Holy Spirit without any means; therefore St. Paul calls it "Christ's letter", not Moses' tablets, "which is not written with ink, but with the Spirit of God". By this Spirit or grace man does what the law requires, and pays the law; and thus he is made free from the letter which kills him, and lives by the grace of the Spirit. For everything that does not have this grace of the living Spirit is dead, although the whole law shines outwardly. Therefore the apostle gives the law that it is dead, makes no one alive and keeps eternally in death, where grace does not come and redeem and make alive.

These are now the two sermons. The priests, preachers and sermons of the Old Testament act no more than the law of God; the Spirit and grace have never been preached publicly. But in the New Testament, grace and the Spirit are preached, given to us through Christ; since the preaching of the New Testament is nothing else, but that Christ is offered and presented to all men out of the mercy of God, so that all who believe in him shall receive the grace of God and the Holy Spirit, through which all sin is forgiven, all laws are fulfilled, and they shall become children of God and be eternally saved. Therefore, St. Paul of the New Testament calls preaching ministerium Spiritus, "a ministry of the Spirit", 2 Cor. 3, 6.This is a ministry of preaching, through which the Spirit and grace of God are presented and offered to all those who have been weighed down, killed and made merciful by the law; which law he calls ministerium literas, "a ministry of the letter," that is, a ministry of preaching, through which nothing more than the letter or 1) law is given, from which no life follows; the law is also not fulfilled with it, and the law is not fulfilled.

  1. Jena edition: and.

Man cannot do enough for it either. Therefore it remains a letter, and in the letter it becomes no more without killing man, that is, it shows him what he should do and yet cannot. Thus he recognizes how he is dead and in disgrace before God, whose commandment he does not do and yet should do.

From this it is clear that the apostle's word, when he says: the letter kills, the spirit makes alive, could be said in other words: The law kills, but the grace of God makes alive; or thus: Grace gives help and does everything that the law demands and is not able to do by itself. Therefore St. Paul calls God's law a law of death and sin, and says, Rom. 8, 2-4: "The law of the living Spirit in Christ has redeemed me from the law of sin and death. For it was impossible for the law to help me; indeed, it was only made worse by the wickedness of the old flesh; therefore God sent His Son into our flesh, and made Him like unto our sinful flesh, and so put away our sin by the accepted sin of Christ in His suffering, that the law might be fulfilled in us also."

So we see how St. Paul masterfully teaches to understand Christ, God's grace and the New Testament, that it is no different than how Christ entered into our sin, bore it in his flesh on the cross and destroyed it, so that all who believed in him might also be freed from sin through him and receive grace to henceforth do enough to the law of God and the deadly letter, and thus live eternally. See, this is called ministry Spiritus, non literas, preaching of the spirit, preaching of grace, preaching of right indulgence, preaching of Christ, that is, the New Testament; of which there would be much to speak, if the evil spirit had not blinded the wager through the pope and led it into the abyss of utter darkness with the doctrines of men.

Now we see that all commandments are deadly, because even divine commandments are deadly; for everything that is not spirit or grace is dead. Therefore, it is a gross lack of understanding that allegories, tropologies, and the like are called spirit; so that all of them may be put into letters, and not

1314 Erl. 27,266-268. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1610-1613. 1315

But grace has no vessel but the heart. Just as not all men receive the life of this spirit, yes, several let the servants of this spirit speak to them in vain and preach such abundant grace, they do not believe the gospel; so also not all receive the service of the letter or the preaching of the law, they do not want to be killed; that is, they do not understand God's law; they go, seeing neither letter nor spirit. And that we further present Bock Emser's blind mind: he thinks that the letter is to be avoided and the death of the letter is to be fled; so it is with those who read the fathers' books alone and leave the Scriptures lying around, juggle with their spears and swords and make a dark mist out of the Scriptures and a light out of the fathers' teaching.

The apostle does not want that one should avoid the letter, nor flee its death; yes, he complains in the same place 2 Cor. 3, 7. that a cover hangs over the law for the Jews, as before the face of Moses, 2 Mos. 34, 33. that they do not see the letter, its death and clarity. He wants the letter to be preached and made clear, the cover to be removed from Moses' face. This is how it works: Whoever understands the law of God correctly and looks at it without a cover under the eyes, finds that all men's works are sin and that there is nothing good in them, unless the grace of the Spirit comes into them. And this is also the end of the law and the opinion of it, of which Paul says 2 Cor. 4, 4. They did not see the end of Moses, because it wants to make everyone sinners and all our things sins and thereby show us our misery, death and merit and lead us into our right knowledge, as St. Paul Rom. 7, 4. Paul says Rom. 7, 7: "The law gives knowledge of sin"; and Rom. 11, 32: "The Scriptures resolve all men to sin, that the mouth of all the world may be stopped"; and know that in the sight of God no man is righteous without grace, though he do the works of the law.

Who now want to raise their good works and praise free will, do not let all human works be sin, still find something good in nature, as the Jews and our Sophists do with the Pope;

These are the ones who do not want to let Moshe's face shine clearly, hang a cover over the law and do not look it right under the eyes, do not want to let their thing be sin or death before God, that is, they do not want to recognize themselves rightly, nor be humble, they strengthen their own arrogance. They flee the letter and its right understanding, as the Jews fled Moses' face; therefore their mind remains blind, and they never come to the life of the spirit.

So it is not possible for a man to hear the gospel and have the grace of the Spirit quicken him, unless he first hears the law and is given the letter to die; for grace is not given to those who thirst for it. Life helps only the dead, grace only sinners, the spirit only the letter, and one without the other no one can have. Therefore, that which Emser calls the letter and death is in truth nothing else than the curtain and harmful ignorance of the letter and damned escape of this blessed death; indeed, it is far from being such good understanding. So far is the poor blind man from the Scripture, and pretends to strike with the cutting sword. That is, I mean, hit himself in the cheeks.

It would be my faithful advice that such unlearned heads leave their bookmaking in order. For because they foolishly introduce some of the fathers' sayings, they make a nose of the poor people, so that they fall on it and commit such errors, which they may never let go of; and such little books may not come off without harm; which ruin is the same foolish book writer guilty of before God. So, who will give Emsern the grace to eradicate such error and lies from his booklet as he is guilty of? It would have been better for him, as Christ says Matth. 18, 6, if a millstone had been tied to his neck and he had been drowned in the sea, because he not only writes erroneous, harmful, annoying teachings, but also blasphemes the very best teachings of Christ to the extreme, poisons them and drives poor people away.

Woe to you, Emser! If you had resisted

  1. Jen. Edition: the.

1316 Erl. 27, 268-270. Reply to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1613-1616. 1317.

ret, until God had called you and driven you, then he would also have worked with you, given you his spirit to write usefully. But now you do as Jeremiah, Cap. 23, 21, says: Currebant, et non mittebam eos, prophetabant, et non sum locutus eis "I did not send the prophets, nor did they run; I did not speak to them, nor did they prophesy". The hateful and lying spirit has driven you; therefore you write no more but lies and error. I can do him no more, I warn everyone of your poison. And if I had not feared the same poor, I would not have thought thee worthy to answer as I did before. Tu enim es ipsa inscitia in his rebus "For you are ignorance itself in these matters".

But that we come back to ours: It is true that where one preaches the law and the letter alone, as was done in the Old Testament, and does not also preach the Spirit, there is death without life, sin without grace, torment without consolation; there are miserable captive consciences that must finally despair and die in their sins, and thus are eternally damned by such preaching. As in our times the murderous sophists have done and still do in their Summis and Confessionalibus, in which they drive and torture the people with their sins, to repent, confess, atone and do enough; then teach good works and preach good doctrine, as they say, and never present the Spirit and Christ to the afflicted consciences; that now in all the world Christ is unknown, the gospel is under the bank, and the whole ministry of the New Testament is silent; and they only are the very best who explain Moses and the commandments; which yet are almost rare. The more part go about with fool's work, and teach the spiritual law, Pabst's laws, doctrines of men, and their statutes; there they hang in, there they remain in, teaching daily, and never coming to know the truth, as St. Paul says 2 Tim. 3:7.

If God's commandment, preached and explained in the best possible way, is harmful and condemnable, as St. Paul says here, then what do the sophists and goats pretend to do to make people pious with the teachings of men and their own laws?

and increase good works? Truly, since the law kills and condemns everything that is not grace and the Spirit, they do no more with their many laws and works than to give the law much to kill and condemn. And thus lose all their toil and labor in vain, and the more they do, the worse they become; because it is impossible to satisfy the law of God with works and doctrines, for which the Spirit alone is sufficient. That is why the Scriptures call such their nature Aven 6t toil and labor, and the same lost multitude Bethaven, the church or henchmen of toil Jos. 7, 2. Hos. 5, 8.; item, Amos 7, 16. Bethishac, the church of deceit, that among them everyone is deceived by such their false doctrine, work and life.

So I have advised and still advise that one does not pretend to a reformation, as Emser fools, to correct this human doctrine and spiritual law; for it is impossible: but that one burns it altogether, abolishes it, destroys it and converts it, or as little as one can; and again, practice the two mere offices of the letter and the spirit; which may not be practiced, human doctrine remains behind. And it is right that they give way to the letter and spirit of God, because they are a hindrance and detriment to it. We have more to preach in the letter and spirit than we are able, even though we have preached from the beginning of the world to the end.

And even though we are already in the New Testament and should only have the preaching of the Spirit, because we are still living in the flesh and blood, it is necessary to preach the letter as well, so that people are first killed by the law and all their presumption is destroyed, so that they recognize themselves and become spiritually hungry and thirsty for mercy, and thus prepare the people for the preaching of the Spirit. As it is written about St. John, that he prepared the people for Christ with the preaching of repentance, which was the ministry of the letter, and then led them to Christ, saying John 1:29, "Behold, he is the Lamb of God, who takes away all the sin of the world"; which was the ministry of the Spirit.

Now these are two of God's works, praised many times in Scripture, that He kills and makes alive, He wounds and heals, He forgives and He heals.

1318 Erl. 27, 270-372. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1616-1618. 1319

He saves and helps, he condemns and makes blessed, he lowers and lifts up, he defiles and honors, as it is written in Deut. 32, 39, 1 Sam. 2, 6-8, Ps. 113, 7 and more places. What works he does by these two offices: the first by the letter; the other by the Spirit. The letter makes that no one can remain before his wrath; the Spirit makes that no one can perish before his grace 1). Ah, this is such a rich bargain, of which to speak incessantly; but the pope and the laws of men have covered it up for us, and fastened an iron curtain over it, that God may have mercy, amen.

From this everyone can easily understand what St. Paul means, Rom. 7, 12, 13, when he says: "The divine law is good, right, holy and spiritual, and yet a deadly letter; because it shows how man should be good, right, holy, spiritual and equal to all things, as the law shows; otherwise he is evil, unjust, sinful, carnal and unequal to the law in every measure. This inequality leads to eternal death, wrath and disgrace of God, who wants his law to be fulfilled to the last letter and tittle Deut. 27, 26. Thus, from the mirror and appearance of the letter or law, man is made to know himself, how he is dead and in disgrace to God; which knowledge frightens him and drives him to seek the spirit, which will also make him good, pious, holy and spiritual, equal to the law of all things, and bring him to God's grace. So the law is dear to him, and the letter never kills him, but lives in the spirit, as the law requires; indeed, he no longer needs a law to teach him, for he now knows it by heart, since everything that the law requires has now become nature and essence through the spirit.

So let us conclude this with the fine saying of St. Augustine, Ps. 17, where he nicely and briefly understands what the letter is and says: The letter is nothing else than the law without grace. So we may say again, that the Spirit is nothing else than grace without law. Now where the letter is, or law without grace, there

  1. Jena edition: before his graces.

there is no cessation of making, teaching and working the law, and yet it helps nothing, no one becomes better from it, everything remains dead in the letter. Again, "where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty," as St. Paul says [2 Cor. 3, 17.There is no need of doctrine or law, and yet everything happens that is supposed to happen; just as if a man has a healthy, good face, no one is allowed to teach him how to see, he has a free face, and more than all doctrine can help or give him; but if he is unhealthy, there is no more freedom, not enough doctrine can be found to help him guard and keep him, he must have his own care and rule for every eye, so that he may see. So St. Paul means, 1 Tim. 1, 9: "No law is given to the righteous," because he has everything from the Spirit that the law requires. And this is what he means when he says 2 Cor. 3:6: "God has made us preachers of the Spirit and not of the letter"; that in the New Testament only grace and not the law should be preached, so that people become fundamentally pious through the Spirit.

Where are you now, Goliath Emser, with your spear and sword? You have girded this sword on yourself and had your head cut off with it. How could you find a saying in the whole Bible that serves me so well against you as this one, where you put out your reason and comfort and boast of cutting with the edge, if it does not come to you that you touch the scabbard or pommel? Do you see how spiritually you torture this saying and make it so that the letter is called the written sense, the spirit the spiritual sense, and want one to flee the letter and death. What a fine swordsman you are! How you have done such a fine thing with the famous swordsman!

Now that I have girded off thy sword and cut off thy head from thy presumption, let us return to thy spear, sword and whole armor 1 Sam. 17:51, 54. I hope I will strip a dead Goliath and carry his head upward, so that everyone can see your wicked threats and Goliathic blasphemies ibid. v. 8 ff. Let us see where the pope, your idol, will stay with his laws and the whole army of these Philistines with their human teachings.

1320 Erl. 27,272-275. 53 Response to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Book of Emser. W. XVIII, I6I8-I62I. 1321

If the pope with his bishops and priests is a pious faithful follower and heir to the chair of the apostles, then I hope he is guilty of also carrying out their office and preaching the spirit, according to these words of St. Paul. But if he is to preach the Spirit, he must preach no laws, but freedom also from God's laws, as has been said. So I ask, where do the pope and priesthood come from? who not only never preach this spirit, but also do not explain the letter correctly, but push their own law, spiritual law and vain human doctrine, consecrated salt, water, vigils, masses and whatever else you show of the same jugglery, into all the world, obscure God's law, rehang the curtain of Moses, which the apostles took down, and in addition imprison the world in their law, destroy Christian freedom, disturb the spirit and chase away grace; And for such an abominable evil take, rob and steal all our money and goods?

St. Paul says that through the preaching of the Spirit also the clarity of Moses, that is, the law of God, is abolished, so that only the clarity of the Spirit shines in the church; so the Pope does not only reintroduce Moses to us (which would still be a grace), but covers the cloth before his eyes again, yes, with his innumerable laws he builds a stone wall before him, so that now neither letter nor spirit is recognized or preached, but only fables of human doctrine, since Christ says of Matth. 15:8, 9: "It is in vain that they serve me with the laws and doctrines of men: for thereby they come nigh unto me with their mouth: but their heart is far from me."

Where does such a pope come from with his priesthood? He is not the heir to the apostles' chair, for he ever violates their ministry and doctrine with his teaching. St. Paul stands strong here and says: "We are ministers or preachers of the Spirit, not of the letter." How does the pope say? We are preachers neither of the Spirit nor of the letter, but of our own dream, which is nowhere written. Where does it come from? I will tell you. Christ calls him, Matth. 24, 15. 23. ff.: "When you shall see the abomination in the holy city", that is, the Pabst with his own teachings in the church and apostle chair.

He who reads this, let him understand. For in those days there will arise many false teachers, prophets and Christians, who will say, "Here and there is Christ, and will deceive many," that is, they will present the doctrine of men, so that one will seek Christ here and there, thinking to find him by works and ceremonies; if only he can be found in the heart, spirit and faith in all places, all times, all persons.

And St. Paul, 2 Thess. 2, 3. 9.: "The man who only imposes sin and corruption will come forth by the effect of the devil." And Daniel 8:23-25: "At the end of the Roman Empire there shall arise a king whose strength shall be in show and appearance" (that is, in the doctrines of men, who teach only outward ways and appearances; as there are bishops, clergymen, and monks, life in their garments and outward works and manner). "He will disturb all things whimsically, horribly, and will also be quick in such deception, and will make and increase understanding of human law.

Now hear what God says more of your idolatry and doctrines of men, St. Paul, Col. 2:8: "Beware lest any man deceive you through seeming vain doctrine, through philosophy, through doctrines of men, through commandments of temporal outward things, which teach not after the manner of Christ." But what these are, follow and say vv. 20-23., "If ye have died with Christ, why are ye led with the laws of men; which teach you, that thou shalt not eat, that thou shalt not drink, that thou shalt not put on, that thou shalt not touch; which yet are all temporal things, which consume themselves under the hand wherein go the commandments and laws of men; and have a seeming as if it were deliciously, wisely ordered." And yet superstition and false foolish humility, only aimed at hurting the body and disguising it, and in this their sensual animal state is satisfied, get no further.

Where is the cutting edge of the Boeckian spirit here? Did not St. Paul here give the pope, bishop, priest, monastic life masterly on day? which only stands in that who does not eat this, who does not drink this, who does not drink this?

1322 Erl. S7, S7S-277. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1621-1623. 1323

They do not touch the money, who does not wear the clothes, the color, and so henceforth, their spirituality placed on the temporal things that pass under hands, give no more than appearance and color of holiness, and yet deceive everyone with it and bring the world under themselves with foolish humility. This is the king, whose strength consists only in his gifts, not in his armor, nor in his sword, nor in the word of God, Daniel 8:24, 25.

Christ says of Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false teachers, which come unto you in sheep's clothing, and inwardly they are ravening wolves." What are sheep's clothing, for such outward holiness in garments, shoes, plates, food, drink, days and places, which are all temporal things; but inwardly in the faith, which gives an eternal holiness and stands on eternal goods, they are nothing at all, even only destroyers of it and ravening wolves; that also St. Paul, 2 Tim. 3:7, confesses and says, "They have a gift of godliness," and there is nothing behind it, "always teaching and learning, but never coming to the true knowledge." If all this were to be done away with, as is only right, and changed, where would the papacy remain, which alone stands on this? Christ Himself must abolish it by the last day [2 Thess. 2, 8.), otherwise nothing will come of it. Here we see clearly that we are to flee the sheep's clothing; these are the laws and works of men.

Item, St. Paul, Gal. 1, 8: "Whoever teaches you otherwise than you have learned, whether it be an angel from heaven, shall be destroyed. And here, Col. 2, 7, 8: "Beware of what is not taught according to Christ. Here St. Paul wants nothing to be taught apart from the Scriptures. What do you want to say to this, Emser? Perhaps you will introduce St. Augustine, Benedictus, Franciscus, Dominic and the Fathers, all of whom taught and held sacred, yet human doctrine. I answer: This is not enough for me in regard to the Scriptures. God's word is more than all angels and saints and all creatures. So no one can say that these saints have not erred; who can assure us that they have not erred in this either, as Aaron and

all the elect should err here? because the Scripture lies clearly there for me. I want and must be overcome with scripture, not with uncertain life and teachings of men, however holy they always are.

For this purpose, the same saints kept and left their teaching free, not making commandments out of it, so that whoever wanted to live in this way could do so and, if he wanted to, resign again. And if they had so nearly erred that they had made a commandment and law out of it, which I do not believe, I would count them there, of which Ezekiel says, 14, 9.: "If a prophet shall err, then I, God Himself, have made him err"; and count them in the number, since Christ, Matth. 24, 24. of says that the regiment of the end-christ will so nearly glitter with such erroneous teachings and do wonders, "that he would also deceive the elect, if it were possible". So these holy fathers may have miraculously escaped the dangers of human doctrine with the spirit they had in faith, and yet their successors will be lost altogether, holding only their works and human doctrine with a weakening of their faith and spirit. But your pope, who should leave such teachings free, as they had the saints, makes necessary, eternal commandments and laws out of them with his confirmation, just as he also leads with his laws.

I also think you know that in the Old Testament the people were as highly obliged to listen to their priests as we are to listen to ours; nor would God suffer them to teach their own doctrine, and forbade it. Therefore the word vocem meam, "my voice", is so often used in Moses and all the prophets. 1) And Deut. 4, 2, he commanded: "You shall not detract from my words, nor add to them"; and Mal. 2, 7. He says: "The people shall seek God's commandment and teaching from the priest's mouth, for he is God's messenger."

And Matth. 23, 2. says Christ, they shall hear the scribes, because they sat on Mosi's seat, that is, because they taught Mosi's law. Again, all who teach their laws, all Scripture calls false prophets, idolaters, deceivers, seducers, wolves,

  1. Wittenb. Ed.: brought forward.

1324 Erl. 27,277-279. Answer to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1623-1626. 1325

They are raging beasts, of whom he says Jer. 23:32: "They have deceived my people, and I have not sent them nor commanded them to teach them. They were all sent, that is, ordained priests, to teach the law to half the people, but they had no command to teach their own law. Item vv. 21, 22: "The prophets I did not send, and yet they preached; I commanded them nothing, nor did they teach. If they had continued in my doctrine, and had preached my words to the people, I could have converted them from their wicked life."

Where will you stay, Pabst, before these sayings? Where are you, Emser, who pretends that one should have more than God's word? God says here that one should not teach anything else than his word, otherwise he may not convert anyone. From this he teaches us what is more than God's word, which is certainly error, seductive, unchristian, lying and deceiving, which does nothing more than hinder God's work and grace in us. And for this reason St. Paul calls the end-Christian hominem peccati et filium perditionis "the man of sin and the child of perdition", because by his own law and doctrine he will turn all the world away from God and thus prevent it and God from coming together 2 Thess. 2, 3. 4., and thus be a master of all sin and corruption; and yet pretend to the name and appearance of Christ, calling himself Sanctissimum Most Holy, and Vicarium Dei Governor of God, and Caput Ecclesiae Head of the Church, and persecuting all who disobey him therein. 1) As then all this is more than too obviously recognized in the pope.

And what is the greatest effort in all prophets, but to fight against the doctrine of men and to preserve God's word only in the people? All idolatry is nothing else but the doctrine of men; there are the calves of Bethaven, Hos. 10, 5; item, the calf of Aaron, Ex. 32, 2. 4; the idol Baal, 1 Kings 18, 26, and the like. And who can be wary enough of such teachings, since Aaron, the chief priest, himself believed in the golden calf?

  1. Wittenb. Edition: horchen.

Christ said in Matth. 24, 24 that such shining and glittering would also deceive the elect. If the pope did not have such a great following and shine, he could never be the final Christian.

There must be appearances and attachments of all bishops, all priests, all monks, all universities, all princes, all powerful people; only one piece does not let God cover it, there the ears of the donkey stick out, that is, it does not respect the word of God, does not preach it, has enough that one preaches its doctrine. By his singing you can tell what kind of bird he is, as John saw in Revelation, Cap. 13, 11, a beast that had two horns, as if it were a lamb, and yet spoke like a dragon. Thus the Papist crowd is to be regarded as if they were Christians, but they preach like the devil. Daniel, Cap. 11, 37-30.The end-Christian will not respect the God of his ancestors, will not practice his doctrine, will not have wives, but will honor his god Mausim in his city; that is, he will only give away marriage as a pretense, to him and his papists, and will set up the idol of the oil Mausim, his decree and his doctrine, in the place of God and his gospel, and will bind the clergy to external places, as Christ says: "Here is Christ, there is Christ," Matth. 24, 23.

Item, Jer. 19, 5, of the great service of Baal, that they also sacrificed and burned their children, thinking they were doing God a great service, God says, "He did not command it, nor did it come into his heart" 2c From this it also becomes clear that nothing should be preached and taught to the people that God has not commanded nor wanted. Now we are sure that the pope with his papists has no commandment from God to practice his own teachings in Christendom, and is only a vain devil's specter to hinder God with it and his commandment and all people's blessedness. Therefore, my goat should first prove and make it clear that the spear and the sword are right before God; then he thinks it is enough that the spear is long and the sword short; it should be enough that this is called custom and that is called the doctrine of men: and I should leave the Scriptures and judge according to his head.

1326 Erl. 27, 279-381. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. LVIII, 1626-1628. 1327

And that thou mayest also see thy prudence's overbond, listen: I have well known the doctrine and custom of men, that thou mightest see against me; how should I not know them, if I fight against them? What do you do then, great philosopher, that you bring up against me the very thing I dispute, when you should protect it with other strength? If I were lying in front of a city with an army, and shot against the walls and towers so that it thundered, and you became hostilely angry with me inside, and set out to resist me, and yet did no more, for you showed me with your hand the very same walls and towers that I had shot at, shouted hostilely that I should look at them, and pretended that you had put me down with them: what should I think of you? I would order a cooper to put a hoop or two around your head, so that it would not burst with great nonsense. So, even if you hear how I write and shoot against human doctrine and custom, you will not let them stand, they have writing for themselves; nor are you so clever, you do not protect them beforehand with writing, but merely present them and show them to me as if I had never seen them, you want to have won with them and broken out cursors 2) so that everyone sees how the dog days ride you.

St. Augustine against the Donatist Petilianus considered it a great insult that Ticonius introduced thunderbolts of Scripture against him, and he answered no more than his ancestors' human doctrine, thinking that it was a foolish answer; and I, who also introduce vain Scripture, should consider Bock Emser's answer to be delicious, precious wisdom, if it is only man's delusion and conceit, set without Scripture's foundation; and defies it at once, calling it sword and habit. Therefore you would be well advised to stay at home with your spear and sword, to fight against me with scripture, as I do against you. Where is now your philosophy, which teaches not petere principium? I mean, it is a felting 3), and your Aristotle an arch-

  1. D. i. flushness.
  2. People protected with a kukraß.
  3. D. i. doltishness.

stultus? This is how it should be with a versifex if he wants to be a philosopher and theologian; just like a donkey walks with the bagpipe.

If even now the Manichaean heresy rose up and pretended that there was not enough given to us in the Scriptures, but that the Holy Spirit had awakened them, one should follow them; how would you resist them with all your papists? Would you do no more here than point fingers at your doctrine? Or would you say, "Too slow, we ourselves have already invented this, that one should believe and hold more than the Scriptures give? How well shall you Papists stand, if you strengthen your enemies with your own examples and allow them to teach and live apart from the Scriptures?

Is it not shameful and worthy of shame that we ourselves unabashedly not only confess, but also boast and praise that our thing is not founded in the Scriptures, so high that by such Scripture-less human deeds as good Christians we cry ourselves out like cuckoos, and call all others heretics because of it, whether they, known by ourselves, have the whole Scriptures for themselves? Which, if we were not so foolish, should be so grievous to us, when our enemies put it upon us, that we should stake life and limb upon it. Who does not mock us when we ourselves confess that the adversary's cause has the Scriptures and our cause does not have the Scriptures? What could we sing more shamefully of ourselves and more honestly of our enemies? Nor do we want to recite such gross foolishness for wisdom to all the world. Truly, here it would be time to court such brave war heroes in their vaginas.

Also, what did I want in all my books, because that is exactly what Emser confesses to me here, and yet complains about me with great seriousness and murderous cries? Have I not also said that the nature of the pope and all papists is only human doctrine and custom without all scripture, as Emser wants to dissuade me from with all his storm? what do I mean other than just the same? That everyone may understand the proper distinction between divine Scripture and human doctrine or custom, and that a Christian heart may not exchange one for another, straw for gold, hay for silver, and wood for wood.

1328 Erl. 27,281-283. Answer to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Book of Emser. W. XVIII, I628-I63I. 1329

Precious stones were bought, as St. Paul teaches, 1 Cor. 2, 12, also St. Augustine in many places, in addition to the sacred carnal law, if the highly learned Licentiat sacrorum canonum would have considered it soberly.

Why does the goat scold me so badly, when we are completely at one and agree on things? Perhaps I have sinned in that I have spoken rudely, have not called the science of man a short sword, and habit a long spear? That makes me no versifex. Also, because he has no reason to write little books, for that he shows his art, how he can masterfully write names, call the doctrine of man short swords, the habit long spears, it would have helped me nothing, if I had already called it so. Perhaps he would have invented to teach us how human doctrine is called Bockshorn, and habit Bocksbart, and would have knocked me over and entangled me with it. Philosophy makes such wise, reasonable masters and Arstultus 1) through the Sophists.

So then Bock Emser does vain murderous screaming about me throughout the whole book for the sake of his end-Christian main at Rome, and has great honor for it; it is due to me to also scream about him once for the sake of my main in heaven, blasphemed and scorned by him. He may pretend that the Holy Spirit and Christ have not taught us enough, that the Scriptures are too little, and that God's word must have additions. And whoever does not have more than God's word, scripture and doctrine, let him be poisonous, heretic, apostate, the very worst on earth; and all who walk in such words of God and doctrines, and do not also hold human doctrine, let them be condemned, cursed, burned.

And so, Christ and the Holy Spirit must also be guilty and partially deserving, yes, especially deserving of such blasphemy, because by their words and teaching they have made and daily maintain such blasphemous, cursed, damned people. Behold, is not this the very greatest blasphemer ever heard? Who ever heard more blasphemous, more poisonous, more hellish, more heretical, more usurious, more nonsensical words, than here Emser from his poisonous

  1. Arstultus - arch-fool, for Aristotle.

And what is the reason why such a poor creature spits and sprays so horribly at its God Creator that it is even horrible to hear about it. And such a poor creature spits and sprays at its God Creator in such a terrible, horrible way that it is also horrible to hear and speak of it.

If he could indicate in which part the Holy Spirit had taught too little, and in which the Scriptures needed man's addition, there would be some apparent cause. But now he himself confesses that the Scripture is on our part, and does not know how to reprove us in the Scripture; and freely says that his human work is not in the Scripture; and yet pours out such blasphemy on us, that is, on the Scripture, known from himself: I would not have thought that any devil in hell itself could have done such a thing. I only want to say this so that you, dear Bock, see that if loud cries of murder and angry amplification 2) could strengthen your cause, I could strengthen my cause much better with it. But my cause does not need it, it is firmly enough founded in Scripture. Yours does, because it is built on human dreams and scrinium pectoris 3).

From all this, I hope, everyone now sees what Einser's spear and sword are, and what he has done with the famous swordsman; I will correct it for him when he returns; I do not swear by my priesthood nor holiness; otherwise I will be sure enough for him. I want to conclude here from the three main pieces of his booklet, the sword, spear and sword, which are so 4) overcome, the whole book built on it is overcome. And that I also declare my opinion, because Emser gives in to me, that I have not acted against the articles of faith, nor against the Scriptures, so that he is ever my unwilling, unfavorable and so much the stronger witness that I am a right pious Christian, and without cause lied to by him as a heretic; so I want to dissuade him of one more thing, that he does not provide himself, nor does he like to let go.

Namely, he should give us freedom from the laws of men, that is, that it is up to us to follow them or not to follow them.

  1. i.e. to make extensive, to raise high.
  2. This is the shrine in the heart of the pope.
  3. Meaning: since these have been overcome, that is, etc.

1330 Erl. S7, LM-S8S. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. xvni, issi-iezz. 1331

Or if we ever have to live under them, as I have also taught and still teach, yet grant and allow that we may say they are neither necessary nor useful to us, nor that we are obliged to keep them, and that the pope is a tyrant, has no right to make them, and does wrong in them; and that we do not owe them to the pope out of duty or right, but keep them out of good free will to serve him. Just as Christ, Matt. 5:25, says that we are to be "willing to the adversary"; nor are those to be called heretics who do not keep them. All this shall be left to us, and we will prove it so.

If we have the Scriptures, and the Scriptures have us, as Emser confesses, in which God is pleased without all doubt, in which we are praised more than too much as pious Christians, and our blasphemers must give the lie to themselves: what more do you people want from us? Whom do ye heresy, if ye heresy us, who , as ye yourselves confess, are agreed with the Scriptures? Can you condemn those whom GOD justifies? Do not the truth strike you through your Caiphassic and Baalams mouths? Are you not further set in office than to lead us to GOD and GOD's word and to feed us with GOD's word? As Christ says, Matth. 4, 4: "Man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God." What then do you pretend to drive us on, yea, to snatch from GOD to you, and to drive from his word to your doctrine and custom? is this shepherding or wolfing?

Therefore I say, let us go free, Emser, and yield, as your conscience urges you, that the pope is a tyrant, has no right to make laws, and that they are neither necessary nor useful to us; That the conscience may remain with the pope and you papists, who are thieves, robbers, wolves, seducers, traitors, Judas with your laws; so we will gladly keep and bear them with all our hearts, as Christ did his cords and cross, where Judas brought him, the pope's forefather. So they are without harm to us, so we suffer them no differently than who would take our coat, skirt, money and goods, life.

So we also suffer that you burden our Christian freedom with your foolish, useless laws; nevertheless remain

our conscience beside it free and unburdened by you. But if you want to insist (as you do) that you have a right to do so, and we should accept and approve it as a right; just as if a murderer forced me to say that he had a right to my life and property: Here, Emser, we want to cry out as long as we have breath, and say no. For here you want to catch our conscience, that we should be afraid as of the right, which is nevertheless wrong, and thus catch and strangle with innumerable ropes; as you do with the wrongful ban and force the people to follow your knavery.

We want to suffer injustice from you, but we will never tolerate it. So now tell your idol, the pope, that he may make laws over me as many as he likes, and I will keep them all. But also tell him that he has no right to do so and that I do not owe it to him. But I will gladly suffer injustice from him, as Christ teaches, Matth. 5, 40; so I will no longer act against the pope, and all things shall be evil. 1) What more do you want from me?

Have I not taught thus in Galatians 2) and all the little books? But that the pope drives all the world as if he had the right to do so, he has deceived countless souls and led them into hell. Therefore he is called Homo peccati et filius perditionis, 2 Thess. 2, 3, that he has captured the consciences and forced them to approve his injustice, and thus makes the world full of sin and destruction. For whoever believes that the pope has the right and authority to make laws, thinks as soon as he does so that he must consider it necessary and good, and suffers it as not an authority and injustice. So he does it unwillingly and would like to be rid of the law, and yet he cannot; so he suffocates in sins. For whoever does a thing unwillingly, which he must do, or thinks he must do, sins in his heart. And so all the commandments of the pope (of which there are innumerable) are vain chokers of the souls, so that he does no more than cause sin and destruction in all the world and thus disturbs all of Christendom; as Daniel proclaimed, Cap. 9, 27; that Christ has made him,

  1. I.e.: Everything should be even. - All thing == quite.
  2. I.e. in the first declaration of Galatians, from the year 1519.

1332 Erl. 27,285-287. Answer to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1633-1636. 1333

Matth. 24,15., therefore Adominationem calls his Greuels. Of course, little or no one escapes him, because those who die in the cradle.

Do you understand me now, Emser? I do not desire to be free from the laws and teachings of men; I only desire to be free from conscience, and that all Christians bless themselves with all crosses before the faith that believes that the pope is right in his rule. For this faith wipes out Christ's faith and washes away sin and corruption into all the world. It follows, then, how pious and honorable the pope and you papists are, who do no more than to practice such superstition, deceive the world, and destroy Christian faith, leading all souls to the devil; if you should preach only Christ's faith and freedom from the laws of men, that you remain Ministri Spiritus et non Literae ministers of the spirit and not of the letter, 2 Cor. 3, 6.

Just as I do not desire to be free from Emser's blasphemy, hatred and envy; but I desire to be free in conscience, that I may hold that Emser does me violence and wrong. For if I were to approve it as a right, my conscience would already be caught and would not be released until Emser stopped hating. That would perhaps never happen. For because I should approve it and yet do not do it with will (as I cannot), I sin against my conscience without ceasing. So now all the world sins without ceasing and corrupts, who believes that the pope does right with his ruling and dominating and dominions, and yet no one does it with will; for the pontificate hates everyone, without who wants to enjoy it, so that it is called proprie actually abominatio abomination. Thus the pope, with his false conscience and superstition, has ensnared all the world, making it sin without thanksgiving, without ceasing, and ruining it. Woe to you, you abominable abomination! Come, Lord Jesus Christ, and deliver us from the end of Christ, push his chair into the abyss of hell, as he deserves, so that sin and destruction may cease, amen.

From the Papists Indelicacy.

That is enough for this time. Now, that we see further Emser's and all the papists' lies and mischief also in the fathers' writings and

Habits, since they build on. Emser and all papists say that St. Peter sat and was bishop at Rome for five and twenty years. And this gross, great lie has existed longer than a thousand years, that ever a long spear would have become of it, so habitually enough, to base the truth on Emser's dreams; for also St. Jerome is led into this error. So early the papists started to lie, and so from then on they inherited and multiplied the lies from one to the other, until vain lies have become of the pope. Now we want to make this lie of the five and twenty years of St. Peter in Rome so clear that also Emser must take hold.

St. Lucas, Cap. 3, 1-3, writes that John the Baptist began to preach in the fifteenth year of the emperor Tiberius; and although no one really knows how long it 1) lasted, let us leave it at common speech that Christ preached four and a half years, namely until the nineteenth or twentieth year of Tiberius, and in the same year was crucified, resurrected and gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles. Tiberius reigned in this way until the fourth and twentieth year. After him Caius 2) four years, after Claudius fourteen years, after Nero also fourteen years. So from the twentieth year of Tiberius to the last year of Nero there will be six and thirty years, in which St. Peter (as they say) is supposed to have been killed by Nero.

Now if St. Peter sat five and twenty years in Rome, beginning in the fourth year of Claudius, as they say, he was only eleven years in Jerusalem and Antioch after Christ's ascension. Item, they say, he sat at Antioch seven years, and thus only six years at Jerusalem. Here St. Paul comes right among the liars and lashes out, writing Gal. 1, 18. 19. 2, 1. 9. 11. that he first saw Peter at Jerusalem for three years after his conversion; which was at least the fourth year after our Lord's ascension: and after that he found Peter, James and John at Jerusalem for fourteen years; that is, too many years.

  1. The sermon of John the Baptist.
  2. D. i. C. Caligula..

1334 Erl. 27, 287-290. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1636-1638. 1335

sum eighteen years, which St. Paul alone gives to Peter in Jerusalem. Who knows how long he stayed there after that?

To the eighteen or perhaps twenty years add the seven years at Antioch and the five and twenty years at Rome, so St. Peter will be crucified in the six or seven and fortieth year after the Ascension of Christ by the Emperor Nero, who was dead ten years before, as in the six and thirtieth. That is, I mean, cast among the doves. This is how it is with those who build on human doctrine and custom and do not look at the Scriptures, picking up the Fathers' Scriptures as they find them. How now, Emser? Who then would have a good sword and spear, that he might illuminate this dark mist of Scripture, and make six years of the eighteen years which St. Paul gives to Peter at Jerusalem, so that seven years might endure at Antioch, and five and twenty years at Rome! Truly, the Scripture is a dark mist here.

About this they say that St. Peter came to Rome in the fourth year, some in the other year of Claudius, and thus give seven and twenty years to Peter in Rome and three years in Jerusalem. Also in this way St. Lucas, Apost. 18, 2. agrees with Paul, Gal. 1, 18. 19. and says: that Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome, among whom he names Aquila and Priscilla; how then could St. Peter have come to Rome under Claudius? In short, I have not read more unstable and uncertain histories than of St. Peter's being in Rome; that there are also many who say freely in public. St. Peter never came to Rome. This is what you papists do with your lies and inconstant writing. One says he was martyred with St. Paul for a day and a year, the other for two years, and everything that is written about it wavers.

Although I believe that St. Peter was in Rome, I still do not want to die on it as an article of faith. Nor do I know how to maintain it, nor to prove it; indeed, no one may prove it (to my mind). It is also not an article of faith, no one is a heretic because of it, whether he does not believe that St. Peter ever sat in Rome. However, it is also sacrilege.

to deny it before it is thoroughly refuted. The safest thing is to let it remain a delusion and doubt. For we are no longer obliged to believe without what God has commanded us to believe in the Scriptures, to which no one should add or subtract, as Moses, Deut. 12:32, teaches and Paul, Gal. 3:15, says: "No man's testament changes or increases;" how much more should no one change or increase God's testament!

But I fear that it was by the special counsel of God that St. Paul and not St. Peter's journey to Rome came into the Scriptures. For he had well foreseen how the papists would build their papacy on it. Therefore he set them in mud and sand before they began to build, and left no certain foundation. For where it cannot be proved with certainty by Scripture that St. Peter sat in Rome (which is not possible), the papacy already lies in the muck and is nothing at all. For as it is not necessary to believe that St. Peter was at Rome, since the Scriptures do not exist; so it is also not necessary to believe that the pope is the heir to his chair and pope. Now behold, whereon the pope sitteth; and what do they with their goings-on, that we may but find the more their false, impotent cause, and see how they run themselves off their horse with their impetuous 1) raving.

Therefore, I conclude here that it is not necessary to consider the Pope as the heir of St. Peter's chair, until they make it certain from the Scriptures that St. Peter sat in Rome. Now, papists, be wise and fresh! Seek spear, sword and sword and dispel this fog of Scripture.

But I think whether there was not a mistake with the five and twenty years of St. Peter in Rome, that someone may have said or written that St. Peter came to Rome only after the fifth and twentieth year, and that some have understood that he was five and twenty years in Rome. For if he had been eighteen years in Jerusalem, as St. Paul says, Gal. 1:18, 19, and seven in Antioch, as they say, then the five and twenty years are full here, and

  1. I.e. impetuous.

1336 Erl. 27,290-292. Reply to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, I638-I64I. 1337

would then have been eleven years in Rome, crucified by Nero in the last year, that is in the sixth and thirtieth year after the Lord's ascension. So it could also be a mistake that he came to Rome in the third or fourth year of Claudius; if it happened in the third or fourth year of Nero, and thus lived eleven years with Nero, until the last, the fourteenth year of Nero. It could not have happened differently, he came differently to Rome, which I let remain as it remains.

Of the conjugal priesthood.

Since I have advised, if a pious priest were infirmly burdened with wife and child and desired to marry them, he should follow me fresh and do the same. Then you scream murder, chaste goat, and say: "Now, let the raging devil follow you in my place; and you praise your unheard-of and unproven chastity highly, and your goat stinks in your nose like balm. I answer, "O holy, holy virgin of St. Ems, how has your chastity become so ironclad and so obdurate and merciless against poor sinners?

Nor have I advised your dear chastity to follow me, as you pervert my words and poison the people with them according to the custom of your Christian love and divine priesthood, but I have advised a poor parish priest, with little children, who otherwise would be pious and honest; all of which your holiness knows well that nothing concerns you. I have given nothing to canons, vicars, wicked priests who have whores with them, and emperors, nor have I taken anything from them; but you have firmly presumed and thought: Well, it must be a lie and a scolding on the monk, if I am to break it from an old fence. And you rage against me only with the laws of men; just as if you had fought that the doctrines of men should be valid with me, and you think that it is unnecessary to establish them first with writings.

Your lily-white chastity should not tell me what the doctrine of men puts into this, which I well knew, challenged for this, would need neither goat nor donkey instruction, but answer that St. Paul, 1 Tim.

4, 2. 3., not as a man but as God Himself speaks and clearly says: "Let it be the devil's doctrine to forbid marriage." Here an iron eater should bare his teeth 1) and bite a hole in my harness; so you flee from this saying as if your horns were burning, fall silent and disappear like a water bubble. Strike me also once with such a sword; I will hold thee without all shifting.

How often shall I shout at you, coarse unlearned papists, that you once lead Scripture! Scripture, scripture, scripture! do you not hear, you deaf goat and coarse ass? Hui, goat, be angry, and push me once! but do not go too far, lest you run off. Are you not ashamed, great teachers of the world, that you so often let yourselves be knocked about the Scriptures? so that you should defy the most beneficial and appear to me. You cannot deny that no teacher has ever come on earth who has forbidden marriage, meat, eggs, milk, butter, and the like, and then sold them again, except the pope alone, especially so far into all the world? There have been heretics who have rejected marriage, but there have been few of them, and no common law has ever come out of them. So you cannot punish nor deny St. Paul, 2) that such papal commandments are the devil's commandments, as his words clearly read, and you must let the pope be the devil's apostle and end-Christ here, and you cannot deny it. In spite of you!

So tell me, is it fair that Christian people, before the priests, should be obedient to the devil and follow his apostle, the pope? And whether the priesthood, hitherto driven or seduced by force or deceit, would have obeyed, whether they had not power to give leave to the devil and his apostle? Or must they knowingly, without need, without courage and will persist in the devil's laws? Where are you, Emser? Do you not hear? Do you sleep with Baal? 1 Kings 18:17 Or hast thou gone over the field? It is not asked here whether your chastity will follow me or not; I do not ask whether the devil will follow me in your place. For your sake and for the sake of all devils

  1. blecken - to make look, to make see.
  2. deny, deny in denial.

1338 Erl. 27, LS2-SS4. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1641-1643. 1339

No one here cares about wanting and following. Want, want, follow and rave about it, until you have had enough. But here lies the Has, there look up with equal eyes, can you differently, whether such commandment is right or wrong? Knock the apostle over here, are you so wicked!

And that I speak according to you highly expert in grammar, logic, philosophy and rights, do not make me out of a propositio de inesse modalem de necesse out of a sentence that states the "being", the determination of the way that it takes place "with necessity", you sharp logician, not jus ex facto his right out of a fact], you highly learned licentiate of the holy burnt right, and not out of your own facere doing a common debere must, thou green poet and grammarian, thou wouldst then run here but to the archstultus, and seek secundum quid simpliciter its particular, which is general instead of Hades, as thou doest in the priesthood, since thou callest sacerdotium simpliciter sPriesthood par excellence the written, literal, external, mortal, yea, the void priesthood, and secundum quid [in a certain respect the some, spiritual, true, living priesthood. You know very well what secundum quid et simpliciter means, and you are as good a logician as you are a theologian. If I could not do logic and philosophy, you big asses should refrain from pretending to be logicians and philosophers, if you know as much about it as an ass knows about music, and if you already speak the "little words" like the nuns speak the psaltery and the parakeet the language; yet you know neither use nor application of them, sicut rusticus opibus suis arguitur, non ornatur just as for the peasant his wealth is a punishment, not an adornment.

But I will give you some advice here, take your short sword, since you strangle the cuirassers with it, say: Let this saying be a dark mist, we may not understand it without the interpretation of the fathers, and persuade us with your high spirit that we may not know what is prohibere forbidding, nubere marrying, *doctrinae *teaching, daemones devils, abstinere abstain, *cibi *food, Deus God, creare to create, and

Make it that prohibere means to command and imkere means to remain without marriage, daemones means the church, Deus means pope, creare means to be obedient, as you have otherwise taken power from yourself to change and turn all things of your liking. Of all this you have a good example and teaching from Saint Aristotle, who also calls non ens not existing what the others call ens existing; again ens, what they call non ens; and has just invented actum et potentiam reality and possibility, per 86 in itself and per accidens incidentally, like you the spear and sword, scabbard and edge. Also your spiritual right assists you, which makes sin where otherwise there is none, and right where there is none; sicut patet in ceremoniis [as one clearly stands at the ceremonies. Therefore it is not bad for you, if you have to explain such philosophia and spiritual right in the dark scriptures.

So then, if the devil's apostle pope is publicly found in this prohibition, let your humble chastity listen to what will follow from it. First of all, all priesthood is guilty by their soul's blessedness to flee, maledict, resist the pope here as the devil himself, and to tear up the solemn vow made in the consecration, which is made to the devil and not to God; as your holy law itself says, in malis promissis non expedit servare fidem if one has promised evil, it is not useful to keep it. I do not advise all this, but St. Paul stands strong here and judges all this himself, since he says that such teaching is of the devil and not of God. Secondly, it follows that all bishops and priests who follow the pope in this are also messengers and helpers of the devil. And so it is clear that the papacy with its priesthood is the devil's kingdom and end-Christian regiment; and Emser is the devil's and end-Christian champion. For accepting and defending the devil's doctrine can never be well interpreted; who wants to refute me here? In spite of all you papists! Only look for Kürisser and strike with the edge, you wretched Emser.

But that you say that St. Paul's word goes against Faustus and Jovinianus, who have refuted Jerome and Augustine, respect

1340 Erl. 27,294-296. Reply to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. xvm, 1643-1645. 1341

I, you have run in the carnival larva of the time. St. Jerome punishes Jovinianus for praising marriage; so you say that he forbade marriage. So well you have read Jerome and Histories. So Faustus was a Manichaean, whom Augustine does not challenge on account of marriage. You rude ass-head, shouldn't you be more careful to write in such matters? Some have been called Tatiani; but their thing is nothing against the pope's prohibition. And even if it were so, it is enough for me that the pope, like them, is also a heretic with them, who gathers almost all heresy into a basic soup, as the Romans did their pantheon in former times; of that another time.

How finely you also reject St. Ulrich's epistle, 1) although I do not build on it. I do not want to checkmate you with the teachings of men, but with the Scriptures. But if it had been for you, it would have had to apply, because Scotus, Gerson, Beda, and whoever else you want must apply. Isn't it a fine logic: St. Ulrich's epistle is not found at Augsburg, therefore it is not St. Ulrich's? Quintilian's book is not found in Rome, nor in the French country, therefore it is not Quintilian's. Emser's book is not found in Dresden, therefore it is not Emser's. Did Malvasier or Rastrum 2) teach you logic? And who told you that St. Ulrich's epistle was not found in Augsburg, but your logic, which ex individua infert universalem which infers the general from the particular.

Methinks thou hast written this book to no other opinion than that thou thoughtest all the world to be vain Hieronymus Emser or Hieronymus Walther, and your like coarse woods; so even thou plumpest along without all thought and attention. Just as you write that in our time it is necessary cause to burn the heretics, because now the pressure easily multiplies books and errors; which did not happen before: and you do not have so much brain in your coarse head that you would think behind you, as Johan-

  1. Cf. Mathesius, Luthers Leben, St. Louis edition, page 59.
  2. Malvasia a sweet wine; Rastrum or Raster Leipzig beer.

nes Hus and Hieronymus zu Costnitz burned before printing was invented.

In the same way, you liken me to the apothecaries who write good titles on their boxes and have poison in them. So I also write the name of Jesus on my poisonous little books (although not I, but the printers do it through the book), which I do only on the first leaf. Where have you ever seen such apothecaries? Or must the apothecaries also become murderers and traitors for my sake? Your raging hatred does not let you make a word right. Ecclesiasticus has said: "The heart of fools is in their mouth, and the mouth of the wise is in their heart. [Sir. 21, 28. Therefore fools speak out what they can think of; but the wise mean themselves before. What good thing should you write, if you so industriously, thoughtlessly spit out what falls into your mouth, and always bash your own cheeks?

Therefore I still advise, as before, not to the chaste Emsians or miraculous goats, but to the poor bunch of fallen priests: Whoever cannot keep himself, enter into marriage and yet live without sin, he cannot live without unwillingness, regardless of the pope with his devil and devil's prohibitions, let not his unwilling, forced promise, made to the bishop in the devil's stead, be contested; it is not done out of heart and will. And if the pope had not done more misfortune than this prohibition, he would still be enough of an end-Christ that he would be called Homo peccati et filius perditionis (2 Thess. 2, 3], and abominatio (Dan. 9, 27). There are probably so many sins and corruptions from the one prohibition. And if you, Bock, would take yourself by the nose, you would also have to confess, it would not have brought you much holiness. Until 3) chaste, thank God; just see how long; you are not yet over the hill. Do not despise your poor fallen neighbors and do not eat, you great giant, all the defiled, sick little children.

One more thing I want to say, and with it an end: You and Murnar, with many others, almost lift up for me, 4) that I am of the ecclesiastical vices.

  1. D. i. be.
  2. I. e. makes a big fuss about it, puts a lot of burden on me.

1342 Erl. L7, L98-LS3. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1645-1648. 1343

Only stir up and keep silent about the aristocracy's and the worldly power's criminal vices. If you then see my so great infirmities, why do you not do it and fulfill my error? What do you mean and do to me that you do not want to do yourselves? Yes, why do you not punish the vices of the clergy? Shall I write all things in one book? and if I had done so, you should have found a cause and said: I would not have stayed on the track, would have called the nobility and scolded them for it; as you do that I taught mendicants to few, and blame me for being an unclean bird in my nest.

What could I write that your raging hatred would not blaspheme? if you blaspheme God's word and work and seek nothing but to blaspheme and lie. But I will answer you: I have punished the nobility and the world more than I have punished you clergy, namely in the book of good works, 1) Ten Commandments 2) and to the German nobility 3): I have never really touched upon the spiritual vices 4) other than unchastity, avarice, hatred, gluttony, courtliness, sloth, without in this one book to the] German nobility, since I have not generally denounced the clergy, but the avarice of the pope and the Roman court and a small part of its abominable nature. Dear fellows, the truth hurts you, therefore you seek cause against me; the sheep has made the wolf's water muddy.

I want to tell you further, I have not yet come to the point of attacking public vices of spiritual and secular status. My work is directed at the vices that you papists consider virtue, so that you have filled the world with glitter and superstition, as indulgences, mass, vigils, churches, clothes and, in short, all your human doctrines that you consider sacred. For the sake of the pure faith, I am struggling to strip you of your carnival larvae; I am still far from the customs and works. If we had the faith again of your diabolical laws and

  1. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1298.
  2. Walch, old edition, vol. ill, 1692.
  3. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 264.
  4. That is, the vices of the clergy.

The people who were redeemed by the sects easily wanted to teach morals and punish vices.

And if the spiritual state would be pure in faith and faithful in God's word before, we would easily lead the nobility and worldly state where it should go. But now that we ourselves are not useful, what is the use of much punishing and barking there? It is a small thing for evil customs and works against false teachings and afterbelief, in which the spiritual class is drowned. That is why I did not write an elaborate booklet to the nobility, but only indicated rough manners, which they could certainly improve. But we clergymen need to teach the faith and the word of God against the laws of men and superstition, which is higher from works than heaven is from earth, as Isaiah, Cap. 55, 9, says. You clergymen are accustomed to have your things praised, honored, and money given for them; and where you are met with a little, you are afraid that heaven will fall upon you; you want the people punished without any mercy in all the books; you are to be called grace-juniors, suffering everything and always interpreting it for the best. This is what you call honoring the priesthood; if you do not, it is called desecrating the priesthood.

Here I will leave it with Emsern for this time. For what he gaffes about the mass, brotherhoods, raising saints, vows and other points is herewith sufficiently answered. Because his booklet helps me too well in four pieces.

The first, that he flees the Scriptures, as the devil flees the holy cross, and only intends to lead me out of the Scriptures; this he will not and cannot end, whether God wills.

The other is that he lies so unchristian, insolently, wantonly, imposing errors on me that he thinks up himself, so that he might find enough to write about for eternity; from this I realize that he was not serious about writing against my teachings, but wanted to atone for his lust with blasphemies and lies.

The third, he freely confesses that I do not act contrary to the articles of faith nor scripture; for which I thank him kindly. For I have never desired more, even from my best friends, even from God Himself, than such glory and praise as my deadliest enemy himself gives me.

1344 Erl. 27,298-300. Answer to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. xvm, I648-16S0. 1345

The fourth, he confesses that his thing apart from the Scriptures hangs only in human doctrine and custom and wants to drag me into it. Now I have sought no more with all my writing, nor yet seek anything from the pope and all my enemies, for such confession that their thing would be known unfounded in Scripture. From this it is easy to notice how a wise man Bock Emser is, who writes against me and confesses and praises everything he disputes as being founded in Scripture (that is) in God's Word; and yet rages and rages against God's Word for God's sake; that he certainly does not need a sneeze root; but it would be necessary to lead him to St. Cyriacus with chains. But if he comes back, what is left now, I can still pay him well. It is enough now that I do not overwhelm the reader.

To the Murnar.

And that you, dear Murnar, do not think that your good opinion is despised by me. For I want to believe you for the first time before all who paint you differently. And although you are full of bitter and evil treacherous words, your friendly (as you write) admonition is well received by me. But mine is far too little to answer you all in particular. But since you are Emser's companion in that you base your thing on human doctrine and custom and do not answer me by writing, I will also have answered you on Emser; for I do not sense lies in you, as in Emser.

You are ever strange men of war to me, that you do not want to join me in the field, you shoot many blind shots in vain, your skin is so afraid of the Scriptures. I have written against your doctrine of men and your custom; so you go along, as if you had won that the doctrine of men and the custom of men is right; and you press me only for the consequence, and thereby you want to tear me away from the Scriptures. Help God, can I not bring you into the Scriptures?

What do you teach me with such great art, because even the rudest peasant or child, yes, even the natural fools could teach me? There is no natural fool so great, no devil so wicked, who does not know and confess that one should follow what is right. Listen

I admit a syllogism, you poor flat-earned papists, that I ever present it clearly to you: Istara wajorera oouooäo: Omno donura ost kaeienäum This sentence I admit: All good things must be done What is it necessary that you argue with me about it? Are you not wiser than that? But here you shall meet me, since I attack you, and fight against the minorow the subordinate clause: 0wai8 äootriva dominant et 60v8U6tuZo a mo impuZnatA 68t dona All human doctrine and custom, which is fought by me, is good. Here I lie in the field, dear fellows, the castle I storm. Here defend yourselves and be fresh. May you save yourselves there and lay me down, you must not care for the Conclusio conclusion, will gladly follow from the heart and say: Ergo äootrina dominura 6t oon8U6tuäo L w6 iwpuZnatL 68t kaownäa ^Consequently, one must thun the human doctrine and habit, which I have fought against.

But now you do not protect the minorem the subordinate clause and only drive the majorow the superordinate clause and set Conclusion the conclusion, you do just like the builders in Babylon, when they called stones and brought water. I strike you on the heads; so you bind the feet. I set the roof on fire, and you put out the fire in the cellar. How? do you want to make a carnival play out of the seriousness? Make me drink, and I will knock on the jug and make you pour. Dear brothers, drink from empty jugs and count money from empty pockets; I have not yet learned that art.

You also threaten to replicate many books and defy your art with a large stock, so that you want to deter me, and immediately place the victory on the long and much writing; whether you ever might not win with reason, but with the amount and length you could overwork me 1) because I am already well loaded, and you want to drive me idle and single hero working and laboring man. Why do you not take before you idle and unburdened fellows like yourself or a wicked woman who also likes to have the last word? But do you take me for a fool, my dear Murnar, that I should be with you or with anyone else on this account?

  1. Thus the old printings. The Jena edition puts as a conjecture in the margin: übermögen.

1346 Erl. 27, soo-sos. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. xvm, 1650-1653. 1347

who could talk the most and have the last word? Such fame would have been without need for you. It would be enough notice if you were to be weighed by your tongue, where the rash would fall. It is more likely that the Rhine will dry up than that you will be short of words.

But does that mean to advise the people and teach them rightly, to insist only on many words, to direct the matter to delay, to wander about on the plan, and not to think of meeting, to hold out for the poor people, and to open their mouths in vain?

Have you not read, Ubi plurima verba, ibi frequenter egestas [Where there are most words, there is often armuth? But I am careful, if you were to deal with writings, you would quickly lose the triplicating and much space would be left on a sheet of paper. You have not yet tried what art and work writing is, dear Murnar. You never write; you only speak your own mind, leave my writing unresolved; reserve for yourself, I don't know, how great an art; just as if I had nothing more to do than write one book after another with you alone, or if I don't do that, give it to you.

You have my little books and introduced scripture; take them before you, also lead scripture, leave the chattering wordsmith Thomas Murnar at home, refute my scripture with better scripture, show the reason for your teaching, go out to the light. Why dost thou provoke and defy so long? Only ride freshly on me and see that you meet, I will not lack yours, you must not hide your art from anyone. If it is right, it will not shun the light. Otherwise, your writing looks as if you want to get a fame and shout and do not seek me with faithful seriousness, as you pretend. If you can teach me otherwise with writings, you shall not doubt, I will follow you. Thou knowest well how all fathers have often erred; so custom and long usage are not sure what they are in the sight of God, and he requires his word of us, not man's doctrine nor custom. Therefore I will have scripture; scripture, Murnar! Murnar, scripture! or find another fighter. I have more to do than to wait for your scriptless chatter.

I don't want your mere rationes rational reasons either; they are too lazy and good for nothing. I will show you this with one that has dazzled you the very finest. Since I had called the Christian church a spiritual assembly, you mocked me as if I wanted to build a church like Plato wanted to build a city that was nowhere; and you let your coincidence please you as heartily as if you had almost hit it right. Say: Would this not be a fine city, if spiritual walls, spiritual towers, spiritual guns, spiritual horses and everything were spiritual? And is your final opinion that the Christian church should not exist without a physical city, space and goods.

Do I answer: Dear Murnar, shall I deny the Scripture for the sake of ration and set you above God? Why do you not answer my sayings? As: Non est respectus personarum apud Deum With GOD there is no respect of person, Eph. 6, 9.; Et regnum Dei intra vos est. Et regnum Dei non venit cum observatione. Nec dicent: Ecce hic aut illic est The kingdom of God is within you. And the kingdom of God does not come with outward gestures. Nor will it be said, Behold, here or there it is, Luc. 17, 20. 21.. And Christ Joh. 3, 6.: "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." I mean ever, you call the Kingdom of God the Christian Church, or us, in which God lives and reigns? How then shall I follow your reason and deny Christ, who here clearly says: There is no place, space, nor outward way in the kingdom of God, and it is not here nor there; but a spirit in our inward being? But you say that it is here and there.

What do you say to St. Stephen, Apost. 7, 48: "The supreme God does not dwell in built cities"? Dear, let your reason see heave and make the non not an etiam also and say: God's house is also in built cities. And Is. 66, 1. which St. Stephen introduces, says: "Where is the room where I dwell? Where is the house that you make for me?" Dear Isaiah, don't you know? Murnar will tell you, I suppose. It is at Rome, or where the pope and Christians are. Nay, saith he, but my spirit dwelleth in a poor humble spirit,

  1. D. i. Incursion.

1348 Erl, 27, 302-304. Reply to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. xvm, 1653-1656. 1349

who honors my word, Isa. 66, 2. How do you think, Murnar? I mean, you are now also riding along finely with your church on physical horses, cities and towers. Behold, thy best piece in thy booklet, how finely it meets with Scripture! Therefore let your reason sleep and show me a letter in the Scriptures, that in time space, city or building belong to the church, then I will demand no more and soon follow.

And that thou mayest see how nothing so pointedly put forward with reason may not be refuted with counter-reason: Is therefore the temporal space or place ecclesiastical, that Christians may not live on earth without temporal space; so would the wine, bread, yea, the belly alone, that is in it, be ecclesiastical also? Is therefore the slobber, snot and filth of the body nature or piece, that the body may not be without it? Your cowl would not be without lice; shall the lice therefore be monks' cowls? The Christian church may not be without torture, persecution and death, yes, also not without sin; shall therefore torture, death, persecution and sin be church and life?

You want to build the church half on temporal things, to mix bodily and spiritual, to unite sin and grace; so St. Paul says: Conversatio nostra est in coelis Our walk is in heaven, Phil. 3, 20., and Christianity only lives, that it temporally flees and leaves place, space, property, honor, body and everything that is here, and goes through to eternal life, not otherwise than as it goes through sin, torture, suffering and death. Do you see, my Murnar, what this is, theologizing with mere reason without Scripture? Do you think, if you replicate this, that I could not replicate it again? But where is the finite truth in the end?

So I decide that the Christian church is not attached to any place, person or time; and although the unlearned crowd, the pope with his cardinals, bishops, priests and monks, will not understand such things, nor let them be true; nevertheless stand firm with me Lord omnes all, even the children on the gaff, with the whole crowd of Christendom in all the world, and come to me against the dyed and invented church of the

Pabst and his papists. But if you ask how this happens, I answer recently: All Christians in the world pray thus: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, a holy Christian church, communion of saints. If the article is true, it follows that the holy Christian church no one can see nor feel; neither may say, behold, here or there it is. For what one believes, one does not see or feel. As St. Paul, Ebr. 11, 1, teaches. Again, what one sees or feels, one does not believe.

Isn't that clear enough, dear Murnar and Emser? Let's see, what do you want to say here against? Are not the children and peasants here more learned than the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests and monks? Where are you Junkers, who presume to interpret the Scriptures, to explain the faith? And almost shout that the common man understands nothing in it? It turns out differently here that the pope and his bishops with their appendages are not able to do as much as the rude peasants and children.

Now hold them against each other, the holy church of Christ and the great church of the pope. The holy church of Christ thus speaks: I believe a holy Christian church; the great church of the pope thus speaks: I see a holy Christian church. The latter says: The church is neither here nor there; the latter says: The church is here and there. This one says: The church is not in any person; this one says: The church is in the pope. This one says: The church is not built on a temporal thing; this one says: The church is built on the pope.

What do you think, Murnar, are you not fine fellows? How finely do you interpret the Scriptures? As St. Peter said of you, 2 Petr. 2, 3: Et in avaritia fictis verbis vos cauponabuntur For the sake of avarice, they will handle fictitious words around you. Is it not so that the pope seeks nothing else with his papacy, but the goods and money of all the world, cares nothing at all for the gospel and faith? yet he and you with him make up, and pretend that you want to interpret Scripture and teach faith; if there is no unlearned people on earth, but the popes, cardinals, bishops, priests and monks; that it is a miracle where anyone is found learned among them.

1350 Erl. 27, 304-306. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. xvm, 1656-1658. 1351

From this blind sacrilege it has come about that in no place in the world are there so many sects, schisms and errors as in the papist church. For the papacy, because it builds the church on one place and person, has become the head and origin of all sects that have followed it and disturbed the Christian life 1) in food and drink, in clothes and shoes, in plates and hair, in place and space, in day and hour. For in these things goes the spirituality and holiness of the papist church, as said above; the order fasts one time, the other another time; the one does not eat meat, the one does not eat eggs; the one wears black, the one wears white; the one is a Carthusian, the one a Venetian, and so henceforth make innumerable sects and ways, besides which the faith and right Christian life go to ruin. All this is caused by the blindness that one wants to see the Christian church and not believe, and seeks a Christian pious life not in faith but in works, of which St. Paul writes much to the Colossians. But it is broken down, and the blindness has confirmed the regiment to the pope.

But that you should follow the saying, Matth. 16, 18...:

Do it Peter etc. You are Peter 2c with large letters and say: this is the text from which the Pabstacy has been proven so far, does not frighten me, dear Murnar; it has also not been necessary to indicate to me that the Pabstacy has been proven from the text so far. We do not ask now whether it is proven from the text, but whether it is right and well proven from it. Then you should use large letters, let the insurmountable Murnar see, and answer me correctly. For I have no stronger text against the Pabstacy in the whole of Scripture than this very saying, which you consider to be the one, strongest reason for the Pabstacy. If then I take it from you and overturn it so clearly that you may grasp it, I hope you will confess that I have won, and admit to me that I am overturning the groundless pabstry before your eyes and proclaiming all of you, together with the pope, to be false, lying trafficers in Scripture. Therefore listen to me, it has

  1. bound to a place, as Walch, old ed., vol. XX, 14 and 65: "remains discussed in its places."

No papist has ever bitten open this little nut, nor shall any ever bite it open again.

Christ says Matth. 16, 18: "The infernal gates shall not be able to prevail against the rock and the church built on the rock"; is it not true, Murnar? Now you cannot deny that the infernal gates prevail daily over the papists, and that the papacy with the pope often does evil and errs; can you also deny this, Murnar? You ever see that those live the worst who hold the pope the hardest; so the infernal gates certainly rule over them: so it follows that the rock and the church, since Christ says that the infernal gates shall not rule over them, rhyme with the pope and his church, "as light with darkness and Christ with evil", 2 Cor. 6, 14. 15.

If you then want to establish the papacy with this sentence, then I urge you with all right that you indicate such a pope and papacy, since there are no sins in it, that the infernal gates have no power over it. When will you do that, Murnar? Hui, now build a bodily city of the church and ride along finely; but be careful that you do not fall on the plan. It is dangerous for you to ride here.

Because this sentence does not suffer a sinful pope and papacy, and no one can know which pope is without sin; in addition, several parts sin openly, and thus no certain person nor state can be indicated, over which the infernal gates do not prevail; I think it is clear enough that the holy Christian church cannot be shown bodily, but only believed; and will remain before Murnar and all papists a spiritual city, which in spirit is built on the rock, Christ.

And herewith, I hope, the papacy lies in the ashes, because the one basic saying contradicts it. And is the 2) Pabstthum building based on this saying, as if a mad man builds a straw hat on the fire. We still want to be blind and therefore deceive, make Petra Petrum and all sinful popes, where the infernal gates rule; that yet Christ does not suffer or must be punished lies.

  1. Jen. Ed.: des.

1352 Erl. 27.3VS-30S. Answer to the supra-Christian book of Emser. Emser's book. W. XVIII, 1658-1660. 1353

What is the use of you, Murnar, and all the papists, that you impose many fathers in this saying? They have erred as men; so you want to take error for a reason and truth. But to me the main saying of Christ is more valid than all teachers and fathers, however holy and learned they may be. Christ's words are clear enough and need no gloss. Now do your diligence with all papists and direct my papacy again to this saying and make your word true; otherwise I will not answer you on any other thing. For because I have found thee false here in the main part, thou shalt not be worthy of faith until this lie be wiped out.

Herewith I want to have answered this time your scriptless gibberish, only that I do not despise you. But what other people think of your little book, I let you know from these following rhymes, which, sent to me from the Rhine, indicate how unnecessary it is to answer you. I am surprised that you chatterers and scribes are so bold to come on the scene, since you see so many sensible and reasonable judges watching. I myself would not have answered you as well as this rhymer:

A rhyme by Doet. Murnar.

Doctor Murner, as I report. But he did not sleep one night. Two new > books were added. > > For this he almost vomits himself up. Doctor Luther's writings, > although he completely misses the mark; like a blind man, he fights > far and wide, but does not hit the right target. > > Beside the porridge around simply, but he does not want to grab. The > fox he cruelly attacks and yet no way bites not. The writing he forces > on his poem, On long custom his things richt, So that Widerpart > satiated not. > > Much new law he flicht einher, der doch der Luther achten nicht. > > He wants to darken bright light, if it cannot be hidden. That's why I > believe it will happen that Martin Luther does not answer him.

What do you think such people should think of you, Bock Emser, who present vain lies and the most unskilful monkey play, dreamed up from your own head? For although Murnar is at one with you, he has abstained from lies, which are your best deed in your booklet. Oh mend your ways, dear brothers, the Scriptures are coming to light, people's eyes are waking up; you will have to decorate your things differently, or the bright light will disgrace you. I warn you faithfully. God help us all to the right truth, amen.

53. contradiction of Doct. Luther of his error,

by the most learned priest of God, Mr. Hieronymus Emser, Vicarius of Meissen. *)

Probably October 1521.

JEsus.

To all Christians reading this, grace and peace from GOD, Amen.

It is specially doubtlessly manly conscious and evident how that between me Martin

Luther and the most highly learned, excellent priest of God and licentiate of the holy spiritual rights Hieronymus Emser had a hard dispute about this saying of St. Peter, 1 Petr. 2, 9:

*This writing appeared separately in 1521; then also without indication of place and time. About the closer determination of the time, see what was said in the introduction. In the complete editions: Wittenberger (1554), M. VII, toi. 174; Jenaer (1564), vol. I, toi. 393b; Altenburger, vol. I, p. 593; Leipziger, vol. XVII, p. 654; Erlanger, vol. 27, 308.

1354 Eri. 27, 309-311. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1660-1663. 1355

"You are a royal priesthood" 2c, 1)

in which St. Peter calls all Christians priests: on this I have insisted, saying that all Christians are priests, and that those who are now called priests are not called in Scripture priests or sacerdotes, but ministri, presbyteri, episcopi, that is, servants, old men, and watchmen.

Then the excellent man set out and thought: If we lose the priesthood, then all our power is over. For one knows well what power the priesthood entails, namely preaching, measuring, performing the sacrament and using the keys of heaven. Where the craft is laid down, probably ^the] the kitchen should be cold and the cellar should be empty. Out of such marital 2) necessity, he has undertaken to argue against me, as befits a priest of God.

First, if blasphemy and lying would help, he tried his art well, until he also gave me to the devil and wrote many impudent lies about me; and yet he is angry that I called him a liar and a knave, as liars are called in German. After that he has done well in the matter and invented two kinds of priesthood, a spiritual and a physical. So he agreed with me that all Christians are spiritual priests, but he and his are physical priests. He has brought up many sayings of the fathers, since 3) his collection is called priests, and thus St. Peter's saying gave two minds, one spiritual and one corporal.

But I have not been content with the sayings of the fathers, for the reason that the sayings of the fathers do not make articles of faith, nor do they need to be, unless they are based on Scripture. Therefore, although some of the fathers have applied this saying of Peter to the Emperor's priests, it is not compulsory, because it is a

  1. One looks up here cheaply des sei. Luther's beautiful explanation of this Petrine saying in the IXth part of this collection, Col. 713 ff, (Walch).
  2. Matrimonial - lawful; here, well in the sense of "substantial."
  3. Wittb. and Erl,: the.

is merely human interpretation, not attested to by any Scripture.

Besides, I let myself look foolishly before I recognized the man that he threatened with a long spear and short rapier to push off and break open the cuirass (as he called me). Kürisser (as he indicated me) and to break open, also to hit me with the sword; and yet the same sword did not even attack. This was even more foolish to me, since he interpreted my spiritual mind as a scabbard and his bodily mind as a cutting edge. For I had not been in that strange Egypt at that time, where the sheaths are in the edges and the physical is hidden under the spiritual.

But this was exceedingly foolish to me, since he takes Paul's saying 2 Cor. 3, 6.: "The spirit gives life and the letter kills," to mean that the spirit should be called his mind, and the letter my mind; yet the devils and public sinners also have their mind, and yet do not live before God by such a spirit. Again, all the saints also have my understanding, and yet do not die before God through such a letter. And what is still more marvelous, the fulfillment and meaning of his living mind is the more part dead. For his priesthood, which is signified by the living mind, is the greater part dead in sins, yet remain priests, signified by the living mind; which is never heard of, nor impossible in all other words and things.

It would also not help me that he glosses and mends himself, since he wrote: "The spirit", that is the spiritual mind, "makes alive", if man lives in grace. For this is as much as to say that man must first live in grace, and the spiritual mind does not make him alive (as it had previously hewn and stabbed with cutters, spears and swords), but finds him alive. Therefore either St. Paul would have to lie, who says: "The spirit makes alive"; or Emser would have to lie, who says: The spirit is called the spiritual mind, which does not make alive, as he confesses in his gloss.

So I thought Emser would have run himself off and given me won, since I was

1356 Erl. 27,3N-313. Luther's contradiction of his error. W. XVIII, 1663-1665. 1357

wrote: The spirit would not be called a spiritual mind. And if the spiritual mind should therefore be called living, so that those who live in grace beforehand have it, the letter may also make alive; yes, the tiled stove and the hand cask may also make alive, that is, be had by the living, according to Emser's interpretation. Again, the spiritual mind may also be called that which kills, that is, be had by the dead; yes, also my inkwell may kill in this way. And in Emser's gloss, St. Paul's saying would have to gain such a nose: "The spirit makes alive" 2c, that is, the spirit is had by the living and by the dead; but the letter is had by the dead and by the living.

Since such high and excellent things were so foolish and ridiculous to me, the excellent man was angry and said: I made a jauf 1) of it, because I could not refute it with good reason. As it was not reasonable, much less necessary, that someone should make a Jauf or Gauch 2) out of such an excellent man's most subtle poetry.

But when he had to argue with Scripture, he started right away and introduced many more fathers than before; he started: Come forth, Cyril! Step forward, Ambrose! Step forward, Origen! that I thought he wanted to prepare a song dance. But it was his opinion to bring forth scripture, (that is) fathers' sayings without scripture. I didn't understand all that yet, and I didn't think it was scripture.

At last he thrusts out the bottom of the reproach 3) and hews after me a cubit deep into the hard rock; there flashes once his sharp-edged sword, as if he were Master Lawrence among the Swiss; says: Step forth, Christe! 2c There he indicates how Christ called such people priests, since he says, Matth. 5, 13, "You are the salt of the earth." There you have it, Luther; this is the scripture that proves that Emser's people are called priests; this is the interpretation of St. Peter's saying:

  1. d. i. Joke.
  2. Gauch is here synonymous with Jauf.
  3. D. i. Joke.

Salt is called the priest, incense the chaplain, water the sexton, and fire the schoolmaster, straw the pupils. So, so, so the quarrel would come to an end. Now I am satisfied, now there is no need to laugh. The executioner makes a jauf out of such seriousness. Who can with good reason refute that salt is called a priest? Therefore, lest it rain better, I will think of contradiction with all seriousness, and it shall be:

I, Martin Luther, confess that I am in agreement with the highly learned gentleman and priest of God, Hieronymus Emser, and agree that the saying of St. Peter is to be understood not only from the spiritual, but also from the physical, or, to put it most clearly, from all the priesthood that is in Christendom. This I say in all earnestness; for I have not in truth before rightly considered the matter. Now I hope that Luther is no longer a heretic and has even united me with Emsern.

But that I do not light a fire on the other side, with my good friends, I ask, they would not hold such contradiction against me; considered that the truth should be right before all things. In this way we lose nothing, but gain more than before. If you ask how this happens, listen: In all my writings I have not wanted more than this, that all Christians are priests, but not all of them are ordained by bishops, nor do they all preach, say mass and exercise priestly office, because they are ordained and called to do so. Here is the end of my opinion.

But Emser jumps far beyond and enforces by his cutting, lively mind with full power, irrefutably, that all Christians are also priests in the flesh, ordained by bishops, may all preach, hold mass and cultivate all priestly offices 4) without further command or calling. This is the prize and gratitude that Emser has won and conquered from Luther in this sand with all honors, which I grant him from the bottom of my heart, and I want to keep it; I also ask that he who does not want to be a heretic keep it.

But would anyone like to think it was my

  1. In the old prints: Priestly Office.

1358 Erl. 27,313-315. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1665-1668. 1359

Mockery, then I will prove with seriousness that this must be Emser's opinion unquestionably. Is it not seriously true and obvious enough that Emser says: St. Peter also talks about the physical priesthood? He lied and blasphemed me so horribly about it until I had to admit it to him. This is even more seriously true and so obvious that no one can deny that St. Peter's saying is said to all Christians, whether young or old, male or female; so also everything that may be understood in it must be understood by all of them without any wavering. If then all Christians are called priests, since he says: "You are a royal priesthood", and this is also to be understood of bodily priesthood, who are consecrated and have plates, as the tailor 1) Emser teaches and wins; then we must confess that without doubt all Christians are such bodily priests, if we do not otherwise want to be heretics and the devil's own, as Emser threatens. Therefore perhaps the women wear veils and the virgins braids, so that one does not see their consecration and plates.

Well then, that is decided; but it still has one big flaw. I will gladly humble myself to hear preaching from women and children; but how will we be able to do this to Emsern, the pumpkin-eater? He will not want to be in the common priesthood; nor will he allow women to teach him, for great chastity, even if they were all pretty, smooth, young butchers. But I hope he could be persuaded to make his confession in secret to such a confessor and to wait for absolution in the most humble way. However, lest he become angry and complain that his thing is a celibacy 2) and avarice, as is true, we must now think for ourselves what is to be done about this.

I will give my advice. Because they boast and boast of a peculiar, unparalleled priesthood, and all priesthoods, spiritual, bodily, or whatever they may be and be called, are in St. Peter's words assigned to all Christians, as the saying enforces: "So I am the priest.

  1. "Schneider" is what Luther calls him, because Emser claimed to cut with the ^Schneide", not with the sheath.
  2. Gauchery -foolishness; Gauch is also called a simple-minded person, a Thor, fool. - Gauch-empty talk.

It follows that Emser's priesthood is a strange, unchristian thing. Therefore I consider it best that we henceforth call such foreign priesthood not priests, but plate bearers, and drive the useless people out to the country. What is the use of the plate people, who are neither spiritual nor physical priests? And what need have we of them, if we ourselves are all priests in body, in spirit, and of all kinds? As Emser himself teaches us with his cutting edge; they, as the foreign useless guests, eat our bread. Therefore only off, off with the boys.

But that everyone may know how St. Peter's saying is said to all Christians; although it is not necessary to prove this, because Emser himself confesses it, we will nevertheless tell the text in its order and sequence, which reads thus, 1 Petr. 2, 1. 2. 4. 5:

"Put away all malice, and all guile, and falsehood, and hatred, and all after-talk, and seek the pure, unadulterated milk, even as the little children that are now born do, that ye may grow up in the same: if ye have tasted otherwise how sweet is the Lord, unto whom ye are come as unto the living corner-stone, despised of men, but chosen of God, and true. Upon whom also ye build yourselves, as the living stones, into a spiritual house, into a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices, acceptable unto God through JESUS CHRIST" 2c

What man is so stupid that he does not see how these words are spoken to all in general? Who are they, who should put away the told vices and seek reasonable unadulterated milk? It may ever not be understood by the plate bearers. He speaks of "seeking milk" as the women use to say of the little child, it seeks when it desires its mother and milk. So all Christians should also seek their sensible milk, that is, the evangelical doctrine, which comes with human doctrine unadulterated, pure, pure, from the right mother, bride of Christ, the holy church.

Now he speaks to them, "they should build themselves on Christ to a holy priesthood". When is the clergy holy? When does it offer spiritual sacrifices? [Christianity is always holy, or is not Christianity holy?

1360 Erl. 27,315-317. Luther's contradiction of his error. W. xvm, 1668-1670. 1361

stenthum; for he does not speak here of lay sacrifices, but how the priests sacrifice. This happens in the New Testament in such a way that, as Christ himself was priest and sacrifice, so are we all, if we are Christians, truly a holy priesthood and the sacrifice itself; as Paul, Rom, 12, 1., further expands on this, as he teaches how we should offer our bodies a priestly sacrifice.

Follows St. Peter 1 Ep. 2:6-10..:

"Therefore the scripture saith, Behold, I will lay in Zion a chief corner stone, a chosen one, an honest one: and whosoever believeth in him shall not be put to shame. For this reason you have honor who believe. But to the unbelievers the stone which the builders rejected has become a chief cornerstone, and a stone to stumble at, and a rock to fall upon; that is, they who take offense at the word, and believe not on which they are to be built. But you are the chosen generation, a royal priesthood, holy people, a people of ownership; that you should proclaim the deeds of him who called you from darkness into his marvelous light. You were not a people before, but now you have become a people" 2c

Tell me, can someone be so rude who does not understand to whom St. Peter is speaking here? Or do fathers' sayings have to come forth and be interpreted here? If he calls the people and the congregation so clearly and yet calls them all a "royal priesthood", he commands them to preach the deeds of God who has called them. If this is also said of Emser's priesthood, as our Emser teaches, we are certainly all such priests as well. Let him interpret priests as he will, so all Christians are such priests by this saying. If then we are all to preach, the plate bearers must keep silent, because they have another priesthood of their own before all Christians.

In this way are also the two sayings, one Revelation 5, 9. 10.: "You have redeemed us by your blood and made a kingdom of God and priests", the other Revelation 20, 6.: "In this the other death will have no power, but they will be God's and his

Christ's priests be", all both said by the whole church and to understand, how the words force without all gloss. And there is no more saying in the New Testament that says of priests than these three; the others all call Emser's priests not priests, but ministers, watchmen, and old men. So that the Holy Spirit teaches us, that not oil, consecration, plates, chasuble, albums, 1) chalice, mass, sermon 2c make priests and give authority; but priesthood and power must be there beforehand, brought along from baptism, common to all Christians through faith, which builds them on Christ, the right supreme priest, as St. Peter says here.

But to exercise such authority and to carry out such work does not belong to everyone; but whoever is called by the multitude or by the one who has the command and will of the multitude, he does such work in the place and person of the multitude and common authority. Therefore it is not true that there is more than one simple priesthood in the church; and the plate bearers are not called priests according to the Scriptures, as Emser lies. The name is common to us all, with all its power, right and hearing; 2) which these robbers and thieves of God would gladly tear from us and appropriate to themselves alone. But just as they called themselves the church, and we stole the robbery from them, so they made themselves priests: that is now also taken from them. But we will leave them the plates, that they may be plate bearers, because they never want to carry God's word, but only to pervert it.

What would it help if Emser had a thousand and a thousand fathers' sayings, all of whom were called priests? Nevertheless, there would be no scripture, but only the words of men, who have erred, but who have not been stiff-necked, like these plate bearers. But St. Peter's words are God's words, which leave no other than the one common priesthood. It pushes the others all to powder; no Emser helps for it, if he should lie to death and blaspheme.

Although I also let go the use that now reigns, that alone the lubricated and

  1. Casel = chasuble; alb = white chasuble. 2) I.e.: what belongs to > it.

1362 Erl. 27,317 s. IX. Luther's dispute with Emser. W. XVIII, 1670-1672. 1363

It is enough for us to prevent them from tearing the holy Scriptures to pieces and threatening and forcing us with false terror through the divine word, according to their will, as they have done up to now and still want to do, but that we have the power to frighten them and, where they do not want to, to try Custos virgum 1) with them.

They shall be subject to the mob as servants and leave their tyranny. If not, we shall show them the Scriptures and teach them morality. Since they are afraid of the

  1. The schoolmaster with the rod.

Therefore, they strive so that only they may be called priests of the nobility by the Scriptures. No, the sword of Emser does not cut, his spear does not pierce, his sword does not break; lying and blasphemy do not help: but God and his word remain forever, amen.

So we have taken away the two names from the church robbers again, that they are neither church nor priest, more than all Christians. They shall also give back the name Clerus without their thanks; and remain laymen, yes, less than laymen, so that they sit between two chairs; just as they are neither spiritual nor secular. God should help me to recognize the Egyptian foreign people correctly. That is enough of the first contradiction.

X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites at Jüterbock, Weimar, and so on.

*Luther's letter to the Franciscans at Jüterbock. )

May 15, 1519.

Newly translated from the Latin.

In this letter, Luther explains and defends himself on eight points which the Lector of the Franciscans at Jüterbock, Bernhard Dappen, considered erroneous and because of which he had written to the Bishop of Brandenburg, Hieronymus Scultetus, on May 5, 1519, and the day before to his vicar, Jakob Gropper.

To the venerable Fathers and Brothers of the Convent of Jüterbock, Minorite Order.

JEsus.

  1. salvation and peace. Venerable Fathers! Two notes have come to my hand, one of which, sent by the entire Convention to the most reverend Bishop, our gracious Lord of Brandenburg, contains my name

disgracefully defiled and with quite impudent sacrilege wants to prove, some articles, which are nevertheless true beyond dispute, would be erroneous. I was indeed not a little surprised that you, who are emblazoned with the title of observance, pretend to be helpers and saviors of the people, and are zealous for the unstitched skirt 2),

  1. This expression occurs several times in Dappen's two letters.

*) This letter is found in Aurifaber's collection of letters, vol. I, 169; in Löscher's Reformations - Acta, vol. Ill, p. 116; in the Latin Wittenberg edition, 3?om. I, col. 238; in the Jena edition, lom. I, col. 212; Lrl. opp. var. arA., vol. II, 466; De Wette I, 264. Our translation is based on the Erlangen edition.

1364 L. V. a. II, 466-468. 54 Letter to the Franciscans at Jüterbock. Franciscans at Jüterbock. W. XVIII, 1672-1674. 1365

You have so completely forgotten the gospel that you have not first remembered a brother between yourselves and him alone (as it says in the gospel), and have rather wanted to slander another's name, and, what is even more shameful, to put yourselves up as judges in someone else's matter. Does your order and observance bring with it such pride and courage?

But so that I do not repay evil with evil, I leave you the choice: either revoke this sacrilege and give me back my honest name; or I let this note of yours be published by the print, and attach a refutation of your gross ignorance, which will bring bad honor to your order. You, who, by virtue of your rule, despise studies and do not want to know anything about science, but only take in the rabble with your dreams and empty fantasies, should keep quiet and let others study. My doctrine has been diligently pursued for three years at our university, examined and judged by disputing, reading, teaching, preaching, writing, before the most perceptive and diligent men, and yet has not yet been found reprehensible; and it should now be condemned as heretical after the proving furnace of your little order by one or two snoring brothers, who have perhaps once seen a magister, but never met one? Just see to it that you are not invented as heretics and as such, as you have accused me and mine. It shall not be difficult for me (with God's help) to defend my statements against you; in the meantime, however, I will spare you and your order until I hear what you are going to do.

I pass over in silence what your Lector Bernhard, 1) a very rude head, washes over the tear of the unstitched skirt in front of the bishop's vicar 2) as if the church had to perish for its sake,

  1. Bernhard Dappen, Lector of the Franciscans at Jüterbock.
  2. Jacob Gropper, episcopal vicar of the bishop staying in the distance. Weim. The bishop of Brandenburg, Hieronymus Scultetus, had traveled to Frankfurt a. M. for the election of the German emperor.

if Thomas or Bonaventure were rejected. Who then upheld the church before Thomas and all the monks came into the world? Afterwards the lovely man confesses that he had only a private quarrel, in which one is wont to speak freely and confidentially and to assert what one would not preach publicly; and nevertheless the slanderer now turns this very quarrel into an accusation, and imposes on us what the laity ask: where then in the Gospel is there anything about confession and fasting? Behold this venomous reproducer! Why does he not put other questions of the laity or even old women's intercessions on me? But, as I have said, consider either peace or war, as you will. But, so that I may do something else, I will recently indicate here the reason for what has been negotiated with your lector.

(4) First, you state that it was said that God commanded man impossible things. Answer: Why then does Paul say in Romans 8 that it was impossible not only for us, but also for the law, that righteousness should be fulfilled? for this reason Christ had to suffer and die. Read St. Augustine on perfect righteousness, and you will find that you teach a divisive and pernicious error when you deny that impossible things are commanded of man; or say, if they are possible, why is grace necessary? Or do you mock and ridicule the benefits of divine mercy? Why then do you pray: Thy will be done, if you can accomplish God's will through your powers? I am ashamed of your so gross sacrilege that you call this most Christian doctrine a heretical and harmful error.

(5) Secondly, you call it an error that God demands the highest perfection and the whole gospel from every Christian. Here I ask your exceeding cleverness, first of all, to whom is the gospel given, to stones or to wood? If it is given to men, why should they not be required to keep God's commandment, since Christ says that not one iota shall perish? I am very sorry that

1366 L.v.Ä.ii,468f. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. XVIII, 1674-1677. 1367

you who quarrel over the unused skirt (inconsutilistas et tunicastros) are so foolish that you say that people are not guilty of keeping the will and commandments of God, and only now should it be doubted and disputed whether one must obey God when He commands? O, to frenzy! Of course, we all owe to fulfill the whole Gospel and all the commandments, but because we cannot, therefore we are sinners and run to the throne of God's mercy. This is the opinion of St. Augustine in the whole eighth part. But you draw people from mercy to judgment, because you do not allow them to recognize themselves as sinners and guilty of keeping God's commandments.

6th Thirdly let it be said, that there are no counsels, but all things pertaining to the gospel are commandments. This your envy and malice have lied about. For they said thus: The commandments are above the counsels, and: the commandments are more than the counsels, because the counsels are to be regarded only as means, by which the fulfillment of the commandments is made easier. As, for example, a virgin, or a widow, or a single person can much more easily keep the commandment: do not let yourself be lusted after, than a married person who gives the lusts some space and room.

  1. Fourthly, that the Canons teach pleasure, avarice, and pride, and are contrary to the Holy Scriptures. This your Leviathan has added and twisted. For envy accepts nothing in the right sense. They said that the canons and decrees sometimes smelled or tasted of pride and avarice, that is, that those who made them sometimes sought their own more than love. This is what you call teaching arrogance. But I ask you: can not a proud and stingy man preach the truth and yet, in doing so, reek of pride or be greedy? Just as, if you had spoken the truth in this note, your words would reek of brotherly envy and ass-like ignorance. Furthermore, it is because the canons often misuse the scriptural passages and impute to them a different mind than they have in their place.

8 And what wonder? Have you taken the unused skirt and the unity of the church in a different sense here too? But for your foolish opinion, without which the unity of the church will probably remain, read once the C. translato de constitutione lib. 1. and see whether the pope there rightly says that the priesthood of Christ was transferred to Peter, because the apostle speaks to the Ebräer of the priesthood of Aaron, which came to Christ.

You read nothing, much less understand anything, and yet you want to pass judgment on the doctrine. This also happens in the doctrine of free will, which, according to St. Augustine's testimony, is nothing. For it can only do evil, but never good, except by the grace of God. Consequently, he is not free in himself, but is subject to the service of sin, as Augustine lib. Π. contra Julianum teaches. But, I beseech you, restrain your iniquity, and let your tawdry dreams depart. You understand less than nothing in Christian doctrine. Leave your sermons for yourselves, and let us read the holy fathers.

(10) Fifthly, that a layman, who has the prestige of Scripture for himself, is to be believed more than the pope, than a concilium, and even than the church itself. This is also taught by the jurists, as Panormitanus C. Significasti, and it is such a general truth that Augustine records this in many places as a rule to read the scribes according to it. Such an abominable heretic has never stood up to deny this, except for these new heretics, the arch-abominable Observantists of Jüterbock, who with their whore's foreheads declare the most sacred teachings of the Church Fathers, which they have never read, to be harmful, to be unfit, and as such to be flatly contrary to the Catholic faith. Is this not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

  1. Sixthly, what Thomas 1) is supposed to have said, I do not know; but this I can well see, that your wickedness again betrays itself. For since he in general has not
  2. In any case, Thomas Müntzer. Weimar edition, vol. II, 621.

1368 D- L. ii, 469-471. 54. letter to d. Franciscans at Jüterbock. W. xvm, 1677-1679. 1369

You are so bold as to accuse him of this, for which you would then be justified and right if he had named one in particular. But now you are slanderers and blasphemers, because you read nothing and understand nothing, and that to which you refer, you take entirely according to your brain and say it boldly. When will you give him and us satisfaction for such a great slander?

(12) Seventhly, you betray yourselves again, since you accuse Magister Franciscus 1) as if he had taught that one should make an envelope for the flax on the distaff 2) from the confession slips, and as if he had forbidden good works, confession and fasting; do not be ashamed to confess that he himself has denied it to you. But you, who blaspheme with fine heat, blame him for things of which you are not aware, which he himself does not admit, and which you have only heard from the stories of others. O of the intolerable and most harmful sacrilege! Why did you not wait until you knew it? Why do you not keep your poisonous mouths in check, and why do you not believe him, since he publicly denies it, more than the stories of others? Is this your love? Have you learned this from your religious rule? What would you do if we, too, publicly accused you of the great and terrible abominations which are generally carried about by you? This is a new custom, that you accuse a brother because of what he denies, of which he is not even convicted, according to mere hearsay, from his own suspicion and from free judgment.

(13) If the laity ask about fasting or confession according to the gospel, they are right to do so, and you are to answer them. For you must teach the gospel

  1. M. Franz Günther, preacher at St. Nicolai in Jüterbock. Weim. Vol. II, 621.
  2. This information is found in the letter to the bishop of Brandenburg.

But if you cannot answer, stop belittling those who are able to answer.

Finally, that the Lector has now said that 3) the pope is not Christ's governor alone, Peter is not the prince among the apostles with full authority, and that there are no cases of reservation from divine right, that is rightly spoken; but as I see, you do not know what divine or human right is, and are bold judges in both rights. According to divine law (as St. Jerome explains in many places) all apostles are equal to each other; all bishops are equal to each other. Yes, Jerome adds that a presbyter and a bishop are equal according to divine law. What do you want to do here? Do you want to burn Jerome? or should he also cut your unstitched skirt? Only read his epistle to Evagrius and his interpretation of the epistle to Titus and the Ephesians, and you will see your negligence and your crime. Accordingly, the pope alone is a governor of Christ according to human law, as is also written in Rome in the Lateran church, which is the mother of all.

Finally, I await your answer the sooner the better, so that I may know whether you will bend your necks or argue against the truth with your necks erect. I will treat you well, as you have no reason to doubt, and I will present your wondrous wisdom to all. Fare well. May the Lord give you right understanding and good will, amen. If you want to be my friends, I will be very grateful; if not, do what you do. I will not abandon my honest name and God's word. You may certainly believe that. Wittenberg on Sunday Jubilate Anno 1519.

Brother Martin Luther, Augustinian.

  1. The lector here is the companion of the Augustinian prior Conrad Held from Wittenberg. Who he had been is unknown. In Dappen's letter to Gropper he is described as leetor saerae ttieoIoZine and artiurn naaAister.

1370 L. v.ii, 472 f. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xviii, 1679-1681. 1371

55 Martin Luther's Defense Against the Malicious Judgment of Johann Eck

about some articles imposed on him by some brothers.

Attached to these are 24 heretical articles, drawn from Eck's and the brothers' sentences. *)

September 1519.

Newly translated from the Latin of the Weimar edition.

Martin Luther the godly reader Heil!

We read in the Gospel Matth. 26, 59 that the Jews, since they wanted to destroy Christ and did not know what to accuse him of, lurked on his words and distorted them and brought accusations against him through their lies. For example, when he had taught Matth. 22, 21 that one should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, this murderous rabble interpreted it differently Luc. 23, 2 and accused him as if he had forbidden to give interest to Caesar. Likewise, when he proclaimed as a sign John 2:19 that they would break his temple, they interpreted it Matt. 26:61 as if he would break down the temple of God and rebuild it in three days, and accused him as a blasphemer. I too, my dear reader, have recently encountered such new saints, who, out of the very enmity, since they cannot resist Christ's words that I had interpreted, have begun to pin on me some false articles that they had invented, so that they might also condemn the true ones. And that you may know about the whole game, some brothers from our neighborhood 1) have called my listeners to them, with whom they have met in

  1. I.e. the Guardian of the Franciscans at Jüterbock and their Lector Bernhard Dappen.
  2. and argued about my doctrine (for as they are people who despair of God, so they fear that they would die of hunger, if they did not draw the people to themselves with their lappishness and antics, which they, or brothers of their ilk, think up). And since they could neither convict them nor resist their teaching, they brought together articles that they did not quite understand in such a conversation, and scattered them where they could, and handed them over to the powerful under my name, and also carried me out among the rabble.

I, out of pity for their unlearned nature, did not respect it at first, because I knew that they would undertake such things not only without, but also against the will, both of their superiors and of all who are of the same order. But I wrote to them 3) and only warned them benevolently that they should not do it.

  1. In Dappen's letter to Gropper (cf. the introduction): inter eoüationanäurn; in the letter ün the bishop: In Huackarn ckisputatione privata.
  2. By this Luther means the letter to the monks at Jüterbock that immediately precedes this writing. The remark made by the Weim. Bd. II, 625, that this letter's content "admittedly does not completely agree with his statement here," is to be understood in such a way that it does not seem to the editors of the Weim. Edition, because of some harsh expressions that occur in the letter, it does not seem as if the letter was written "benevolently.

*) This writing exists in two separate editions, once printed by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig, the other time probably in Augsburg under the title: Eontra rnaiiZnuin llokannis ikeeii sucliciuin super aliquot artieulis a Iratridus Huidusäarn ei suppositis, Martini Imtderi ciekeusio. irreres itern kaeretiei .XXIIII. ex Leeii Iratrurn^ue ckoKinatidus consectanei. The former edition 16 leaves in quarto, three pages blank; the latter 18 leaves in quarto, last leaf blank. Further, in the Baseler Sammlung Lutherscher Schriften of March IH2O, Bl. II 3 " -3 "; in R,.?.. Martini Imtüerii lueuürationurn pars una. Lasileae apuck ^ciain Petri

1520 Mense llulio, p. 336; WiteberZ. (1545), Mun. I, toi. 356"; llen., lom. I, col. 226" and Erlanger, opp. var. arZ., vol. II, p. 472; Löscher, Reformations-Acta. Vol. III, p. 856; and Weimar edition, Vol. II, p. 625.

1372 V. L. n, 473-475. 55. L.'s defense against Eck's verdict. W. XVIII, 1681-1683. 1373.

so that they do not stir up a new fire over themselves. Or, if they defy their wit and science, let them come to Wittenberg, which they have so close, and there dispute against my errors and refute them. I also added which ones were wrong and how one would like to understand some of them. The brethren, however, who did not seek how they might know the truth, but how they might suppress me by slander and blasphemy, hoped that by Eck's reputation they might make truth out of lies, and adorn with his name what they had wickedly and wantonly done. But Eck, according to his modesty, very gladly seized the opportunity to rage against me, and drooled (informationes effutivit) report about these articles, rejoicing and congratulating himself, as it were, that he could bring me down surreptitiously and without prior recollection or interrogation (cognitum). For his disfavor has always been directed to this from the very beginning, as soon as my name became known. For he had already played the same game earlier with his poisonous remarks (obeliscis); if I had not overlooked this for a long time out of heartfelt benevolence, the world would probably regard the corner in such a way that my Silvester, in comparison with him, would be regarded as fundamentally learned and respectable. For it is easy for me to paint Eck and Eck's science with their proper colors, because I know man from the inside and outside, that he is, as the wolf said to the nightingale, an empty voice and nothing more. Although I am not worthy to be conformed to Christ my Lord in these temptations, since I have deserved hell a thousand times over, I will not throw away His grace because it is pleasing in the eyes of His mercy, and I will gladly deal with envy and envious and evil-minded blasphemers, and defend the truth against lies as confidently as they have presumed to bring up lies against the truth.

Therefore I beg you, beloved reader, that in this matter you be favorable neither to me, nor to the corner, nor to the brethren, but to pure

and simple truth: give heed with a pure and impartial heart, and look only at it, not how much they or I have put on, but how appropriate and how suitable, either according to the holy Scriptures, or according to the right opinion of reason. For this reason I ask you so earnestly, because it is my way, not so much, but everything only suitable and, as far as it is possible, what serves the cause. Eck, on the other hand, has the one purpose of advancing many things, either foreign or contradictory, that he only salivate and spew much, without seeing whence, in what way, what or whither that which he speaks applies: for there is nothing more annoying to me in such sophists than that they wilfully flee from the words of holy Scripture. For they have but one habit of saying, thus spake the saints John 8:53, "Art thou more than our father Abraham?" But you, my reader, will let Augustine's very true word be accepted on both sides, when he says: "I alone have learned to give credit to the books that are called canonical, that I believe most firmly that no writer of them has erred; but the others, no matter how holy and learned they may be, I read in such a way that I consider nothing to be true because they have held it so, but if they can prove it to me either with testimonies from the canonical books, or with some credible reason. This is what St. Paul also says 1 Thess. 5:21, "Test everything, and what is good, keep." These rules of the Holy Spirit have also always been perfectly despised by my corner and the words of the text in the Holy Scriptures have been taken for mere fairy tales. Thus it happens that he can neither understand nor apply the Scriptures themselves, nor the sayings of the fathers, which he throws out, but with such boldness fulfills the word of Paul 1 Tim. 1, 7: since they want to be teachers of the law, they do not know either what they speak, nor what they say anything about. Whether I have rightly said all this about Eck, you will soon, my reader, see clearly. Incidentally, although I would now have a favorable opportunity to attack Eck, because he himself first denounced the agreement, which he wrung from us at Leipzig with such great noise, with this vituperative

1374 D. V. a. II, 475-477. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. XVIII, 1683-1686. 1375

I will be satisfied that I am forced to answer this covenant-breaking and vituperative slanderer, and I am glad that he will be forced to blame the breach of the covenant not on me, but on his iniquity. Farewell, dear reader.

1st article.

He does not think much of the general church assemblies (conciliis) because they do not represent (repraesentant) the general church.

That it is not mine, I hope everyone will see who reads my discussions and the conversation against Silvester: since I alone lament this and sigh over the fact that we are not worthy to see a legitimate concilium. I will remain silent about the fact that the brothers' way of writing in Latin, which has nothing at all to do with my way of writing, indicates sufficiently that it the article is merely a spiteful fiction. But Eck, if he had wanted to be an honest man, should have held back the brothers or the busy servants of the brothers (Mercurios) and indicated to them my right opinion (which he knew well). But now, in order to show how he takes pleasure in another's plague, he helps to increase the pain of the wounds, and strengthens the poisonous lies of the brothers just by not resisting them, especially since the other part has not been heard. For I am sure that he would not want what he does to me to be done to him by me. And I will not tolerate him excusing himself by saying that he did not report my person. For it cannot be believed that he has included my name among his fundamental antics (larvis) for any other reason than that he would like to pin such monstrosities on me: man has such a severe disease of envy from the cursed ambition.

But I believe that my listeners have said that a general concilium has often erred and can err, and that such legitimate general conciliums are rare, as the Nicene one was; for if they have said this, they have spoken rightly.

But they, according to their clumsiness, have immediately made a general out of what is true only of some, and have taken it to mean that all conciliarities are rejected. I believe this all the more easily, because I have been charged with many such things by them: for when I taught that some good works were done in an evil way, they immediately accused me of denying all good works. And since I had taught that it was not Christian to call on the saints for money and temporal things, they immediately said, since envy was their teacher, that I denied the veneration of the saints with the Picards. So much do these Eck theologians like the error and the seduction of Christianity that they are not ashamed to argue against the obvious truth for the sake of their own belly. So they also lie that I deny all conciliarities, since I have said that any one of them has either erred or could err. Right worthy disciples of their master Eck!

2nd and 3rd articles.

He denies that the pope is Christ's governor.

He denies that Peter is the chief among the apostles.

Here see, I ask you, dear reader, whether you should consider my Eck a theologian or a sophist.

First, fraternal envy has not set the articles in their entirety, but has omitted this piece "out of divine right"; for if this is added, the articles are catholic. But let us see Eck's invaluable and quite Eckian erudition.

For since he undertakes to refute the articles from divine right, he spews forth a heap of drunken proofs, and treats the passages of Scripture and of the Fathers in such a way that he seems to have drunkenly broken all this from himself after a meal or carousing.

First, he proves it with the promise given to Peter, Matth. 16,18: You are Peter and on this rock I will build 2c, which is according to Eck: "You are Christ's governor and the apostle's chief"; because this is Eck's way of interpreting the Scriptures. For otherwise it does not befit him who interprets the

1376 D. v- a. ii. 477-479. 55. L.'s defense against Eck's judgment. " W. xviii, 1686-1688. 1377

He hates the art of language so much that he calls those who do not revere his antics in Scripture grammatistas and teachers of dusty schools. But let us look at the sophist's ungodly counterfeits of the words of Christ.

First of all, the word of Christ: "You are Peter" 2c must have one, first, main and proper sense, in which Christ put it forward; but this is either that by rock Christ himself is understood, or the apostle Peter. Both cannot be the main sense, for nothing can be proved from two senses. If Eck admits both, he proves nothing at all: for as easily as he understands Peter by petram rock, so easily can I understand Christ by it. Indeed, one may not even ascribe the word of Scripture, which is spoken of Christ, to another, unless with good moderation, of which I will say below. But if he only sticks to the one that petra is Peter, and does not at the same time accept another, then Eck is already a shameful falsifier of Scripture, which I prove:

First of all, because Peter is never called a rock in the Holy Scriptures, but Christ, as 1 Cor. 10:4: "But the rock was Christ." And Matth. 7,25.: "He will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock." And below: "For it was built on a rock." So Eck may bring up just one single passage from Scripture where Peter is called a rock. To me, there is one single passage of Scripture more than all the teachers that Eck draws on, even though he has not even drawn on it properly, as we shall see.

Secondly. Also in this saying he clearly separates Peter from petra. For if by rock he had meant Peter, he would have said, "You are Peter, and on you I will build my church": but since he repeats rock, he obviously indicates that another is Peter, but another is rock, which he separates, shows and expresses by the pronoun baue 1) this from Peter. And so I want to make out of the present-

  1. If it were said by Peter, it would have to be bune.

He easily resists the text that Eck cannot show that Peter is the rock. But he himself, being aware of nothing good, flees from this text; therefore, because he realizes that it is against him and that he cannot do anything with it, he takes refuge in the teachers.

Third, I ask: is Peter a part of the church? If he is a part of the church, he cannot be the rock here; for Christ says, "upon this rock I will build my church." Therefore Peter is built with the church on the rock, and is not the rock itself; unless you want to interpret it according to Eck's way, that he is built on himself. Do you see, then, what it is to abandon the words of Scripture and to read the sayings of the fathers without understanding? So Peter is either not the rock on which the church is built, or not a part of the church that is built on the rock.

Fourthly, the word "to be built" is a word of the Spirit and means to be incorporated by faith and to grow in Christ. Therefore it cannot be applied without malice to the power to govern the church, since this power can well be wielded without faith: for both the pope and the subject can be evil. Therefore this whole passage is not at all appropriate to the matter, since it does not speak of the sovereignty or power of rule that can be had without faith, but only of faith in Christ; as also Matth. 7, 25. says: "it was built on a rock", where it speaks of persecutions. It is known, however, that the power of rule, on which Eck bases the church, is of no avail in persecutions (because it also suffers there), but the foundation of faith in the Spirit sustains on Christ. Thus Peter teaches in 1 Peter 2:5 that we are built on Christ as a spiritual house. So I demand of Eck that he show me a single passage of Scripture where "building" refers to his dream of dominion. If he does not do this, it is of no help to him that he brings forward the sayings of the fathers without text and without understanding: for one cannot contradict a clear text with all teachers' respect. But I would also like to know from what inference he draws this conclusion.

1378 L. V. L. II, 47S f. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xvm, I688-I69I. 1379

I have learned. "The church is built on something (for example Peter), therefore this something is the governor of Christ and the chief of the apostles. So, if it is built on faith (as it is the truth), then faith is the governor of Christ. But who can see this governor? So Peter is not promised the reign here, as the blind distortionist errs, but the building of the church in the spirit of faith is described, in whose person Peter confesses the rock and receives the keys, as the holy fathers unanimously say.

Secondly, he proves that Peter is Christ's governor by divine right with a reason just as worthy of Eck's wisdom, namely from the enumeration of names, because he is mentioned first among the apostles. Matth. 10, 2.

Do you not think that the fearful sophist would have been very happy if he could have found that Peter was called first to the apostleship? For with the same glory with which Eck ascribes supremacy to Peter from the order of names, another can ascribe it to Andrew from the order of calling, since he, according to calling, is earlier than Peter John 1:35 ff; especially since the word of the apostle Paul Galatians 1:17 serves for this, who calls them his predecessors and great apostles for their sake, because they were called before him. If someone could appear as an advocate of Andrew, like Eck for Peter, and oppose the Petrine order of names with the calling of Andrew, it will be seen that it is obvious that Andrew is the first. It grieves me that the glorious name of theology must lower itself to such ridiculous fictions and old wives' tales, as if one had more power because he was named first, for then every thing in the world would have to be greater than the other because it can be named first. Has not one among the cardinals, bishops, yes, that we remain with the Scriptures, Reuben been called first among the patriarchs, and yet has not by divine right been their superior? And Stephen is named first among the deacons, so by divine right he would have been their

Ruler; and Lucas is named in the gospels before John, but Marcus before Lucas, so he is his ruler. But also Jacobus is named after Peter before John, so Jacobus of John will be regent by divine right. And the last of the apostles will be ruled by the last but one, because as the first is related to the second, so is the second to the third. See the great confusion of the question: Peter, James and John are often mentioned in their order. On the other hand, Andrew is in the second place (Matth. 10, 2), Philip in the third, Bartholomew in the fourth. 1) But I am annoyed and ashamed of Eck's great inference, who concludes from the first place in the order a power of dominion. What then will he say to Paul, G,al. 2, 9, whom Peter places behind Jacob the Less, bishop of Jerusalem? Will now Jacobus, because he is called so, become regent? Yes, the conclusion is good, based on Eck's reputation, according to his new inference. But also Joh. 1, 40. Andrew is first named and called before Peter. Therefore, you see how Eck plays with the holy scripture and seeks everything else in it, but not the truth.

Thirdly, the excellent Eck proves this supremacy from the payment of the interest, Matth. 17, 24. If he were not aware of the error and the lack of truth, do you think that he would seek support so anxiously and in such a ridiculous way? How much does not the lie need to appear as truth? This timidity is certainly a strong proof that he has taken it upon himself to defend the lies according to the testimony of his conscience; for the exceedingly simple and obvious truth does not need such forced and violent aids, but is self-sufficient.

But to the point!

Thanks be to Eck that he says Peter alone became like Christ in paying the interest;

  1. The Weim. Ausg. vol. II, 630 notes here: "According to the Latin translation of the Bible." In the Vulgate, which is available to us, printed at Tournah (Nornuai Nsrviornna) in 1885, the same order is found as in our German Bible.

1380 L. v. a. ii, 480-482. 55. L.'s defense against Eck's verdict. W. xviii, issi-isss. 1381

For now we learn that Peter is like Christ, of whom we learned earlier that he is his subordinate and governor; so it is up to Eck to make of Peter whatever he wants.

Dear, why did he not see, or forgot, that equality in suffering, equality in miracles, equality in words and many other things did not make Peter prince, since each of these things is far more than equality in paying the interest? But all men are equal in humanity, which is the highest and most wonderful equality, from which comes all the sovereignty of men, and yet from this follows for no one a priority in the rule.

But how, if the equality in interest made Peter even smaller, that because the other apostles were free from interest, as also the text indicates that giving interest does not belong to royal children, but to servants and inferiors, so Christ subjected himself with Peter to lower ones, which he did not command the other apostles to do. But also the other apostles, since they concluded in the same way as Eck, and thought that Peter would be the chief for this reason, began to ask: who would be the greatest? But they received the resolution of this conclusion by the interpretation in the following chapter Matt. 18, since they were forbidden that no one should desire to be the greatest among them. And the apostles put up with the resolution; but Eck, who is perhaps greater than the apostles, even than Christ, is not content with Christ's argument; but throws the question round again, and closes on the side opposite to Christ, after the laudable manner of the scholastics, and with his lying sophists invents a new way of mocking (meant to say, of distinguishing) the sacred Scriptures, and says: It is not being greater that is forbidden, but the desire for it; in the same way one would have to say that it is not servitude, but the desire for servitude that is commanded, when Christ says Matth. 23, 11: "The greatest among you shall be your servant," for that is the way of these ungodly twisters of the Scriptures. Therefore, according to Eck's advice, it is not necessary that we serve one another, but it is enough,

that we desire to serve as it is necessary, that one does not strive for greatness or majesty, but can nevertheless accept it. But let such witchcraft and night ghosts Ecks leave. Christ has cut off the opportunity for ambition, by putting away majesty itself, and gives cause for humility, since he lays out servitude. He, then, is the greater in the church, not he who reigns far, but he who serves in much humility. This is the fair mind of the gospel, when one puts away the poison of Eck, whose way is to imitate Abimelech Judges 9:48, and to make fire with cut branches from the forest of Zalmon, or, as Isa. 44:15 says, to make an idol for himself out of the wood of the Scriptures, by taking one place and completely despising what precedes and follows. But who does not laugh when master and servant are caught together by chance, and at the same time give interest to each other, that this servant should immediately become master over all his fellow servants by this chance? But this mendaciousness of the evidence indicates that Eck's cause is very bad.

Fourth, he proves this supremacy from the strengthening that he was commanded to have and the faith that should not cease, Luc. 22:32: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not cease, and when you are converted, strengthen your brothers. And it is not necessary for Eck to consider these words, what they mean, but that he, according to his inference, immediately brings out what he wants, because something arbitrary follows the necessary. That is why he also concludes here: strengthen your brothers; thus Peter is the chief of the apostles. The first part is necessary, therefore also something arbitrary follows, through the new art of conclusion (as said).

Dear one, what does this do to the supremacy of the Roman church, that Peter's faith will not cease? Are then the faith and the authority of the rule the same with Eck? So those who have the faith of Peter are all princes, governors of Christ? But all have the faith of Peter, for all believe what Peter believes; as Paul says Eph. 4:5, "One faith. "2c For Christ did not speak of Peter's personal faith,

1382 n v. L. n, 482-484. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xvm, 1693-1696. 1383

because he fell, but from the faith of the church, which Peter held: for I also have Peter's faith, and, as 2 Cor. 4:13 says, we all have the same spirit of faith. This faith, I say, falls and never perishes, because it went out in the thief, as it ceased in Peter.

So also the "strengthen" (confirmare) is taken in two ways (that I also use a distinction): once, that it means the confirmation of power, as nowadays bishops, deeds and words are publicly confirmed: so it is taken here by Eck's spook. In another way, however, it stands for "to admonish and comfort the afflicted and afflicted"; so Christ takes it here, as is clear from his words: "And when you have converted," 2c, namely, that he was to strengthen the fallen by the word. Here it is clear that no authority is given, but that brotherly duty and the duty of love are praised - which, however, no one seeks among them, since they only want to have supremacy - which, nevertheless, can be fulfilled without supremacy, both against inferiors and superiors and our equals. Thus we are all instructed by a general saying in One Peter, to exhort the weak and to comfort the fallen.

But let's go back to the author of his tasteless antics.

If Peter is given the supremacy by the word "strengthen" Luc. 22, 32, then no one is a successor of Peter but the one who strengthens his brothers after he has first converted and has a faith that does not cease. Thus, either faith will be necessary for the pope along with the duty of exhortation, or he cannot enjoy these words at all, nor can he be considered the successor of Peter. And where will the popes remain, who for so many years have not strengthened, but, empty of word and faith, have merely crushed with lightning, and have brought through the brethren's fortunes with war, cunning and banishment more than tyrants? Of these, Eck must necessarily confess that they were not successors, and consequently also not popes. Thus it comes that Eck and his disciples are blinded by God's righteous judgment; while they do not understand the divine Scriptures, which were written by the spirit of God.

If they do not want to deny the words of Christ, they must confess that the evil popes were not popes, nor followers of Peter.

So let the despiser of the art of language prick up his ears: here Christ imposes on Peter, only after he has converted, only since he believes with unceasing faith, in clear words, not to "strengthen" a dignity, but the office. Do we have to learn by a new linguistic art of Eck that the faith that does not cease means so much as the power of rule? Therefore he will not be a successor of Peter, if he is not converted, and in faith excellently strengthens the fallen ones. But what man should not flee from such discomfort?

Therefore, this useless supremacy and authority must be established by other words; for these words require Peter's faith and performance of his office, which, if they belong to Peter, must also belong to his successor, or they do not concern him at all. But who will assure us who is converted in faith? Therefore, according to these words, nothing else remains but that a general teaching is given to all, but that Peter is not charged with anything of external sovereignty and rule. Therefore, one must look for a text that does not speak of faith or of the conversion of the prelates, but of mere authority, which may be without faith; as Rom. 13, 1. is: "There is no authority without from God" 2c

In the same way we also want to say about the interest that he is not Peter's successor who does not give interest to the emperor and prince of the world in the same way as Christ and Peter Matth. 17, 24. But where are the privileges of the churches? Do you see what kind of door the ungodly glosses of Eck open for the lay authorities? For if the equality of interest proves a supremacy for Peter, it must also prove the same for his successor, so that he does not become unequal to Christ, nor unlike Peter; but what else do we learn from such wisdom of Eck, but that all popes are godless and heretics?

1384 D. v. a. ii, 484-486. 55 L.'s defense against Eck's verdict. W. xvm, isss-iE 1385

who have made decrees about the inalienable goods of the church, that they are to be free from interest, customs and treasury. Yes, this Eck's mind tears the whole spiritual right over the house; or he must confess that the Roman popes are unequal to Peter, and therefore neither Peter's nor Christ's, but rather other apostles' successors, who have paid nothing.

Thus it happens that if one claims that the imposition of interest was an honor and sovereignty of Christ and Peter, the succession of Peter cannot exist, unless all ecclesiastics are subject to the temporal authorities, especially the Roman pope, to whom it belongs before others to shine forth in the same honor and sovereignty with Peter, namely, that he is subject before all others in such temporal impositions. O a true protector of the Roman Church, dear Eck! With what dread would he persecute me if I had attacked this great heap of evils against the liberties of the Roman Church! Come then, ye princes of the earth, need your right; the Gospel gives you, according to Eck's process, that the popes cannot be Peter's successors if they do not give you interest. So help to increase their majesty and honor by your actions, that is, that they may be more like Christ and Peter than others, and pay more than all others.

But this is how he must be turned around who wants to twist the words of the Holy Spirit to his antics. So you see that Eck has taught and defended all the articles of Wiclef and Hus and all the Bohemians in this way, has nullified the decrees and all the decrees, has condemned the Concilium at Costnitz, the head of all the condemned articles, and by a miraculous turn has come to the point that, since he fights for the church against the Bohemians, he triumphs as a nonsensical man for the Bohemians against the church.

Thirdly, the word Matth.16, 18.: "you are Peter" 2c, because the words of Christ are clear, is not said to everyone, but it is said to the blessed Simon BarJona, who by revelation of the Father had known and confessed Christ, "You are Peter, to you will

I give." I will not allow my corner to interpret this word to anyone other than one who is like Peter, who has Christ's revelation and the Holy Spirit. For these words demand such a successor, and do not concern a successor without the faith of Peter, which must be ordered by other words than these. Therefore, the Donatist and Picardian corner must say again that the evil popes are not popes, or that this text does not concern the evil ones, but only the good ones: but surely no man knows the good ones. Therefore, what Peter said must be understood in the person of the Church.

And here, Eck cannot argue against it, except for some annoying foolishness. For since the supreme authority of the pope is a middle thing, and can be administered by both good and evil; but the text here does not speak of a middle thing, but of something necessary, namely, of faith; furthermore, since the supreme authority is also something temporal and external, but faith is something spiritual and internal: so I think it is clear to everyone how pompous Eck's outrage explains these words about supreme authority. But he himself notices that Chrysostom is opposed to him, and therefore adds that Peter answered instead of the apostles; yet he is called the apostles' mouth and head. This is what I wanted, that Peter is the apostle's mouth and answers instead of the apostles, which Jerome also says in this passage; thus he does not speak in his own person, but in the name of all. Is Eck not great that he cites this for Peter's person against me, of which he himself confesses that it is for me, in that it occurred with Peter in the apostle's person. But Eck, as I said, did not care how well, but how much he would like to say, and it is not uncommon for him to speak for himself and against himself at the same time.

Fifth, he proves from St. Bernard that St. John at the last 21:7 understood the whole world to be subject to Peter who walked on the sea Matth. 14:29.

What do I hear? "The sea means the world,

13862 . v. L. ii. 486-488. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xvm, 1698-1701. 1387

and Peter walks on the sea, so he is prince of the apostles and governor of Christ, yes," so that the consequence of this new art of conclusion sounds even more neat, "Peter walks on the sea, so the successor of Peter is a lord of the world."

First of all, Eck must be instructed from Augustine that a picture (figura) proves nothing: therefore, even if the sea means the world or heaven, the word world must be put explicitly according to the letter and prove in its place that Peter walks on the world, unless perhaps the despiser of language art teachers wants to understand everything under everything according to his liking.

Secondly. Assuming that the sea means so much as the world, look at the magnificent final artist. Peter walks on the world, so he is the chief among the apostles! From this it must follow that the apostles are the sea and the world, because Peter walks on them, that is, he is their superior. This is what Eck wants. But if the apostles are the sea and the world, what 'is Peter? Dear, is the whore's forehead not yet ashamed of his so tasteless madness?

Thirdly. But how if, which is more correct, by world is meant vicious impulses by which we are troubled, as it were a sea? But this world, this sea, every Christian treads under himself, and walks with careful faith over it to Christ, who stands on the shore of glory: so it must follow that every Christian is a pope. And Eck will once again donate and picardise that he is not a pope who does not trample the sea underfoot, that is, who does not control worldly emotions, because otherwise he does not imitate Peter, nor does he follow him.

But if treading the sea is nothing else than ruling over men, without dominion over its lusts, only flaunting with outward glory; what also prevented the emperor from being a temporal successor of Peter, since he also walks on this sea with ruling power? Such is subject to Eck's sacrilege, which seems to be born to corrupt the Scriptures.

Sixth, he proves it with the commanded sheep, Joh. 21, 17. where he says that the

It is according to the ghosts and dreams of Eck, because otherwise one will hardly find the name of the pope in Chrysostom and Gregory. But let us consider the passage properly, because it is the last testimony of Eck, which he corrupts (wanted to say, "brings forward") from the holy scripture.

His inference is this: Christ said to Peter: "Feed my sheep", therefore Peter is chief of the apostles and governor of Christ: for such abbreviated conclusions (ontb^msmatL) resound with Eck more than all right proofs. I have endured the Silvester and the unlearned Silvestrians, but Eck makes them learned people by his quite excellent ignorance. I say accordingly: "To feed sheep" sometimes means as much as to rule, to preside, to reign securely in idleness, and to ask nothing of the sheep: so Eck, the master of the new art of language, takes it. When it is thus stated, there is no one who should not desire to feed all Christ's sheep, as we see in the Roman court, that they should be exercised in this with marvelous arts. Sometimes, however, and much more often, it means to teach the word of God, to pray for the sheep, to set a good example, to give one's life for them, and to sacrifice oneself completely so that the sheep will be well taken care of. In this way, there is no one today who would not want as many as possible to be appointed for the greatest part of such care, even for the whole care, and would like to give up the whole sovereignty in this way. No one disputes about this sovereignty, no one applies for it, which we all gladly grant to everyone, but we find no one who asks anything about our granting. Whoever writes against this sovereignty would probably have peace before the ban and judgment of the murderous Roman flatterers; indeed, we are not capable of so much that they would deign to accept the transfer of this sovereignty over only three souls. Why then do they persecute us? We teach a supreme authority, wish and ask that the Roman pope may feed all the sheep; so far is it from us that we want to deny him the least bit of this authority, that we rather complain only and only,

1388 D. V- a. II, 488 f. 55. L.'s defense against Eck's verdict. W. XVIII, 1701-1703. 1389

that they do not accept it one nail's breadth at will, since it is offered to them. Therefore, Eck again perverts God's words, or if he leaves them completely, he rehashes the heresy of the Donatists, and holds that a pope who does not pastor is not a pope, because these words. of Christ, if they are kept unadulterated, impose an office (truly the very greatest and most dangerous, that of teaching God's word and dying for souls), or help the pope nothing. For Peter was already what he was, namely an apostle and the first when he heard that he was commanded to pasture the office.

Finally Eck adds the conclusion to these words and says: "Thus sings the holy mother, the church: You are the shepherd of the sheep, the apostle prince, to you God has given all the kingdoms of the world." The first part, namely: "You are the shepherd of the sheep", Eck quite persistently respects for nothing, as well as those whom he flatters; for if they held that and respected it, then, as I said, everyone would concede the supremacy over all. But no pope desires either such pasture or dominion, nor that the kingdoms of the world should be thus commanded to him, but all shrink from it. Therefore, as the words of Christ are spiritual, so are those of the Church. All the kingdoms of the world are given to Peter to teach. To whom Peter? Not to one person, but to the person of the church and the apostles, in whose person, as has been said, he heard Matt. 16:19., "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." But Eck thinks that the kingdoms of the world are given to rule, not to serve.

After that he cites the fathers' proverbs 1) (because in this he lets it get very sour).

First of all, he quotes Cyprian "von der Prälaten Einfalt" 2) very wrongly, so that Eck shows more his malice than his ignorance. Cyprian speaks against the heretics, the Novatians, where Eck viciously picks out what seems to serve for him, and the other

  1. Here begins the second part of this section (2nd and 3rd Art.). The first, corresponding part begins from Col. 1375 with: "First".
  2. ve simplioitate praelatorurn; now usually titled De unitute ecdeÄae.

omits. The words of Cyprian are these: Although he gives equal authority to all the apostles after his resurrection, saying John 20:21, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them"; yet, revealing the unity, he ordered by his power the origin of that unity, which begins from one. The other apostles were indisputably what Peter was, of equal fellowship of honor and power; but the beginning nevertheless proceeds from unity, so that One One Church might be displayed. Where is Peter here made chief of the apostles, as the unhappy distortionist prates and forces his words upon us for those of Cyprian? Cyprian evidently teaches equal grace of honor and power; but because unity comes from One, therefore, he says, this equality of power was approached with One Petro, since he said, "Thou art Peter"; so that the unity of the Church might be indicated thereby. I have seen almost no equal and more beautiful interpretation. For it is clear that this is the meaning of the holy martyr, not that Peter is the chief of the apostles in dominion, because he clearly says: "The other apostles were just what Peter was"; but that this power, equal to all, was first given to Peter, so that from the One Peter not Peter's power (as Eck enthuses), but the unity of the Church would be signified. He does not want the origin of the power to come from Peter to the apostles, but as the unity of many comes from One, so the beginning should come from Peter, although everything was given to all in the same way. It is therefore a mere and miserable poem of Eck's, that all the apostles may well have been equal in apostleship, but not in dominion. For then the other apostles would not have been what Peter was, nor would they have had equal honor and authority, as Cyprian says. Or is it not another to rule, and another to be ruled? Is not the honor and power of him that reigneth and him that reigneth unequal? It is also erroneous that the apostleship is something other than rule; for the apostleship is by all means an office of rule. This kind of distinction has come about because honor and office began to be distinguished from

1390 L. v. a. ii. 489-4S1. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xvm, 1703-1706. 1391

to separate one from another, which is juridical, not theological. Otherwise Cyprian would have been a heretic, who made bishops without power from the Roman pope, held church meetings (concilia), and prescribed rules to ordain bishops. All this Eck conceals out of mischievousness, in order to set up his lies against the truth. Accordingly, this is Cyprian's opinion: Beware of heretics who separate the unity of the church, not of the Roman one, but of each one in which they arise: for each one is one, and the whole general one is one. This unity of the general and of each particular, as he says, was shown in Peter's unity, who with his unity was to be, as it were, the origin of each unity and of the whole unity. This he did not order by his power, but (he says) by Christ's power he so ordered it.

But if the inclined reader reads Cyprianus, he will see that Eck is against Cyprianus in everything. So Cyprianus does not speak against the rupturers of supremacy, but of church unity, which can be ruptured or preserved in every church. Or, if Eck understands by unity supremacy, then that blind man Joh. 9. will also be pope, because with his unity he has also presented the unity of the church, and all others, as much as they have been healed individually by Christ.

Secondly, he cites Augustine about John 1): Which church person Peter, the apostle, had on him because of the primacy of his apostleship. Dear, how stupid is Eck! Augustinus speaks (as I have always thought): Peter represented the person of the church, which Eck understands by the supremacy over the church. For who denies that Peter was the first apostle, had the most distinguished position of the apostleship, and was also the prince most distinguished among the apostles? What does this matter? From this it is not proved that he had authority over those of whom Cyprian says that they had the same authority. Was Augustine himself ordained by the Roman bishop?

  1. Eck introduced it incorrectly. The passage is in the writing äs asons cbristiano v. 30. Weim. edition, vol.II, 637.

Augustine must be a heretic if he meant the supreme sovereignty of authority and yet acted in life in such a way as to give only the preference of honor to the Roman pope.

Eck diligently perverts both the Scriptures and the sayings of the fathers; where they attribute to Peter the privilege of honor and order, he immediately does violence to it on the inspiration of his Leviathan, and interprets it from that, and cannot see before his stupid head that the holy fathers never acknowledged such violence.

At the same time, it should be noted that many things are said in praise of St. Peter that are not at all appropriate for any of his successors. Thus, some holy fathers attribute the saying: "You are Peter" 2c and "to you I will give" 2c to Peter, because it was certain that he was holy; therefore, these words can be applied to him, but therefore they do not belong equally to his successors; nor did any of the fathers understand them of his successors, as the latest falsifiers of Scripture do, who draw everything without understanding to the Roman popes, which they can only read of Peter. Thus Peter can be called a rock, as Augustine and Ambrose do once, because in fact what is said of Christ himself can also soon be said of every true and proper member who belongs to him. Thus every Christian is a lamb, righteous, holy, a rock, a foundation 2c, but because these are words of the Spirit, they need not be immediately applied to the successor or the Roman church, because it is not known of Peter's successor whether he is a member of Christ. But this understanding is not the first and main understanding, because everything must be said of Christ first and foremost, but not at all of the others, unless by a godly digression and modest abuse, according to which latter it does not apply in the dispute, nor does it agree with what follows, but is nevertheless understood that way without danger to the faith.

It is therefore a mistake for our flatterers to interpret everything that the saints the Fathers have said about Peter as a saint immediately to Peter's successor. Although, according to the truth of the matter, not only the Roman

1392 v-n. E-493. 55. L.'s defense against Eck's verdict. W. xvm, 1706-1708. 1393

The Roman Pontiff is not Peter's successor, but all the bishops whom he has ordered, and therefore St. Peter's successor is not so much as Peter himself. And it does not follow, if it were also true: Peter has been over the whole world, therefore also the Roman pope is over the whole world. For Peter was not able to leave behind in the Roman church his apostleship, which he had received from Christ, but his bishopric, which he himself had founded; consequently the Roman pope has no more from Peter than any other bishop, whom the same Peter had appointed.

And this can be proved from the fact that Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrose and all the other holy fathers, who elevate St. Peter above all others, give him the prize of honor, but do not grant him authority over all. They themselves have not been subject to the Roman Pontiff in their lives, nor have they ever thought of the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff, which Eck tries to bring out with his shameful flatteries and perversions.

Third, he cites Jerome against the Pelagians: What have Plato and Peter to do with each other? As the former was the prince among the philosophers, so was the latter among the apostles, on whom the church of the Lord is founded as on a solid structure. I answer: The same may be true: but did Plato, the prince of the philosophers, immediately rule over the philosophers by right of authority? No, but by excellence of doctrine and honor. So also Peter as prince not by force, but by honor of the first place. And that he says: the church is built on him' is true in the secondary sense, as I said above, because otherwise Peter himself, in the primary sense, is built as a part of the church on the rock, but not on himself. Jerome has here misapplied the word of the gospel, since he says the opposite in other places, where he explains the gospel in all seriousness.

Fourth, Chrysostom on Matthew 16: What then did Peter, the mouth of all the apostles and the head of the whole community? He gave him a higher mind and made him the shepherd of his future church. And in the following: he has

Christ set over the whole world. If he wants to understand this about the right of authority, it is said without scriptural testimony, because Christ's words do not contain this in themselves, as I have said above; secondly, because Chrysostom himself did not hold it, since Theophilus of Alexandria, but not the Roman bishop, appointed him bishop; thirdly, because, although Peter would be such, the Roman pope would not therefore be exactly the same, partly because the former is an apostle, and the latter a bishop; the latter holy, but the latter perhaps a sinner. Therefore I approve the reasoning of Chrysostom, and so that it does not conflict with the preceding, I allow it to be valid in this way: that Peter was the mouth of the apostles, and therefore did not speak and hear in his person: "To you I will give" 2c Matth. 16, 19. Thus he was set over the whole world according to the honor and in the person of the church, which is the mother of us all.

Fifth, he cites Leo, c. Beatissimus: Peter received the primacy from the Lord. It is true, but that does not make him Peter's successor. I have nothing to do with the decrees, because they treat the word of God very coldly. Beda speaks more for us, since he confesses that Peter acted in the apostle's person; therefore, Eck cunningly put on only his name, fearing that it would harm his opinion. A theologian acts so schemingly! Now he also cites Dionysius c. 3. De divinis Nominibus, as if he spoke of the pope, the governor of Christ, and of Peter, who was set over all churches, since nowhere in Dionysius does anything of this appear. Such Eck's audacity displeases me, which so disdains all people's wit and learning that he hopes he can abuse them altogether as foolish and stupid fools by attracting what is nowhere written and taking everything out of mere courage. If he is only interested in gathering a bunch of names, I would advise him to take a book of martyrs or a calendar of saints, and not to sully the words of the Fathers and the Holy Scriptures with so many lies.

Sixth, Cyprian's post, which he took to Leip-.

1394 D- V. E. II, 493-495. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. XVIII, N08-I7II. 1395

zig has not been able to indicate, and also now does not dare to name rightly, except that he attracts Lib. I. epistolarum. So certainly he has not read the writers himself, but he takes sayings out of what others have collected, which can serve his misconception with some semblance. However, I reply that it is the third letter Lib. I. to Cornelius, of which he dreamt in Leipzig that it should be written, I do not know to whom. After all this (he says), since a false bishop has been set over them by heretics, they dare to sail to the chair of Peter and the main church, from where the priestly unity has come 2c Then Eck concludes: Therefore the Roman pope is higher than all by right of power. For so he always raves, and puts into the writings of the Fathers what he will. Cyprian here asserts the unity of the church against the heretics, not the power of the Roman pope; he calls it a main church, and rightly so! because the first of the apostles, Peter, was there, and from there the priestly unity (he says) came over the other churches. From where? From Peter, of course, according to the above passage of the same Cyprian; not that Peter made all the priests, but because Christ, who gives equal authority to the apostles, starts from the one Peter and wanted to show the unity of the churches through it. So Eck is mistaken who thinks that by this word all priests came from the city of Rome and had to be fetched, because in such a way no apostles would have ordered bishops. And Cyprian himself did not have his priesthood from the city Rome, nor did any bishop in Africa or the Orient. This Eck bravely ignores, and with sophistical defiance only hangs on letters and syllables, that he makes Cyprian a heretic, whose words he twists against the life of Cyprian according to his divine right.

Seventh. Jerome to Evagrius: And it is not to be held that there is another church at Rome, and another in the whole world. Just look at the bold and godless impostor! In the letter, St. Jerome intends to show that all the bishops are equal among themselves, and that

the presbyters as much as the bishops. In short, this letter alone fundamentally destroys Eck's flattering doctrine of the supremacy of the pope according to divine right, so that when I held this letter up to him in Leipzig, he had to invent a distinction between the apostleship and the dominion. For Jerome clearly says there: "One bishop can become higher than another through the power of wealth, but not through the dignity of the priesthood. He says: The bishop of Rome or Eugubium 2c is one as much as the other. Consequently, it is clear that Eck sought nothing more with such deception than to ape the souls of the simple and unlearned, and to pin his ungodly distortions on St. Jerome, since he attracts that which most disputes him. But I also cannot guess what he wants when he says: The church of the city of Rome is no other than the church of the whole world. Jerome's saying is clear: the world is greater than the city, as he says there, so one believes in Rome what one believes in the whole world, because one church, and Rome is not separated from the general church. Eck, however, who follows his conclusion art and carries a disgust before the dusty schools of the language art teachers, wants to bring out this: The Roman Church and the Church of the whole world is one, therefore the pope is governor of Christ and prince of the bishops (for this he wanted to prove). And the consequence is clear, if one may only rave and draw conclusions with sick brain. Or he has wanted to say about this: This is not to be called a church which is not under the Roman church. But this does not say Jerome, but Eck; indeed, Jerome says the opposite. See the letter.

What wonder, then, if the sophists, the cutters of writings of this kind, understand neither their own nor foreign things, since they adapt everything they seize to their dreams and sully it with their antics?

He also refers to Jerome "to Damasus", but only by name, wanting to arouse the simple-minded reader's suspicions about a thing that is not contained in Jerome. For Eck seeks only that, that he, through every possible art-

1396 V- a. II, 4SZ-4S7. 55 L.'s defense against Eck's verdict, W. XVIII, 1711-1713. 1397

The text of the book is not a book, but a book. Jerome says: he speaks with the fisherman's successor, and praises the Roman church that it has never been tainted with heretical error, and that it is built on the rock according to Christ's words. To these quite true words of Jerome, Eck adds the word Only, that one should think that this is only due to the Roman church, since Christ promises Matth. 16, 18. that he will build his whole church (which is not the Roman church alone) on the rock. But what do Eck and Christ have to do with each other?

Eighthly, he cites Ambrose from the decrees, because he does not have time to read him himself (since he says): They do not have Peter's heritage who do not have Peter's faith. Dear! Who has ever denied this? Is then the faith of Peter and Paul and all the apostles different from one another? or has the Roman church a different faith from the whole world? The whole world has the faith of Peter and the Roman church; indeed, Eck would be surprised to learn that the Roman church has my faith. How now? It has the faith of Peter, so Peter is a lord over all, according to the rules of this new concluding artist. But the prophets in the Old Testament also had the faith of Peter, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:3, they ate the same food; therefore they were under the obedience of Peter, or they were heretics, according to our great master Eck.

Now if having the faith of Peter is as much as being under Peter, what kind of faith does Peter himself have? or under which Peter will he himself stand? So, if having the faith of the Roman church is as much as being under the Roman church, under which church is she herself? Is it under itself, because it has its own faith?

I believe, my dear reader, that you have long since grown tired of Eck's insipid foolish antics, which, as you see, Eck could have nullified by the mere art of language, but which he ridicules when it is said that it is more useful to writing than his wretched dazzling work.

He puts it on again, namely in the words: We follow the example of the Roman Church in everything. We also, as much as the

faith. For in other matters Ambrose did not adhere to it, for he did not fast on the Sabbath with the Roman Church, and the same Milanese Church still to this day has a different manner in its customs than the Roman Church. So there is nothing with the smoke of Eck's gossip: We follow the example of the Roman church, therefore the Roman church is above all churches. But it is enough that this is proved to Eck, who is also not worthy to be guided by better reasons, because he wilfully follows error.

Ninth, again Augustine: In the Roman church there has always been the supremacy of the apostolic see. Do I find you there, dear Eck? 1) Augustine says that the Roman church has the supremacy of the apostolic see, as he also says elsewhere, as L. 2. doctr. christ. c. 8, he prefers the apostolic churches to the others. Eck, however, who adds his own, understands the sovereignty of the general church, by the chair he understands the church, by the apostolic one the catholic one, namely by means of the despised language art.

Then he says: He leaves out the decrees. He does well, because they contradict themselves. For those which are patched together by dirty notaries speak for Eck; but those by learned popes, such as Pelagius, Gregory, are for me; as I have shown in my last discussion.

But he also counts the names of the Conciliar, because in them nothing is fixed for his opinion, except in the Costnitz, which he however conceals here, because he knows that it is also doubtful, yes, against him. I have for myself the Nicene and African, yes, the six first and most famous, as will be seen in my Leipzig disputation. 2) Thus, Eck seeks nothing else with the heap of such names than to dupe and ape ignorant and unlearned readers.

  1. In the original: Manku (Ex. 16, 15.)? Heel. For the translation, compare the Tischreden. St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, cap. 3, H15. Accordingly, it could also have been translated: "You are right for me!
  2. The Acts of the Leipzig Disputation were not published until December 1519. Weim. Vol. II, 642.

1398 2- V. s. II, 497-499. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. XVIII, I714-I7I6. 1399

The rest, which belongs to this matter, you will find, my reader, in my last discussion, as I said, and in the disputation at Leipzig.

4th article.

He speaks of the canons: they would have been ordered because of the avarice of the Roman pope and other bishops, because according to divine law no case would be reserved.

Since Eck wants to prove this article to be erroneous, he has patched together much from the decrees. For with Eck, divine law is contained in human decrees, but with us it is found in the holy Scriptures: therefore I pass over everything he prattles on about. I know very well that one should not despise the apostolic commandments and statutes of the superiors. But this is the question: whether according to divine right any case is reserved? Eck will never prove this. For it has been proved above that all bishops are equal by divine right, therefore none can except a case from the other according to divine right, not even the bishop from a village priest (plebano); hence Cyprianus, Inb. I. 6P. 3.He says: "Since we have all decided, and it is also just and right, that each person's case should be heard where the offense was committed, and that each shepherd should be assigned his part of the flock, which each one should govern and lead: Those over whom we are set must by no means roam about and seek to disturb the bishops' firm harmony by their treacherous and deceitful iniquity, but act their cause where they can have both accusers and witnesses of their offense. So far he! There you say that every shepherd has his assigned part of the herd, but now every herd has ten, yes, a hundred shepherds (pastores) or rather pastors (de- pastores). You see that no case is reserved, but that each one should repent in his church. If this is contrary to divine right, Cyprian is a heretic in this doctrine, which the Nicene Concilium also established.

And it is nothing that Eck chatters, through this

Opinion, church discipline would be overturned. For why do Cyprian and the Nicene Concilium not overturn it? Rather, discipline is overturned by the Roman court and the reservation of cases. If this provision of Cyprian and the Nicene Concilium were kept, licentiousness in sinning would not go so unpunished today. The common clergy have no power, the bishops a little more, but the Roman court has all of it. But there no one is kept in discipline, but all sins are sold for money, where the city is only full of indulgences, that is, of the evasion of discipline so full that it cries out to heaven.

But I am surprised that Eck has left out the first part of this article; whether he believes it to be true, I do not know, namely that the canons are ordered out of avarice. For this is what these brothers, the disciples of Eck, have added; for in truth they do not take care of their order, nor of themselves, but of others, so that they may belittle and accuse them. But it has been said that the canons and the reservations of the cases of this day are nothing else than ropes of avarice, not through their fault, but through the fault of the Roman tyrants. For the avarice of the Roman court is the most impudent: if one gives money, then canons and everything are for sale; if not, then it is a reserved case, although one should be ready to fulfill all canons and bear all Christian discipline. These reserved cases, these canons, are the ones that overturn Christian discipline and serve avarice.

After that, the excellent doctor, master of law, theology and dialectics, enumerates the articles that have been condemned at Costnitz, and assures that they are full of error, namely these:

The pope is not an immediate governor of Christ and the apostles.

The Decretal Letters have no divine validity (sunt apocryphas).

It is not necessary for blessedness to believe that the Roman Church is above others.

Peter has not been the head of the holy Catholic Church, nor is he now.

1400 D. V. L. II, 4SS-50I. 55. l.'s defense against Eck's verdict. W. XVIII, 1716-1719. 1401

Without revelation, no one would want to say with reason about himself or another that he is the head of a single holy church, let alone the Roman pope the head of the Roman church.

The obedience of the Church is an obedience according to the invention of the priests of the Church, without a clear testimony of the Holy Scriptures.

They call Eck all full of error, as a master of the Concilium and the Holy Church: since the Concilium has not recognized all of them for error, which I want to prove from the words of the Concilium itself, and have already proven at Leipzig.

At the end he says: "For Peter has been entrusted with the fullness of authority which his successor has; others are called to the fellowship of pastoral care, as the holy and very humble Gregory says. I answer, "So he has his authority by divine right." The conclusion applies according to the testimony of Gregory, whose word with Eck is as much as divine right. But with what clumsy mischievousness does Eck conceal that the same Gregory, with respect to what he says only once here, says the opposite ten times in other places. Is it right for us to believe Eck, who excepts a single doubtful passage, and ten others deny certain passages of the same? But of this in my discussion. But how much better will this single passage, which is said without any particular intention, be explained after ten others, than that we give ear to Eck's dreams? Gregory says in the Epistles: the supreme office was offered to the Roman popes by the Council of Chalcedon, and yet was not accepted by any of them. If this supremacy came from divine right, then both acted ungodly, the former by offering what was not theirs to offer but only to restore, the latter by not accepting it; for divine right must be accepted even if it would bring death, and must not be given up for the sake of any cause. But, as I said, Eck, who has to work in the high schools of light, is more concerned about everything else than about learning the art of speech. Therefore, one must forgive his ignorance that he neither knows what divine right is nor how it must be observed.

5th and 6th articles.

He says that there are no evangelical counsels, but all that is written in the Gospel, he says, are commandments.

He also speaks that God demands the highest perfection from every Christian, and the attitude of the whole Gospel.

The brothers, who had heard from me 1) that this article is not spoken by anyone, have at least invented the first part. But I would have forgiven Eck for having been seduced by a foreign lie, if I had not seen that he showed by his antics how he knew nothing about neither commandments nor councils. Accordingly, I want to make the whole article. Thus it has been said: The evangelical counsels are not above but below the commandments; that is, the counsels are certain ways and more convenient means to fulfill the commandment of God more easily and skillfully. Therefore, when the counsels have been kept, the commandments of God have not yet been fulfilled. For the apostle says in Rom. 7, 25. 18. that he served the law of sin and had sin in his flesh (which is undoubtedly against God's commandment); and yet he lived in the highest echelon of the counsels. So there is no difference between the counsel and the commandment, that the counsel is more than the commandment; for so theologians err and deceive: but that they the counsel are more convenient means to the commandment. For he is more easily chaste who is a widower or a bachelor, and abstains from the female sex, than he who is bound to it, who indulges in lust.

Therefore, Eck, who attracts the apostle who spoke wisdom among the perfect, knows neither what the apostle there understands by wisdom, nor what he understands by perfect. He is just as clever with regard to the state of perfection, and concludes quite ridiculously that all people would have to become monks and single people (virgines) if we were to be urged to the highest perfection.

  1. From these words one has concluded that the Franciscans had oral conversations with Luther. Franciscans had oral conversations with Luther, but such never took place. These words refer to what Luther wrote to the Franciscans in the previous writing ß 6.

1402 L. V. L. II. 501 f. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. XVIII. I7I9-I72I. 1403

If the state of perfection, that is, the word perfection, made monks and virgins perfect. I will therefore ask the corner: to whom is this commandment given: Do not be lusted after? Is it only to virgins that is, single people? or to all people? And if the latter, then all are bound to the highest perfection: for not to covet is the highest chastity, which even the apostle Paul does not say he has, and which even virgins do not have; and yet it is commanded to all in the ten commandments, which are common to all. What does he want to do here? Does he want to abolish marriage, because it cannot exist without lust? But lust is against the commandment of God. Bull theologian! Listen to this: God demands of all that they not covet; widows and virgins come closest to this, but no one achieves this completely. But He forgives all because of the groaning with which they complain that they cannot attain it, saying Rom. 7:24, "Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" Where then art thou, my corner, who hast dared to cry out these articles for sacrilegious and seductive? Do you see that you have not even come so far as to understand a single one of the ten commandments?

7. article.

He also says that the ear confession was not by divine right, but by appointment of Innocent III.

Our excellent Eck calls this an error of the Greeks and Hebrews, and proves it from Augustine, Ambrose, Origen, Peter Alexandrinus. Dear! if a pagan asked for a divine right, and you pointed him to human word, would he consider you a madman or a reasonable man? Eck has been a theologian for so many years, and at once ready to trouble the whole world, and does not even know what divine right is. I am surprised that he has left out Cyprianus, who is the most confessional of all; but perhaps his compiler, 1)

  1. I.e. the one who compiled the sayings from the Fathers for Eck.

The author, who does not care for the art of language, did not understand the Greek word exomoIogesin, for example, that it means as much as confessio in Latin.

I say, therefore, that confession, which is now made secretly in the ear, cannot be proved by any divine right; and it did not happen so at first, but only the public, of which Christ says Matt. 18:15, "If thy brother sin against thee." And Paul 1 Tim. 5, 19., "Against an elder receive no accusation. "2c For in those days offenses were examined by witnesses and accusers, as I have quoted above from Cyprian, until the one convicted confessed it. This confession, I say, is divine right, held by the apostles and their successors, of which the fathers write, which Eck put on, who understands nothing. But I do not condemn the secret confession, except that I deplore that it has been made a torture, that men must confess and make scruples about things in which there is no sin, or only a venial sin.

Now let us see our Scotist, how he proves confession by divine right, John 20:23: "Whom ye remit sins. "2c Then, saith he, Christ hath set the apostles and their successors to be judges in loosing and binding: but now the judge cannot make a judgment, except he have known the matter; which is by confession. Behold! how the dull sophist creeps along.

His fable is this: no sin can be forgiven unless it is made known through confession. But since no man can know all sins, it will happen that he will be bound to an impossible thing. For this is where the torture of consciences came from, that there is no end to the investigations and the application of care in confession; this is where the confessionalia come from, with grandchildren, daughters, kinds, and generations of sins, so that one must also struggle too much with keeping them, since one should only consult conscience in this matter.

Christ did not say: "Whose sins you have

1404 2 V. L. II, 502-501. 55 L.'s defense against Eck's verdict. W. XVIII. 1721-1721. 1405t

not remit them, they are not remitted to them, and to whom you do not retain them, they are not retained." GOD forgives and retains more than the priest can retain or forgive, although what he forgives is truly forgiven. It does not follow: I forgive you all that you have done evil to me; therefore, GOD has forgiven you everything. So it does not follow: the church has forgiven you what you confess, therefore all is forgiven; but it still remains according to that word Ps. 19, 13.: "Who can notice how often he falls short?" and according to Job's saying 9, 28. 1): I shrink from all my works. There is no trade in the church so much in need of improvement as that of confession and penance. For here all laws, profit, violence, tyranny, error, danger and innumerable evils of all souls and of the whole church rage with full impetuosity, but the popes do not ask anything about it, but leave it to the tormentors of souls, the sophists. But this, together with Eck's ignorance, may be postponed to another time.

8th article.

He says: the Canons teach avarice, piety, indulgence.

It is clear that these brothers are lying. For who would be so foolish as to want to say this? if it were not said that the law is the power of sin, and sin is increased by the law. And if the brethren had put the word "teach" in this way for "cause", this would be true, because by the increase of the law sins also become much. Therefore this is the most unfortunate way to govern, to burden the completely free church of Christ with such overflowing laws. For the Roman court has harmed the church of Christ by nothing so much as by the quantity and variety of its laws, which seems to me to be the last and greatest persecution, since in it so many consciences are entangled and irretrievably lost; not to mention the exceedingly shameful profit that is brought about by such laws.

  1. According to the Vulgate.

9th article.

He speaks: man has no free will.

This is what Eck calls the heresy of the Manichaete. But I abhor Eck's envy with all my heart, in whom there is not so much honesty that he envy would let him teach the truth purely and openly, although he knows it; but he seeks to hide it, and delights that others remain in error, so that he may have disciples of both kinds of contradiction. Woe unto thee, thou cursed fame, and let all creatures curse thee!

Know therefore, my reader, and be assured, that Eck does not hold any differently in this matter than I do, except according to mere word and appearance. And that you recognize this, then pay attention. Eck admitted at Leipzig that free will is not capable of anything before grace, but only of sinning. That is why it can do nothing good, but only evil. Where then is his freedom? For every man, at least an unlearned man, when he hears of free will, thinks that he can do as much good as evil, and by no means thinks that he can do only evil. Therefore, he walks along trusting in himself, and misses the fact that he can convert to God by his own efforts.

Eck knows well that this is ungodly, and yet he does not instruct the brothers, but helps ungodly to their error. I therefore say that man has a free will, not that he is still as he was in paradise (Sirach 15:14 speaks of this, which Eck refers to), but because he was free and can become free again through grace; otherwise it is a true servile will. It is therefore called a free will, not only of what it does, but also of what it is obliged to do. Therefore Augustinus Lib 2. contra Julianum calls it a servant will. And Christ (Joh. 8, 34.]: "He that committeth sin is the servant of sin." And again, "A man can take nothing, except it be given him from heaven." Joh. 3, 27. How then a desolate city or a fallen house may have the name and title they had before and will have in the future.

1406 D- v.". ii, 5ot-so6. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xvm, 1721-172." 1407

but still cannot do the same as before, so also free will. But what shall I do with the exceedingly unlearned brothers? Eck may answer. If free will is free, why was it not in the power of Paul, Rom. 7, 15. ff, to do what he wanted? Why did he serve the sin he hated? Behold, the apostle calls himself, in the state of grace, imprisoned in the law of sin, and you give a still sinful man a free will? And again, if the will is free, why do we pray, "Hallowed be thy name; thy will be done"? Is it to make things easier for us, as the Pelagians said? When we pray, it is impossible by our own power why we ask, and consequently not at all in our freedom. In short, Augustine says that one should despise those who oppose the truth out of malice, but one should teach those who do it out of ignorance. Eck knows this well, as I said. When the holy fathers, on the other hand, defend free will, they speak only of its capacity for freedom, namely, that it can be turned to the good by the grace of God, and thus become truly free, for which it was created.

10th article.

[Similarly, he teaches that many canons are contrary to sacred Scripture and misinterpret it.

This article, says Eck, is disrespectful to the popes and erroneous; and by subverting my name, he punishes me for having written such things in the Actis Augustensibus 1) and for having judged there most wrongly. Afterwards, since he wants to refute my story (Acta.) and defend the Canons, he says: St. Cyprianus explained the saying Matth. 16, 18.: "You are Peter" 2c as Pelagius äi8t. 21 Similarly, St. Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Bernard, Beda,

  1. This writing is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 740 ff, under the title: Handlungen des ehrwürdigen Vaters D. Martin Luther 2c zu Augsburg, and Vol. XV, 746 ff: Lutheri hinten angefügt nachdrückliche Beschlußrede 2c The passage to which Luther refers here is especially Col. 747, § 2.

the common gloss, all would have understood Peter under the rock. Enough has already been said about this above, article 2. 3.Enough has been said that most of the holy fathers say that Peter had the person of the church and apostles on himself, and that Peter is misunderstood to be the rock, and that consequently the words of the gospel cannot stand such an interpretation, because it is inconsistent for Peter to be built on himself: therefore, one must primarily follow those fathers who follow the actual main understanding of the gospel, as Augustine, Jerome, Beda, Origen. I have therefore rightly said that Pelagius interprets the Gospel violently, not because he understands Peter to be the rock (petram), as Eck argues here, who cites something that does not belong here at all; but because he does not understand the person of Peter there to be the person of the apostles (for that was the question I had to deal with, not whether Peter was the rock), according to which he has assumed power over the whole church through the rock, which the words of the Gospel do not suffer. Eck should have refuted this, and not extinguished the fire where none burns; only that Eck, as I said, was pleased to talk a lot; but how rightly and skillfully he knew this would not be necessary for stupid readers. For he who seeks only the mob's judgment and fame will easily get it, if he also raves (if he only chats a lot).

And in the same way, as theologically, he also refutes the passage in the Decretal, which has Paul's word Hebr. 7, 12.: "if the priesthood is changed, the law must necessarily also be changed"! He says, I would rather have rejected the gloss than the text (which would be Augustine's and Paul's). The ridiculous head! as if I had rejected the text, if I rejected Pelagius in the previous point, and not rather the abuse of the text and the forced interpretation. For, do I then reject the text in this whole trade, if I challenge Eck's ungodly distortion? It was not my opinion here to reject the text; but this, that the popes applied this text quite maliciously to their priesthood and their laws.

1408 v>"- n. 506-508. 55. L. 's defense against Eck's verdict. W. xvm, 1726-1729. 1409

as anyone who reads it can see. For otherwise no reason can be given why in this passage, which deals with statutes, they have drawn on this passage of Pauli, if they had not done so for their laws, as the gloss says. Eck is a doctor of law, and does not know so much as to discern from the title the ultimate purpose of the law which is placed under that title. Perhaps he is more a doctor of the soup that can be swallowed than of the law that must be understood. 1)

11. article.

One must believe a layman who guides the Scriptures more than the pope or a concilium if they do not guide the Scriptures.

This sentence, says Eck (although Gerson lehr opposes him), is audacious, conducive to heresy, it increases obstinacy, produces separation (singularitas ----- Einzelnsein), disobedience and indignation against the pope and the holy conciliarities, and he brings even more such beautiful Latin ornaments 2) from the art of language (despised by him).

But you, my reader, pay attention to Eck here (that I also mock him in Eck's manner), whether he is not full of the greatest heretical error with his disciples, the brothers monks, from inside and outside, from head to foot. What good do you think he can teach who says that one should not believe the Holy Scriptures? Of which heretic has it ever been heard that he dared to teach that one should not believe the word of God? Thus must fall those who, corrupted by envy against the brother and by mad flattery, seek nothing but the mischief of both the church and the truth for the sake of their accursed honor. What will he do here? The holy scripture is God's word, and if a donkey said that, it should be heard even before all the angels, if they came without the word of God, let alone before the pope and an

  1. Jus means both "soup" and "law". This play on words cannot be reproduced in German. Therefore, Luther also calls the lawyers "soup eaters". Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, Cap. 66, 817.
  2. This refers to the non-Latin expressions used by Eck: xromotivarn, arlAmentativam, Mnsrutivam, and so on.

Concil, if they act without the word of God. O madness! One should not believe God's words, but man's words, teaches Eck, a doctor of sacred theology (that is, of God's word). The same teaches his disciples, this adder snake-breed. Go now, Eck, and teach that hearing the word of God and believing him who guides the Scriptures is as much as promoting heresy, division, disobedience and indignation. Dear, where is here the zeal of the Roman court, where princes, where popes? Can you suffer such atrocious things? I have to suffer so many enemies because I do not respect human opinions; but here an enemy of the Word of God, a denier of the Holy Scripture has honor and prestige.

12th article.

He says that good works are not necessary.

Eck declares this sentence to be heretical and proves it quite well. But does he not betray his envy and malice? since he knows that I do not have this opinion, and yet willingly allows himself to be persuaded of this by the malicious brothers, and thus indicates that he would rather have me be so exceptionally wrong, so that he has something to boast about against me, than that I recognize the truth. How beautiful Eck's modesty would have been if he had resisted such brothers and said: you speak falsely, I have read Luther's writings, he does not have the opinion, but that of Bernhard. So much for Eck.

By the way, I believe that this sentence originated because I have often taught that good works done apart from grace are nothing. Furthermore, according to Paul, I have attributed righteousness to faith alone, without works of the law. Then those brethren who do not understand either what works of the law are, or what good works are, have put good works instead of works of the law, which are not necessary, and are even harmful. For what can they know of the law or of the works of the law, whose order entails not wanting to learn anything, not knowing anything, but only for the sake of a handful of barley and a morsel of bread, to use Ezekiel's words Ezek 13:19, to drive the dreams of their brain into the people.

1410 v. a. ii, 508-510. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xviii, 1729-1731. 1411

So this remains the opinion: The works of every law are not necessary, yes, rather harmful, but all good works 1) are necessary and salutary.

13th article.

He teaches: God has commanded impossible things to man.

There he brings together many passages of Scripture in which it says: Christ's yoke is easy, Matth. 11, 30, his commandments are not heavy, 1 Joh. 5, 3. I will be dead if he does not only put himself in this way, or does not know the least bit about where they are aiming. I said above: Eck be one with me, that free will without grace can do nothing but sin. Dear, what great and poisonous envy is this, that one hides this knowledge of our misery and incapacity from his brothers? If man can do nothing but sin, how can it be otherwise than that the commandments of God are impossible for him? That the cursed hypocrisy and dissimulation of the sophists, who do nothing but say one thing here and another thing there to seduce the souls of the simple, may perish! I say, therefore, that the commandments of God, even the least and easiest, are impossible to man by his own power; but with the grace of God they are quite easy, as the apostle says Phil. 4:13., "I can do all things in him that maketh me mighty"; and elsewhere he says 2 Cor. 3:5., "We are not able to think anything of ourselves but of ourselves." For why else do we pray, "Thy will be done," if they are possible to us? Jerome therefore rightly says: let him be accursed who says that the commandments of God are impossible; but he has not denied that they are impossible for us. Everything is possible for God, but nothing is possible for us. As the 139th Psalm, v. 4, says: "There is no word in my tongue", how much less a work in my hand!

Eck could have given this explanation, but he did not want to, so that he could only give some

  1. I.e.: Works of free love, which does good without constraint, but according to God's word.

with which he would like to accuse and slander me. For he has more desire to arouse enmity against me than to teach the truth to those who are closest to him, and would rather that all men perish in error than that he should not be able to vent his foul tabidum envy.

I pass over the saying Deut. 30, 13: "It is not beyond the sea" 2c, which he interprets so clumsily that it seems that he speaks more in madness than in common sense. But of that in his time.

14th article.

Christ earned nothing for Himself, but only for us.

With this sentence I am still in doubt myself; because everything was Christ's from the first moment of his conception, therefore "merit" must be taken ambiguously here. But I do not know whether I have ever said this. This much I know, that everything Christ did or acquired, he did and acquired for us, to fulfill his Father's will, because he did not seek anything for himself. And if any of my hearers have said it in this sense, they have said it rightly. For I am sure that I have preached in this way. So it is the mind of this: Christ by his earning served not himself but us, as he says Isa. 43, 24. 2): "Thou hast made me to serve in thy sins."

But this sentence annoys the brethren of ignorance, because they use to seduce the people and exhort them to accumulate great merits, especially with the works they teach and choose; thus they cause people to get used to seeking their own from God and to serve God merely for the sake of benefit; since, according to Christ's example, who did everything for our salvation, not for the sake of any profit or benefit that he derived from it, but only for the sake of God's will, we should also not serve God for the sake of any benefit, but should consider not how much we deserve, but how well we do God's will.

  1. According to the Vulgate.

1412 L- V- s- II, 510-512. 55. l.'s defense against Eck's verdict. W. LVIII, 1731-1733. 1413

This sound doctrine is not understood by the nonsensical brothers and false prophets, but they fill the world with errors and hell with damned souls, by teaching people the names and words of merit rather than being mindful of the will of God. I have said that Christ deserves nothing for himself, but they have never understood what deserving is, nor have they been able to understand it. For to deserve is not so much as to do good with the intention of earning (for this is how these deceivers of souls use to ape the people of God), but to obey the divine will in simplicity of heart, without regard to merit or reward, merely out of pure inclination, without seeking a profit, in vain. For love does not seek its own 1 Cor. 13:5; but merits and rewards follow of their own accord, without our asking, on obedience to the divine will.

15th article.

That the Bohemians are better Christians than we are.

Eck calls this sentence a protector of heresy, which is an entry to the holy Costnitz Concilium. The lumpy and hungry theological bungler knows nothing else to brag about than the Costnitz Concilium, of which I have said enough elsewhere that it partly erred, partly did not consider many things heretical or erroneous, which Eck from his own brain, according to sheer willpower, claims to be heretical and erroneous.

Here we must listen to the apostle who says Rom. 14:4, "Who art thou to judge a strange servant? He stands or falls by his Lord."

In the end, he did not express clearly enough the article about the canonization of the saints de canoni- satione sanctorum, so I cannot say anything about it. He only says: it is annoying and detrimental to the power of the pope, which has been handed over to him. I would like to know from which passage of Scripture the pope has received the power to declare the saints blessed and holy? Furthermore, what need is there to place people among the saints? Finally, what is the use of making saints? But since he himself had said this

I will let it go, and only say: I do not particularly like such canonization of the saints, as we have seen many declared saints, who would have made themselves saints best, although I do not condemn them. It canonisire everyone, as much as he wants!

So you have seen, I say, my dear reader, how unreasonably and maliciously Eck and the brothers have sought me out, that, since they cannot slander what is mine, they have laid their fiction on me, so that they might in some way atone for their desire to slander: about this, if the Christian name did not hold me back, I could play along with both of them very whimsically. But so that they do not think me so stupid, as if I could not notice their bad tricks, I will try to present not my but their own poison to them and to reveal their thoughts, so that these so idle blasphemers have something to occupy themselves with. So I will put here the heretical articles and errors in order, which I have collected from their previously mentioned calumnies, and you will see how much more difficult it is to defend one's own than to blame the foreign.

24 heretical articles of Johann Eck and some brothers, from what they claim and what they deny, extracted by Martin Luther.

The first: The Nicene Concilium with the four following is heretical. > > The second: The African Concilium is heretical.

This is proved by Eck's words, because they decided against the Costnitz Concilium that the Roman pope is not the general bishop over all churches, and that the bishops do not have to be confirmed from the city of Rome.

The third: The Oriental Church has been heretical for more than a > thousand years.

This is evident from the fact that she lived according to the conclusions of the Nicene Concilium, contrary to the Costnitz Concilium.

1414 V. Ä. II, 512 f. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. LVIII, I733-I73S. 1415

The fourth: The African churches have been heretical with the martyr > Cyprian.

For they have lived in the very point according to the Nicene Concilium.

The fifth: St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Martin, St. Nicolas are > heretics.

For they were not consecrated by the Roman Pontiff, contrary to the Costnitz Concilium.

The sixth: Gregorius Nazianzenus, Athanasius, Basilius Magnus were > heretics,

because they acted according to the Nicene Concilium, contrary to the Costnitz.

The seventh: The Roman popes to this day are heretics,

because they recognized the decisions of the Nicene Concilium as good, against the Costnitz Concilium.

The eighth: St. Gregorius Magnus has been a heretic with his > predecessors,

because they refused the supremacy (primatum) offered by the Concilium of Chalcedon, and thus set themselves against divine right, in opposition to the Concilium of Costnitz.

The ninth: The whole general church in all the world is heretical, except Eck and the brethren, because it considers the Nicene Concilium equal to the Gospel.

The tenth: Most of the decrees of the popes of Rome are heretical.

For they state that the Nicene Concilium is to be compared to the Gospels, contrary to the Costnitz Concilium.

The eleventh: An evil pope is not a pope.

For the word of Christ Matt. 16:18, "Thou art Peter," does not rhyme with him, because he is not a rock, except when he gives the pe

trus is the same: because according to Eck's words, violence is proven from this saying of the pope. This is an article of the Donatists and Picards.

The twelfth: A pope who does not preach the gospel is not a pope,

because he does not keep the word of Christ Joh. 21,17.: "feed my sheep", by which according to Eck the pope is appointed. Likewise he is not a pope Luc. 22, 32. if he does not strengthen his fallen and frightened brothers, as Eck also teaches.

The thirteenth: A pope who does not love Christ is not a pope, because according to Eck Peter is appointed as pope by the saying Joh. 21, 17.: "feed my sheep", where love is first demanded from Christ.

The fourteenth: The Ten Commandments are given only to those who are > in the state of perfection,

because the commandment: do not be lusted after, is not due to anyone but in the state of perfection, much less other more difficult ones.

The fifteenth: Sins cannot be forgiven unless they are recognized and > confessed.

This is evident from Joh. 20, 23: "to whom you remit sin" 2c, and from the gloss of Eck: but this is erroneous and heretical, because there are also secret sins and those that have been forgotten.

The sixteenth: That free will without grace is free and not servile,

against Paul Rom. 6, 17.: "You have been servants of sin" 2c

The seventeenth: That the Roman pope was a heretic,

because according to Christ's and Peter's example Matth. 17, 24. (to which he is equal), he does not give interest.

The eighteenth: The whole clergy is heretical:

because he does not give interest to the secular princes, which is clear from the foregoing.

1416 D- a. ii. si3 f. 55. L. 's Vertheidigung Wider das Urtheil Eck. W. xvm, 1735-1737. 1417

The nineteenth: The rights of the privileges and liberties of > churches, things and persons are heretical:

because they are against Christ and Peter, who paid the interest, and they are to be equal to them; for from such equality Eck proved the power of the Roman Pontiff.

The twentieth: The kings and princes obeyed the Gospel when they took > higher taxes from the pope and the clergy than from the laity.

This is clear from the foregoing.

The one and twentieth: One must believe not the word of God, but the word of men, because Eck says it is a tinder of heresy to believe a layman who led the Scriptures.

The twenty-second: A Concilium is about the Scriptures and the Word of > God,

because, according to Eck's teaching, they are to be believed more, even without Scripture, than the layman with Scripture.

The twenty-third: The pope is worse than Lucifer and the Antichrist,

because Lucifer and the Antichrist only want to be like God, but Eck ascribes to the pope such sovereignty over God that he accepts him more than the word of God.

The twenty-fourth: The commandments of GOD are possible for man, and > consequently he does not need the grace of GOD, as the Pelagians > teach.

These most harmful and blasphemous errors, Martin Luther assures, are contained in the articles of Eck and the brethren with their explanations, and he promises that he will convict them of them and prove all of this if they do not recant what they have said so badly.

But this, my dear reader, I have gathered together without much care, and would find far more if I wanted to examine their things, as they say, down to the living flesh after Eck's and the brothers' manner, which they have smeared on the paper. But I reserve the right to refute all this in due time, for I have not yet treated Eck as he always treats me. But he will probably tease the sleeping dog and pay for the abuse of my patience one day.

Farewell, dear reader, and pray that my corner may be healed and delivered from the misery of his mad flattery and glory-seeking. Amen.

1418 Br.-W. II, 161. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xvirr, 1737-1739. 1419

56. D. Martin Luther's report to L Franz Günther,

as the Franciscans, through some of their number, had asked him to hold back on the above writing. *)

September 30, 1519.

Newly translated from the Latin.

Luther recommends to him a member of his church that he intercede for him with the magistrate at Jüterbock; at the same time, he sends some copies of the Scriptures against Eck and the brethren there; says that these books went out in print against his assumption and the request of his opponents; also encloses a copy of his explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians.

Martin Luther sends his greetings to M. Franz Günther.

I entrust this man to you, dear Master, to whom you are bound to render loving service even for his sake, because he belongs to the community over which Christ has placed you as a minister of the Word. Take care of him, therefore, as for your member who is commanded to you, and talk, if you can, with your authorities and good men, so that no violence may be done to him, or at least he may get away with a mild punishment (if any offense is at the bottom of it). By the way, you can go to a more distant

Answer have time and opportunity if you come and take care of the matter.

(2) I am sending you copies of my book against Eck and the brethren among you; and although their deputies were with me asking that I suppress this writing, and I also consented to their request and wrote to Lotther about it, yet I do not know by what chance what they asked did not happen. I also send a copy of my interpretation of the epistle to the Galatians. Farewell and pray for me. On the day of St. Jerome Sept. 30. Anno 1519. Brother Martin Luther.

**The Barefoot at Weimar wrote to Saxon Elector against Luther. )

August 15, 1521.

After Spalatin's German translation.

The Germanized writing to my most gracious lord, the Elector of Saxony 2c, of the clog barfoots from their chapter at Weimar, in Doctor Martin Luther's things 1521. †).

To the sweet JEsus, the highly praised virgin's son, who drives out all heresy, our eternal Savior, in pure love of Christian truth. Most Serene, Most Gracious Prince, Most Gracious Lord. Your most noble graces, most generous eyes

about your commanded subjects may not be hidden what great peril of immortal souls, or what great schismata, sedition, and disunion may arise in the Church of God, also what great error and heresy kind and nature may be in the Church of God.

*) This letter is found in Latin in Aurifaber, Vol. I, toi. 208 d; in Löscher, Ref.-Äcta, vol. Ill, p. 982; in DeWette, vol. I, p. 338; Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. II, p. 161; Kindsvater, NoräNusa lUustris, 1715, p. 87 (after Aurifaber). We have translated according to De Wette.

**This letter is printed in Latin from the very damaged original, which was found among Spalatin's eoUeetuneis, with gaps in the 2nd part of Cyprian's "nützliche Urkunden zur Reformationsgeschichte", p. 234; with completion of the gaps in Kapp's "Nachlese nützlicher Reformationurkunden", vol. II, p. 471. German in Cyprian's collection just mentioned, part I., p. 361. p. 367 according to Spalatin's translation. This is reproduced here.

†) This superscription is written on the letter by Spalatin's own hand.

1420 Cyprian 1, 368-371. 57, Der Barfüßer Schrift an Chursachsen. W. XVIII, 1739-1741. 1421

The poisoned teachings of Luther, as well as his pernicious and poisonous books, have stirred up evil in the Christian people of God, and would like to stir them up further, if they are not controlled by salutary medicine, also with the help, counsel and favor of Your Most Serene Grace, with the preservation of the holy Christian faith and the eradication of the poisonous errors, the deceitful teachings, and the Lutheran wickedness.

Therefore we are forced with pain and full sadness by mandate, also papal brevia, in our Chapter General, recently held at Carpi on the feast of the Holy Pentecost of this year, legitimately requested to insinuate, proclaim and indicate to Your Most Serene Grace that which has been delivered to us.

  1. For we have received a command from the pope, our lord, Leo, that we should meet his holiness' desire for the repugnants and enemies of the Christian church, and those who pervert and counterfeit the Christian faith, manfully 1) and the rotten Lutheran doctrine, which has arisen in our day by procuring the enemy of human blessedness, We must be diligent to counteract salvation, to fight with spiritual weapons, namely with the sword of the divine word, and to arm ourselves with the bullet of the holy Scriptures, so that we, as the fearless and bold warriors and knights of Christ, armed with heavenly grace, may resist and counteract the pestilential teacher and his poisoned disciples.

4 Because we know and hope that Your Most Serene Grace will not be so diligent as to increase the glory and service of the glorious God, to maintain the holiness of life, the integrity of the clergy, and the unity of the holy Christian Church among all people.

  1. also because we, as true sons and children of obedience, would gladly execute and carry out such mandate and command in a fair and proper manner, and yet do not trust in our own ability, but hope in the Lord for Your Most Serene Grace's faithful and constant assistance,
  2. so that the poison poured out in the hearts of the believers in Christ does not continue to weave, so that the son of the crooked serpent does not continue to poison the children of the holy Christian church with his pestilential teachings and does not continue to shoot them with his poisoned arrows.
  1. Walch: orally; in Cyprian: menndlich.
  1. Accordingly, Your Serene Grace and Goodness of God requires a part of the care, and on whose shoulders the care of the commanded shepherding, and the salvation of the community, regiment and common benefit on earth is miraculously controlled, we ask with the greatest diligence that Your Serene Grace, as a praiseworthy pastor or shepherd of your commanded shepherdry, will guard against the ferocious bites of the cruel wolf, through the manifold grace with all his ability and diligent care.
  2. also indicate to us by your letter what assistance you are willing to give us in the dangers that have arisen, or what help and support you are willing to give us to increase the honor of the divine name.

(9) That the way may be opened for us to strive, stand and fight against such errors, which grow and increase from day to day (which we herewith painfully report), the more surely, and we may be given the power to strive, stand and fight against them the more comfortably.

(10) In all of which we ask with all our might most humbly and devoutly for God's sake, in the Lord Christ, Your Most Serene Grace will graciously hear us and write to us again.

We also wish that the highest, kindest and great God help Your Most Serene Grace and keep it in a happy, healthy and blessed regime.

12 Given in our convent at Weimar, in the time of our chapter, on the day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary August 15. In the year of the completed beatitude one thousand five hundred and in the one and twentieth.

Brother Andreas Grone, Minister, the Diffinitores or Deciders, and > whole assembly of the Chapter at Weimar.

Inscription. 2)

To the Most Serene and Highborn 3) Prince and Lord, Friederich, Duke of Saxony, Archmarshall and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, our most gracious Lord.

  1. The following is not found in Cyprian; we have taken it from the old edition of Walch.
  2. altiZsnito, a nice sample of monk Latin.

1422 Cyprian 1.371 f. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. XVIII, 1741 f. 1749. 1423

*58 The Elector of Saxony's answer to the Franciscans in Weimar. )

1521.

Newly translated from the Latin.

May God grant that our Lord Jesus Christ enlighten us with His Spirit in such a way that we have desired nothing more than that the peace and tranquility of the Church and the glory of the Gospel be best served. By the grace of God, we have eagerly sought that our churches may lack nothing that serves the glory of Christ. Far be it from us that we should or would favor factions or divisions. For this reason, since you are looking to us by letter for help against Luther, we want to constantly do what seems to be for the benefit and peace of the church; whoever disturbs it through imprudent zeal, let him, as from Christ, so also from us, since we are concerned,

The more we are careful, the more we have to restrain your zeal, since we have been given the power to build up the Christian people. In our time, the cause of Christianity seems to be in a kind of ferment (in motu quodam); we must be all the more careful to restrain your zeal, since we have been given the power to edify, not to destroy, and we must be careful that the cause of Christianity is not presumptuously brought to ruin by factions or disunity, lest the spirit be dampened somewhere. As we do not want to have anything to do with any kind of partisanship, so we will, as much as we are able, help with advice and assistance the efforts of all those who protect the gospel of Christ in a godly way.

**59 The monks of the Barefoot Monastery in Weimar prove, against M. Wolfgang Stein, that the Sacrament is a sacrifice. )

Before 11 December 1522. †)

  1. Our poor humble prayer and whole fortune E. F. G. with high diligence always ready beforehand. Gracious Prince and Lord! After a discord has arisen between E. F. G. Preacher and us poor brethren, in that the Magister punishes and condemns as an un-
  2. The prince to whom this letter is addressed is Duke Johann of Saxony, whose court preacher was Wolfgang Stein at Weimar. The sermon, which Luther commemorates in the last paragraph of the next writing, "von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei" (Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 374 ff.), was written at his request and dedicated to him.

Christian error, that we believe, hold and preach that the holy sacrament of the Corpus Christi of our Lord Jesus Christ is a sacrifice of the Christian church; we have verbally denounced both parties before E. F. G. Scripture, on both parts each to protect his sentence; but not brought to an end. By grace, the F. F. G. has given us leave to continue to present our scripture and argument in writings, because the time does not want to suffer, so that the truth may appear all the more clearly before the F. F. G. and we both parties may be brought to agreement and to one sense of the truth by the wisdom and means of the F. F. G.

*This answer of the Elector was drafted by Melanchthon. Cyprian printed it from his own handwritten concept in his "Useful Documents on the History of the Reformation", Part I, p. 371 f.. Our translation is based on this.

**) This writing is found in Cyprian's "Useful Documents on the History of the Reformation," Theil II, p. 240.

M. Wolfgang Stein will have sent this writing of the Barefoot monks to > Luther, and the latter in the next letter, as is clear to the eyes, > refers to everything that is asserted by the monks here. Therefore, > this writing of the Minorites of the time "ah the earlier.

1424 Cyprian II, 240 ff. 59. of the Barfüßermönche zu Weimar Beweisung. W. XVIII, 1750-1732. 1425

(2) In the first place, we show that we are obliged to hear the holy Christian church, otherwise we would not be considered as believers in Christ, since the Lord says, Matt. 28. And since the usage of Christianity and the Scriptures of the holy fathers and bishops, who have been in the Christian church for a long time, indicate and teach the same thing that we hold about the above-mentioned sacrament, namely, that it is a sacrifice, we have never found that any saint has written or preached against it. Thus the above-mentioned commandment of Christ Matthew on the 28th urges and compels us to hear the church and to hold with it that the sacrament is a sacrifice: but if the magister can clearly prove without doubt that anything has been written in the holy Scriptures of the Bibles or of a Christian doctor, or that anything has been taught or preached in past times by the Christian church, that the sacrament is not a sacrifice, we might want to believe it. But since he has not yet done so, and, we believe, cannot do so, he distorts his statement with his own reason, and condemns himself, so that he means to condemn others who do not agree with him; which we thus prove.

The strongest protection and greatest power of his sentence lies in the fact that he says that it is condemnable to add to or add to God's word, and has proven it, as he lets himself think, with the saying, written in Proverbs 30: "All the speech of God is a fiery shield to all who hope in him; you shall not add to his words, lest you be punished and found lying. And has led to this the saying Deut. 4, where Moses thus speaks: "You shall not add to the word that I speak to you; neither shall you take from it."

These are words of God and of Scripture, on this foundation of Scripture he builds such an argument or proof of his sentence or conclusion. God forbids to add anything to the divine word. Now Matth. 26, Marc. 14, Luc. 22, 1 Cor. 11, in which passages the appointment and giving of this sacrament is described, it is not said that it is given for a sacrifice; therefore whoever says that it is given by Christ for a sacrifice, adds something to the words of the Lord, which the Lord has not spoken, and thus does something against the commandment of God, who bequeaths to add something to the word of God, and that is a damnable thing. It follows that it is a damnable thing to say that this sacrament or the mass is a sacrifice.

  1. to answer and move this argument, we want to indicate first that the

Magister here condemns himself, it is fact that he wants to say that all additions to the word of God are forbidden without distinction and that any addition is condemnable.

  1. secondly, we want to indicate that it is impossible for the church to add anything condemnable to God's word against the will of God.
  1. Thirdly, we want to prove that the master adds something condemnable to the word of God (as we think) against the will of God.

The first we prove: the Concionator wants to conclude in the fetching 1) and teach from the words of God that it is damnable to say that this sacrament is a sacrifice; for why he thinks that it is nowhere found in Scripture that it is a sacrifice, therefore he may say that it is nothing else but a damnable addition. Now we ask him where he has read in the holy Scriptures that this sacrament is not a sacrifice? If he finds this nowhere written, then according to his statement it is a damned addition to the word of God.

(9) Here we see how dangerous it is to hear and interpret the Scriptures badly without distinction. If it is not true that any addition that rightly declares God's word, or serves and is useful to accomplish God's word, is condemnable. But the addition that is contrary to God's will and cannot stand with the truth of Scripture is condemnable.

(10) The other thing we prove is this: the church of Christ is built on the rock, and the gates of hell are not able to prevail against it. Matth. 16. She is the body of Christ, and without doubt has only the Spirit of Christ. 1 Cor. 11. and to the Ephesians Cap. 4. it is the house of God, where God dwells, and the pillar and fortress of truth, 1 Tim. 3.; from this it appears clear that it is not possible for it to condemn anything contrary to God's will, to add to God's word, which would not stand with the truth of holy Scripture.

  1. From this it follows that it is not contrary to God's will, nor condemnable against God's word, to set, ordain, or command the things that serve, or are necessary, or help to keep God's commandment, to preserve and make unity, peace, and love among Christian people, to keep Christians in true faith, to avoid sin and heresy, to keep the speech of Christ, to contemplate and remember the bitter suffering of Christ, for which reason also the Lord has given us the worthy Sacrament of His holy body, and to keep it in the faith.
  1. To close in the fetch is undoubtedly to make a conclusion from the silence (of the writing).

1426 Cyprian ii, 24" ss. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xvin, 1732-1735. 1427

The Lord gave us his body and his holy blood in the sacrament of bread and wine for a sacrifice, as the priest to whom God spoke through the prophet in the Psalm: You are the eternal priest, after the order of Melchizedech, which Melchizedech, as it is written Gen. 24, was a priest of the most high God, and offered bread and wine, for a figure and meaning, that the true priest Christ in his church would give priest and sacrifice, sacerdos et hostia, his body and blood for a sacrifice in the holy and reverend sacrament, bread and wine, for a memorial of the sacrifice of our redemption and to obtain thereby daily (therefore it may be called juge sacrificium, that is, the continual sacrifice) grace and blessedness. If now the Lord Concionator does not want to accept this understanding of the figure, tell him why the Lord Christ is called an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedech. Let him indicate by which sacrifice the sacrifice may be more properly understood, since the Lord speaks of it through the prophet Malachi, Cap. 1.My name is great among the nations, and in every place a pure sacrifice is offered to my name"; for from the sacrifice offered in all the churches of Christendom over the whole world in this sacrament, we have to say that it is not against God, nor against God's word, that this sacrament is a sacrifice, but is according to the word of God and according to God's will.

  1. Since this sacrament is given to us as a memorial of the bitter suffering and death and blood of Jesus Christ, shed for us, it is not against God, nor against the word of God, ordained in the Christian Church, to awaken this memorial in the hearts of the faithful at Holy Mass, to celebrate Mass with such vestments and regalia, signs and crosses, and through such ministers, who with priestly crowns of consecration 2c would indicate and incite to this contemplation: And that for the worthiness of this Sacrament it is ordained that the ministers should be pure and chaste, is not against God, nor against the Scriptures, but according to the Scriptures and God, and therefore without sin such ordinations of the holy Church may not be disdained. Which true son of the Mother of the Faithful, that is, of the Holy Church, has ever said that such ordinances are of the devil and damnable?

(13) But the commandments and laws that are against God and the Scriptures are such as are against God and against justice, as one with injustice and with unrighteousness harms another, seeks his honor, exaltation, power, wealth, and oppresses others with violence and with injustice, deceitfully harms another, and gives commandments and laws to another, which he did not want to be imposed upon himself. Such laws are not laws of the church of Christ and the kind mother of the faithful, but of ruthless tyrants. Thus we provide that it is indicated here that it is impossible for the church to add anything condemnable to God's word, against God's will and against His word.

(14) The third thing that concerns us is how the Concionator, the Magister, adds something condemnable to God's word, against God and His holy word, and thereby concerns us that his conclusions and sentences, as that this sacrament and the mass is held condemnable for a sacrifice, are nowhere found in Scripture (as we consider) and therefore is only an addition to the word of God, which addition has never been made by the Church of Christ, nor by any saint. But that this addition is contrary to God's will, concerns us from the fact that it is seen to be contrary to the will of Christ, who wants all Christians to obey the church, Matth. 18.Who wants us to have constant remembrance of His sacrifice for us on the Cross, for which reason He also gave us this Sacrament, for which reason the Holy Church also ordained many things at Mass, and this Sacrament to do the will of Christ in remembrance of Him, and is to be feared, as the mass would cease, and the constant sacrifice of the church would be taken away, that the remembrance of Christ's suffering and death for us would almost come out of the hearts of Christian men, contrary to the will of Christ, who says: This you shall do in my memory.

(15) But that this sentence of the Lord Concionatoris, the Magister, is contrary to Scripture, concerns us in that the Scripture of Christ, the eternal priest according to the order of Melchizedech, and the words of God indicated by the prophet Malachi before it, according to the right understanding of the same sayings, also stated above, may not exist in truth, as concerns us, it would be factual that this sentence of the Magister would be true, and therefore concerns us that it is a damning addition against God and His words.

(16) Most Serene Prince, Most Gracious Lord, we command ourselves with this writing of ours to E. F. G., so that E. F. G. and everyone who has an unwavering Christian heart, may he-

1428 Cyprian II, 240 ff. 59. of the Barfüßermönche zu Weimar Beweisung. W. XVIII, I7SSf. 1742 f. 1429

know from the two parties' protective and counter-script which of us is closest to Christian truth, to which knowledge we humbly submit, desiring to remain in the Christian truth of faith and doctrine in the true church that Christ built, the 2c, as indicated above.

  1. into which church God has placed the holy apostles, prophets, evangelists, doctores and pastores, that is the bishops, 1 Cor. 12. and Eph. 4. and has commanded by Paul, the holy twelve messenger, the praeppsitis of the church, that is to be obedient and submissive to the bishops and prelates, ad Hebraeos 13. which bishops the Holy Spirit has placed to govern the church of God, Apost. 20. by heart of which church no one likes ...; one body of Christ and one Spirit. Eph. 4. which church has been from the time of Christ and is now and will remain in this world until the end of the world, because it was built on the foundation of the Holy Spirit.

the rock of Christ, and the gates of hell are not able against them.

(18) Which church hath always kept and taught the right true faith, the right true doctrine of salvation, and hath never reprobated, being the house of God, the pillar and stronghold of the truth, 1 Tim. 3, and therefore hath without doubt the right understanding of the holy scriptures. And therefore we desire to remain united in this church and in its faith, in its doctrine, and in its understanding of the Holy Scriptures, as St. Paul exhorts us, 1 Cor. 1: Obsecro vos ste.

(19) That we may obtain all these things through Christ, the true light, we pray with the prophet in the psalm: Linitts Uuesm tu am ete. "Let out, O Almighty God, Your light and Your truth; they have led me, and brought me into Your holy mountain, and into Your tabernacles: I will enter Your altar to God, who rejoices in my youth" 2c.

60. D. Martin Luther's letter to M. Wolfgang Stein,

Saxon court preacher,

in which he responds to the silliness of the Minorites that they put forward in the previous writing. *)

**December 11, 1522. )

Newly translated from the Latin.

  1. grace and peace. In all my life I have never seen anything more foolish or foolish than the silliness of which only the Minorites are capable minoritioissimss, so that you have no need of help to refute them; however, so that I do not leave you without all answer, I will lose words and time.
  1. Your first article, namely, that one may not add anything to the word of God, therefore the mass is not to be called a sacrifice, because in the word of God there is nothing about it, they counter with three, which, however, only come down to the one: The Church has this opinion, therefore in this one must be in agreement with the

Church hold. But let us go through the pieces according to the order.

3 First of all, if they say that you have added something to the word of God by saying that the mass is not a sacrifice because it is not called a sacrifice in sacred Scripture, the silly people do not see that they want to prove a negative proposition, since lawyers also say in secular matters: the negative proposition is not proved. It is therefore sufficient for a Christian to refute any error if he can say: there is nothing about it in Scripture. But he who has an affirmative proposition is also obliged to prove it; he who asserts something must prove it.

*This letter of Luther is first found in Aurifaber's collection of letters, vol. II, 95, and printed from it by De Wette, vol. II, p. 258. Our translation is made according to De Wette.

**The day of Nicolai, December 6, fell on a Saturday in 1522. Therefore seria quinta p. Hwolui is December II. De Wette, II, 258, erroneously has December 12. Seidemann in the register of the sixth volume, p. 622, has already corrected this error.

1430 De W. ii.ng f. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. xviii, 1743-1746. 1431

or it is overcome by the simple denial to the contrary. But now you deny, and they affirm, that the mass is a sacrifice, therefore not you, but they must prove their opinion from the Scriptures. Otherwise, if this were not held, consider what abominable things would come out; for example, Jeroboam could have said to the holy prophets, who told him not to do his calf service: You cannot prove to me that there is nothing in the Scriptures about these calves, therefore they are not to be rejected. In the same way, Ahab, Ahaz, and all the others could have spoken, since nothing of what they did was written in the Scriptures, and yet they were condemned solely because nothing of it was in the Scriptures. Thus these foolish brethren boast that it is not written, that the mass is not a sacrifice, although this their own confession disgraces and convicts them, because they assert something that is neither affirmatively nor negatively found in Scripture, and thus in truth they add something to the words of God. But he who denies something, adds nothing; but only draws on the Scripture that denies it. By this alone the denying proposition is amply proved, because the Scripture denies it, saying, "Thou shalt add nothing to it." Likewise, if the negative sentence were to be proved in Jeremiah, Cap. 7, 31, when the Lord said through him, "I have never commanded it, I have never thought it, or taken it into consideration"; where he alone condemned it by denying it, saying, "One has added something that he did not command;" the Jews could have said: But you do not prove that it is not commanded, because nothing is written about our actions, therefore they are not to be condemned, since God condemns the ungodly precisely because nothing can be proved about their actions. And so you can convict these fools with their own words that they are to be condemned because their doctrine is neither negative nor affirmative in the Bible. If there is neither no nor yes, then there is nothing, so there is nothing to be held. Because they now confess the no,

they should prove the yes, if they want to have something there. So about this foolishness of theirs, according to Jerome about Matth. 23, 35, it could be said: "This has no scriptural statement for itself, therefore it is just as easily rejected as accepted", because that should already be enough that it has no scriptural statement against itself, so it must be asserted. I ask you, what then cannot be asserted, if it is enough to say only this in articles of faith. There is not one contrary example given in Scripture in particular, since the Lord wants everything to be confirmed to us by his certain word, but nothing without his word. In worldly things this way may well be chastened, but not in regard to articles of faith. Thus we endure the power and authority of our emperor and princes and lords, and do well by them, although the Scripture says nothing about him and us. It is not so with the articles of faith, in which one must prove the affirmative opinion, so that one deviates neither to the right nor to the left; in short, all brothers fathers? would have taught in vain in such a way, if they had not wanted everything to be proved from Scripture. As Augustine wrote to Jerome Epist. 8: "Only to the books that are called canonical do I attach this honor, that I firmly believe that no author of them has erred. But the other writers, no matter how excellent they may be in doctrine and holiness, I do not read in such a way that I believe it to be the truth because they have held so, but rather when they have been able to convince me by Scripture or probable reasons of reason.

4 Of course, the Minorites might say: For this reason you must believe, because they do not prove it to you by Scripture or reason; it is enough that they have nothing for it and nothing against it. What do you think Augustine would answer then? In short, corner them with this: a negative proposition is not proved, but an affirmative one must be proved; and demand Scripture from them, which they have not yet produced, or condemn them, as you began when you said: it is not necessary to assert anything 2c

  1. as for the other point, that you can

1432 De W. II, 2S0-2S2. 60 Luther's letter to Wolfg. Stein. W. XVIII, 1748-1749. 1433

But whether this is the church, which they call bishops and fathers, you must deny and demand proof. The church alone is the one that has and teaches God's word and does nothing about it, John 10: "My sheep hear my voice, but they do not hear a stranger, but turn away from him." This church alone must be heard, 1 Cor. 14: "When a revelation is made to one who sits there. "2c But those who adduce the Minorites have either been godless, as they still are; or if they attract the saints, they must first prove that the saints have not erred in the point, since they have otherwise erred many times. In short, according to the above-mentioned saying of Augustine: "No one must be heard to prove his proposition from the canonical books, no matter how holy and learned he may be. As Paul also says 1 Cor. 3, 21., "Let no man boast." For if that were enough, that their church has hitherto had this opinion and taught in this way, then one may well fornicate, rob and steal and practice all ungodliness, because the greatest part of this church of theirs has been ungodly and has always practiced the most shameful sins. Therefore, without God's word there is no church, nor is the church believed.

The third thing is that they say that you are adding to the word of God, because you claim that their church is not the church. Of course, this is foolish, and the people themselves do not have to know what they are saying. It does not mean to add something if one does not accept a certain doctrine of a church; rather, it means to detract from it. Therefore, as long as they do not prove that their church is the church and that the word of their church is the word of God, they do not make a difference: they do not assert the affirmative proposition, and your 1) negative one remains.

(7) But that they say that the mass is a sacrifice offered in remembrance of Christ, and that if the masses ceased, the remembrance of his passion would also cease, and the like: we well know that the mass is a remembrance of the

  1. Instead of sua, it would be better to read tua. Cf. below 89.

It is only a sacrifice that is received by men through the word of the Gospel. But what does this serve to prove that the mass is a sacrifice? Rather, they have eradicated the memory of Christ's suffering by making the mass a sacrifice and concealing the gospel.

But that they triumph over the passage Ps 110: "You are a priest forever", and Gen 14: "He was a priest of God, the Most High, and brought forth bread and wine", and in Malachi, Cap 1: "In all places a pure sacrifice shall be offered", as if the mass were implied by it, is a conceit of the exceedingly ass-like Minorites. First, in the Epistle to the Eberians, the passage from the Psalm and the first book of Moses is sufficiently explained. What the sacrifice of our Melchizedek had been, has its proper seat in the whole epistle. Furthermore, the blurred way of speaking proves nothing if he had also sacrificed bread and wine. But there is not even a figurative way of speaking; but it is said in the Hebrew: protulit panem et vinum, that is: he offered bread and wine to feed Abraham and his servants who had come back from the battle; but nothing is mentioned there about the sacrifice, not even with a syllable.

The pure sacrifice in Malachi is the sacrifice of our body, which is mentioned in Romans 12, 1 Peter 2, and the sacrifice of praise, Psalm 50, Ebr. 13, and elsewhere. They themselves cannot prove that Malachi speaks of the sacrifice, as little as Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, but they dream and interpret the Scriptures according to their own inventions. Therefore, just as you cite the scriptural passages Rom. 12, 1 Pet. 2 for your sacrifice, you must insist that they also present a clear proof of their sacrifice. But they will not be able to do so; therefore your negative opinion will stand and their affirmative opinion will fall over. See, I would not have had to write this for your sake, since you could have said all this yourself. Well now, bring it into the form of a disputation and oppose these church thieves and nonsensical people.

1434 De W. II, 262. X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites. W. LVIII, 1749.17S6. 1435

This week I will finish the translation of the books of Moses; however, to please you and the prince, I will finish the Sermon 1). Recommend me to the through-

  1. This refers to the sermon (Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 374 ff.) "on the power of the sword", which Luther also mentions in his letter to Spalatin. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, annex no. 96.

lukewarm princes and pray for me. Philip sends you his greetings, wondering at the wonderfully ridiculous cowl-bearers with the proof of their negating sentence. Farewell. At Wittenberg 1522 on Thursday after Nicolai Dec. 11 in haste.

Your Martin Luther.

XI. Luther's dispute with Ambrosius Catharinus.

On the question: whether the Pope is really the Antichrist.

61 Mart. Luther's Answer to the Book of the Excellent Magister noster M. Ambrosius Catharinus,

Defender of the exceedingly biting Silvester Prierias,

with the interpretation of the face, Daniel 8th, about the Antichrist. *)

April 1521.

Translated from the Latin by Paul Speratus. 1524.

Paul Speratus to the reader.

Just as the Scriptures everywhere portray Christ to us, whom we should hold on to and rely on, so they also everywhere portray the Antichrist, whom we should beware of and avoid.

Also, just as we may not know white and black from each other in the bright day, indeed, one without the other: so, to us Christ and the Antichrist alone the bright light of Scripture, yes,

*) This writing first appeared in Wittenberg on April 1, 1521 under the title: Vä librum eximii magistri nostri Magistri Vmdrosil Outlmrim äekensoris Lilvestri krioratis aoorrimi resxonsio Älartim I-utdori. lVittomdorMo Nens" ^prili. Oum exposita visiono vaniolis VIII ve Vntiekristo. Then once again in the month of July. The German translation of Paul Speratus appeared in Wittenberg in 1524 under the title: Offenbarung. des Endchrists aus dem Propheten Daniel Wider Catharinum Martinus Luther, and again under the title: Der Garaus von dem Endchrist, seinem Reich und Regiment, aus dem Propheten Daniel wider Catharinum Martinus Luther. Wittenberg. Without year. In the collective Latin editions in the Wittenberg, Dom. II, col. 141; in the Jena, Dom. II, col. 370; German in the Wittenberg (1554), vol. VII, 194; in the Altenburg, vol. I, p. 653; in the Leipzig, vol. VII, p. 498. We have compared the Latin of the Erlanger, oxx. vur. arZ., vol. V, 289 and the German of the Wittenberg edition.

**Paul Speratus - the author (1523) of the song that soon resounded throughout Germany: Es ist das Heil uns kommen her - (born Dec. 13, 1484, died Sept. 17, 1554). 1554), from the noble Swabian family of the von Spreiten, taught and preached the gospel with great frankness in St. Stephen's Church in Vienna, then in Ofen and in Moravia, after many persecutions (e.g., he was "hardly imprisoned" in Olmütz for twelve weeks). Cf. Wittb. Vol. 7, 391), he came to Wittenberg in 1523 to Luther, who recommended him to Duke Albrecht of Prussia; in 1524 he became his court preacher and in 1525 bishop at Liebmühl in the Pomesan district. Cf. Guericke, Kirchengesch., Vol. Ill, 243. - This writing of Luther, which Speratus translated in 1524, is, as Mathesius reports, written at the Wartburg. Cf. Mathesius, Luthers Leben, St. Louis Edition, p. 47. - Speratus' letter is not in the Erlangen edition,

1436 L. V. L. V, 289 f. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1756-1759. 1437

also does not indicate one without the other. Without the Scriptures, however, one does not know what Christ or Antichrist is. We must recognize Christ and the one who sent him, so that we may be saved through him. The antichrist must also be recognized in Christ through contradiction, so that the knowledge of Christ will not be distorted again to condemnation. For he does not leave his way; everything that Christ can always say, put, comfort, warn, teach and do, he wants to have according to his name of contradiction. And because he so exceedingly conceals and secretly does all his things, so that even from the outside it has a fine, praiseworthy, honest and almost good reputation, one must all the more diligently watch out for this rogue, wisely spy out all his ways and actions. Otherwise, no matter how clever and wise he may be, if he does not learn to recognize his treachery, he may and will throw him over the rope, yes, damnably deceive him, so that before he realizes it, he is up to his neck and ears in the abyss of hell.

But if you are inexperienced and untrained in the Scriptures, come here and read this book, and you will find

you will find and learn what is the right wolfish way of the son of perdition.

But to whom do we want to give or ascribe this interpretation of mine? Precisely to the most holy chair, on which the end-Christ sits. Not that he will thereby recognize himself and improve himself, for he is and shall remain who he is; but first of all, that he may be enraged by it and only then begin to rage and rage against Christ in his members, so that he may help God's wrath to come upon him and then (which all creatures long for) be the sooner overthrown from his hope. Secondly, it will not be otherwise, the true Christians, that they may be recognized for it, must be raised by persecution, so that the number of the martyrs and our brothers may be fulfilled, because where there is no cross, there may not be Christians either. Christ did not say in vain, Matth. 16, 24: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." Hoc lao, et viv68; do this and you will live, amen.

(Luther's letter to Wenceslaus Link.)

JEsus.

To the worthy and right theologian, Wenceslaus Link, Augustinian Order > Vicarius and Ecclesiastes 1) at Nuremberg, in Christ, Martin Luther > sends his greetings.

Behold, in Christ worthy Wenceslaus, you have your Ambrosius Catharinus, this noble new fruit of the highly famous French country. Truly, he is a fine all-embracing 2) finisher of the register which Silvester has begun to make. But you will say, what is the meaning of this coarse fool to me? You might say, like the poet, that there is not a grain of salt in his whole body. So I will answer you: Why did you send him to me? Why didn't you throw it into the Pegnitz or into a fire as soon as you received it? Then I wouldn't have spent so many hours with it uselessly until I had read it. Yes, it would have been better for me if I had in the meantime been involved in some kind of jugglery.

  1. i.e. preacher.
  2. Instead of "freer", which is found in Walch and also in the Wittb. Edition, Wohl would prefer to be read "finer". The Orig. offers insigiiEm.

I have read myself to death over this, until I have seen the filth of this washful and blasphemous Thomist. Just that I now take revenge on you, you must have him back by right, so that you henceforth send me no more such monstrous abominations, as if Germany itself did not have enough of the mad people like Eck and Emser, plus the sophists rabble without number. Beware further that you send me more of such filth from Endor, otherwise be sworn to you by Catharine wisdom that it shall be thrown back to you so often until it finally sticks to you, or until it disappears in the throwing back and forth of it.

  1. Yes, do you laugh and think that I am joking with you? Would to God that, as this Welsche's 3) foolishness is to be laughed at, so also no German would be poisoned by such mad wisdom. But because we have so far treated everything that has been raised under the Welsh or Roman name, with inhuman
  2. The words and phrases placed in square brackets here and in the following are missing in Speratus and have been inserted by us according to the Latin.

1438 L. V. L. V, 290 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, I759-I76I. 1439

When these proud and arrogant people have noticed that they have taken stupidity for God, they dare to inflict even more and more shameful abominations on us every day, as if Germany had to be their eternal mockery; they still let them dream that we are beasts, blocks and lumps. And yet they do not see that they themselves, deafened by divine order with palpable blindness, are becoming two-fold beasts with their king in Babylon and, deprived of the wholesome grain, eat only grass, like an ox, as Job says Cap. 40, 10..

3 It came out on the first New Year's Eve, kicked like a mouse and perished. After that, Cajeta entered; finally Catharinus had to fulfill the sacred number, the third among these Thomists. Behold, these are the heroes of the Thomists [in Italy, from which one may notice what the others all are. For these filthy birds come of course not from the bad rabble, but from high blood, Trojans and people like Astyanax 1) in Troy. What shall we take the Trojans themselves for, if their hectors are like this?

4 But it is useful for us to read the books of these ill-mannered people, so that we may realize from what kind, art, moderation or friendship they take us for beasts against them. For nothing annoys this Catharinus so much as that I called Silvester the Catfish and said: The laymen also understand something. But now I see that this is also true: A mere 2) Thomist is a real jackass, be he Welsh or German. And what else should become of them? Because they only read and eat the one Thomas, and so that I speak in their way, they transform all his essence into themselves. Although I do not begrudge him that the pope has made him holy (for what can he not make holy who is the holiest of all?), which holiness they boast of with inhuman arrogance for the others. 3)

  1. Astvanax, the son of Hector, the most excellent Trojan hero.
  2. In the Wittb. Edition: louder.
  3. should probably mean: "before others". The words "for the others" are not expressed in Latin.

(5) But neither do I doubt that his doctrine, which is without all spirit, is one of the bowls full of God's wrath, which he has sent upon this earth, (D&C. 15:7, 16, 17) for the sake of which doctrine he has most of all been made a saint, so that, as he deserves, such a sanctifier should oppose him. Not that I say he is not holy, though he has taught what is in truth heretical, and thereby he devastates the doctrine of Christ. But it may have been through ignorance. But I am sorry that so many noble hearts of the believers in Christ are deceived by his reputation, have accepted dirt for saffron flowers (as Jeremiah complains, Klagl. 4, 5.). But do you hear? I would have forgotten him; do not think that with this letter I should be subdued again under your power, otherwise the most holy governor of God on earth would command you to stain your hands with my blood. I say this so that Catharinus may not also catch me here, as if I were carrying out things that were directly against each other; for he is very clever and astute in noticing such things, so that he could almost be compared to a donkey in skill.

Beginning of this book.

How must I then hold myself against your Catharinus? He presses upon me with such severity that he wants to have by force whether I would already answer for all the heresies laid upon me (of which he accords me more than there is sand in the sea), but if I would only be overcome in one, then I shall be damned and overcome with each other. Behold, dear one, how this is such a fine Thomistic impression. To me some man, even the beast, shall not be overlooked some error, and that by the French Thomists, when so much error the whole church overlooks the holy fathers. How does he snort after the victory, this Catharinus? How much cheaper it would be that all errors would be overlooked for me, beast and block, because of a few Christian sayings, but he, such a Welsh hero and excellent man, connected with such a law.

1440 V. a. V, 291-293. 61 L.'s reply to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1761-1763. 1441

that, if he were to be taken in an error, he would definitely have to be considered erroneous.

(7) However, so that the Frenchman sees that even the beasts in the German country have something of a human nature about them, I do not ask anything else, except that we fight with equal advantage against each other, even if we may not be equal fencers against each other, so that Catharinus is also a heretic to me everywhere, if he will answer for all the other pieces and yet be overcome in one piece by the beast. But I think I will easily obtain this from Catharinus, as he is undoubtedly ready, before the rest of the art, to fight with disadvantage against such a mad and foolish beast, so that afterwards his victory would be all the more honest and greater; yes, as I let myself think, he should well be angry with the beast, that it misses to fight with equal advantage with such a man, that is, with a French Thomist. But because the beast's manner is thus done, Catharinus will think it too good, according to his French and Thomistic manhood.

But now, since everyone knows that by unanimous judgment of all Thomists, Scotists, Modernists, and Albertists it is decided (there must be a tail in which these foxes come together) that the beasts have neither free will nor power to choose anything, by which prudence and all virtue consist, but drive without reason, as nature gives in. But nature, because it works what it does by its own impulse 1) and not by free will, also works (as the scholars say) everywhere according to all its ability. Therefore, Catharine will still admit to this thoughtless beast that it drives along without any order, and first fights about the main thing (that is, about the papacy), although here, too, success or, as Aristotle says, the favor of luck and chance 2) will somewhat reimburse this thoughtlessness of nature.

  1. I. e. by necessity.
  2. What is put here and in the following in square brackets are scholastic sayings of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and others, with which Luther draws Catharinus. Speratus has omitted them because they are difficult to reproduce and little understandable to the common man.

For as soon as the dispute about this piece is over, either the whole Babylon and the fuss of the Catharine Commentary will stand or lie; 3) because everything that he writes, says, does, acts and lives in it, hangs on this one piece. It will also be too good for me, otherwise six blasphemy books would grow under my hands against the life of my adversary, where I would deal with the matter as finely human and rationally as Catharinus. Then Catharinus would say: You beast, you wanted to refute my teaching, see, you do nothing but spoil the paper with profanity and blasphemy; for that I Catharinus, as a man, have thus blasphemed you, that has its cause, because, as St. Thomas, Aristotle and Porphyrius teach that man is a rational animal, therefore I had to curse and blaspheme, which is well befitting a man.

(10) I therefore leave aside here what concerns the indulgences, those of Leuven and the conciliar, also all my other pieces, which Catharinus introduces, as if they were repugnant to each other. I myself confess that I first did not think right of the indulgence, of the pope and the Roman church, of the conciliar, high schools and ecclesiastical rights; therefore, I have also recanted all of this with each other in several little books, which I have subsequently written, as each one in the "Babylonian Prison", and in the "Assertion 4) of my articles against the papal bull", whoever may want to read them. Ah, dear Catharinus, you have truly come too slowly, as they say. Now one no longer asks whether the pope is something; this question whether he is something and the first activity of the mind has long since ended.

We have already come to the other question and to the second activity of the mind, what he is; and there it has finally been decided 5 that the pope is the anti-Christ. Now only the third is still there [the third activity (if you are not

  1. eommsutum - fiction.
  2. I.e. the reason and cause of all articles that were unlawfully condemned by the Roman Bull. (Latin January 1521, German March 1.)
  3. D. i final.

1442 L. V. a. V, 293 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1763-1766. 1443

(If you were not only a Thomist, but also an Aegidian), the discursus), which is to come into course and swing; this, we hope, should happen almost immediately. Also in this way our fire (as we hope) has begun happily, since it has burned up all the rights of the most holy Father in Christ and governor of God on earth, as the doctrine of the anti-Christ. Therefore I ask: Dear Catharinus, you are too slow, too slow, these are old tales that you remember. But lest you think that you have blasphemed in vain (I meant to say written), because you require me to go one mile with you, I will go another two of myself with you Matth. 5, 40. and will again blow this question out of the ashes and deal with you again, but in the very shortest way, if I am able, so that I do not become a beast seven times over, if I do not give an answer to a so great whale and Thomist.

  1. this is the summa and main matter of the first question among all, whether Christ by the words Matth. 16, 18.: "You are Peter, and on the rock I will build my church" has made the Roman church the head, master, princess, women and ruler over all other churches of the whole world 2c? Here I leave again all what I have said before, so that I have given the brave Catharinus so much trouble, difference and glosses (from his own head) to invent, that I, although I am a beast, have taken pity on this manly man in his work. If I were to bring it all out again and refute it, the book would be too big for me. Also, I know that everything he says in his writing, if one holds it against my writing, would already) be invented by anyone who has only a little sense as miraculous ridiculousness and foolish plodding 2). I will come to a new thing, which the so reasonable Catharinus would never have meant or provided, if he had already eaten Porphyrius' tree with all its fruits.

The first, Christ, (as Catharine himself confesses) speaks of the rock and the church.

  1. Actually "cowherd", because the original does not offer Viearil, but Vaeearii.
  2. I. e. fictional chats.

Secondly, he promises, as Catharine will also have to confess, that the church and the rock of hell gates shall not prevail. Do you hear it, Catharinus? Is this not clear enough? For this is not said by the beast, but by Christ himself. So now this decree stands: That the gates of hell shall not prevail against the rock nor against the church.

014 But then the gates of hell overpower, if they bring any into sin; or say thou what else the "overcoming of the gates of hell" is called. Again, "being built upon the rock" is nothing else but increasing in grace and good works, so that you might call it "overcoming the gates of Zion"; in which way Peter also speaks, 1 Pet. 2:5: "But you, as the living stones, build yourselves into a spiritual house"; and Eph. 2:22: "Upon whom also you are being built into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit."

(15) And that thou mayest not escape me anywhere, let it be thus, that thy pope, thy rock, or thy church, hath already the unformed faith (as ye call it); nevertheless, if it be not in the love of God, it must be under the power of the devil, and under the gates of hell: for the epistle to the Romans 8:9. thus says, "He that hath not the Spirit of Christ is not his"; and Matt. 7:21-23. it is found that they who had unformed faith, though they did wondrous works, and taught well and truly, yet heard, "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity."

16 I beg you, dear Catharinus, you worldly man and Thomist, will be so gracious to me, and listen a little, me beast. I conquer you by these things now said, that you must ever admit to me that he who is without the love of God is under the devil and does not belong to Christ at all, that even the gates of hell have overpowered him, rule over him as over a servant of sin, as Christ says, John 8:34: "He that committeth sin is the servant of sin." Is this not clear enough? Or is there a need here for Origen, Chrysostom or all the Fathers' glosses?

  1. you also freely admit to me that the

1444 V. a. V, 294-2S6. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1766-1768. 1445

Pabst, whom you called the rock, and those who are built on this rock, subject to him in the visible regiment, whom you called the church, that they may sin and have sinned; is it not so? Do you not admit this? Yes, if you want to confess the truth, there is no more shameful people on earth than those who are so stubbornly attached to the pope and those who are mostly built on him; but also because of this they are subject to the gates of hell and servants of all vices with each other.

18 Now answer me, where is now your talk and chatter of this whole disputation? Now point to this church, point to the rock, which may not overcome the gates of hell. If so? 1) Don't you hear, Catharinus? I know you will not denounce the pope, nor his papists. Which one will you denounce? You will not denounce any external church, let alone the Roman one. For if thou wilt hear Christ, thou wilt denounce no other, save that which is without sin, which also is a ruler over the gates of hell. For if thou dost put another before us, as thou wilt, we shall never know whether she is in sin and under the gates of hell or not. If you throw up Rome, it will testify of itself that it is a basic soup of all vices.

(19) Therefore I decree against you and hereby irrefutably conquer you, that this word Matth. 16:16, reported above, shall not be laid to anyone but the one church, which in spirit is built on the rock Christ, not on the pope, not even on the Roman church. For as long as you do not show us a holy pope, you have shown us neither rock nor church, but a basic soup of sin and a synagogue of Satan, Revelation 2:9. Since no one would want to know about St. Peter, if he were now present, whether he would be holy or remain without sin or not, it follows that he himself will not be the rock, but Christ alone, of whom we are most certain that he alone is without sin and will remain forever.

The people of the world also share with him his holy church, which is gathered in him in the spirit.

20 Now let us come back to the covenant, as we have presumed to fight with each other 2). So behold, my Catharinus, I have caught you in a mistake. I have already entangled you with a bond that you can never break. Therefore, I publicly proclaim you as a conquered heretic, together with your so great book, already damned and condemned. May you also protest against this, Catharinus? Up, up, you Thomistic man, and trample on this cursed beast, which has not only answered to all your abominations, but has also destroyed them with each other.

Just as the rock, which is without sin, is invisible and spiritual, so also the church, which is without sin, must be invisible and spiritual, which is understood by faith alone. It is ever necessary that the foundation be of one kind with that which is built upon it; as we also say in faith, "I believe that there is one holy Christian church or community in the whole world." But what one apparently sees from the outside, one must not believe, but recognize it bodily. Therefore this saying of Matthew: "You are Peter" 2c belongs far, far behind the papacy and its visible church, yes, even pushes it to the ground and makes a synagogue of Satan out of it.

(22) Furthermore, if by the rock is understood the pope, and by the church built upon it, the assembly subject to the pope: it follows that the pope is not the pope, and the church is not the church. This I will prove to thee manifestly thus: For the rock and the church must be without sin, not subject to the gates of hell. But since no one in the world can be so, certainly and unconfessedly, and yet there must be a certain rock and a certain church, it follows that there is no pope and no church.

(23) Therefore, if the mighty saying of Christ strives straight against the pope and against his papist church, it is evident that the opinion of Catharine and his Thomas, as well as of all those whom he introduces, is exceedingly casteful.

  1. I.e. why don't you show them?
  2. I.e. conditioned.

1446 V. s. V, 29" f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1768-1771. 1447

must be heretical. He is ever a heretic who interprets the Scriptures differently than the spirit requires. Not only does Catharinus do this with his heretical Thomas, but he also gives it the mind, which is blasphemous, that he calls the one rock, which is a man of sin and a servant of the devil 2 Thess. 2, 3, and says that this is the church, which is only Satan's synagogue. Here I do not want, Catharinus, that thou shouldest reproach me with thy dreams, or reproach me with the sayings of the fathers, and so foolishly punish me, as thou hast done before], since I have proved by that which follows mightily from the text, that it is not spoken to St. Peter alone, "Thou art Peter. "2c For thou dost not stay at all on One Speech. And because you must not contradict the Fathers whom I have introduced, you say that the keys are to the Church; again, they are given to St. Peter alone. Now you say that the keys are given to St. Peter; now, the use of the keys is given to the other apostles 1); now they are promised to St. Peter, now they are given to him, and so you are driven by my objections that you can nowhere base yourself on one opinion and insist. And with this very inconsistency of yours, you yourself strengthen all my cause.

  1. But do you think that I will have enough of your glossing over in such a disputation? Should I suffer this from you, that you would interpret to me the use of the keys for the lending of the keys, Matth. 18, 18. Not yet. Yes, I still do not admit to you that you now say: The keys were given to the church, but again, they were given to St. Peter by the church alone. Where does this inconsistency come from? Why do I ask that you attribute so much interpretation to a single word? I have enough that you yourself admit to me what I say, that it is right and well-sewn and proven by the Scriptures. I do not care that you already desire much without scripture, which is also to be admitted. Do thou one thing, and either say that all my cause is without ground and for nothing; or else admit,
  1. D. i.: sonst.

That all thy cause is without ground, a vain spittle. The truth of Christ is not so diverse and so inconstant as are the conceits of the Thomists; it is one, and has even a simple face. Hold thou the keys without the use; let us be content that the use of the keys is given us; which we have received in thee, however much thou hast differed.

(25) And to say what the opinion is, I will not admit to you that you give more than one interpretation to the Scriptures. It counts for nothing with me, how often you try it, when you speak at length: One may also say thus, one may understand it thus, one may also answer thus, according to the letter one may speak thus, thus one may speak according to the spiritual understanding. Dear Catharinus, remove the little word "one may". They are nothing but false arguments, all of them together, and nothing but evasion; yes, indeed, they are also confirmation of my very opinion. For therefore one judges you, that you only come along on straw-covered stilts, and want to turn all things into a doubt. But say, "This is to be understood in this way and not in another, so that you may bring about a consistent and simple understanding of the Scriptures, as I do and have done. For thus it behooves a theologian; the other is the way of the sophists. You know that where one wants to argue, one must only use the written sense according to the letter, which is only one in the whole of Scripture. Origen, Jerome, and all those who have given much interpretation to the Scriptures are of no avail here, for they may say it, but they do not prove it. It may well teach something, but it does not argue and does not hold the sting.

(26) But you will say, "Have so many fathers erred? Yes, I confess that they, as men, have often erred; but I forgive them and wisely guard against it. But you, as unclean animals without cloven hooves Deut. 11:26, without a tongue that chews the cud, eat everything in yourselves. Since they have erred Christianly, you teach the others heretically. For to err does not make one a heretic, but where one stubbornly defends and protects error.

1448 v- L. v. W7-29S. 61. L.'s response to d. Book of Catharinus. W. xvin, 1771-1773. 1449

Here, then, is your certain reason, which relies much more 1) on the sayings of the fathers than on the words of Christ, and yet you have no other way to protect them, but that you alone seek your evasion in the Thomistic way with the miserable interpretation of a thing in various ways, which you nevertheless invent from your own brain alone, but only and without any defense; and yet you hear from me that I alone desire cause and scripture; yes, you suppress the right sayings of the fathers from me and bring forth only the erroneous ones, you pious man.

27 Also, how finely you catch yourself in the word of your own mouth when you say that the keys, Matt. 16:9, were promised to Peter alone and were not given to him. Then you prove that they were also given to him, but you prove it with no other force than that you say that Christ, as the true One, has undoubtedly given what he promised. Listen, dear Catharinus, it is not enough that the promise is in the Scriptures; the fulfillment and bestowal must also be in them. For of the bestowal of the same, outside of the Scriptures, one will not believe your unreal dreams and fairy tales. Christ was promised to Abraham before time, but it is certain that it has also been fulfilled, since Christ was given to us in the New Testament; both of these things are written in the Scriptures, and the fulfillment is even more clearly written than the promise. But where will you prove that the keys have been given to St. Peter? Will this not have to be done, as I have proved it from the saying of John without one the last, 2) which is very urgent and distressing to you: "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you remit, they are remitted to them" 2c John 20:23 The saying I have brought up for myself, bring forth also one for yourself.

28 We also know that God is true in His promise. But it is necessary that the place, person and time of the fulfilled promise not be shown according to our imagination, but by His own testimony.

  1. I. e.: support.
  2. I.e., in the penultimate chapter.

so that no cause is given to the heretics to wash against this faith and to put all things in doubt. For if this fulfillment is nowhere indicated in Scripture, we are still not certain to this day when St. Peter received the keys. But let God forbid that Christ should have left us thus uncertain; which would be nothing else than that he had not built faith on the rock, but only on human delusion. Therefore I also hold you here entangled with your own words, that if you do not show me where this promise is fulfilled, my cause is again strengthened. Truly Christ knew well that you ungodly puffers would come, who would raise this Roman chair for the highest; therefore he wanted to occur and gave such a fulfillment, which would sink you into the dung, before you would start your building right. For I will not have your mere 3) differences and dreams, that you may have your book entirely filled; but the holy scripture I will; which you would then bring forth for your heresy, if it were now raining swine.

29 Well then, let us come to the plan of victory with it, and so that you may not object that I am handling the matter too darkly with you, I will write it in a nutshell according to school law. So:

  1. Nothing may be the rock that is overwhelmed by the gates of hell. But

Every sinner is overwhelmed by the gates of hell: Therefore

  1. so no sinner may be the rock.

So also:

  1. nothing may be the church built on the rock, which is overwhelmed by the gates of hell. But
  2. the Papist mob is overwhelmed by hell: Therefore
  3. so the church built on the rock may not be the papist mob.

From these follows further:

(1) Every pope who sins will be overwhelmed by the gates of hell. But

  1. Wittb. Edition: For I loudly thy distinction 2c

1450 D- V. Ä. V, 29S f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1773-1776. 1451

  1. the pope sins: therefore

3 Thus, the pope is overwhelmed by the gates of hell.

Likewise:

(1) Any church that sins will be overwhelmed by the gates of hell. But

  1. the pabst's church sins: therefore

Thus, the church of Pabst is overwhelmed by the gates of hell.

Item further:

  1. nothing may be pabst, which is uncertain whether it is the rock. But
  2. every pope, even St. Peter, is uncertain whether he is the rock: therefore
  3. so also no pope, yes. St. Peter may not be pope.

At the same time:

  1. Nothing may be the church that is uncertain whether it is built on the rock. But

(2) Every papist's fleet is uncertain whether it is built upon the rock: therefore

  1. so may not be a papist fleet the church.

30 Behold, thou flush Thomist, the beast also hath learned school law (dialecticam); which pieces wilt thou deny in all these propositions? Wilt thou deny the foremost (majores)? You may not, for Christ Himself set them and built the rock and the church against the gates of hell, also assuring us of this in Matthew 16. But would you deny the following pieces (minores)? You cannot; for everyone knows it well, it is also publicly evident, and it is learned daily that it happens this way. Where will you go before the spirit of this beast? Where will you hide from it? Where is your pope? Where is your church? Listen, I will tell you:

The pope who sins is the devil's servant.

Pabst's church is a school of the devil.

Again: 1)

Christ, the righteous, is a king of righteousness.

The Church of Christ is the communion of saints.

  1. By contrast.

. From this, everything that the pope now sets, does or suffers is condemned. Here all spiritual rights and all his kingdom fall away. For Christ stands firm who says: "He who is not with me is against me." Also "do not agree with one another (as St. Paul says 2 Cor. 6, 15.) Christ and Belial, the light and the darkness." What do you say here, Catharinus? Let there be so much difference between them. If you want to dampen, come in with scriptures; or if you ever need distinctions, prove the distinctions by scripture, and we will hear you.

32 From all the above, I conclude that you misuse the word "church" in an unchristian way when you claim that everything that is done by the pope and you is done by the church. We also confess that the church does right and well what it does. But you do not do right, if you call that the church, which you cannot prove to be a church; and that alone is the school of the devil Revelation 2:9, which you hold against us under the name of the church. For this, you damned servants of the same Satan, you force us to worship what Satan does, and then say that the church did it. It is true that the church is governed by the Holy Spirit. Yes, but we have now proven that the pope and his church are often ruled by the devil. Now the spirit of Christ and the spirit of the devil cannot rule in one place. You must not shout here, Hussite, Hussite, for shouting does not answer for anything; nor does it help that you complain that it rhymes badly with the papacy. First dissolve what I have reproached you with, then shout. But you must resolve it for me through Scripture, not through lazy distinctions that you use to write poetry. And that I also act here louder and clearer, so I will also write it in a short school law. So:

  1. all that the church does, the Holy Spirit does. And:
  2. whatever the pope does with his own, that does the church: therefore

All that the pope does with his own is done by the Holy Spirit.

1452 L- v- a. v, 300-302. 61. L.'s response to d. Book of Catharinus. W. xviii, 1776-1778. 1453

Listen, Catharine, you must not prove the first part, it exists for itself. Only make the other true, so that you do not strive in vain, but usefully. But when will you be able to do it? Not until you prove that the pope is built on the rock, that he will not be overcome by the gates of hell Matt. 16:18 and that he is without sin, as you have learned from the above sayings. As long as you do not do this and prove it, you cannot force the Holy Spirit to do what the pope does with his own; but we have the right and power to reject and judge these laws and all spiritual rights. For they are suspect to us, whether they come from Satan or from the Holy Spirit.

(34) Here I will not have thee plead old usage, the great heap that standeth with thee. Nothing penetrates me, but only the word of Christ; he alone is to be believed, before all saints, yes, also before all angels. Of which angel has God ever said: "You shall hear him"? I do you or your saints no injustice if I set Christ against you, who by the voice of the Father and by the testimony of the Holy Spirit is shown to us to be the right, irrefutable teacher, as you may call some of them. 1) Also, if you yield to me, you yield not to me but to Christ. If thou resist, thou resistest not me, but Christ. But if thou resist Christ, thou resistest also his Father, who hath so exalted him that we should hear him.

35 Now we boast in the Lord and thank him that we have torn this sentence from you, Matt. 16. Yes, and should you burst and grit your teeth over it, all you papists in one heap, I still say that we have already fought for this sentence and won it with victory. Yes, he himself is victorious, so that your papacy will fall thoroughly to the ground, for it will be found that it has been nothing else but a deception and a ghost of the world;

  1. In the Wittenb. In the Wittenberg edition: "thüret", i.e. to call you measured.

But you have been the ones who have deceived the people of God and perverted His word; you must obviously let this be said of you. Also the spiritual rights of all popes are publicly recognized for having been shameful teachings of the anti-Christ. O what voice! O what scripture! O what thoughts would tell all your abominations that follow from it! For when this cover of your mischievousness has been pulled off and revealed to you, then, then, then one may see as into a hell full of lies, full of error, full of deceit, full of wickedness and completely full of all vices. All of which you have hidden with one another under this thin sheet of unworthy pabstry, so that the pabstry has always and ever been nothing else, but just in truth the quite famous kingdom of the Counter-Christ. For this reason, many have felt this abomination standing in the holy place, and wondered how it could happen that so many unskillful abominations come daily from this chair, which is famous for being ruled by the Most Holy One. O wretched papacy! Here you lie; there, I say, you lie cruel lion and have died, who before frightened all the world with your screams; but now the little dogs and the mice pluck your beard.

From all this, what I have said about the papacy is now confirmed, how reluctantly Catharine allows it and how much he is enraged by it. He is more angry than any Catharine, 2) and can do nothing at all, but thus womanishly defile and blaspheme. If you heard him, you would swear that you were listening to an insolent scoundrel. In the meantime, do not show off with anything but pottery, as the saying goes. Therefore, dear reader, I beseech thee by Christ, mark only, and behold, how doth he wash, this ass, which (as they say) beareth the divine mysteries (mysteria), so ridiculously and mockingly, as he speaketh of these four words, that is, of the rock, of building, of the church, and of the little word Mine. For

  1. Wittenb. For I know no Catharinen. Latin: gnavis Oatüarina eoneitatior.

1454 V.". V, 302 pp. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, I778-I78I. 1455

Since with these four storm witnesses I had pushed to the ground the whole ghastly pabstacy of the Roman idol, so that he himself could not deny that the rock, according to the right spiritual understanding, means Christ, or (which is the same as much) the faith of Christ; Nor does the fine, insurmountable Thomist help himself with this certain evasion of the Thomistic heresy, that is, with the interpretation of a word in various ways according to his own will, and thus makes nothing else out of it than an inconstant Proteus and alternate idol, called Vertumnus, of which the poets speak; indeed, in the end, nothing but mere words are made out of it.

37 Still, he does not want to notice, this great head, who was neither of Welsh descent nor worthy of a name, that he cannot prove anything with such inconstancy and fickleness. For if my disputation is admitted to be true in one sense only, in the spiritual sense first (as Catharinus himself admits to me), then it is certain that I have already won, even by the testimony of my own opponent. But because he is as adept at disputing as a donkey is at whistling (according to the proverb), I have to take a rough school law against such a coarse head, who has such a hard head. So, if Heinz disputes with Kunz, and it comes so far that Heinz admits to Kunz that he has spoken well and rightly according to the spirit, but he (that is, Heinz) wanted to understand it differently, that is, bodily, and would have neither reason nor right to do so, he alone would do it by force. If Heinz then wanted to boast that he had won, and refuted the other part, and wanted to do nothing after that, but keep up a fight with disgrace and blasphemy; so whoever saw it from him, what would he judge from it? Would he not say that he was more senseless than the drunken mad cads called Bacchas and those called Corybantes 1) by the poets? It is the same with us here. Catharinus admits to me that according to true right understanding Christ is the rock, but also wants to have that

  1. Bacchantes, priestesses of Bacchus, and Corybantes, priests of Cybele, who celebrated their worship with great noise.

the pope may also be called a rock, and that because of the unformed faith he has, even though he is otherwise godless. O, what an unholy pontificalism this is, which is thus deplored and overcome by this wretched speaker's intercession. Why do you not say even more that the Turk and the devil should also be given this and all other such names? because they both have such unformed faith.

38 Ah, you unbundling disputer! Did you not think that you had first proved (as is proper) that my opinion was false and yours alone true, so that they could not both be considered true together? As I have done, and still do, so that only my opinion is true and yours is proven false; which I have already received by your own testimony, how much you have agonized over it. For if my opinion is true, and no more to it than is a plain and simple understanding of Scripture, it certainly follows that your opinion must be false. Further, I am not a Catharine reed, woven hither and thither by so many winds of interpretation of one word. I also do not speak: Thus one may say once; thus another time; but the third time differently. For to speak in this way is to speak in the Catharine and Thomistic way; that is as much as if one spoke nothing at all. But I go the plain and right way; yea, I walk freely along the highway; but thou stumbleest miserably only by the way and in over a rough field.

39 Truly, since you had no other confidence than that you alone would force and coerce the Scriptures with fictitious glosses from your head according to Thomistic (that is, according to the devil's way) and tear them apart in so many different interpretations according to your sense, it is obvious to everyone how great a fool you are and how ungodly before God that you have set yourself up against me. Now, what do you mean by this, but that you make room for me, so that I may once speak the right truth with all seriousness, to you false scripture rippers and godless cretins of the word of God? so that you may remove us from the

1456 2- V- a. V" 303 f. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, I78I-I784. 1457

The truth is not as bad and simple as St. Paul says 1 Tim. 6:4. But I refrain from it as much as I can. For there is no thing that distresses me so much as this spiritual robbery, as the apostle calls it Rom. 2:22, which is committed against the Scriptures, or, as the prophets complain, that idols are made of the gold and silver of the Lord Hos. 2:8, 8:4, 13:2. Nor should anyone be surprised, since this sin, as Scripture itself testifies, angers and emboldens God more than any other.

(40) Behold now, beloved, what a fine refutation of my opinion is this, that, as also the fine Romish and Thomistic Catharine himself testifies, the rock signifies Christ. For so I had taught, since one should overcome me. So I still teach, since I must now be a heretic who has been overcome, and I will keep it that way until Catharine will prove from Scripture that a godless pope is to be called the rock; which he will not do (the honorable man) until just when a mule, which is unruly by nature, gives birth to a young one. For that some fathers have called St. Peter the rock, that might be suffered on account of Peter's faith. But since they do not prove this by Scripture, they should not penetrate us here in this disputation of ours, in which one should fight with Scripture alone.

(41) And that I may show to this scholar, who regards himself so artificially that he despises all my introductions and conclusions, how fine and masterly they are, and how well they are founded according to the law of the school; tell me, dear Catharine, where did you learn this art, that one should say of every godless pope according to St. Peter everything that the fathers say of St. Peter? Item, that one should also think of the wrong faith what one thinks of the right faith? Bring up only one of the Fathers who says that the Roman bishop is the head, the rock, the supreme and master of all the other churches. You mischievous sophists have brought us into these errors with fictitious words. What a beautiful consequence this is: St. Peter is a

St. Peter was an apostle; therefore it should follow that the bishop of Rome is also an apostle. Item St. Peter was a saint; therefore it should follow that the Roman bishop is also holy. Yes, I admit it, he is holy, but still unformed, that is so much as to say that he is the most holy. O truly! he is an unformed successor of Peter. But, as I have said, I care nothing for the sayings of the fathers, as often as they speak without Scripture, on which you rely so much that you rage at it, and blaspheme the right understanding of Scripture, even known by yourself.

(42) Above all this, you false hypocrites of the Roman idol are still so insolent that you do not care, even though you are overcome by your own testimony, that you do not have a clearer and louder saying in all of Scripture that would be on your side in this great matter. You also cannot interpret this saying of Matthew 16, where you want to do it badly and justly, in your own opinion, and until you do, you must have so many interpretations and glosses on a word that it is a miracle; and yet you do nothing more with it than to give it a little form, as if it were as you say. Yes, this also comes from the fact that you do not give this saying its simple meaning, but admit that the opposite has the right meaning of it; so you publicly show and are witnesses of it yourselves that this very saying is even contrary to you.

(43) Herewith you are also already conquered and overcome, as you have deceived the world with so many impudent lies until now and these two words "church" and "rock" are only required to serve your loud will of courage. For you have not gone about proving your understanding from this saying; but you have previously invented your own sacrilege, 1) and only then subjected yourselves to it, as you would like to force it upon us through this saying. Therefore you also, like Adam and Eve, covered your nakedness and shame with the leaves of this fig tree Gen. 3:17. But now, because you do not want it to happen to you, and

  1. Wittb. Edition: Dünkel.

** **1458 D. V. a- 304-306. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1784-1786. 1459

the chastity of the Scripture does not want to let you adulterers in, but you must stay out in front of the Scripture; so you invent and make us a new face of the Scripture and such a Bible, which would only (that one would have to laugh) be good in a carnival play; nor do you want to fix all your abominations with it. You call a godless man the rock. Also you call the church, which is also nothing but godless people]. Into these filthy places ye will entrap 1) the Holy Ghost, saying that he maketh you not to err. Item, that the building is your outward authority and obedience of ungodly men; as if Christ alone had meant this by his holy institution, that only ungodly men should rule in his church, ungodly men should be subject to him.

44 But I beg you, you shrewd school bully, who know well that one must give another example of Scripture, outside of the one presented (if one wants to prove something). Otherwise, show me some place in Scripture where a word means at the same time a completely godless person and also a Christian and holy one; as you let your nonsense appear here in this little word "rock. The same little word must mean to you at the same time St. Peter and every godless pope who (as you say) is supposed to be St. Peter's successor. Where did you learn these unchristian pieces and heretical abominations? for only from your master St. Thomas did you learn them without a doubt. Now, because you do this, you write against me as if we were arguing with each other in a sophist school quarrel, since you want to be the best everywhere with your evasive middle fiddles (propriis distinctionibus). It seems to be enough for you, if you only don't have to be silent. So you also meant here with me that it is one thing to be overcome and to be silent, to overcome and to speak. You did not even think that you had founded your cause on holy scripture, which would have been obvious and constant. Therefore the children of the German country laugh at you; yes, not only the laity (as you are highly annoyed), but also the women, that

  1. Orig.: incLresus - to imprison.

you, such our Lord Master and a Welsh man at that, present to us for the word of God alone your own slobber, snot and filth.

45 Therefore let our Lord Jesus curse your and your Thomas' shameful and blasphemous iniquity, in that you have given the holy name of the rock to a godless man, and in that you have built the holy church of God on a godless being. For if the pope has a false faith, that is, as you say, the unformed faith, truly, he has no Christian nature in him, but he is full of ungodly nature, a servant of sin John 8:34, a seat where Satan dwells, and the gates of hell overpower him. Nor givest thou to the church such a foundation, such a head, such a rock, upon which it fei built. I am horrified that I have to tell such an abomination. It is an abomination and blasphemy to say that Christ intended anything other than a holy and Christian thing by the word "rock. For what Christian would suffer such to be heard in his ears? Also, you have invented this most mischievous talk of unformed faith only so that you can the more easily and surely drive your spiritual thievery into the Scriptures as the murderers of Moab. But St. Paul tells us 2 Cor. 6, 14: "How are light and darkness alike in multitude? How do Christ and Belial rhyme together? Therefore the rock must mean either light or darkness; that is, it must mean a saint or an ungodly one; it cannot mean either of these. For Christ says (Luc. 11, 23.], "He that is not with me is against me." Thus it follows that the bishop of Rome, if he is ungodly, cannot be the rock, and therefore the rock can never mean the pope. Do you also have something to complain about, you poor Thomist?

46 Therefore, we will no longer suffer this blasphemy of the Papists and Thomists, that in the Holy Scriptures sin and grace, virtue and vice, the good and the evil, the Christian and the godless are one thing, and that the godless being is preserved under the name of the true worship of God.

1460 V. a. V, 306 f. 61. L.'s answer to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1786-1789. 1461

and rule; lest we should hear with them, as Isaias, Cap. 5:20, says: "Woe unto you, all that say that evil is good, and good is evil; and that light is darkness, and darkness is light; that bitter is sweet, and sweet is bitter." But the Thomistic heresy is just the same of which Daniel, Cap. 8, 23, says: "It has an insolent face." Item Jeremiah, Cap. 3, 3: "Thou hast overcome a whore's face, therefore thou hast not been ashamed." For those who have gained such an insolent face that they may publicly do a thing that is good and that is evil in the church, and put God and the devil, Christ and Belial, in heaps: what should they not be allowed to do there, whatever abominations may be conceived? Now go, you wretched Catharinus, and invent for us means, make for us also new means, make for us also unformed good and evil things, an unformed Christ and Belial, and be one who is worthy of a Thomist, that is, a right spiritual robber and an evenly taxing murderer in the Scripture of God.

(47) Also how finely Thomistic you refute that which I have said, how by the one little word "my" in the oft-repeated saying all spiritual rights are overthrown, because in the same saying Christ speaks in a common 1) of the whole Christian church or assembly, not of the Roman alone, as the devilish and blasphemous spiritual rights want. But you say, therefore, that Christ does not speak of many churches, that is, "I will build them"; but he says of one church alone, which he will build a few: so that the same must be understood of the Roman church alone, that is, that it alone is built on the rock, that is, on the pope. This is a fine refutation, and I do not dislike it more than an exceedingly Catharine and Romanistic one. For it follows that nowhere in the whole world is there a church built on the rock, except the Roman one. But if this is so, then what does the Roman idol dare to do, to drive all the other churches so miserably around?

  1. I.e. in general.

and to master, if there are no more churches than the Roman alone in the whole world? If this is so, it follows that the Christian church must never be called the single and general Christian church, as the Scriptures do, but must be called many churches.

48 Item, he also exercises such skill on me, when I punished the fictitious Pope Anacletus because of the word "Cephas", which means a rock, and he interprets it for a head. Then Catharinus answered me thus: Pope Anacletus had paid more attention to the reason than to the little word Cephas, namely, that St. Peter, who is to be understood by the little word Cephas, is the head, although Cephas is not interpreted as a head. Behold, my dear reader, what thinkest thou of this Welsh head? I would also like to laugh, if these poisoned Thomists had not introduced us to so many all too serious errors and ruin without number by such sophistical alfanzereien 2) and juggleries.

  1. Let us now listen to this new jurist, that is, this unchristian, who perverts all rights, and this desecrator of the Scriptures, who makes himself famous for an interpreter. He says that one should no longer pay attention to the meaning of words, but only to the skillfulness of what is signified by them; that is, so that I may speak to him from the dialectical art, one should not pay attention to what one speaks of, but only to what is attributed to it. Take an example, if you want to talk about the wall, then you should not understand the wall by the wall, but that it is white, that you only badly understand a white thing, even in simple expressions outside of a sentence]. O what a fine Welsh and Thomistic head this is to me!

(50) Therefore, perhaps, by this art they also bring about that this little word "rock" also means an ungodly man; not that the ungodly man is the rock, but that he to whom the rock is put (that is, the one who

  1. In Walch "Alfenze", in the Wittb. Edition, "alfentze," plural of "der Alfanz," i.e., foolishness, jugglery. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 490, § 31.

1462 L. v. L. v, 307-sos. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xviii, 1789-1791. 1463

Pabst), is in truth nothing else but a godless man. What is there to prevent the little word Cephas from meaning not only a head, but also everything you want it to mean? Because it means the one who is all in all, that is, the pope, so that all words would become one word, and again one word would become all words, as one only wanted. There, here we German beasts must first learn the right Latin language now in our times from the French heroes, so that this little word Cephas must mean an apostle, a head, a prince of the apostles, an ungodly, a drunkard, a fornicator, a usurer, a tyrant, a deceiver, a Simonist, a boy-abuser, and all that in addition, which the whole world constantly and so highly praises from the most holy vicars (that is, governors of Christ) and from his cardinals, as the tender virtues, which are inherent and natural to them all.

But, dear reader, so that you don't read yourself to death by the Thomistry and the French foolishness of this French Thomist, I will put an end to it here. I have had enough of their having overcome themselves with these clumsy, laborious abominations, but must confess myself the conqueror against their will, by some that these poor people only work themselves out alone, as they may fly out. For see how this Thomist for and for does nothing else in his whole book, but that he invents new means and differences, by which he may gloss over his evasion. That he wanted to attack me, he does not think of that. Yes, how would he manage it, who is so careful, how he may escape. May my Lord Jesus protect me so that my adversary does not bring me into such distress in this war, that I would also have to seal so many differences and seek nothing but my escape; truly, then I would be overcome. Until now, I have based myself only on the true and constant sayings of the gospel, and that same in the understanding that they themselves must admit to be the right one.

52 Therefore, in order to prove the godless papacy, other sayings must be used:

This saying Matth. 16, 18. is already gone because it only speaks of Christian people who are built on the rock in the spirit. Neither does it speak of any other rock than Christ. Neither does he speak of any other church than the one called the general Christian church, united in the whole world, which is holy, in which St. Peter himself, as a member, is built on the same rock, and on nothing else, with all the others, in which all Christians are equal. For Christ speaks here in the saying of holy things, which may not be appropriated to ungodly men in any way. So that this word of Christ is no more spoken to the pope than this saying: "Blessed are the poor in spirit" Matth. 5, 3, or another like it, which Christ says to all in general. Therefore we thank God that we have snatched this saying, which affects the whole church and all believers in one community, out of the tyrannical hands of the Thomists and Papists, who had made it solely the property of the Roman idol; so that they have kept themselves quite unchristian, not only against the whole common church or assembly, but also against the holy Scriptures.

But we give thanks to God for this. For from Him the same idol of this abomination, which until now has been erected, maintained and protected by pure lies, must fall completely to the ground. We have already taken away their consolation, we have robbed them of all their armor, on which they had relied and insisted Luc. 11, 22.. We have cut off the head of the great giant Goliath with his own sword 1 Sam. 17, 51.. We also torment these Palestinians 1) with no plague harder than with their own robbery. They had taken the ark of the Lord from us by force; but they, without our doing, avenged themselves on them, plagued them in secret places, laid an everlasting reproach upon them. He is fallen and lies outside on his face, their idol Dagon, that is, the idol of spiritual rights, which are made by human poems alone. The mice swarm forth. It.

  1. So in the original and in Specatus. Under it the "Philistines" are to be understood. Perhaps "Philistines" is to be read.

1464 D- rt. 309 f. 61. L.'s response to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, I79I-I794. 1465

Their entrails are hanging out at the bottom and rotting; that is, their thoughts have become obvious, as has the doctrine of their ungodly nature, and it stinks badly throughout the world. And the poor beasts 1) have only the work before them to make chairs out of the skins of the animals against the above-mentioned plague. For this is what Catharine does; he has become a tanner and chairmaker, in his whole book he does nothing else but mend hides and skins in heaps, and does his shoemaker's work; that is, he mends whatever he likes in heaps of futile protection, responsibility, protection and comfort, in honor of the most holy God and his teaching. But the hand of God continues and becomes heavy over them; it will not let go until they send the ark of the Lord home to us unharmed. And in addition to this, they will send ashes and mice with it for a guilt offering, for a confession of their shameful godless nature and so many lies, so that they have deceived us 1 Sam. 5, 6. f..

(54) But you might say: If the church is entirely in the spirit and entirely a spiritual thing, then no one will know where any part of it is in the whole world; that would be a strange and unheard-of thing. For this reason alone do we indicate the pope, so that the church may be found in a certain place. Otherwise, what would it be that Christ teaches us to feed the sheep John 21:16, 17, and Paul to govern the church Acts 20:28, and Peter 1 Ep 5:2 to feed the flock of Christ; if the faithful are not to be found anywhere in the whole world in certain places? For who will preach to the spirits? Or what spirit will preach to us? Therefore the church must have its body and its place. Then also among the bodies and places of the church there must be one that is the supreme body and place.

  1. This is my answer: Although the church lives in the flesh, it does not live according to the flesh, as St. Paul says, Gal. 2, 20. and 2 Cor. 10, 3. So also.
  2. These words may be used to describe the inhabitants of Gath. Compare 1 Sam. 6, 17. 5, 8. 9.

Even though the church conducts its business and works of this world in one place, it is not to be judged according to them. For Christ takes away all places when he says: "The kingdom of God does not come with outward appearances, nor will it be said, 'Look, here or there it is. For behold, the kingdom of God is within you" Luc. 17, 20. 21.. St. Paul also abolishes all kinds of bodies, since he says: "Before God there is no respect of person" Rom. 2, 11. Gal. 2, 6.. Now in the same way, as the church cannot be without food and drink in this temporal life, and yet the kingdom of God is neither food nor drink, as Paul teaches Rom. 14:17: so it is also not without a place and without a body; nor are these places and bodies the church, nor do they concern the church at all. Therefore, just as it is not necessary that one should give certain and special food, drink, and clothing to the church, nor to all the faithful, although they cannot live in this world without food, drink, and clothing, but all things are free to them and all things are equal to them; so also it is not necessary that one should have a special place or person, although the church cannot be without a place and without a person; but here also all things are equal and everyone is free. Every place is suitable for a Christian, and yet it is not necessary that one should be specially marked out for him. Any person may feed a Christian, but it is not necessary to designate a special person to feed him, and no other. Here in things only the freedom of the spirit rules, which makes all things free, so that all bodily and earthly things are free for him, but not necessary for a Christian being.

(56) And this is no wonder, because even if you are a man, you do not need a special place or person to be a man; but you may well be a man in all places and before all persons. Yes, show me something in all the world that is so vitally attached to another and bound to it that it would not have its being without it. One sees that every creature holds itself free against every other,

1466 D. v. a. v, 310-312. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xvm, 1794-1796. 1467

so that in this the freedom of the spirit in all creatures can be seen in its fullness; as we also sing: "Heaven and earth are full of your glory" Is. 6, 5.. What nonsense is it, then, of the godless papists that they are allowed to bind the church of God, which is the most beloved, to a special place and person, as if it did not want to be deprived of it? and say that he is not a Christian who does not want to worship this pope, although he is godless, living in the holy place, and should not help anyone, if he freely goes where he wants, to have someone for a shepherd. This is the right abomination, who has placed himself in the holy place Matt. 24:15. These are the strong errors that God sent upon the wicked 2 Thess. 2, 4. 11.. For if a place and a particular person are necessary to salvation, it follows that all those who have and honor the same place and person are blessed and holy. For in such matters it is possible to infer from one thing to another, according to the art of the school, as the wicked schoolmen teach. 1) It is not possible, whoever has one thing that is necessary for salvation, that he also does not have everything else that is necessary for salvation; likewise it is also impossible, whoever does not have one thing that is necessary for salvation, that he may have one thing among all that is necessary for such salvation; as one can then easily prove by schoolcraft 2). However, this is to be discussed elsewhere.

(57) Now you ask, by what sign must I recognize the church? There must ever be a visible sign by which we are gathered together to hear God's word. Answer: Yes, such a sign is necessary, which we also have; namely, baptism, bread, and most of all the gospel. These three are the Christian's watchword and emblem. Wherever you see these going on, that is, baptism, bread and the gospel, wherever or whomever it may be, do not doubt that it is a sign.

  1. This sentence' reads according to the original as follows: Because in such things a conclusion from the particular has very well taken place, because it is certain from the following sentences (because I must show these admirable conclusion artists also my conclusion art).
  2. Latin: iuckuetive.

Church there. For Christ willed that in these three signs we should all agree, when St. Paul, Eph. 4:5, says: "One faith, One baptism, One Lord." Where then there is One Gospel, there also is but One Faith, Hope, and Love, One Spirit; yea, all things there are one and the same. This is the unity of the Spirit, not of place, not of person, not of outward things or bodies. To keep this unity St. Paul commanded us to be careful. But where you see that there is no gospel (as we see in the Papist and Thomist groups), do not doubt that there is no church there, even if they baptize and go to the divine table (you want to exclude the children and the simple), but know that there is nothing else but a Babylon full of abominations and monsters, full of owls, as Isaiah says 13:21. 22, with other abominable beasts; that is so much as said, there are there all magistri nostri, as they call them. Truly the gospel is the only, most certain and noblest sign of the church, much more certain than baptism or bread, because it alone is received, made, fed, born, raised, fed, clothed, adorned, strengthened, armed and preserved by the gospel. Recently, the whole life and essence of the Church is in the Word of God, when Christ says Matth. 4, 4.: "In every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, man lives."

(58) I am not speaking of the written gospel, but of that which is spoken in the bodily voice; neither am I speaking of any preaching that is done in the churches in the pulpit; but I am speaking of the word of the right kind, which teaches the right faith of Christ, not the unformed and Thomistic; which right faith has been extinguished and stifled by the pope and papists, and is even silent with one another in all the world. For this reason Christ did not want any other thing more seriously from the apostles than this, that they should preach the gospel Matth. 28, 19. 20. Marc. 16, 15.. So he did not demand anything else from St. Peter, instead of all shepherds, but that he should feed the sheep [Joh. 21, 16, 17.

1468 D- V. a. V, 312 f, 61. L. 's reply to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, I7S6-I799. 1469

Voice teach the faith. Which word Catharinus truly interprets in a fine Catharine way, since he says that one should not understand it to preach from the gospel, but from the ruling power of the pope without the gospel. Since he then again makes as much sense out of the plain, simple meaning of Christ's words 1) as seems good to him for his cause. He knew well that preaching the gospel (which alone is meant in this saying) would not rhyme with the papacy, which is overloaded with so much business of this world; therefore he had to see how he could invent another meaning of the ruling rule, as St. Peter, 2 Pet. 2, 3, has recently said: "And by covetousness with invented words they will deal with you. I do not want to talk about this now, because enough has been said about it elsewhere.

(59) Therefore, the poetry of such papists must always be scorned when they say that there is another thing about the power of authority and another thing about the ministry of brotherly love. The Gospel and the Church know nothing about what is dominion; it is nothing but the tyrannical invention of men. It knows only about love and its servants; it knows nothing about violence and such tyranny. Therefore, the pope who preaches the gospel is a successor of Peter who does not do so; he is Judas, a betrayer of Christ. For Satan wants to accomplish nothing else through the poem of such supreme power, but that these tyrants may sin freely without fear and without punishment; that they may also thereby gain freedom and power to extinguish the gospel: so he has won. You see, no one remembers that he wanted to preach the gospel; yet even the others do not let the gospel be preached; so that Christ well said of them Matt. 23:13, "You do not enter the kingdom of heaven, and those who want to enter, you do not let in either; woe to you!"

  1. these signs, and especially of the gospel, i respect, were signified before times in the temple of Solomon [1 Kings 8, 8.
  1. I.e. various interpretations.

The two knobs of the poles for carrying the ark came out in front of the mercy seat. So that the Spirit would make it understood that only by the clear and public voice of the gospel would one know where the church is and where the secret of the kingdom of heaven is. For in the same way as one would know by the protruding knobs of the staves, as by certain indications, that the ark was in the holy of holies, though it was hidden; so also no one sees the church, one must believe it only by the sign of the word; which word it is impossible that it should sound, but only in the church by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in the 9th Psalm, v. 1, the church is called almuth, that is, hidden. And this article of faith: "I believe a holy Christian church" publicly confesses that the church cannot be seen anywhere from the outside. It also takes away, this article, all place and person; as also St. Paul to the Galatians, Cap. 3:28, "In Jesus Christ there is neither male nor female, Greek nor Gentile, bond nor free, Jew nor Gentile: for ye are all of you one in Christ." So the net of the apostles does not pull the fish into the water, but to the shore out of the water Joh. 21, 11.. Also no fisherman thinks to do this, that the fish come into the water, which without this nature gives; but that they are pulled out of the water. So does Christ. With the voice of his word he wants to draw Christians out of all the business of this world, out of all places and bodies; he does not want to draw them into business, places and bodies first, because they are already in them by nature. So now I think that with these arguments all the matter is sufficiently proven to every Christian heart and mind; I also think that the nonsense of the papists has now been revealed enough for them to want to rob us of the church from within and to present it to us for miserly gain, in places and persons.

(61) But as to all this, I do not deny that there is a Papist Church, nor do I say that the Papist Church has no power at all, since we do not know of any other (except Christ) in the Scriptures, before in the

1470 L. V. E. V, 313-315. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1799-1801. 1471

New Testament, have so great a testimony, likewise not a little in the Old Testament. And why did I not want to do so much to please my Catharine, and the most holy in Christ Father Pabst, the governor of God, so much to serve, that I also indicated by abundant and constant testimonies of the Scriptures, how his sovereignty may be so finely proven, so that all those may have their mouths shut who may say: one could not prove it by divine Scripture. I will prove it firmly and in the strongest possible way. The prophet Daniel shall be the first to stand out for me", who says from word to word according to the Hebrew text in the 8th chapter v. 23-25:

The prophecy of the prophet Daniel about the power and principality of the pope.

And after the kingdom of the same, when men are darkened by transgressions, there shall arise a king, mighty in countenance, and understanding in suggestions. And his doings will be strengthened, not by his power. He shall be a marvelous destroyer, and it shall prosper him, and he shall bring it forth. He will destroy the strong and the people of the saints. And he will go according to his purpose. And deceit shall prosper in his hand. And in his heart he will think highly of himself. And because there will be abundance enough, he will destroy much with it. He will also set himself against the prince of all princes. But he shall be broken without hand.

  1. for the first, one should not obey those who understand this and similar sayings of the prophets from one person alone, ignorant of the use and custom of the prophets, which usually mean a whole kingdom through one person. For therefore they interpret the word "end-Christ" only to one person, whom St. Paul calls the "man of sin and the son of perdition" 2 Thess. 2, 3., although Paul wants to understand the whole body and the whole ulcer of ungodly men and all their the rulers' descendants for the same end-Christ. Item, so also the ram means the kingdom in

Persia, the goat the kingdom in Greece in the prophet Daniel at the 8th chapter v. 20-22..

(63) Therefore if the prophet say, This king shall arise, when the four kingdoms shall come to an end, of which the Roman kingdom is one that hath been mighty with the sword; he will no doubt touch upon this, that the tyranny of the pope began at hand, and immediately the Roman kingdom declined and perished: [But he was to arise from the Roman empire, and in the Roman empire, and to have his place; as all history clearly proves, and experience shows, even to this day. As the apostle also foretold, 2 Thess. 2, 8, that he who held it up should endure until he was taken away, and then the wicked man should be revealed. 2c But the mere name of the Roman Empire came out of the Germans and was attributed to them, when it was already over and had been destroyed. And by this this man took a right access, that he exalted himself over all kings, over all bishops, over heaven and earth and thus confirmed his empire in his hand also by a great lie, which was invented for this purpose, that is, letter and seal of the handover of Constantius, which he is supposed to have done to the pope Silvester, which is not only a lie, but is even foolish and foolish.

When people are darkened by the transgressions.

  1. Says the prophet, which Jerome interprets differently and says: "When iniquities shall abound. With this the prophet wants to instruct us that this kingdom will be the fierce wrath of God and will come because of sins. Also for the same reason Paul says in 2 Thess. 2, 10-12 that the same son of perdition will come in, when he says: "They have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved: therefore God will send them strong errors, that they may believe the lie, that all may be judged who have not believed the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness.

1472 L. V. L. V, 315 f. 61... L.'s answer to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1801-1801. 1473

ciency]. Here the apostle expresses sufficiently with these words what unrighteousness or transgressions would be. Which also the prophet Daniel calls in Hebrew actually, and with a special meaning "Peschaim", which is actually a transgression and apostasy from the faith; in the same sense, as 2 Kings 1, 1. is written of Moab, that the Moabites fell away from Israel. Item Isa. 1, 2: "I have brought up and exalted sons, but they have fallen away from me." The same is said in the 5th Psalm v. 11, "For the multitude of their transgressions cast them out." And Paul, in the above saying, speaks of it superfluously, saying 2 Thess. 2:11, 12, "They will not receive the love of the truth"; item, "They will not believe the truth, but will believe the lie"; so that he doubtless means nothing else than the vice of false doctrine, erroneous opinions, unrighteous faith, and apostasy, as he had said before v. 3, "He cometh not, except the apostasy come first."

  1. Likewise 1 Tim. 4, 1: "But the Spirit saith clearly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, and shall cleave unto erring spirits." 2c Item, again he saith 2 Tim. 4, 4, "They shall turn away their ears from the truth." But he here calls the "truth" in his own way the faith of Christ, as is also the manner of the Hebrew tongue; sets up a distinction by contradiction between the truth and the glitter, or, which is as much, between the truth and the mere appearance of the Christian being, as namely, to the Ephesians, Cap. 4, 15: "Let us perfect the truth in love," that is, let us be righteous in love, "and grow in him." Again he says there v. 24., "Put on the new man, created after GOD in righteousness and holiness." Of course, he wants to reject the righteousness and holiness of vain vanity and glittering superstition.

66Therefore the prophet Daniel is called nothing else but the beautiful glittering sins, which are against the truth.

The first thing we must do is to fight against faith, not without the danger of all kinds of other sins, but to become godly by works, to hold some superstitions, to pay much attention to the extravagant practices of worship, thereby departing from the faith that alone makes righteous godliness and holiness, as St. Paul admonished us in Galatians, Cap. 3 and in many other places. And this he indicates when he says: "They will not accept the love of the truth" 2 Thess. 2, 10, that is, they will not love the truth that is in faith; but, like the children of Israel, they will have a disgust at this little food 4 Mos. 21, 5, will desire flesh 2 Mos. 16, 3, that is, they will turn to fables and to the doctrine of men.

67 Therefore, we may not point this unrighteousness or sin to any other heretics that have ever been before; we must understand it only from the doctrine of men and from ungodly righteousness. For the heretics of old contended with the Scriptures; but this king, rising outside the Scriptures, shall reign with his own doctrine of men alone. Therefore Daniel says that the transgressions will darken the people. But all the Scriptures, and St. Paul before him, attribute blindness, darkness, and ignorance to none so much as to one's own righteousness and works of ungodly presumption, as is evident to everyone who reads his epistle. Christ also calls himself the light, so that only faith in him enlightens and justifies all men.

68 Therefore it is clear that this king must be after Christ has already been preached, and against the illumination of the gospel, so that the world has been enlightened. For when the prophet says, "They shall be darkened through transgressions," he gives an indication that they have been enlightened before; which cannot be ascribed to any kingdom before the coming of Christ. For no such kingdom has ever been darkened, because it has never been enlightened; nor has it ever committed any transgression, because it has never walked in the right way; but it must be understood by the ages.

1474 L. V. s. V, 316 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1804-1807. 1475

Christ foretold that this abomination would come with just such words when he said: "Because unrighteousness will abound, love will grow cold in many.

  1. St. Paul also speaks thus 2 Thess. 2:12: "That they all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have lusted after unrighteousness." And truly St. Peter, with very severe words, punishes those who will be in the last days and, like dogs, will eat again what they have eaten. He also explains what the unrighteousness is that should prevail at that time and that they should be darkened, because he [2 Petr. 2, 1-3.There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will bring in corrupt sects" (see, he would have said that they would bring in the "son of perdition" 2 Thess. 2:3), "and they will deny the Lord who bought them. But they will also bring upon themselves swift condemnation. But many will follow their destruction, through whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. And by avarice with fancied words they shall deal with you." Here St. Peter even touches with each other the papal authorities, the ranks of the bishops and (as they call it) the whole ecclesiastical regime; and indicates that such accidents should be dealt with only by taxation and the help of those who have placed themselves in the holy place, and should govern the people with the word of God. Therefore, no one else should be blamed for this accident, except the rulers and heads of the churches.

This is the real scourge of God's wrath, when God sends us powerful errors and false prophets. But the other things that he sends upon us, pestilence, war, the devil, along with other bodily evils, are only a scourge of his mercy, so that he may chastise us. But that he deprives us of the healing word and sends us the poison of error, that is the very last plague of divine wrath.

  1. one would have thought that the pro

Daniel the prophet would have spoken of the Turks, because in his reign, too, unrighteousness darkened the people, if St. Peter had not come and taught us of what principality we should understand the prophet, namely, of that alone which is administered in the people of God, and of those who sit in place of the teachers and bishops. As Daniel then interprets himself and shows that he is speaking of these alone and not of others, but of those who were the same false prophets among the people in ancient times. These things cannot be attributed to the Turk, who has thrown away baptism and the gospel and is no longer a people of God, nor is he counted as those who have their bishops in these lands. Let this be the first reason why this king should be as powerful a king as a king of Persia or Greece, or as powerful as a Roman king was in ancient times. After that, that he would rule by the doctrine of men against the enlightenment of the gospel in the people of Christ.

But for an introduction and a better understanding of this prophecy, let us better examine the words of St. Peter. But who is it that does not see how these injustices, of which he speaks, are just like the nature that the shepherds of the Roman church now lead? And whom should Peter address with this, but his very Romans, among whom his books are accepted, among whom he counts so much with his teaching? Did not Moses and the prophets speak to their people? As St. Paul says Rom. 3:9: "But we know that whatsoever the law saith, that saith it unto them which are under the law." But now St. Peter says, "Among you also shall be false prophets." Who are they but those who hear St. Peter speak and recognize him as their shepherd? Therefore, these words apply to us alone, who are under Roman Babylon; among us it must be fulfilled all that Daniel, Christ, Peter, Paul, Jude and John proclaimed before in the book of Revelation.

1476 L. V. a. V, 317-319. 61 L.'s response to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1807-1809. 1477

  1. He says, "There will be false teachers." Have we not suffered them for a long time, who have destroyed the gospel and taught us only the doctrine of men? Here all the bishops, shepherds and theologians are finely painted with one another, all of whom are at the same time senseless and furious in that they alone so highly exalt and drive into the people what the Roman bishop has set and commanded. But see how the apostle speaks with such noticeable and full words. He says, "They shall bring in beside" [for in the Greek it is said.

xxxxxx], that is, besides the Christian doctrine, which they gloriously boast of, they will introduce unchristian inversion, but with concealed alphabets and lists they will bring in their opinion along with the gospel. Not that they deny the gospel, but that next to the sayings of the gospel they will invent additions, glosses and statutes 1) by which they will in time, so subtly and secretly, lead people away from the right free road 2) of faith, so that it will not be easily noticed, namely by their own chosen works; so that the gospel will be corrupted and destroyed, so that it will have to become incapable of preaching the faith at all.

  1. even the false prophets of old did not deny the name of the Lord, but in the same name of the Lord they came. This is also how Christ Himself depicts them, Matth. 24, 5. 23,24: "Many false prophets and false Christians will arise and will deceive many. Item: "Many will come in my name, saying, I am Christ." Again he says, "If they shall say unto you, Lo, here or there is Christ, believe it not."

(75) But what do the two words, "Here or there," mean to us, but only various kinds or sects of corruption? And what is this corruption but the destruction of faith and the gospel? This doctrine of various sects and works is mentioned by St. Paul to the Ephesians in the 4th chapter v. 14: xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx, i.e..

  1. d. i. Statutes.
  2. In the original: a rsgia via.

"Deception to deceive", or deceitful handles to deceive secretly; therefore the wicked, when they want to deceive the people, attack the matter deceitfully, with their preaching; They hold up the words of God to them, but either force them out of their teaching, or else introduce their own doctrine alongside, thereby putting such trouble in the way of the people; just as the "woman" means the one who sat down in the higher place of the city to deceive whoever passed by, as in Proverbs of Solomon in the 9th chapter. Chapter, v. 13. ff, is read.

(76) St. Paul also exhorts the Romans in the last chapter, v. 17, thus: "Take heed to them that cause divisions and vexations beside the doctrine which ye have learned. What are we to understand by division, for the very thing which Peter calls "divers sects," and Christ means by that which he speaks, when they say, here or there is Christ 2c Matt. 24:23.? What are the aversions, for that very thing, which Peter calls corruption, and Christ calls seduction? What is the meaning of "beside the doctrine" other than that Peter calls the beside introduction, and for that Christ says, "They will come in my name"? So even this desolation with actual words has been proclaimed long ago by the false preachers thus: Not that they would publicly do away with the way of Christ, and show another, or deny the doctrine of the gospel, if one will look at the outward appearance; But they will preach Christ and the gospel in appearance, and boast of them highly, but yet (as they do now) they will deceitfully bring in trouble and division, by which in time they will still destroy and corrupt the way of the Lord and the gospel, so that they will retain no more than the mere name and title of Christ and the gospel.

(77) Do we not see that it is thus fulfilled in these times? since there are so many sects of works and spiritual states, which are repugnant to one another with the utmost absurdity and storm against themselves, of which the Roman church is quite full, by which the one way of faith and love has been destroyed,

1478 L. v. a. v, 3i9 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xvm, 1809-1812. 1479

should be common to all Christians. What do they pretend with these sects, but only the highest divine walk? Have we not praised these ways or ways unto heaven? Are we not hereby instructed that it is more by the merit of works than by the glory of faith that we are subject to attain to blessedness? In other words, we have already begun to give our merit to others to buy. But is it not because faith and the gospel have thus been laid waste and perished? Therefore he does not speak here of the heretics, but only of the bishops and pastors and clergy, who have many sects and works among them, with which they deceive and corrupt themselves and the people through false hope and appearances, because they do not teach at all how one should rightly believe, but only cling to their works, and one blind man leads another Luc. 6, 39.

(78) What is the meaning of the apostle's saying, "they will deny the Lord," but he adds, "he who bought them"? Undoubtedly he wants to announce in what form they would deny the Lord, namely, in the doctrine of justification; but not openly; otherwise they would not be false teachers, because they would be openly unchristians, whom no one would hear. Neither would they be those who, besides the doctrine of truth, introduced the sects of corruption, because they presented no doctrine of Christ at all; but so it should be, that they should keep the names and titles, as if they preached Christ and the gospel, not supposing to obtain salvation by faith in the same, but by the sect and work. For this is what Christ purchased for us, who bought us with his blood, that we might be justified before God through faith in him alone Rom. 3:24, 25. But this innumerable multitude of spiritual orders, works and sects makes it impossible for us to do enough for God and earn the kingdom of God even by our own efforts. All these orders and sects the pope confirms by his authority, and beautifies them and makes them better than the common orders of other Christians.

In this way, he arranges it so that one may have comfort and trust in it. So his most beloved sons, the monks, come along and glimpse this to the most holy father, that is, they strengthen all his tyranny in the best possible way. They confess Christ in words, but deny him in deeds. They make a Moses of him, not because he bought us with his blood, that he alone might be our schoolmaster, teaching us how to lead a good life; but that he himself might live and reign in us, and be our Lord, doing all works in us himself; which may be done by faith in him alone. But those who now preach the gospel and want to be the best make only a master and servant out of Christ, who remains outside us and teaches us only what is good, but does not say that he should rule inwardly and work good works in us himself.

But it is well done that St. Peter says: "They will bring upon themselves a swift condemnation"; because God "will shorten these days, otherwise no man would be saved" Matth. 24, 22. And right now we hope that this time is near.

80 Further follows in Petro v. 2: "And many will follow their destruction. Thereby he indicates that very few will be preserved from this destruction. Therefore Christ gives good advice in Matth. 24, 16, that one should flee to the mountains and not return home.

(81) But here they say, Surely it is not evil what the fathers have set, for they were holy men, as Augustine, Benedictus, Bernard, Franciscus, Dominic, and the like of many others, of whom we have received it. Answer: This is what Christ and the apostles, Peter and Paul, mean, that these works will appear to be like those of which the Gospel says. For this they call secondary doctrine and secondary introduction, because they take the example from the fathers, but not the faith in which they thus lived. Thus happens

1480 D. v. a. v, 320-322. 61. L. 's response to d. Book of Catharinus. W. xvin, 1812-1814. 1481

For what the fathers may have set by error, according to which it is here declared that even the elect shall be led astray. They plunge into it without sense and reason and accept the same error or the outward gestures for the right way, and are so deceived by it that, before they feel it, they depart from the gospel and from the faith; beforehand, if the Pope's power from Rome adds his own, it confirms the thing, strengthens it, so that one should trust in it; He goes on and makes necessary laws out of it, which the fathers made and kept only out of the free will of the Spirit, not wanting to bind anyone to it forever; or if they had already done so, they would have undoubtedly erred in doing so according to human nature.

Now it follows in St. Peter: "By whom shall the way of truth be forsaken. But what is this way of truth? Is it not the one that is contrary to the appearance and glitter of works? Neither did the apostles set up sects or rules, but only preached the Christian faith and showed it to all men as a common way; therefore also faith in Christ alone is the way of truth. Who then are the blasphemers? Without a doubt, they are those who deny the Lord. Take before you those who, by papal authority, extol their own cause, preach their sects, praise their orders as holy, righteous and wholesome. What are they doing by this, but depriving the way of truth of its praise and glory, and attributing this to their order?

Has not this blasphemy become so rampant that only the priests, first of all the monks, have been considered Christians? The others must be called laymen and worldly, and they are counted as a rabble that leads its life outside the way of blessedness; and when one enters a religious order, it is considered and praised as coming from the world and layman's state. Finally, we have been persuaded to think that if one wants to be saved, he must enter a religious order. Is this not "forsaking the way of truth"? Does not this mean, then, taught, "Here and there is Christ"? Is it not here that

Does not the way of faith be despised and forsaken, and the sect and superstition of works be accepted in its place? Must not then trust in Christ perish, and everyone want to be saved by works alone? Are not such gospelers now the most glorious in all the world, and held in great honor? So that the Christians, who live so simple in faith, are hardly considered to be the dung of the street.

(84) Further, if any man shall rise up against these chosen ways and manners of men, or (as St. Paul calls it to Colossians 2:25) against these έ^ελο^ησζείας, i.e.

He had chosen his own clergy and chastised them, indicating that they were ways of blasphemy, devised to corrupt the faith, to destroy the gospel and to deceive souls, confirmed by the pope; he taught again that faith alone was the only way for all Christians to attain salvation; what do you think they would do to that? How often would he have to hear from them: You heretic, you end-Christian, you Satan, you devil, you disjointing, you erroneous man? Recently, they would not be able to bear the wrath, chastisement and disgrace that belonged to this worst enemy of the church, who would be so wicked, who would bring such dishonor to the fathers, and who would poison the people with such false teachings.

But the very thing Peter says here is that such false prophets will come, blaspheming the way of truth. Why? Because the way of their vanity must be praised, as the prophet says in the 10th Psalm, v. 3: "The wicked is praised in the lusts of his soul, and the unrighteous hypocrites to himself, and blasphemes the Lord." How bravely and finely does the Papist Church fulfill this prophecy to this day? Leave nothing to chance, everything must happen that is written in the prophets by the cunning, false, lying prophets, masters, shepherds and self-grown saints, whose names no one wants to tell; because at the end of the world there must be all the more of them.

  1. further follows v. 3: "And by avarice with invented words they will tamper with you." That is clear enough in the day that it happens by the bulls, indults and spiritually.

1482 L. V. a. V. 322 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1814-1817. 1483

The Church is not only a place for the sale of the right of the Church, but also a place for the sale of the right of the Church, through the stationers relic merchants, quaestioners indulgence collectors, terminators mendicant monks and mass sellers, so that no glosses are needed. What is the state of all priests different today than pure avarice, but only with fictitious words, not pretending to all, but also falsifying the words of God Himself? For these words, God, Christ, spirit, church, justice, truth, good works and merit, they misuse as many of them are. They do not rhyme them with faith, but with their own cause, so that the poor people must understand another thing by them than it means in Scripture. Therefore all that they preach is made up, because they do not preach the faith. For if they should preach the faith, all their things would be destroyed from the beginning. But now they have taken the people captive and made them fools with this glittering deception, robbing them of all their possessions and goods; because they have had enough, are idle, are powerful, are honored and highly praised, are also holy and spiritual people, and the holy name of God must serve them for such their abominations.

But let us return to Daniel the prophet, and there we shall hear much more of this abominable kingdom. That is now enough to say about one entrance.

(88) Truly, the prophet presents to us a strange and weird kingdom, which does not rhyme with any other kingdom that has ever been, is, or will be in the world. It wears new and unheard-of armor, uses new and unheard-of power and authority, does new and unheard-of things; indeed, everything in it is new and unheard-of. That is why the prophet says the following Dan. 3, 23:

There shall arise a king mighty of countenances.

Jerome has interpreted it correctly, thus: "A king with an insolent face. But we take it as the words read in Hebrew, Os Panim, which is interpreted: mighty of countenance or countenances. But that he should stand up is not spoken of one person, but of the whole kingdom.

and on the same descendants. This kingdom also does not mean that it should last a short time. Christ also says Matth. 24, 15 that the abomination would stand in the holy place, that is, be firm, stable and strengthened with a great following. Also St. Paul 2 Thess. 2, 3. 4. does not say that this son of perdition would pass by, but that he would "sit in the temple of God".

90 Now what a strange power has this strange king, who is powerful not with horns, not with claws, nor with sword or armor, but with gifts, so that he is not at all comparable to all others! He does not say, "He will be mighty with one gift, but with many gifts." Therefore, this prophecy does not rhyme with the Turk, nor with any other kingdom that is maintained by force and arms. For such as these are signified by teeth, horns and claws Dan. 7:5, 23, 24. So it may not be said of the kingdom of Christ, which has no ground at all Luc. 17, 20, exists only in the spirit, and has only its spiritual horn to fight, which is the word of God. Therefore one must conclude that this kingdom is neither spiritual nor temporal, for it is not maintained with either spiritual or temporal weapons.

. 91. With what then is it maintained? Answer: With pretenses, that is, with a vain appearance, with pretense and with the splendor of glittering, namely, with all kinds of outward, unbelieving ways and customs in worship, which are only presented to the eyes from the outside, in clothing, in food and drink, in persons and special dwellings, in customs and the like. For among all pretenses or outward appearances, none is more powerful and pleasing than ungodly hypocrisy, which gives the appearance of a true spiritual being and has a Christian appearance; therefore it is also the most harmful. Never again will a man be attracted, seen or held by worldly figures, be they males, boys, 1) goods or friends; nor will there be any amusement games or whatsoever of the kind.

  1. I.e.: of maidens, of young men.

1484 2- V- a. V, 323-325. 61. L.'s response to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1817-1820. 1485

otherwise would like to tell. But the spiritual spirits, because they seem to be divine, and pretend to be an indication of the eternal things, the same ones saw and deceive even the most wise, the most holy and the most powerful, yes, even the elect, as Christ says Matth. 24, 24.

It is therefore evident that this king must be the end Christ, that is, an adversary of Christ and his kingdom. For Christ is such a king, mighty in truth and fiercely opposed to appearance and form, as we see in the gospel. But this is such a king, who alone is mighty in giving, and is also fiercely opposed to the truth, for which reason, not without cause, the holy apostles Peter and Paul so often blow the word "truth" in our ears, that they may deter us from hypocrisy and appearance. For so says St. Paul, 2 Tim. 3, 2. 5, when he interprets this saying, namely, "There will be men who think much of themselves. "2c And then follows, "Those who have the appearance or form of godly conduct, but deny its power."

How many a pretense and pretence, ghost and glitter, in the most sacred of the Pabst's

Empire can be found.

Let us look at the kingdom of the pope, and first of all at the appearance, or the figures, of the persons in it. Can you, tell me, where was there ever a kingdom that had so many donors of persons? First of all, look at the pope, how he struts in with a three-fold crown, with immense pomp and grandeur, with so much splendor and courtiers. See then the splendor and wealth of his cardinals, who even among themselves are not of the same person and character; for this useless people makes itself equal to kings. After that, see the patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops, vicars, provosts, deans, canons, officials, clerks, and who can tell all of the unpleasantness? Among the monks alone, the stories are so varied that it would not be easy to tell them.

  1. however, these are the things that one

The most spiritual rights of the most holy father, the pope, do not deal with any other things than these, although Christ and the apostles without them have governed the church in the best possible way with the most consistent truth. In the church and in the word of God there is also no need, nor benefit of it. Now do you understand what "the king mighty of givers" is? I also think you understand what "the abomination that stands in the holy place" is Matth. 24, 15, where you want to hold the form of it against the truth of the apostles.

(95) And especially the Hebrew word os, that is, a mighty one, serves for this purpose; for it signifies the natural or inherent power of a thing; not the compelling power by which one protects oneself or denies other people's goods; but, as we speak of the power and might of herbs, if we want to signify the power and virtue of the same. So this king has no other natural virtue in him, but only the appearance and gestures and various outward appearances in various ways and in innumerable places, of which Jude the Apostle thus proclaimed [v. 16: "They respect the appearance of men for the sake of profit"; and Jac. 2, 1: "Dear brethren, do not think that faith in Jesus Christ our Lord suffers from respect of persons." Again Jude says v. 4: "For there are some men come in beside, of whom it is written in time past, unto such judgment, that they are ungodly, and draw the grace of God to lust, and deny God, that he only is the Lord, and the Lord Jehovah Christ."

I do not want to reject the interpretation of Jerome, who calls this king insolent and of an insolent face; I want to show the presumption of the gleissers. For it is unbelievable how sure, how bold, how presumptuous people make this figure of the God-blessed being, by which alone they consider themselves worthy of heaven before all men; make them, as the prophet says Obad., v. 4., "their nest up among the stars." Yes, they are so insolent and impudent that they have equal mercy on the other rabble;

1486 L. V. E. V. 325-327. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1820-1822. 1487

Therefore they also give them their earnings, and sell them, that they may eat and devour their houses. Some of them, as the Pharisee did to the publican Luc. 18, 11., spurn and despise the poor. It looks at me that he also meant it, who in the book of Proverbs 21, 29. which is translated from the Hebrew: "The wicked man is mighty in his face, but the righteous man does right in his ways"; as if he said: "The wicked man is secure in himself, lacking the gifts of godliness, but the righteous man, with Paul Phil. 3, 13., gives himself up every day to that which is before him. Which certainty is also nicely described in Ps. 10, 6: "(He says in his heart I will never be moved, no calamity will befall me." And again, "Thy judgments are hid or taken away from his presence." The same is said of the wicked of his time, Isa. 28:15, who had made a covenant with death and with hell 2c

Now let us look further at the other gifts in which the powers of this kingdom stand. The first of these are the riches of the church and the paternal inheritance 1) of the Crucified One, called church goods and spiritual goods. For the power of this kingdom has brought about that which is temporal must be called spiritual; temporal things must be ecclesiastical and corporal things heavenly. With these things the church is endowed, adorned and made glorious; indeed, not a small part of the gifts consists in these things. Tell me, what emperor has ever been able to do so much good? It is a fact that the ecclesiastics possess more than half of the world's goods; many cities, castles, dukedoms, kingdoms and principalities have been incorporated into this king. The Roman Empire took about the lap and customs alone, but here the property itself is their own. Which ruler of Rome in former times could have been compared to one of these cardinals or archbishops or bishops? There is never no

  1. In the original xetriiaonia; probably jokingly set for xatrimonia.

The people of the Holy Roman Empire would not have had such great princes and lords under them, who would have been able to manage such great goods, such abundance and splendor. But they do not have enough of this half share, but they also pretend that the laymen's goods are all theirs; so that they would like to destroy all principalities, all power and authority and, according to their will, bring land, people, cities, castles and villages all under themselves, only that they might rule and command as they please. And if anyone opposes them, they can wage war and shed blood; they can even do the same with their own warriors and incite and ensnare princes and lords in one another.

Yes, they have not been satisfied with making all the world's possessions and goods their own; this tyranny continues and makes it all theirs, as often and as they want. So the pope sucks the bishops, the bishops suck the parish priests, for this they have invented the pallia and annals, subsidies, that is, tax of love (as they call it) and other such robbery titles, and if it goes on for a long time, it only goes beyond the poor people. For there the parish lords and the monks skin the people and flay them, so that they may fulfill themselves and the bishops. And this robbery is carried out by the pope in one half of the goods, which we have called church goods above. The other half of the goods he steals by means of indulgences, by means of bulls, by means of letters of confession and butter letters, by means of liberties and dispensations, which he issues from himself. And who alone could tell all the titles of such robbery? And this is accomplished only by the givers; and the same givers become more and more, so that they also do such robbing and plundering more and more. These are now called holy, Christian, faithful offices of the shepherds in the church, so that they shine as sun and moon in this world.

(99) Damn him who says that these are not great good deeds that go on without ceasing and mightily to improve, adorn, and strengthen the holy church, that indeed the splendor of the kings of Persia and the wealth of the Romans, which were known in ancient times, are not great.

1488 V- a. V, 327 f. 61. L?s answer to the book of Catharinus. W. xvm, 1822-1825. 1489

is child's play when you look at how gold and silver flow in, shoot and pour. But what do you do with so much good? What need is there for it? Do you give it to the poor and miserable? Yes, God be thanked for that! But Sodom, Gomorrah and Sybaris must be filled with it. But what do we do with such childish, light things? The thing is so great in itself that one can neither believe it, hear it, nor talk it out.

(100) And yet these things serve to strengthen such vices, in the highest way, that even much lesser sin has become adultery, deception. Yes, what do I say about lesser things? It is easier to blaspheme the name of God, to commit perjury and to deny the faith (although these things too are more a joke than counted as sins among them), than for one to injure a spiritual person only a little by diabolical inspiration (as they call it) or to damage his property only by a penny. So holy is this more than three times the greatest robbery, that also a frightening rumor goes, how some have perished so shamefully because of it, first of all the princes, and none has died without shameful death, who would have touched only the smallest of their property or would not worship them worthily and sufficiently.

For they do not understand that these are the mighty errors that come with false signs and wonders of the devil 2 Thess. 2:11, 9. For such misfortune of the same antasters of the church goods does not come upon them because the church goods should be so holy, but because they are so cursed and poisoned, as they are gained so shamefully and with such outrageous robbery, that they, who only touches them, become deadly to a good man and, as it goes in the proverb, turn into tolose gold; But they alone are harmless to those who steal it for themselves and who approve of it, protect it, and also have a share in it; they are well, live in all pleasure and are honored; when they die, they are buried honestly, at the grave they erect a shield and helmet and endow them with an eternal memory, so that heaven is attained for them, which they, because they lived, did not deserve before their death.

of such sacred things, that they might rightly and justly miss themselves, and so, in the meantime, almost unwillingly have earned hell.

  1. Above this high holiness and so much honor of the church, that is, above these offerings, which they have presented with great devotion and spirituality to praise God, there follows another offering of courts, palaces and splendid houses. For as the offerings of goods make the offerings of persons respectable, without which they would otherwise be despised; so do the offerings of courts and houses and adorn the offerings of goods. For the goods are less respected, if one would not have beautiful, decorated and apparent houses according to the dignities of this glory. Now tell me also here, can you, where is any nation that has more delicious, more beautiful, more amusing and ahead so many houses, than this kingdom of the donors? Don't they have the best grounds and floors? Do they not possess the best castles and houses? Where is there any pleasure, splendor and ornament in the whole world that you would like to compare with them? For they build as if they intended to build a paradise for them here, which should last forever. Just look at the royal palaces of the most worthy cardinals, which they own for the glory of God and for the honor of the church, you would have to be ashamed if you compared the halls of the kings. But this is no wonder, because they are the descendants of the apostles and (as they say) the power of the church; therefore they should be equal to kings, even though the apostles alone were fishermen Marc. 1, 16..

Now let us also come to the other gifts, which are less holy than those mentioned above. For these three donations of persons, riches, and splendid houses, which we have told so far, may without doubt be recognized as the most sacred, since everyone knows well how great an ocean there is in the spiritual rights.

1490 L. v. L. v, 3W f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus'. W. xviii, iW-1827. 1491

which concern the church as much as Belial rhymes with Christ 2 Cor. 6:15.

The fourth gift is the clothes and especially the garments of the clergy, with which this un-Christian being of this horrible disturbance mostly protects itself. Which one does not cheaply puff up and make holy, and that one must almost worship him for God, the red cardinal's hat, the two-pointed island, 1) the scarlet tail, 2) the mouths adorned with precious stones, the long dress, which from the top down to the feet is made of gold and precious stones, and all other variety of adornment, so that they are separated from the laity and from the common clothing of common Christianity, as from an unspiritual doing and being of the same? Now consider also, the shaven heads, and the hands smeared and consecrated with stinking oil, which no one may touch, it would be more, than if one had committed the highest breach of the church. But how blessed is he again, who by great grace is granted so much that he may kiss them. But the dress of the monks, though it may be various, is so shapeless that it is almost an abomination to them.

Here thou mayest see from whence so many sins have sprung in a short time, how many grievous consciences and cases they alone have reserved to remit; namely, as often as anything is neglected in these garments and changes. Do you think that any violator of virgins would commit such a great sin as that of sinning, namely, that a priest would not have his plate sheared for a whole month? What sin would it be if such a person had slain his father and mother, as opposed to one who went to the altar without a stole or without a vestment or had forgotten to put on something else from the chasuble?

O what a worthy clergy! O what a fine worship, which looks very well to such saints! Here they govern and administer their kingdom with so many laws, statutes, customs and habits;

  1. Island - Inful, bishop's cap.
  2. Tail i.e. train. Mouths i.e. mouth animals.

So many dispensations and irregularities must serve for this, and such abominations without number, so much that no one would like to tell it without his great disgust. There, there, in these things the Christian service consists. Truly, these are people who are to be taken for the Christian church, in whom the Holy Spirit dwells; These are they whom it is reasonable to believe may not err, but for the sake of one cause, that they are thus shamed, that they walk in such garments, that they ride on mouths, and are carried in litters, though they not only are ungodly, and ignorant of the Scriptures, but also in worldly matters have no reason, nor sense, nor wit, grosser than the asses that dwell in Arcadia, of which there is a special proverb. This alone is enough for them to know by heart, so that they are able to measure all things. This is the way that they take up their cross and follow Christ Matth. 10, 24, these noble descendants of the apostles and governors of God, here on this earth.

The fifth gift is the brave masterpiece of squandering money to build, erect, decorate and abundantly endow houses of worship, monasteries, chapels, altars and other such works. This is where the most sacred rights, bulls and seals of the pope can be used and lost, so that they confer heaven more than once on all those who give and donate their help and taxes for this purpose. Here, the good works go forth in true fervor; here, immeasurable treasures are collected for the building and upkeep of the house of God. Where churches are built here that are more beautiful and ornate, they are so much better Christians, and they do much better who give to them than when they give to poor people. They do not build churches to make a comfortable place to hear the word of God, but so that God and people will have something fun to look at.

(108) For they build a house for God, even though He said long ago through St. Stephen Acts 7:48 and long before that through Nathan and David 2 Sam. 7:7 that He does not dwell in houses.

1492 D- V. L. V, 329-331. 61 L.'s answer to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1827-1839. 1493

which are built with the hand; but now he is expelled from his heaven and has come into misery, and now begs houses from us to him and his saints. And the most holy father Pabst with his bishops come then and these nonsensical works, to which the rabble is too much inclined without that, they consecrate and sanctify and also commit them with high freedom after that. Again, they banish and condemn with severe plague and punishment all those who dare to dishonor, despise, or commit sacrilege against these places of worship; as is fitting for such clergy of the churches. But by doing so, they do not only strengthen the above-mentioned nonsense of the mob, but only move and incite them the more, so that not even a small part of the most holy spiritual right has arisen from it, by which one must mislead and confuse the world with foolish and incensed consciences 1 Tim. 4:2.

What then do we do with the word of God and with faith? That is why Christ is left in charge of the kingdom of truth. This king has enough to do with the kingdom of gifts; he must administer it to the best of his ability and make it great with all kinds of alfalfa tricks, as he is always able. Tell me, is this not worshipping stone and wood? Show me otherwise, what is worshipping stone and wood? since God has not commanded these things, and moreover, what he has commanded is trampled underfoot and laid waste by them.

The sixth is not one alone, but a whole forest full of prayers, that is, all the things that are conducted and handled in the churches as the most delightful trades. There, the seven times of the day are whispered and murmured with great effort, but in such a way that they are never prayed. Also, they multiply them by and by with Our Lady's course, 1) and with the one made by the holy cross, and with too much chatter of songs, which God (as he says through the prophet Amos 5:23) does not want to hear. And who would tell with how many laws, that is, with how many causes the

  1. D. i. eursus Alarme, a long grater of Marian prayers.

What is the meaning of this work, if it is a work of sins and evil conscience? One has also added sounds 2) and without number of various ways and types of chants. Yes, the organ and all musical arts had to serve these purposes. Not to mention the chalices and the sculptures, the vessels used in the church, made of gold, silver and wood, also the cloaks, altar cloths, corporals, 3) and without measure and number other church ornaments, candles, lamps and the like.

Furthermore, they have invented even more sacraments than Confirmation and Holy Orders, the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and Holy Communion, which is offered to the dying. O good God, what an insatiable pit this is, which devours so much money and goods, and even murders so many souls! Who here has such a good head that he would grasp in his memory so many spiritual rights, which are set only for the purpose of knowing how such things should be done well and worthily? They also make these things necessary for all Christians, so that they would sooner forgive adultery than do anything contrary to such holy laws and ordinances. But if the most holy father pope had freely given each of us these gifts, along with those mentioned above, to choose from, and had let us all remain equal according to the gospel, then none of the sins, which have thus become without number, would ever have arisen. "For where there was no law, there would be no transgression" Rom. 4:15. But now he abuses our foolish consciences, and makes so many laws, of which there is no end; and by them he causes so much sin and ruin, of which there is neither number nor cessation. This is why St. Paul calls him the man of sin and the son of perdition, that is, a voluntary lawmaker who is so godless that he combines with law the things that have been made free for all believers through Christ.

  1. Wittb. In the Wittb. edition: "gedöne", mere shouting. In the Jen. Ausg., Bd. 2, 236: "kören und dohnen".
  2. Corporal, a white linen cloth for covering the hosts. Cf. Wittb. Vol. VII, 500b).
  3. D. i. ever.

1494 L. V. a. V, 331 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1830-1832. 1495

Here I will be condemned by the most holy father Pabst's nobles, who will call me a Picard and a Wiclefist. But against this I shall be comforted by the prophet Daniel, who thus directs his prophecy to this Antichrist in the 11th chapter v. 38. f.: "He will honor the god Mausim in his building, and he will serve the god of whom his fathers did not know with gold and silver, with fine stones and precious things. He shall remember that he kept Mausim with a strange god, whom he also knew not. He will have much honor, and give them authority in many things; the land he will divide without merit. "2c For this shall be almost enough for me, that I know how these things are all free, not needful unto salvation. Therefore, if one wants to turn them into necessary or useful commandments, this cannot be done without an abominable and unchristian desolation, which belongs to the end-Christ alone, so that he may cause much sin on the earth and much destruction; for these things are only external gifts, not true things in the flesh.

(113) The seventh sin may well be called all the abuses that take place in the mass and all its ceremonies, including the vigils, anniversaries, benefices, endowments, funerals, along with the whole business that has been set up for the dead. Now what is this but a pretense and "appearance of godliness" 2 Tim. 3:5 to deceive the people and strip them of their skin and hair? For now, in our day, we do not say mass to go to God's table and hear the gospel, which in truth is called saying mass alone; but we always say one mass over another, thinking we are often doing a good work. Yes, we also need the mass more for the dead than for the living, only that the living sacrificial priests feed themselves so shamefully with this office. Finally, we need the mass as if it were not the communion of God's table at all; rather, they hold the sacrament of God's table especially outside of the mass, so that the sick may be blessed with it, or they carry it around in delicious monstrances as a strange miracle,

that the people alone should be instructed. These things are all nothing, for human fetishes, which God has nowhere commanded; they are also not necessary, but unchristian and forbidden; provided they keep the mass. But the Most Holy Father, who is the source and fountain of sins and corruption, compels that they must be necessary commandments, so that even he must be a heretic who only dares to protest against them.

The eighth gift is the choice of food and fasting, which should be free every day. But in our day, fasting is not done to mortify the flesh, but that it is a good work to fast this or that day, not to eat, so as to earn heaven. But what is this but an unchristian gift? Of which Paul recently proclaimed, 1 Tim. 4:3, "They will forbid to eat the food that God has created"; and Gal. 4:10, 11, "You keep days and months and feasts and seasons; I fear yours, lest perhaps I have labored in you in vain."

For the ninth blasphemous sin I count that one sets up a holiday above the other for all excesses. For this is what the most holy father Pabst does on this day: he teaches people to serve by idleness, that is, as he interprets it, that one should not perform any bodily business on a holiday, when all days are free, one may work or celebrate. But in this gesture, the Feast of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary, the Feast of Corpus Christi, the Feast of the Twelve Messengers, and the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin, and the like, shine out before others. People must sin and ruin their souls if they do not want to keep one or more of the holidays, or if they keep these foolish and useless commandments unwillingly.

The tenth gift is the noticeably large number of unmarried clergy and monastic chastity. Truly, it is even an angelic gift; but a devilish thing because of it, of which St. Paul 1 Tim. 4, 3. says: "They will forbid marriage." And this again Christ has made free; so

  1. I.e. of the twelve apostles.

1496 V. ru V 332 f. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1832-1835. 1497

The Most Holy One makes a necessary commandment out of it. Of which Daniel on the 11th v. 37 thus makes his prophecy: "He will be out of the lust of women, 1) and will pay no attention to any God"; which we have in our bibles is absurd and wrong 2) thus: "He will be in the lust of women." For this is what Daniel wants to say here: He will not despise the wives out of the love of chastity, but through the vain appearance of godliness.

The eleventh gift is the honor that must be done to the sanctuary and relics. Truly, this is a lovely offering, for it carries much money without measure. Therefore, so many pilgrimages have arisen without number, so that the silly rabble invests effort, expense and time in vain, leaving house and farm, wife and child against God's commandment, whom he should care for at home, or else would like to do much better works at home while working on one's neighbor; for of this one has God's commandment; but to honor and visit the holy bones is nothing but human work. Here they bring Jerome up for their part, since he writes against Vigilantius. But he does no more than to say that he does not want the bones of the saints to be considered a mockery or despised. So they do one thing, 3) and misuse his testimony to the effect that they do not want the least reverence to be paid to the dead saints' bones to be broken off, but rather to honor and worship them as they wish, above all manner and measure, so that no other work should be held in such high esteem.

118 This is also the case, that one has vowed to do so, so hard that no one can dispense with it, not even the pope himself, unless it is a matter of hope for the dear penny. But such a vow, although it is made against God's commandment (who wants to provide for wife and children), still no one says that it is a sin; rather, it is said that there is a particularly great merit in it. Thus the world is deceived by the beautiful glitter of this one work.

  1. I.e. love of women.
  2. I. e. in the Vulgate.
  3. That is, they make one, they make a mockery.

Here I will also include all brotherhoods, however many they are, which are invented by the devil with special diligence only so that the main brotherhood of faith and Christian love would be abolished. For these brotherhoods are established under the name of the saints and in honor of the bones of the deceased saints; of which abuse I have spoken elsewhere; and it would be worth the effort to write a whole book about this particular abomination.

The twelfth, which we count as the last (although there are many more of them, but we order them to be interpreted by the others), is the great pit and the wide gate of hell; such a gift, which has such an immeasurably almost exceedingly good reputation that it is unbelievable, namely the high schools, where perjury and blaspheming the name of God is the first entrance. After that, there is a free and wanton change into all vices. Nor do they promise, among so many sins and corruptions, that one may learn art and wisdom; they also propose high titles and ranks of scholars, which one who studies diligently may receive as a reward. What do they bring for benefit and piety?

First of all, the most skillful boys of the Christians are sent there to make their souls spiritual whores of the faith and throw them into the jaws of hell, so that it looks to me as if this corruption was meant by the idol Moloch in the past, in honor of whom they let their dearest sons and daughters go through the fire 2 Kings 23:10, Jer 32:35.

After that they are presented with Aristotle, whom they themselves have never really understood, and other pagan and secular books, so that the intellect and skill of the Christian boys is overloaded, yes, blinded and even killed. There one acts for the word of God the teaching of the pope, so that one can easily see how the devil could not have devised a more cunning and powerful specter, by which the whole gospel is destroyed from the ground up, that is, with which, since one has established so many high schools, since one under the title of Christianity, one is able to understand the whole gospel.

1498 L. V. a. V, 333-335. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1835-1837. 1499

The only things we teach in Christian doctrine that are most repugnant to the Christian faith are those about which we would have long and much to discuss, if we had time enough to do so.

From these pits of murder and dens of all vice and uncleanness one calls those who are to govern churches; indeed, if one wants to call the very best and most fit to do so.

(124) And indeed, this one gift is to be counted for the last, that is, for the worst and most harmful (as it seems to me), because it carries with it the title as if God's word were being acted there; but the other gifts only have the title of a good example. Also, this gift is nothing else but the school of Hidoth, that is, the school where nothing but propositions are taught, on which the king of gifts is well versed; of which it will be said hereafter.

But it is an immeasurably greater pity if one teaches under the title and name of the Word of God that which is unlike and contrary to the Word itself, for if one lives otherwise than divinely.

For the first reason, because the giving of the examples is made and strengthened by the giving of the Word; it would also soon have to perish if the Word did not rule in giving and appearance, but according to its proper manner and use.

Secondly, because the giving or appearance of the examples alone corrupts good morals; but the giving or appearance of the Word of God, in addition, brings the faith itself to the ground. Oh, that God would only give such a grace, so that the high schools would accept God's word! Good God, how quickly the whole papacy with all its donors would be destroyed! because this one donor of the high schools of the whole kingdom of donors is the support, the bones and all the forces with each other.

Of the Abomination of the High Schools, from the Book of the Revelation of John, Cap. 9.

This larval earth has, in my opinion, St. John in his revelation at the 9th chapter, v. 1. ff., indicated long ago.

and it is well worth the effort that we hold up his words here and interpret them a little, since he says thus:

V. 1. and the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven to earth, and the key of the bottomless pit was given to him 2c.

First of all, it is certain that the angels signify the bishops of the church throughout the whole book of Revelation; as is clear enough from the eighth v. 1, 8 and third chapters v. 1, 7, 14 of the same, where it is written to the angel of the church at Ephesus and to the angel of the church at Smyrna and others. It is also certain that the generation of angels who blow the trumpets, which are seven, as is read in the eighth chapter v. 30, may be attributed to none but the Roman bishop, since it is not written of the others that they blow the trumpets. Furthermore, it should be known that "blowing on the trumpets", as much as the text itself gives afterwards, and what was done from it, may be nothing else than "setting spiritual rights"; which, without the Roman one, no other bishop has ever attributed to him. It is not in vain that it is written of the reported seven angels that they prepared to sound the trumpet Revelation 8:6. It means that the popes alone had neither rest nor peace because of their nonsense and tyranny in making laws and bringing other bishops under them.

But let us come back to our fifth angel, who is the first among the three, who should lead the three "great woes" into the world. This same fifth angel was the one who first raised up the high schools and thus established or confirmed them. And because the histories are described so unequally, so one cannot easily indicate the same one with name; but he may have been whoever he wants, not much wants to be concerned about it.

But the star that fell from heaven to earth was either Alexander of Hales or, which I believe to be more likely, St. Thomas, who, after the high schools were confirmed and this fifth angel sounded the trumpet, rose and either

1500 D- ". v. 335 f. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. xviii, i837-i8io. 1501

He was the first to bring the pagan art to Christianity, or he was a good helper to it, who is so Aristotelian before others, yes, almost Aristotle himself, having fallen from heaven, that is, from Christ to the same earth, relying on the great prestige of the same godless angel, who confirmed such high schools.

Now follows in the revelation, "he received the key to the well of the abyss" 2c He unlocked the same well and led us out of it the dead pagan art condemned by the apostle. And then "there arose a smoke from this fountain", that is, according to the word and opinion of Aristotle and other philosophers, "like the smoke of a great furnace". For it has gained the upper hand, and this pagan art has become powerful far and wide, so that it has compared even Aristotle to Christ in respect and dignity 1). Therefore "the sun of righteousness Mal. 4, 2 and truth" Joh. 14, 6, Christ, has been darkened, that for faith, which is righteousness, works have been put forth, and for truth without hearing nothing has been put forth, but only human conceit.

(133) "And the air from the smoke of the fir (he says) was also darkened," so that one would not think that it was an eclipse of the sun; but that it was a darkening of the air together with the sun, which had come from the smoke emanating from below.

That is, Christ together with the faith, which may be an air or wind, should be eclipsed especially by the doctrine of men.

V. 3. And out of the smoke of the well came locusts upon the earth.

These locusts mean the rabble of the high schools, which the pagan art gives birth to us. 2) Truly and truly called locusts, that they do not have a king (that is, Christ) after the manner of locusts, and fly together in heaps, as it is written in the book of Proverbs 30:27. After that

  1. D. i. made equal.
  2. D. 6 which is born out of philosophy.

also for this reason, because they devastate and wither everything that is green, where they only sit; so that they bring their kind with them according to the Latin word I^oousta. For as the schoolmasters teach us, the little word I-oeusta comes from 4,oeus U8tv8, which means a burnt place, or from I.06U8 va8tatu8, which is all so much as a desolate place: for this people burns, withers, and devastates all the green spring of Christ's pasture, that is, the fruit of faith altogether.

And power was given to them as the scorpions have power on earth.

This is the power to violate the consciences. For if they have devastated the fruit of faith, which alone heals consciences, it is not possible, consciences must be violated.

V. 4 And it was said unto them, that they should not offend the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, nor any tree.

That is, they should not hurt the chosen ones. For they do not harm all, just as the natural locusts do not harm all greenery, but they attack it only in one place, as has happened here:

But the people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads,

that is, those who do not have grass, that is, those who do not have the faith, which is the seal of God that we bear in our pure conscience and free walk.

V. 5 And it was given them that they should not kill them, but torment them five months.

  1. as I understand it, this is said of the doctrine of works, which, because it does not teach the knowledge of sin in truth, does not kill men, as the law does; but only torments them with vain labor, by which they learn forever, and can never come to the knowledge of the truth 2 Tim. 3:7. But those who are killed by the letter are made alive by the eternal Spirit and are not tormented for five months. These five moons mean the whole time, in which

1502 L. V. a. V, 336 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1840-1843. 1503

We are not aware of the fact that we live according to reason and the five senses, in which time the doctrine of works reigns. And we see how all theologians who deal with the doctrine of works have an evil and unholy conscience, full of doubt and restlessness, and may be neither pious nor evil in themselves; therefore, it follows:

V. 5 And their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it strikes a man.

See what a wounded conscience is. Here he interprets what he said before, that is, they are not killed salvifically, nor made alive spiritually.

V. 6. And in those same days men shall seek death, and shall not find it; shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

That is, they will seek the death of sin, which lives too strongly in their conscience, and yet is not rightly recognized. For if it were rightly recognized, it would be killed from the beginning and would have to perish. This, however, is not accomplished by Aristotle with his doctrine of works; but it is the office of the letter and the spirit 2 Cor. 3:7, 8.

V. 7. And the locusts were like horses prepared for war.

These words mean their disputations, which they hold, and their eternal school quarrels. For they are allways skillful and ready to argue (as they speak of it) pro and contra, that is, to hold part and counterpart.

And on their heads like crowns, like gold.

This means their high names and titles, so that they are honored, that they must be called gracious lord, 1) Magister noster, and they write themselves humble and unworthy teachers of the holy Scriptures.

And their faces are like the faces of men.

For their doctrine and life is not of the spirit of faith; but is governed by inspiration of natural reason, and with the light of nature, which Aristotle has illuminated.

  1. Wittb. Edition: "Gnad Herr."

V. 8: And they had hair like the hair of women.

This means the female sacrificial apes, who live in a female manner in all the pleasure that woman philosophy gives us, in whom neither spirit nor male courage is strong in Christ. For also in the 68th Psalm v. 22 and Is. 3, 24 the priests are understood by the hair. Also no one is allowed to become a theologian, because whoever is or wants to become a priest or a sacrificial servant, that even among the rabble they sometimes do not have to hear much good about it, the good theologians.

And their teeth were like the lions.

You may well understand the Thomists alone instead of all the theologians. Are they not more mordant, more lascivious, and who devour each other everywhere, more than all others, where one speaks only a little against their theology, which they have learned from Aristotle? In addition they bite and eat each other, the Thomists and Scotists and Modernists, and sharpen one party on the other not bad teeth, but lion's teeth. For there is no race of men on earth that contends with one another more cruelly and with greater hatred than these sects of theologians, so that one would gladly rule alone and be the best, and would wish the other to be utterly devastated and laid waste.

V. 9. and had armor, like armor of iron.

Now this is their stubbornness and certain presumption of every sect among them, that they hold on to every part that their opinion is true and constant. With these iron armors they are invincible. And these are the main parts of the doctrine on which every sect is based.

And the rattle of their wings, like the rattle on the chariots of horses running in war.

The wings are the words of the school quarrelsome, when they dispute with each other, so that one storms against the other and attacks and fights with much quarreling and shouting: as we see before our eyes in the turmoil of their school quarrels, both with words and writings, since no one is able to follow the other.

1504 D. V. a. V. 337-339. 61 L.'s response to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1843-1845. 1505

Each of them is insurmountable. The rattling of the chariots and the horses signifies the stubborn courage they exercise in the dispute.

V.10. And they had tails like scorpions, and there were spikes on their tails, and their power was to offend men five moons.

With this, he eliminates what he has presented above, namely, that all fruit and end of this theology is an evil conscience, this time long, which one lives in the five senses. But this theology is an abomination to the clergy, who live outside the five moons in the spirit of freedom.

V.11. And they had over them a king, an angel from the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.

Let us hear who is the one supreme rector over all the high schools. Not Christ, not the Holy Spirit, not an angel of the Lord, but an angel from the abyss, that is, not only a dead man, but a dead man from among the dead and damned. Who is this? The great light of nature, Aristotle, who is truly called Apollyon, that is, a corrupter and destroyer of the church, who now reigns in all high schools, because he was not worthy to be called by his own name in the holy 1) Scriptures. So also we have said above, how the word angel signifies a teacher in the church Mal. 2, 7.. But it is certain that the deceased and damned Aristotle is a master and teacher of all high schools, more than Christ. For St. Thomas has raised him there by his prestige and great diligence; there he rules and brings back the doctrine of free will, holds up to us the works and the threefold pagan art, and is thus like the other Cerberus, who had three heads, yes another Geryon, who had three corpses 2) as the poets say.

  1. In the Wittb. In the Wittb. edition and in Walch erroneously: "here in this writing".
  2. I.e. bodies. Geryon, from whom Hercules kidnapped the cattle, was a three-bodied king m Spain.

Behold, this is the first woe that the church has received from the bishop of Rome, through the tax and help of St. Thomas; to whom bishops and St. Thomas would have belonged the most to forbid and eradicate such things, so they have been the ones who have done it the most and have raised it. Tell me, dearest reader, are not these things in our times the foremost and the hindmost and all things in the church? Are they not the noblest and the whole essence, as the philosophers speak, of which spiritual law alone negotiates through and through? What else do the wretched canonists learn, but how to keep it with these gifts, which are invented and instituted by godless men alone, and with each other neither God nor the Church have anything to do with? Again, tell me if a good work is found in all that God has commanded. Read the spiritual law thoroughly, and just once bring up something that would force the Roman bishop or another bishop to hold the evangelical office and to preach. It all affects only rulers and authorities. Nothing is commanded by the Word of God, since no other thing is needed in the church, but only the one Word of God. But this must be commanded to the leaders and terminators, and the more unlearned and coarse one is, the sooner.

150 O woe to you, pope! woe to you cardinals! woe to you bishops! woe to you sacrificial priests! woe to you monks with all spiritual status and being! who will show you how to escape the future wrath Matth. 3, 7, which is about to come? How will you answer for the ministry of the word, which you have taken upon yourselves and have not performed? Do you think he will look at the threefold crown, hat, fur, ring, gold and scarlet, and all your now reported offerings? This judgment, which has already been decided, stands firm: "He does not look at the person of men" Acts 10:34.

151 Therefore let everyone who is able hear what counsel Christ gives when he teaches us, Matt. 24:16, how to flee to the mountains and not to return; let him who can flee out of the common multitude into the wilderness, and let him who cannot flee into the desert.

1506 L. v. L. v, 339 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xvm, iE-i848. 1507

is free. O dear man, do not stand after a bishopric or a prebend or a monastery or any spiritual state; there is only sin and condemnation in it, as these gestures indicate, of which we have now said.

But if thou wilt, or art urged to become spiritual, beloved, despise the deeds of this end-Christ, and be careful to minister the gospel purely and unadulteratedly. Either stand up yourself and teach the people, if you have been given the grace to do otherwise; if not, then help and assist as much as you can those who are found capable of doing so; as St. Paul also had many, as he testifies about himself (Rom. 16, 2. ff. 1 Cor. 16, 15. ff.).

  1. Then continue in pure prayer before God for the fruit of the gospel. Believe me, if you do not do this, you will have the spiritual state as your only condemnation, even if you perform miracles and sacrifice yourself to the fire. For the true office of the clergy is to preach the gospel. If this is not possible, then it is not a spiritual office, but only a vocation and appearance of the spiritual office, through which the "king of vaiths" (Dan. 8:23) has become so powerful that he has also destroyed the gospel through such power. And why should I not curse this cursing? O! that our Lord Jesus would destroy all these idols of the world, your papacy, your cardinalate together with all your gifts in the abyss of hell, forever and ever, amen. Behold, now you have what it bears upon him that the prophet calls this king "mighty in gifts".

Dan. 8, 23. and reasonable on suggestions.

As the king is, so is his law, and as his law is, so is his people; as his people are, so are their customs; and as their customs are, so they act and do. But the king (as we have heard above) is a mere appearance, pretence and idol; so also his law must be nothing but a poem and a lie. As St. Peter also proclaimed 2 Ep. 2, 1. 3. and said: "There are false pretenses and lies among you.

Teachers who will use imaginary words to teach you through avarice"; and St. Paul 1 Tim. 4:2: "They will be false teachers in falsehood." And how would one teach the truth who is nothing but a ghost and a lie himself? For since he stands on the fact that he does not think otherwise, because all his pretenses and appearances are real and true things, he must not only tell vain lies, but can also neither suffer nor tolerate the truth.

Is this not a strange and inhuman lie, since instead of the faith of Christ nothing is taught, but only vainglory and ecclesiastical usage? Since one sets up human doctrines for the spirit? Does not the pope do it with his spiritual rights, since he boasts that he governs and feeds the church of God? Does he not praise for good works what is done according to his laws? Does he not condemn and destroy all those who will not obey him, even if they otherwise keep the whole gospel? O what an accursed abomination, which ought to be cursed with equity by all men! He fulfills the saying of Paul 2 Thess. 2, 4, who says: "He exalts himself above all that is called God or worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God as a god and pretends to be God." Doesn't that mean putting himself in the temple of GOD, since ev pretends that he alone is a master in the whole church? What is the temple of GOtt? Is it stone and wood? Does not St. Paul say 1 Cor. 3, 17: "The temple of God is holy, which is you"? In addition, in Paul's time there was no temple called the house of God, as there is now. But what does "sit" mean? Is it not as much as to govern, to teach, to judge? But who has ever been so bold, from the beginning of the church, who alone dared to call himself a master of the whole church, 1) except only the pope? Otherwise, no saint, no heretic has ever uttered such an atrocious word of hope. Paul boasts of being "the master of the Gentiles" 1 Tim. 2, 7. 2 Tim. 1, 11., and that "in faith and truth"; but he did not call himself a master of the church.

  1. Wittb. Edition: "thuest".

** **1508 V."- V, 340-342. 61 L.'s response to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1848-1850. 1509

But does he not pretend that he is God, since he teaches us his words for the words of Christ, and since he dispenses his Papist righteousness for the righteousness of faith? For how can he naturally exalt himself above God? (Let this be far off;) but Paul says (2 Thess. 2, 4.]: "He will exalt himself above all that is called or called GOtt"; not badly above GOtt, but above GOtt named and preached and honored, that is, his word above (the preached) GOtt's word, his honor above GOtt's honor he will exalt. For GOtt is called or called when one preaches Him and believes in Him. Above (this) GOD the pope has now long since been elevated by himself and sits there and in the hearts of the faithful; instead of GOD, whom he should call and name, he is called and names himself everywhere.

157 For this reason St. Paul also adds: "above all that is called worship" he will rise; in Greek σέβασμα, which is as much as: since one honors something as God; that you should understand from this that he will not rise badly above God, but above the service, so that we honor God, or above that which we honor as God, as if he wanted to say thus: In the hearts of men he will be held more dear than God, that is, his word will be feared more than God's word, he will also be obeyed more, and held in honor better than the right God. Is it not true that all this can be attributed to no one but the one and only Pope? Everywhere the commandment and the word of God are despised and scorned; but the word of the Pope is not feared by any man. Truly, there is no God, neither in heaven nor on earth, whose word is accepted and kept with such great obedience as the word of the Pabst; as daily experience sufficiently shows, so that even a fool would not deny it.

Furthermore, who has ever said that he comes in the name of Christ, but only the pope? Only he pretends to be the governor of Christ, the governor of God on earth, which is an insulting blasphemy of God. But what does it mean to be a governor of God, because

"sitting in the place of God"? But what does sitting in the place of God mean, but pretending to be God? That is why Christ foretold that these apostles and messengers of the end of Christ would come in his name. The other heretics, even though they made use of the appearance of truth, none of them was even allowed to adorn themselves with the name of Christ, because that had to be reserved for the one and only end-Christ.

Therefore Christ did not leave it at that, when he had said Matth. 24, 4. 5.: "They would come in his name"; but he interprets it even better and declares himself, when he says: "They will say: I am Christ"; as if he said: "They will propose my own name, which is called Christ, and will call themselves Christ. This they have already done. For they have now made one thing out of the pope and out of Christ, and therefore they slander that Christ and the pope are one and the same person, and that the pope is not to be distinguished from Christ. O what a nonsensical blasphemy above all blasphemies is this? The godless, shameful boy-abuser, the usurer, the church-robber and bloodthirsty tyrant shall be mixed with Christ and become one with him? Oh come, dear Lord Jesus Christ, and put an end to him for once; give a measure to these abominations, so that they do not become too prevalent. Amen.

Now, what does he do, this governor of God, who sits in God's stead? Does he also do and teach what his prince has commanded? Yes, indeed! What does he do? Answer, he teaches us his commandments and does not keep them himself; otherwise, if he taught us God's commandments, how would he be a governor of God? For a governor is nowhere without the prince himself being present; and therefore, where the governor of God is, there God need not be at all; for wherever God is present, there is no need of a governor, but only of servants in the same place. Just as the apostles did not call themselves governors of God anywhere, but only said: "they are servants of God". Therefore the word of Paul 2 Thess. 2, 3. 4. is hereby fulfilled; for

1510 L. V. a. V, 342 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1850-1853. 1511

We see the man of sin and the son of perdition sitting in the temple of God, and that he pretends to be God, who is contrary to it, and exalts himself above all words of God and above all worship. And what is more repugnant to the evangelical truth than these gestures and the doctrine that says nothing but of such gestures? Now this teaching is honored, feared and held more and above God's word, and must nevertheless be called to come to pass and be done in God's name. But let us return to the prophet Daniel.

The little word "Hidoth" means in Hebrew as much as a dark suggestion, or a riddle, a dark word or hidden speech, which makes one deceived, if he wants to hear it according to the appearance; as Samson said in the book of the judges 14, 12: "I will give you a riddle"; and the prophet in the 49th Psalm v. 5: "I will open my riddles in the Psalter. So now this king understands well "Hidoth," who with such dark words can deceive so finely all who listen to him; so that they must hear another, and understand another. For "understanding by suggestions" (as our text has) is not to be called one who can well understand what another says: but one who is himself skilled in deceiving other people with blind words. 162 Take thee an example. If the King of Hosts, in his spiritual rights, uses the word "church" for himself and his followers, and if they are even ungodly with one another, so that they advise all the world what they set and do, that the church has done; as then he has resounded and sat down by this proposal propositio of the reported word. How thinkest thou, is not this a pretty hidah? hath he not thereby given up and proposed a fine riddle? Since the church means nothing else than the holy assembly of believers in Christ, who live and are driven by the Spirit of God alone, who are "the body and fulfillment of Christ," as Paul says Eph. 1, 23.. What lies should not this person put up? What obedience should he not enforce? What law should he not strengthen with this, when he receives this, that those who hear him thus, and he himself, who has it

so says, understand by the church of God, which is the church of the devil? For who is he who would not obey the church?

Now we see once again by this word, how the kingdom of God is special above all other kingdoms, that it is powerful only by words, not by armor, and not by clear and simple words, so that the kingdom of Christ and of men may be administered. For the kingdoms of this world must be governed by worldly laws, which deal plainly and clearly with temporal things, and by such as every man may well understand; so the kingdom of Christ is maintained by the plain and simple word of the gospel alone. But this kingdom must have deceived words, by which it is not governed, but deceived, which mean other things than they say. For it teaches neither worldly nor spiritual things, but pretends to teach spiritual things, while in truth it teaches nothing but what is worldly.

In this they are so clever, witty and skillful by the help of the devil, that they lead even the elect (as Christ says Matth. 24, 22) into error, so that they cannot be recognized except by the right clergy. Therefore Daniel calls him a man of understanding, and calls his laws Hidoth, that is, suggestions, riddles, or hidden words, that he should deceive all the world, who would not take heed to his laws. Take it off only with yourself. If you were taught to avoid certain food, clothing, places, persons, and other things, and to put on only such a garment and clothing, and to keep such and such a thing, food, place, and person, and all this with such an opinion that you would do good works thereby, and so be justified before God; But if you then look into yourself and find that you have only put your effort and work into temporal, perishable things, which do not make you more righteous before God than all the other works and efforts of all laymen: would you not yourself say, Now have I ever been masterfully deceived? and would you then not be so nicely exposed with words? 1)

  1. I.e., made a fool of.

1512 V. a. V, 343-345. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1853-1855. 1513

Now all that the pope commandeth, is it not all such foolishness? Does he not always deal in his statutes either with places or food, or with garments and persons? In this is as much righteousness and is found, as when thou leadest, workest, or sowest in the field. Who then, when he goes to the field, thinks that he will become pious and righteous by it, or that he will commit a sin by it if he lets it go? Although it is a necessary and useful work. But you are commanded to work in such a work, which is neither necessary for life nor for good, and yet you must also set your hope on it, thereby becoming pious and righteous before God, and think that you would be doing a great sin if you let it be done. For what does it profit thee to live, or to do good, to put on a black or gray garment, to eat milk or flesh, to be shorn or not, to dwell here or there? Nor is it said to thee that thou must become pious and holy by such a useless, unfit being, or thou shalt be guilty thereby, if thou keepest it not. But does this not mean masterly suggestions and dark words preached? Now the whole world is full of such lies and deceit. These are the consciences that (as Paul says 1 Tim. 4, 2.) have a brand in them. For in the same way all that they always do is nothing but a mere pretense; so also all that they say and teach is nothing but mere and imaginary deceit, so that there is nothing everywhere but utter deceitfulness, both in works and words, and yet they make one conscience about it without any cause.

Notice how the spirit deals with these so violent abominations with gentle and mild words, since he only calls them "gifts" or "faces", these horrible ghosts and gleamings, which one would not want to disgrace sufficiently with any words, and since he only calls the most poisonous deception of the doctrine of the end-Christ and this mischievous mind, to ape the people, "suggestions" and "hidoth". This same prophet Daniel also foretold such things in the 7th chapter, v. 7. 8, when he writes: After the dreadful beast with the ten horns (which according to all opinion the Roman Empire

I saw a little horn growing in the midst of the ten horns that were reported" (this is Pabst's regiment, which came into being in the midst of the Roman Empire, as we said above). "And, behold, eyes like unto men were in the same little horn, and his mouth spake of great things." These eyes are the reported suggestions, and the mind on Hidoth, so the king of gifts has [, is the prudence of the flesh and the mouth that blasphemes against Christ).

St. Paul is much harsher in his attack on these hidoth or suggestions when he says in Eph. 4:14 that we should no longer be children and let ourselves be wafted and swayed by all kinds of wind of doctrine through the mischievousness of men and deceitfulness, so that they may deceive us. The wickedness of men he calls in Greek, that is, as if thou speakest, a game of dice. Item, the deception he calls in Greek πανουργία, which means a deception, as the juggler kind is, so that they make their jugglery devious, so that one can not notice it. For this is what these godless masters do; they play a game of dice with us according to all their will, and a devious juggler's work, as they propose outward deeds and customs to us, and throw us to and fro like dice, and also play with God's words, as with dice. So they trick us with these evil tricks, just to deceive us, as it is called in Greek:

οδείαν της πλάνης, that is, to attack deceitfully.

to deceive. For this they need their reported game of dice and jugglery with us, that is, all their words and gestures to serve God outwardly is nothing but pure deception.

168 He also says the same thing in Col. 2:8: "See to it that you are not robbed through philosophy and loose seduction according to the statutes of men, and according to the statutes of the world, and not according to Christ. And after that, in the same chapter, he almost points out with a finger what the Hidoth or suggestions actually mean, when he says v. 22 ff: "It is according to the commandments and doctrines of men, which have a semblance of wisdom by their own choice.

1514 D. V. L. V, 345-347. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1855-1858. 1515

Spirituality and humility, and by not sparing the body, and by not giving the flesh food for its sustenance. Behold, how these hidoth or suggestions have a good appearance of wisdom; and yet there is nothing in truth behind them, but vain self-chosen spirituality.

Item, St. Peter, 2 Ep. 3, 3, says: "Know ye that in the last days shall come with deceitfulness, mockers, walking after their own lusts." 2c Does he not here put both together, deceit and mockery, that they deceive with words, and simulate with appearances and glitter? So that he puts the one to doctrine, the other to works; as Paul also does Eph. 4, 14., when he gives the dice to doctrine, and deceit πακοο^ία to works.

So Peter also wants to mean by the mockery of deceit that the prophet Daniel wants to have understood by the suggestions and Hidoth.

This should also be noted, as this little word "understanding" in the Hebrew language means to be careful and diligent about something. In this way Daniel, 11, 37, also speaks of this abomination, as we have just said: "He will not understand the God of his fathers, he will not understand lust for wives, and he will not understand any God. From this we can see that the word "understand" means as much as to pay attention to or diligently pursue or turn to it. For the end-Christian will not know or understand anything at all about God, or what a wife or air is to a woman; likewise what a woman or a wife's desire means; but he will not respect it, will not ask anything about it; yes, he will still set and command what is contrary to God and the marital state; will not turn away from it, that it is an unmistakable burden to the others, if he forbids the marriage to those who cannot do without it.

171 So you must also understand the prophet here, that he thus speaks of this king in his own way, "he will be wise in his ways," v. 23. So that you interpret the words more to his diligence than to his intellect, for truly, no clumsy, foolish and foolish law has ever been established.

The papists' law is the reason why even the teachers of papal law are disgusted by it and have made it into a proverb so that they can speak about it: He who knows nothing but spiritual law is a great ass.

Again, there never was a kingdom in the world, that princes were so diligently foolish and nonsensical in making laws, as the Roman bishops are, 1) so that it rhymes well with each other in the pope, that his foolish sacrilege to make laws is probably as great as his foolish incomprehensible ass's head to teach something good. For what does the pope do in the church, without making from day to day one new law over the other without any cause and understanding, as it comes into his mouth, whether he is drunk or foolish; and changes them again, also as it comes into his mind, and thus plays with our consciences, not differently than if they were dice, so that he would like to play short and play according to all his will, tossing back and forth, as it sometimes also desires his whores and wicked brides. O this is indeed the right reward for our ingratitude. Behold, "because we would not receive the love of the truth unto salvation" 2 Thess. 2:11, we have deserved to be delivered into the hands of this man of sin and the son of perdition, who should thus with games and monkeys bring us sin and mighty error with immeasurable folly.

Summa Summarum, from the above we can sufficiently understand what the suggestions are; and since the whole papal law does nothing but teach how to perform these gifts; and since there is nothing in the gifts but only deceit and mockery, by which the truth of the faith in the gospel is destroyed; it is also evident that all the teaching of the pope is deceit and mockery; as daily experience well teaches us. For he seeks nothing that we should obey God and believe; but that we should

  1. The following (instead of: also-to teach) is literally read according to the original: so that the ignorance in the papal decrees is equal to the stupidity, but both are incredible great.

1516 v. a. v, 347 f. 61. L.'s answer to d. book of Catharinus. W. xvin, i858-i86o. 1517

serve him alone, and that all the world be brought under his compulsion to judge.

But it would not be possible, if he were of God (the pope), that he should not act with all his might to spread the gospel among the people, teaching that all things are free, that no sin is committed in any kind of clothing, food, dwelling, person, or in any other such thing. For sin is not committed by the custom of creatures, but by covetousness or hatred, when it is committed contrary to God's commandment. But the pope puts sin and righteousness only on the custom of creatures; therefore he is and is called a man of sin and a son of perdition 2 Thess. 2, 3, who fills the world with such foolish and imaginary sins.

For if any man thinketh that he sinneth, if he eat flesh on the evening of the twelve messengers, 1) or if he speak not the Prim in the morning, or keep not any other thing which the pope hath commanded, he sinneth indeed, if he doeth it. Not that it is sinful or wrong in Himself to do this work, but because he believes it to be sin, and yet does it against his faith and conscience as a sin Rom. 14:22, 23. For another who does the same work, but does not believe that he sins in it, certainly does not sin. But this is the very thing that the spirit of Paul complains 1 Tim. 4:1, "that some would depart from the faith." Because they make such foolish consciences, the statutes of men are vain poison, are snares to souls, and corrupt faith and Christian liberty. If it were not for that, they would do no harm at all. Therefore the devil abuses the same consciences through the pope, so that he may strengthen and fortify the tyrannical laws, corrupt the faith and Christian freedom, make the world full of error, full of godlessness, full of sin and corruption.

176 St. Paul calls such consciences beautiful, saying 1 Tim. 4:2, "They have a brand in them"; therefore that

  1. I.e. the evening before a feast of the apostles.

they have not become so by nature or by the Spirit, but that they have received such a mark from the branding iron of the doctrine of men. For the Spirit of God teaches that one should hold one thing freely as another, rejecting none. So the governor of Christ says no to this; but one should never eat either milk or butter on some days. Christ says Luc. 10, 7: "Eat and drink what they have." So his governor says the opposite: you shall not eat flesh and eggs. Christ leaves every man free to wear all kinds of garments, but his governor leaves laymen a different garment, but leaves him and his own a different garment, and this in mortal sin and by the commandment of the church. And make them themselves in all conscience about it, either that they are pious and righteous with it, when there is no piety in it; or else that they have sinned by letting it go; though there is no sin either, if their conscience were otherwise, and did not think it was a sin. Therefore they truly have (as they say) made consciences, even consciences forced by force; although, in that they believe it, they are quite injured and harmful consciences. For as the King is, so is his law; and as his law is, so are his sins and his merits. Afterwards there must also be such consciences, only, as I have said, that a foolish and fictitious sin becomes a real sin, through the error of conscience. And this is now their brand, of which Paul says.

And his deeds will be strengthened, but not by his power.

This is the third jewel of this abominable kingdom, which is unlike all other kingdoms. Who has ever heard of such an empire? The Roman Empire was conquered and maintained by its own power. All Scripture rebukes and reproves the horses and flesh of Egypt and other kingdoms in which the Jews trusted, Isa. 31:1, 3. The kingdom of Christ also exists by its own power, more than any other. For the truth is strong in itself and does not ask for help from others. Only the kingdom of this king is strong through foreign power.

1518 L. V. L. V. 348-350 XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII. 1860-1863. 1519

Now, the Latin word Efficaela means in German the power, which our philosophers of nature call the direction or activity, or which brings something into work, that is, the power, so that one may carry out in a stately way what he has in mind, so that it is not a power of the mind, but of the limbs; the same as Ezekiel uses the same word in 2 Kings 19:3, when he says: "The children have come to birth, and the mother has no power to give birth. And Gen. 31:6: "With all my strength I have served your father." Item Job says 30, 2.:- "The strength of her hands counted for nothing before me." By strength is everywhere understood the ability to do, and in Hebrew it is called Koach xxx, and the apostle also calls it Greek xxxxxxx, and the one who has the

He interpreted the Bible in Latin, he interprets it operatively, that is, an effect, Gal. 2:8, where Paul thus says: "He who worked with Peter worked also with me" 2c, that is, he made my word powerful, and that it might convert the Gentiles who also heard me preach 2c.

(179) Therefore 1) this king's power does not consist in armor, nor in the gospel of Christ; so it must be the third, that it consists in hidoth, or in propositions, that is, in its own doctrine of men by the addition or effect of others. And now behold, how the prophet keeps such a fine order, first of all he sets up the gifts, then the hidoth, that is, his suggestions or laws, both of which are fictitious things and altogether foreign to the truth. Then he says that his actions are not strengthened by his own power, but by a foreign power. This is not surprising, since it is not possible for a lie to be sustained by its own power.

180 For thus arose the kingdom of the Roman end-Christ, that soon, even as early as the time of the apostles, they began to seek to become godly and blessed by works; and afterward they made some ways and offerings of worship in the church (as they say) an ornament and a prosperity. Finally, the Roman bishop gathered them all into a heap and put them in

  1. consist with - are based on.

harsh and strict laws and thus suppressed the Christian freedom, so much so that it is now without any measure a greater sin, if one sins against these donors and laws, than if he sins against God's commandment. Thus out of the commandments, hidoth, suggestions or laws have come; out of the hidoth, suggestions or laws has arisen this king's power; and therefore out of the powers then has this desolation been brought into the world, as will follow hereafter. For as such customs have made a law; so the law has given a power to the same customs: which power has at last brought such desolation. Let us see, then, with what power this king of destruction is powerful.

181 The apostle ascribes this power to the devil in 2 Thess. 2, 9. when he says: "Which future things are done according to the working of the devil, with all manner of lying powers, signs and wonders." For in the same way as Christ strengthened and preserved faith and the word with true signs and wonders, by his own power and might; so this monkey, who wants to ape Christ everywhere by contradicting him, must have lying signs and make use of foreign help, if he wants to strengthen his gestures and suggestions in any other way.

So this was the first effect of the devil in these signs, since the Roman church quarreled with the Greek church without ceasing; although it also did dishonestly and was unjust in the same case and only protected itself with false writings and causes; nevertheless it gained the upper hand and proclaimed itself to be a master of the faith and a mother of all churches, has also now confirmed itself. After that, she led her cause everywhere happily beyond measure against all the world and oppressed everyone, where only one stirred against such her hidoth or proposals, laws, statutes and interest 2) and will of courage, however great, learned and holy it always was. Who would not judge these things and count them as mighty signs and wonders, which everyone ascribed to God in the past?

  1. I.e. church penalties, especially in money.

1520 D. V. L. V. 350 f. 61. L.'s answer to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1863-1866. 1521

The first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time.

After this, kings, princes and bishops have been terribly banished, who have violated the right, freedom and heritage of the most holy Roman Church, even the smallest syllables of its proposals or laws, and have not honored them above God's commandment. Therefore, a common fear has come into the world that everyone must be careful that no one is harmful to the most holy father pope through diabolical inspiration (as they say) or does something against his will.

For this is the origin of the cruel lightning and thunder in the bulls, as they are everywhere attached to the back of them: If anyone should presume to do anything contrary to this, let him know that he will fall into the wrath of the Almighty God and of His apostles Peter and Paul. Truly, Christ with his whole gospel has nowhere done so many signs, brought such terror into the world, and otherwise accomplished such great things, as much and great cause the pope has obtained, and led out by the false fright of this few bull's tail. For what is there in the whole world that the pope does not break, reverse, do, and accomplish through this tail, if he is allowed to depose the highest kings, princes, and lords through this single power? Perhaps these are the spines of the locusts, of which it is written in the book of Revelation in the 9th chapter, v. 10.

Did not the pope, by this power of his hidoth or suggestions, establish the Roman Empire anew, since he turned it from the Greeks (as he says) to the Germans? which work, among other works of the end-Christ, is the most noble and the greatest abomination. Who would not have thought that these great signs and works were of God, when they came from the devil alone, as the most powerful and most obvious abominations of him? We have all seen these signs; no one has

but realized that they have thus been lying. Many saints and elect have been deceived thereby; and yet it is brighter than day that these things have not been done for the benefit and advancement of the gospel and faith, but only to fortify and strengthen the gifts and suggestions of this king of gifts. From which some certain indications could have been easily recognized.

But the fact that they say, and that the writers of the chronicles of the French have so highly exalted, that it has never been well with anyone who has stood against the pope, in this they say and boast the truth, as otherwise one should call it evil when someone perishes or otherwise has to suffer disgrace, hardship and poverty; just as the dear martyrs and most of Christ have also been miserable and unhappy. But here the papist spirit (the devil) made another delusion to the people, namely, that it was a sign of condemnation and a sign that God was thus angry with them, when in fact they were signs of His grace. And so the pope gained the upper hand with these false, lying signs and wonders, and abused such timid and stupid consciences that no one could prevent him from his kingdom of prayers and suggestions.

Read all the histories and the ecclesiastical laws by all means, as well as all those that write about these matters, and only see if the pope complains in any place that the kings, princes and bishops have spurned the faith and the Gospel or sinned against God. There is only one complaint in the plan everywhere, that they have not protected and sheltered the Most Holy and Apostolic See of St. Peter, that they have injured or damaged it, either at its head, Pope, or at its members. This is so much said, one complains only of the gifts and proposals.

They themselves also confess that they have turned the Roman Empire against the Germans (although this is an almost great and impudent lie), that the Greek emperor does not favor the Most Holy See of St. Peter, nor does he want to protect it, so that they may be convicted of this by their own testimony.

1522 D. V. L. V, 351 f. XI. Luther's controversy with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1868-1868. 1523

that they did not want to be protected by Christ but by a man, when they have long since fallen away from the faith, of which it is said Ps. 146:3: "You should not put your trust in the princes and sons of men; they may not help nor save." And again Ps. 118, 9., "It is better to hope in the Lord than in princes." Yes, even to this day he casts Christ and his protection to the winds and crowns the emperor alone as a disciple and protector of the church. So this king has a shy and wicked conscience, and is sensible of suggestions Dan. 8:23 because he is purely vain without all truth, without all spirit.

Even now I am exceedingly annoyed and ashamed, yes, I must allow myself to feel pity, as often as I think of how often and much the pope has made a mockery of the emperors and princes along with the entire German nation. Dear God, how with great courage and defiant boldness has he made his game out of them? He led them around like unreasonable beasts and tossed them to and fro, and used them for murder, war, robbery, and for all mischievousness and trickery, so that the papists dealt with them, as the devil would always have him do, and yet he always called them the dear sons of the church. So they had to deserve the great grace that he turned the empire on them, so that they were truly forced to serve the devil. Nevertheless, because of these signs and wonders, the devil has gained the upper hand everywhere and has become so presumptuous that nothing can come into his mind that he should not defiantly approach, and he also leads it out. For he would not have been able to do such things (the pope) without the help and great cooperation and miraculous signs of the devil, who helped him in all his evil deeds.

  1. But what have all these things been sought for? Have they sought the glory of Christ? Did they do it for the sake of the souls' salvation? Did they seek to promote the gospel and faith? Yes, indeed, but it was all done for the sake of the donors and the papist proposals.

Everywhere, the one and only most holy Roman church has been made a proverb, and the holy apostolic chair of Peter, together with the inheritance of the crucified and the goods of St. Peter, all of which (as told so far) must be a cause of such wars and things, and still is in our times. These signs and wonders we now grasp; yet the devil works and creates so much that we may not see their lie. So this end-Christ blinds our eyes with holy names and words, namely with the name of Christ and Peter together with the name of the church, so that the inexperienced consciences, even the experienced ones (that is, the consciences of the elect) are caught.

Who would also tell the abominations invented by the deceased alone? O good God, what a great sea has been lied here about the appearance and occurrence of the souls, how one would have to conjure them up, as these same spirits have answered. From this has come that the pope has also become a king over the dead, and now also reigns in purgatory, although with great harm to the sacrificial apostles, where it should have remained so. For most of them have their food, all their possessions, and all the splendor they lead in purgatory, which would be much less if they had preached the faith of the living with so much diligence as the proposals of the dead.

From the beginning of the world, no more pleasurable 1) handling, which cost less effort, has been invented, than that which is done with the dead. For by this hand have been turned to the clergy, by the church founders, of all princes and mighty men possessions and goods, by the goods pleasure and idleness, but by the idleness Babylon and Sodom have followed. For the devil has always carried his hatred against the sacrament of the altar, and since he would otherwise have no room to destroy it, he has accomplished so much that it should be considered a good work and a sacrifice, buy and sell,

  1. I. e. more profitable.

1524 2- V- a- V' 352-351. 61. L.'s answer from d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, I868-I87I. 1525

which Christ alone instituted as a sign or sacrament to nourish and preserve the faith of the living. So here the faith that one should have in this sacrament is destroyed, that now only the sacrament is not needed for the living, but for the dead: that is so much, one does not need it for anyone's benefit, neither for the living nor for the dead.

O what a fierce wrath of God, which cannot be sufficiently signified! Behold, these mischievous spirits, when they appear, who have only desired mass, have gone about with it, as if they had been helped by such mass. How then such examples of this abomination are an innumerable heap. There we fell into the net as a rude, imprudent rabble without any spirit, like beasts without sense and reason, never thinking that it was a lie of the devil. Nevertheless, God did not abandon us at all, but made it known and evident in many places that it was all a ghost and deception. But because it was such things that served to fortify and establish this kingdom of prayers and suggestions, they had to be strengthened.

194 But with this I do not want to deny that one should not pray for the dead. But that the pope should rule over the dead, and thus make a mockery of the sacrament of the altar, I cannot bear, and I am afraid of it, and would to God that I could weep over it sufficiently. For one does not seek with these signs what concerns faith and the gospel; but against faith and against the gospel one practices pure tyranny under the appearance of prayers and suggestions, only that one should put one's trust in the works. But of the sacrament and of faith I have said enough elsewhere.

Among the heaps must also be counted what happens with the pilgrimages, visits and honors of the saints; which is quite a lot, everywhere in our times, since the pope takes money and confirms with his bulls what it is, and often makes a saint of whom he knows nothing at all who he has been. Now see what this effect is

of the devil in false miraculous signs 2 Thess. 2, 9. lind as the givers are not powerful in their own strength.

In addition to the above-mentioned lying signs, through which the devil strengthens the power of the spirits with his help and service, there is also another cooperation, which takes place and is powerful through the help and assistance of men; and this is of two kinds, one of the spiritual class, the other of the laity.

The help or cooperation of the spiritual state is that they both serve the pope with studies and teachings, so that his gifts and proposals are strengthened and preserved. For he (the pope) rashly lets his proposals go forth from himself without any fear: he also directs his words with all certainty, so much so that he often sets them against himself, does not even know what he is slurring, but always against God in the most impudent way. For neither he nor his own think that they speak anything good or right; but it is enough that it is said; they defy and rely on the mad delusion of the people, since they say how the pope may not err. Hence it comes that the spiritual rights are at times like the dreams of the drunk or insane. He speaks so fearlessly, with haughty presumption and free defiance, that this very audacious abomination must grieve Christian hearts.

When everyone has been advised how this king of meanings may not err, even the most learned, the most understanding, and the most clerical, they take up, with unspeakable diligence and reverence for his suggestions, horrible dung, slobber, and filth. After that, because a fool cannot speak otherwise than foolishly, they have to go into the hard laborious work of glossing, directing, interpreting, rhyming, pulling back and forth, so that it may be seen as right what the defiant fool or drunkard spouts, that it must be right not through his own truth, but through the support, protection, glossing and help of others. That means well and truly, as Daniel says, not by his own strength; for he himself is so unlearned and foolish that he would hardly protect and defend his cause unless he had the support of others.

1526 L. V. a. V, 354 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1871-1873. 1527

Art and Studiren, which must serve him for this.

Therefore, he does not care for it, nor does he need his actions to be strengthened by his own power. He only feeds freely, whether he is already asleep and snoring, so we immediately have an article of faith, affirmed by such foreign help, which is to be kept in the whole church. Hence these words of the same abomination have arisen, so that the pope in his bulls says "de proprio motu", that is, we do it from our own motive of papal holiness, "de certa scientia", that is, with good conscience and knowledge, item, "de plenitudine potestatis", that is, from fully authorized power, which he has and may use. And at last it has come to pass that the poor Christians, if the belly of this abomination would only let a fart, must worship him for a gospel. So even this foreign power strengthens the doings and works of this foolish and lazy idol.

200 For all his matter one must neither judge nor judge; one must read and hear it all with obedience and submission. This delusion has undoubtedly come into the world through the work of the devil, who has taken up residence in our ignorant souls, so much so that he so powerfully strengthens the power of his idol even through us. For if one were to read his cause in such a way that one would also judge it (as some have tried to do), his doings or power would not last an hour, since they are often so foolish, unchristian and blasphemous that they could not suffer and tolerate the light and judgment. And this is just what the devil feared and forbade in the spiritual laws, so that nothing would be sought, except that no one should judge the pope, that he alone should have authority to interpret the Scriptures and to explain the faith, so that his wickedness would not even be revealed through the revelation of his abominations, if another also wanted to interpret the faith and the Scriptures.

201 From this has come the tickling and the hypocrisy and the apostolic blessing on all those who protect and shield the Roman apostolic see, and also on all those who endeavor to keep the pope at Rome in good standing.

He is also angry and rages against all those who may offend him or his own, so that this raging and raging alone is an obvious sign. On the other hand, he rages and rages against all those who offend him or his own, who may resist him or his own, so that this raging and raging alone may be an obvious sign that he is led and driven by the spirit of the devil, who is always concerned that his plots and speeches may be revealed. For a spirit has neither flesh nor bone Luc. 24,39 and cannot be touched. And the lie hates the light, is worried that it will be punished John 3:20. And although it is said of all others: The truth is stronger than all things, likewise: No hypocrite's length remains unrevealed; nor is this lie strengthened by oft-meant king of gifts, because it is an abomination above all abominations, which should be the very greatest and the very last.

The hands of the laymen also serve for the effect of his power. And this we call brachium seculare, that is, the arm, protection or shield of the secular. For the pope has now risen above all principalities and authorities and erected himself, where he cannot force and suppress an adversary with his proposals and gestures, with imposed tones 1) and his malediction. For it is not his opinion that he wants to fight with reason, reason or scriptures, because he is such a foolish and slothful belly; nor does he think that he will overcome with patience or with prayer, that is, with the right apostolic weapons; but he carries out all his actions with foreign power, as he only wants. And then he gives to the same secular arm, that is, to the princes and secular authorities, inciting and confusing kings and princes, country and people, so that they war against each other, murder and shed blood in all the world, until he finally conquers; not as far as faith and the gospel are concerned, but only what his commandments require and want.

And how does he act so freely, surely and boldly in this, giving his papal blessing to all those who are obedient and submissive to him, but maledict with his?

  1. i. e. penalties.

1528 A. V. a. V, 3SS-357. 61 L.'s response to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1873-1876. 1529

Papal curse all those who resist him. Dear one, how would this abomination be so rampant and arise if the devil's work did not have its reign in it? Some have overtaken and maintained their kingdom by reason and writing, some by wealth and power; but the lazy, foolish and powerless abomination is powerful neither with reason nor with the sword, but only with his gifts. Thus he brings about that all reason and art of the others, all goods, all power and all fortune must serve his will of courage with such great diligence, so that he may also play with them as and what he wants. He also does not entertain them with his wages, does not feed them with doctrine; but he keeps them captive only through the ghost of idols, so that they think they are doing God and his holy church a service John 16:2, and do not know that they are serving an unfunny sow and the abomination of all the world.

See now, how kings and princes serve the pope so diligently with arms, how the bishops, cathedral foundations and all monasteries (the innumerable worms) offer him all their art and reason, and all this on account of the one pope, not on account of the faith or the word (for which one does not strive at all), but on account of the fact that one may thus protect and guard the offerings and the suggestions of the pope. And this is the only reward they get from thinking that they are serving God. There you see what it means to strengthen the doing and working of this most terrible abomination, with foreign help or power.

(205) Truly this abomination could not have rhymed better with any time than with the very end of this world, when the dreadful times had to come to an end. For what is more abominable and strange than that a king, the more foolish, lazy and useless he is, should have a kingdom all the more powerful and mighty? Thus this king leads an insolent being, as Sardanapal and the Sybarites did, who lived there in all shame and pleasure. So the king is born only to pleasure and idleness, is neither fit for war nor for teaching, neither for arms nor for the Scriptures, neither can nor is he fit for the Evangelic Way.

He is not able to do anything with the gospel or with faith, neither with prayer nor with works, but he leads the opposition everywhere; therefore he is an abomination to all the world. But with his gifts and his proposals he rules and reigns over emperorships, kingdoms, and over all temporal authorities, by which he possesses our souls and our bodies and goods only to the abuse of all his slothfulness and willfulness; and for all this we get no more from him than his grace and the blessing of his apostolic chair; that is, all smoke and vapor.

And if you are surprised, you will see that other princes, who have conquered their kingdom by war and force, are dearly loved by their subjects. The same is true of schoolmasters, who, if they are learned and skilful, teach others, and are held in great honor and esteem by their disciples. But to this abomination, which is so lazy and coarse, no one will grant anything good from the heart; there is no one who does not curse it, and take an abomination entirely because of it, who sees that so great power and so much good is turned to the most unworthy place. They are still so captivated by the specter of both the prayers and suggestions that they are all afraid and refrain from doing anything against it, since nothing deters them but only its lying signs and wonders.

For there is no one who does not see before his eyes how the pope, together with all his papists, has thrown away faith, the gospel, patience, and other weapons of the spirit, and protects himself solely through the delusion of the people (who fall for the pretensions and suggestions), and also through the power and wealth of the princes who have something from him, or still hope to have something. Yes, there is no one (I say) who does not see how they live under the appearance of such superstitious pretensions and such false suggestions in the most worldly way in all their customs. And although they see and grasp that Christ is farther from them than from the beginning to the end, they may not yet confess freshly of themselves what they hold inwardly of them. Therefore that here

1530 D V." V. 357 f. XI. Luther's controversy with Catharinus. W. LV1II, 1876-1879. 1534

is the crowd of monks and the whole mass of the pope's enemies, who bravely strive on their part for this cause. They bring up and oppose such a proposal, so that they say: Yes, one should also suffer and tolerate the rule of a wicked prince; as if we alone in the papacy were dealing with the wickedness of the pope and not rather with the wickedness of the papacy itself.

For there is much else about the principality which the pope has, and about all the other principalities in the whole world, which, whether they be good or evil, may do no harm, whether they be tolerated. But the papacy is such a principality, which destroys faith and the gospel, and sets up in their place donors and propositions; the donors instead of faith, the propositions instead of the word or gospel. Therefore he is an adversary to Christ, who is mighty with the spirit of faith against the offerings, and with the word of truth against the suggestions. Therefore, it is not the wickedness of the prince that is punished here, but the wickedness of the principality, which is such that it cannot or may not be administered by a pious, honest prince; but only by him who is an adversary of Christ, who protects and preserves the offerings and suggestions against faith and against the word of God by foreign power and assistance, so that he may do nothing about it but snore and be lazy.

For this very reason he is called an abomination, that he, without strength, without writing, and only with the vapid specter of his gifts, oppresses all princes and kings, possesses them, and brings to himself all the arts of learning; yea, that he may be able and do all things, which otherwise no kingdom with its powers, no learned school with its arts, would be able to accomplish; that even Christ with his words hath never obtained so much among men. Would it not be a shameful abomination if a sow wanted to be over the master of the house and all the servants, but would do nothing but lie in the puddle all the time, but if such a spectre were made before the eyes of the people that they would regard the same sow as a particularly excellent person, if a human voice of

As we read that it happened among the pagans in the past through the stone idols? So does the pope. He proposes the name of God, for which the conscience of everyone is shocked. So it happens that he easily leads powerful kings, as well as the most learned men, out of faith into superstition, yes, that I give him the right name, into the most poisonous abominations. But meanwhile he remains nothing but a sow, rolling to and fro in the puddle of his shameful and rotten snoring life, that he is neither skilled and capable with writing nor with weapons, yes, with the least finger not to the least.

How humble and honorable the servant of all servants of God has kept himself against worldly authorities. 2 Petr. 2.

Let us listen to the holy apostle Peter, who deals with this in all severity in the other epistle, Cap. 2, 1. 3. ff., where he paints the pabstacy with all colors. For after he had proclaimed that the false prophets would come, who through avarice would work on the people of Christ with fictitious words, introduce corrupt sects, and drag many with them into destruction, so that they would also deny the Lord who bought them; Then he takes three examples before him, so that he will terrify them tremendously, namely the example of the angels and the former world, as well as the Sodomites, which he models as an example to all future unbelievers, and shows how they were all punished by God because of their sin. After that, he executes his opinion on the unchristian teachers and says:

"But most of all they that walk after the flesh in lust and > uncleanness, and despise the rulers, thirsty to think highly of > themselves, tremble not to blaspheme the majesties. "2c

For truly, St. Peter does not speak here of those who disobey the bishops; but, as he began, of the ungodly teachers, of bishops, of cardinals, and of the pope; for it is these, and not others, of whom this epistle deals.

  1. for now, who does not see that the ! Papist crowd before all other people

1532 D. V. a. V, 358 f. 61. L.' s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. xvm, 187S-1881. 1533

walk after the flesh in lust and uncleanness? For since they are forbidden to marry, and yet are immersed in idleness and superfluous wealth, what else would they do but walk after the flesh? They do not work with other men; therefore their wickedness, as the Psalter says Ps. 73:7, bursts forth like lard. You can never point to any other teachers or authorities of the people who do this without the papists. The clergy has become a great multitude, and yet they are forbidden to marry, both of which the pope has done. What they do now and how well they keep themselves in the church, all the world sees and knows well, so that they (unfortunately of shame!) do not have enough of women, but reach further.

For this they despise (as Peter says) the rulers. But who does this without only the papacy and its papist crowd? What does St. Peter mean by rulers without only the princes and secular authorities? For the bishops and the successors of the apostles do not administer dominions, but they have offices and are also called the appointed servants of the church of Christ, as St. Paul says Col. 1, 25. But does this not mean "despise the rulers", if they free themselves by their own authority and exempt themselves from all commonwealth, that they do not want to give the lap of the worldly authorities, nor be subject to them? also refuse to bear the burdens that come along with common benefit? Paul Rom. 13, 7. commands that one should give the lap to whom the lap is due, the duty to whom the duty is due, the honor to whom the honor is due. And St. Peter 1 Petr. 2, 15. wants one to be subject to kings and] to all human order. But the pope again keeps excluded from all this by his abominable commandments, his goods, his person and his whole ulcer, so that he condemns more than once to hell those who want to obey the word of St. Paul and St. Peter and to bring the clergy into right obedience, that they should do and give womb, honor and what else one is obligated to the worldly rule and authority.

  1. to this end, he hardly lets the rulers

He will not come to the kiss of his feet, let alone honor them. After that, he lifts up every sacrificial priest and guillemot 1) whether he is coarser than a block and more shameful than a whoremonger, above all princes and lords, just because of the indelible mark, which he has imprinted on him by consecration, and therefore washes in his ecclesiastical right, in the title De ma- joritate et obedientia, which chapter is definitely more shameful and blasphemous than the others, since he thus lies and proposes: the pope in spiritual rights surpasses the emperor as far as the sun is above the moon. Thus, this basic group of the most useless people on earth is so highly elevated by the pope's power and rule that the despised rulers must honor such idols, by whom they should be honored more cheaply. For where is there any authority or power in which this abomination of such abominable men does not reign?

  1. Only St. Peter calls them marvelous, since he says 2 Ep. 2, 10: they are thirsty and think highly of themselves. For since they have received that they alone should be the spiritual and the others must all be considered worldly (as both word and work have now come into abuse), there is nothing that they should not consider under the spiritual state and name. After that, how do they have such an unconquerable, untamed mind? How are they so stiff-necked when they are allowed to start something until they come to the point that they blaspheme even the rulers and the majesties out of great certainty? Does not the most unrighteous animal on earth, the pope, puffed up with the devil's spirit, curse the great kings after all his courage? Does he not banish them? Does he not disgrace and revile them in the worst way, when he is supposed to bless them? And this is not because the kings oppose the word or the faith, but because they do not like to see the splendor and riches of the clergy or the Roman church with their shameful life and unpleasant tyranny, or because they do not like to see them.
  2. Gugelfritz - monk, because he wears the gugel d. i. cap.

1534 n V. a. V, 35S-361. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1881-188t. 1535

that they resist the unchristian and malicious papist nature; there lies the Has.

(215) Behold, it is as St. Peter says, that "they tremble not to blaspheme majesties or dominions," for the pontificate is not signified by the word "majesty" or "dominion. And even if it were understood by this, it has never suffered such sacrilege from anyone; for no other majesty has overpowered the Pabstium to this day. But it itself has sometimes overpowered many majesties and sovereigns in such a way that it now not only plays with simple people's possessions and goods, but also plays its willful game with the majesties and with the sovereigns as it pleases; it changes it, violates it, changes it and acts it as it pleases. Do we not have many histories that prove this? As that of the crown of France, of Greece, of Germany, of Naples, and of Sicily, with the rest. Has it not also attacked and tried Pope Leo X, who now reigns, who would otherwise be a pious man? But he was seduced by the advice and example of his comrades, so that he took it upon himself to conquer several dukedoms in Welsh. That is why the Duke of Urbin was expelled, and the Duke of Ferrara was often attacked. His cardinals and bishops also bravely follow the same pope, since the cardinals want to be higher than the kings, and the bishops more than the princes, this lazy race among men, which would hardly be fit to shepherd the sows. So they honor the rulers, so they bless the majesties, so they leave their own and seek only what is of others, so they have laid down boldness and walk very finely in the fear of God. Woe to them!

In his epistle, Jude, agreeing with Peter and following him, says of the same things: "These dreamers also" (that is, those who have been deceived by dreams), "who defile the flesh, but despise the rulers and blaspheme the majesties. And a little further above v. 4 he says: "For there are found some men beside them, of whom it is written in time past, to such a primal

They are ungodly, and deny God that he alone is the Lord, and the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is what St. Peter says, that besides the gospel of Christ they will also introduce their own doctrine and will introduce corrupt sects, by which the true faith will be destroyed, that Christ alone will keep the name, but in truth they will deny that he alone is a ruler and a king in the kingdom of righteousness and truth. Meanwhile, under his name, they will indulge in their lust for pleasure and in their evil ways. In short, about 1) I thought the epistle of Jude was nowhere good or competent; now I learn that it is drawn from the epistle of Peter and was written solely on account of the pope. For they both indicate at the same time that false teachers would "come in," that is, they would bring in their own doctrine alongside the gospel. That is, Peter's "introducing alongside", that is (as above), "they will introduce corrupt sects alongside." So that they manifestly show the deceitful and deceptive effrontery of the papists, since they alone hold forth the name of Christ, and yet teach their own poem.

217 Now let us take Peter's speech to the full. He says vv. 11, 12: "If the angels, which are greater in strength and power, endure not the blasphemous judgment against them from the Lord; but they are as the unreasoning beasts" (for verily the Papists to this day, before Rome, do not believe that the soul is immortal), "which beasts are naturally born to suck and choke. O what a fitting simile this is, "they blaspheme that they know not," that is, they condemn the doctrine of Christ because of their human feet; in which way also Jude speaks, saying thus, "But these, which they know not, they blaspheme." "And in their strangling they shall be strangled." This Jude says v. 10. thus, "But what they naturally know, like unreasoning beasts, therein they corrupt." 2 Pet. 2, 13. "And they shall bring away the reward of their unrighteousness," which they regard as the most-

  1. d. i. earlier.

1536 D. V. a. V, 361-363. 61 L.'s response to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII. 1884-1886. 1537

highest righteousness, as there is obedience to their church, and so one keeps his order right.

218 Weiler follows v. 13: "They regard temporal well-being as pleasure," that is, they are bellies and fattened sows who consider it best to have all abundance in this short life. For almost no one becomes a bishop, priest, or monk for any other reason, unless he alone wants to have enough and go idly to it; others must win it for them and acquire it; "they are stains and filth," for these people are nothing else in the people of God, but disgrace and stains, because they are not useful at all, waiting only for their lust and vice in the church, of which they must be fattened.

  1. "They lead an affectionate life of eating and drinking with you." Here it seems to me to be written wrongly, because Jude v. 12 tells these words of Peter differently, thus: "These live on your love goods, and are the filth, and feed well without care, feeding themselves." For Sl. Peter describes here the tender life of the bishops, the priests and all monks, because everything that is daily given to the church by Christian love of the faithful, they waste by unchristian splendor, are not ashamed of it, neither before men nor before God, do not let themselves worry, whether they already annoy the weak with it and whether all pious people should feel a hatred and displeasure against them.

220 For they wait for their own pleasure, and feed on them, and yet they are nothing but filth, stains, disgraces and burdens to the church, for which they should be the highest adornment, jewel, lights and pillars. But do we not see now for a long time that this is the case? Therefore, when St. Peter says, "They live with you in splendor," it must be understood to mean, "They are well fed on yours," or, as Jude v. 12 says, "They live on the goods of your love," that is, they abuse yours and yourselves for their own pleasure and splendor and for all hopeful splendor without any fear. But that it is written in the Greek text "in errors", which our interpreter interprets: "splurging", I consider to have happened through inattention of the scribes, that they

They wrote the letters έν ταις άπάταις αυτών for that which is written in the epistle of Jude:

that is, from your love goods, or from your good deeds and alms.

221 Now follows: "They have eyes full of adultery." Lord God, how with harsh, powerful words he the apostle addresses them: "Eyes full of adultery", that is, he attributes to them insatiable lust; and we also see how their fornication may not be satisfied at all. "Their sin is not to be resisted," that is, no one is so bold as to dare to resist their sin; indeed, they drive away even one with all plague who only dares to complain that his wife or daughter has been violated. For they do it by force wherever they feel like it, just as we read about the giants Gen. 6:2 before the flood. One must not resist them, one must not summon them to court; yes. Defiance be also to one who would speak against them; for they are spiritual, liberated and exempt. "They lure the reckless souls to themselves by evil examples, so that they draw the weak into their evil life and make them angry.

  1. "They have a heart smitten with avarice." Do you want to have something more remarkable to be told against the Roman court and all clergy? Who would tell all their finances 1) which they have made up on account of their avarice? But now they are in use with one another, and have come into practice, that they are able to deceive, lie, and rob. [V. 15: "They are the children of Malediction, and have forsaken the right way, and have followed the way of Balaam the son of Bosor." I do not know whether it is wrongly written here in this place, or whether St. Peter diligently calls the son Bosor, whom Moses 4 Mos. 22, 5. calls the son Beor; unless Balaam's father had two names, that he was called Bosor and Beor. Both increases the deterrent of this abominable example.
  2. for Bosor means flesh, Beor be
  1. Finances - intrigues. Cf. Vol. VI.

Bl. 72: finantzerei.

1538 L- v. a. v, p63 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xvin, 1886-1889. 1539

but indicates a fool. Since St. Peter says v. 16: "The foolishness of the prophet" was punished by the donkey, he touches the little word Beor. But that he loved the "wages of iniquity" v. 15 is indicated by the word Bosor. Balaam is as much as a "devourer" who devours everything, just as all false teachers devour the world's goods, body and soul. These horrible words are all spoken on the spiritual avarice, pompousness and unchristian nature of the popes and the priests, who have become fools and flesh and devour all the world's wealth. Not only are they the other Balaam, but they are also "the children of malediction," like the one who gave counsel to the Moabites and miserably devastated Israel through Baal-Peor [Deut. 25.This history St. Peter even refers to the bishops pontifices, who have also created the idol of their human doctrine and live with their Midianite 1) whores in all pleasure and tenderness, entice the frivolous souls to themselves, then curse (as we said) the way of truth; just as the same Balaam subjected himself to curse the people of God.

Therefore Peter says v. 15.16: "Balaam loved the reward of unrighteousness, but was punished for his transgression. The dumb beast of burden spake with the voice of man, and rebuked the prophet's foolishness." Behold the avarice and foolishness of the popes, how much avarice makes fools of men, that they have less sense than beasts.

  1. "These are firkins without water" v. 17., for they have the appearance and name as if they were shepherds, but the work and the office is far from them; as the prophet Zacharias 11, 17. says: "O shepherd! you idol." [v. 17.is "And a mist are they, driven about by the whirlwind." The mist is sheer like the clouds, but gives no rain of itself. So they are praised according to the title as shepherds, also sit in their place; but they teach nothing, but by worldly lusts they become in all the will of the devil
  1. In the Orig. and also in Specatus: Madianitic.

driven. "What darkness is kept for eternity." O good God, what frightening things are told here! Who should not be afraid that he should be counted in the spiritual state, about which all this is spoken with a full and powerful spirit?

  1. "For they speak pompous words, since there is nothing behind them, and provoke by lust to the desire of the flesh those who were rightly escaped. It looks to me as if this were spoken to the high schools and to the spiritual right; for we see how many pompous words the end-Christ sets everywhere in his spiritual right as he speaks: (Mandamus districte praecipiendo mandantes) "We command and command according to all severity," 2c and the like many other turgid pauses, so that he may have all the schools within, so that Peter speaks rightly, that he does not say "they speak," but "they sound or sound." For all this is a vain, useless sounding, and teaches nothing but vain vanity; and yet with this poison they attract to themselves the most noble of Christians, who study this doctrine in such pompous vanity 2) for the sake of their own profit alone.

227 For who does not study at the high schools for the sake of gain or fame, which he wants to attain from them? And that for the sake of it, that he may thereafter go idle. Not to mention how many souls are irritated by the impure and lewd free life that is led in the high schools. Summa, the spiritual right alone gives us the people who are on the foundations and high schools, who have surrendered to all vanity, to all pleasure, lust and idleness; and yet the pope and his apostles inhumanly bluster along and praise their status, wealth and glitter in spiritual rights almost and highly, so that Peter gives him the right name when he calls this semblance of Christianity, spirituality and art "superba vanitatis", that is, pompous, pompous words, since there is nothing behind them, so that this people nevertheless makes itself puffed up; although they nevertheless corrupt themselves through

  1. That is, those who study this very vain, pompous doctrine.

1540 D- V. a. V, 364-366. 61 L.'s answer to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, I889-I89I. 1541

Their pleasure and tenderness they live in it. Jude v. 16 agrees with this, and deletes it better, when he says: "Their mouths speak pompous words, and they think according to the appearance of the person for the sake of profit." Behold, there he calls a reputation, which we have just called appearance, splendor, or even with one another nothing but gifts. For this king of donors thus proposes great pompous titles, great privileges and liberties, since there is truly nothing behind them.

St. Peter also nicely adds to the end of it v. 18: "Those who were justly saved and now walk in error. It looks to me as if he meant to imply that all those who are born and freed from sins through baptism and the word of God, as soon as they grow up a little, are drawn to this doctrine and art and drowned in it, so that they are compelled and forced to walk in error, even though they had escaped all error through Christ. But this happens when they fall from faith to gifts, from the Spirit to reputation, from grace to works, from truth to appearance and glitter and to all the splendor of gifts, and are led astray by the unchristian spiritual rights of their vanity.

229 V. 19: "And promise them liberty, if they themselves be servants of destruction." This applies to indulgences and all deceitfulness, so that they may pretend that the use and practice of gifts is a good thing, so that whoever walks in it should be considered to be walking in a holy and Christian way. As it is praised and respected of priests and monks, and of all clergymen, as if they alone were in the right state of blessedness; the others, who otherwise live in the world, must all be esteemed laymen or worldly. For this purpose they sell to the others their works and their merits together with the mass, and promise them, if they thus buy them, that their sins shall be forgiven thereby; but "they are servants of perdition," that is, they teach nothing, except that which serves to perdition. As also St. Paul saith Col. 2:22, "All things consume themselves under hands, and are after the commandments and doctrines of men." But nothing

Less, because they teach that one should put one's trust in it, they become the cause of eternal destruction.

(230) But the following text compels us to understand the servants of perdition for the servants of sin; that this meaning may be taken from it, namely, although they themselves are corrupt and damned by unchristian glitter and other manifest vices, yet they presume to be of use to others for salvation, if they communicate to them their damned works, their brotherhood and indulgences, all death and devils. For it follows v. 19, "For by whomsoever a man is overcome, he is become his servant." Do we not hear this every day, that the pope, full of public vices and unchristian nature, may do such things as to distribute the merits of Christ and the saints as he pleases and to whom he pleases? Unlock heaven with his keys to whom he pleases, and after him will follow all the filth and rabble of his clergy. Thus the wicked takes the treasure of the church into his own hands; thus he makes others free and free, and yet remains himself a servant of destruction.

Finally, St. Peter concludes that the Roman church, together with its pope, has turned back to a worse idolatry and paganism than it ever was before, and says thus vv. 20-22: "For if they have escaped the filthiness of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (understand by faith), "but are again entangled in it and overcome, the last has become worse with them than the first. For it were better for them that they had not known the way of righteousness," that is, of faith, "than if they had known it, and yet had turned back from the holy commandment," that is, from the commandment of faith in Christ. "The true saying has happened to them, The dog eats again what he has eaten, and the sow rolls in the mire again after the flood." We now see all this in the papist empire, that faith is destroyed, that we are worse heathens than ever before. We should give thanks to this king of fiddles with his atrocious predecessors.

1542 L. V. a. V, 366 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1891-1894. .1543

Peter and Judas have masterfully and flush finely painted here together with their givers and foreign powers. Now follows the fruit and the work of the same.

Dau. 8, 24. He will be a wonderful spoiler.

  1. The word Miradilia, which is called Niphlaoth in Hebrew, is otherwise interpreted, namely, that it means strangely great things, secret and hidden, as Daniel 11:36: "Against God of all gods he will speak strangely great things. But the word "desolate" is the very thing that is written in Genesis 6:12: that "the earth was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its way," which God also wanted to corrupt or destroy along with the earth. Therefore it will be better if we interpret et mirabilia vastabit here as: He will be a strange destroyer.

233 So here the prophet may be understood in two ways: first, that for the "marvelous" one may understand the things which this king will attack to destroy. After that, it may be taken to mean the works or the deeds that he will spend in destruction, as if one wanted to call these deeds marvelous or atrocious. And our Latin interpreter of the prophet leads this last understanding, which we also want to follow; although the first interpretation is also correct. For in truth there are marvelous and glorious things which he (this king) corrupts; but it may be known only in the spirit and in faith. Let this then be our understanding, that we interpret the prophet thus, "He shall marvelously corrupt"; or, "He shall be a great marvelous or unchristian corrupter." For the prophet describes not so nearly both what the good and the pious must suffer and endure from this wicked waggler; but how great iniquity and wickedness he would presume to practice and work against the good and against the pious. Also show the happiness and welfare he would have in it.

234 Therefore, the prophet is not speaking here of the desolation or corruption that comes with

The tyrant destroys the country and the people through war and weapons. For here it must be so, as the king is, so will also be his destruction, that is, he will do it all with his gifts and suggestions, which are strengthened by foreign power. For this not with weapons, nor with reason or art. As the text that follows shows, namely, when he says vv. 24, 25, "And it shall prosper him, and he shall bring it forth; and he shall destroy the mighty, and the people of the saints; and deceit shall prosper in his hand."

It follows, therefore, not that he will destroy cities or countries, but those things which may and do be destroyed by idols, propositions, and deceit, which are also repugnant to idols, propositions, and deceit of a kind, namely, the truth and the word of truth, the spirit and the plain Christian nature. This is so much as to say that he will destroy faith in Christ and the kingdom of good conscience; which kingdom of Christ is called the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, and the kingdom of truth. For thus he confessed before Pilate that his kingdom was a kingdom of truth, saying John 18:17, "He that is of the truth heareth my voice." Therefore the king, who is a destroyer of the kingdom of heaven and a destroyer of the simple simple-mindedness in Christ (as Paul says [2 Cor. 11, 3.He is none other than the true end-Christian, who holds up and teaches deception and cunning for faith, a sham for the truth, a pure pretense for the mysteries, his suggestions for the gospel, deceit and cunning for the simple being, and his spiritual rights for the word of God, and thereby corrupts the consciences and destroys the spirit of truth.

Now let us see and learn whether the pope will fulfill this prophecy, as we have said here. First, it is evident that Christ has taken away all sin to such an extent that the cause of sin, namely the law, no longer exists. For he hath made all things free, so that a Christian should not do anything by the constraint of the law; but all things by liberty.

1544 V. k. V, 367 p. 61. L.'s response to d. Book of Catharinus. W. xvm, 1894-1897. 1545

of the spirit, as Paul says 1 Tim. 1, 9. "To the righteous there is no law." For everything that is done out of the compulsion and necessity of the law is sin; for it is not done out of a voluntary spirit, but with an unwilling heart, that is, it is done with a will that is contrary to the law; and this same unwillingness or recalcitrance is in truth sin in every way.

Therefore, St. Paul calls the preachers of the New Testament "ministers of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:6), not of the letter, that is, those who preach only grace and no law. Hence it is that in the whole New Testament there is no commandment driving or compelling, but only exhortation and stimulation. Also, Christ and his apostles never forced anyone. Thus the Holy Spirit alone is called Paraclete, that is, a Comforter John 15:26, that He continues with us always, comforting and admonishing us. All this is so that we may know how the people of Christ hear Christ voluntarily and follow him without all fear of the law, allowing themselves to be enticed and led with freedom and good will, keeping and doing what God commands, not because it is commanded, but because it pleases them to do so, and they would also do and live in this way if it were not commanded. But what people do otherwise, and let themselves be frightened or pressed by the law alone, that is not a people of Christ, but a people of the law and of the synagogue, where the transgressors are put to death. Therefore Christ also says, Matth. 19, 17, with a difference and with a condition (Si vis), that is, "if you want to be saved or enter into life, keep the commandments". For this reason he does not say Matth. 5, 3: "I want or command you to be poor"; but with gentle words he admonishes them and reproaches them, saying: "Blessed are the poor in spirit". 2c

238 Recently, in the New Testament, all things are stated only what one should do and what one should not do, and what will happen to those who do or do not do them, and from where one should expect what one wants to do. But no one is forced; each one is left to his own adventure, to be lost or saved as he pleases. Thus commanded the Lord,

Matth. 18, 18, not that one should kill the one who would not hear the church, but only that one should avoid him and regard him as a Gentile.

So the Lord has not made us free from the law, but from the power of the law, which is the right kind of freedom from the law, and has given us the freedom to do good or evil for our own good and harm, but not in the sense that he would have taken away the right and sword of the worldly authorities, so that they would have to use themselves for the punishment of the wicked'. For the same wicked do not belong under his kingdom until they also become spiritual and serve God with such freedom.

240 If this is also true in the divine law of the Ten Commandments, how much more is it true in the laws of external worship, which also existed in former times, but are now completely annulled, so that one can no longer sin in them, since only one faith is held out to us as the only sufficient means by which one can be justified before God.

241 Because this king of sins always does nothing else for or in return, except to command us and to force and compel us everywhere by his laws or spiritual law, and yet he does this in God's stead and in God's name, it is obvious that he is an adversary of Christ, a corrupter of the New Testament, an enemy of Christian freedom, who compels the unwilling to do works. It is obvious that he is an adversary of Christ, a corrupter of the New Testament, an enemy of Christian freedom, who forces the unwilling to do the works he has commanded. By this tyranny he is then a cause of so many sins, as works which he commanded are done by those whom he compels to do them, and they do them unwillingly. For if they believe that the pope's commandments bind and bind them, they must have a conscience about it, if they let what he has commanded be done; yes, they also sin in the truth, if they already do it and keep it, because they do it unwillingly and forcedly. Who yet with such a reluctant heart

  1. i. e. at our risk.

1546 V. a. V, 368-370. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xvm, 1897-1899. 1547

did not sin where the pope had not commanded, but admonished and asked them alone. On the other hand, he is also a cause of false righteousness in all those who obey him. For they think that they have almost done well and have done a good work, and they count this obedience as justice. Thus it happens that people think they want to be and become righteous not by faith in Christ, but by law and good works. And this is and is called corrupting faith and truth; that is, making many evil consciences and a false delusion of good consciences.

242 Because the pope does this in all the world, one sees how he is such a wonderful and unchristian corrupter. For he corrupts and destroys all those whom he brings under him with laws and commandments and drives them away with them. But who is there in all the world whom he does not thus subdue? Let it be the young children and the righteous and simple-minded Christians whom God keeps before him by His inscrutable divine counsel. O man of sin! O son of perdition! 2 Thess. 2, 3. O abomination! Matth. 24, 15. O corrupter and destroyer! o originator of so many evil consciences! o teacher of false good consciences! yes, o enemy of faith and Christian freedom! And who could even remember the great sea of wickedness of this abominable king, let alone tell it in words.

But this is not the end of misfortune. If he had set the same laws on the works of virtue as they are commanded in the Ten Commandments, or as philosophy and nature itself teach, as there is justice, fortitude, temperance, chastity, meekness, truth, goodness and the like, then perhaps only a synagogue or Jewish school would have been set up by his regiment, and he would have spread a worldly righteousness into the world in the least (for by the same faith would also have been destroyed, as it was also destroyed by such among the Jews), but now it has not remained so; indeed, he rarely does such things, that we must confess that he does much less harm through the above-mentioned, as great harm and accident.

They also bring them to faith, if one holds it against that which follows.

For he forces us to his ceremonies and to that which he has devised. He binds us mad foolish fools, yes, us blocks and sticks only to place, person, clothes, food, days and gestures so miserable that I am almost ashamed to death of this abomination and disgust and must be annoyed. For Christ (as I said above), having abolished all laws by the liberty which he has conquered for us, has also much more abolished the laws which hang and bind them to place, person, clothing, food, days, and the like, so that they should be left free to be used or not to be used by everyone, without any distinction, as each one would have it, so that by them no one should incur sin, no one should incur righteousness in his conscience; which conscience alone consists in faith in Christ.

  1. But the pope has not enough to weigh us down and trouble us with the places, foods, garments and days, so that the law of Moses went around and became full of the same; but over the same he invents daily still much more by his own iniquity; or else those whom other his ancestors have invented, he multiplies and changes for and against, and with those whom he has thus multiplied and changed according to his will, he afflicts all the Christians in the whole world, corrupting and destroying them. And in order that this matter may become clearer and more evident, we will demonstrate and show it by several examples.

246 Christ has accepted and abolished all differences of places and wants to be served everywhere. Nor is it so in his kingdom that one would speak: Here it is holy, there it is not holy; but it is the same everywhere. For your faith, hope and love will not be stronger or better in the church or in the choir, over the altar or in the churchyard, than they are or may be in the barn, in the vineyard, in the kitchen and in the bedchamber.

The dear martyrs also served Christ in the dungeons. Christo St. Agnes also served in the common women's house.

1548 V- a- V, 370 f. 61. L.'s answer to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, I899-I9V2. 1549

inside. But the pope with his church consecrations, which he endows with so many privileges and liberties, and with so many banishments and condemnations that one should not violate them, what else does he do, but that he awakens our conscience of a breach of the church, as often as one mistreats such a house, which he or his have consecrated, whether in jest or in earnest, only a little; which otherwise would be no sin at all, if he committed the same in the same way in another house. But again, if in the same house you obey the commandments of the pope, you are quite spiritual and a pious, obedient son of the church, and have a conscience that says you have done a good and righteous work in it.

  1. Now hold Christ and the pope against each other, and Christ will say: There is no sin in how or what one does in any place, so long as one does not harm one's neighbor. But the priest says, "It is sinful for you to do anything in the church that is not holy, or if you do not want to have the church in greater honor than any other house. Does not the pope make a sin here, where Christ makes none, namely in places and in the use of them? Does he not make conscience here, since Christ makes none? Does he not set up a service here, a fear and imprisonment, a rope and peril, since Christ wants freedom and security? Is not the pope the right end-Christ? Is he not a causer of sin and conscience by his free, foolish, useless and godless laws? What need has a Christian of such laws, or to keep such things, that he may be justified? O what a childish and ridiculous deceitfulness and mockery, which yet can make so great and serious sin and ruin?

Again, Christ teaches us that one does not become righteous before God by serving Him in such places. But the pope teaches that one becomes pious and righteous by building churches and having them consecrated, and separating them in mind and conscience as holy places from other houses, and that this is the right service of God and God's glory. O a right clergy, which is well disposed to such a god.

touches! How well and how finely Christ has decreed that the consecration of churches and bells should belong to the bishops alone. This is (I say) the most worthy office of the bishops, namely, as they are bishops, that their work and labor should be the same. For they are only idols and larvae, because they throw away the office of the word and keep only the title and the clothes, as if they were bishops. And therefore they shall not sanctify the souls of the faithful, that is, they shall not consecrate the true church of Christ by the word and prayer; but they shall smear bells, wood and stones, and sprinkle water upon them, not for a dwelling place for Christ, but for mice and spiders and birds to dwell in.

Thus one wood consecrates another, one stone another, one block another, one idol another, and one idol another, so that everywhere one abomination rhymes with another. Nor (O kind God!) how many laws have been made, from which one must learn how to keep and order all things? How many glosses and erroneous doubts and cases occur there? How much punishment, penance and satisfaction must one take upon oneself when one has not done right by things? And the Most Holy One, how difficult it is for him to forgive such imaginary sins, that is, never ever, if you count the money; otherwise he will let it go, if you have already broken the marriage and committed the most unchristian vices, which he may well protect and handle.

Again, with how much grace and indulgence does he bestow and reward the righteousness of those who obey him? And that justly; for with such indulgence must such sinners be given, and with such reward must such righteous ones be crowned, so that indulgence and grace, like their sin and righteousness, are all abominable abominations, of which everyone should be in awe.

252 So Christ also made no distinction between food and days, as the apostle teaches us in some places; he also did not want anyone to sin, no matter what kind of food he might need every day. For it is not the use, but the evil desire of food, that is condemned in the Gospel.

1550 D. v. a. v, 371 s. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xvm, 1902-1905. 1551

punishes. But the most holy one, that is, the adversary of Christ, does not pay any attention to this evil sinful desire, but only looks at the use of meat, eggs and butter and other such things and forbids them, so that one is not allowed to eat them during the fast and on some other days. And he does this by divine authority and in God's name, and thus sets up a foolish fast. He does not put this on the fact that one should curb lust and desire, but only on the mere use that one should only not eat it, so it is well fasted; just as St. Paul prophesied earlier 1 Tim. 4, 3, where he says: "They forbid to become concubinous and to avoid the food that God has created, to take with thanksgiving.

Therefore, here sin has come about through the willfulness of him who is called "a man of sin," since otherwise there is no sin by nature. And to these things he binds the consciences, and thus drives them about with his foolish laws, so that there is almost no other work in which one is more afraid if one has not kept it, or in which one is more confident and comforted if one has done it; for such is the fasting which the pope has commanded. For they consider beating to death and committing adultery and cheating to be a far lesser sin than one who has eaten eggs, butter, milk or meat on a fasting day. The master of all churches, the author of all laws and righteousness, the shepherd and head of the whole common Christian church, does not care whether consciences err, however unchristian they may, and whether the faith of Christ should even perish; for this he delights and delights that souls should perish and faith be destroyed; yea, he stands and works for it, and urges all the world to it. Nor does he indulge in this righteousness, or in sin, except for the sake of money. He that giveth money may not fast; but he that hath sinned against his fasting, the same may be forgiven for money.

254 Since the pope makes sin, as Christ cancels sin, and establishes righteousness, as Christ cancels righteousness, he binds up consciences, as Christ binds up consciences.

He makes the consciences free, because he practices rebellion everywhere, puts sin in the place of grace, puts the law in the place of faith; why do you still doubt whether he is the true end-Christ, the abomination who stands in the place where he does not belong? Are they not abominable one to another? Christ saith, Here is no sin: so saith the pope, Yea, there is sin here. Christ saith, There is no righteousness here: so saith the priest, Yea, there is righteousness here. For if he left it free, or only exhorted the people to it, he would not be the end-Christ. But now, if he commands and does it falsely under the name of Christ, he commands it in a mortal sin. Mortal sin, with it he devastates the church, with it he corrupts the faith, there he makes sin and condemns (perdit) the consciences.

The same is the reverence for the sacred garments, vessels, and sanctuary. It is a sin for a nun to touch the altar cloth, which they call palla; it is a sin to touch a chalice; it is a sin to celebrate mass in an unconsecrated chalice or chasuble; it is a sin to go to the altar without a chasuble or any other piece of holy vestments; It is a sin if the priest calls the altar server and speaks a word or two with him during the silent Mass; it is a sin if someone misses the Canon or stammers a word; it is a sin who touches the sanctuary. But whoever touches the sacrament of Christ's holy Corpus Christi with his hand or with a finger, and even if the necessity urges him to do so, so that the sacrament sticks to the inside of his palate and he wants to take it off, this is such a great sin that one must scrape off the living flesh with which he has touched it. That is such a great nonsense that the nonsense itself could not be more nonsensical. Perhaps it will come to this that our tongues, our palates, our throats and our stomachs will have to be flayed and skinned, if we have gone to God's table and touched the body of Christ with it. But where one has offended one's neighbor, stolen from him what is his, or otherwise shown him no help, what harm should that do? It is a bad sin, and almost no sin at all.

1552 D- a. V, 372-374. 61. L. 's answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W, XVIII, 1905-1997. 1553

Yes, where is there any vice so great that the pope does not practice and drive with such of his saints, who are truly not only superstitious, but rather frenzied with dizziness and utterly and completely nonsensical fools, who can neither be helped nor advised.

Recently, all creatures must be sin to the pope, along with all their uses. But Christ put no sin nor righteousness in the creatures; perhaps because he alone is holy. But it behooved the most holy governor of Christ to oppose Christ, to set up false sin and false righteousness without number, to make the whole world full, full, full of foolish, erroneous, fearful, and corrupt consciences, that he might destroy Christian liberty and corrupt the faith, as is his way. Behold, now you have who is "the man of sin" and "the son of perdition" 2 Thess. 2:3.

257 I have not yet told the greatest and rightest multitude of the multitudes of this king, that is, the cardinals, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, deacons, subdeacons and tonsurettes. For all these, whom I have named here, by reason of their plates, caps, and garments, and by reason of their days and ordinances, they teem with sins. The Scotists do not have so many relations, nor the Thomists so many realities, although they make as many of them in each thing as there are creatures in the world. O gracious God! the whole lost sore of these people is nothing but vain sin. If a man should not let himself be shorn, if he should not pray his horas 1), if he should not wear a priestly color on himself or take the guild 2) off his neck; if he should not clothe himself with purple and beautiful linen when he is in worship, or if he should walk in it in any other way than what is put on him, he would be considered an apostate, that is, an apostate.

258 For who does not consider an apostate or an apostate a monk who goes in the clothes of a layman, seeing that he is free?

  1. I.e. the prayers prescribed at different times of the day.
  2. D. i. Capuze, cap.

and would not let him shear his colb 3)? But that they leave the faith and become apostates is not taken into account, if they only keep the other things that the pope has commanded. In these matters even the pope himself may not dispense, how much one would give money, who otherwise so easily forgives all sins that have been committed against God, which forgiveness he may well offer us himself. This tyranny of papal laws is so ingrained in the poor conscience that the prophet Daniel 8:24 rightly says: "He will be a wonderful destroyer. For what does he leave that he does not corrupt? and so corrupt that it cannot be made right again. So even the consciences are made weak and despondent, and all are taken captive. And I do not know if to this day the pope would revoke and abolish all these laws, whether it would help to put such fear and doubt out of people's minds and to heal their consciences. In this way, one can neither help nor advise this terrible plague, which is done to the people by such Assyria, as the prophet Isaiah says Isa. 14:6, 25.

Behold, now you have the fruit of gifts and suggestions, that is, corruption of the church, of faith, of Christian liberty, of the Spirit, of truth, and of all the goods that have been given to us by Christ. This is the real Antiochus, who was the model of this king of givers, of whom we read Dan. 8, 10-12. thus: "He has risen up against the strength of the heavens, and he has thrown down some of the strength, and some of the stars, and has trampled them under foot. And he has risen up to the prince of strength. And he took from him the daily sacrifice (that is, faith), and cast down the place of his holiness (that is, conscience), and power was given him against the daily sacrifice for sins, that the truth might be cast down in the land. It shall prosper him, and he shall bring it forth."

  1. does not the pope do all this with
  1. D. i. head.

1554 L. V. a. V, 374 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1907-1909. 1555

his gestures and proposals, which he has set up against the truth and against the faith? Behold, this is the very thing that the devil spaketh through their mouths, when they say that Christ hath not ordained all things as they ought to be, but hath left them for the church to ordain and establish; when Christ hath set and ordained the matter so that there shall be no more than one sin, which is unbelief; and again, that there shall be no righteousness without faith. As he then says John 16:9, "The Spirit shall punish the world for sin, that they believe not on me"; and Marci last, v. 16, "But he that believeth not shall be damned." For all things that are outside of man do not defile Matt. 15:17, 18., but are altogether free; only alone do men sin with the evil desire that goeth out from within. But the pope defiles and stains the whole world with sins, only by such external things, and does not care how the internal uncleanness is. There we see how pure and clear the words of Christ are; nor do we want to recognize the end-Christ, his adversary, who devastates and corrupts all things in the church.

261 In addition to the sins mentioned, which may well be called vain worlds of sins and corruptions, the pope also commits other sins. First, a false confidence in these works which he gives, which is a twofold unrighteousness. For all those who obey the pope in his things and guard against papist sins esteem themselves, and are esteemed by others, as doing good and earning much by it. And this is now the other tempest of this corruption, which goeth forth into all the world 1) because the faith of Christ cannot stand with this confidence. Then, because the laws are so many that they themselves are too heavy, they are obedient to them only by outward works; but the will is bored and unwilling to do them; as we see then in the sore of the vigils, of the masses, of the days, they are chanted

  1. I.e. which storms against all the world.

or read, in which they are so utterly disgruntled that at this time there is hardly a more disgruntled work. Nevertheless, the drivers persist in this hardest work, forcing and urging with all their might that one must do and keep these things, which before God are nothing but heavy sins and vices; before men it is considered a good work and as if it were a service of God. Here, at last, one has invented some stimulation of the senses, as the organ is, and some singing. But it does nothing for the spirit, which is also more destroyed and extinguished by such tickling.

O Lord Jesus Christ, how with great violence, how with great multitude they are driven into sin and into destruction. And all this happens through this abominable abomination. It is frightening to see into these abominable maws of consciences, which are thus corrupting with great toil and labor. O what a childish thing it is compared to this, which Manasseh and other godless kings of old did, when they let their children go through the fire 2 Chron. 33, 6.. Nor would we like to put any pagan people's idolatry and sacrifices on a par with ours, however abominable and monstrous they have always been, not even those who were called Lestrygones (who ate human flesh); our foolishness surpasses all their foolishness. Summa, it has happened to us in the same way as Christ says: "The seven spirits, even worse than the first, make the last much worse than the first was." Yes, I say that we are seven times worse Gentiles than we ever were before the knowledge of Christ.

And that I may make an end of speaking of this corruption, and that thou mayest see how all that is in the pope is all sin and corruption, behold, not only are his laws all sin, not only are all their works sin, yea, not only are all their glorious works sin, and which they perform with vexation, as we have said; but also the reward which they receive therefore is sin also, yea, it is the greatest sin above all. Do you ask me how this happens? I will tell thee: [They leave the robber Barabbam alone Matth. 27, 21., they are not satisfied with the fact, that they have

1556 V. a. V, 37S-377. 61 L.'s answer to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1909-1912. 1557

bound and put to death. That is so much to say, that he frees the whole clergy, or the clergy, and exempts them from all common complaints and man's work, so that they live in idleness against the commandment of God, in security and wealth without all fear, like Sodoma Jer. 23:14. After that, if they sin or do wrong, no one may accuse them of it, nor sue them, nor punish them, except the pope; who, even if he wanted to punish, cannot, he himself is too weak for it; but now it is also not his will and earnestness that he wants to punish.

Therefore their wickedness bursts forth like lard, as the Psalter says [Ps. 73:7.j; hence come virginity, adultery, unchastity, impurity, avarice, deceitfulness, cunning, and alfalfa, and all the abominations and abominations of all vices, not only with abundance, but also that they rule without all punishment, without all fear, so that they shun neither God nor man; And if anyone wanted to punish them for this, he would immediately be accused of being an infringer of papal liberty and of having violated the supreme majesty. Here belong the most sacred rights and laws which the pope has made (de foro competenti), that is, where the clergy is to stand and appear in court, along with all others, by which the clergy is freed and exempted, so that they may not be sued, judged, sentenced or punished before secular authorities, not only they, but also everything that belongs to them.

For this the most holy adversary of Christ decrees that they may take usury and rob and defraud the people. What one has robbed, that must also befit them to accept. This happens when, by his papal grace, he dispenses and allows, for the increase and promotion of divine service, that one may take unjust interest, make and set up unjust dealings, that one may also hand over what has been stolen to the church and turn it into a gift from God. 2c But how the chastity of the clergy, only that sins and corruption might increase, has arisen and been invented by the devil, I have said elsewhere sufficiently.

Dear, do we have almost the end of this hell? Would not (alone) make him a man of sin, and prove that he is the son of perdition (2 Thess. 2, 3.), so many oaths and vows, in which he involves all bishops, priests, monks, princes and high schools? Who wants to count here how often a false oath happens, because there is no one here who swears an oath willingly and gladly, but is nevertheless urged and compelled to take the oath, since the necessity of salvation does not demand it anywhere, that is, he is forced to use the name of God uselessly. For what is not done with a willing heart is done vainly and in vain and is done with sin. Thus, the king of sins was not only to corrupt faith, but also to corrupt all good morals, so that nothing would remain uncorrupted by him; and yet he was to cover and protect all such cursed abominations only with the most powerful appearance of sins against all power, both of words and weapons, so that this king of sins would be the last and final abomination, which would soon come before the future of Christ, in which Christ would have to prove his great power, just according to the greatness of this abomination.

Here I will show how he commits sin and evil without number against the fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth commandments. He takes away the obedience of children from their parents and strengthens them against them, as we read of Emperor Henry the Fourth and have seen and experienced in many others, because he wants to be heard only over God and over all men. Item, with how many deaths and bloodshed he fills the whole world, since he, as he only desires, sets kings and princes on each other, brings them to a battle with each other, so that you might well doubt, if the devil himself ruled, whether he would bring about such things? Now he also robs to himself, this great arch-robber, whole kingdoms and dukedoms, he devours and consumes all bishoprics and all benefices and all the world's possessions and goods, wealth and fortune through the annals and pallia and through other without number manifold finances, which he

1558 L. V. a. V, 377 s. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xvm, 1912-ISIS. 1559

Everywhere he embellishes, covers and adorns with false, cunning, lying words, as he pleases. For he does not do things by confessing that what he does is sin or wrong; but he says and says that it is sin, and such a great sin, that if one resists him in it, and only dares to protest against it, one cannot punish and atone for it sufficiently with any hell. And drags with him into such a blasphemous opinion, if not the whole world, yet the whole rabble of priests and all clergy, and a large part of the laity, that they must hold such with him and thus perish eternally; and thus corrupts all things, not in one way alone, but in all kinds of ways; wherefore he is truly and well a wonderful corrupter.

Of both allow at God's table.

But let us come to the greatest and most heinous sins of all that he commits, that is, to the sacrilege that he commits daily and has so far committed against the sacrament of the altar, against baptism and penance. For the time being, he has taken away the whole mystery of the mass from the church. Which mass, as far as the laity is concerned, he has so utterly corrupted that he has even taken away from them half or one form of the sacrament; yes, not only taken away, but also imposed, that it is a sin and the greatest heresy, which layman, after the institution of Christ, dares to enjoy and receive both forms. Help God, what a great audacity this abomination is! For if Christ Himself had forbidden one figure, one would be a heretic who wanted to take them both. But now he does not forbid it, nor does he put any sin upon it, but has thus appointed both our forms; nor does his governor come along, and is so bold and presumptuous, that he dares to make and cause such a great sin and heresy in that which is not forbidden, but is proper and free to every one, yea, which is ordained and appointed by Christ. We still do not want to recognize him from this for the end-Christ; but we honor him and still pray to him for a governor of Christ.

an. O! how is this such a great terrible wrath of God!

(269) But I truly consider it to be utterly abhorrent, if one part of it be abhorred, because both of them together, that is, wine and bread, are but one whole sacrament; and if one of them be done, the other must be kept only for a mockery. For the Scripture also says Jac. 2, 10.: Whoever sins against God in one piece is guilty of the whole law. Unless God, through His hidden judgments, has preserved some in the whole perfect faith of this sacrament, as He can and may preserve, and has preserved many in the faith without both forms of the same sacrament. Therefore it would be much better to receive no form at all, but only the one, so that we may all the more surely avoid the transgression of that which Christ has thus instituted.

But he is not satisfied with this nonsense; he puts another, almost more horrible and soul-murdering rope on all consciences, since he neither admits nor imposes that one may freely enjoy and use this sacrament; but he absolutely compels all people to go to the sacrament at the appointed Easter time. Here I ask you, dear Christian brother, how many do you think that there are who let themselves be fed by the common table of God only out of compulsion of the commandment, who truly would gladly undergo the same from the heart? But these all sin, because they do not come to God's table out of the impulse of the Spirit, that is, because they do not come to God's table in faith and with will, but allow themselves to be brought to it by the deadly letter of the commandment; yet this bread wants to have a hunger of conscience, does not want to be eaten where one is full and satisfied; still less does it want to be eaten where one has a displeasure or displeasure or hatred for it.

Now the pope is the cause of all such sins by his horrible law, which he has made in order to force people into ruin, and yet he should leave everyone free to go to God's table if he wanted to, but only invite and admonish people to do so, not force or coerce them.

4560 k. V. L. V, 378 f. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. xvm, 1915-1917. 1561

Behold, whether from the one law the whole world be not filled with sins unto the top of heaven? Whether the world is not too much corrupted by this one flood of sin? Thus he not only deprives us of our sacrament, but also that which he leaves over for us in the same sacrament, that he leaves over, of no other opinion than that he has thereby a way and cause to fill the whole world with innumerable sins and to corrupt it.

From the fair.

He also deceives the sacrificial apes much more shamefully. 1.) First, although the mass alone is a sacrament or a sign and testament, and should only be received as a good deed of God, he turns it into a good work, so that one may do enough for sin and also come to the aid and comfort of the living and the dead in all distress and affliction. Here, with this fanciful talk, he snatches away all the world's goods, honor and power, so that the mass is of no use at all for salvation, but is only good for gaining money and goods under this unchristian perversion and blasphemy.

  1. 2.) Then they make a sacrifice out of it, so that they thank God for His goodness and want to prove a good service to Him as the one who is in need of our good works, from whom they themselves should receive and wait for good deeds. This perversion is truly beyond all understanding and beyond all words, nor does it possess and oppress all the world so powerfully and violently that it is not to be believed.
  2. 3.) Third, they make of that which is common a special and selfish thing. For the mass, together with its two sacramental forms, is never to be given to one person alone, because Christ has ordained that the minister who celebrates the mass should share both forms with the congregation or others who are gathered with him. Now, however, the sacrificial minister goes alone and hides himself in a special corner, and says mass himself, and also receives the communion of both forms alone. However, the

He also (as they say) spiritually participates in, appropriates and makes common to whom he wishes the fruit and benefit of the same mass, that is, he lets him dream that he is sharing something with them or making it common as a good work and a sacrifice; yet he only receives that which should be received in himself and truly in the community. But do not receive it as a gift of God, which he wanted to take and possess from God, but as such a gift, which he wants to offer and give to God. O what great seas full of sins therefore flow in this Sacrament! How few are they, or rather, how few are there who need this sacrament, as Christ instituted it and as the apostles kept it.

From confession.

With such nonsense he spoils everything with confession, in which one must tell and confess all sin. For first, although confession is a very wholesome thing and should be free, and the new law does not suffer any law or commandment, but only wants to have stimulation and admonition, the pope still makes so much sin here and corrupts so many souls with it, namely, as much and as often as they confess with unwillingness. For if they do not confess from the heart, but confess only because they are urged to do so by the commandment of the papist law, they do confess, but nevertheless the mind remains repugnant to the same law. So they sin first of all because they believe, and consider it in their unhappy conscience that they are obliged and bound to make such confession; therefore they want to confess alone. Then they sin again, because they do not want to, that is, they confess with a stubborn will and only with the mouth and not with the heart, that is, they do a fictitious and glaring confession. All this is called and sinned against twofold. Now see for yourself how great seas of sins the pope creates in the whole world by the single law of imposed and unwilling confession. For how many do you think there are who willingly and gladly confess?

1562 L. V. L. V, 379-381. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xvm, 1917-1920. 1563

But these things were not thought to be sins, everyone is surely and without care corrupted to it by this son of perdition and by this most abominable man of sin 2 Thess. 2, 3..

But in order that these seas of sins and corruptions might become even greater and more superfluous, he also enforces that one must confess the sins against his laws, yes, only these must be confessed most of all. For this purpose, so many differences, forms and generations of sins have been invented, along with their daughters and nephews, branches and circumstances, and there is so much abomination that no one can tell it, that even here the most spiritual must sin and perish, that is, he must confess unwillingly. For this is a strong and immovable saying everywhere: Qui iuvitus Ikwit, from kamt, that is, he who does a thing unwillingly does not do it. Again, it is said that forced or coerced services are not pleasing to God. Since the pope does not need to make such laws of any kind, only to strengthen and establish his tyranny, it is obvious that he is the cause of innumerable sins, and also a cause without measure of much destruction, to which he, by the laws he makes, gives a powerful cause to all unwilling consciences, who nevertheless consider themselves to be obliged to keep such laws. For if a man believe that he ought to do a thing, and be guilty of doing it, but do it unwillingly, and be constrained to do it, it is no other thing than a continual sinning without ceasing, as St. Paul saith, Rom. 14:23: Whosoever shall stagger at meat, 1) and make him conscience to eat it, if he eat it, he is damned: for that which is not of faith is sin.

But now the pope enforces it with his laws, so that one must believe that one is obligated to do what he sets and commands; yet no one can give the will to be willing to do it. And he has no need or right to demand this, since he has little power to willingly and gladly give his will to anyone according to his laws. Therefore no other cause is present with him, but a pure

  1. i.e. doubts.

He is an abominable man, a man of great evil, who fills the world with so many sins and corruptions and who corrupts and devours all believers in Christ, as St. Peter 2 Ep 2:18 also says of him: "Those who had escaped rightly, he drags back into error. Therefore Christ does not call him an abomination, who alone has abomination in him, but he wanted to call him the abomination himself Matth. 24, 15.. And Paul does not say of the sin of man or of the corruption of the Son; but he says that he is a man of sin and a son of corruption, that is, that nothing reigns in him but vain sin and corruption. And this we truly see in the Pope, that if Christ does not shorten these days, no man will be saved Matth. 24, 22. And who knows whether these shortened days belong to the young children, who die before the time, before they can recognize and understand these abominations?

Of imposed repentance and satisfaction.

How many souls does he the pope corrupt even by the laws of pardons or imposed penances? Who wants to tell so much cross, torture and death of consciences? First of all, he does not only abolish Christian freedom in this matter by his laws, which he has made here; but he makes everyone such consciences that one must do enough. And because no one likes to do this, everyone is urged to sin without ceasing by such blasphemous laws and such erroneous consciences, which here meet together in heaps. After that, he does not do to him here what he did to God's table and to confession, that he put all satisfaction, as it should be done, into certain laws; but there it is all done according to his free and unbound will and according to the shrine of his most lying heart. There you must atone and do enough, give and suffer as long as he and his henchmen want or need money. So the devil has his pleasure, that he drives the consciences around, that is his pastime, so that he atones for all his wickedness and willfulness. So he avenges

1564 D- V- a. V, 381 f. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1920-1922. 1565

He is involved in the victory of the martyrs, and fights and contends with the generation or seed of those who rejected him from heaven in the past, and "has a great wrath", as we have heard in the book of Revelation 12, 12. This same wrath he thus atones for and fulfills, that he plays and laughs in our ruin, as if it were a contemptible ridiculous thing. Oh how we slumber and snore at such inopportune times, when we should be most awake and alert.

But if the pope would leave all the above-mentioned things free and undone, and would not entangle the consciences with them in such a condemnable way, they would not make sin and corruption. But this would bring ruin to the kingdom of God; therefore the whole world would sooner be destroyed than his kingdom perish. Now you see how Christ is a cause of righteousness, and that he nowhere brings about law, sin, and corruption; but he challenges people and makes them free and free from laws, sins, and corruptions that were already made and existent. Against this you also see how the pope is a cause of sins, making laws everywhere and thereby corrupting righteousness and salvation, urging and compelling all the world to the same laws. And such a one is not badly holy, like Christ, but he is the most holy; is not a servant of Christ, but he is a governor of Christ; he is not a companion or fellow-shepherd of the other shepherds, but is the supreme or prince over all other bishops and shepherds. Woe to you!

V. 24: And it shall prosper him, and shall bring it forth.

This he will do and be able to do, namely, to deceive and destroy by means of gestures and suggestions, because no thing is more powerful than that, which has a good reputation of a godly being, provided it is adorned and made pleasant by the suggestion of the godly name, as if God wanted it so. Even though it would not have gone out so happily, if the devil had not helped it with his help, since God left the world because of sin. For where is

Is there any natural reason that does not see how foolish and unchristian things the pope teaches and does, even in many things that do not appear to be good? Nevertheless, they have won, so much so that all Greece has opposed him in vain. How often did the German emperors and other kings oppose the abomination, and how many pious men of learning? But they have all been overcome, suppressed and exterminated, the power of error has always won; therefore they have become so puffed up in their mind that they may freely boast without worry: everyone must fear them; as if Christ himself had done such a thing to protect his church.

I speak what is known 1) to all who have read the histories, in which these things are seen so clearly. Although the French historians turn all things to the praise and honor of the pope with shameful hypocrisy, they do not like to hide it. For the course and form of things in themselves, however much they color them with false lies and cover and entangle them with cunning hypocrisy, nevertheless gives the abomination to the day; It also obviously proves, how unwillingly its hypocrites see it, that the popes have always been straight and straight against the gospel, and even if they polish it up to the highest, they do not get any more, The blasphemous liars with their lying words, but that the pope, because of the church, that is, because of his tyranny, has grazed, deceived, robbed and murdered, has filled the world with murder, bloodshed and with all misfortune and misery. How well this rhymes with the Gospel, 2) whether Blondus and Platina together with their peers almost praise and extol it, it must be a stick to me, who does not understand this, otherwise he is so rough he always wants.

282 For the popes would always have been well advised to keep the peace, and they would have attended to the ministry of spiritual matters with the utmost diligence.

  1. D. i. known.
  2. I.e.: as it also says in the Latin original: "How this does not rhyme with the Gospel" 2c

1566 L. V.". V, 382-384. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, I922-IS2S. 1567

The historians of Guelph go on and praise them because they have driven emperorships, kingdoms, bishoprics and dukedoms with war and snatched them away with violence and deceit under the name as if they were rightfully entitled to them and should be. Thus he has been everywhere swift and fortunate in all his will, which has only lusted after him, because he has been rejected by God. Therefore, what he began, he also carried out as he wished, and it did not help that both the pious and the wicked, the spiritual and the secular, the learned and the unlearned, resisted him; so that what followed was fulfilled:

He will destroy the strong and the people of the saints.

This is also what Daniel says in the 8th chapter, v. 10, about Antiochus, who was a figure and meaning of the Pope, when he says: "He has cast out the stars from heaven and trampled them underfoot. Also Christ says, Matth. 24, 22. that still more the elect shall be led astray. Likewise St. Paul says: There must be great errors 2 Thess. 2, 11.

  1. But if I may believe myself here and accept the Hebrew words in the understanding that I interpret the strength for the strong and understand the apostles and evangelists for the people of the saints, which then the words themselves admit to me without need, so that one may understand it, the pope should be the one who would destroy the holy scripture, which is the only strength of the church; He should also be the one who would corrupt, destroy and disturb the apostles and evangelists, so that he would neither let himself be held nor caught by any Scripture, be it of the Old or New Testament, however great its reputation and respect; but he will force, counterfeit all Scripture according to all his might., He will corrupt and destroy it, which he already does in truth and has done for a long time. Now if these words are understood in this way, what follows will rhyme and conclude very nicely, namely, that he will depart

according to his mind Dan. 8, 25. For this very reason he will not be compelled nor urged by any scripture to do as his state requires, because he wants all things to be acted upon, said, taught, understood and interpreted freely and without restraint according to his mind and spirit; And in order that he may obtain and bring this about, it seems best to him that he should corrupt all things, interpret all things in the most insolent and most wilful manner, much rather than that he should depart from his mind, or that he should be thought to have erred and done wrong. How then this may be clearly proved by many examples in his spiritual rights, in which there is no place where he does not falsify the Scriptures of Christ and the holy apostles. And this is what he now says:

V. 25: And he will go according to his purpose.

This reads in Hebrew: Veal sichlo, that is, "and according to his mind", so that one must understand here another little word, either "he will be" or "he will drive and do according to his mind", or something else like that. There is touched the noble piece of the whole papist empire, of which one teaches and preaches that the pope is over everyone and that he is subject to no one who would judge him. For he wants to be a judge of all men, but does not want to be judged by anyone. And the disgraceful papists boast of this beyond measure with loud and magnificent cries, thus proving it: that is why all other judges get their verdict from this chair.

Therefore he sometimes omits this nonsense in his spiritual rights, saying: "The lowly chair may not judge the supreme one." Here belongs the chapter Eunota per munäuin novit Deelosia, guoä äo sontontiL Romavao Doelosiao of liooLt ^uäiearo, which is: "It is well known by the whole church in all the world that one should not judge a judgment that has been passed and recognized by the Roman church." Dear, what more abominable thing could one say and hear than such a blasphemous and unchristian word? Of this St. Peter says, 2 Ep. 2, 10: "They are thirsty, and yet think of themselves." Does not that dare

1568 v.". v, 384 f. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. xvm, 1925-1928. 1569

It is an outrageous insolence that such an ungodly man, and such an unchristian, overloaded with all vices, and in addition the most unlearned and coarse fool, may presume so highly that no one should judge him, that he alone should not err, and that he alone should judge all others? This is exactly what they wanted when they taught us this most cursed blasphemy, that the pope should be over a council, that he alone should interpret the Scriptures, that more should be placed on his judgment than on the judgment of the whole Christian community or church. And the mad fools have never had so much brain that they would have noticed that the Christian church, yes, everyone who believes in Christ, has the Holy Spirit, so that the angels must also yield to his judgment, where they teach otherwise; not only the godless and unlearned man, who otherwise has neither protection nor shield, but just his godless and unlearned bunch, which is equal and similar to him in all respects.

This is what St. Peter, 2 Ep. 3, 3, proclaimed before, when he says: "who walk according to their own lusts. What is meant by "walking after his own lusts," for that here Daniel calls, "going after his own mind," opinion, and will? as then was to be done by this king. For the word Sechel xxx Hebrew, is with us as much as courage, sense, opinion, or will, which in Greek is called or. As we have Rom. 8:5, where St. Paul thus says, "They that are carnal are carnally minded"; and soon after, "To be carnally minded is death." Now this "being carnally minded" is meant here by the prophet Daniel; which we thus see and experience in the case of the pope, since he despises the Scriptures and is allowed to tell us and conclude from his own brain what he wants, and relies solely on the fact that his tyranny is so great and powerful. From this comes that he calls himself the church, that he will not let anyone be his judge, that he subjects himself to be the master, the teacher, and the head of all churches alone. He also makes himself a rule of faith, and yet he himself is sevenfold an unbeliever. Nor is this ungodly man praised in the lust of his soul Ps. 10:3. Behold, this is and is now called

"drive according to his mind" and do all things as he pleases.

Can anything more abominable be conceived than that the church, which lives and works by the Holy Spirit, should depart from its mind to unchristian, godless, and unlearned men, as the pope is with his multitude, who rely solely on the power of their tyranny? Nor do they praise such things and hold them up as the highest article of faith. Nor is it any longer a heretical heretic, for he who lets himself be known by the least that he doubts it. Verily, the kingdom of the devil wants to come to an end. For since he carelessly wants to do his thing too firmly and drives it, it happens according to divine judgment that he betrays himself as the one who does not lead the right thing. And this happens by no other means than by his superfluous persistence and carelessness, that he scolds such great heretics for the sake of a thing that is nowhere worth the trouble. Otherwise, he suffers and remains silent when someone denies God or is otherwise in all vices; as we see daily in all popes. If they were driven by the spirit of God, they would seek first and foremost what concerns God; but now, because they seek their own and care so little about divine things, it is easy to see what kind of spirit is leading them.

Because "the King of reasons and understanding of suggestions" does all things "according to his mind" and does not allow anything to be judged or judged according to the Scriptures, it must follow that St. Paul does not apply anything, but has said and written in vain, 1 Cor. 14:30, where he says: "But if a revelation happens to another who is sitting there, the first one is silent. Again v.29., "Let the prophets speak to one another, or to the third, and let the others judge." But how should the pope have behaved here? He says: "There is no revelation to another who sits there, but I am the first; I alone should and will speak; the others must all listen to me. Further he says: The others shall not judge; but I will prophesy, and the others must all be judged by me. We, by the grace of God, are of the mei-

1570 V. Ä. V, 885-387. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1928-1930. 1571

Our Lord, the prophet and governor of God, has the power to speak, as it is written in the 12th Psalm, v. 5: "We will lift up our tongues, it is our duty to speak, who is our Lord? For just in this way the robber of God Pelagius, that is, the most proud and arrogant pope in his spiritual rights, speaks: "Where there is authority, there is also the power to command; to all others it is due to be obedient."

Tell me, where has there been any king from the beginning of the world who, with such splendor, defiance, arrogance, boldness, stubbornness, so pleasing to himself, with such chubby cheeks, with such great iniquity and defiant arrogance, would have established and enforced his laws to be kept, as the pope does alone? Yes, God Himself does not force people to keep His commandments with such majesty and power. Is this not a fine successor of Peter, who is worthy of this name, since St. Peter 1 Ep. 5, 5. says: "Be subject one to another and show humility in it. What is this but as if he said, "One yields to another, do not everywhere do as he pleases? And Paul Rom. 12, 10. saith, "One come before another with reverence." And Solomon Prov. 23, 4: "Set a measure to thy prudence"; 1) and again he says 3, 5., "Do not rely on thy prudence." To this St. Paul actually thus writes to the Romans, as to those who should have had this said to them with diligence, saying 12, 17., "Think not yourselves wise or prudent." He was well concerned that they would do so; just as St. Peter also prophesied before, "There shall arise," even at Rome, "aü>-"S5-<7 that is, people of their mind, "who would think themselves wise, and walk after their own will and pleasure." 2 Pet. 2:10.

Not only does he not want to follow the mind of another in judging, but also in teaching and living: he wants to be free and unspoken everywhere; he judges, teaches or lives as or what he wants. Behold the nature and doings of the whole church, as they are now in this

  1. In the German Bible: Laß von deinen Fündlein.

Tell me, can you find any other spiritual order or sect, or any other part of the church, in which people live according to the commandments of God? Do they not everywhere teach pure xxxxxxxxxxxx, as it is called in Greek the

Do they not everywhere teach vain chosen spirituality? [Does not everyone live according to it, since everyone does what he pleases and what seems right and good to him, as if there were no king in Israel? as Judges 17:6 is written. 17:6 is written. And the pope goes on, praises all this and confirms it, although the law Deut. 12:8 strictly forbids this, that no one should follow his own cops; and through the prophet Amos 4:5 says: "Yes, go and sacrifice to praise God from the leaven, call out self-willed sacrifices; for so you would have it, O children of Israel." Paul also rejects and rebukes those who bring up new things Rom. 1:30. 2)

292 We still have a good example of all this in Joshua, which condemns the terrible sin of self-will; which Joshua, since he had already been admonished by the Spirit and had actually received the promise from him that he should go through the Jordan; nor did the Spirit want Joshua to act according to his own mind, but to be led and instructed by the Scriptures alone, wherefore he speaks to him thus, Jos. 1:7: "Only be confident and joyful that you will keep and do all things according to the law which Moses my servant commanded you" (that is, you shall not follow your own mind, which no one commanded you to do). "Depart not thou from it, to the right hand, or to the left" (behold, there he blots out altogether thine own mind), "that thou mayest act wisely whithersoever thou goest." Here notice, we do not know what our thing is, which we do without God's law according to our own sense alone; we do not know whether it pleases God, we strike a blow in the air, we work on that which is uncertain, so we do according to our sense; yes, we are certain that it is.

  1. In the Vulgate: inventores malorum.

1572 . L. v. -r. v, 887 f. 61. L. 's reply to d. Book of Catharinus. W. xviii, 1930-1933. 1573.

God does not like what we do; as is evident here from this prohibition, when He says, "Do not turn aside from it on any side."

293 The spirit speaks further to Joshua: "And let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth, but meditate therein day and night. (Oh, what an almost necessary admonition this is! But how the pope disdains it so! Dear, I beseech thee, mark these words of the law, as he saith, Let them not come out of thy mouth day and night). "That thou mayest observe and do all things according to that which is written therein." (Hear, he saith not, Do other or dissolute works): "Then shalt thou prosper in thy ways, and shalt go on prosperously" (that is), then shalt thine opinion and mind be righteous and good; for so shalt thou know what is right and good, and for that thou shalt go on prosperously, and shalt carry forth thy cause happily. Again, if thou goest on thine own opinion, thou shalt never prosper; and that because thou wilt not after the law of God, but after thine own mind and counsel, carry out thy cause. Also it is written Ps. 1:6., "The LORD knoweth the way of the upright and just: but the way of the wicked shall perish." And therefore [v. 1.), "Blessed is he that walketh not in the way of the ungodly."

But now our Lord Pope boasts so much of his own mind, by which he despises the law of God, that he is allowed to proclaim that he is the Christian church, that he may not err, and likewise also a council that could not err), 1) and does not see that Joshua was as full of the Holy Spirit as any Pope could have been; nor did he have to do the least thing of himself that he was not commanded to do in expressed words in the Scriptures. So much more, the church should not be al sichlo, that is, it should not go according to its own sense, but according to the sense of God, and should control and base itself solely on the testimonies of the holy Scriptures. O Pabst!

  1. In Speratus erroneously: likewise also "not" a concilium. In Lat.: sess eoolesiam st oonoilinva inerradile esse.
  1. But he who is al siolllo, a man pure in his mind, can answer for these things nicely and make them unfit; For he has invented a subtle distinction, and such a subterfuge, which is indeed a cunning and deceitful piece of twaddle, namely, that the glorious authority is another thing than the office of Christian love, and pretends that the foregoing testimonies of Scripture are to be understood of the office of Christian love, and not of its tyrannical authority, which they call ecclesiasticam Hierarchiam, that is, the order and regiment of the ecclesiastical principality; But the same authority in the church is nothing else than an office of Christian love, in which one is to serve the church. But he divides these two, that is, the office and love, from one another, so that he may fulfill what follows.

And the deception will be well gotten by his hand.

Just under the appearance and name of the end-Christ, everything that he was ever allowed to subject himself to, happily came to pass, that he also deceived the elect, as Christ says Matth. 24, 24: "False Christs and false prophets shall arise, and shall shew great signs, that they also shall deceive into error, where it is possible, the elect also! Here he admonishes us that it will be in the future, not that the elect may not err, but that they may not be deceived into error; that is so much as to say that error will not reign over them, nor may it finally hold them; but they must be delivered from it, even if it happens only in death and dying. Just as we also have in the Lord's Prayer: God does not want us to be free from temptation, we must have it; but He does not want us to be tempted by temptation, that is, He does not want us to be overcome by temptation and to be kept until the end; for it is written Prov. 24:16: "The righteous falls seven times, and always rises again."

So, through the pope, St. Bernard, St. Francis, St. Dominic, and without whom many other very holy men and women have erred, that they did not understand

1574 2. v. a. v, 388 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. 23.^111,^933-1933.. 1575

and have known the kingdom of gifts; have praised many things about the pope without doubt and considered them good; otherwise they would have risen up against him by the word of God: but at that time it was not yet the time that it should happen. Here I must also include Bonaventure, the brave man who has no equal, in whom there was truly a great spirit, more than in all others who have been preserved for us from the high schools. Also of this number is St. Thomas Aquinas, is he otherwise holy, for I almost doubt it, since one can feel and smell no spirit at all in him. All the men I have now recounted have been in error, have followed the abomination of the Pope, but without godless stubbornness, and have nevertheless been at the very least destroyed in death.

If then the pope corrupts the elect, whom he cannot keep in his corruption, what shall we think of the others, who not only err, but also want to defend the error for a godly being? Oh, how weak is this evidence of the papists, which they take and extract for their part from the life and works of the saints, according to their senseless way, as they do in every way, since Daniel 8:24 thus prophesies that even the strong and the people of the saints shall be destroyed. For here the prophet does not have to speak of false and fictitious saints; therefore Christ also interprets him correctly when he calls these same strong and holy ones "the elect" Matth. 24, 24. Therefore no one should rely on the example of the saints, but one must base oneself on the pure testimonies of Scripture and truth. I do not know whether I should rhyme John Hus and Jerome of Prague and some others whom the pope has strangled, for he has corrupted them only physically and not spiritually; so here the prophet, as I respect, speaks only of spiritual corruption.

And how should he not be well pleased in his hand, not, I say, the truth of the gospel, but deceit, pretense and sham, and loose seductions [as Paul calls them 1 Tim.

4, 1. 2.], and the glittering of all his doctrines; because he hath blotted out and corrupted the strength of the holy scriptures, together with all them that wrote them, being of what repute they may, beforehand, which also stand on his side, and shine forth the holy examples, by which he would strengthen all his cause? How should he not have good luck in his matters, so that not only his rights help him, to confirm his gestures and proposals, that is, his deceptions and alfanzereien, but also fall to him, which you must truly recognize as holy? Who should be allowed to protest against this, since lies are helped by truth, glitter by holiness, deceit by simplicity, injustice by godliness? Oh how truly these are perilous times, well worthy of these last days; in which days all things serve the rejected of God for evil, even that which is good; even as all things serve the elect for good, even that which is evil Rom. 8:28, and that the same by the Spirit of God; as that which is done to the rejected by the spirit of the devil, as the apostle hath before declared 2 Thess. 2:9. Now he that is bold, let him go and live safely, relying on the examples and sayings of the fathers, I mean, he should provide.

(300) Here the prophet Daniel truly indicates the devil, when he says that the deception will be successful in the hands of the king. For, as we have heard above v. 24, his deeds are not strengthened by his power. Neither will his hand guide such deceit; but a stranger, that is, the devil, shall guide his hand; and then shall the deceit be right and prosperous in his hand. How could he better describe the kingdom and the works of the pope? Which kingdom is nothing else but pure deceit; and yet it is so swift and happy that even with obvious lies and childish things it deceives the whole world and makes fools of it. As can be seen from the indulgence alone, without much else. Summa, what the pope is only allowed to pretend, and even if it is an outrageous lie, it still suits him.

1576 D. V. ". V, 389-391. 61 L.'s response to the book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, 1935-1938. 1577

301 Therefore the deceit in his hand actually belongs to the falsification of the Scriptures. Therefore he threw the stars out of heaven and trampled them under Dan. 8, 10. Also how well he succeeded in this deception, testifies publicly before the eyes of all people daily experience. For what he only wanted, he said in his interpretation, so that he falsified the Scriptures, but what he said in his interpretation was immediately accepted as the word of God and is still considered as such today, so that one was not allowed to argue against it with reason or Scripture, not even with obvious experience that was before one's eyes; Until at last it came to pass that this abomination also took away natural reason and subjected itself to such things, so that one would have had to consider the heathen nonsensical if they had been allowed to presume on such things before. Now that all his things have gone forth according to his mind, and have prospered, so that neither faith, nor spirit, nor the voice of the gospel, nor the great reputation of the Scriptures, have resisted him, what thinkest thou that he should continue to do, except what follows?

And in his heart he will think highly of himself.

For now there is no one so high to whom he does not set himself, to whom he may not command all that he wills. That is why he subjects all things to him; that is why he hardly and by great grace allows great kings to kiss his holy feet. For there is nowhere in the whole world to whom he can be assimilated, even though he is the most holy and the most learned. After that, although he is not an apostle, but only a bishop, so that he is much lower than the apostles were in their state, he still makes himself equal to St. Peter, makes himself a prince and supreme over all, he boasts himself an emperor in all spiritual and worldly matters (as they call it), also says that he is a lord of the whole world, pretends that he has received in St. Peter from God right and authority over the heavenly and over the earthly kingdom. And this is indicated by his triple crown, which he wears, and the

The splendid princely state he leads is more splendid than all the splendor of the world. Thus he lets shine in him the kind and quality of the poor Christ, of whom he is a governor, and of the poor fisherman Peter, of whom he is a descendant and successor.

For he deposes princes, kings, and bishops, and all that is high in the world, according to his own will; so that he has become higher and more worldly than the world itself; of which we have said from the two apostles, St. Peter and St. Jude, how he despises and curses the rulers and majesties, takes from them all that they have, and makes them subject to him. But if he would put his mind from him, that he might leave the Scriptures unharmed and without iniquity, not interpreting them falsely by his deceit, letting himself be penetrated by the Scriptures and kept, he might easily be turned from this great courage of his heart, and be restored to the ministry of the gospel and to the service of the poor. But the scripture must be fulfilled, that he should rule over all, and hold m his heart great of himself, over all the creature of the whole world. For Daniel did not add "in his heart" in vain, namely, that he would consider himself great in it, that is, he would not be thus exalted before God, nor made so great by the will of God, but in his heart, in his delusion and in his iniquity, by deceit, gifts, suggestions and foreign power.

He is not content with the fact that he has become the highest and greatest king on earth (for that is what they call him, the highest and greatest bishop), but he has also taken upon himself to extend his power into purgatory. He also dared to command the angels and to intervene by force in the consciences of all men, so that nothing would remain that the great courage of his heart could not attack. And this inestimable and immeasurable abomination truly surpasses all understanding.

And because there will be full sufficiency, he will spoil many with it.

  1. successus is so much as a happy welfare, but is taken here for the

1578 L. V. a. V, 391 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xvm, 1938-1940. 1579

Fullness and abundance of goods; as also our Latin interpreter has interpreted it rightly and well. For after he had suppressed the word, the faith, and all Scripture, and subjected all the world to him, indeed, full sufficiency of all things must follow from this. Who then has so much good, pleasure, and honor as the pope and the papist mob? Is it not they who have the best in all the world? Do they not hold it with all certainty? Do they not enjoy it and use it in the finest way for all pomp, splendor and court? And what shall I say? The whole world is a bad thing, if one wants to hold it against the pope's kingdom and count it, yes, the world will also not be to be valued against it. But what else did he want to do? Since neither the Word nor the Scriptures could not hold him, and since he could command all men and interpret all Scriptures as he thought fit, according to all his mind and unpunished will?

306 But who are those who corrupt and devastate this full sufficiency, I will leave to the judgment of each one himself, rather than to carry it out myself. For what is the great multitude of cardinals, bishops, monks and priests other than the pope's rabble and rabble, who, corrupted by idleness, wealth, abundance, security, splendor and fornication, without faith, without God's Word, without Scripture, without work, without care, spend and corrupt their lives here uselessly in the flesh? This splendid king of gifts protects and shields, promotes and lifts up those who are now mentioned, each in his rank and order, where he can and may, so that he must use and put on all his deceit and lies, so that he makes more than sevenfold carnal and worldly out of the spiritual and ecclesiastical, who nevertheless all have to walk and walk before the world under the appearance of a godly being and spirituality 2 Tim. 3, 5.

He will stand up against the prince of all princes.

307 This is the sum of all things, that he will resist Christ and destroy his word, in which he has believed.

Instead of setting up his own word, which the apostle also says 2 Thess. 2:4, "He shall set himself up in the temple of God as a god, and pretend that he is God." And hard before that, "He that is vile, and exalteth himself above all that is called God and God's service." Here it belongs that he obviously condemned the word of God (the Pope), namely at Costnitz on John Hus, and still persists to this day in his stubborn sense of resisting the word of God and condemning the same.

308 For he cannot set himself against Christ's own person; but he will set himself, that is, he will conclude and set, and afterward do that which is against Christ, against his commandments and doctrine. And this is now his end. Furthermore, he may not come with his wickedness. For now that he has utterly and completely destroyed and laid waste the Word, the faith, all the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and the apostolic books of the New Testament, and after that had become not only above men, but also higher than the angels by his exaltations, there was nothing left, but when he was full and fat, that he reached further and rebelled and exalted himself against his Lord and God; yea, he might have dared to do even more, had there been only something higher. But since there is nothing higher than God, he must stand here, he can go no further, this abomination; here he will and must come to an end, as follows.

But it will be broken without a hand.

309 Thus says the apostle 2 Thess. 2, 8: "Whom the Lord shall strangle with the spirit of his mouth, and shall make an end of him by the appearing of his future. Therefore not the laity, as they are miserably afraid, will disturb the pope and his kingdom; indeed, they are not worthy of such mild and gentle vengeance. Christ belongs to them, and to the same future they must be spared and reserved, which they are and always have been, the most fierce and most horrible enemies. Thus shall perish and perish the scoundrel, who against God and all creatures, without hand and only through the

1580 D- V- ru V, 392 f. 61. L.'s answer to d. Book of Catharinus. W. XVIII, IS4Ü-I943. 1581

The spirit of the devil lifts up and casts out, so that one spirit strangles the other, the spirit of Christ the spirit of the end-Christ, and so that the truth reveals the deception. For if the lie is only made manifest, it is already broken.

Conclusion of this book.

Now I come to the end to you again, dear Wenceslaus. See, I mean, I have now become enough to my Catharines, so that they see how I do not deny that very much is written and said in the Scriptures about this their prince and head; and I have done so much the better, because I am mindful that I promised in the "Babylonian Prison" that I would also let the world see and know the other and better part of my recantation, the like of which they have never heard before, the angry and restless papists, who want to force and coerce everyone into recantation. Then I consider that I have directed it and kept it honest and fine by this interpretation of the prophet Daniel.

311 And I wanted to have many more of the Catharine things refuted and contested, especially that, since the lovely man and astute Thomist admits to me first, the love of God must be present rather than the hatred of sin. For thus I had taught that the hatred of sin and repentance must flow from the love of righteousness; which he then allows to happen. But he says that this same love, from which the hatred of sin and repentance flow, is his own love, through which man loves himself and wants to preserve himself so that he will not be lost, so that out of this same love he hates sin. And he does not see, the foolish head, that this same love of his is a disorderly love, a servile and not a love of children, a hired love, not a voluntary one. Summa, such love is precisely that against which all Scripture argues and storms. Of course, these will be fine repenters, fine penitents and confessors, who ascribe to this love, the source and origin of all vice, the work of virtue and the hatred of sin. Yes, behind them! O Thomists, O Papists, O Romanists, you who are so blind!

and nonsensical, so that you can neither be helped nor advised!

312 Because his entire book teems with foolish error and lies and is so full that it can be compared 1) to the swamp Lerna; which is what all of us confess, how great beasts and lumps the Germans are. And you have recognized it yourself that this book is worth more mockery than refutation. Therefore, I will leave the course of my disputation and put an end to it herewith. Whether there would be something reasonable and artificial in it, because Daniel eats and consumes the whole papist empire with great force; so it will also easily eat this Catharinus, who has his greatest comfort only in the same papist empire. What would the powerless, weak little leaf do against such a storm wind, which tears the tree up together with the root?

But to Silvester, whom you also sent to me in the meantime, 2) I give no other answer than the one I gave before to his reply. For without the title on which he boasts 3): "Irrthümer und Argumente Martin Luthers erläutert und zerschlagen" 2c he does nothing else. O kind God, does Welschland now also bear such coarse and horrible brains and donkey heads? Does the wretched, unfortunate king of Geberden not have other protectors than such doltish, coarse ones?

  1. I.e., in equal measure.
  2. See above in the letter to Wenceslaus Link §§ 1 and 3.
  3. Here we have allowed ourselves an improvement of the translation of Speratus. Instead of the words: "on which he boasts" Speratus had the words: "which he casts, which thus reads." These words refer to the great work of Prierias against Luther, which has the title: Errata st urZuiusntu Martini Imtsris rssitata, ästssta, rsxnlsa st soxiosissirns trita. De Wette raises here vol. I, p. 585 the question: "Which scripture can he mean? The Epitome, after all, had already been refuted by Luther." Also Köstlin, "Martin Luther" vol. I, p. 431, was not able to answer this question with certainty, and confines himself to saying: "Also a new pamphlet of Silvester Prierias was sent to Luther by Link. Therefore, see our introduction to Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. What we stated in the note to the Epitome, Col. 423 f., as "highly probable" that the great work of Prierias had come into Luther's hands, becomes here, by the indication of the title by Luther himself, a complete certainty.

1582 L. v. a. v, ss3 f. XI. Luther's dispute with Catharinus. W. xviii, 1943-1945. 1583

unlearned launderer? For how finely he disputes theology out of art (Silvester), you may take from this, since he says that it is not necessary, but rather proper, that one should love God with all one's heart. What is that but to abrogate and do away with the whole law of God? O what an abomination this is! O what an outrageously unchristian thing! Oh, if he had read his Thomas Aquinas here at least, he would have learned otherwise!

314 So I think that all my senses are deceiving me, here the washers and the idle writers of books will have to do and work on this book of mine; although I hope that I have brought the matter to this point, that now, overcome by my constancy, they will henceforth rage and thunder against me not with writing, but only with their shouting and raging, with cunning and violence, as against the heretic, the like of which has never been seen before in all the world. So shall they stop their ears, as the serpent that will not hear the words of him that biddeth them Ps. 58:5, 6. But this they will not do, that they will fight against me with writing, but this they will do.

I may cry out to be put out of the world.

But I know and am certain that our Lord Jesus Christ still lives and reigns; and in this knowledge and comfort I take comfort, that I will not fear a thousand popes yet. "For he that is in us is greater and mightier than he that is in the world" 1 John 4:4.

Therefore let us pray that God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ may once again visit us according to all His wondrous works, and show us the day of the future glory of His Son, so that this scoundrel may be destroyed and broken, who is "the man of sin and the child of perdition" 2 Thess. 2, 3, and put an end to the mighty errors of the devil, by which, unfortunately, many thousands of souls are being corrupted and torn into hell every moment, just so that the tyranny of the abominable and apostate See of Rome may be preserved. Then all the world say, Amen, Amen. Be blessed in Christ, my dear Wenceslaus.

Wittenberg in the 1521st year, on the first day of April.

XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus.

*62 Luther's letter to Erasmus. )

March 28, 1519.

Translated from Latin.

JEsus.

1st Hail! So often I chat with you and you with me, dear Erasmus, our adornment and our hope, and yet we do not yet know each other; is this not something entirely

Strange? But no, not something strange, but something that happens every day. For who is there whose innermost being is not completely taken over by Erasmus, whom Erasmus does not instruct, in whom Erasmus does not rule? I am talking about

*) This letter is found in Latin in the NarraM Nova Nxistolaruin Des. Nrasmi Not., Lasil. 1519, p. 135; in the collection of the letters of Erasmus von Frobenius in Basel of 1538, liv. 6, p. 243 and in the edition of the works of Erasmus von Frobenius at Basel, 1540, lona. Ill, nd. 6, p. 243; in the edition of the works of Erasmus at Leyden, 1703, loru. Ill, M. I, x. 423, no. 399; in Aurifaber's collection of letters, lom. I, 156 d; in Löscher's Reformations - Acta, vol. Ill, p. 109; in De Wette, vol. I, p. 247 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. I, p. 488. According to the latter we have translated.

1584 D. Br.-W. 1,488-490. 62. Luther's letter to Erasmus. W. XVIII, 1945-1947. 1585

to those who love the sciences in the right way. For I rejoice that among other gifts of Christ is also counted the one that you displease many; by this mark I use to distinguish the gifts of the gracious God from the gifts of the angry God. Therefore, I wish you happiness that, while you please all the good ones the most, you will not be less displeasing to those who alone want to be the highest of all and please the most.

  1. But I am foolish that I approach you, such a great (talem) man, so unprepared, without reverence and without honorable introduction, as it were as a completely familiar friend, an unknown to the unknown; but you will, according to your affability, credit this either to my love or to my inexperience, since I have spent my life among the sophists and have not yet learned so much that I could greet a learned man by letter, otherwise I would already have bothered you with who knows how many letters and would not have suffered that you alone talked to me constantly in my closet.

Since I have now understood from the dear Fabricius Capito that my name is known to you through the useless trade in indulgences, then also, from the very recently published preface to your manual, 1) that you have not only seen but also approved of my chats, I am forced to acknowledge in a letter, albeit quite clumsily written, your excellent spirit, which enriches mine and the spirit of all. Although I know that you will not mind at all that I express my love and gratitude to you by letter, because you are completely satisfied that the heart is devoted to you in hidden gratitude and love before God, and we too have had enough of having your love and service in writings without knowing you, without correspondence and personal contact with you, it is not detrimental to either the address or the spirit of the letter.

  1. This is the DueUiriäiou militis oUrigtiuui, suluverrimis pruseeptis retertuna, uuetore Des. Lrus4no Uotsrodamo with preface to Paul Volzius, abbot at Hugshofen in Alsace. (Erl. Briefw.)

I still had a conscience that this gratitude should not be expressed in words, especially since my name has also begun to be known, so that no one could think that the silence was malicious and had a very evil appearance.

4 Therefore, dear Erasmus, kind man, if it seems so good to you, also acknowledge this little brother in Christ, who certainly cares very much about you and who loves you very much, who, by the way, because of his ignorance deserves nothing else than that he, buried in the corner, would be known to no one under the sun, which I have also always desired with great desire, since I am very well aware of my inability. And I do not know by what fate the opposite has happened, that I must suffer to my great shame that my disgrace and pitiable ignorance also come before learned people and are publicly discussed by them.

Philipp Melanchthon is doing well, but we can all hardly ensure that he does not accelerate the deterioration of his health through excessive, incomprehensible obsession with the sciences, because in the heat of his youth he burns with desire to become and do everything for everyone. You would do us a service, 2) if you wanted to admonish the man by letter that he may preserve himself for us and for beautiful science. For if he remains with us, I do not know from whom we could promise or hope for greater things.

6 Andreas Carlstadt, who highly honors Christ in you, sends you his greetings. May the Lord Jesus Himself keep you forever, dearest Erasmus, Amen. I have made many words, but may you think that it is not always necessary to read learned letters, but that you must sometimes be weak with the weak. Wittenberg, March 28, 1519.

Brother Martin Luther. 3)

  1. As a result of this admonition, Erasmus wrote to Melanchthon on April 22 (Oorx. Uet. I, 79): "Moderate your strenuous studies, so that you can long help to promote the sciences; for I hear that you have a not so solid health. (Erl. Briefw.)
  2. This signature is found in Aurifaber, Löscher and De Wette.

1586 s. Br.-W. ii, 66 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvin, 1947-1949. 1587

*63) Erasmus' reply to Luther's above letter. )

May 30, 1519.

Translated from Latin.

Erasmus of Rotterdam wishes salvation to D. Martin Luther.

Dearest brother in Christ! Your letter has been very pleasant to me and shows the sharpness of your mind and reveals your Christian sense. I cannot tell you in words what a great noise your books have made here. Even now, the completely false suspicion cannot be torn from the hearts of those who think that your works were written with my help and that I am, as they put it, the standard-bearer of this party. They thought that they would be given the opportunity to suppress the beautiful sciences, which they hate mortally, as if they would be harmful to the theological majesty, which they esteem much higher than Christ, and at the same time to give me a boost, because they think that I contribute something to these studies. The whole thing has been carried on with clamor, with presumption, with intrigues, with slanders, with deceit; so that, if I had not witnessed it as an eye-witness (praesens), yes, felt it, I would never have believed it of any writer that the theologians were so nonsensical; one would call it a deadly pestilence. And yet the poison of this evil, which started from a few, has passed unnoticed to a large number, so that a large part of this well-visited academy has been carried away in madness by the contagion of this disease. I testified that you were completely unknown to me, that I had not yet read your books, therefore I could neither reject nor approve anything. I only admonished that, before they had read your books, they should not cry out so spitefully to the people, since they were very anxious to do so, since their judgment would be a

must be very serious. Yes, they would also like to consider whether it would be useful that what should be refuted more correctly in printed matter or disputed among learned people, especially since the life of the author would be unanimously praised, should be heckled before all the people. Nothing has been done; to this day they continue with their perverse, even vituperative disputations. How often we have compared ourselves about peace! How often have they made a new noise out of a very slight suspicion without any reason! And such people consider themselves theologians! The theologians are hated here by the courtiers and they also blame me for that. All the bishops are very fond of me; they do not trust in books, but base their hope to achieve victory only on intrigues. I despise them in the confidence of my good conscience. Against you they already become a little softer. They fear my pen because they are not aware of anything good. I would truly paint them with their right colors, as they deserve, if Christ's teaching and example did not prevent me from doing so. Wild animals become tame through love, but these become wild animals 1) through benevolence. There are people in England who have a very good opinion of your writings, namely the most highly placed. There are also people here, among them the bishop of Liège, 2) who are favorable to your cause. I

  1. süsrantur is derived from stksro, süsravi, not from süsro, extuli.
  2. In the edition organized by Erasmus, in October 1519: "a certain man of high standing". The bishop of Liège was Erard (or Eberhard) von der Mark, 1506-1538. At the Imperial Diet of Augsburg in 1518, he made his anti-Roman sentiments known.

*) This letter is found attached in Latin to two editions of vs rations disputandi, prasssrtirn iu rs tüsoloZssa, vstri ülossHani vrotsZsnsis oratio sts, one of which appeared in July 1519 at Leipzig with Melchior Lotther, the other at Augsburg 1519 with Sigismund Grimm and Marcus Wirsung; further in the varraM Vova vpistolaruna vss. vrasnai Votsrodami sts. by Joh. Frobenius in Basel, October 1.519, p. 136; then attached to two editions of vssidsrii vrasmi Kotsrodami vrssl-^tsri ad Rsvsrsndissirnuin Oardinalsr" ÄloAuntinur" spistola sts., the first of which is without year and place of printing, the other printed in 1520 at Erfurt by Matthäus Maler. In the collections: vss. vrasnai Rotsrod. spistolaruirl opus sts. at Basel by Frobenius 1538, lid. VI, p. 244, and consistent with it in the edition of the works of Erasmus by Frobenius at Basel 1540, Dom. Ill, 1il>. VI, p. 244; in the London edition of the letters of Erasmus, 1642, lid. VI, p. 348, xo. 4; in the edition of the works of Erasmus at Leyden by Clericus 1703, Dom. Ill, v. I, p. 444, Uo. 427; in Löscher, Reformation Acta, vol. ill, p. 112; in Lsoksndork, Historia Vutüsranisnii lid. I, § 51. additio, p. 69; and in Erlanger Briefwechsel vol. II, p. 64. According to the latter edition we hahen translated.

1588 D- Br.-W. II, 67 f. 63 Answer of Erasmus to the above letter W. XVIII, 1949 f. 1589

I keep myself, as far as it concerns, impartial (Integrum), in order to be able to be of the more use to the again-blooming beautiful sciences. And it seems to me that more is accomplished by polite modesty than by impetuosity. In such a way Christ has brought the whole world under his power. In this way, Paul has done away with the Jewish law by interpreting everything figuratively. It is more useful to cry out against those who abuse the papal prestige than against the popes themselves. Likewise, I think, one should act in relation to the kings. The schools should not be despised, but rather brought back to more reasonable studies. About things that are too ingrained to be suddenly torn from the hearts, one should rather dispute with strong and effective reasons of proof than make firm assertions. It is more useful to despise the poisonous quarrels of some people than to refute them. Everywhere we must be careful not to speak and do anything in a presumptuous manner, or in such a way as to cause factions, which, I believe, is

However, in order to gain the cardinal's hat, he soon became a bitter enemy of the Reformation, so that at the Diet of Worms he himself denied having been somehow involved in that writing of 1518. <Erl. Briefw.)

pleasing to the spirit of Christ. In the meantime, the heart must be kept from being corrupted by anger, or hatred, or lust for honor, for these are apt to cause us to stray in the midst of the pursuit of godliness. I do not remind you that you should do this, but that you should constantly do what you do. I have read your explanations of the Psalms a little, they please me very much, and I hope that they will be of great use. There is in Antwerp the prior 1) of the Augustinian monastery, a truly Christian man, who loves you especially, a former student of yours, as he boasts. Almost alone of all, he preaches Christ; the others, however, 2) either preach human fables or their profit. To Melanchthon I wrote. 3) May the Lord Jesus give you his Spirit daily in greater measure for his glory and the general benefit. As I wrote this, I did not have your letter at hand. Farewell.

Leuven, May 30, 1519.

  1. This is the Jacob of Ypres, called Jacob krutzpositus, so often mentioned in Luther's letters.
  2. Here we have adopted the reading voro offered by several editions, instead of lere.
  3. Cf. the penultimate note to the previous letter.

*64 Letter from Erasmus to Elector Frederick of Saxony. )

April 14, 1519.

Translated from Latin.

To the most Serene Prince Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Elector of the > Holy Roman Empire. Erasmus humbly wishes Your Serene Highness good > health and prosperity.

Most Serene Prince! Although I have never had the privilege of seeing Your Electoral Grace face to face or otherwise, what I have seen in the course of my life is not yet known.

I truly do not consider it my least misfortune, yet, inflamed by the praise of all who with marvelous unanimity have praised both your excellent gifts, worthy even of the highest seat of rulership 4) and your miraculous gifts, worthy of the highest seat of rulership. Your miraculous

  1. i.e. the imperial dignity.
  2. This letter is found in Latin in a book published without place and year before the disputation in Leipzig (June 27, 1519), whose title is: Oontentu in doe likello: liwasini liotsroüaini spistola aü iünstr. prinoiporn no üu66ln 8axoniu6 ete. Kriützrieuin. kositionss Ioanni8 üelrii seüolastieatz.?O8ition68 ülartini Imitiern ttieoloZieae. Oon6tu8ion68 Vnüroao 0aroto8tackii ttieotoZieae. etc.; further in Johann Friedrich Mähers ooininontat. in setneoosri vitrun Imitiern p. 87. Together with the next letter, the answer of the Churfürst to Erasmus, this letter is found in the collections of the letters and editions of the works of Erasmus described in more detail under No. 62 and 63; further in the Jena edition (1579), Dorn. I, tot. 211; in the Wittenberg, Dorn. I. tot. 236; m the Erlanger, ox>x>. var. ars., vol. II, 454; in Wolf's wetion. insinoradil. Dorn. II, x. 147. In German, fie are in the Wittenberg edition, vol. IX, tot. 84; in the Altenburg, vol. I, p. 264; in the Leipzig, vol. XVII, p. 233. Our translation is made from the Erlangen edition, which reproduces the text of the former. An extensive excerpt of this letter is found in Seckendorf's Hi8t. Imttrsrani8ini, tid. I, x. 96, H 65, aüäitio a.

1590 L- V. a- II, 455-457. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, IS50-ISS3. 1591

I dared to praise you with high praise for your inclination to promote the fine sciences, which has also made you particularly and especially inclined towards me. To your name the life descriptions of the emperors by Suetonius and other historians, which I have overlooked again. Thereby I do not seek anything else, nor do I desire anything from E. C. F. G., except that I would like to recommend the study of the fine sciences to her in the best way and to testify to some extent that I also meet the voluntary grace of such a great prince on my part with corresponding love.

Furthermore, that I did not send you this volume from Basel, because it was printed there, this was the cause that the way was tremendously far, because at that time you were in Wittenberg, and no reliable person could be found, to whom this could have been entrusted safely. Soon after, however, it seemed superfluous to send the book, because it had already been distributed everywhere. In the meantime, however, it seemed good to me to send this letter, as it were, as a scout, in order to inquire through it whether my service (sedulitas) would be pleasant or not. If this audacity has not been appropriate, then I will make an effort that what has been missed here through error will be made up for in another way. I also do not doubt that your unique and everywhere praised kindness will easily forgive this fault to a certainly servant and devoted heart, since, even if a right judgment was lacking, the endeavor to make oneself deserving for E. C. F. G. was not missing.

But if what we have dared to do has turned out well, we ask for no other reward for our service than that you may continue to be favorable to the beautiful sciences, which are flourishing everywhere in our Germany, and also add this part of the praise to that which you already have, which will perhaps bring no less honor, both for the Naterland and for the princes, than the glory in war has so far brought about. This good fortune will be ours, if also the charity of the princes will support the teachers of the fine sciences and highly gifted youths, who seem to excite extraordinary hope in regard to themselves, and the prestige of the princes will serve us for protection against these haters of the Muses (^c<7OMM<7c>e--7) and the tyranny of the old ignorance, who hold everything by force of arms in the most obstinate way. For what do not the inveterate (devoti) enemies of the beautiful sciences undertake? What tricks they use

not themselves? What plots do they not use? What ambushes do they not plot? What kind of mines do they not try to sneak through? What armor do they not bring? What projectiles do they not hurl at us, impregnated with deadly poison? What conspiracy? what close alliance exists among them to fight the sciences, which they did not learn as boys, and which they are ashamed to learn as old men, although 1) they could learn them almost with easier effort than with what they fight them. How united are they here, who are only united in order to hurt? what sharp minds do they have here, who are simple-minded in good things? How vigilant are they here, who are sleepy to earn good?

Recently, some works of 2) Martin Luther have appeared and at the same time the rumor has been spread that this man is excessively burdened by the power of the venerable Cardinal S. Sixti Cajetan, who is the legate of the Roman pope to the Swabians. How did they jump for joy? how did they boast? how did they rejoice that they had been given what seemed to them a most desirable opportunity to do harm to the beautiful sciences? For according to the proverb of the Greeks, the wicked lack nothing but the opportunity, which gives the ability to harm to those who constantly have the will to harm. The holy sermons in front of the people, the schools, the meetings in the corners, the banquets have constantly resounded with nothing else but heresy and antichrist: Heresy and Antichrist. And in this so spiteful trade, the cunning people, especially among women and the unlearned rabble, mentioned the three languages, 3) eloquence and the beautiful sciences, as if Luther trusted in this protection, or as if heresies flowed from these sources. Although this more than intriguing insolence displeased all truly good people, it was nevertheless 4) criticized by certain people, who were

  1. We used the Jen. Ausg. cum read instead of hnock.
  2. Inend ration68. This may refer to the first edition of the collection of Luther's writings published by Johann Frobenius in Basel in October 1518, or to the second edition in February 1519.
  3. The three languages are Latin, Greek and Hebrew. It is possible, - that Erasmus aims at the writing of Latomus, which appeared in 1519: vialoZN8, an tdeoloZo sit N66688aria trinin dnZnarnin neritia, äi886r6N8. In the Louvain edition of the works of Latomus, 1579, tot. 158.
  4. Instead of tnin in the Erlangen edition we have read with. the Jena tarnen.

1592 a. II, 457-439. 64 Letter from Erasmus to Frederick the Elector. W. XVIII, I9S3-IS5S. 1593

We consider it a terrible disgrace and even an offense that is close to heresy, if someone blindly flatters our mistakes. And see how we blindly flatter our errors; we consider it a terrible disgrace, indeed, the closest thing to heresy, when someone gives a tongue-thrashing theologian, of whom there are not a few, the name of a useless launderer (xxxxxxxxxxx) instead of that of a theologian. We forgive ourselves when we proclaim someone as a heretic and antichrist in front of a large crowd; we are angry with everyone else.

Luther is just as unknown to me as I am to him, so that I cannot come into the suspicion as if I am aiding and abetting him as a friend. It is not my place to either defend his works or to reject them, because I have not yet read them, except in bits and pieces (carptim). Certainly, everyone who knows about it must find pleasure in his life, because, since it is completely free from all suspicion of covetousness and ambition, and is led in moral purity, it should find favor even among pagans. How much does it not agree with the theological arrogance that one immediately, even where not even a book has been read through, rages against the name and the good rumor of a righteous man in such an abominable way, and that among the ignorant rabble, who have absolutely no judgment, especially since he has presented [Luther's things to be disputed, since he has submitted to the judgment of all to whom he had to submit and to whom he did not have to submit. No one has reminded him, no one has instructed him, no one has refuted him; yet they cry him out as a heretic and demand with inflammatory clamor that he be stoned (aä lupläsm xrovooarw). One would say that they thirst for the blood of men, not for the salvation of souls. The more odious the name of heresy is to Christian ears, the less should one be guilty of hanging the same on anyone sacrilegiously. Not every error is immediately a heresy, nor is what displeases this or that immediately heretical. Nor do those always represent the cause of faith who use such glittering titles. Indeed, most of them pursue their own cause, intent either on their gain or on their tyranny, although in their hasty endeavor to do harm they often accuse another of what they approve of in their own house.

At last, although so many old and new font

If there are no other authors, and until now not one has been found in whose books there are not dangerous errors, as they must confess, why do we read the others silently and calmly, but rage against one or the other in such a frightening way? If we protect the truth, why does not that which is contrary to the truth offend us in the same way wherever it is found? It is the holiest thing to protect the purity of faith and religion, but it is the most wicked presumption to serve our own lusts under the pretext of defending the faith. If something is accepted in the schools, they want it to be considered a revelation from heaven (oraculum), why are the schools divided among themselves? why do the scholastic teachers fight and fight among themselves? Yes, why does one theologian disagree with another at the Sorbonne? Yes, one can find very few who agree, if they have not conspired. Moreover, one not infrequently catches them condemning in the books of the moderns what they do not condemn in Augustine or Gerson, as if the truth changed with the author. Those to whom they are favorable read them in such a way that they leave nothing without excuse by distorting everything; those to whom they are hostile read them in such a way that there is nothing that they do not slander.

The best part of Christianity is a life worthy of Christ. If this 1) exists, one must not be easy with the suspicion of heresy. Now they devise certain new foundations, for that is what they call it, that is, they establish new laws according to which they teach that it is heretical what they do not like. He who accuses another of heresy must himself be able to show a life worthy of a Christian, love in exhortation, gentleness in punishment, sincerity in judgment, meekness in pronouncing a sentence. Since no one among us is free from error, why do we persecute the errors of others so ruthlessly? why do we prefer to conquer rather than to heal? why do we prefer to suppress rather than to teach? But he alone, who of all has been without fault, has not broken the broken reed nor quenched the smoldering wick. When Augustine had to deal with the more than heretical Donatists, he did not want them to be forced, but only to be taught, and kept the sword of authority from their necks,

  1. Instead of the Erlangen edition, which is probably only a printing error, we have read with the Jena onm.

1594 L. v.". ii, 4SS-461. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 1955-1957. 1595

even though he was threatened daily by their daggers. We, whose real office is to teach, prefer to use force because it is easier.

This, most noble Duke, I have written all the more frankly, the less the Lutheran matter concerns me. Incidentally, since it is incumbent upon E. C. F. G. to protect the Christian religion through your godliness, it is wise not to allow any innocent person under your jurisdiction to be exposed to the godlessness of some people under the pretext of godliness. Pope Leo wants the same, since nothing is more dear to him than that innocence be safe. He rejoices that he is called father and does not love those who practice tyranny under his shadow. Also, no one obeys the command anymore.

The Pope's view is the one who carries out what is quite cheap. What they think of Luther there, I do not know. Here, at least, I see that his books are read very eagerly by the best people, although I have not yet found the time to read them. E. C. F. G. is well, which may Christ, the Lord, keep us healthy and in blissful government for a long time. 1)

Antwerp, April 14, 1519 AD.

  1. Marginal note of the Jena edition: There are still many letters of Erasmus, in which he mentions the cause of Luther; whoever wants to read them, should read the collection of his letters. - The titles of the collections of letters and works of Erasmus are given at No. 62 and No. 63.

*65) The Elector Frederick of Saxony's answer to Erasmus' letter. )

May 14, 1519.

Translated from Latin.

By the Grace of God Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Archmarshall of the > Holy Roman Empire, Prince, Churfürst and Vicarius, Landgrave of > Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, offers his greetings to > Erasmus.

Although we do not doubt, very learned Erasmus, that you will clearly see from our letter, which was sent to you by Jodocus Jonas, who recently traveled to you, that your extraordinary benevolence, which you, as elsewhere, so also by the dedication of Suetonius and other historians have splendidly displayed, is very pleasant to us, we have nevertheless thought it good to reply to your letter sent to us from Antwerp on April 14. April, both for the sake of many other causes, and especially because your very learned and at the same time exceedingly his letter shows your sincere disposition 2) towards us and your zeal for true Christianity.

  1. Here the text is corrumpirt. Instead of sirmerurn either sirmeritatem wants to be read, or also inserted after sineeruru - rnentern. - Before vernm heZu is to be thought in.

The first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time, the first time.

It is, as you write, a miraculous conspiracy of those who hate right (melioris) scholarship, which is only fit to harm the good, godly and righteous scholars.

That the cause of Luther is not condemned by the scholars, and that Doctor Martin's works (lucubrationes) are read very eagerly by the best people there, we are pleased about this, and all the more so because most good and learned people also in our countries and principalities, to say nothing of the foreign ones, praise this man's life and purity of morals, then also his scholarship with wonderful unanimity. For we have not admitted that he has lived in our Saxony so far, both for the sake of the person and for the cause, since we have never been willing to allow anything less than that those who are worthy of rewards should be oppressed with punishment. Nor will we, with the help of Almighty God, admit that through our guilt

*) In the first note to the previous number, you can see where this letter is found. Our translation is based on the Jena edition of 1579, Tom. I, col. 212.

1596 V- a. II, 461. 65 Elector Frederick of Saxony's reply. W. XVIII, I9S7-1960. 1597

any innocent person is handed over to the godlessness of those who seek their own.

Moreover, with God's help, we will in the future show our favor to the beautiful sciences and right studies, and both their teachers and the students, no less than we have done so far. This is what we have promised you according to our very special grace towards you.

now 1) do not want to behave. Farewell, very learned Erasmus.

From our castle at Grimma, on April 14, 1519.

  1. Instead of in praesentiurura should be read irnpraesentiarurn, which is used adverbially instead of in nrnsssntia in later Latin writers.

*66 Luther's letter to Erasmus. )

April 1524.

Translated from Latin.

Grace and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ!

I have been silent long enough, my dear Erasmus, and although I expected that you, as the older and earlier one, would break the silence, I nevertheless believe, because I have waited so long in vain, that love demands of me to make a start. First of all, I do not want to talk about the fact that you have behaved too strangely toward us, so that your relationship with the papists, my enemies, would not be affected and would stand all the better. Furthermore, I have not been much hurt by the fact that in some books that you have published, in some places, in order to gain their favor or to appease their anger, you have bitten and pulled us through quite sharply. For since we see that you have not yet been given bravery by the Lord, or rather such a disposition that you might freely and confidently confront those monsters of ours with us, we are not such people as should presume to demand of you what is beyond your strength and measure. Yes, even your weakness and the measure of the gifts that God has given you, we have borne in you and would have honored the same in you. For indeed the whole world cannot deny that the sciences flourish and reign, by which one comes to read the Bible unadulterated.

This is also a glorious and excellent gift that God has given you, for which we have to give thanks. Therefore, I have never wished that you should pass over to our camp by setting aside or neglecting your gift. Although you could have been of much use to this cause by your keen mind and eloquence, it was safer because you lacked the heart to serve with your gift. The only thing we feared from you was that you might be induced by your opponents to lead us by publishing books about our teachings, and that then necessity would force us to resist you in the face. We have indeed held back some who wanted to draw you into the battlefield with books that were already ready, and that is also the reason why I would have wished that Hutten's "challenge" (expostulationem) had not appeared either, much less your "refusal" (spongiam), in which, if I am not mistaken, you yourself already realize how easy it is to write about modesty and to rebuke Luther's immodesty, but how extremely difficult, indeed impossible, it is to accomplish this, except by special gift of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, believe it or not, Christ is my witness that I bear a heartfelt pity for you that so many and so great people hate, or rather are zealous about, Luther.

*) This letter is found in Latin in Aurifaber's collection of letters, Dora. II, toi. 194; in the Leyden edition of the works of Erasmus, vol. II, 2. x. 846; in De Wette, vol. II, p. 498. According to the latter we have translated.

1598 De Wette II, 499-SOI. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, IS60-IS62. 1599

against you, by which I think you must be put into turmoil (because your human strength is not up to such a great burden). Although they, too, may be driven by a righteous zeal and think that you have challenged them in an unworthy way. And (that I say it freely) since they are such people who cannot tolerate your bitterness and dissimulation (which you want to have regarded as prudence and modesty) even after their weakness, they certainly have something about which they are justly indignant; if they were stronger in spirit, they would consider it nothing. However, even though I, who am irritable, have often been provoked to write more bitingly, I have done so only against the stubborn and obstinate. By the way, I believe that my kindness and gentleness towards sinners and the wicked, however senseless and unjust they may have been, is not only witnessed by my own conscience, but is also sufficiently attested by the experience of many people. So far I have kept my pen in check, no matter how much you have poked at me, and I have also kept my pen in check in. I have also written to friends in letters that you yourself have read, saying that I wanted to hold back until you came forward publicly against me. For although you do not keep it with us and either reject most of the main points of godliness in an ungodly manner or in a glib manner, or do not want to judge them, I cannot and will not ascribe stubbornness to you. But what shall I do now? The matter is very bitter on both sides. I wish (if I could be a mediator) that they would also stop attacking you with such heat and let you sleep as an old man with peace in the Lord. This they would certainly do, in my opinion, if they took into account your weakness and considered the importance of the matter, which already exceeds your strength, especially since it has already come to such a point that for us there is no need for a new life.

There is no danger to be feared, even if Erasmus fights against us with all his might, not to mention if he only occasionally throws in jibes and shows his teeth. Again, if you too, dear Erasmus, would consider their weakness, you would also refrain from the biting and bitter flowery words of your oratory; although you could neither confess nor dare to assert what is ours, you should nevertheless leave it untouched and wait for yours. For that they bear your biting all too unwillingly, they have (also according to your own judgment) some cause, namely, human weakness considers and fears the reputation and name of Erasmus very badly, and that it is much more to be bitten once by Erasmus than to be attacked by all papists at once. Let this be said by me, beloved Erasmus, as a testimony of my sincere feeling towards you, since I sincerely wish that the Lord would grant you a spirit worthy of your name, and if he forgives, then in the meantime I ask you (if you can do nothing else) to be only a spectator of our tragedy, only that you do not speak to our adversaries and make common cause with them; Above all, that you do not publish any writings against me, just as I do not want to publish anything against you. But of those who complain that they are being targeted under the Lutheran name, you should think that they are people like you and me, whose lives must be spared and credited to them, and, as Paul says, "one must bear another's burden. Enough is bitten, we must now see to it that we do not consume one another. That would be too miserable a spectacle, since it is quite certain that neither part is heartily hostile to godliness, and that both would like to please everyone without stubbornness on their part. Give me credit for my childish simplicity and be at ease in the Lord. 1524.

1600 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. XVIII, 1962-1964. 1601

*67 Desid. Erasmus Diatribe, or Treatise on the Free Will of Man, against Luther. )

September 1524.

Translated from Latin.

In the name of JEsu.

Diatribe, or Treatise on Free Will by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.

First read, then judge.

Among the difficulties, of which there are not a few in the holy scriptures, there is hardly a more inextricable labyrinth than that of free will. For this matter has wonderfully occupied the minds of the worldly wise, and then also of the divine scholars, both ancient and modern, but, as I believe, with more trouble than good. Recently, however, it has been brought back on track by Carlstadt and Eck, but in a more moderate dispute: soon after, however, it has been driven more vehemently by Martin Luther, whose "assertion" (assertio 1) of free will is present. Although he has been answered from various sides, I too, at the behest of good friends, want to try whether the truth can be put in a brighter light through our little fight. Although I know well that some will shout with plugged ears: "against the stream", Erasmus dares to start a war with Luther, a mosquito with an elephant. In order to silence this, I will, if otherwise a small silence can be obtained, hold up nothing else for the present than that I never swore on Luther's words. Therefore, no one should consider it improper for me to contradict him publicly, as a human being.

  1. This is the Xssortio omnium artieulorum I), Imtü. per dullum Deonw X. cknmnatorum. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, 1752.

Luther himself will not take offense if someone departs from his opinion, since he takes the liberty not only of all church teachers but also of all universities and conciliarities. I certainly believe that Luther himself will not take it amiss if someone departs from his opinion, since he takes the liberty of appealing not only to the decrees of all church teachers, but also to those of all universities, conciliar bodies, and popes: since he himself freely and publicly admits this, his friends must not blame me if I repeat it. But so that no one understands this fight as it tends to be between fencers who have been hounded together, I want to deal with a single doctrine of Luther, for no other reason than that, where it can be, the truth may be made clearer by the opposing writings and proofs, the investigation of which has always been very honorable to those who have taken care of it. The dispute should be conducted without vituperative words, partly because it is most appropriate for Christians, and partly because in this way the truth can be found most safely, which is often lost by too heated an argument. I was well aware of how unskilled I would be in this argument, since hardly anyone can be so inexperienced in such things, because I have always had an abhorrence of arguments through a secret instinct of nature, and therefore it would have been much better for me to play in the open field of the muses than to fight with the sword in the vicinity. Moreover, I have no pleasure at all in firm assertions, that I would easily depart to the opinion of the skeptics, where it would concern the inviolable reputation of the holy scripture and the resolutions of the church, to which I would gladly submit my reason everywhere.

*) This writing has been published individually several times under the title: De iidero nrditrio sive eoUEo, Desiäerii Drnsmi Rotorockn. - Drimum leZito, äeinäe juäiento. An edition in octavo was published by Johann Frobenius at Basel in September 1524, as reported in the Erlangen edition, oxx. var. ar^., vol. VII, p. 114. Another without indication of place, time, and printer has been in Walch's hands, who considers the same to be a reprint; this may perhaps be identical with the one published by the Erl. Ausg. I. above. Another appeared at Cologne in 1524 in octavo, as von der Hardt, autoArnpü. Dutüer, Dom. I, p. 201, states. In our hands is one under the above title at Strasbourg in October 1524 ber Johannes Knobluchius (also written Knoblouch, cf. Weim. Edition, Vol. II, at the end. First correction) published very "rrecte edition in small octavo. 6 sheets. Last page blank. Our translation is based on this edition. In the collection of the works of Erasmus, which was procured in Leyden 1703-1706 by Joh. Clericus, the diatribe Dom. IX, x>. 1215.

1602 XII- Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 1603.

I may or may not understand what it prescribes. I would rather have such a mind than as I see in some who are impotently devoted to an opinion and cannot bear anything that disputes with it; but what they read in Scripture they twist to prove their opinion, to which they have once given themselves, like young people who love a girl beyond measure and imagine, wherever they go and stand, that they see their beloved. that they see their beloved, yes, that I make a better comparison, as with those who have got into a heated quarrel, everything that comes into their hands by chance, be it jug or plate, is used as a projectile. But how can there be a right judgment among people who are so minded? Or what use are such disputations, except that each goes away spat upon by the other? But there will always be many such people, who, as the apostle Peter describes them 2 Ep. 3:16, are unlearned and frivolous, and confuse the Scriptures to their own condemnation.

As for my opinion, I confess that the ancients teach many things about free will, of which I have no certain conviction, except that I believe that free will has some power. I have read Martin Luther's "Statement" with an impartial mind, except that I have formed a certain favorable opinion of him, but not in any other way than a judge tends to be favorable to a hard defendant. And although he treats and pursues the matter with all his might and great spirit, he has not yet convinced me, which I sincerely confess. If someone wants to attribute this either to my slow mind or to my ignorance, I will not argue with him, if one only leaves the slower ones the freedom, even if only for the sake of learning, to enter into a dispute with those who have received a richer measure of divine gifts, all the more so since Luther attributes the least to scholarship, the most, on the other hand, to hearty courage, 1) which sometimes also introduces lesser things that it denies to the highly knowledgeable. This may be noted by those who bravely cry out that Luther has more erudition in his little finger than Erasmus has in his whole body, which I truly do not want to refute now. From these, although unreasonable judges, I will nevertheless hopefully obtain this, that, if in this dis-

  1. Hereby Erasmus, in oblique representation, aims at what Luther wrote to him in the previous letter, since he reproaches Erasmus for his lack of bravery.

If I give in to Luther in any way, it will not be held against me, it will be to the detriment of teachers, conciliums, high schools, popes and the emperor, so that one or the other's imprudent judgment does not make my whole deal worse. Although it seems to me that I have understood everything that Luther teaches there, it is still possible that I am mistaken in my opinion, and for this very reason I want to behave as a disputing party, but not as a judge, as an examiner, but not as one who recites doctrines, and I am willing to accept instruction from anyone if I am told something better or more reasoned. However, I gladly advise the moderately gifted not to argue too persistently about questions of this kind, because it is much easier to injure Christian harmony than to promote godliness. For there are certain mysteries in the Holy Scriptures which God does not want us to fathom further, and if we were to undertake to fathom them, the further we get, the more and more blind we become, so that in this way we might recognize both the unfathomable majesty of divine wisdom and the weakness of the human spirit. Just as Pomponius Mela tells of a certain Corycian 2) cave, which at first attracts and draws people to itself by its special pleasantness, until at last, when they have gone farther and farther into it, a horror and the majesty of the deity dwelling there drives them away. Therefore, when it has come to this, I think it is more advisable and godly to exclaim with Paul: "O what depth of riches, both of wisdom and knowledge of God, how incomprehensible are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways," Rom. 11, 33. And with Isaiah: "Who instructs the spirit of the Lord and who instructs him?" Is. 40, 13, as wanting to fathom what exceeds human understanding. There is much to be expected from the time when we will no longer see through a mirror in a dark word, but will behold the glory of the Lord with an unveiled face. So, according to my understanding, as far as free will is concerned, what we have learned from the Holy Scriptures, when we are on the path of godliness, we should strive valiantly for what is ahead and forget what is behind; but when we are in sin, we should make every effort, resort to the means of repentance, seek God's mercy in every way, without which we will not be able to see the glory of the Lord.

  1. The cave of the nymph Corycia at Parnassus.

1604 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xviii, isee-iWy. 1605

neither the will nor the effort of man can do anything. If we find something bad in ourselves, we must attribute it to ourselves; but if it is something good, we must attribute it to divine grace alone, to which we even have to thank our very being. By the way, whatever may happen to us in this life, be it something pleasant or sad, we should believe that it has been sent to us by God for our good, and that God, who is just by His nature, cannot do anyone an injustice, even though it sometimes seems to us that something happens to us that we do not deserve; no one should despair of forgiveness from God, who is by His nature exceedingly merciful. To hold on to this, I say, would be, in my judgment, enough for Christian godliness; and it would not have been necessary, out of an unchristian presumption, to penetrate into such secret, not to say superfluous, things: Whether God foreknows something in such a way that it may or may not happen; whether our will works something in matters that concern eternal bliss; whether it behaves only sufferingly in the face of the working grace; whether we do everything we do, whether good or evil, out of pure necessity, or rather behave sufferingly in doing so. There are things that God has absolutely willed to be unknown to us, such as the Day of Death and the Day of Judgment. "It behooves you not to know the time or hour which the Father has reserved for His power," Apost. 1, and Marc. 13: "But of the day and hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, neither the Son; but the Father only." Of some things God has willed that we should inquire into them in such a way that we should worship Him in hidden silence. Accordingly, there are many passages in the divine books, which, although many have fumbled with them, none has entirely removed the ambiguity, as: of the distinction of persons; of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ; of sin, which shall never be forgiven. Of other things, God has willed that they be known to us in the fullest way. Among them are the regulations on how to live rightly. Namely, this too is God's word, which is not to be fetched from on high by ascending to heaven, nor to be introduced from afar by sailing the sea, but it is near to us in our mouths and in our hearts. All this must be learned thoroughly, the rest is more properly commanded by God, and it is more Christian to worship unknown things than to fathom unsearchable things.

to want. How many investigations of questions, or rather of disputes, have not been aroused to us by the distinction of persons; the manner of the beginning of all things; the distinction of birth and exit? What unrest has not been caused in the world by the advocacy of the conception of the God-bearer? Rather, what has been done with these troublesome questions so far, than to prove less love with great loss of harmony, while we want to be wiser than we should be. There are also some things that are of such a nature that even if they were true and one could know them, it would not be advisable to reveal them to the ears of all kinds of people. Perhaps it is true what the sophists are wont to gossip, that God is by His nature as much in a dung beetle's den (lest I add something even more insolent, which they do not hesitate to add) as in heaven: and yet it would be something useless if one wanted to argue about it before the great multitude. So it would certainly cause great annoyance among the inexperienced rabble if one were to say that there were three gods, which one can well say according to the rules of the art of disputing. If I knew, which is not otherwise, that our confession, which is now in use among us, was neither instituted by Christ, nor could it be decreed by men, and for that very reason should not be demanded by anyone; likewise that atonement for sins is not demanded; I would still have misgivings about making this opinion known publicly, because I see that most people are too inclined to vices, which the necessity of confession now completely prevents, or at least keeps in check. There are bodily diseases which are borne with far less harm than they are expelled, as if one wanted to wash himself with warm blood of murdered children to cure leprosy with it. Thus there are certain errors that can be kept quiet with far less harm than they can be eradicated. Paul knows to make a difference between what one has the power to do and what is pious. To speak the truth is in our power; but it is not pious with all and sundry, nor at all times, nor in any way. If I knew that something had been wrongly decided or determined in an assembly, I would have the power to speak the truth publicly; but it would not be pious, lest one should give evil minds cause to disparage the reputation of the fathers, even in their godly and holy ordinances, and I would rather say: so it should have been done.

1606XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 1959-1971. 1607

The new law is based on the principle that the new law should be applied in the same way as the old law.

Let us assume that it is true in a certain sense what Wiclef taught and Luther asserted: what we do is not done by our free will but by mere necessity, what could be more useless than to spread this strange thing in the world? Again, let us assume that it is true in a certain sense what Augustine writes somewhere: God works both good and evil in us; he rewards in us his good works and also punishes in us his evil works. What a great door this publicly spread speech would open to countless people to godlessness, especially in view of the great laziness, sleepiness, malice and irrevocable inclination of people to all kinds of godlessness? What weak man would endure the incessant and arduous strife against his flesh? Which wicked man would be anxious to improve his life? Who would think of loving God with all his heart, who is said to have made hell burn with eternal torment, so that there he might punish his misdeeds on the wretched, as if he were pleased with the punishments of men? This is how most people will interpret it, because most people have a crude and carnal mind, which is inclined to unbelief, to shameful deeds, to blasphemy, so that one must not first pour oil on the fire. That is why Paul, as a wise steward of God's mysteries, so often counsels love, and would rather that one should do what is good for one's neighbor than what one has the power to do in and for oneself. He had great wisdom, which he preached to the strong, but to the weak he said that he knew nothing but Jesus crucified. The holy scripture has its own language, which is according to our weakness. For in it we read how God is angry, grieved, unwilling, grim, threatens, hates, but also how he lets himself complain, how he is repentant and changes his judgment; not that such changes really take place with God, but because he wanted to make himself comfortable with our weakness and sluggishness with such expressions. I believe that all those who have taken upon themselves the office of stewards of God's secrets must also use this prudence. Some things are harmful precisely because they are not suitable, just as wine is not suitable for someone who is afflicted with a fever. Accordingly, one could have discussed such things in learned conversations, or also on

I believe that they are not even pious there, if it is not done with caution; but to act such fairy tales in the public arena in front of a motley crowd, I consider not only useless, but even pernicious. Therefore, I would rather that this be recognized, that one should not waste time or acumen with such confused things (labyrinthis), as Luther's teaching either refutes or asserts.

4 It would be rightly considered that I would have made this preface too long, if it did not belong almost more to the matter than the disputation itself. Since Luther does not accept the reputation of any writer, not even the most proven one, and only wants to hear the canonical writings, I am very happy to mention this abbreviation of the work. For since among the Greeks as well as among the Latins there are innumerable ones that deal with free will either extensively (ex professo) or occasionally, it would cause me no small amount of work to bring together from each one what he said for or against free will, and I would have to devote a great deal of laborious work to interpreting the meaning of each individual passage and to refuting or corroborating its reasons for proof, which, however, would be in vain with Luther and his friends, especially since they the scribes are not only not in agreement among themselves, but also frequently contradict themselves. However, I would like to remind the reader that, if it appears that I am doing the same with Luther in the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and in sound reasons of proof, he should then consider the numerous series of the most learned men, whose opinion has been unanimously approved for so many hundred years up to the present day. Most of them, apart from their admirable insight into the holy scriptures, are recommended by a godly way of life; some of them, moreover, have confirmed with their blood the Christian doctrine which they have defended in their writings, as among the Greeks Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, John Damascenus, Theophylactus; among the Latins Tertullianus, Cyprianus, Arnobius, Hilarius, Ambrosius, Jerome, Augustine, not to mention such people as Thomas, Scotus, Durandus, Capreolus, Gabriel, Aegidius, Gregorius, Alexander, whose covenant and perspicacity in giving evidence no one can easily completely despise, not to mention the reputation of so many high schools, conciliarities and popes. From the time of the apostles to the present day

1608 67 Desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvin, 1971-1974. 1609

There has not yet been a single scribe who has completely abolished the power of free will than only Manichaeus and John Wiclef. For the reputation of Laurentius Valla, who seems to be almost on a par with them, does not carry much weight among divine scholars. But whether the teachings of Manichaeus, which have been unanimously laughed at and scorned by the whole world, are less useless for godliness than those of Wiclef, I do not know. For Manichaeus derives good and evil works from two natures in man, but in such a way that we have to thank God for the good works of our condition. However, against the power of darkness, he still leaves the defense (causus) that one can invoke the help of the Creator, by which strengthened we sin less and accomplish the good more easily. But since Wiclef ascribes everything to a mere necessity, what does he leave for our prayer or effort?

But I turn again to what I had begun to talk about. If the reader will perceive that my weapons in this disputation are the same with which my opponent fights, then he should consider once in himself whether he judges that more weight is to be attached to the reputation of so many scholars, so many orthodox believers, so many saints, so many martyrs, so many old and new divine scholars, so many high schools, so many conciliarities, so many bishops and popes, than to one or the other's private part. Not that I want to measure their judgment according to the number of votes or the dignity of those who speak, as happens in human assemblies. I know that it is not seldom the case that the greater part outvotes the better part; I know that what pleases most is not always best; I know that in the investigation of truth there will never be a lack of things that can be added to the diligence of the forefathers. It is fair, I confess, that the prestige of the holy Scriptures alone is higher than all men's judgments and opinions. But here there is no dispute about the Scriptures. Both parts accept the same scripture and hold it in high esteem; rather, the dispute is over the understanding of the scripture. And if in the interpretation of it a sharp mind and erudition are emphasized, who has a more perceptive and penetrating mind than the Greeks? Who is more skilled in the Scriptures than they? The Latins were not lacking either in intellect or in knowledge of the Scriptures; even if they were inferior to the Greeks in natural ability, they were at least able, supported by what they had learned, to interpret the Scriptures.

The people of the world, who had left behind them, were equal to the diligence of the Greeks. If in such an evaluation one looks more at the sanctity of life than at erudition, then one sees what splendid men the part that asserts the free will of man has had. Away with the spiteful comparison, as the legal scholars speak. For I would not compare certain preachers of a new gospel with those of old. Here I hear: What need is there of an interpreter, if the Scripture is clear? If it is clear, why have such excellent men been blind for so many hundreds of years, and in such an important matter, as they want it to be regarded? If the Scriptures are nowhere obscure, what was the need for prophecy in the apostles' day? It was a gift of the Holy Spirit. But I do not know whether this gift of grace has ceased, just as the gift of healing and speaking foreign languages has ceased. If it has not ceased, the question is to whom it has been directed. If to any one, all interpretation is uncertain; if to none, no interpretation is reliable, because scholars are still tormented with so many obscure passages. If on the proper successors of the apostles, they will cry out against it that the apostles had already had many successors for many centuries, who have nothing of the apostolic spirit. But of these, all other things being equal, it is most probable that God infused the Spirit into those to whom He gave the ministry, just as we are more likely to believe that grace was given to a baptized person than to an unbaptized one. And what must be admitted is that the Spirit might reveal to some lowly and ignorant man something that he has not revealed to many learned men, just as Christ thanks his Father that what he would have hidden from the wise and prudent, that is, from the scribes, Pharisees, and worldly men, he would have revealed to the unlearned, that is, to the simple and foolish in the sight of the world. Such foolish people might have been Dominicus and Franciscus, if they had been allowed to follow their spirit. But since Paul already commands in his time, when this gift of the spirit was still in bloom, that one should test the spirits whether they are of God, what must not happen in our carnally minded time? By what shall we test the spirits? By scholarship? There are masters on both sides. By life? On both sides are poor sinners. On the one side is the whole chorus of saints, who are the free

1610XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 1974-1976. 1611

Will claim. That is true, they say; but they were only men. But I only compare men with men; not men with God. I hear: what helps the great multitude to the understanding of the spirit? I answer: what helps the small number to it? I hear: what does the bishop's hat help to the understanding of the holy scripture? I answer: what does the war cloak or the robes help to it? I hear: what helps the science of worldly wisdom to the knowledge of the Scriptures? I answer: what helps ignorance? I hear: what is the use of an assembled synod for the understanding of the Scriptures, in which it is possible that hardly anyone has the Spirit? I answer: what is the use of the private meetings of a few, among whom it is even more probable that there is no one who has the Spirit? Paul calls out to us: "Seek ye that ye may know him which speaketh in me, even Christ", 2 Cor. 13:3. The apostles were not believed, unless miraculous works had confirmed their teaching. Since the apostles drove out snakes, healed the sick, raised the dead, communicated the gift of tongues to others with the laying on of hands, only then were they believed; but they were hardly believed when they taught things that seemed strange. Since, according to the general opinion, almost even stranger things are said, none of these people has ever appeared who could have healed even a lame horse. And 0 that only some without miraculous works would like to prove the honesty and simplicity of the apostolic behavior, which could serve us slow ones instead of miraculous works. I did not actually say this about Luther, whom I do not know personally, and when I read the writings of this man, I get a different impression (varie afficior); but about several others who are more closely known to me, who, when a dispute arises about the understanding of Scripture and we refer to the interpretation of the old orthodox teachers, immediately make themselves heard: they were men. If you ask them by what reason we can know which is the true interpretation of Scripture, since there are men on both sides, they answer: by the characteristic of the Spirit. If you ask why some of those who have become known to the world through miraculous works should have lacked the Spirit more than they? they answer as if there had been no gospel in the world for thirteen hundred years. If you ask them to live according to this spirit, the answer is that they are justified by faith and not by works. If you ask for miracles

If you try to see the works, they say that they have long since ceased to exist and are no longer necessary in the light of the Scriptures, which are so bright. If you claim here that the Scriptures are not clear in those places which so many great men could not have understood, the circle begins again from the beginning. If we now admit that he who has the spirit can be sure of the meaning of the Scriptures, how can I be made sure of what he takes for granted? What is to be done when many people give different opinions, each of whom swears that he has the Spirit? Moreover, since the spirit does not communicate everything to everyone, even he who has the spirit can sometimes err and be mistaken. This is said against those who so easily reject the interpretations of the ancients in the sacred books and want to impose theirs on us as if they had been revealed to them from heaven. Finally, even if we admit that the Spirit of Christ might have allowed his church to err in trifles on which man's salvation does not depend, how can it be believed that for thirteen hundred years he should not have cared for the error of his church, and that he should not have considered any of so many eminently holy men worthy to admit to him that which they claim to be the main part of the whole gospel doctrine?

6 But that I may come to an end, let them see for themselves what others take for granted. I do not boast of doctrine and holy living, nor do I rely on my mind; but I will speak plainly what I think. If anyone undertakes to teach me, I will not resist the truth with my knowledge and will. But if they were to hurl invectives at me, who is engaging with them in all civility, without vituperation or blasphemy, more in conversation than in argument, who will not miss the evangelical spirit in them, which they constantly speak? Paul calls out to us, "Receive the weak in faith." Rom. 14, 1. Christ does not want to "extinguish the smoldering wick," Isa. 42, 3. Matth. 12, 20. and Peter admonishes: "Be ready at all times to answer to everyone who demands the reason for the hope that is in you, and do this with meekness and fear." 1 Petr. 3, 15. If they answer that Erasmus, as an old hose, cannot contain the must of the spirit, which they put before the whole world, they may, if they have so much confidence in themselves, at least do with me only as Christ did with Nicodemus and the apostles with Gamaliel.

1612 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. XVIII, 1976-1979. 1613

have made. The Lord did not reject him as an eager learner, even though he was in gross ignorance: nor did the young people reject him who did not want to come forward and speak his mind until the outcome of the matter taught them in which spirit they were led.

Now half of this paper is finished. If I have convinced my readers of what I have presented, that it is better not to argue too superstitiously about such things, especially before the rabble, then the proof, to which I now proceed, would not be necessary, and I wish that the truth prevails everywhere, which will perhaps shine forth by holding the scriptures against each other, like the fire when one pushes two pebbles against each other. First of all, it cannot be denied that there are many passages in the Holy Scriptures which seem to prove that man has a free will. Again, there are other passages which seem to abolish it altogether. But now it is known that the Scriptures cannot contradict themselves, because they come entirely from One Spirit. Therefore, I will first cite those passages that confirm our opinion, and only then will I endeavor to invalidate those that seem to stand in our way.

(8) Furthermore, by free will we understand here the faculty of the human will, according to which man is able either to turn to that which leads to eternal bliss, or to turn away from it. Those who assert free will refer primarily to what we read in the book that bears the title: Ecclesiasticus, or Wisdom of Sirach, Cap. 15, 14-17: "God created man from the beginning and gave him the choice. If thou wilt, keep the commandments, and do that which pleaseth him in right trust. He has put fire and water before you; reach for whichever you like. Man has before him life and death; whichever he wills, that shall be given him." I do not believe that anyone will object to the prestige of this book, which, according to Jerome's testimony, was not considered canonical by the Ebrews in ancient times, but which the Christian church has included in its canon with general acclaim. I also see no reason why the Eberians would have excluded this book from their Canon, since they included the Proverbs of Solomon and the Song of Songs, a love song, in it. For what caused them to exclude the last two books of Ezra: the history of Susanna and Daniel and of the dragon of Babylon; the book of Judith, Esther, and the book of the Lord?

some others did not include in their canon, but counted among the so-called Hagiographa i.e. Apocrypha, one can easily guess, if one only reads these books carefully. But in this book Sirach nothing of this kind is repugnant to the reader. Therefore, the mentioned passage explains that Adam, our progenitor, was created in such a way that he had an uncorrupted mind, which could distinguish what to do or not to do. To this was added the will, which was also an uncorrupted but free will, so that it could turn away from good and turn to evil if it wanted to. In such a state the angels were created before the devil with his followers fell away from his creator. In those who have fallen, the will is so thoroughly corrupted that they cannot turn to the better again; but in those who have remained firm, the good will is so confirmed that it can no longer turn to evil. In man the right and free will was such that he could have remained in the state of innocence without new grace, but in such a way that without the help of new grace he could not have attained the blessedness of immortal life which the Lord Jesus promised to his own. Although all this cannot be proven with clear testimonies of the Scriptures, the orthodox fathers have spoken of it not improbably. As far as Eve is concerned, not only the will but also the mind seems to be corrupted in her, hence the source of all good and evil flows. For the serpent may have persuaded them that they were empty threats, with which the Lord had forbidden that they should not touch anything from the tree of life. With Adam, the will seems to have been more corrupted because of an intemperate love for his bride, whose senses he preferred to follow than the command of God; although I think that also with him the mind was corrupted, from which the will arises. This power of the spirit, by means of which we form a judgment, which one may call either sense or understanding, or if one prefers (there is nothing in it), reason, has been darkened by sin, but not completely lost. The will, according to which we choose or avoid something, has been corrupted to such a degree that it could not improve itself by its natural ability; but, having lost its freedom, it had to be a servant of sin, to which it had voluntarily surrendered. But by God's grace, after man's sin had been remitted, he was made free in such a degree that, according to the Pelagians,

1614XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, E-isW. 1615

The only way that man can attain eternal life without the help of a new grace, however, is to thank God alone for his blessedness, who both created and restored his free will. According to the opinion of the orthodox, he could thus persevere in good by means of divine grace, which always assists man in his endeavors, so that an inclination to evil would remain with him from the remnant of the once ingrained sin. But just as the sin of the first parents was passed on to the descendants, so also the inclination to sin has passed on to all, which grace, which destroys sin, restrains to such an extent that it can be defeated, but not completely eradicated. Not that grace is not able to do this, but because it was not good for us. Just as in the case of those who do not have grace (I am putting a special case) the mind is darkened but not entirely lost, so it is probable that in such the power of the will is not entirely lost, but has become incapable of doing good. What the eye is to the body, the mind is to the soul. This is illuminated partly by the natural light, which is implanted in all, although not to the same degree, of which the Psalm says: "Lord, lift up over us the light of your countenance," Ps. 4, 7, and partly by the commandments and the holy word of God, as our Psalmist also says: "Your word is the lamp of my foot," Ps. 119, 105. Therefore a threefold law arises for us. The law of nature, the law of works and the law of faith; that I make use of the words of Paul. The law of nature is completely implanted in the human heart, both among the Scythians and the Greeks, and prescribes that it is wrong for us to do to others what we would have them not do to us. Without the light of faith, without the help of the Holy Scriptures, the wise men of the world have recognized from the creatures the eternal power of God and His divinity, and have bequeathed to us many good rules of life, which correspond exactly to the evangelical commandments, also exhorting with many words to virtue and abhorring shame and vice. And it is probable that they, too, had a will that was somewhat inclined to respectability, yet unable to attain eternal blessedness, if grace through faith were not added. The law of works commands and threatens punishment. This makes sin twice more grievous and brings death, not that this law is evil, but that it imposes such things as we cannot perform without grace. The law of faith, though

Although it requires more difficult things than the law of works, it makes what is in itself impossible not only easy but also sweet by means of the rich grace of God. Accordingly, faith heals the mind corrupted by sin, and love helps up the weak will. In a sense, this was a law of works Gen. 2:16, 17: "Thou shalt eat of every tree of the garden: but of the tree of knowledge, good and evil, shalt thou not eat. For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Again, through Moses was given the law of works: "Thou shalt not kill; but if thou kill, thou shalt be killed again." "Thou shalt not commit adultery; but if thou commit adultery, thou shalt be stoned." Ex. 20. Deut. 5. But what does the law of faith speak? it commands to love one's enemies, it commands to take up one's cross daily, it commands to despise one's life. "Fear not, little host, for yours is the kingdom of heaven," Luc. 12:32; likewise, "Be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world," Jn. 16:33; and, "I am with you always, even to the end of the age," Matt. 28:20. This law was demonstrated by the apostles themselves, who, though they had been beaten for the name of Jesus, went away from the council with joy. Hence also Paul says: "I can do all things through Him who makes me mighty," Phil. 4, 13. This is what Sirach 15, 15. says: "He has given His law and His commandment." To whom? At first to the two progenitors of the human race by themselves; afterward to the Jewish people by Moses and the prophets. The law indicates what God wants to have, and it prescribes punishments for the disobedient, but rewards for the obedient. Only the choice is left to their will, which he has created for them freely, or in such a way that they can want both good or evil. And again, "if thou wilt keep the commandments, they will keep thee." And again, "reach unto which thou wilt." Sir. 15, 16. If man had not known the difference of good and evil and the divine will, it could not have been imputed to him if he had chosen wrongly. If man had not had free will, sin could not have been imputed to him, which ceases to be a sin if it is not committed with free will, unless an error or a binding of the will has arisen from the sin. Thus, what a person has had to suffer is not imputed to him.

  1. although now this passage, which we have taken from Sirach

1616 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. XVIII, 1982-1984. 1617

The reasoning that we have given, which seems to apply especially to the first parents, also applies in a certain way to all the descendants of Adam; but it would not apply to them if there were no power of free will in us. For though the freedom of the will has been violated by sin, yet it is not altogether lost, and though it has become limp, so that before we obtain grace we are much more inclined to evil than to good, yet we are not altogether deprived of it, Except that the abomination of vice and the habit of sin, which have now become, as it were, another nature, sometimes so darken the soul's power of judgment, and so restrict the freedom of the will, that it seems as if the latter were entirely lost, and the latter entirely taken from us. But how much free will is possible for us after we have sinned and before we are granted grace, in this the opinions of the ancients and the moderns are wonderfully different, in that one imagines one thing and the other something else. Those who wanted to prevent despair and certainty, and to stimulate people to hope and fervent efforts, attached more importance to free will. Pelagius taught that once the human will had been made free and healed by grace, there would be no need for a new grace, but with the help of free will one could attain eternal blessedness, but in such a way that man would have to thank God for this blessedness, without whose grace the will of man would not be free in an effective way to do good. And this very faculty of the soul, according to which man chooses what he has recognized as good and turns away from what is contrary to it, is a benefit of the Creator, who could have produced a frog instead of a man. The Scotists are still more inclined to free will, and believe that its capacity is so great that before man has attained grace that cancels sin, he can, by the powers of nature, do morally good works, as they call them, and through them, not according to worthiness (non de condigno, that is, completely), but according to equity (de congruo, that is, to some extent), merit the grace that makes pleasant (gratiam gratum facientem); so they are wont to express it. Others are just the opposite and claim that God has just as great an abhorrence for all works, no matter how morally good, as for wicked deeds such as adultery and death, because they do not come from faith and love toward God. This latter opinion seems to be all too harsh, especially since some worldly wise people, as they have some knowledge of

God, so they could possibly have some trust and love for God, and not have done everything out of vain honor, but out of love for virtue and respectability, which, as they teach, one should chase after, only for its own sake. For he who for the sake of vain honor puts himself in danger for the good of the fatherland does a work which is good in its nature, but whether it is a morally good work I do not know. St. Augustine and those who follow him consider how great a ruin it is for true godliness when man relies on his own strength, and therefore they are more inclined in favor of the grace that St. Paul inculcates everywhere. Therefore, he does not admit that man, who is subject to sin, can change his life by his own strength or do anything that will help him to blessedness, because he is driven from above by the undeserved grace of God to want what is useful and good for eternal life. This grace is called by some the preceding grace, but by Augustine the working grace. For faith, which is the door to blessedness, is also a gift of grace from God. The love that comes from faith, through a richer gift of the Holy Spirit, he calls cooperating grace, because it constantly assists those who strive until they attain what they strive for, but in such a way that, since both free will and grace bring about one and the same work, grace does everything, not merely cooperates (dux sit operis, non comes). Although in this opinion others again make a distinction and say: if one considers the work according to its nature, then the human will is the noblest cause of it; but if one considers it according to what one earns with it, then grace is the more distinguished cause. Furthermore, faith, which makes us desire that which leads us to salvation, and love, which makes us not desire it in vain, are not distinguished both by time and by nature; yet both can increase little by little. Since, then, grace is so much as a benefit given freely, we may well put a threefold, or, if you will, a fourfold grace. One that is implanted in us by nature and stained by sin, but, as I said, not entirely lost, which some call the natural influence (influxus naturalis). This grace is common to all: it remains even in those who persist in sins. For they are free to speak or to be silent, to sit or to stand up, to assist a poor person, to read spiritual books, to listen to a sermon, but

1618XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, E-E. 1619

so that, according to the opinion of some, these actions do not help to eternal life. But there are also those who, considering the immeasurable goodness of God, say that man does benefit from such good works insofar as he is thereby prepared for grace and God moves him to mercy. Although there are others who claim that even this cannot happen without special grace. Because this grace is common to all, it is not called a grace, since it is indeed a grace, just as God does greater miraculous works every day in bringing forth, sustaining, and governing everything than if He were to heal a leper or deliver a possessed man from the devil; and yet these things are not called miraculous works because they are granted to all equally every day. The other is a special grace, since God, according to His mercy, impels the sinner, who has earned nothing before, to repentance, but in such a way that He does not yet pour out the supreme grace that cancels sin and makes man pleasing to Him. Therefore, a sinner displeases himself by means of the other grace, which we have called the active grace, and although he has not yet given up the desire to sin, yet, by giving alms, praying, being diligent in holy practices, listening to sermons, appealing to pious souls to pray to God for him, and doing other so-called morally good works, he behaves, as it were, as one who is soliciting the highest grace. But they are of the opinion that the grace that we now call the other grace is available to all people through the goodness of God, because divine goodness gives each individual in this life convenient opportunities through which they can get along again, if they make what is left of their free will as much as possible available to the grace of God, which, as it were, invites them, not drives them, to a better life. But that, they think, is up to our will, whether we want to turn our will to grace or turn away from it, just as it is up to us to open our eyes before a light that is brought in and to close them again. Since God, according to His immeasurable love for the human race, does not want a man to be deceived in his expectations, even with regard to grace, which they call pleasing grace, if he otherwise seeks it with all his might, it follows that no sinner may be safe, but also not fall into despair; it also follows that no one is lost except through his own fault. Accordingly, there is an inherent grace; there is an impelling grace.

There is also a grace which we have called the cooperating grace, which gives strength to the will and promotes the work begun; finally, there is also a grace which guides us to the end. These last three kinds of grace they consider to be one and the same grace, although it is given different epithets because of its effects in us. The first stimulates, the second promotes, the third completes. Therefore, those who are farthest from Pelagius' opinion attribute the most to grace, and almost nothing to free will, but they do not abolish it altogether. They say that man cannot will anything good without special grace, cannot begin anything good, cannot continue in it, cannot accomplish anything without the main thing, the constant help of divine grace. This opinion seems quite probable, because it leaves man an effort and endeavor, and yet does not admit that he should attribute the least to his own powers. But the opinion of those is harsher who maintain that free will can do nothing but sin; that grace alone works good in us, not through free will, or with free will, but in free will; that our will does nothing more here than the wax, when it must take on some form in the hand of the artist, as the artist wills it. These seem to me to want to escape the reliance on human merit and works, and fall deeper into it, 1) as one is wont to speak. The hardest sounding opinion is that of those who say that free will is an empty name, that it has no power, nor has it ever had any capacity, neither with the angels, nor with Adam, nor with us, neither before grace, nor after grace; but that God works both evil and good in us, and that everything that happens, happens out of pure necessity. With these two latter opinions I will have to deal primarily.

(10) This I have had to state somewhat more extensively, so that the more inexperienced reader (for for the unlearned we write unlearned) may the more easily understand our other proofs, for which reason we have given the passage from Sirach first, because in it the origin and the power of free will seems to us to be described most clearly. And now we want to go through the other testimonies of the Scriptures in a quicker course. The-

  1. ut pratztsr 6U8um. A saying from Terence: itu kuMUs, N6 prutztsr eusum i.e.: Do not pass by your own house door when you are pursued.

1620 67 Desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 1987-1939. 1621

This will happen if we only remember that this passage is different in the Aldinic edition than it is read today in the Latin Bible. Because in the Greek text it does not say: "they will preserve you. Also Augustinus, who quotes this passage several times, does not add this part; also I think that it has been called instead of. According to this, just as God presented man in Paradise with the choice between life and death: "If you obey my commandments, you will live; but if not, you will die; avoid evil, choose good; so he also addresses Cain in Genesis 4:6, 7: "Why are you angry? and why is your spirit disguised? Is it not so? if thou art righteous, thou art pleasant; but if thou art not righteous, sin rests at the door; but let it not have its way, but reign over it." He sets before him a reward if he would choose what is godly; but he also sets before him a punishment if he would rather choose what is contrary to it, thus indicating that the desire for evil could easily be overcome, and that it would bring with it no necessity to sin. What the Lord says to Moses agrees with these passages: "I have set before you the way to life and the way to death; choose the good and walk in it. What can be said more clearly! GOD shows what is good and what is evil: he shows the various rewards of both, life and death; but the choice he leaves to man's free will. It would be ridiculous to say to someone: Choose! in whose power it would not be to direct himself here or there, just as if one wanted to say to someone who stands still at a crossroads: Here you see two paths, go whichever one you want, since only one would be open to him. Again Deut. 30:15-19: "Behold, I have set before thee this day life and good, death and evil, that thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways, and keep his commandments, and his statutes, and his judgments, and live, and be multiplied; and that the LORD thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thou turnest thine heart, and obeyest not, but art deceived, and worshippest other gods, and serveest them, I declare unto thee this day, that thou shalt perish, and shalt not long abide in the land, when thou goest in over Jordan to possess it. I take heaven and earth to be witnesses over you this day; I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, that you may choose life, and that you and your seed may live." Here you hear

again the word "present", you hear the word "choose", you hear the word "turn away", which would be pronounced in vain if the will of man were not free for good, but only for evil. Otherwise, it would be like saying to someone who was tied in such a way that he could only stretch out his arm to the left side: "Behold, you have the most delicious wine on your right and poison on your left; reach for whichever you like. This also agrees with what the Lord says in Isaiah Cap. 1, 19. 20: "If you will obey me, then you shall enjoy the good of the land. But if ye refuse and disobey, ye shall be devoured by the sword." If man had absolutely no free will for good, or as some say, neither for good nor for evil, what do these words mean: "will ye", or "will ye not" and "refuse ye"? it would have been better if it had said: if I will, if I will not. Since many such sayings are said to sinners, I do not see how it can be avoided that a will is not also attributed to them, which in some way has freedom to choose what is good. We would rather call this a thought or movement of the mind than the will, because the will has certainty and arises from deliberation. This is also what the Lord says in this same prophet, Cap. 21:12: "If ye ask, ask; repent ye, and come again." 1) What is the use of calling on them to convert and come back, if they are not at all capable of themselves? Is it not just as if one would say to one who is in chains, whom one does not want to unchain: Get thee hence, come and follow me? Likewise with the same prophet, Cap. 45, 22: "Gather yourselves together and come near; turn to me, and you will be saved, the end of the world." Again, Cap. 52, 1. 2: "Arise, arise, get thee out of the dust, loose thyself from the bands of thy neck." Also in Jeremiah, Cap. 15, 19.: "Where thou cleavest to me, I will cleave to thee; where thou teachest the pious, but from the wicked, thou shalt be my teacher." When God says: where you teach them but; He thereby indicates a freedom in choosing. Zechariah still more clearly indicates the effort of the free will and the grace that is ready for him who strives, in these words: "Turn unto me, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the LORD." Zech. 1, 3. Ezech. 18, 21. But the Lord speaks thus:

  1. According to the Vulgate.

** **1622XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvin, 1939-1991. 1623

"Where the wicked turneth from all his sins which he hath committed, he keepeth all my statutes. "2c And soon after v. 22, "All his transgressions which he hath committed shall not be remembered." Item v. 24: "But where the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and doeth evil. "2c In this chapter it is often repeated: where he turneth, where he doeth, where he committeth, both in good and in evil. And where is there anyone who would say that man does nothing, but acts only as a sufferer in the face of the working grace? "Cast away from you," God also says, "all your transgressions," Ezek. 18, 31; and 33, 11: "Why do you want to die, you of the house of Israel?" 18, 23: "I do not want the death of the sinner, but that he converts and lives." Does the holy God here lament the death of his people, which he himself works on them?' If he does not want death, then it is certainly to be attributed to our will if we are lost. But what can be attributed to him who can do nothing, neither good nor evil? To those who are not able to will, the mysterious psalmist sings this song in vain: "Forsake evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it," Ps. 37:27. But what is the use of citing a few passages of this kind, since the whole of Scripture is full of such exhortations? Joel 2:12.: "Turn ye unto me with all your heart." Jonah 3:8.: "Let every man turn from his wicked way." Isa.46, 8.: "Ye transgressors, enter into your hearts." Jer. 18, 8: "Let every man turn from his wicked way, and I will repent of the evil that I thought to do them because of their wickedness." Deut. 26:15: "Will ye not obey me, that ye may walk in my commandments." Since the whole of Scripture speaks of almost nothing else than conversion, of the desire, of the endeavor to become better, all this must have no force if the necessity of doing either good or evil were once introduced. There would also be as many promises, as many threats, as many exhortations, as many reproaches, as many prayers, as many blessings and curses that happen to those who either reform or to those who do not want to convert. The sinner is blessed 1) at every hour. Ex 32:9: "I see that they are a stiff-necked people." "What have I done to you, my people?"

  1. We have read ingomitnr instead of inAsmusrit, which the text offers, because the sentence: HunoumHue grain inAtznausrit psoontor seems to us to make no sense here.

Mich. 6, 3. item: "They have thrown my rights behind them", and Ps. 81, 14.: "If my people had obeyed me, Israel would have walked in my ways." "He that would have good days, let his tongue beware of evil," Ps. 34:13. In hearing the words: who will, you hear something of free will. Since such expressions occur everywhere, does not the reader immediately get the idea: What do you promise under a condition that is based on your will alone? Why do you complain, because everything I do, be it good or bad, is worked in me by you, I may want or not? Why do you reproach me, since it is not up to me to keep what you have given and to reject the evil that you impose? Why do you ask, since everything depends on you and is done according to your will? Why do you bless me as if I had done what I was supposed to do, since everything I have done is due to you? Why do you curse, since I necessarily had to do evil? What is the use of so many commandments, if it is not in anyone's power to keep what is commanded? For there are those who say that even a justified man, who stands in faith and love, cannot fulfill any of the divine commandments; but that all good works, because they are done in the flesh, would bring us to condemnation, unless God, according to His mercy, indulged us in them for the sake of the merit of faith. But now the speech that the Lord pronounced through Moses, Deut. 30, 11-14, clearly shows us that what is commanded is not only in us, but that it also becomes easy for us (in proclivi), in that he says: "The commandment that I command you today is not hidden from you, nor too far away, nor in heaven, for you to say: Who shall take us up to heaven, and fetch us to hear and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall pass over the sea to fetch us, that we may hear and do? For the word is almost near thee in thy mouth, and in thine heart to do it." And yet there he speaks of the greatest commandment Deut. 30:2, "That thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart and with all thy soul." What is the use of the expressions: will you hear, will you keep, will you turn, if none of these things is in our power?

(11) I will not be prolix in enumerating passages of this kind, for the books of the Old and New Testaments are full of them everywhere, and one can

1624 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvin, 1991-1994. -1625

He who diligently seeks such things may well be said to be going through the sea to seek water. Thus, as I have said, a good part of the Scriptures seems to be powerless if one accepts the last or penultimate opinion. However, there are also some passages in the divine books that seem to attribute some randomness and variability to God. One of these is what we read in Jer. 18:8, 9: "If this people turn from their wickedness, and I speak against them, then I will also repent of the evil that I thought to do to them; but if they do evil in my sight, and disobey my voice, then I will also repent of the good that I promised to do to them. We know, of course, that the Scriptures speak here in a human way, which they also do not infrequently; because with God no change takes place. But it is said of Him that He will turn an angry God into a merciful God, if He makes us worthy of His grace as soon as we mend our ways; again, it is also said of Him that He will turn a merciful God into an angry God, if He punishes and torments us as soon as we fall back into a worse life. Again 2 Kings 20, 1. Hezekiah has to hear the words: You will die and not remain alive." Soon after the tears he hears through the same prophet Isaiah v. 5.: "I have heard your prayer and have seen your tears and have kept you alive" 2c Likewise 2 Sam. 12, 10. David heard from the Lord through Nathan the words, "The sword shall not depart from thy house for ever. "2c But soon after he said v. 13., "I have sinned against the Lord," he hears a gracious saying, "So also the Lord hath taken away thy sin, thou shalt not die." Although in these and similar passages the figurative way of speaking excludes the mutability of God, one cannot avoid the assumption that the will in us can be directed here and there; if it tends to evil out of absolute necessity, why is sin attributed to man? If, however, it directs itself to the good by necessity, why does God, who was angry before, become merciful to us, since we have as much grace to thank Him for there as here?

(12) Let this be enough from the Old Testament, against which someone might object, if these testimonies were not of such a nature that they are not only not obscured by the light of the Gospel, but rather receive greater power through it. We will therefore turn to the books of the New Testament. The first passage that comes to mind is Matth. 23, 37,

where Christ laments the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and breaks out into these words: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often have I desired to gather thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not." If all things are done together by necessity, could not Jerusalem justly have answered the complaining Lord: Why do you torment yourself with vain tears? If it was not your will that we should listen to the prophets, why did you send them? Why do you impute to us what has happened according to your will and out of necessity that compels us? You wanted to gather us together and at the same time you did not want the same thing to happen to us, since you yourself worked in us precisely that which we did not want. Now, in the words of Christ to the Jews, it is not the necessity that is accused, but the evil and contrary will. I wanted to gather you together, and you did not want to. Again, elsewhere it is said: "If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments", Matth. 19, 17. How could it be said to him who has no free will: Will you? Item v. 21., "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell," 2c Item Luc. 9:23: "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." In this so difficult commandment you hear that our will is remembered. Soon after it says fB. 24], "He that will save his life shall lose it." Are not all the glorious commandments of Christ of no effect if nothing is attached to the human will? "But I say unto you," 2c Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 2c, and, "If ye love me, keep my commandments," John 14:23. How much is not the keeping of the commandments inculcated in John! How badly does the connective word "if" rhyme with mere necessity? "If you abide in me, and my words abide in you," John 15:7, "if you want to be perfect." 2c Where good and evil works are so often mentioned, and where the reward is thought of, I do not see how a mere necessity can take place. Neither nature nor necessity has any merit. For thus saith our Lord Jesus, Matt. 5:12: "Be glad and of good cheer, because your reward in heaven is great." What does the simile of the laborers who were hired into the vineyard mean? Are they also laborers who work nothing? The penny, because one became one with them, is given to them as a reward for their work. Someone might say that the reward is called

1626XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, E-issr. 1627

that which God owes to give to some extent, who has made Himself obligatory to man on condition that he would believe His promises. But this faith is also a work, in which the free will has to do something, if he makes himself comfortable to believe or turns away from it. Why then is the servant praised who has increased his master's goods by his diligent work, and why is the lazy and useless servant rejected if we do nothing about it? And again Cap. 25.When Christ invites all to inherit the eternal kingdom, he remembers no necessity, but tells of their good works: "You have fed me, you have watered me, you have sheltered me, you have clothed me. 2c Even to the goats on the left, he does not refer to necessity, but to the voluntary omission of works: "You have seen me hungry, you have been given opportunity to do good; yet you have not fed me" 2c Are not all the Evangelia full of exhortations: Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden; watch, pray, ask, seek, knock, watch, take heed? To what purpose do so many parables serve, but to keep the word of God, to go out to meet the bridegroom, of him who planted the weeds by night, of the house that is to be founded on a rock? They encourage us to diligence, to effort, to diligence, so that we do not miss the grace of God and perish. This seems to be either powerless or superfluous if one wants to relate everything to necessity. The same is to be said of the evangelical threats: Woe to you scribes! Woe to you hypocrites! Woe to you, Chorazim! Also, the reproaches would be in vain Marc. 9, 19., "O faithless and perverse kind, how long shall I be with you, how long shall I tolerate you?" "Ye serpents and vipers, how shall ye escape the everlasting fire?" "By their fruits," saith the Lord, "ye shall know them" Matt. 23:33, 7:20. The fruits he calls works, and these he calls our works: but how can they be our works, if everything is done by necessity? On the cross Christ asked: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" Luc. 23, 34. With how much better right would he have excused them, because they have no will, nor can they act differently, even if they wanted to. Again John writes: "He has given them power to become children of God who believe in His name" John 1:12. How is power given to those to become God's children who are not yet so, if our will

has no freedom? When some of them took offense at the words of the Lord and went away from him, he said to the rest of the disciples, "Do you also want to go? [But if they did not go away voluntarily, but out of necessity, why did he ask the others if they also wanted to go away?

But we do not want to burden our reader with the citation of all such passages, which cannot be counted and are easily found by everyone, but rather examine whether we do not also find passages in Paul, who diligently asserts grace and constantly puts down the works of the law, in which he establishes free will. Above all, we are struck by the passage Rom. 2, 4, where he says: "Do you despise the riches of goodness, patience and long-suffering? Do you not know that God's goodness leads you to repentance?" How can contempt of the commandment be imputed where there is no free will? or how can GOD entice us to repentance, since He is the author of impenitence? or how can condemnation be just, where the Judge compels us to iniquity? And yet Paul said shortly before, "For we know that God's judgment is right against those who do these things." Here you hear about an action and you hear about a judgment that is right. Now where is the mere necessity? Where is the will that behaves in no other way than suffering? But behold, to whom does Paul ascribe their wickedness? "You, according to your hardened and impenitent heart, heap wrath upon yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, which will be given to each one according to his works." Here, too, you hear of the righteous judgment of GOD, and you hear of works that deserve punishment. If God alone were to count His good works, which He works through us, to us for glory and honor and incorruptibility, it would be a kindness worthy of applause (although the apostle also adds here: "with patience in good works" and again: "seeking eternal life"). But by what right do wrath, disgrace, gloom and anguish come upon a man who does evil, but works nothing voluntarily, but everything by necessity? And how can the comparison of other passages of Paul exist with this, of those who walk in the lines, of the jewel, of the crown, if nothing can be added to our efforts? 1 Cor. 9, 24. He says: "Do you not know that those who run in the ranks all run, but one gains the crown? Run therefore, that ye may lay hold on it." 2c And soon after, "Those thus struggling, that they may gain a perishable thing.

1628 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 1997-1999. 1629

But we have received an imperishable crown. No one is crowned except the one who fights, and the crown is given to them as a reward, because they have earned this honor. Again, 1 Tim. 6:12: "Fight," he says, "the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life." Where there is a struggle, there is also a voluntary effort, there is also danger that if you desist you will lose the reward. This also falls away when everything happens by mere necessity. Further, 2 Tim. 2:5: "Though a man fight, yet is he not crowned, because he fights aright," and further on v. 3: "Suffer thyself to be a good fighter for Jesus Christ." The apostle also remembers a husbandman who works A fighter gets a crown, a man of war the pay, the husbandman the fruits. Likewise in this same epistle Cap. 4:7: "I have," says Paul, "fought a good fight; I have finished the race. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the LORD, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day." It seems difficult to me to connect the struggle, the crown, the righteous judge, the words "give," "fight," with the mere necessity of all things, with the will that does nothing but suffers. So also Jacob ascribes the sins of men not to a necessity, or to God Himself working in us, but to their own evil desire. "God," he says, "tempts no one, but each one is tempted when he is tempted and lured by his own lust. After that, when lust hath conceived, it begetteth sin." [The evil deeds of men Paul calls works of the flesh, not works of God, and calls flesh just what Jacob calls lust. Apost. 5, 3. Ananias is thus addressed: "Why has Satan filled your heart?" Likewise, in Eph. 6:12, Paul attributes evil works to the spirit that rules in the air and works in the children of unbelief. What kind of fellowship does Christ have with Belial? "Or plant," He says, "a good tree, and the fruit will be good; or plant a rotten tree, and the fruit will be rotten." Matth. 12, 33. How then could anyone dare to attribute the most evil fruit to GOD the LORD, who after all is goodness itself? Although man's lust is provoked and enticed, either by Satan, or by things that are outside of him, or otherwise by a cause that is within him, this provocation does not bring about the necessity to sin, if we want to resist the provocation and call upon God for His help, just as the spirit

Christ, who impels us to good works, does not compel us to do so, but assists us. Sirach Cap. 15, 21. agrees with Jacob: "God," he says, "does not call anyone to be ungodly and does not allow anyone to sin. But he who compels someone does more than he who commands something. Paul writes even more clearly in 2 Timothy 2:21: "If anyone purifies himself from such people, he will be a holy vessel to honor." How shall he purify himself who does nothing? I am well aware that this is based on an obscure expression; but let it suffice for now that this saying is very repugnant to those who want to ascribe everything to a mere necessity. Likewise John 1 Ep. 3, 3: "Every one that hath such hope in him purifieth himself, even as he also is pure." I will admit here that this is a rather fanciful way of speaking, if, on the other hand, you will allow us to take recourse to this means in other passages as well. And yet it would be an audacious figure if one made this interpretation: he purifies himself, that is, he is purified by God, he may want to or not. "Let us put off," says Paul, "the works of darkness" Rom. 13:12. Likewise, "Put off the old man with his works" Col. 3:9. But how shall we put off and go forth, if we can do nothing? Item Rom. 7:18: "To will I have, but to do that which is good I cannot find." Here Paul seems to admit that it is in man's power to will what is good; but now to will to do good is already a good work; otherwise to will to do evil could not be considered evil. Just as it is evil to want to kill, apart from all disputes. Again, 1 Cor. 14:32 says, "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." If the Holy Spirit drives someone, he drives him in such a way that it is at his liberty whether he wants to keep silent; much more does the will of man, left to itself, have power over itself. For those who are driven by an enthusiastic spirit cannot remain silent, even if they want to, and often do not even understand what they are saying. The apostle's admonition to Timothy also belongs to this: "Do not neglect the gift that has been given to you" 1 Tim. 4:14. By this he indicates that it is up to us to reject the grace we have received; elsewhere, however, he says: "His grace to me was not in vain" 1 Cor. 15:10, and indicates that he did not resist God's grace. But how would he not have resisted if he did nothing? Peter, 2 Ep. 1, 5, says: "Put all your diligence into it and reach out in your faith.

1630 Xll. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 1999-2002. 1631

Virtue" 2c, and soon after: "Therefore, dear brethren, do all the more diligently to make your profession and election firm." So he wants us to unite our diligence with the grace of God, so that we may reach perfection step by step, from one virtue to another.

(14) I am almost afraid that it might seem to someone that I am becoming too extensive by compiling these testimonies that occur everywhere in the divine books. For since Paul, 2 Tim. 3, 16, writes: "All Scripture inspired by God is useful for teaching, for punishment, for correction, for chastening," 2c, none of this seems to take place anywhere, if everything happens by a mere and unavoidable necessity. What is the use of so many praises of holy people in Sirach in the 44th and several following chapters, if nothing is due to our diligence? What is the use of obedience, which is praised everywhere, if we are such a tool to God for good and evil works, as the carpenter is to his axe? And we are all such tools if the teaching of Wiclef is true, namely that everything good and evil, even that which is neither good nor evil, both before and after grace, happens out of mere necessity, which opinion Luther also approves. And so that no one may accuse me as if I had only invented it, I will put his words from the assertions (assertionibus 1) here. He says: Unde et hunc articulum necesse est revocare. Male enim dixi, quod liberum arbitrium ante gratiam sit res de solo titulo, sed simpliciter debui dicere: liberum arbitrium est figmentum in rebus seu titulus sine re, quia nulli est in manu quippiam cogitare mali, aut boni; sed omnia, ut Wiclefi articulus Constantiae condemnatus recte docet, de necessitate absoluta eveniunt [that is: I must therefore also revoke this article. For I have not spoken rightly that free will, before grace acts, is a thing only in name; but I should have said par excellence that free will is a name without a thing, because it is in no one's capacity to think anything evil or good,

  1. The scripture, against whose 36th article the whole diatribe is directed and from which this citation has been introduced, is the Asssrtio oruniurn artwulorurn Martini Imtllsri xsr dnUani Csonis X. novissiinarn darnnatoruin. 1520. The passage can be found opp. var. arZ., Vol. V. p. 230. This writing also appeared in German, edited by Luther himself, under the title: Grund und Ursach aller Artikel ü. s. w., but in many places completely deviating from the Latin. The 36th article comprises 9 pages in the aforementioned Latin edition, while it takes up only 3 pages in the German edition, Erl.

but everything happens by an absolute necessity, as the article of Wiclef, who was condemned at Constance, quite rightly teaches]. I diligently pass over many passages in the Acts of the Apostles and the Revelation of John, so that I will not be burdensome to my reader.

15 These many testimonies have caused learned and pious men, not without reason, not to want to completely abolish free will, let alone to be driven by the evil spirit and to incur condemnation by trusting in their works. Now it is time for me to bring some testimonies of the Scriptures for the opposite, too, which, according to their appearance, completely abolish free will. It is true that there are some in the Bible, but among them two are the most important, which are clearer than the others, and which the apostle Paul treats in such a way that, according to first appearances, he ascribes nothing at all either to our works or to the powers of free will. One passage is Ex. 9:12 and is referred to by Paul in Rom. 9:17: "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not hear them." And again, "Therefore have I raised thee up, that my power might appear in thee; and that my name might be declared in all lands." Paul explains this passage in this way, and at the same time cites another passage with the same wording, which is taken from Ex. 33:19 Rom. 9:15: "For God said to Moses, 'To whom I am gracious, I am gracious; and on whom I have mercy, I have mercy. So now it is not up to anyone's will or running; but up to God's mercy." The other passage is Malachi 1, 2. 3. and is also referred to by Paul in Rom. 9, 11. 12. 13: "Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: neither do I love Jacob, but hate Esau." Paul interprets these words thus: "Before the children were born, and had done neither good nor evil; that the purpose of God might be according to election, it was said unto them, not of works of merit, but of the grace of the caller, that the greater should serve the lesser: as it is written, Jacob have I loved; but Esau have I hated." Since it seems to be inconsistent that God, who is not only just but also good, is said to harden the heart of a man so that he may glorify his power through his wickedness: so Origen lib. III. xxxx xxxxx unties this knot in such a way that, while admitting that God had given occasion for the hardening, he places the blame on Pharaoh, who, according to his wickedness, would have become even more stiff-necked as a result, by which he should have been

1632 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvin, 2002-2004. 1633

to lead them to repentance. Just as after the same downpour a cultivated land bears the most beautiful fruit, but a wild one bears domes and thistles, and just as from the same rays of the sun the wax becomes soft and the dung becomes hard: so the gentleness of God, according to which he has patience with the sinner, leads some to repentance, but made others more obstinate in wickedness. He thus has mercy on those who recognize God's goodness and mend their ways; on the other hand, those are hardened who, despising His goodness, postpone their repentance and increase in wickedness. Origen proves the figurative meaning, according to which an action is attributed to the one who has only caused it, first of all from the ordinary use of speech, where a father is wont to say to his son: I have brought you to ruin, because he did not immediately chastise him when he had done wrong. Isaiah, Cap. 63:17, speaks in the same character: "Why hast thou caused us, O Lord, to err from thy ways, and hardened our hearts, that we feared thee not?" Jerome interprets this passage in the same way as Origen: "God is hardened if he does not immediately punish the sinner, and has mercy if he immediately tempts him to repentance through tribulation." This is also what the angry God says in Hosea: "I will not resist when your daughters become harlots" Hos. 4:14. Again he also chastises by grace and speaks Ps. 89, 33.: "I will punish their sin with the rod and their iniquity with plagues." In this same character he also speaks Jer. 20:7: "O Lord, thou hast persuaded me, and I have been persuaded; thou hast been too strong for me, and thou hast won." It is said of him that he persuaded man when he did not draw him away from sin, of which Origen thinks that this serves for a more complete recovery, just as experienced surgeons prefer to draw a scar over a wound little by little, because the more corrupted juices are drawn out of the opening of the wound, the more lasting health results. Furthermore, Origen also notes that the Lord does not say: Just for this purpose I have made you; but: Just for this purpose I have raised you up. Otherwise Pharaoh would not have been godless if God had created him like this, who looked at all his works, and behold, they were very good. But now, with his will that could be directed to both sides, he voluntarily turned to evil, preferring to follow his head rather than obey the command of God. This wickedness of Pharaoh was used by God for His glory and for the salvation of His people, so that it would be clearer to see that the people, who were in disobedience to the divine will, were not to be treated as evil.

If they were to oppose Him, they would be making a futile effort, just as a wise king or head of a household uses the anger of some whom he hates to punish the wicked. And yet, one does not tread too close to the freedom of our will when one says that the outcome of a matter is up to God, or that He directs the efforts of men according to His hidden counsel differently than they had intended. Thus, just as He directs the efforts of the wicked for the good of the pious, so the efforts of the pious do not achieve the purpose they set before themselves unless God assists them with His grace. This is what Paul adds Rom. 9, 16: "So then it is not up to anyone to will or to run, but up to God's mercy." God's mercy precedes our will, is with it in its endeavor and gives a happy outcome. In the meantime, we will, run, attain; but in such a way that we ascribe precisely what is ours to God, of whom we are entirely our own. One may well solve the difficulty of divine foreknowledge, that it imposes no necessity on our will; but in my opinion no one has done this more happily than Laurentius Valla. For foreknowledge is not a cause of what actually happens, since we human beings can also foreknow many things that do not happen because we foreknow them, but we foreknow them because they will happen; just as a solar eclipse does not happen because the astrologers predicted that it would happen, but they predicted it because it will happen.

By the way, the question of God's will and purpose is even more difficult. For God wills precisely what he knows beforehand, and he must will it in a certain way, because he does not prevent what he knows will happen, although it is in his power. And this is what Paul Rom. 9, 19. 18. gives to understand: Who can resist his will, if he have mercy on whom he will, and if he cast out whom he will? For if there were a king who could bring forth whatever he would, and whom no one could resist, he would be said to do whatever he would. Thus the will of God, because it is the main cause of all that happens, seems to impose a necessity on our will. And even Paul does not resolve this question, but gives a rebuke to the one who wants to argue about such things: "O man, who are you that you want to be right with God? But the rebuke applies only to the one who maliciously murmurs against God, as when a master murmurs to his servant,

1634XII- Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2001-2007. 1635

But he would answer quite differently if an understanding and well-intentioned servant modestly demanded to know from the Lord why he wanted to have done so what seemed to be useless. God wanted Pharaoh to perish badly, and this he wanted according to his righteousness, it was also good that he perished; nevertheless, he was not compelled by the will of God to be obstinately godless. Just as if a master, aware of the wickedness of his servant, gave him something that would give him the opportunity to sin, he would also be caught at it and would have to suffer punishment, as an example to others. The Lord knows beforehand that he would sin and follow his evil inclination; he wants him to come to ruin; he wants him, so to speak, to commit a sin: nevertheless, this does not excuse the servant who has sinned through his own wickedness. For he deserved punishment before, because his wickedness was known to everyone. But how can we begin to speak of merit where there is a constant necessity and the will has never had any freedom? What we have said about the outcome of things, that God often turns what happens differently from what men have intended, is true most of the time, but not all the time, and happens more often to the wicked than to the pious. The Jews, who crucified the Lord Christ, thought to destroy him; but God turned their ungodly plot to the glorification of his Son and the salvation of the whole world. On the other hand, Cornelius the centurion, who made himself pleasing to God by good works, obtained what he wanted. And to Paul, when he had completed his course, was added the crown to which he aspired.

(17) I do not want to examine here whether God, who is the first and highest cause of all that happens, does some things through secondary causes in such a way that he does nothing in the meantime; or whether he does everything in such a way that the secondary causes only cooperate with the main cause, although they would otherwise not be necessary. There is certainly no doubt that God can turn the natural effect of all secondary causes into the opposite, if he only wants to. For example, he can make fire cool and wet, water hard and dry, the sun darken, rivers freeze, rocks become liquid; poison acquires a sustaining and food a killing power. Just as the fire

In the Babylonian furnace he refreshed the three men and also burned the Chaldeans. Whenever God does such things, it is called a miracle. In this way he can deprive the palate of taste, the eyes of discernment; he can stupefy the powers of reason, memory and will and compel them to do what is pleasing to him, as he did with Balaam, who came to curse and could not: another the tongue spoke, another the heart wanted. But this, which happens only to a few, must not be made general. But even with such, God wills what He wills, for just causes, though unknown to us. No one can resist this will, but one can resist the revealed will, or, as they say in schools, the outward will (voluntati signi) very often. Does not Jerusalem resist him, which did not want to be gathered, since God wanted to gather it? But someone might say: Thus, there is a double necessity in the outcome of a matter, in that neither the foreknowledge of God can be lacking, nor can his will be hindered. However, not every necessity excludes free will; just as God the father necessarily begets the son and yet begets him willingly and freely because he was not forced to do so. One can also assume a necessity in human affairs that does not exclude the freedom of our will. God foresaw that Judas would betray the Lord, and what he foresaw, he also wanted to a certain extent. Therefore, if you look at the infallible foreknowledge of God and the immutability of His will, it was inevitable that Judas betrayed the Lord, and yet Judas was able to change his will; or at least he had the ability not to follow the evil will. Yes, you say: How? if he had changed his will? The foreknowledge of God would not have been wrong, nor would his will have been hindered, because he would have known and wanted that he would change his mind. Those who examine the matter according to scholastic sophistry assume the necessity of the consequence, but reject the necessity of what follows. They use these words to explain their opinion. They say that it necessarily follows that Judas would have betrayed the Lord if God had powerfully willed this from eternity; on the other hand, they say that it does not follow that he would necessarily have betrayed Christ because he had done such an ungodly act according to his evil will.

1636 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 2007-2010. 1637

18 But it is not my intention here to dwell on such quibbles. What is written in Exodus 7: "The Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart," can have the same meaning as the words of Paul, Romans 1:28: "God gave them over in a wrong way," so that sin and the punishment of sins are one and the same work. But whom God gives in a wrong way, He gives because of what they have deserved before, like Pharaoh, because he, prompted by so many miracles and signs, would not let the people go, and like the worldly wise, because they, although they knew the divinity of the true God, worshipped stone and wood. But where there is a mere and constant necessity, there is neither good nor evil merit. Moreover, it cannot be denied that God is involved in every action, since every action is something real and in a certain way good, e.g. loving an adulteress or wanting to do so. Incidentally, the wickedness of the action does not come from God, but from our will, except that, as I have said, one could say in a certain sense that the evil will is worked in us by God, because he lets it go wherever man wants and does not hold it back by his grace. In this way, it is said that God has corrupted man because He has allowed him to fall into ruin when He could have preserved him. But this is enough, as far as this passage is concerned.

(19) I will now deal with the other passage about Esau and Jacob, of whom, before they were born, the divine saying was: "The greater shall serve the lesser," as we read in Genesis 25:23. These words do not actually refer to man's blessedness. For God can will that man, willingly or unwillingly, be a servant or live in poverty, and yet not be excluded from eternal blessedness. But as for what Paul adds from Malachi 1: "Jacob I have loved; Esau I have hated," if one wants to press the letter, God does not love as we love; nor does he hate anyone, because such emotions do not belong to him. Moreover, as I said, the prophet there does not seem to speak both of the hatred by which we will be damned for eternity, but rather of a temporal plague. Likewise, God is also attributed a wrath and a fury. There those are rebuked who wanted to rebuild Edom, which God wanted to leave desolate. Furthermore, as far as the figurative speech is concerned, God does not love all the people.

Therefore this testimony of Paul is not very strong to prove the necessity, but rather to stop the arrogance of the Jews, who believed that the evangelical grace really belonged to them, because they were Abraham's descendants, and therefore they had an abhorrence of the Gentiles and did not want them to be excluded into the fellowship of the evangelical grace. The apostle explains this soon after when he says: "Whom he called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." Now because God, for just and holy causes, hates, or loves, those whom he hates, or loves; the hatred and love which he bears to those who are yet to be born is no more contrary to the freedom of the will than the hatred and love to those who are already born. He hates those who are not yet born, because he certainly knows that they would do what is to be hated; those who are already born he hates, because they really do what is worthy of hatred. The Jews, who were God's chosen people, have been rejected and the Gentiles, who were not His people, have been accepted. Why are the Jews cut off from the olive tree? Because they would not believe. Why were the Gentiles grafted in? Because they obeyed the gospel. Paul himself mentions this cause in Romans 11 and says: "They were broken because of their unbelief", because they did not want to believe; but he gives good hope to those who were cut off that they could be grafted in again if they refrained from unbelief and wanted to believe; and he frightens those who were grafted in that they would be cut off if they rejected the grace of God. "You stand," he says, "by faith, do not be proud; but fear," and soon after he says, "lest you be proud." All this indicates that Paul writes this for the purpose of removing the pride of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews.

The third passage is Isa. 45:9: "Woe to him that contendeth with his maker, even the broken piece with the potter of clay. Says also the clay to his potter, What makest thou? thou proveest not thy hands by thy work." Jer. 18:6 is expressed even more clearly: "Can I not also deal with you, O house of Israel, like this potter? says the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye of the house of Israel in mine hand." These testimonies prove in Paul Rom. 9, 21-23. more than in the prophe-

1638XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvin, 2010-2012. 1639

from which they are taken. For Paul states them as follows: "Has not a potter power to make of one lump a vessel of honor and another of dishonor? Therefore, when God was about to show wrath and to make known His power, He bore with great patience the vessels of wrath prepared for condemnation, that He might make known the riches of His glory in the vessels of mercy which He had prepared for glory. 2c In both prophetic passages, the people who grumble against God are punished, who were afflicted for their correction. The prophet rebukes them for their ungodly speeches, just as Paul rebukes the ungodly backtalk by saying: "Who are you, O man? In this we must submit to God, not unlike a wet clay to the hands of the potter. But this does not completely abolish the freedom of the will; nor does it completely exclude that our will cooperates with God's will for eternal bliss. For Jeremiah immediately follows with an exhortation to repentance, which passage we have already mentioned. This exhortation would be in vain if everything happened out of necessity. That Paul's speech was not intended to completely deny the power of free will, but rather to dampen the ungodly grumbling of the Jews against God, who were rejected from the grace of the gospel because of their stubborn unbelief, into which the Gentiles were accepted because of their faith, he himself explains in 2 Tim. 2, 20. 21. and says: "In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and earth, and some of honor, but some of dishonor. If anyone purifies himself from such people, he will be a sacred vessel for honor, useful to the master of the house and prepared for all good works. The Scriptures need such equivocations for the sake of teaching, but in such a way that they are not suitable for the matter in all respects. What else would be more simple than if someone said to an earthenware dish: if you clean yourself, you will be a vessel of use and honor? But this is rightly said to a vessel endowed with reason, which, when remembered, is able to do the will of the Lord. Moreover, if it is admitted that man is inferior to God, as the clay is in the hands of the potter, then all the blame, no matter how the vessel turns out, falls on no one else but the potter, especially if it is such a potter who himself has created and prepared the clay according to his will. This vessel, which therefore has nothing

The one who deserves it, because he is not his own master, will be thrown into the eternal fire. We therefore explain the parable in the way it is used for the sake of doctrine. If we want to apply all its superstitious elements to what we are dealing with here, we will be forced to say many ridiculous things. This potter here makes a vessel of dishonor, because of the reward i.e. punishment previously earned, just as he rejected some Jews because of their unbelief, but from the Gentiles he made a vessel of honor because of their faith. Why do those who urge us on with the words of Scripture, and who simply want to understand the simile of the potter and the clay, not allow us to simply accept the other passage: "if then any man purify himself" 2c? In this way Paul would contradict himself. In the first passage he attributes everything to God, but in the other passage everything to man. And yet the doctrine in both passages is a sound doctrine; although something else is done in this passage, something else in that passage. In the first, the mouth of the one who murmurs against God is shut; the other invites to diligent effort and warns against security or despair.

21 The passage Isa. 10, 15 is not unlike this: "May an axe boast against the one who cuts with it? or a saw defy the one who cuts with it? as he can boast who guides and lifts the stick, and guides it as easily as if it were not wood. This is spoken against the godless king, whose anger God needed to punish his people. The latter attributed everything that happened by divine permission to his wisdom and powers, although he had been an instrument of divine wrath. He was an instrument, alone a living instrument endowed with reason. And if an axe or a saw were also such tools, it would be nothing inconsistent to say that they also did something at the same time as the carpenter. The servants are living tools of their masters, as Aristotle teaches; so would be the axes, saws, hoes, plows, if they could move by their own power, like the tripods and cauldrons that Vulcanus had forged so that they went into battle of their own free will. The master of the house commands and orders everything that is necessary, and the servant could do nothing without his master; nevertheless, no one could say that the servant, by following the master's command, does nothing. Furthermore, this equation does not serve to abolish the freedom of the human will, but only the pride of a man.

1640 97 Desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 2012-2015. 1641

of the godless king, who attributed what he had done not to GOtte but to his power and wisdom.

What Origen quotes from Ezekiel: "I will take away the stony heart from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh" Ezech. 36, 26., is just as easily refuted. In the same figurative sense a teacher might say to his pupil when he makes speech mistakes: I will take away from you the coarse uncouth (barbaram) speech and give you an educated (romanam) speech. Nevertheless, he demands diligence from his student, although the student cannot change his language without the help of the teacher. What does the stony heart mean? A heart that is ungovernable and stubborn in wickedness. What does the heart of flesh mean? A heart that is docile and allows itself to be governed by the grace of God. Those who accept free will nevertheless admit that the mind stubborn in wickedness cannot be made docile to true repentance without the help of God's grace. The one who makes your mind flexible also requires your effort, so that you may become skillful. David prays, "Create in me, O GOD, a clean heart" Ps. 51:12. Paul, on the other hand, says, "He who purifies himself. "2c Ezekiel says, "Make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit" Ezek. 18:31. David, on the other hand, cries, "Give me a new certain spirit." David prays, "Blot out all my sins"; while John says, "Every one that hath such hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure" 1 John 3:3. David asks, "Deliver me from the debt of blood"; whereas the prophet Isaiah says, "Loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, thou captive daughter of Zion" [Isa. 52:2.Paul says: "Let us put away the works of darkness" Rom. 13, 12; likewise Peter: "Put away therefore all malice, and all deceit, and hypocrisy, and envy, and all speaking evil" 1 Petr. 2, 1. But Paul Phil. 2, 12. says: "Create ye salvation with fear and trembling"; whereas 1 Cor. 12, 6. the same says: "There is One God, who worketh all things in all." Such passages are found in more than six hundred scriptures. If man does nothing, why does the apostle say, "Create"? But if man does something, why does he say, "God works all things in all"? If someone turns the latter to his advantage, man does nothing; if another needs the former for his opinion, man does everything. If a man does nothing at all, there is no merit. Where there is no merit, there can be no merit.

There are neither punishments nor rewards. If a man does everything, he does not need grace, which Paul mentions so often. Certainly, the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration the canonical books have been distinguished, does not contradict itself. Both parts accept and recognize the inviolable glory of Scripture. Only one must look for an explanation that resolves the knot of doubt. Those who say that free will is nothing will make this interpretation: "Reach out to what you will," that is, grace will stretch out your hand to what it wills; "Make you a new heart," that is, the grace of God will create in you a new heart; "Everyone who has such a hope purifies himself," that is, grace purifies him; "Let us put away the works of darkness," that is, grace makes us put them away. The Scriptures repeat this much and often: he has done right; he has done wrong. As often as such things occur, we should always explain it this way: God has produced and worked right and wrong in man. If I were to present here the interpretation of the old orthodox teachers or of the conciliar, one would immediately answer: they were men. With such a violent and forced explanation, may I not also say that Luther was a man? They have won the game, of course, if they are allowed to interpret the Scriptures as they see fit; but we are not to accept the explanation of the ancients, nor are we to put forward our own explanation. This passage of Scripture is, in their opinion, so clear that it needs no interpretation: Reach after what thou wilt, that is, grace will stretch forth thy hand after what it wills; but what the most approved teachers have interpreted is said to be a dream, I will not say what yet others have pronounced, an inspiration of Satan. But the passages that seem to contradict each other can easily be brought into harmony with each other, if we only connect the effort and the aspiration of our will with the support of divine grace. In the simile of the potter and the axe, they remain stiff and firm in saying that the words must be accepted as they are because it suits their opinion; here, however, they impudently depart from the words of Scripture and interpret them as boldly as if one said: Peter writes, and another interpreted it thus: no, he does not write himself, but another writes in his house.

Now let us see how far that which Martin Luther puts forward holds the sting, the

1642m- Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvin, 2015-2017. 1643

to put down the power of free will. He refers to Gen. 6, 3. and 8, 21.: "Men will no longer let my spirit punish them. For they are flesh." Here the Scripture does not simply understand by flesh the ungodly inclination, as Paul uses it several times in this sense, when he wants to have one kill the work of the flesh, but the weak nature that is inclined to sin. Just as Paul called the Corinthians carnal, because they, as little children in Christ, were not yet capable of strong food. And Jerome, in the Hebrew Investigations, notes that according to the Hebrew text it sounds differently than we read, namely: "My Spirit will not judge these people forever, because they are flesh", that in this way these words do not indicate the severity, but the goodness of God. For the flesh he calls the weak nature inclined to evil; but the spirit he calls indignationem, and says that he does not want to inflict eternal punishment on men there; but that he wants to punish them here by grace. But this saying does not concern the whole human race, but only the people who lived at that time and were very corrupt by shameful vices. That is why he says: "These people". So this speech does not necessarily address all people who lived at that time, because Noah is praised as a righteous and pleasing man to God. Likewise, one can also dissolve what is drawn from Gen. 8, 21: "For the thoughts and desires of the human heart are evil from youth", likewise from Gen. 6, 5: "All thoughts and desires of the heart are only evil forever". The inclination to evil, however, which is found in most people, does not completely abolish the freedom of the will, although one cannot completely overcome it inclination to evil without the help of God's grace. If no part of the change of mind depends on our will, but God does everything according to a certain necessity, why then was a time limit given to people to repent? "I will give them a hundred and twenty years." For Jerome wants this passage in the Hebrew investigations to be understood not from the duration of human life, but from the time until the flood, which was given to them as a time limit, so that in the meantime they might repent if they wanted to, and, if they did not want to, they should be considered as deserving God's severity (ultionem), because they despised God's leniency.

  1. which he further takes from Isa. 40, 2:

Jerome interprets the divine punishments, but not the grace, which God gives to the people for their misdeeds, as "she received double from the hand of the Lord for all her sins". For if Paul says: "Where sin has become powerful, grace has become even more powerful" [Rom. 5, 20.It does not follow from this that man, before he is made a partaker of the grace that makes him pleasurable, cannot, with divine assistance, prepare himself for such grace by morally good works, as we read that to Cornelius the centurion, before he had been baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit, it was said: "Thy prayer and thine alms are come up in remembrance before God" Acts 10:4. If all works that one does are evil before the attainment of the highest grace, do evil works bring us to God's mercy? What he also cites from this very chapter of Isaiah Is. 40, 6: "All flesh is hay, and all its goodness is like a flower of the field. The hay withers, the flower fades, for the Spirit of the Lord blows in it; but the word of our God endures forever," seems to me to be drawn too forcibly to grace and free will. Namely, Jerome takes here the spirit for the divine displeasure; the flesh for the weak constitution of man, which against God is not able to do anything; the flower for the glory, which arises from advantages in bodily things. The Jews boasted of their temple, their circumcision, their sacrifices; the Greeks boasted of their wisdom; but through the Gospel the wrath of God has been revealed from heaven and all their glory is gone. But not every inclination of man is flesh, but there is a part which is called the soul, there is another which is called the spirit, through which we strive for what is honorable; this part of the soul we call reason, or the noblest part, unless there was no striving for honorability among the worldly wise, who taught that one must want to die a thousand times rather than commit a shameful act, although we knew that no man would suffer it, and that God would forgive it. But the corrupt reason often judges wrongly. "Know ye not," saith Christ, "of what spirit children ye are?" [Out of an error they sought revenge, because earlier on Elijah's prayer fire fell from heaven, which consumed the captains over fifty with their people. That even the pious have a spirit in them, which is different from the spirit of God, is shown by Paul Rom. 8, 16: "The same spirit gives

1644 67 Desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 2017-2020. 1645

Testimony to our spirit that we are the children of God. But if anyone should claim that what is most noble in human nature is nothing but flesh, that is, evil desire, I will soon agree with him, if he proves what he says with testimonies from the holy Scriptures. Christ says, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John teaches that those who believe in the Gospel would be born of GOD and become children of GOD, even like GOD. Paul makes a distinction between a carnal man, who does not hear what is of GOD, and a spiritual one, who judges everything spiritually. Otherwise he also calls the latter a new creature in Christ. If the whole man born again through faith is nothing but flesh, where is the spirit born of the spirit? where is the child of God? where is the new creature? I would like to be instructed about this. Meanwhile, I rely on the reputation of the ancients, who teach that a seed of respectability is implanted in the human heart, so that they recognize to some extent what is respectable and strive for it; but that gross lusts and desires have been added, which lure man astray. The will that can be directed here and there is called free will; although it is perhaps more inclined to evil than to good because of the tendency to sin that remains in us, no one is urged to do evil unless he consents to it.

(25) What he also draws from Jer. 10:23: "I know, O Lord, that a man's doings are not in his power, nor is it in anyone's power how he shall walk or how he shall direct his course," concerns more the outcome of happy and sad circumstances than the ability of free will. For the more people take care that they do not fall into misfortune, the deeper they often fall into it. But even this does not abolish the freedom of the will, neither in those who have to suffer it because they did not foresee the future misfortune, nor in those who inflict it because they do not harm their enemies with the intention in which God causes such misfortune through them, namely, to chastise them. And if one wants to forcibly attribute this to free will, then everyone must admit that it is in no one's power to walk rightly before Himself without the grace of God, and daily we pray: "O Lord God, direct my path before You" Ps. 5:9. Nevertheless, we also strive ourselves to the best of our ability. We pray: "Incline my heart to your testimonies" Ps. 119, 36. He who asks for help does not cease from his efforts.

26 Likewise, he refers to Proverbs 16:1: "A man may set before him in his heart, but from the Lord comes what the tongue shall speak. This saying also refers to the outcome of a thing that may or may not happen without harm to eternal blessedness. But what about the fact that a man can imagine something in his heart, since Luther claims that everything is guided by necessity? Solomon says there v. 3: "Command the Lord thy works, and thy counsels shall continue." Here you hear of your works and of your plots, none of which could be said of you if God worked everything, both good and evil, in us. V. 6.: "By goodness and faithfulness iniquity is reconciled" rc. This and many other things which argue for the opinion of those who assert the freedom of the will can be read there. But to this, which he cites from the same chapter v. 4: "The Lord makes everything for his own sake, even the wicked to be evil," I answer thus: God did not create anything evil in and of itself; however, according to his ineffable wisdom, he knows how to govern everything in such a way that he also turns evil to our good and to his glory. He also did not create the devil evil, but after he has voluntarily fallen away from him, he retains him for eternal punishment, by his wickedness he exercises the pious and punishes the wicked.

  1. not much stronger is the proof which he takes from Proverbs 21:1: "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD as rivers of water, and he inclines it whithersoever he will." He does not immediately compel who inclines; yet, as I have said, no one will deny that God can drive a man through his mind, hinder what he wanted, give him another will, even take away his understanding. And yet, free will in us retains its rightness. If this is Solomon's opinion, as Luther interprets it, why does he pronounce this as something special about the heart of a king, since the hearts of all men are in the hand of the Lord? This passage agrees more closely with that which we read Job 34, 30.: "He let a hypocrite reign over them, to press the people." Item Isa. 3, 4.: "I will give them young men to be princes, and childish ones shall rule over them." When God, who is gracious to His people, inclines the heart of a king toward good, He does no violence to the freedom of his will. To incline the heart to evil, on the other hand, means that when God, who is angry at the sins of His people, inclines the heart of a childish prince to robbery, He does not do violence to the freedom of His will,

1646XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2020-2023. 1647

The king, who is very much inclined to war and tyranny, does not withdraw from it, but lets him go according to his own lusts and desires, so that the people may be chastened by his wickedness. Even if it were to happen that God would drive a king who acts so wickedly to wickedness, one must not make a special case into a generally valid sentence. Such testimonies as Luther brings forward from the Proverbs of Solomon could be collected in heaps from everywhere; but they would serve more for abundance than for victory. Speakers are in the habit of throwing around evidence of this kind. For most of them are of the nature that they suffer a skilful interpretation and can be used either for or against free will.

Luther considers this to be a sword of Achilles and an irresistible weapon, that Christ says in the Gospel of John, Cap. 15, 5: "Without me you can do nothing. But in my opinion, one can answer this in more than one way. In general, people say that he does nothing who does not achieve what he desires, and yet he who makes an effort often makes significant progress. In this sense it is very true that without Christ we can do nothing. For there he speaks of the evangelical fruits, of which others do not partake, except those who remain in the vine, that is, in Jesus Christ. In this figure Paul also speaks 1 Cor. 3, 7: "So then neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but God who gives the fruit." That which is of little use, and that which is useless in itself, he calls nothing. Likewise 1 Cor. 13:2: "If I had not love, I should be nothing." And soon after v. 3: "it would be of no use to me." Again Rom. 4:17: "He calleth unto that which is nothing, that it may be." Similarly, from Hosea Cap. 1, 23. Rom. 9, 26. he calls that which is not his people a despised and rejected people. In such a flowery sense it is also said in Ps. 22, 7: "I am a worm and not a man." Otherwise, if one wanted to take the word "nothing" in the strictest sense, one would not even be able to sin without Christ. But I think that Christ means here as much as the grace of Christ, if they do not take refuge in what has already been rejected, that sin is nothing. And this is true in a certain sense, because without Christ we neither are, nor live, nor weave. Now they themselves admit to us that sometimes free will without grace has a capacity to sin, and Luther himself had said this in the beginning of his "Assertion" (as

sertionis 1). This includes what John the Baptist says: "A man can take nothing, except it be given him from heaven" John 3:27. It does not follow that free will has no power and that it cannot be used. That the fire warms comes from God; that we, according to our natural understanding, strive for what is useful and flee what is harmful comes from God; that the will, after the fall, is driven to something better comes from God; that through tears, alms and prayer we attain that grace which makes us pleasing to God comes from God. However, our will is not entirely idle in this; although it should not attain what it strives for, except through the help of grace. But because this is the least and the least that we do, the work is completely attributed to God; just as a shipman, who has brought his ship out of a dangerous storm happily into the harbor, does not say: I have preserved the ship, but God has done it, and yet his art and his diligence have not been inactive. In the same way, a farmer who brings rich fruit from the field into the barn does not say, "I gave the grain so abundantly," but rather, "God gave it: God has given it. But who would say that the husbandman contributed nothing to the bringing forth of the fruit? It is also common to say: God has given you beautiful children, since the father helped to produce them; likewise, God has made me well again, since the physician also helped to do so, just as we say: the king has won the victory over the enemies, since the generals and soldiers did the best work. Nothing grows without rain from above, and yet a good soil brings forth fruit, and an evil soil brings forth no good fruit. Since man cannot bring this about by his own efforts unless divine grace is added, most of it is attributed to divine goodness. "Where the Lord does not build the house, those who build it labor in vain. Where the LORD keepeth not the city, the watchman watcheth in vain" Ps. 127:1; yet meanwhile the labor of the carpenters in building the house, and the watchfulness of the watchmen in keeping it, do not cease. "It is not ye," saith JESUS, "that speak; but it is the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" Matt. 10:20. At first sight this passage seems to abolish free will; in fact, however, it

  1. Cf. the note to § 14.

1648 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 2023-2025. 1649

We should not be anxious to think beforehand about what we should say in the cause of Christ, otherwise preachers who prepare themselves diligently for a sermon would sin. But not all may expect this, because the Spirit once inspired the simple disciples what they should say, just as he also inspired the gift of speaking foreign languages. And even if he inspired it to them, their will in speaking agreed with the inspiration of the Spirit and worked with the active Holy Spirit. From this again the freedom of the will becomes apparent, if we do not want to assume that God spoke through the mouth of the apostles as Balaam spoke through the mouth of the donkey.

But even stronger he insists on Joh. 6, 44: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him. The word "draw" seems to contain a necessity and to exclude the freedom of the will. But this is not a forcible drawing, but he only makes you want what you cannot want, just as we show a boy an apple and he runs to it, and just as we show a sheep a green branch from pasture and it follows us: in the same way God also knocks on our hearts with his grace, and if we want, we take hold of it. This is how we must understand the words of John 14:6: "No one comes to the Father except through me." Just as the Father honors the Son and the Son honors the Father, so the Father draws to the Son and the Son to the Father. But we are drawn in such a way that we immediately run willingly. Thus we read: "Lead me after you, and we will run" 2c.

(30) From Paul's letters, several passages can also be found which seem to deprive free will of all ability. The type is 2 Cor. 3, 5: "Not that we are able to think anything of ourselves, but of ourselves; but that we are able is from God. Here, however, the freedom of the will can be helped in a twofold way. For first of all, some orthodox fathers assume three degrees of human activity: the first is thinking, the second willing, and the third accomplishing. In the first and third degree, they concede that free will has no capacity to act. For the heart is impelled by grace alone to think something good, and it is by grace alone that what the heart has thought is accomplished. Only in the middle degree, that is, in consent, grace and the human will are active at the same time, but in such a way that grace is the main agent.

(principalis) cause and our will the lesser (minus principalis). But since the whole thing is attached to the one who has completely brought it about, man must not appropriate anything from a good work, because this, that he can will and cooperate with divine grace, is God's gift. Furthermore, the preposition "from" indicates the origin and source, and Paul clearly states: from ourselves, as from ourselves, that is, from ourselves. This could also be said of the one who admits that man wants to do good powerfully from natural forces, because he does not have these forces from himself either. For who denies that all good comes from God as from one source? And this is what St. Paul often inculcates, so that he may remove our pride and trust in ourselves, which he also does elsewhere: "What do you have, O man, that you have not received? but if you have received it, what do you boast about, as if you had not received it? 1 Cor. 4:7. Here you hear the apostle rejecting all glory by this saying. This would also have been said to the servant who enumerates to his master what gains he had acquired by usury, if he had attached to himself the praise of well-applied labor: What hast thou that thou hast not received? And yet his master praises him because of his tirelessly diligent work. In the same way Jacobus Cap. 1, 17. speaks: "All good gifts and all perfect gifts come down from above", and Paul Eph. 1, 11.: "Who works all things according to the counsel of His will." This is so that we do not arrogate anything to ourselves, but gratefully attribute everything to the grace of God, who called us apostates, who cleansed us through faith, who also gave us this gift, so that our will can work with his grace, although grace could be alone everywhere and would not even need the assistance of human will.

What is written in Phil. 2, 13: "God works in us both the willing and the doing, according to his good pleasure" does not exclude free will. For when it says, "according to his good pleasure," and you apply this to man, as Ambrose explains it, you see from this that the good will is active at the same time as the working grace. Just before it is said v. 12., "Create ye salvation with fear and trembling." From this you can infer that both God works in us with His grace, and that our will and diligence work with God at the same time. Lest anyone think this explanation reprehensible, there is, as I said, before this

1650XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 202S-20W. 1651

In the first passage: "Create that ye may be saved"; which is more correctly taken in the sense of "making an effort" than the word which is attributed to God; God is the one who works; but actually means that which works and drives. But since both "to create" and "to work" are equally valid, this passage clearly shows that both man and God the Lord work. What then does man work, if our will is as valid with God as clay is with the potter? "For it is not you who speak, but it is your Father's Spirit who speaks in you" Matth. 10, 20.fi This is said to the apostles, and yet we read in the Acts of the Apostles that Peter spoke. "Peter, full of the Holy Spirit, spoke to them" Acts 4:8. How are these contradictory phrases connected: "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit", and "Peter spoke, full of the Holy Spirit"? Unless the Spirit speaks in the apostles in such a way that at the same time they also speak in obedience to the Spirit, and yet it is also true that they do not speak, not as if they did not work anything, but that they are not the main authors of the speech. Likewise we read of Stephen, "They could not resist the wisdom and the Spirit that spake by him" sApost. 6, 10.; and yet he himself speaks before the assembly. Thus Paul says: "I live, but now not I, but Christ lives in me" sGal. 2, 20.fi And yet according to the saying of the same Paul "the righteous man of his faith lives" Rom. 1, 17. Habac. 2, 4. How can I therefore say of one who lives that he does not live? namely because he has to thank the Spirit of God for his life. And 1 Cor. 15, 10. "Not I, but the grace of GOD which is with me." If Paul had done nothing, why would he have said before: he had worked? "But," saith he, "I have labored much more than they all." If what he had said was true, why does he improve his speech here, as if he had not spoken the former with deliberation? His improvement was not so that one would recognize that he had not done anything, but rather so that it would not appear as if he had attributed to his strength something that he had accomplished with the help of God's grace. Thus, by this improvement, he only rejects the suspicion of pride, but not the participation in the work. For God does not want man to attribute anything to himself, even though there is something that he could rightfully attribute to himself. "When you have done all that is commanded you, say, We are useless servants,

We have done what we were obligated to do" Luc. 17, 10. Would not he do something excellent who would keep all the commandments of God? But whether such a one can be found at all, I do not know. And yet those who do such things should say: We are useless servants. That they have done everything is not denied, but they are only warned to beware of dangerous pride. Man speaks differently, God speaks differently. Man says: I am a servant and a useless servant at that. But what does the Lord say? "O devout and faithful servant" Luc. 19, 17 and: "Henceforth I do not say that you are servants, but friends" Joh. 15, 15. He calls them brothers instead of servants, and those who call themselves useless servants, God calls His children. These same ones, who now consider themselves worthless servants, will one day be addressed by the Lord as follows: "Come, you blessed of my Father" Matth. 25, 34, and will hear their good works, of which they themselves did not know that they had done them, praised. But I think we have the main key to understanding the Scriptures if we pay attention to what is said in this passage. When we have understood this, we can take out of the similes or examples what serves the purpose.

In the parable of the steward who, because the office was to be taken from him, fraudulently changed the letters of his master's debtors, there are many things that do not contribute to the meaning of the parable; but we only extract this, that each one must strive with all diligence to use the gifts received from God abundantly for the service of his neighbor, before death overtakes him. Likewise in the parable, from which we have quoted before, it says Luc. 17, 7-9.: "What man is there among you who has a servant to plow for him or to feed the cattle when he comes home from the field, that he should say to him, 'Go quickly and sit down at the table'? Is it not so, that he saith unto him, Prepare me to eat supper, and dress thyself, and serve me, until I eat and drink; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink also? Does he also thank the same servant for doing what he was commanded? I mean it not." The content of this parable is that men should obey the divine will, wait diligently for their office, and not arrogate to themselves the slightest praise. Incidentally, the behavior of Christ himself conflicts with this parable, in that he behaved as a servant, since he allowed his disciples the honor of being allowed to sit down at the table. He gives thanks by

1652 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 2028-2030. 1653

Says, "Ye godly and faithful servant"; likewise, "Come hither, ye blessed." And therefore he does not put the words like this: "So also, when you have done everything, the Lord will not consider you worthy of any grace and will regard you as useless servants, but says: "Say, we are useless servants. Thus Paul, who had labored much more than the others, calls himself the least of the apostles, not worthy to be called an apostle. Likewise it is written in Matt. 10:29, "Do not two sparrows buy a penny? nor does one of them fall to the ground without your father." Above all, we must see what the Lord is talking about here. He does not want to prove the forced necessity (Diomedäsam nsosssituttziu) of all things here; rather, this example aims at the fact that he may remove the fear of men from his disciples, because they see that God cares for them and that no man can harm a hair of their head without his permission; but he will allow nothing of the kind, if it would not be beneficial for them and the Gospel. In another place Paul says 1 Cor. 9:9, "Doth God care for oxen?" But in what follows in the evangelist there also seems to be an exaggerated speech (hyperbole): "But now all the hairs of your head are numbered." How many hairs do not fall daily on the earth? are these also counted? What was the purpose of the hyperbole here? Certainly, it should express what follows: Do not be afraid.

(33) Just as by such pompous speeches man's fear is taken away and his trust in God is strengthened, without whose providence nothing happens at all, so the ones we have mentioned above do not have the intention of completely destroying free will, but only of deterring people from arrogance, to which the Lord is hostile. It is safest to ascribe everything to the Lord; he is kind and will give us not only what is ours, but also what is his. How could it be said of that prodigal son that he carried through his paternal fortune if he had not had such in his hands? What he had, he got from his father. And we must admit that all natural gifts are gifts from God. The son had his inheritance even then, when it was still in his father's hands, and there it was better kept. Now what does it mean to claim his inheritance and go from his father? It means as much as to usurp the gifts of nature and use them not to keep the commandments of God, but to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. What does hunger mean? The anxiety, through which

God drives the sinner's heart to recognize himself, to be displeased with himself and to have a desire to repent and go to the Father. What does it mean that the son beat within himself and was anxious for a confession of his sins and for the return? It means the will of the man who accepts the propelling or, as it is otherwise called, antecedent grace. What does it mean that the Father went to meet the Son? The grace that helps our will to accomplish what we want. Even if I had invented this interpretation myself, it would still be more probable than the opinion of those who, in order to show that the will of man has no effect, interpret the words: stretch out your hand as you will, thus: grace stretches out your hand as it wills. But since the above statement has been handed down from the orthodox fathers, I do not see why it should be despised. It also includes that a poor widow put two mites, that is, all her possessions into the God box. Dear, what merit can a man claim, who has to thank the one who has given him the powers to do everything he can do by natural reason and with his free will? And yet, God credits us with this, if we do not turn our mind and will away from His grace and drive the natural forces to simple obedience. This proves at least so much that it is not wrong: man works something; but everything he does he should ascribe to God as the author, from whom it comes that man can connect his endeavor with the grace of God. Paul speaks thus: "By God's grace I am that I am" 1 Cor. 15:10. There he acknowledges GOtt as the author. But if you hear further: "and His grace to me has not been in vain," you see that the human will is at the same time based on the grace of God. This is what he indicates when he says: not I, but God's grace, x xxx xxxx, which is with me. That Hebrew preacher of wisdom desires the assistance of the divine wisdom to be with him and to work with him Wis. 9, 10. She stands by as a governor and helper, as a master builder stands by his journeyman and tells him what to do, shows him how to do it, rebukes him when he has begun to do something wrong, and helps him where he lacks something. The work is attributed to the master builder, without whose help it could not have been completed; nevertheless, no one will say that the journeyman and apprentice have done nothing.

1654XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvin, 2030-2033. 1655

I have done in the process. What the master builder does for his apprentice, grace does for our will. Paul says Rom. 8, 26: "The same also the Spirit helpeth out our weakness." No one calls weak the one who can do nothing at all; but rather the one who lacks sufficient strength to do what he strives for is called weak; nor is the one who does everything alone called a helper. All Scripture speaks of assistance, help, means of help, support. But if one says that one helps someone, except one who does something, one does not say of the potter that he helps the clay to make a vessel, or of the carpenter that he helps the axe to make a bench. To those who thus conclude that man can do nothing without the help of God's grace; therefore, no work of man is good, let us oppose, as I believe to be the case, a more probable conclusion: man can do everything with the help of God's grace; therefore, all works of man can be good. Therefore, as many passages as there are in the Holy Scriptures that refer to assistance, there are also as many passages that assert free will, and there is an innumerable number of them. Therefore, if we judge the matter according to the number of testimonies, I have won.

So far, we have compared the passages of Scripture that assert free will with those that seem to abolish it altogether. But since the Holy Spirit, from whom they derive, cannot contradict himself, we must, willingly or unwillingly, exercise some moderation in our opinion. Incidentally, the fact that from one passage of Scripture one person has drawn this opinion, another another, is due to the fact that each one has directed his attention to something different and has interpreted what he read in such a way as suited his purpose. Those who considered among themselves how sluggish men were in the practice of godliness, and what a wicked thing it would be to doubt the blessedness, in wanting to remedy this evil, before they knew it, got into another, and attached too much to the free will of man. Again, others have considered what great harm it would do to true godliness if man were to trust in his own powers and merits, how intolerable is the pride in some who boast of their good works and even sell them to others by measure and weight, as one sells oil and soap; but in carefully avoiding this evil, they have either done too little for the cause, as

if free will had no effect at all on a good work, or they completely eliminated the freedom of the will and introduced an absolute necessity of all things. They thought that it was very fitting for the simple obedience of a Christian heart that the whole person should depend on God's will, place all hope and trust in his promises, and, in recognition of his own great misery, admire and love his immeasurable mercy, which does such great things for us without our merit, and submit completely to his will, whether he wants to preserve us or destroy us; not presuming the least praise for good works, but giving all praise to the grace of God, and thinking that man is nothing but a living instrument of the Holy Spirit, which He has purified and sanctified for him according to His undeserved goodness, which He governs and arranges according to His unsearchable wisdom; there is nothing here that anyone can attribute to his powers, and yet expect with complete confidence from him the reward of eternal life, not because he deserves it by his good works, but because it has pleased his goodness to promise it to those who trust in him. In this, man's task is to pray diligently that God would give us His Spirit and increase it in us; that we give thanks when we have done something good; that we revere His power in all things, admire His wisdom everywhere, love His goodness everywhere. This speech also finds quite an entrance with me. For it agrees with the holy Scriptures and with the confession of those who, having once died to the world, are buried with Christ through baptism, that they put to death their flesh, and thereafter live and are driven by the Spirit of Jesus, into whose body they are implanted through faith. Certainly, this is a godly and pleasant opinion, which removes all pride from us, which transfers all glory and trust to Christ, which drives out of us all fear of men and devils, and which, when we despair of our own ability, makes us courageous and confident in God. We gladly agree with these, as long as they do not fall on exaggerated speeches (hyperbolas). For when I hear that man deserves nothing at all, that all works, even those of the pious, are sin; when I hear that our will proves as ineffective as the clay in the potter's hand; when I hear that everything we do or want should be done out of absolute necessity: many doubts arise in my mind. First of all, why do we so often read that the saints, who are full of good works

1656 67 Desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 2033-2036. 1657

have acted righteously, have acted rightly in the sight of God, have not departed either to the right or to the left, if all that the extremely godly do is sin, and such sin that if God did not help them with His mercy, He would cast down into hell the one for whom Christ died? How do we so often hear talk of a reward when there is no merit at all? Why is obedience praised in those who obey the divine commandments, and disobedience punished in those who disobey? Why is judgment so often mentioned in the Scriptures when there is absolutely no reward for merit? Or why do we have to be brought before the judge when nothing happens according to our will, but everything happens within us out of necessity? This thought also stands in my way: what is the use of so many exhortations, so many commandments, so many threats, so many warnings, so many complaints, if we do nothing, but God works everything in us, the willing and the doing, according to His unchanging will? He wants us to pray diligently, to watch, to fight, to strive for the jewel of eternal life. Why does he want to be called upon so earnestly for what he himself has decided to give us or not to give us, and yet he cannot change these decisions because of his immutability? Why do we have to strive with so much work for what he has decided to give us for free or out of grace? We are afflicted, we are expelled, we are mocked, we are martyred and even killed, so the grace of God fights, conquers and overcomes in us. A martyr endures all wrath, and yet not the slightest merit is attributed to him; indeed, it is still called a sin that he lets his body be tormented under the hope of eternal life. But why did the most merciful God want to work in such a way in the martyrs? A person would be considered unmerciful if he did not want to give to his friend what he had decided to give for free, because he would let himself be tortured to the point of despair. But if one comes to the hidden wisdom of God, then we may well be commanded to worship that which we are not to understand, that man should say: He is the Lord, he can do what he wants, and because he is by nature the epitome of good, then that must also be the best thing that he wants.

  1. it is also quite likely that god will reward his own gifts in us and that his goodness shall be our reward, and he will

He has worked in us according to his undeserved goodness, and he wants to credit it to those who trust in him as something he owes for the attainment of immortality. Only I do not know how this can be compatible with each other, that those who make the mercy of God to the pious so great, almost accuse God of cruelty against others. Godly ears can hear good talk about the goodness of the One who attributes His goodness to us; But it is difficult to explain how it can be in accord with the justice (not to say the mercy) of God that he should inflict eternal punishment on others whom he has not deemed worthy to work good in them, since they are not able to do anything good for themselves, because they either have no free will at all or, if they have it, they cannot use it for anything but sin. If a king were to give an immense reward to a man who has done nothing in war, while the others who have been brave receive nothing except their regular pay, he might well reply to the grumbling soldiers: Are you wronged, then, when I want to be generous to these out of mercy? But how could he be considered just and merciful if he richly rewarded the victories of a commander whom he had provided with armor, troops, money, and all that was superfluous for war, and on the other hand punished another, whom he had thrust into war without any armor, with his life because of his defeat? Would not the latter, before he had to die, justly say to his king: "Why then do you punish me for what has happened through your fault? If you had equipped me in the same way, I would have won in the same way. Again, if a lord freed a servant who did not deserve it, he might well reply to the other servants who grumbled about it, "Nothing is lost to you because I am so kind to this one; you have what is due to you. But everyone would consider the master cruel and unjust if he had a servant whipped, either because he is of long stature, or because he has a very big nose, or because he otherwise does not look handsome enough. Would he not, with every right, grumble to the master who wants to give him a beating: Why should I suffer punishment for what is not in my power? And he would be able to say this with even better right if it were in the Lord's power to remedy the defect of the body in the servant, just as it is in the power of God to change the will of others; or if the Lord were to give the servant the defect he is offended by,

1658XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2036-2038. 165A

than if he had cut off his nose or scarred his face hideously, as God, according to some, works all evil in us. Again, with regard to orders, if a master ordered his servant, who was in chains and bonds in the penitentiary, to go there, do this, run and come back, and threatened him harshly where he did not want to be obedient, but he did not release him and let the disobedient servant be beaten: would not the servant rightly consider the master furious or cruel if he had him whipped to death because he had not done what was not in his power?

(36) Furthermore, we gladly hear that they exalt faith and love towards God to a tremendous degree; in that we think that the life of Christians is stained with so many vices comes solely from our dead and sleepy faith, which consists only in words and sits on the tongue, since, according to Paul Rom. 10:10, one becomes righteous only "if one believes from the heart. I do not want to get into a big argument with those, who draw everything on faith as the source and the main thing, although I think that faith arises from love, and love arises from faith and is sustained by it. Without doubt, love nourishes faith, just as the light in a lamp gets its nourishment from oil. For whom we love dearly, we trust all the more gladly. There are also those who claim that faith is much more the beginning of our blessedness than the end. However, we do not argue about this. By the way, we should be careful that by emphasizing faith we do not deprive the will of all its freedom. For if this is abolished, I do not see how the question of the justice and mercy of God can be solved. Since the ancients could not help themselves from such difficulties, some had to assume two gods: one God of the Old Testament, of whom they said that he was only just, but not also merciful; the other of the New Testament, of whom they said that he was only merciful, but not also just; whose ungodly fiction Tertullian sufficiently refutes. Manichaeus dreamed, as we have said, that there were two natures in man: one had to sin, and the other could do nothing but good. Pelagius, fearing the justice of God, ascribes too great a power to free will, from which opinion those do not deviate far, who are not convinced of human justice.

They have so much ability that they could earn the highest grace, through which we become righteous, by natural forces, through morally good works. These, as I think, wanted to drive man to eager striving by the good hope of the blessedness to be attained. Just as Cornelius, through his prayer and

Alms earned that Peter preached to him, and the chamberlain that Philip taught him. Because St. Augustine carefully searched for Christ in Paul's letters, he deserved to find him. Those who do not admit that man can do anything good that does not come from God, we can satisfy by saying that nevertheless the whole work remains a work of God, without whom we can do nothing, and what the free will does is something very small; and this is the very gift of God, that we can direct our hearts to things that belong to blessedness, or cooperate with grace. Augustine, after the dispute with Pelagius, restricted free will more narrowly than before. Luther, on the other hand, who had previously granted free will some capacity, allowed himself to be carried away by the heat of the defense, so that he abolished it altogether. Among the Greeks, Lycurgus is not well spoken of; I believe because he had the vines cut out of hatred for drunkenness, since if he had provided wells nearby, he would have already prevented drunkenness, so that the use of wine would not be lost. In my opinion, the freedom of the will could have been asserted in such a way that the reliance on our merit would have been avoided and other disadvantages that Luther does not want to have, including those disadvantages that we have stated above, and yet the advantages that Luther holds dear would not have been lost along with them. This seems to be the case with those who attribute the initial impulse of the mind entirely to grace and only attribute some power to the human will as it progresses, if it does not withdraw from God's grace. But since all things have three parts: Since all things have three parts: beginning, progress, and end, they attribute the first and last to grace and say that only in the progress does free will have an effect, but in such a way that in each individual action two causes come together, namely, the grace of God and the will of man, but in such a way that grace is the main cause and the will the next cause after it, because it can do nothing without the main cause, whereas the main cause has enough power for itself. Just as the natural power

1660 67 Desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 2038-2041. 1661

of the fire burns; and yet the main cause of it is God, who at the same time works through the fire. This cause alone would be enough, and without it also the fire could not work anything, if it were separated from it. Because of this nature (temperatura), man must attribute all his blessedness to divine grace, since there is very little that free will can do here, and even what it can still do comes from the grace of God, who first created free will and then also made it free and healthy.

And in this way those can be satisfied, if they can be satisfied otherwise, who do not want to hear that man has something good about him, which he does not have to thank God for. He also has to thank God for it, but in a different way and under a different title. Just as the inheritance, which by right belongs to the children, is not called a benefit, because according to the general law it is granted to all; but if something has been given to this or that person beyond the common law, it is called a gratuity; but the children also have to thank the parents under the title of the inheritance. I will try to explain what I have said also by similes. A man's eye, though sound, sees nothing in the dark, and if it is blinded, it sees nothing even in broad daylight; so also the will can do nothing, though it has its liberty when it is at the mercy of grace. But he who has good eyes can close his eyes before the light, so that he does not see; he can also turn his eyes away from the light, so that he no longer sees what he could have seen. But he who has had his eyes blinded by a certain defect has more to be thankful for, first of all to the Creator, then also to the physician. Before sin our eyes were good, but sin has corrupted them. What then can he boast of who sees? He can take credit for something, if he diligently covers or averts his eyes. Now hear another simile: The father helps up his child, who cannot yet walk and has fallen, who exerts himself as much as possible, and points out to him an apple that lies before him; the child feels like going, but would soon have fallen again because of his weak limbs, if the father did not offer his hand to the child, support him and govern his walk. Thus, under the father's guidance, the child comes to the apple, which the father voluntarily gives to him as a reward for walking. The child could not have been in

It would not have perceived the apple if the father had not pointed to it. It would not have been able to walk carefully if the father had not constantly come to the aid of its weak steps. Finally, it would not have been able to obtain the apple if the father had not given it into its hands. What can the child attribute to himself here? And yet it did something, only it cannot boast of its powers, because it has to thank the father for everything. However, we want to assume that this is the same with God. What does the child do now? As soon as the father wants to help him up, he makes an effort as best he can, and adjusts his weak gait according to his instructions, as much as he can. The father could pull it, even if it did not want to, and the childish will could resist and despise the apple; the father could give the apple to the child without it having to run after it, but he would rather give it to it in this way, because it is better for the child that way. I readily admit that our effort contributes even less to the attainment of eternal life than the effort of the child whom the father leads by the hand. And although we see that very little is attributed to free will here, some still think that too much is done to the matter, for they want grace alone to work in us and our will to behave in all things only as an instrument of the Holy Spirit, so that in no way can good be called ours, except insofar as divine goodness imputes it to us without merit. For grace does not work in us by free will, but rather by free will, just as the potter shows his work by the clay, but not by the clay. Where does it come from, then, that the crown and the reward are thought of? Yes, they say, God the Lord crowns His gifts in us and wants His good deeds to be our reward, and what He has worked in us He imputes to us according to His grace, so that we may be transferred to the kingdom of heaven. Here I do not see how they assert a free will, since it is not supposed to behave effectively. For if they said that it was set in motion by grace in such a way that it acted at the same time driven by grace, the explanation would not be so difficult. Just as, according to the opinion of the teachers of nature, our body receives its first movement from the soul, since it could not move without the soul, and yet it not only moves itself, but also sets other things in motion, and, as it were, acts as a helper in the work.

1662XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2041-2013. 1663

of the honor. If God works on us as the potter works on the clay, what can be attributed to us either for good or for evil? For the soul of Jesus Christ, which was also an instrument of the Holy Spirit, must not be involved in this question. If the weakness of the flesh stands in the way, so that man can earn nothing, then he (Christ) also was terrified before death and wanted that not his, but the Father's will be done. And yet they admit that this Christ's will is the source of merit, even though they deny the merit of good works to all other saints.

By the way, even those who say that there is no free will at all, but that everything happens through absolute necessity, God works everything in all, not only good, but also evil. From this it seems to follow that, just as man can in no way be the cause of good works, he can also in no way be called the cause of evil works. Although this opinion obviously accuses God of cruelty and injustice, from which speech Christian ears have a great abhorrence (in that he would cease to be God if anything vicious or imperfect were found in him), those who cherish such a reprehensible opinion do not lack excuses. They say: he is God, everything he does must be the best and most beautiful; If you look at the beauty of the universe, even that which is evil in itself is good here and glorifies God, and it is not up to any creature to master the Creator's counsel, but man must completely submit to it in all things, so that if it pleased God to condemn this or that, he must not grumble about it, but must accept what God pleases, and be convinced that he does everything in the best way, and can do nothing else than what is best. What would happen if man said to God, "Why did you not make me an angel? Wouldn't God rightly answer such a person: "Impudent man, if I had created you as a frog, could you also complain about it? Likewise, if the frog wanted to be right with God: Why did you not create me as a peacock adorned with many colors? Wouldn't God rightly say to him: "You ingrate, I could have created you as an earth sponge or as a bolle; but now you are jumping, boozing and croaking. Again, if a basilisk or a snake were to say, "Why have you made me an animal that is hateful and deadly to everyone, and not instead

to a sheep? What would God answer? Without a doubt, He would say: I liked it that way, and the beauty and order of the world brought it about that way. You have been wronged as little as the flies, mosquitoes and other insects, each of which I have formed in such a way that it must be an immense wonder to those who look at it attentively. And is the spider therefore not an admirable and beautiful little animal, because it is very unlike the elephant? Yes, it is really a far greater miracle with a spider than with an elephant. Is it not enough for you that you are a perfect creature after your own kind? The poison was not given to you to kill others with it, but to defend yourself and your young with it, just as the oxen were provided with horns, the lions with claws, the wolves with teeth and the horses with hooves for this very purpose. Each animal has its use. The horse carries loads, the ox plows, the donkey and the dog are also helpful in the work, the sheep serves man for food and clothing: you need for medicine.

But let us stop reasoning with those who have no reason. We have begun our disputation from man, whom God created in His own image and likeness Gen. 1:26, and for whose sake He made all things. But since we perceive that some people by nature have excellent bodies and an excellent mind, and are born, as it were, to virtue, others, on the other hand, are strangely formed, others are subject to terrible diseases, still others are so stupid that they are almost on the same level as unreasonable animals, some are even more brutish than cattle, others are so inclined to vices that they seem to be carried away to them by a mighty fate, others are even nonsensical and possessed by the devil: how then shall we resolve the question of the justice and mercy of God here? Shall we exclaim with Paul: "O what depth" 2c? I think this is better than to judge with ungodly iniquity about the counsels of God, which are inscrutable to man. But it is even more difficult to explain how God crowns his good deeds with eternal glory in some cases, but punishes his evil works eternally in others. But in order to defend this strange proposition, they resort to other strange ideas to maintain their cause against their opponents. They make original sin immeasurably great, thereby also corrupting the most glorious powers of human nature to such an extent.

1664 67. desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm, 2043-2046. 1665

that man can do nothing more by his own strength than not to know God and to hate Him, and not even after being justified by the gift of faith is he able to do any work that is not sin. They make this inclination to sin, which has remained in us from the sin of the first parents, a sin itself, and an insurmountable one, so that there is not a single commandment of God which even a man justified by faith could keep, and all the commandments of God have no other intention than that the grace of God be glorified thereby, which gives blessedness regardless of merit. In the meantime, however, they seem to me to make God's mercy small in one place, so that they can make it all the greater elsewhere; just as if someone wanted to serve a very small lunch to the guests, so that the evening meal would be all the more glorious to the eyes; or as if one wanted to imitate the painters, who, when they want to give light to a painting, shade what lies first. For at first they make God almost cruel, because he shows his wrath on the whole human race because of foreign sin, especially since those who sinned repented and were punished so severely as long as they lived. Then, when they say that even those who have been justified by faith have done nothing but sin, so that by loving God and trusting in Him we have earned nothing but His hatred and disfavor, are they not in this way minimizing the grace of God, which justifies man by faith in such a way that he can still do nothing but sin? Moreover, since God burdens man with so many commandments that are of no use but to increase hatred against God and to increase condemnation, do they not make God even more merciless than the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius? The latter diligently gave many laws, which he knew that most of them would not keep if they did not insist on them, and at first he looked through his fingers; but as soon as he perceived that almost all of them sinned against them, he began to punish them. Thus he made them all worthy of punishment. And yet his laws were such that they could easily have been observed if one had wanted to. I will not now examine the reason why, in their opinion, we cannot possibly fulfill all of God's commandments, for we have not undertaken to do so; but I have only wished to show above that they, out of all too great a desire to destroy the grace in the work of blessedness, have been able to do so.

make them quite large, make them smaller in other things. Of some things I do not see how they can exist. They abolish free will and teach that man is now driven by the spirit of Christ, whose nature cannot bear communion with sin. Nevertheless, they maintain that man, even after he has attained grace, does nothing but sin.

40 Luther seems to have taken a liking to such exaggerated speeches (hyperbolis) in order to counter the exaggerated speeches of others, as a hard branch, also a hard wedge, as one is wont to say. Some were also audaciously falling for hyperbole, selling not only their own merits, but also the merits of all the saints. But what are these works? Chants, murmuring of psalms, eating of fish, hunger, clothes and empty names. Thus Luther drove out one nail with another, saying that the saints had no merits at all, but that all works, even of the most pious, were sins and would have brought us eternal damnation if faith and divine mercy had not come to our aid. On the other hand, confession and pardon were openly used to ensnare human consciences, as well as purgatory, from which they have pretended all sorts of strange things. The opponents seek to correct this error by saying that confession was invented by the devil; or, wanting to express themselves even more modestly, they say that it should not be demanded, that no satisfaction is needed for sin, because Christ atoned for the sin of all men; finally, that there is no purgatory. Furthermore, one part goes so far as to say that the ordinances of some little monastic priest bind in such a way that their transgressors must suffer the punishments of hell; besides, they have no hesitation in assuring eternal life to those who keep them. The opposing party counters this exaggerated speech by saying that all the decrees of the popes, conciliar authorities and bishops are heretical and anti-Christian. In this way, one part exalts papal authority beyond all measure, the other speaks of the pope in such a way that I cannot tell. Again, one part claims that the vows of the monks and clergy bind a man to the punishment of hell and forever; the other part says that such vows are ungodly and not to be taken, and if one has taken them, one must not keep them.

  1. from the collision of the like

1666XII . Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2046-2048. 1667

hyperbolic speeches now arises this flashing and thundering, by which now the whole world is shaken. If both parts continue to remain stiff and firm in their exaggerated speeches, I foresee that such a fight and quarrel will take place among them as between Achilles and Hector; because they were both equally heated, nothing but death could separate them. It is generally said that if you want to straighten a crooked stick, you have to bend it to the opposite side. This is well for the improvement of morals; but whether one may suffer such a thing in points of doctrine, I do not know. I have seen from time to time that hyperbolic expressions find their place in admonitions or warnings. For example, if you wanted to speak courage to a fearful person, you would quite rightly say to him: "Do not fear, God will speak and do everything in you. In order to dampen the ungodly arrogance of men, you would perhaps not say without benefit that man can do nothing but sin, and you would usefully reproach those who demand that their teachings be regarded as equal to the canonical Scriptures with the word that man can do nothing but lie. But where, in the investigation of truth, one accepts generally true principles (xxxxxxxx),

I believe, one must refrain from such strange speeches, which are not far from riddles, at least in such things I like the middle road best. Pelagius attached far too much to free will, and Scotus enough. Luther at first only mutilated him and deprived him of his right arm, and because soon after that was not enough for him, he even knocked him to the ground and removed him from the means.

I put up with the opinion of those who attribute something to free will and the most to grace. For it is not necessary to escape the Scylla of presumption and pride in such a way as to be led into the Charybdis of despair or security; it is not necessary to treat a dislocated limb in such a way as to twist it to the opposite side, but to restore it to its proper position; it is not necessary, with the face turned toward the enemy, to fight in such a way that before we know it he gives us a wound in the back. If we follow this middle road, the situation is such that man can do a good, though imperfect, work of which he may not boast; there will be some merit, which, however, he must attribute entirely to God. In this life, mortals have so many weaknesses, shortcomings and vices in themselves that if

If only each one will look at himself, he will soon lower the comb; although we do not suppose that even a justified man can do nothing but sin, especially since Christ speaks of regeneration, and Paul of a new creature. You may object: Why then is something granted to free will? This is done in order to justly impute something to the wicked, who wickedly resist God's grace; in order to exclude from God the blasphemy of cruelty and injustice; in order to exclude from us despair; in order to exclude security; in order to drive us to eager striving. For these reasons, almost everyone claims freedom of will, which has no power without the constant grace of God, so that we do not presume anything ourselves. Yes, someone would like to say: What is the use of free will if it has no effect? I answer: What is the use of the whole man, if God acts with him in such a way as the potter acts with the clay, and as he can act with a pebble?

  1. Therefore, when it has been sufficiently proved that this subject is of such a nature that it would not be conducive to true godliness, especially among the simple-minded, if it were examined more deeply than it ought to be; when we have shown that this opinion has its ground in several and clearer testimonies of Scripture than the contrary opinion; when it has been established that the sacred Scriptures in most places either make use of obscure, flowery speeches or contradict themselves at first sight, and that for this very reason we have sometimes had to depart, willingly or unwillingly, from the words and the letter and form our opinion according to the interpretation; if it has also finally been shown how many clumsy, I do not want to say inconsistent things follow from the complete rejection of free will; if it is evident that this generally accepted opinion, as I have presented it, does not overturn anything of what Luther spoke in a godly and Christian way about the highest love for God, about the throwing away of all trust in merit, in works, and in our powers, about the complete trust that one is to place in God and in His promises: I give the reader this to consider, whether he thinks it fair to reject the opinion of so many church teachers, which so many peoples have approved of for so many centuries, and to accept certain unheard-of things, which are now causing unrest in Christendom.

1668 67 Desid. Erasmus Diatribe. W. xvm. 2048-2050. 1669

judge. If these are correct, I freely confess that I have an unlearned head that cannot grasp them; this I know for certain, that I do not resist the truth, that I heartily love the truly evangelical freedom, and that I have an abhorrence of everything that is contrary to the Gospel. So I do not present here the person of a judge, as I said above, but of a disputing party (disputatoris), and yet I can say with truth that I have observed in disputing the conscientiousness that was sought from sworn judges in matters of life and death in former times. And even though I am an old man, I will not be ashamed or disgusted to learn from a young man, if he has a Protestant attitude.

He is a gentle man who presents more obvious things. Here I will have to hear, I already know: Erasmus only learn to know Christ, and leave human cleverness behind; no one understands this but the one who has the Holy Spirit. If I do not yet understand what Christ is, then one has certainly strayed far from the right goal, although I would like to learn this, what kind of spirit so many Christian teachers and peoples have had, because it is likely that the people believed just what the bishops taught, now already thirteen hundred years ago, who have not seen this. I have explained the matter, others may judge.

End of the Diatribe, or Treatise on Free Will by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.

Other writings that belong to Luther's dispute against Erasmus, namely various judgments of Luther about Erasmus, letters of Luther concerning Erasmus to Spalatin, Hausmann, Lang, and Caspar Börner; Amsdorf's letter to Luther together with his answer to it, and Luther's preface to the book of Antonius Corvinus about Erasmus' proposal for church unification, can be found in the appendix to this volume, no. 3 to no. 12, and in the 15th volume, appendix, no. 76, Col. 157. 3 to No. 12 and in the 15th volume of the old edition, Appendix, No. 76, Col. 157; likewise a letter to Justus Jonas, dated October 19, 1527, Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 1061, and another, dated October 8, 1527, to Michael Stiefel, ibid. Col. 1060; Luther's Table Talks on Erasmus, Walch, St. Louis edition, Vol. XXII, Col. 1073 et seq, Cap. 37, §§ 106-135; Cap. 4, § 23; Cap. 15, § 25; Cap. 22, § 40; Cap. 27, § 135; Cap. 73, § 11; Cap. 76, § 26, para. 2; and in Appendix No. II, Nos. 288. 289. 354. 405. 679. 1116. 1544. and 1671. Some other writings bearing on this subject are mentioned in the introduction to this section.

*68. D. Martin Luther's answer to Erasmus of Rotterdam that free will is nothing. )

December 1525.

Newly translated from the Latin.

In the editions of the German translation of Justus Jonas, there is the following attribution:

From the translator, Justi Jona, letter to Count Albrecht, Lord of Mansfeld.

To the noble and well-born Lord, Lord Albrechten, Count and Lord of > Mansfeld 2c My gracious Lord.

Grace and peace of God. Noble, well-born count, gracious lord. This booklet D. Mar

I have therefore translated the letter of Luther, our dear Father in Christ, to our dear friend, the highly famous Erasmus of Rotterdam, so that everyone, and especially the papists, who until now have been highly praised as if the doctrine of works had been preserved by Erasmus' booklet, may realize from this clear answer how their doctrine does not exist at all, even if Demosthenes protected it. For although Erasmus is otherwise a noble high man, such writing about free will is annoying,

*The first edition of this writing was published in Latin at Wittenberg by Hans Lust in December 1525 under the title: Ds 8srvo ^rlürrio Älnr. Istwert aä O. Lrasrnuro RotsroäarnUin. Another edition with an index by the same in April 1526. Likewise at Augsburg in March 1526. Similarly iy the same year another

1670 L. v. a. vii, nsf. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvin, 2050-2052. 1671

and Against the Gospel. This booklet, however, thus translated, I have therefore first sent and attributed to D. Martini by order of E. G., so that we know how E. G. has long desired to know this answer, and is otherwise so inclined to the Gospel, that E. G. has recently given a particularly good example to other sovereigns with proof of the right Christian way, namely by re-establishing Christian schools and preaching stands; in addition

E. G. henceforth may God the Lord strengthen. Given Wittemberg, Saturday after Martinmas, Nov. 17 Anno 1526.

E. G.

  1. Williger Justus Jonas.
  2. In the asten Walch edition "M.", but in the Wittenberg "W.", which is probably to be resolved with "willing".

Martin Luther wishes the venerable man, Mr. Erasmus of Rotterdam, > grace and peace in Christ.

That I am so late in answering your diatribe (treatise) on free will, venerable Erasmus, has happened against everyone's expectation and against my way, since one has seen that up to now I have not only gladly seized such opportunities to write, but have even sought them out of my own free will. Some will perhaps be surprised at this new and unusual patience or even fear on Luther's part, that he was not incited even by so many boastful speeches and writings of his opponents, who wished Erasmus luck on his victory and sang a song of triumph, namely: "Has this Maccabee, who held so firmly to his doctrine, finally found a worthy opponent, against whom he also does not dare to make a fuss? But not only do I not reproach these people, but I even concede to you the prize that I have never conceded to anyone before, not only because you far surpass me in gifts of eloquence and intellect (this prize we all rightly concede to you, all the more

I, uneducated in the ancient languages, have always associated with people of my own kind), but also because you have restrained my spirit and impetuosity and have made me limp before the battle, and that in two ways. First, by art, namely, that you handled this matter in which you confronted me with wonderful and constant restraint, so that I could not be provoked against you; second, by an accident, whether by chance or by fate, that you said nothing in such a great matter, which has not been said before, and even say less and ascribe more to free will than the sophists have hitherto said and ascribed (of which I shall say more hereafter), that it also seemed to me quite superfluous to reply to your trivial reasons. For they have also been refuted by me so often, but have been completely overthrown and destroyed by the insurmountable booklet of Philip Melanchthon, Loci Communes, which, in my judgment, is worth not only that it remain eternal, but also that it be regarded as a guideline in the church. As I have herewith read your

Edition at Wittenberg, without indication of the printer; another in the same year at Nuremberg by Johannes Petrejus. In addition to these editions listed in the Erlangen edition, Walch mentions the following individual editions that were in his hands: An edition by Jacob Rimedoncius in Heidelberg in 1591 and reissued in 1M3, which had the purpose of making people believe that Luther agrees in this book with the Reformed doctrine of grace and the unconditional counsel of God, which is asserted in the preface. Furthermore, the Lutheran theologian Sebastian Schmid published an edition in 1664 in which explanatory and apologetic notes are added to the passages of this book clo 8orvo urditrio, which seem hard and are therefore misused. All the editions mentioned so far are in octavo. Another in quarto appeared in 1707 at Strasbourg with Joh. Joachim Zentgrav's apologetic preface against Petrus Avon. This register of separate editions is far from complete. In the collections it is found: in the Latin Jenaer of 1557, Dom. Ill, col. 165; in the Wittenberg one, Dom. II, col. 457; in the Erlanger, opp. vur. urZ., vol. VII, 113. In 1526 a German translation was made by Justus Jonas, which is found in the following collections: in the Wittenberger of 1553, vol. VI, tot. 462; in the Altenburger, vol. Ill, p. 160; in the Leipziger, vol. XIX, p. 1. According to the latter edition, a separate print has appeared at Milwaukee, Wis. in the printing office of the "Herold," without indication of the year. (We received this edition in 1886.) We make special mention of this edition here because those who would like to possess the translation of Jonas in addition to our edition have the opportunity to view this work individually. Our translation is based on the Erlangen edition, to which the first edition was available.

1672 L. V. a. VII, H7-H9. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2052-2056. 1673

I felt so contemptuous and small about it that I felt very sorry for you, because you sullied your very beautiful and skilful way of speaking with such dirt, and I became indignant about the matter, which is quite unworthy of being presented in such delicious ornaments, as if filth or dung were carried in gold or silver vessels. You seem to have felt this yourself, since you went about writing in this matter with such difficulty. For your conscience has warned you that it would come about in such a way that you would not be able to put a dazzle on me, with however great power of eloquence you might attack the matter, and I would see the dregs myself quite clearly after the removal of the word decoration. For "though I am foolish in speech, yet am I," by God's grace, "not foolish in knowledge" 2 Cor. 11:6, for so I dare with Paul to attribute knowledge to myself and confidently deny it to you, though I attribute eloquence and great gifts to you, and willingly and approvingly deny them to myself. Accordingly, I have thought thus: if there are people who have not grasped our doctrine, which we have proved so firmly and powerfully from Scripture, and do not hold it more firmly than to be moved by the trifling and trivial reasons of Erasmus, however dainty they may be, they are not worthy to be helped by my answer, for for such people one could not speak or write sufficiently, even if many thousand books were repeated a thousand times. For that would be such work as if one were plowing the sea shore and scattering seed in the sand, or filling a barrel full of holes with water. For those who have received the Holy Spirit as a teacher in our books have been served by us abundantly, and they will easily despise what you bring up. But those who read without the Spirit, of them it is not to be wondered at if they are moved like a reed by every wind. For them also God could not speak enough, if also all creatures were made tongues. Therefore, it would almost have been my intention to let go of those who are

I have been annoyed by your booklet, along with those who boast and give you credit for the triumph. Therefore, I am deprived of the desire to answer you, not by the amount of my business, not by the difficulty of the matter, not by the greatness of your eloquence, not by the fear of you, but only by the disgust, the displeasure and the contempt, or (that I say it) by my judgment on the diatribe; not to mention that you, as is your way, are quite persistently bent on being slippery and using fickle words, and more cautiously than Odysseus think you are sailing between the Scylla and the Charybdis. Since you do not want to have claimed anything and yet again want to be regarded as claiming, what, I pray you, can be brought to a settlement or settled with such a kind of people, if someone does not understand the art of catching Proteus? What I am able to do in this matter and what it has helped you, I will show afterwards and that through the assistance of Christ.

That I now reply is not without good reason; faithful brothers in Christ urge me to do so and say that everyone expects it, that the great reputation of Erasmus is not to be despised, that the truth of Christian doctrine is in danger in the hearts of many. And I have really come to the conclusion that my silence has not been entirely godly, that I have been seduced by the cleverness or rather the malice of my flesh, that I have not been sufficiently mindful of my office, according to which "I am a debtor to the wise and the unwise" Rom. 1:14, especially since I am called to it by the pleas of so many brethren. For although our cause is of such a kind that it is not done enough by an external teacher, but also requires, apart from the one who plants and waters externally, the Spirit of God, who gives prosperity and, as the Living One, teaches living things internally in the heart (and this thought has led me astray), yet, because this Spirit is free and blows, not where we will, but where He wills, I should have judged you according to Paul's rule 2 Tim. 4:2: "Stop,

1674 L. v. a. vii, H9 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 20S6-2059. 1675

Whether at the right time or at the wrong time", because we do not know at which hour the Lord will come Matth. 24, 42. Now there may be people who have not yet noted the spirit as teacher in my writings and are misled by the diatribe. Perhaps their hour has not yet come, and who knows whether God will not deign to visit you too, dearest Erasmus, through me, his wretched and frail vessel, so that I may come to you with this booklet at a happy hour (which is why I heartily pray to the Father of mercy through Jesus Christ, our Lord) and gain a very dear brother. For although you think ill of me and write about free will, I owe you no small debt of gratitude for making me much firmer in my opinion, since I saw that the cause of free will was being pushed with all its might by such a highly gifted man, and yet nothing at all has been accomplished that the cause is worse than before. This is a tangible proof that free will is a mere lie, which is like that woman in the Gospel Luc. 8, 43: the more the doctors heal it, the worse it is. Therefore, I will thank you even more if you come to greater certainty through me, as I have gained greater firmness through you; but both are a gift of the Holy Spirit, not a work that we can do. Therefore, God must be asked to open my mouth, but to open your heart and the hearts of all, and to be present in the midst of us as the Master, so that He may speak and hear in us. Dear Erasmus, let me obtain this from you, that as I credit you with your ignorance in these things, so you in turn will credit me with my childlike nature. The Lord does not give all things to one, nor can we all do all things, or, as Paul says 1 Cor. 12:4, "There are many gifts, but there is one Spirit." Therefore it only remains that the gifts serve each other and that one bears the other's burden and poverty with his gift, so we will fulfill the law of Christ Gal. 6:2.

To begin, I want to briefly review a few pieces of your preface in which you describe our

You rather belittle the matter and embellish your cause. First of all, that in other writings you also reproach me for my persistence in asserting things, and in this booklet you say 1): "You have no pleasure at all in firm assertions, that you would easily go over to the opinion of the skeptics, where it concerns the inviolable prestige of Scripture and the decisions of the church, to which you gladly submit your reason, may you understand or not what it prescribes; such a mind pleases you. I take this (how fair) as if you had spoken it in a benevolent sense and as one who loves peace. But if someone else said this, I would be upset against him in my own way, but I must not suffer, even if you have such good will, that you remain mistaken in this opinion. For it is not fitting for a Christian heart not to take pleasure in firm assertions; indeed, it must take pleasure in firm assertions, or it cannot be a Christian. But I call firm assertion (assertio) (so that we do not play with words), constant adherence, confirmation, confession, defense, and insurmountable persistence, and I believe that this word does not mean anything else either with the Latins and according to the linguistic usage of our time. Furthermore, I am talking about the fact that things must be firmly asserted which have been handed down to us by God in the holy Scriptures, otherwise we would have no need of Erasmus or any other teacher who would first have to teach us that in doubtful or useless or unnecessary things, firm assertions are not only foolish, but also ungodly, even quarrels and disputes, which Paul condemns in many places. Even you, I believe, do not speak of such things in this passage, unless you wanted to take one thing and treat another in the manner of a ridiculous speaker, like the one about the sea-butt, 2) or that you want to

  1. Diatribe §1. . '
  2. luvenaiis, 8utiru IV, v. 39-144. At the time of the emperor Domitian, an immensely large sea-but had been caught and given to the emperor as a gift. Since there was no vessel of sufficient size to cook the fish in, the emperor hurriedly summoned the great men of the empire for consultation.

1676 L. V. a. VII, 120-122. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2059-2062. 1677

After the folly of a godless writer you wanted to advocate that the article of free will is doubtful or unnecessary. Far be from us Christians the skeptics and academics, but there may be with us firm assertions, which are twice more obstinate than even the stoics. How often, I ask you, does the apostle Paul demand plerophoria certainty of faith, that is, the most certain and firm assertion of conscience? Rom. 10:10, ninth, confession: "and if one confesses with his mouth, he will be saved." And Christ says Matt. 10:32, "Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my heavenly Father." Peter [1 Ep. 3, 15? commands that we give an account of the hope that is in us. What need is there to make many words? Nothing is more familiar and common among Christians than firm assertion. Take away the firm assertions and you have taken away Christianity. Yes, the Holy Spirit is given to them from heaven, that he may glorify Christ, and that he Christ may be known unto death. 1) Isn't this firmly claiming to die because of the confession and the firm claim? Finally, the Holy Spirit also asserts to such a degree that He also freely attacks and accuses the world because of sin, like one who challenges to battle, and Paul commands Timothy 2 Tim. 4, 2. to rebuke and also to stop at the wrong time. But what a fine reprover this would be to me, who neither believed for sure nor steadfastly asserted even what he scolded! I would certainly send him to Anticyra 2).

The decision was made whether the fish should remain whole or be cut into pieces. Since it was extremely dangerous to say something he did not like, even in the most trivial matters, none of the assembled dared to express his opinion, but one after the other flattered the emperor, especially I'udriaius Vesento, who is probably meant here, who said that the enormous fish was the foreshadowing of some great, glorious victory and the capture of some king, such as Arviragus of Britain. But about what he should have said, whether the fish should remain whole or be cut into pieces, he did not say a word.

  1. confiteubur is passive here.
  2. Anticyra, an island of the Aegean Sea, where much hellebore grew. Luther means: he should use hellebore to cleanse the sick brain.

But I am a great Thor to lose words and time in a matter that is clearer than the sun. What Christian would suffer that firm assertions should be despised? That would be nothing else than to deny the whole religion and godliness at once, or to claim that the whole religion, or godliness, or some doctrine (dogma) is nothing. Why then do you also claim: "I have no pleasure in firm assertions" and you would rather have such a mind than one of a different kind?

But I am rightly reminded that you do not want to say anything here about the confession of Christ and his doctrines. And I will, as a favor to you, refrain from my right and my custom, and will not judge your heart, but save this for another time, or even leave it to others; in the meantime, I admonish you to improve your speech and writing and henceforth refrain from such words, for however righteous and sincere your heart may be, the speech that is said to show what is in the heart (character animi) Matth. 12, 34. is not of such a nature. For if you think that it is not necessary to know the matter of free will, and that it has nothing to do with Christ, then you are right, but then your opinion is ungodly. But if you think it is necessary, then you are speaking ungodly, but you have a correct opinion. But it was not the place to complain and exaggerate so much about useless assertions and quarrels, because what does that have to do with the matter?

But what do you mean by these words of yours, where you speak not only of the matter of free will, but generally of all the doctrines of the whole religion: "If it were a matter of the inviolable prestige of Scripture and the decisions of the church, you would depart from the opinion of the skeptics, so much so that you have no pleasure in firm assertions"?

What kind of proteus lies in the words "the inviolable reputation" and "the decisions of the church"? Namely, as if you would hold the Holy Scripture and the church in very high esteem.

1678 L. V. L. VII, 122 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. LVIII, 2062-2066. ' 1679

You have always held your beliefs in high esteem, and yet you say that you want the freedom to be a skeptic. What Christian would talk like that? When you speak this of useless and indifferent doctrines, what new thing do you bring forward? Who would not desire in this the liberty of professing to be a skeptic? Yes, which Christian does not really make unlimited use of this freedom and condemn those who are slaves and prisoners of someone's opinion? if you do not consider Christians as a whole to be such people (as the words really are), whose doctrines are useless, about which they foolishly quarrel and argue with assertions. But when you speak of necessary things, what could anyone say that is more impious than that he would like to have the freedom to say nothing in such matters? A Christian rather speaks like this: I have no pleasure at all in the opinion of the skeptics, that if it were only always a matter of the weakness of the flesh, I would not only adhere to the holy Scriptures constantly, everywhere, and in all things, and assert them firmly, but I would also wish to be as certain as possible in things that are not necessary and lie outside the holy Scriptures; for what is more miserable than uncertainty?

What shall we also say to the fact that you add: "To them I gladly submit my reason everywhere; I may comprehend what they prescribe, or not"? What do you say, Erasmus? Is it not enough for you to subject the mind to Scripture? Do you also subject it to the decisions of the church? What can she decide if it is not decided in Scripture? Furthermore, where is the freedom and power to judge those who have made those decisions? As Paul says, 1 Cor. 14:29: "Let others judge." Do you not like that a judge should be over the decisions of the church, which Paul commands? What kind of new religion and humility is this, that you take away from us by your example the power to judge the decisions of men, and subject us to men without judgment? Where does God's word command us? Furthermore, which Christian so throws to the wind the precepts of Scripture and the Church that he would say: "Whether I

understand it or not understand it"? You submit, and yet you don't care whether you understand it or not? But let a Christian be accursed if he is not certain and does not understand what is prescribed for him. For how can he believe what he does not understand? For you will call this "comprehending" (assequi) what someone has certainly grasped and does not doubt after the manner of the skeptics, for what else is there in any creature that any man could comprehend, if comprehending is the same as knowing perfectly and seeing through? For then it would not have taken place that someone could comprehend some things and at the same time not comprehend others, but he who comprehended only one thing would have comprehended all, namely in God; he who does not comprehend him never comprehends any part of the creature.

In short, these words of yours are as if you do not care about what is believed by anyone anywhere, if only world peace remains, and as if, because of the danger to life, reputation, fortune and favor, you are free to imitate the one who said: If they say yes, I also say yes; if they say no, I also say no. According to your words, you seem to think that the Christian teachings are no better than those of the philosophers and the opinions of men. To quarrel about them, to argue and to assert them firmly is extremely foolish, because nothing but quarrels and disturbance of the external peace would come from it, because these are things about us that do not concern us. So you want to end our quarrel and come as a mediator, that you leave both of them in abeyance and persuade us that we are arguing about foolish and useless things; so, I say, are your words. And I think, dear Erasmus, you understand what I am emphasizing here. But, as I said, I will let the words go and excuse your heart for the time being, only that you do not go further out, and fear the Spirit of God, who searches hearts and kidneys and cannot be deceived with clever words. For I have said this, that thou mayest henceforth cease to accuse our cause of stubbornness and obstinacy. For with this

1680 L. V. a. VII, 123-125. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2066-2069. 1681

You do not say anything other than that you show that in your heart you cherish Lucian or another pig of the Epicurian herd, who, because he himself does not believe that there is a God, secretly ridicules all those who believe and confess. Let us be firm assertors, make firm assertions and take pleasure in them: you keep it with the skeptics and academics until Christ has called you too. But the Holy Spirit is not a skeptic, and has not written in our hearts doubtful things or opinions, but firm assertions, which are more certain and firm than even life and all experience.

I come to the second main point, 1) which is related to this one. Where you distinguish Christian doctrines, you invent that some are necessary to know, others are unnecessary; some are hidden, you say, others clearly stated. Thus you either play a game with the words of others by which you have allowed yourself to be deceived, or you yourself practice a kind of oratorical trick. But you cite for this opinion the saying of Paul, Rom. 11, 33: "O what depth of riches, both of wisdom and knowledge of God", likewise the saying of Isaiah 40, 13: "Who instructs the spirit of the Lord, and what counselor instructs him?" You could easily have said this, since you knew that you were not writing to Luther, but for the people, or did not think that you were writing against Luther, to whom I hope you concede some diligence and judgment in the holy Scriptures; if you do not concede this, what does it matter, then I will also force it from you. So it stands with my discernment, in order also to do a little of my art of speech and conclusion. God and the writing of God are two things, no less than the Creator and the creature of God are two things. No one doubts that in God there are many hidden things that we cannot know, as He Himself says of the Last Day: "Of that day no one knows, but the Father alone" Matth. 24, 36. Marc. 43, 32.; and Apost. 1, 7.: "It behooves you not to

  1. Diatribe § 2.

to know time or hour"; and again John 13:18, "I know which I have chosen"; and Paul 2 Timothy 2:19, "The Lord knoweth them that are his" and the like.

That some things are said to be hidden in the holy scriptures has been proclaimed to the world by the godless sophists, with whose words you also speak here, Erasmus, but they have not yet brought forward a single article, nor could they bring forward one, by which they would like to prove this mad delusion of theirs. By such pretenses the devil has discouraged the reading of the divine word and made the holy scriptures contemptible, so that he might bring his pernicious doctrines of philosophy to dominion in the church. I freely admit that many passages in Scripture are obscure and hidden, not because of the majesty of things, but because we do not know the words and the art of language, but these do not at all prevent the knowledge of all things in Scripture. For what can be left in Scripture that is still deeply hidden, after the seals have been broken and the stone has been rolled away from the door of the tomb, and the supreme mystery has been revealed, that Christ, the Son of God, became man, that God is triune and united, that Christ suffered for us and will reign forever? Is this not also the most well-known thing in the world (in biviis nota) and is sung everywhere? Take Christ out of the Scriptures, what else can you find in them?

Therefore, the things contained in the holy scriptures are all clearly revealed, although some passages may be dark because the words are not yet known. But if one knows that all things of the holy scripture are set in the brightest light, then it is certainly foolish and ungodly to call the things dark because of a few dark words. If the words are dark in one place, but clear in another, but one and the same thing, set forth most clearly to the whole world, is spoken of in the Scriptures with light words on one occasion, but is still hidden by dark words on another occasion, there is nothing more to be said, if the thing is clear, whether any sign in it is dark, while yet many

1682 L. v.". vii, 125-127. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2069-2072. 1683

other signs of the same thing are clear. Who will say that a public fountain is not in daylight, because those who are in a side street do not see it, since all who are in the market see it?

Therefore it is nothing that you bring from the Corycian cave; 1) it is not so with the Scriptures and the most hidden secrets of the highest majesty are no longer in seclusion, but brought before the doors and on the open plan and exposed to all gaze, because Christ has opened our minds so that we can understand the Scriptures. And "the gospel is preached to every creature" Marc. 16, 15., and "its sound has gone out into all the earth" Ps. 19, 5., and "everything that is written is written for our learning" Rom. 15, 4., likewise 2 Tim. 3, 16.: "All Scripture inspired by God is useful for teaching." Therefore you and all the sophists, set to work and bring forward only one secret, which is still hidden in the holy Scriptures; but the fact that many things remain hidden to many does not come from the darkness of the Scriptures, but from their blindness or sloth, because they do not set to see the brightest truth, as Paul says of the Jews, 2 Cor. 3, 15. "The covering hangs before their hearts," and again ^2 Cor. 4, 3. 4.], "If therefore our gospel is covered, it is covered in them that are perishing; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the senses." With the same audacity would he accuse the sun and the day of darkness who blinds his own eyes, or goes from the light into the darkness and grows stubborn. So, let the wretched people stop blaming the darkness and gloom of their hearts with blasphemous falsehood on the exceedingly bright Scripture of God.

Therefore, when you cite Paul who says Rom. 11, 33: "How incomprehensible are his judgments", you seem to have referred the pronoun "his" to the word of God Scripturam. But Paul does not say: incomprehensible are the judgments of the Word, but of GOD. So Isaiah 40, 13. does not say: Who has known the meaning of the Scripture,

  1. Diatribe § 2.

but "the mind of the Lord," although Paul asserts that the mind of the Lord is known to Christians, but in the things that are given to us, as he says the same, 1 Cor. 2:16. You see, then, how drowsily you have looked at the passages of sacred Scripture, and how you have adduced them just as suitably as you adduce almost everything that you put forward in favor of free will. So also your examples which you adduce, and indeed they are not without suspicion and not without sharp sting, serve nothing to the point, as that of the distinction of persons, of the union of the divine and human natures, of sin which cannot be forgiven, the ambiguity of which, as you say, has not yet been removed. If you understand this from the questions which the sophists have raised about these things, what have you done to the wholly unpunishable Scriptures, that you accuse their purity of the abuse of wicked men? Scripture simply confesses the Trinity of GOD, and the humanity of Christ, and sin, which is unpardonable. There is nothing of darkness or ambiguity here. But how this is done, the Scripture does not say, as you pretend, nor is it necessary to know. The sophists treat their dreams here; blame and condemn them, and absolve the sacred Scriptures. But if you understand the essence of the matter itself, then again do not blame the Scriptures, but the Arians and those to whom the gospel is obscured, that they do not recognize the clearest testimonies of the Trinity of God and the humanity of Christ through the action of the devil, their god.

And that I say it briefly, there is a twofold clarity of the Scriptures, as well as a twofold darkness; one, the outward, lies in the service of the Word, the other lies in the knowledge of the heart. When you speak of the inner clarity, no man understands even a single point in the Scriptures unless he has the Spirit of God, for all have a darkened heart, so that even though they speak and know how to recite everything from the Scriptures, they do not notice or truly recognize anything of it. For they also do not believe that there is a God and that they are creatures of God, nor do they believe in any of the things of God.

1684 D- ". vn, 127-129. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvni, 2072-2075. 1685

Another, as the fourteenth Psalm v. 1 says, "The foolish say in their heart, There is no God." For the Holy Spirit is necessary to understand the whole of Scripture and any part of it. When you speak of the outward clarity, nothing at all has remained dark or doubtful, but everything has been brought forth by the Word to the brightest light and made known to the whole world, whatever is contained in the Scriptures.

But it is even more intolerable that you count this trade of free will among the things that are useless and unnecessary, and propose to us instead what you think is sufficient for Christian godliness. Such a way of life could certainly be easily indicated by any Jew or pagan who knew nothing at all about Christ, for you do not mention Christ even with a single dot, as if your opinion were that Christian godliness could be without Christ, if only the by nature most kind God is served with all one's strength. What shall I say to this, Erasmus? Lucian speaks from you completely and you smell to me the great intoxication of Epicurus. If you do not consider this matter necessary for the Christians, then I ask you to leave the battlefield, you and we have nothing to do with each other; we hate this matter as necessary.

If it is unchristian, if it is presumptuous, if it is superfluous, as you say, 1) to know "whether God foreknows something in such a way that it may or may not happen (continZgontsr pi-Leseiat), whether our will works something in the things that concern eternal blessedness, or only suffers from the working grace, whether all good or evil that we do is accomplished by us through mere necessity, or whether we rather suffer it": what then, I ask, will be Christian? What is of great importance? What is useful to know? That is no good at all, Erasmus, that is too much! It is difficult to attribute this to your ignorance, for you are already an old man and have lived among Christians and have long pondered the holy Scriptures-.

  1. Diatribe § 2.

and leaves us no opportunity to excuse you or to think good of you. And yet the papists credit you with these monstrosities and bear them for the sake of it, because you write against Luther, otherwise they would tear you apart with their teeth if Luther were not there and you wrote such things. Plato is a friend, Socrates is a friend, but friend this way, friend that way the truth must be given honor above all things. For no matter how little you may understand of Scripture and of Christian godliness, surely even an enemy of the Christians should have known what the Christians must consider necessary and useful and what they must not. But you are a theologian and teacher of Christians and want to prescribe a form of Christianity for them, and you no longer even doubt in your skeptical way what is necessary and useful for them, but fall completely on the opposite side, and even judge, by making an outrageous, firm assertion, completely contrary to your way of thinking, that this is not necessary, without whose necessity and certain knowledge neither God, nor Christ, nor the gospel, nor faith, nor even anything of Judaism remains, much less of Christianity. Help God, Erasmus, how large a window, yes, how large a field you open to act and write against yourself! What good or right could you possibly write about free will, since you confess such a great ignorance of Scripture and godliness in your words? But I will pull down the blanket and deal with you here not with my words (which I may do below), but with your words. The form of Christianity that you describe also contains, among other things, this: "that we should make every effort, resort to the means of repentance, seek God's mercy in every way, without which neither human will nor effort is able to do anything"; likewise: "Let no one despair of forgiveness from God, who by His nature is exceedingly gracious.

These words of yours are without Christ, without the Holy Spirit, even colder than ice, so that

1686 L. V. L. VII, 129 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. LVIII, 2975-2077. 1687

even the beauty of your speech suffers from it, because the fear of the popes and tyrants has perhaps hardly been able to wring it from you poor man, so that you would not appear completely as a God-denier. But this they nevertheless assert, that there are powers in us, that there is an effort with all powers, that there is a mercy of God, that there are various ways to strive for God's mercy, that God is just by nature, exceedingly merciful by nature. 2c So if someone does not know what these powers are, what they are able to do, what they suffer, what their effort is, what their effectiveness is, what their ineffectiveness is, what should he do? What will you teach him to do?

You say: "It is unchristian, presumptuous and superfluous to want to know whether our will works something in matters concerning eternal blessedness; whether it behaves only sufferingly in relation to the working grace. But against this you say here, 1) it is Christian godliness "that one exerts oneself with all one's strength, and without the mercy of God the will is unable to do anything." Here you assert quite clearly that the will works something in the things that concern eternal blessedness, since you invent that it strives; but again, it is suffering, since you say that it is not able to do anything without the mercy of God. Of course, you do not explain how far this working and suffering is to be understood, and you take pains to make people ignorant of what divine mercy is able to do and what our will is able to do, precisely by what you teach about what our will does and what God's mercy does. Thus your prudence, according to which you have decided not to adhere to any party and to get away safely between Scylla and Charybdis, rolls you, that in the middle of the sea, overwhelmed by curses and disgraced, you assert everything you deny and deny what you assert.

I want to put your theology before you with some parables: He who wants to make a good poem or a speech should not "consider" nor investigate what facilities he has, what he is able to do, what he is able to do, what he is able to do.

  1. Diatribe § 2.

not be able to do what the thing he has undertaken requires, and quite set aside Horace's rule 2): "What the shoulders are able and what they refuse to bear," but only go impetuously to work and think: one must make an effort so that the thing comes about; but the question is rash and superfluous, whether I am learned and eloquent enough and up to the task. Or if someone wants to obtain a lot of fruit from the field, he should not be forward and investigate the nature of the soil with superfluous care, as Virgil teaches forwardly and in vain in his agricultural poems (Georgicis), but rather proceed boldly, think of nothing but the work, plow the sea shore, scatter the seed, and do what is necessary. Plow the sea shore, scatter the seed where it is only passable, may it be sand or mud. Or if someone wants to wage a war and desires a glorious victory, or is to perform some other service in the state, he does not have to be forward and consider what he is able to do, whether the treasury is sufficiently filled, whether the soldiers are ready, whether there is a sufficient number for the enterprise, and he absolutely despises the word of the historian 3): "Before you act, deliberation is necessary; once you have deliberated, act quickly," but he rushes in with blind eyes and closed ears, cries nothing but war, war! and goes to work. I ask you, Erasmus, what will you think of such poets, countrymen, commanders and princes? I will add the word of the Gospel Luc. 14:28: "Who is there among you that would build a tower, and sitteth not down first, and considereth the cost, whether he may carry it out?" What does Christ judge of him?

Thus, you, too, only allow us to perform, but forbid that we should first investigate, measure and get to know our abilities, what we are able and not able to do, as if this would be rash, superfluous and unchristian. Thus, by abhorring temerity out of excessive prudence, and pretending prudence, you get to the point of

  1. ä.1-8 poötioa 39. 40.
  2. Sallust in LsIIo Oatilinario.

1688 L. v. L. vii, 130-132. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2077-2081. 1689

teach even the greatest audacity. For even though the sophists are foolish and senseless, in that they are presumptuous, they do not do so as much harm as you do, since you also teach and prescribe to be senseless and to act foolishly. And in order that the nonsense may be all the greater, you persuade us that it is the most beautiful Christian godliness, prudence, Christian seriousness, and that it serves salvation; if we did not do so, you claim that we are unchristian, rash, and sacrilegious, and you have very finely escaped the Scylla by avoiding the Charybdis. But this is what your confidence in your gifts has driven you to do, because you believe that you can deceive all other people of high intellect by your eloquence, so that no one will be aware of what you are up to and what you intend to do with your slippery writings, but God will not be mocked, and it is not good to go against Him.

Furthermore, if you had taught us this presumptuousness in writing poems, in harvesting fruits, in undertaking wars and businesses, or in building houses, although it is unbearable, especially for such a great man, you would still have been worthy of some indulgence, at least for Christians who despise temporal things. But since you yourself prescribe to the Christians to become daring plodders and command them to create their eternal bliss, if they do not want to know what they are capable of or not capable of, then this is in truth the sin that cannot be forgiven. For they will not know what they ought to do, since they do not know what and how much they are able; but since they do not know what they ought to do, they cannot (if they err) repent, but impenitence is a sin that cannot be forgiven. And that is where your moderate, doubtful theology leads us.

So it is not unchristian, rash or superfluous, but above all wholesome and necessary for a Christian to know whether the will works something or nothing in the things that concern blessedness; yes, that you know, here is the pivot of our disputation, here the whole business of the matter between me and you turns. For this is how we deal with it, that we investigate what

free will is capable of what it suffers, how it relates to the grace of God. If we do not know this, we will know nothing at all about Christian things, and we will be worse than all the heathen. Whoever does not understand this, let him only confess that he is not a Christian, but whoever reproves or despises it, let him know that he is the supreme enemy of Christians. For if I do not know what, how far and how much I am able and able to do against God, then it will be equally uncertain and unknown to me what, how far and how much God is able and able to do in me, since God works everything in everyone. But if I do not know God's works and power, I do not know God Himself, but if I do not know God, I cannot worship Him, praise Him, thank Him; I cannot serve God, because I do not know how much I must attribute to myself, how much I must attribute to God. We must therefore have the most certain difference between God's power and ours, between God's works and ours, if we want to live godly.

So you see that this question is the one main part of the epitome of the whole Christian doctrine, on which the knowledge of ourselves, as well as the knowledge and glory of God, depends and by which it stands and falls; therefore it is not for you to suffer, dear Erasmus, that you say that wanting to know this is unchristian, forward and useless. We owe you much, but we owe everything to godliness. Yes, even you yourself think that we must ascribe all the good things we have to God, and you assert this in your instruction for the Christian life. But since you assert this, you certainly assert at the same time that God's mercy alone works everything, and that our will works nothing, but rather behaves in a suffering manner, otherwise everything would not be attributed to God. But shortly afterwards you say that to assert this and want to know it is not Christian, godly and salutary; but this is how a mind must necessarily speak that is not at one with itself, and is uncertain and inexperienced in matters of godliness.

The other main part of the epitome of Christian doctrine is to know whether God foreknows something in such a way that it may or may not happen, and whether we can

1690 L. V. a. VII, 132-134. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2081-2083. 1691

do everything out of necessity. And you also consider this part to be useless, foolish and futile, as do all the wicked; indeed, all devils and the damned hate and curse it. And you are not foolish to abstain from these questions, if only one could do so. But you are only a very poor orator and theologian if you presume to speak and teach about free will without these parts. I want to serve as a whetstone and, although I am not an orator myself, remind an excellent orator of his office. If Quintilian wanted to write about the art of oratory and said thus: "In my judgment, one must leave aside the foolish and superfluous things, namely: the determination of what one wants to talk about, the arrangement, the lecture, so that it is impressed on the memory, the delivery of the speech, it must be enough that one knows that the art of oratory is the knowledge of how one should speak well; would you not laugh at such an artist? But you do not do it differently either; you want to write about free will and first push away from yourself the whole body and all parts of art about which you want to write, and throw them away. For it is impossible for you to know what free will is if you do not first know what the human will is capable of doing, whether God foreknows it in such a way that it happens by necessity (an necessario praesciat).

Do not your teachers of oratory also teach that if someone wants to speak about a thing, he must first say whether it is, then what it is, what its parts are, what is opposite to it, what is related, what is similar 2c? But you deprive this free will, which is already so poor in itself, of all these things; you give no explanation about any question concerning it, except about the first, namely, whether it is, and that with such grounds of proof as we shall now see, so that I have not yet seen a more paltry book about free will, except for the daintiness of the way it is written. The sophists at least apply their art of reasoning better here, since they do not understand the art of oration; where they have tackled free will, they discuss all questions concerning it, whether it is, what it is, what it does, what it is like, 2c..,

although they also do not accomplish what they have set out to do. Therefore, with this booklet I will corner you and all the sophists until you show me the powers and works of free will, and (with Christ's help) I will so corner you that I hope to bring you to be sorry for having published your diatribe.

Therefore, it is especially necessary and salutary for a Christian to know that God does not foreknow anything in such a way that it happens by chance, but that He foresees everything, takes it upon Himself and does it according to an unchangeable, eternal and infallible will. By this thunderclap, free will is completely laid low and destroyed from the bottom up. Therefore, those who want to assert free will must either deny this thunderclap, or pass it over with silence, or push it away from them in some other way. But before I confirm this point by my exposition and by the prestige of the holy scripture, I want to treat it first with your own words. Is it not you, dear Erasmus, who shortly before asserted that GOD is just by nature, the most kind by nature? If this is true, does it not follow that he is unchangeably just and kind? For, as his nature does not change for eternity, neither does his justice and goodness. But what is said of justice and goodness must also be said of his knowledge, wisdom, righteous nature, will, and all other divine things. If, therefore, this is asserted of God in a Christian, godly and wholesome way, as you write, what has come over you that you now claim, in contradiction with yourself, that it is unchristian, impertinent and sacrilegious to say that God knows in advance in such a way that it happens by necessity? Namely, you teach that one must learn the unchangeable will of God and forbid to know His unchangeable foreknowledge. Or do you think that he foreknows without wanting to, or wants something that he does not know? But if he foreknows what he wills, his will is eternal and unchangeable (because his nature is such); if he wills what he foreknows, his will is eternal and unchangeable.

1692 L- V. a. VII, 134-136. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2083-2086. 1693

knows, his knowledge is eternal and unchangeable (because his nature is like that).

From this follows irrefutably: everything that we do and everything that happens, although it seems to us to happen changeably and accidentally, happens in truth necessarily and unchangeably, if one looks at God's will. For the will of God is powerful and cannot be hindered, since it is the essential power of God Himself, and also wise, so that it cannot be deceived; but since the will is not hindered, neither can His work be hindered, so that it happens in the place, at the time, in the manner, to the extent according to which He Himself foresees and wills it. If the will of God were such a will, which ceases after the work is done and remains so, like the human will, where the will ceases after the house is built, which they want, like the will ceases in death, then it could be said with truth that something happens randomly and variably. But here it happens that the work ceases, and the will remains; therefore it is far from true that its work, since it happens and remains, can be or exist by chance. To happen by chance (contingenter fieri) means in Latin (so that we do not use the expressions incorrectly), not that the work itself happens by chance, but that it happens according to a chance and variable will, such as is not in God. Furthermore, a work can only be called accidental if it happens to us by chance and, as it were, by an accident, and unawares, because our will or our hand seizes it, in that it was presented, as it were, by chance, but we did not think of it at all beforehand, nor did we want it. 1)

  1. The following is not found in the translation of Justus Jonas, nor in the oldest separate editions of 1525 and 1526, but in the Wittenberg collection of Luther's works, as well as in the Jena collection, in the Latin volumes. Witt. Vol. II. and Jen. Vol. III: In truth, I wish there were another, better word in this disputation than this common "necessity," which is not properly said of either the divine or the human will. For it has a meaning that is quite unpleasant and inappropriate for this doctrine, because it gives us the idea, as it were, of a certain compulsion and, in general, of that which is mt.

Here the sophists have struggled for many years now, and convincingly they have had to admit that everything happens with necessity, out of necessity of the consequence (as they say), but not out of necessity of what follows (necessitate consequentiae, sed non necessitate consequentis). Thus they have wanted to avoid this so formidable question, but have thereby only deceived themselves. For it will not be difficult for me to prove how void this is. They call the necessity of the consequence that I speak roughly of it: If God wills something, then it is necessary that it happen, but it is not necessary that that be what happens. For God alone is with necessity, everything else cannot be either if God wills. Thus they say that the effect of God is necessary if he wills, but that what has come about is not necessary. But what do they accomplish with this playfulness in words? This is it: the thing that has become is not necessary, that is, it has no necessary essence; this is nothing other than saying that the thing that has become is not God Himself. Nevertheless, it remains that every thing happens with necessity if the effect of God is necessary, or necessity of the consequence, although the thing, when it has happened, does not exist with necessity at all, that is, it is not God, or does not have a necessary essence. For if I become with necessity, I care little that my being or becoming is changeable; nevertheless, I become as an accidental and changeable one who is not the necessary God. Hence their play is that everything happens out of necessity of consequence, but not out of being against it, which does not at all fit the matter that is dealt with here. For the will, both the divine and the human, does not do out of compulsion, but only out of pleasure or discretion ("oupiditut"), as it were as a truly free one, what it does, be it good or evil. But God's will is nevertheless unchangeable "nd infallible, which governs our changeable will, as Boöthius sings: Unchangeable you remain, give everything movement. And our will, especially the evil one, cannot do good in and of itself. Therefore, what the word does not express, the mind of the reader must complete and understand by "necessity" what one wanted to say, namely the immutable will of God and the inability of our evil will, as some have called it: Nothwendigkeit der Unveränderlichkeit; but this is neither according to the art of language nor to theology.

1694 D. V. a. VII, 136 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2086-2089. 1695

Necessity of what follows, nothing else but this: Everything happens with necessity, but what has thus become is not God Himself. But why was it necessary to tell us this? As if it were to be feared that we would claim that the things that have become are God or have a divine and necessary essence. So this proposition stands and remains unchallenged, that everything happens by necessity. 1) For there is no darkness or ambiguity here. In Isaiah it is said Cap. 46, 10., "My counsel shall stand, and my will be done." For what child does not understand what these words mean: Rath, Wille, geschehen, bestehen?

But why should these things be so hidden to us Christians that it should be unchristian, cheeky and useless to treat them and to want to know them, since the pagan poets and even the common people constantly bring such things in the most unusual use in their mouths? How often does Virgil alone mention fate (kutum)? Osrtu staut omnia leZs (Everything exists according to a certain law); likewise. 2): 8tat sua cuicsus äiss (Every man's day of death is determined); likewise 3): 8i ts Lata vacant (When fate calls you); likewise 4): 8i yua Lata aspsra ruinpas (If you can break through the rough fate). And this poet assumes nothing else than that he shows by the destruction of Troy and the rise of the Roman Empire that fate is capable of more than all human efforts, even that necessity commands events and people 5) (imponsre). Finally, he also subjects his immortal gods to fate, to which also Jupiter and Juno have to give way with necessity. Therefore they have invented the three Parzen, how they are unchangeable, unforgiving and inexorable.

Those wise people have perceived what the thing itself together with the experience be-

  1. Instead of the words: that everything happens with necessity, the Jena edition has the following: that everything happens from an unchangeable will of God, which they call the necessity of the consequence.
  2. lid. X, 467.
  3. ^6Q618, Ud. XI, 97 quoted from memory.
  4. ^6N6i8, lid. VII, 882.
  5. In the Jena edition the words are missing: yes even - gebiete.

The word "fist" shows that no man has ever lost his plot, but that with all of them the matter has turned out differently than they had thought. If Troy could have been defended with a fist, mine would have been able to do so as well, says Hector in Virgil. 6) Therefore, the most unusual word in everyone's mouth is: What God wills, let it be done; likewise: If God wills it, we will do it; likewise: God has willed it so. Thus have the gods decreed; thus have you gods willed, says Virgil, so that we may see that among the people the knowledge of the predestination and foreknowledge of God has not remained less than the knowledge of God Himself. 7) And those who wanted to appear wise have come to the point through their disputations that they have become fools with darkened hearts, Rom. 1, and denied or passed over with silence what the poets and the people and their own conscience consider to be the most extraordinary, certain and true.

Furthermore, I do not only say how true this is - about this we will speak in more detail later on the basis of the holy scriptures - but also how Christian, godly and necessary it is to know this. For if one does not know this, neither faith nor any kind of worship can exist. For that would indeed mean not knowing God; but if one does not know Him, then there is also no salvation, as is known. For if you doubt or despise to know that God foreknows and wills everything, not by chance, but by necessity and immutably, how could you believe His promises, trust in them with certainty, and rely on them? For if he promises, you must be sure that he knows what he promises, and can and will give it; otherwise you will not believe him to be true and faithful: but this is unbelief and the greatest impiety and denial of the most high God.

But in what way can you be sure and certain if you do not know that he is certain,

  1. A6N618, lid. II, 291.
  2. In the Jena edition it is added here: Although St. Augustine does not reject the word "fate" (katums without cause, because he speaks of the "fate" of the Stoics.

1696 L. V. L. VII, 137-139. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2089-2092. 1697

and infallibly, and unchangeably, and with necessity know and will and will do what He promises? For we must not only be certain that God will and will not change, but also boast of it, as Paul says in Rom. 3, 4: "that God is true and all men liars"; and again: "Not that God's word can fail Rom. 4, 21. 1 Sam. 3, 19.; and elsewhere 1 Tim. 2, 19.: "The firm foundation of God exists and has this seal: The Lord knows His own"; and Tit. 1, 2.: "Which He who does not lie promised, God, before the ages of the world"; and Hebr. 11, 6.: "He who would come to God must believe that He is, and will be a rewarder of those who seek Him."

Therefore, the Christian faith is completely extinguished, the promises of God and the entire Gospel fall away completely, if we are taught and believe that we do not need to know the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of what must be put into effect. For this is the only and highest consolation of Christians in all adversities, to know that God does not lie, but does everything unchangeably, that no one can resist His will, no one can change it or hinder it. See now, dear Erasmus, where your extremely moderate, peace-loving theology leads us. You hold us back and forbid us to deal with learning to recognize the foreknowledge of God and the necessity in things and people; rather, you advise us to abandon such things, to avoid and despise them. With this thoughtless beginning of yours, you teach us at the same time that we should seek ignorance of God, which comes naturally and is innate to us, that we should despise faith, that we should abandon the promises of God, that we should regard all the consolations of the spirit and the certainty of conscience as nothing: such things would hardly be taught by Epicurus himself.

Further, not content with this, you call 1) the unchristian, forward and vain one who be

  1. Diatribe § 2.

but Christian, godly and sober, who despises them. What else can you achieve with these words than that Christians are presumptuous, vain and not God-fearing? that Christianity is a thing of no importance at all, vain, foolish and godless? So it happens again that while you want to deter us from presumption to the highest degree, you have fallen into the opposite, after the manner of the fools, and teach nothing but the highest presumption, godlessness and corruption. Do you not feel that your booklet is so ungodly, blasphemous, and piratical in this part that it has no equal anywhere?

I am not speaking of your heart, as I said above, for I do not consider you so depraved that you would teach or have done this from the heart, but to show you what strange things he who has taken it upon himself to lead a bad cause must chat about without meaning to; furthermore, what it means to go against God's works and words, while we act to please others and serve a foreign cause against our conscience. It is neither a game nor a joke to teach the holy Scriptures and godliness, for here one very easily falls into the trap, as Jacobus 2, 10. says: "He who sins against one is wholly guilty of it." For so it happens that if we think it but a small thing to want to play our game, and do not hold the holy Scriptures in due honor, we soon become entangled in ungodliness and fall into blasphemies, as has happened to you here, Erasmus. God forgive you and have mercy on you.

But that the sophists have raised and investigated so many questions in this matter, and have mixed in many other useless things, many of which you cite, we know and confess with you, and have contested it more vehemently and more than you. But thou doest most unwisely and imprudently, mixing the purity of holy things with the unholy and foolish questions of the wicked, and making them like them. They have defiled the gold and changed the good color, as Jeremiah says Lam. 4, 1., but it is

1698 D. V. Ä. vn, 139-141. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2992-2995. 1699

the gold must not be compared to the fireplace and thrown away with it, as you do. The gold must be freed from them and the pure scripture must be separated from its filth and dirt. I have always been eager to do this, so that the holy scriptures may be considered something other than their antics. And we must not be misled that nothing is gained by these questions, but that we show less love to the great detriment of harmony, while we want to be overwise. We do not now treat the question of what the sophists-questioners 1) have directed, but how we become good and Christians, and you must not lay it to the charge of Christian doctrine what the ungodly do evil. For that serves nothing to the point and you could have said that on another occasion and saved the paper.

In the third part, you continue to make us modest and calm Epicureans, by another kind of advice, which, however, is no more intelligible than the previous two, namely 2): "that there are some things which are of such a nature that, even if they were true, and one could know them, it would not be advisable to reveal them to the ears of all kinds of people."

And here again you throw everything together and mix it up in your own way, making holy things equal to worldly things without any distinction, and have again fallen into contempt and dishonor of God and the Scriptures. I have said above that what is either taught or proved in the holy Scriptures is not only clear but also wholesome, and that therefore one can, indeed must, with certainty publicly proclaim, learn, and know that what you say is false, that it should not be revealed to the ears of all kinds of people when you speak of what is in the holy Scriptures; for if you want to have spoken of other things, that is none of our business, and you have then not spoken to the matter but corrupted paper.

  1. Here in the word huusstionuriuZ is a play on words which cannot be rendered well in German. Huutzstionurius is one who deals with questions. It means about also a torturer and executioner; therefore it could have been rendered: SophistenSchinderknechte.
  2. Diatrive § 2.

and time with your words. Furthermore, you know that I do not agree with the sophists on any point, so that you should rightly have spared me and not reproached me for their abuses, for in your writing you should have spoken against me. I know in what the sophists err, and do not need you as a teacher; they are sufficiently refuted by me. This I want to have said once and for all, as often as you throw me together with the sophists and charge my cause with their foolishness. For in this you do wrong, which you know very well.

Now let us look at the reasons of your council 3): "God is in His essence in a dung beetle's den or even in a cloaca (which you shy away from saying and accuse the sophists of blathering) as well as in heaven; although this would be true, yet you consider that it is unintelligent to dispute about it before the great multitude."

First of all, let those who are talking talk; we are not talking here about what people do, but about right and law, not how we live, but how we should live. For who among us lives and acts in the right way everywhere? But for this reason law and doctrine are not condemned, but rather they condemn us. But you deal with those quite strange things and scrape together many things from all sides, because the One Article of the foreknowledge of God grievously vexes you. Since you cannot defeat it in any way, you try to tire the reader with a lot of empty talk. But this may pass, we want to get back to the point. To what end, then, do you think that some things should not be taught in public? Do you include the matter of free will? Then everything that I said above will apply to you, that it is necessary to learn free will; furthermore, why do you not follow your own advice and do not keep your diatribe in line? If you do well to treat free will, why do you reprove it? if it is evil, why do you do it? But if you do not count it among these things, then you again go to the

  1. Diatribe § 2.

1700 L. V. E. VII, 141 f. '68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2095-2097. 1701

thing at issue and, as a verbose speaker, sprinkle extraneous things that do not belong to the matter at hand.

But you do not treat the example right either and condemn it as something useless, that in front of the crowd it is disputed whether God is in a cave or in a cloaca, because you have too human thoughts of God. I confess that there are some frivolous preachers who, without reverence and godliness, either out of a desire for fame or an effort to advance something new, or because they just want to talk, blabber and postulate quite frivolously: but such people please neither God nor people, even if they would claim that God is in the highest heaven. But where there are serious and godly preachers, who teach with modest, pure and reasonable words, it is without danger, indeed of great benefit, if they teach such things before the great multitude. Must we not all teach that the Son of God was in the womb of the Virgin and that he was born from her womb? But what great difference is there between the human body and any other unclean place? And who could not speak shamefully and indecently of it? But such people we rightly condemn, since pure words abound to speak of this necessary process with propriety and pleasantness. Christ's body was also a human body, like ours; what is more nasty than that? Shall we not therefore say that God dwelt in him bodily, as Paul said? What is more horrible than death? What is more abominable than hell? But the prophet boasts that God is with him in death and assists him in hell.

Therefore, a godly heart is not afraid to hear that God is in death or in hell, both of which are more dreadful and horrible than a hole or a cloaca. Indeed, since the Scriptures testify that God is everywhere and fills everything, they not only say that He is in those places, but also that one must necessarily learn and know that He is there; for one would say that if I were imprisoned by a tyrant, placed in a prison or in a secret chamber, I would not be able to find Him.

which has happened to many saints, that I may not call upon God there, nor believe that He is there with me, until I have entered a decorated church. If you teach us to engage in such antics with regard to God, and take offense at the places where He is present, then in the end you will not let Him dwell in Heaven, for even the highest heavens do not contain Him and are not worthy of Him. But, as I have said, according to your custom you sting so spitefully, so that you put down our cause and make it hateful, because you realize that you cannot overcome it and that it will probably remain unconquered by you.

Of the other example, that there are three gods, I confess that it is annoying when it is taught; it is also not true, and the holy scriptures do not teach it, but the sophists speak so and have invented a new art of inference. But what is that to us?

Furthermore, it is to be marveled at how excellently you conduct your cause with regard to confession and satisfaction, and everywhere, as you are wont to do, you walk on eggshells, lest it appear as if you were simply condemning our doctrine, nor even as if you were attacking the tyranny of the pope. You must not dare to do that. Therefore, you put God and conscience aside for a while (for what does Erasmus care about what God's will is in these matters and what is pleasing to the conscience?), make a fuss about outward appearances, and accuse the common people of abusing the preaching that confession and satisfaction should be free, according to their wickedness for the freedom of the flesh, but "are kept completely in check by "the necessity to confess (as you say). O what an excellent and glorious reason! Is this then teaching theology, if one binds souls with laws and, as Ezekiel says 13, 19., kills those who are not bound by God? Of course, with this reason you bring up the whole tyranny of the papal laws again, as useful and salutary, because by them the wickedness of the great crowd is kept in check.

But I don't want to drive off, as this article deserves; I want to say the thing briefly.

1702 L. V. L. VII, 142-144. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2097-2100. 1703

A good theologian teaches like this: The people must be held in check by the outward force of the sword when they have done evil, as Paul teaches Rom. 13:4, but their consciences must not be entangled with false laws, so that they are tormented with sins where God intended that there should be no sin. For the consciences are to be bound by God's command alone, so that the tyranny of the popes, which has forced itself in between, and falsely frightens and kills the souls inwardly, and outwardly torments the body in vain, is completely removed from the remedy; for although it outwardly compels to confession and other burdens, the heart is not thereby kept in check, but it is only more strongly provoked to hatred against God and man. And in vain it torments the body in external things and makes mere hypocrites, so that those who tyrannize with such laws are nothing but ravening wolves, thieves and murderers of souls. And these you commend to us again, you good pastor, that is, you are the instigator of the cruelest murderers of souls, that they should fill the world with hypocrites, with blasphemers, and with such people as despise him in their hearts, that they may be kept in check a little outwardly, as if there were no other way to keep in check that makes no hypocrites and is practiced without harming consciences, as I have said.

Here you introduce parables, in which you want to be rich and to be respected for using them appropriately, 1) namely: "there are diseases which are borne with less harm than they are driven out, like leprosy" 2c; likewise you also add the example of Paul, "who knows how to make a difference between what one has power to do and what is pious; it is in our power (you say) to speak the truth, but it is not pious with all and sundry, nor at all times, nor in any way."

As an eloquent speaker, and yet not understanding what you speak, you act in brevity this thing as if our trade about it is

  1. Diatribe § 2.

If a sum of easily replaceable money were at stake, or some other quite insignificant thing, by the loss of which, since it was far less than the external peace, no one should be moved so much that he would not rather yield, do something or suffer, depending on the circumstances, so that the world would not have to be brought into such turmoil. So you clearly state that this peace and the tranquility of the flesh seem to you far more excellent than faith, than conscience, than blessedness, than the word of God, than the honor of Christ, even than God Himself. Therefore I tell you, and I beg you to take it to heart, that in this business I am dealing with a serious, necessary and eternal cause, with such a cause and such a great one that it must be asserted and defended even with death, even if the whole world should not only be thrown into battle and turmoil, but should even fall into a heap and become nothing again. If you do not understand this, or are not moved by it, then do your thing and let those understand it and be moved by it to whom God has given it.

For I am not, by the grace of God, so foolish and senseless that for the sake of money, which I neither have nor desire, or for the sake of fame, which I could not obtain in the world that is so hostile to me even if I wanted to, or for the sake of the life of my body, of which I cannot be sure for a moment, with such great courage, with such great constancy, which you call stubbornness, through so many dangers of life, through so much hatred, through so many persecutions, in short, through the rage of men and devils, I wanted to lead and maintain this cause for so long. Or do you think that you alone have a heart that is moved by this discord? We are also not made of stone or of panic blocks. But if it cannot be otherwise, we choose rather to be afflicted by temporal strife, rejoicing in the grace of God, for the sake of the word of God, which must be firmly asserted with a brave and unbending heart, than to be tormented by eternal strife, under the wrath of God, in unbearable torment.

1704 L. V.". VII, 144-146. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2100-2104. 1705

Christ grant, as I wish and hope, that your heart will not stand thus; but your words certainly read as if you were to argue with the epicurus that the word of God and the life to come are fables, since you want to induce us by your teaching that we should abandon the most certain word of God and give in to it for the sake of popes and princes, or for the sake of temporal peace. If we give it, we also give God, faith, blessedness and everything that is called Christianity to it. How much more correctly Christ admonishes us that we should rather despise the whole world.

But you say such things, because you do not read, or rather do not pay attention, that this is the most certain destiny of the word of God, that because of it the world will be aroused. And this Christ asserts publicly Matth. 10, 34.: "I did not come to send peace, but the sword", and in Lucas (12, 49.], "I am come to kindle a fire upon the earth"; and Paul in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 6, 5: "In riots" 2c; and also the prophet in the second Psalm abundantly testifies and assures that the heathen rage, that the nations make a noise, that the kings rebel, that the princes plot against the LORD and against His anointed, as if to say, the great multitude, the mighty, the rich, the powerful, the wise, the righteous, and all that is high in the world, rebel against God's word. See in the Acts of the Apostles what happens in the world, only because of the preaching of Paul (that I do not mention the other apostles), how this one man arouses both Gentiles and Jews, or how there Apost. 24, 5. the enemies themselves say: "the uproar arouses on the whole face of the earth". Under Elijah the kingdom of Israel is confused, as King Ahab 1 Kings 18:17 complains. How great an uproar was there among the other prophets when all were killed or stoned, when Israel was led captive into Assyria, and likewise when Judah was led into Babylon? Has this been peace? The world and its God cannot and will not suffer the word of the true GOD; the true GOD will not and cannot keep silent: how could

Since these two gods are at war with each other, will there not be turmoil throughout the world?

Therefore, wanting to quell this turmoil is nothing other than taking away and forbidding the Word of God. For as often as God's word comes, it comes to transform and renew the world. But also pagan writers testify that changes in the circumstances cannot take place without movement and turmoil, yes, without blood. It is now up to the Christians to expect and bear this with presence of mind, as Christ says Matth. 24, 6.: "You will hear wars and cries of wars; watch and do not be afraid. This must first all come to pass; but it is not yet the end." And I would say, if I did not see this turmoil, that God's word would not be in the world; now that I see it, I rejoice with all my heart and do not respect it, for I am quite certain that the kingdom of the Pope with his followers will fall, for it is mainly this that has attacked God's word, which is now going forth. I see well, dear Erasmus, that you complain in many books about this turmoil, that peace and harmony are now lost; furthermore, you try many things to heal this, and (as I believe) of good opinion, but this disease (podagra) mocks your attempts to help, because here it is true what you say, you go against the current, yes, you extinguish the fire with straw, stop complaining, stop wanting to heal; This rebellion has its beginning and progress from the Lord and will not cease until he makes all the opponents of the word like dung in the street, although it is regrettable that you, such a great theologian, must be remembered as a disciple, since you should be a teacher of others.

Now here belongs your very pretty saying that some diseases are borne with less harm than they are driven away, but you do not apply it rightly; for you should say that these diseases, which could be borne with less harm, would be those commotions, movements, confusions, uprisings, mobs, discords, wars, and the like, by which, for the sake of the Word of God, the whole world is shaken and

1706 L. V. a. vn, 146 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2104-2108. 1707

is branched off. This, I say, because it is temporal, is borne with less harm than the old and evil habits by which all souls must necessarily be lost unless they are changed by God's Word; if this were taken away, the eternal goods, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit would be taken away. But how much better is it to lose the world than to lose GOD, the Creator of the world, who can create countless worlds anew and is better than immeasurable wagers? How can temporal and eternal things be compared to each other? This leprosy of temporal evils must therefore rather be endured than that by the murder and eternal damnation of all souls the race be healed of this turmoil and pacified at the cost of its blood and its ruin, since at the price of the whole world not even one soul can be bought. You have beautiful and excellent parables and sayings, but when you deal with holy things, you apply them childishly, yes, wrongly, because you crawl on the earth and consider nothing that goes beyond human comprehension. For that which God works is not childish, nor civil, nor human, but divine and higher than all human reason. For example, you do not realize that this turmoil and mobs are going through the world out of God's counsel and action, and fear that the heavens are falling in; but I, by God's grace, recognize this very well, because I see other greater troubles in the time after this life, in comparison with which this one seems to be, as it were, a faint whisper of a breeze or a gentle murmur of water.

But the doctrine that confession and satisfaction should be free, you either deny or you do not know that it is God's word.

This is another question, but we know and are certain that it is God's word by which Christian freedom is firmly asserted, so that we do not allow ourselves to be ensnared in bondage by human traditions and laws. We have abundantly taught this elsewhere, and if you wish to dispute it, we are prepared to tell you so, too, or to dispute it. There are quite a number of our books on this subject.

But you might say at the same time the laws of the popes should also be carried and kept in love, if in this way, perhaps, both the eternal blessedness through the Word of God and the peace of the world could exist without turmoil.

I have already said above that this is impossible. The prince of this world does not allow the pope and his bishops to keep their laws freely, but he has it in mind to capture and bind the consciences; the true God cannot stand that. Thus, the Word of God and the traditions of men quarrel in irreconcilable discord, not unlike how God Himself and Satan oppose each other, and one destroys the other's works and overthrows the other's teachings, just as when two kings devastate each other's kingdoms. "He that is not with me," saith Christ Matt. 12:30, "is against me."

But that it is to be feared that many who are inclined to vices will abuse this freedom, belongs to the above-mentioned turmoil as a part of the temporal leprosy that one must endure and the evil that one must suffer, and is not to be considered so great that one should take away the word of God in order to prevent their abuse. If not all can be saved, yet some will be preserved for whose sake God's word has come; these have all the more fervent love and all the more firm unity. For what evil did not ungodly men do before God's word came? Yes, what good have they done? Has not the race always been full of war, deceit, violence, discord and all crimes'? so that Micah 7:4 compares the best of them to a thorn; what do you think he would call the others? But now they begin to accuse the gospel, which has again come to light, of the wickedness of the race, when it is rather revealed by the good gospel how wicked it was when it lived in its darkness without the gospel. In the same way, the unlearned blame the sciences, because their ignorance comes to light through their flourishing. This is the gratitude with which we thank God for His

4708 D- V." VII, 147-14 PP. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2108-2110. 4709

Word of life and blessedness. But how great, do you think, will have been the fear among the Jews when the gospel absolved all from the law of Moses? What did not seem to allow such a great salvation to evil men? But because of this, the gospel was not refrained from preaching; rather, the unbelievers were let go, but the godly were told not to abuse this freedom for the licentiousness of the flesh.

But even that part of your counsel, or rather remedy, is no good, since you say, "To speak the truth is in our power, but it is not pious with all and sundry, nor at all times, nor in any manner"; and incongruously enough you introduce Paul, since he says 1 Cor. 6:12., "I have it all power, but it is not all pious."

For Paul does not speak of the doctrine or teaching of the truth, as you pervert his words and arbitrarily point to it. Rather, he wants the truth to be spoken everywhere, at all times, in every way, so that he also rejoices that only Christ is proclaimed, accidentally or for the sake of hate and hatred, and testifies to this publicly in these words Phil. 1:18: "That only Christ is proclaimed in every way.... I rejoice in this." Paul speaks of the doing and use of doctrine, namely of those who boasted of Christian liberty, but sought their own, and took no heed of offense and offence to the weak. The truth and doctrine must be preached to all lines, publicly and persistently; it must never be bent or concealed, for there is no offense in it, for it is "a straight scepter." [And who gave you power or right to bind the Christian doctrine to place, persons, time or occasion of things, since Christ wants it to be proclaimed and to reign most freely in the whole world? For "God's word is not bound," says Paul 2 Tim. 2, 9, and Erasmus wants to bind the word? Nor has God given us a word which chooses places, persons and times, since Christ says: "Go into all the world"; He has given us a word which is not bound.

does not say: Go here, but do not go there, like Erasmus; likewise: "Preach the gospel to all creatures"; he does not say: With some, with some not. In short, in the service of the Word of God you lay upon us respect of person, respect of place, respect of manner, respect of time, since this alone is a great part of the glory of the Word, that (as Paul says Eph. 6:9. Col. 3:25.) "with Him there is no respect of person," and Gal. 2:6. "God respecteth not the respect of men." Again, you see how sacrilegiously you go against God's word, as if you were far ahead of it with your thoughts and advice.

Now, if we were to ask you to show us the right times, persons and ways of preaching the truth, when would you finish your instruction? "First the world and time have long since come to an end, 1) before you have been able to establish a certain rule. Where, however, would the ministry of teaching remain? Where are the souls to be taught? And how could you, since you do not know one circumstance of the persons, times, manner? And even if you know this in the best way, you do not know the hearts of men; if not for you this is the manner, this is the time, and this is the person, that we should teach the truth in such a way that the pope will not be displeased, that the emperor will not be angry, that the bishops and princes will not be agitated, and that there will be no turmoil and movement in the world, so that many will not be offended and become angry. What this advice is, you have seen above, but you liked to show your eloquence with useless words, so that you could only present something at all.

How much better, then, that we wretched people should give this honor to GOtte, who knows the hearts of men, that he himself should prescribe the manner, the persons, and the times. For he knows what, when and how it is good for a man.

  1. Latin:

suuna elauso aoinxoQst tsnaxors ünsm Munäus.

An allusion to Virgil, I, 375:

äisna elauso aoraxonet vesxsr Ol^naxo.

** **1710 D. V. L. VII, 149-151. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2110-2113. 1711

must be told to everyone. But now he has so prescribed that his gospel, which is necessary for all, should not be prescribed for a certain place, not for a certain time, but it should be preached to all, at all times, in every place. And above I have proved that that which is distinguished in Scripture is of such a nature that it is necessary and wholesome to expound it to all and to proclaim it freely in public, as you yourself advised and taught better then than now in your writing "Paraclesis. Those who do not want souls to be redeemed, as the pope did with his own, may have to bind the word of God and keep people from life and the kingdom of heaven, so that they themselves do not enter and do not let others enter: you serve their rage, Erasmus, with your pernicious advice.

With equal wisdom you advise 1): "It should not be said publicly if something is wrongly decided or determined in the concilia, lest an occasion be given to despise the reputation of the fathers."

Of course, the pope wanted you to say this and prefers to hear it rather than the gospel; he would be very ungrateful if he did not honor you again with the cardinal's title and great wealth. But still, Erasmus, what will the souls do who are bound and killed by that unjust decree? Is that none of your business? But you constantly think that it is, or rather, you act as if it were your opinion that human statutes can be kept without danger next to the pure word of God. If that were the case, I would soon agree with this opinion of yours. Therefore, if you do not know it, I say again: Human statutes cannot be kept at the same time as the word of God, because those bind the consciences, this makes them loose, and they fight against each other like water and fire, if they are not kept free, that is, as such, which do not bind. This is precisely what the pope does not want and cannot want, if he does not

  1. Diatribe § 2.

wants his kingdom to be destroyed and an end to it to be put to it, which only exists through ropes and fetters of the conscience, of which the gospel assures that they are free. Therefore, the reputation of the fathers is to be regarded as nothing, and their statutes, which are unjustly established, like everything that is established without the Word of God, must be overturned and rejected. In short, if you hold thus of God's word, your opinion is ungodly; but if you hold thus of other things, the eloquent exposition [dispu

tatio] of your counsel, we are arguing about God's word.

In the last part of your preface, where you seriously discourage us from this kind of teaching, you think you have almost won the victory.

^2^) "What could be more useless (you say) than to spread this strange thing (paradox) in the world: What we do does not happen by our free will, but' by mere necessity? And the saying of Augustine: God works the good and the evil in us; he rewards in us his good works and punishes in us his evil works". There you give or rather demand an account with many words: "What great door (you say) would this publicly spread speech open to men to ungodliness? What wicked man would want to improve his life? Who would believe that he is loved by God? Who would fight with his flesh?"

I am surprised that you, with so much vehemence and effort in speaking, have not also thought of the present matter and said: Where would then free will remain? Dear Erasmus, again I also say: If you consider these seemingly strange things (paradoxa) to be man's inventions, what do you argue about? what do you get excited about? against whom do you speak? Or is there a man in the whole world today who has attacked the doctrine of man more vehemently than Luther? Therefore, your admonition is none of our business. But if you believe that these strange things are God's words, where is your decency? where is shame? where is, I will not even say, shame?

  1. Diatribe § 3.

1712 L. V. L. VII, 151 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. LVNI, 2113-2116. 1713

no longer say the well-known modesty of Erasmus, but where is the fear and reverence that one owes to the true God? How can you say that nothing more useless can be spoken than this word of God? Of course, your Creator will learn from you, his creature, what is useful and useless to preach, and this foolish or unwise God will not have known until now what must be preached, until you, as his teacher, prescribed to him the way to have right insight and to command; just as if he himself, without your instruction, would not have known that from this strange sentence would follow what you conclude from it. If, then, God willed that such things should be spoken and expounded publicly, and that one should not see what follows from them, who are you to forbid it?

The apostle Paul, in the letter to the Romans, discusses, not in the corner, but publicly before the whole world, in free speech, the same things also with very hard words before the people, saying Rom. 9, 18.: "He hardens whom he will"; and again V. 22: "God would show His wrath" 2c- What is harder (for the flesh) than Christ's word Matth. 21, 16: "Many are called, but few are chosen"? and again Joh. 13, 18: "I know which I have chosen." Of course, all this is of such a nature, if you have your way, that nothing more useless can be said, because through it godless people fall into despair, hatred and blasphemy.

Here, as I see, the truth and the usefulness of Scripture, as you consider it, must be weighed and judged according to the sense of men, and that only according to that of the most godless, so that what they like or what seems tolerable must first be true, divine, wholesome; what is contrary must immediately be useless, false and corrupt. What else can you aim at with this advice than that God's word remains in abeyance, standing or falling according to the arbitrariness and reputation of men? since, on the other hand, Scripture says that everything stands and falls according to the will and judgment of God and Hab. 3, 20.: "Let all the earth be still before the Lord." Thus

He who imagined that the living God was nothing other than a frivolous, thoughtless tongue-thruster making a speech on some rostrum, whose words one could, of course, interpret, accept, or reject as one pleased, depending on whether one saw that the godless people would be aroused or moved by them.

Here you clearly show, dear Erasmus, how heartily you advised above that one should honor the majesty of the divine judgments. For where the teachings of Scripture were dealt with, and it was not at all necessary to worship mysterious and hidden things, because there are no such things there, you threatened us in very serious words with the Corycian cave, so that we would not enter rashly, so that you would have almost completely deterred us from reading Scripture through fear, which Christ and the apostles so urge and advise us to read, and also you yourself elsewhere. Here, however, where one has not come to the teachings of Scripture, nor merely to the Corycian cave, but in truth to the mysteries of the divine majesty that are to be reverently honored, namely, why God works as He has said, there you break the bars and rush in. Only that you do not blaspheme, but you show all possible indignation against God, because he does not want the intention and the cause of his judgment to be seen. Why don't you also avoid darkness and ambiguity here? Why do you yourself not abstain from investigating those things and deter others, since God intended them to be hidden from us and did not reveal them in Scripture? Here it would have befitted you to put your finger on your mouth, to stand still in awe before what should remain hidden, to worship the hidden counsel of the Majesty, and to exclaim with Paul Rom. 9:20., "Yea, dear man, who art thou that thou wouldest be right with GOD?"

Who (speak you) will strive to make his life better? I answer: No one, nor will anyone be able to, for God does not ask for your better without the Holy Spirit, since they are hypocrites.

1714 D. V. L. VII, 152-154. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2116-2119. 1715

The good deeds of the elect and the blessed will be corrected by the Holy Spirit, the others will be lost without being corrected. For even Augustine does not say that none or all men's good works will be crowned, but some. Therefore there will be some who mend their lives.

Who will believe (you say) that he is loved by God? I answer, No man shall believe, neither can he; but the elect shall believe, and the rest shall be lost as unbelievers, unwilling and blaspheming, as thou doest here. Therefore there will be some who will believe.

But that a door to ungodliness is opened by this teaching, that may be; that belongs to the leprosy, of which I said above that one must suffer the evil. On the other hand, through the same teaching the door to righteousness is opened and the entrance to heaven and the way to God for the godly and elect. But if, according to your advice, we abstained from this teaching and hid this word of God from people, so that everyone, deceived by a false idea of blessedness, would not fear God and would learn to humble himself, so that through fear he would finally come to grace and love, then we would have closed the door, but instead, for us and for everyone, we would have opened great gates, yes, chasms and abysses, not only to godlessness, but to the depths of hell. In this way, we ourselves would not enter heaven and would also prevent others from entering.

"What, then, is the use or necessity of spreading such things, since so many evils seem to arise from them?" I answer: It would be sufficient to say: God has willed that it be taught publicly, but one must not ask about the cause of the divine will, but simply worship God and give him the honor that, because he alone is just and wise, he does no wrong to anyone, nor can he do anything foolish or sacrilegious, even if it might seem quite different to us. With this answer the godly are satisfied. But to top it all off, I will add this-

  1. Diatribe § 3.

Two causes require that this be preached. The first is so that our pride may be humbled and God's grace may be rightly recognized; the other is the Christian faith itself. First, God has surely promised His grace to the humbled, that is, to those who lament their sin and despair of themselves. But a man cannot thoroughly humble himself until he knows that without his powers, counsel, endeavor, will, and works, his blessedness depends entirely on another's good will arbitrio. Council, will and works, namely God's alone. For as long as a man has the conviction that he is able, even if only a very little, with regard to his blessedness, he remains confident in himself and does not completely despair of himself, therefore he does not humble himself before God, but sets his sights on place, time or some work, by which he hopes, or at least desires, to finally attain blessedness. But he who does not doubt that everything is in the will of God, who despairs completely of himself, chooses nothing, but expects God to work on him, is closest to the grace that he can become blessed. Therefore, for the sake of the elect, these things are taught publicly, so that they, thus humbled and brought to nothing, may be saved; the others resist this humiliation, indeed, they reject that this despairing of themselves be taught, and want something, even if only a very small thing, to be left for them, which they are able to do. These remain proud in secret and adversaries of God's grace. This, I say, is the one reason so that the humbled godly may come to know the promise of grace, call upon it and accept it.

The other reason is that faith deals with things that are not seen Heb 11:1. So that faith may take place, it is necessary that everything that is believed be hidden; but it cannot be hidden more deeply than when it is just opposite to how it appears to us, how we feel it and have experienced it. Thus, when God makes alive, He does it by killing; when He justifies, He does it by making guilty; when He brings to heaven, He does it by bringing to heaven.

1716 D- v- a. vii. IS4-IS6. 68. that free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2119-2122. 1717

Hell leads, as the Scripture says, 1 Sam. 2, 6: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive, leadeth into hell and out again." It is not the place here to go into more detail about this. This is well known to those who have read our scriptures. Thus he hides his eternal goodness and mercy under eternal wrath, his justice under unreasonableness.

This is the highest level of faith, to believe that he is kind, who makes so few blessed and condemns so many, to believe that he is just, who by his will necessarily condemns us, so that it appears, as Erasmus depicts it, as if he takes pleasure in the torment of the wretched and is more worthy of hatred than of love. Therefore, if I could in any way understand how God is merciful and just, who shows such anger and inequity, then faith would not be necessary. But now, since this cannot be comprehended, one should have the opportunity to exercise faith when such things are preached and proclaimed, as when GOD kills, faith is exercised in life in death. That is enough for the preface.

In this way, those who deal with these strange things (paradoxis) will be advised more correctly than by your counsel, since you want to find counsel by keeping silent and letting their impiety stand, by which you do nothing. For if you either believe or suspect that it is true (for these strange things are of great importance), then, in view of the insatiable desire to investigate secret things, you will most of all, if we want them to be deeply hidden, bring it about by the publication of this warning of yours that rather now all want to know whether these strange things are true, since they are provoked to it by your refutation. None of ours has so far given so strong an occasion to spread it out as you have by this vehement reminder, which is full of misgivings. You would have done much wiser if you had kept silent altogether about the fact that one should not concern oneself with these strange sentences, if you had wanted this to really happen. Now this is over; since you have not entirely

If you deny that they are true, they cannot be kept hidden, but everyone will be provoked to investigate them by the suspicion that they do contain the truth. Therefore, if you want others to be silent, either deny that they are true or be silent yourself first.

Let us briefly consider the other strange proposition: What is done by us is done by us not by free will but by mere necessity, so that we do not have to be told that this is an entirely harmful doctrine. Here I say thus: if it is proven that our salvation, quite independent of our powers and counsel, depends solely on God's work, which I hope to prove hereafter in the main part of this treatise, then does it not clearly follow, if God is not there in us with His work, that everything we do is evil, and that we work by necessity, which is good for nothing for salvation? For if it is not we, but God who works salvation in us, then we do not work anything salvific before His work, whether we want to or not. By necessity, I say, not compulsion, but, as those say, by necessity of immutability, not compulsion, that is, if a man does not have the spirit of God, he is certainly not forcibly taken by the throat, as it were, and does evil against his will, as a thief or robber is led to punishment against his will, but he does it voluntarily and gladly. But this desire and will to do evil he cannot refrain from, keep in check or change out of his strength, but continues willingly and gladly. Even if it should be forced outwardly by force to do otherwise, the will remains inwardly averse and is unwilling to the one who forces it or resists it. But it would not become unwilling if it were changed and willingly followed the force. This is what we call the necessity of immutability, that is, that the will cannot change and turn elsewhere, but is only more provoked to will when it is resisted; this proves its unwillingness. This would not happen if he were free, or had a free will.

1718 L. v. a. vii, 156-158. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 2122-2125. 1719

Experience shows that those who are attached to a cause with affection cannot be dissuaded from it; or if they give way, they give way only by force, or if a greater advantage accrues to them from another cause, never voluntarily. But if they have no such inclination, they let everything go and happen as it goes and happens.

Again, on the other hand, when GOD works in us, the changed will, gently breathed upon by the Spirit of GOD, again wills and acts out of mere desire and inclination and voluntarily, not forced, so that it cannot be turned away from it by any repugnance, nor can it be overpowered or forced through the gates of hell, but it continues to will, gladly do, and love the good, just as it had previously willed, gladly had, and loved the evil. This again is proved by experience, how invincible and persistent holy men are, when one wants to force them to do something else by force, that they are thereby only more provoked to want the good, as the fire is rather fanned by the wind than extinguished, so that also here there is no freedom or free will to turn elsewhere, or to want something else, as long as the Holy Spirit and the grace of God last in man.

In short, when we are under the God of this world, without the work and spirit of the true God, we are held captive to His will, as Paul to Timothy [2 Ep. 2, 26.Paul says to Timothy 2 Ep 2:26 that we can only will what he wills, for he is the strong armed one who keeps his court in such a way that those whom he possesses are at peace, that they make no move or stirring against him, otherwise the kingdom of Satan, if it were divided among itself, would not stand, of which Christ assures us that it will stand. And this we do willingly and gladly, after the manner of the will; for if it were compelled, it would not be a will, for the compulsion is rather, I say, a non-will (noluntas). But if a stronger one comes over him, defeats him and takes us away as his robbery, we are again his servants and captives through the Holy Spirit (but this is a royal

freedom), that we want and like to do what he wants. Thus the human will is placed in the middle, like a draught animal; when God sits on it, it wills and goes as God wills, as the Psalm 73, 22. says: "I must be like a beast before you. Yet I always remain with you." When the devil sits on it, he wills and goes as the devil wills, and it is not at his pleasure to run to one of the two horsemen (sessorem), or to seek him, but the two horsemen contend to obtain and possess him.

But how, if I could prove from your own words, with which you assert the free will, that there is no free will. If I cannot do this, I swear that everything I write against you in this whole book shall be revoked and everything your diatribe claims and seeks against me shall be confirmed.

You make the power of the free will quite small and such that it is absolutely not able to do anything without the grace of God.

Don't you have to admit that? Now I ask and demand: If the grace of God is not there, or is separated from that very small power, what can it do? It can do nothing (you say), and does nothing good; consequently, it will not do what God or His grace wants. For we have set the case above that God's grace is divorced from it; but what God's grace does not do, that is not good. From this it follows that free will without God's grace is not free at all, but is unalterably a prisoner and servant of evil, since it cannot turn to good by itself. If this is certain, I will allow you not only to make the power of free will a very small one, but also to make it an angelic one (angel63m), to make it, if you can, an entirely divine one; but if you add this unpleasant addition, that you say it can do nothing without the grace of God, you will at once have taken away all its power; for what is a power that can do nothing but absolutely no power at all?

1720 L.v. a. VII, I58f. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2123-2128. 1721

Therefore to say that there is a free will, and that it has a power, but that it has no power, is what the sophists call oppositum in adjecto, as if one were to say: Free will is that which is not free; as if I were to call the fire cold and the earth warm. For let fire alike have the faculty of heat, yea, of infernal heat, if it be not hot, nor burn, but be cold, and make cold, let it not even be called a fire to me, much less warm, unless thou wilt have a painted or fancied fire. But if we were to call this the power of free will, according to which man is fit (aptus) to be seized by the Spirit and endowed with God's grace, since he is created for eternal life or for eternal death, this would be rightly spoken. For this ability, that is, fitness or, as the Sophists speak, a dispositional nature (dispositivam qualitatem) and suffering skill (passivam aptitudinem) we also concede. For who does not know that it is not given to trees and animals? For (as, one says) for the geese he has not created the sky.

So it is certain, even according to your own testimony, that we do everything by necessity, nothing by free will, since the power of free will is nothing, and neither does nor is able to do good if grace is not there; unless you want to call the word efficacy (efficacia) a perfect accomplishment (perfectionem) in a new meaning, as if free will could indeed begin and will, but not accomplish, which I do not believe, and later I will speak about this matter in more detail.

From this it follows that free will is an entirely divine name, which can belong to no one else but to the divine majesty alone, for it can and does everything, as the Psalm sings 115:3, "whatever he wills" in heaven and on earth. If this is imputed to men, it is imputed to them with as much injustice as if the divinity itself were imputed to them: there could not be a greater blasphemy. Accordingly, it would have been proper for the theologians to have been

They should have abstained from this word, since they wanted to speak of human power, and leave it to God alone; but then they should have taken it away from the mouths and speech of men and claimed it as a sacred and venerable expression for their God. And if they wanted to ascribe any property to men at all, they should have taught them to call it by another word, especially since it is known to us and before our eyes that the people are miserably deceived and seduced by this word. For they hear and understand this word quite differently than the theologians mean and want to have understood it. For the word "free will" is an exceedingly glorious, world-embracing and important one (plena,) by which, as the people think, is expressed the faculty (as the meaning and nature of the word also require) which can freely turn to both sides, and this faculty is dependent on no one or subject to no one. Now if it knew that this was otherwise, and that scarcely a very small spark was signified by it, and that it free will by itself was quite incapable of anything, and was a prisoner and servant of the devil, it would be surprising if they did not stone us as deceivers and impostors who spoke quite differently from what they themselves meant; indeed, it would not even be certain, nor would there be agreement, as to what we wanted to express. For he who speaks lies (sophistico) (says the wise man Prov. 6, 17) is hateful, especially if he does so in matters of faith (pietatis), where eternal bliss is in danger.

Since we have lost, indeed never had, the meaning and the cause of such a splendid word (which the Pelagians wanted to have, who were also deceived by this word), what then do we still so stubbornly retain an empty word, to the danger and deception of the believing people? this is no other wisdom than how now kings and princes also either retain empty titles of kingdoms and regions, or claim them for themselves and boast, since in this they are almost beggars and have nothing less than these kingdoms and countries. But this is bearable, because

1722 L. v. a. vii, iss-i6i. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2128-2131. 1723

they do not deceive or defraud anyone, but delight themselves in the empty appearance, admittedly without any profit. But here is danger for the blessedness and the most harmful deception.

Who would not laugh at such a clumsy innovator of words, or rather find him obnoxious, who, against the general usage of language, tried to introduce such a way of speaking that he would call a beggar a rich man, not because he had some wealth, but because perhaps some king could give him his, and he would do this, as it were, in earnest, not in a figure of speech, namely either of antiphrasis 1) or of irony: So too, if he were to call a terminally ill person perfectly healthy, namely, because another might give him his health; likewise, if he were to call a completely unlearned, coarse person very learned, because another might give him his science. So it is also here: man has a free will, namely, if God would cede him his. Through this abuse in speech, everyone could boast of every thing, such as: he is the Lord of heaven and earth, if God would give it to him. But such things do not belong to theologians, but to comedians and impostors. Our words must be genuine, pure and sober and, as Paul says, wholesome and blameless Titus 2:8.

If we do not want to abandon this word free will altogether, which would be the safest and most Christian, we should teach that it is used with true honesty (bona fide) only in such a way that man is to be granted a free will, not with reference to things that are above him, but only in such things as are beneath him, that is, he should know that in his temporal property and possessions he has the right to use, do and leave according to his free will, although even this is governed solely by God's free will, as it pleases him; but with respect to God, or in things pertaining to salvation and damnation, he has no free will.

  1. Antiphrasis, a figure of speech where the word has the opposite meaning, e.g., LumsiMss, the benevolent, for the vengeful goddesses.

The will of God or the will of the devil is the will of the people who are captive, subject and servant.

I have said this about the main things in your preface, which also comprehend almost the whole trade in themselves, almost more than the following book itself. But the short epitome of these pieces has been such that it could have been quite briefly covered by this double sentence (dilemma,) 2): Either your preface complains about the words of God, or about the words of men. If about the words of men, it is written in vain and does not concern us; if about the words of God, it is ungodly from beginning to end. Accordingly, it would have been more useful to speak of whether it is the words of God or the words of men that we are discussing. But perhaps the following entrance and my exposition will deal with this.

But what you say again at the end of your preface 3) moves me nothing but: "that you call our teachings fables and useless, one must rather teach Christ crucified according to the example of Paul, wisdom is to be taught among the strong, Scripture arranges its language differently according to the kind of listeners, so that you hold that it is to be left to the wisdom and love of the teacher who is to teach what is pious to the neighbor."

You speak all this clumsily and ignorantly. For we also teach nothing but Jesus Christ crucified. But Christ crucified also brings all this with him, even the wisdom that is to be taught among the perfect. For there is no other wisdom to be taught among Christians than that which is hidden in mystery and belongs to the perfect, not to the children of the Jewish people and the people of the law, who boast of their works without faith. They boast of their works without faith, as Paul says in 1 Cor. 2, 6. Unless you want nothing else to be understood by "teaching Christ crucified" than to let us hear these words: Christ is crucified.

  1. äilsmiNÄ, a type of conclusion in logic, with which one catches the opponent on both sides, he may concede which one he wants.
  2. Diatribe § 3.

1724 . 12. v. a. VII, 161 f. 68. that free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2I3I-2I33... 1725

Further that you say 1): "that God is angry, "hates, is grieved, "causes himself to wail, that it grieves him, yet actually "none of these are acceptable to God":

That is, to look for knots in the rush. 2) For these things do not make the writing dark, nor do they make it necessary that it be adapted to the different audiences, but you take pleasure in making darkness where there is none. These are common phrases and are composed of word pictures that even children know. But we are dealing in this matter with beliefs, not with grammatical figures.

Refutation of the introductory remarks of the diatribe. 3)

Now in the beginning of your presentation you promise that you will lead the matter with the canonical writings, because Luther does not want to be bound by the reputation of any other writer except them.

This pleases me well, and I accept the promise, although you do not agree to this in the opinion that these writers are not useful for the matter, but so that you do not take on a vain work, because you do not particularly like my boldness, or by what name this my undertaking to let only the holy scripture be valid may be called.

For it moves you quite significantly 4) "the so numerous series of the most learned men, whose opinion has been unanimously approved for so many hundreds of years, among whom have been those who have had a special insight into the sacred Scriptures, also some very holy martyrs, many who are famous for miraculous deeds, in addition the newer theologians, so many high schools, conciliarities, bishops and popes", in short, on the side stands the erudition, high talent, quantity, greatness, height, bravery, holiness, miracles, and the greatness of the people.

  1. Diatribe § 3.
  2. This saying is from Terence and means: seek trouble where there is none.
  3. This heading is set by us.
  4. Diatribe § 4.

and what else? On my side, however, there is one: Wiclef and the other: Laurentius Valla (although Augustine, whom you pass over, is also entirely mine), but these have no weight at all in comparison with those; there remains Luther alone, a single man without high office (privativ), who has only recently arisen (natus), with his friends, with whom there is neither such great learning, nor such high intellect, nor quantity, nor greatness, nor holiness, nor miracles, so 5) "that they cannot even heal a lame horse. They boast of the Scriptures, which they, like their opponents, have as a twofold one, then they boast of the spirit, which they show nowhere" and other things, most of which you can only list by hearsay. Therefore with us there is nothing but what the wolf said to the nightingale after he had devoured it: You are a voice, nothing more. For they speak (you say), and for that alone they want to be believed.

I confess, dear Erasmus, that you are not unjustly moved by all these things; I have been so moved by them for over ten years that I believe there is no one else who has been equally moved by them. It was unbelievable to me that this Troy of ours, which had remained undefeated for so long, in so many wars, should ever be conquered. And I call God to witness, who knows my heart, that I would have stayed with it and would still be so moved today, if my conscience and clear experience did not force me to the other side. You can really think that even I do not have a heart of stone, and if it were of stone, it could have melted, challenged and pressed by such great floods and waves, when I undertook what I knew that, if it had happened, the reputation of all those you have mentioned would come over my head like a flood of sin. But this is not the place to tell the story of my life and my works, nor has this been started to praise myself, but in order to

  1. Diatribe § 5.

1726 D. v. a. vii, r6L-i "4 XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2133-2136. 1727

to praise the grace of God. Who I am and from what spirit and counsel I have been drawn into this matter, I command him who knows that all this has been done according to his, not my free will, although the world should have noticed this long ago. By your preface, however, you put me in the unpleasant position that I cannot easily wriggle out of it if I do not boast myself and reproach so many fathers, but I will briefly say: in learning, in intellect, in quantity, in reputation and everything else, I am inferior to them, as you also judge.

But if I were to ask you about these three things, which are proof of the Spirit, which are miraculous works, which are righteous holiness, you would, as far as I know you from your letters and books, be revealed as too inexperienced and ignorant to be able to indicate this even with a syllable. Or if I stopped hard and wanted to know in which of all those you praise it could certainly be proved by you that he was or still is holy, or that he had the Holy Spirit, or performed true miracles, I believe that you would struggle a lot, but in vain. You speak many things that are accepted in use and in common speech, but do not believe how much this loses in credibility and prestige when it is placed before the judgment seat of conscience. This is a true saying, that on earth many are taken for saints, whose souls are in hell.

But we will grant you, if you want, that all of them have been holy, that all of them have had the spirit, that all of them have done miraculous works (which you do not desire), tell me this, whether in the name and power of free will, or for the confirmation of the doctrine of free will, any of them have been holy, have received the spirit and have done miraculous works? That is far away! (you will say), but in the name and power of JESUS Christ and for the doctrine of CHRIST all this has happened. Why then do you cite their holiness, the Spirit, the miracles for the doctrine of free will, for which they were not given nor done?

Therefore, their miracles, spirit and holiness belong to our side, which we preach Jesus Christ, but not the powers or works of men. What is there to wonder if those who have been holy, spiritual and miracle-workers have sometimes, unawares hurried by the flesh, spoken and acted according to the flesh, as happened more than once to the apostles who were under Christ himself? For even you do not deny, but assert, that free will is not a matter of the Spirit or of Christ, but of man, so that the Spirit, who is promised to transfigure Christ, cannot preach free will at all. Therefore, if the fathers sometimes preached free will, they certainly spoke from the flesh (since they were men), not from the spirit; much less did they confirm it with miracles. Therefore, what you refer to the holiness, the spirit, and the miracles of the fathers does not rhyme at all here, because it does not prove free will, but the doctrine of Jesus Christ against the doctrine of free will.

But come now still, you who stand on the side of free will and claim that such a teaching is true, that is, that it comes from the spirit of God: now still, I say, prove the spirit, perform miraculous works, let your holiness be seen; for certainly you who claim this, owe it to us who deny it. From us, who say no, spirit, holiness and miracles must not be demanded [as proof, but from you, who say yes, such must be demanded. For the denying part establishes nothing, is nothing, is not required to prove anything, the proof need not be laid upon it; the asserting part must be burdened with the proof. You claim the power of free will and a human thing, but until now it has never been seen or heard that God has made a miracle happen for the confirmation of any teaching about a human thing, but only for the confirmation of a teaching in divine things. But now we are commanded that we should by all means not admit any doctrine that has not first been proven with divine signs, Deut. 18, 22.

1728 D. V. s. VII, 164-166. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2136-2139. 1729

Yes, the Scripture calls man vanity and lies, which means nothing else than that everything human is vain lies. Therefore, get to it, come here, I say, prove that your doctrine of human vanity and lies is the truth. Where is the proof of the spirit here? where the holiness? where the miracles? I see high gifts, learning, prestige, but God has also given these to the Gentiles.

But we do not want to force you to perform great miracles, not even to heal a lame horse, so that you may not complain that it is a carnal time, although God tends to confirm his teachings with miracles without regard to the carnal time, because he is not moved by the merit or lack of merit of a carnal time, but only by mercy, grace and love towards the souls, which are to be made firm for his glory by the tangible truth. I leave you the choice to do any miracle, no matter how small. Yes, I want to provoke your Baal, I mock him and challenge him that you create even one frog in the name and in the power of free will, of which the pagan and godless sorcerers in Egypt could produce many. For I will spare you the task of making lice, because even they could not produce them. I will say a still lesser thing: Catch only one flea or one louse (for you tempt and mock our God with the healing of the lame horse) and if you, with the uniting of all forces and the exertion of all efforts, both of your God and of all of you, can kill this little animal in the name and in the power of free will, then you shall have won and your cause shall be preserved and we will come immediately and worship that God, the wonderful slayer of a louse; Not as if I wanted to deny that you can also move mountains, but because it is something quite different to say that something is done by the power of free will, and something different to prove it.

But what I have said of miraculous works, the same I say of holiness. If in such a great series of years you have been able to

Hundreds, of men, and of all that you have mentioned, can show even One Work (be it only picking up a straw from the earth), or One Word (be it only the syllable My), or even One Thought (be it only the slightest sigh), by the power of free will, wherewith they have prepared themselves for grace, or wherewith they have merited the Spirit, or wherewith they have obtained forgiveness of sin, or wherewith they have dealt with GOD, however little (I am silent, wherewith they shall be sanctified), you shall have regained, and we shall have lost. I say, by the power and in the name of free will, for what is done by men by the power of creation, of this the holy Scripture has superfluous testimony. And surely you owe it to yourselves to show this, lest you be found to be ridiculous teachers, since with such great pride and prestige you propagate doctrines in the world, of which you can give no reason at all. For they will be called dreams, from which nothing will come, which would be the greatest shame for the most learned and holy and miraculous people of so many centuries. Then we will also prefer the Stoics to you, who admittedly also described such a sage as they had never seen, but still tried to prove a part. You can prove absolutely nothing, not even a shadow of your teaching.

Of the spirit I say thus: If you can show only one of all those who claim free will, who had so much mental power or inclination that he could have despised even one penny in the name and in the power of free will, to spare one morsel. Endure one word or sign of insult (for I do not want to say anything about contempt of wealth, of life, of the good name), then again you shall have the victory, and we will gladly give ourselves captive. And just this you, who praise the power of free will with such great verbiage, must show us, or it will again become apparent that you are fighting over the emperor's beard (de lana caprina), or you do it like the one who watched the games in the empty theater.

But I can easily show you the opposite

1730 L. v. a. vii, i66 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 2139-2142. 1731

For such holy men as you praise, as often as they come before God to pray to Him or to act with Him, go along in complete forgetfulness of their free will, despair of themselves, and ask for nothing else for themselves than mere grace, since they would have deserved much else. This is what Augustine often did, and this is what Bernard did when he said when he was dying: I have lost my time, for I have lived damnably. I do not see that here any fortune is asserted which prepares itself for grace, but that all fortune is accused because it was only turned away from God. But even those saints sometimes spoke differently about free will in the disputation, as I see that it is the case with all of them that they are completely different people when they are intent on words and disputation than when they have to do with inner movements and works; there they speak differently than they were minded before in the challenge, here they are minded differently than they spoke before. But people must be judged much more by what moves them inwardly than by their speech, both godly and godless.

But we indulge you even more. We do not require miracles, the spirit and holiness. We come back to the doctrine itself; this alone we desire, that you should at least show us what work, what word, what thought that power of free will sets in motion, or undertakes, or does, to prepare itself for grace. For it is not enough to say, It is a power, it is a power, it is a certain power of free will; for what is easier than to say that? Nor is this proper for the most learned and holy men, who have been applauded for so many centuries, but the child must be given a name (as they say in the German proverb), it must be explained what kind of power it is, what it does, what it suffers, what happens to it; that is an example, for I will speak very roughly of it: It is asked whether this power either prays, or fasts, or works, or exerts the body, or alms.

or to do or undertake something else of the kind; for if it is a force, it must have to do with some work. But here you are more mute than the frogs on Seriphos 1) and than the fishes, and how could you give an explanation, since according to your own testimony you are still uncertain about the power itself, disagree among yourselves and do not remain equal to yourselves: what should become of the explanation, if just what is explained does not remain equal?

But suppose that, after the course of Plato's time, you should once and for all agree among yourselves about the power itself, and then the declaration should be made by it that its work is praying, fasting, or something like that, which is perhaps still hidden in the Platonic ideas: who will make us certain that this is true, that it pleases God, and that we are certainly doing the right thing? especially since you yourselves confess that it is a human thing which does not have the testimony of the Spirit, since it was extolled by the philosophers and was in the world before Christ came and the Holy Spirit was sent from heaven, so that it is quite certain that this doctrine is not sent from heaven, but has had an earthly origin before. Therefore, great testimony is needed to confirm it as a certain and true one.

Therefore, even if we are only private persons and few, but you are persons in public office 3) and many, we unlearned, you the most learned, we stupid, you the most gifted, we only arose yesterday, you older than Deucalion, we never accepted, you approved by so many centuries, finally we sinners, carnal, indolent, you by holiness, spirit and miracles to fear even the evil spirits: so the right of the

  1. Seriphos, a small island in the Aegean Sea belonging to the Cyclades. It is only one German square mile in size. Probably there were no frogs on it.
  2. I.e. after many thousand years.
  3. In the fact that here in the original pudlieuni and not pudliei is put, probably an allusion is to be expressed that the Pabstthum is mainly concerned with the collection of money and incomes, because xudlieauus is a general tenant of the "Roman" incomes. In the church language it means: tax collector.

1732 L. V. a. VII, I67-I6S. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2142-2145. 1733

Turks and Jews at least that we can demand an account of your teaching, which your Peter 1 Ep. 3, 15 commands you. But we demand very modestly, because we do not demand holiness, spirit and miracles for their confirmation, which we could certainly do according to your own right, because you yourselves demand this from others. Yes, we also want to leave this to you, that you should not give an example of any deed, word or thought in your teaching, but only teach it, only give the teaching itself, what you want to be understood by it? If you do not want to or cannot do it in this way, let us at least try to give an example.

At least do as the pope and his followers say: What we say, that do, but after our works you shall not do; so you also say: Whatever work that power requires to do, we will set about it and leave you alone. Will we not at least get this from you? The more you are, the older, the greater and the more excellent than we are in every respect, the more shameful it is for you that you do not teach us, who are in every way nothing compared to you, and who want to learn and do your teaching, by a miracle as small as the killing of a louse, or even by the slightest stirring of the spirit, or by any work of holiness, or even by an example of any deed or word, and furthermore, which is quite unheard of, do not indicate the formam and how this doctrine is to be understood, so that at least we might follow it. O what fine teachers of free will! What are you but a voice and nothing more? Who then are they, Erasmus, who praise the spirit and prove nothing, who only speak and immediately want to be believed? Are these not the people on your side who are so highly idolized? who do not even speak and yet boast so highly and make such high claims.

Therefore, for the sake of Christ, dear Erasmus, we pray that you and yours will at least allow us this, that we, through the spirits of

If we are frightened by our consciences, we may tremble with fear, or at least postpone our consent to this doctrine, because you yourself see that it is nothing but an empty sound and a sounding of syllables, namely: There is a power of free will, there is a power of free will, even if you come to the highest and all your cause would be proven and firm. Furthermore, it is still uncertain among yourselves whether there is such a word or not, since even among yourselves they have different opinions and do not remain the same. It is very wrong, indeed by far the most miserable thing, that through the illusion of a word, and an uncertain one at that, our consciences should be tormented, which Christ has purchased by his blood; and if we do not want to be tormented, we are accused of being guilty of outrageous pride, because we despised so many fathers in so many centuries who have asserted free will; On the other hand, this is the truth, as is clear from what I have already said, that they have given absolutely no explanation of free will, but they are put forward and set up under their name the doctrine of free will, of which, however, they can indicate neither form nor name, and thus deceive the whole world with a lying word.

And here, Erasmus, we refer to your own advice, which you gave above, that one should refrain from such questions and rather teach Christ, the crucified, and what is conducive to Christian godliness. For this we have long been seeking and dealing with. For what do we desire but that the Christian doctrine should reign in its simplicity and purity, and that everything should be abandoned and despised which is invented and introduced by men? But you, who advise us to do this, do not do it yourself; indeed, you do the opposite; you write treatises (diatribas), you celebrate the decrees of the popes, you praise the appearance of men, and you try everything to lead us into a field that is far from the holy Scriptures and foreign to them, and to consider unworldly things back and forth, so that we may reject the simplicity and purity of Christian godliness with human additions.

1734 L. v. L. vii, i69-i7i. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii; 2145-2148. 1735

and bring them to disgrace. From this we easily see that you have not advised us this from the heart either, that you do not write anything in the right earnest either, but you rely on the fact that you could lead the whole world wherever you want with your empty, pompous words (bullis verborum), and yet you lead it nowhere, since you say nothing at all but mere contradictions in all things and everywhere, so that he has spoken very rightly who called you a right Proteus or Vertumnus, or as Christ says: "Physician, help thyself" Luc. 4, 23.. It is shameful for the teacher to do himself what he reproves.

Therefore, until you have proved your yes, we stand firm on our no, and even if the whole crowd of saints, whom you praise, rather, even if the whole world should be judges here, we defy and boast that we do not owe to admit that which is nothing, and of which it cannot be proved with certainty what it is, and that you all show an incredible presumption, or rather nonsense, in that you demand that this very thing should be admitted by us, for no other reason than because it seems good to you, who are many, great, old, to assert that which you yourselves profess to be nothing, as if it were proper for Christian teachers to deceive the poor people in matters of godliness with that which is nothing, as if it were of great importance for the attainment of blessedness. Where then is that penetrating intellect of the Greeks, which hitherto admittedly invented lies with a certain beautiful appearance, but here lies in open, naked speech? Where is the vaunted diligence of the Latins, which equals that of the Greeks, which thus deceives and is deceived with a quite empty word? But so it goes with the careless or malicious readers of books, when they exalt all that in which the fathers and saints have stumbled, as if it deserved the highest esteem; so that the blame falls not on the authors, but on the readers. As if someone wanted to rely on the holiness and prestige of St. Peter and insist that everything St. Peter ever said was the truth, so that he would give us

He wanted to persuade him that this was also right, that he advised Christ out of weakness of the flesh that he should not suffer; or that he told Christ to leave the ship Luc. 5:8, and many other things in which he is punished by Christ Himself.

Those who behave in this way are like those who, in order to arouse laughter, chatter that not everything in the Gospel is true, and pick out the passage John 8:48, where the Jews say to Christ, "Do we not say that you are a Samaritan and have the devil?" or the passage Matth. 26, 66., "He is guilty of death"; or the passage Luc. 23, 2., "This one we find turning away the people, and forbidding to give the womb to Caesar." The same thing is done, admittedly with a different intention, and not with will, as those do, but out of blindness and ignorance, by those who assert free will. From the fathers they pick out what the same fathers, stumbling from weakness of the flesh, have spoken in favor of free will, in such a way that they even oppose it to what the same fathers elsewhere have spoken against free will in the power of the spirit; then they immediately insist on it and force that what is better must give way to what is worse. Thus it comes about that they ascribe the greatest credit to the worse sayings, because they agree with their carnal thoughts, and deprive the better sayings of this credit, because the same go against their carnal thoughts.

Why do we not rather choose the better? For such things are many in the fathers. And, that I may give an example, what is more carnal, nay, what can be said more impious, more robber of God, and more blasphemous, than that which Jerome is wont to say? The virgin state fills heaven, the married state fills earth? as if the patriarchs and apostles and Christian spouses were entitled to earth but not to heaven, or the vestal virgins among the heathen were entitled to heaven. And yet the sophists gather these and similar things from the Fathers, arguing more with the great number of passages brought in than with sound judgment, in order to give credit to those things.

1736 L. v. L. vii, 171-173. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2148-2isi. 1737

The first step is to create something like the tasteless Faber von Costnitz, who recently gave the world his margaritum i.e. pearl, that is, an Augean stable, so that there would be something that would arouse disgust and abomination in the godly and learned.

Hereby I want to answer that you say 1): "it is unbelievable that God should not have cared about the error of His church for so many centuries, nor should He have revealed to any of His saints what we claim to be the main part of the evangelical doctrine."

For now, we do not say that God allowed this error in His Church or in any of His saints, because the Church is governed by the Spirit of God, the saints are driven by the Spirit of God, Rom. 8, 14, and Christ with His Church remains until the end of the world Matth. 28, 20, and the Church of God is a pillar and foundation of truth 1 Tim. 3, 15. This, I say, we know, for so it is also written in the Creed of all of us: I believe a holy, universal Church, so that it is impossible for it to err even in the smallest article. Even if we admit that some of the elect would be in error all their lives, it is necessary that they return to the right way before they die, because Christ says John 10:28: "No one will snatch them out of my hand." But here is the difficulty, that it is necessary to determine for certain whether those whom you call the church are the church, or rather, whether they who have erred all their lives have finally come right again before their death. For this does not follow by a long shot: If God has let all those whom you cite, in however long a series of centuries, the most learned men, err, consequently He has let His Church err.

Look at the people of God Israel, where among such a great number of kings and in such a long time, not even one king is listed who did not err. And under the prophet Elijah all, and all the people, as far as could be seen, were so immersed in idolatry that he thought he was

  1. Diatribe § 5, to end.

alone remained. But while kings, princes, priests, prophets, and all that could be called God's people or God's Church fell into error, God still had seven thousand. Who saw or knew that these were God's people? Therefore, who would dare to deny even now that God had preserved His church among those ruling men (sub istis principibus viris) (for you only list people who were in public office and had famous names) among the people and had let all of them fall, following the example of the kingdom of Israel? For this is God's special way to oppose the best in Israel and to kill their fat ones, Ps. 78, 31, but to preserve the yeasts and the rest in Israel, as Isaiah 10, 22 says.

What happened among Christ himself, when all the apostles were angry, and he himself was denied and condemned by the whole people, and hardly one or the other, a Nicodemus and a Joseph, then also the thief on the cross remained? But were these called the people of God at that time? They were indeed the rest of the people of God, but they did not have the name; the one who had the name was not. Who knows whether throughout the whole course of the world, from its beginning, the condition of the Church of God may not have been such that some were called the people of God and the saints of God who were not, but others were among them as the rest, and were not called people nor saints, as the history of Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob shows?

Behold the time of the Arians, when scarcely five bishops in the whole world were preserved orthodox (catholici), and moreover expelled from their episcopal sees, as the Arians ruled everywhere under the public name and office of the Church: nevertheless Christ preserved His Church among these heretics, but in such a manner that it was not at all respected and held for the Church.

Show only One Bishop who has administered his office under the rule of the Pope, show One Concilium at which matters of godliness have been dealt with and not rather bishops' robes, of rank, of

1738 L. v. a. vn, 173-175. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2151-2154. 1739

Interest and other worldly petty things, which only a nonsensical person could attribute to the Holy Spirit. And in spite of all this, they are called the church, although all those who lived like that are lost and were nothing less than the church. But among them, God preserved His Church, yet in such a way that it was not called the Church. How many saints, do you think, have been burned and killed by the heretic judges (inquisitores haereticae pravitatis) in several centuries alone, e.g. John Hus and his like, at whose time, no doubt, many holy people lived in the same spirit?

Why do you not rather wonder, Erasmus, that from the beginning of the world there have always been among the pagans more gifted people, a greater erudition, a more strenuous diligence, than among the Christians or the people of God, as Christ himself confesses Luc. 16, 8., "that the children of this world are wiser than the children of light"? Who among the Christians can be compared to Cicero alone, let alone to the Greeks, in talent, in learning, in diligence? What shall we say, then, that in the way none of them could have attained to grace, since they certainly exercised free will to the utmost of their powers? But who could dare to say that there was no one among them who strove for the truth with the greatest effort? And yet it must be asserted that no one has attained it. Or do you also want to say here that it is unbelievable that God should have left so many and such great men in the whole course of the world and allowed them to strive in vain? Surely, if free will were or could be something, it should have been in these people and should have been able to do something, at least in some case that would serve as an example. But it has not been able to do anything, indeed, on the contrary, it has always proved to be strong, so that with this one reason it can be proved sufficiently that free will is nothing, because from the beginning of the world to the end of it nothing can be shown in which it can be felt.

But I'll go back to the point. What would be

it wonder if GOD would let all the great people in the Church go their own ways, since He has thus permitted all the Gentiles to go their own ways, as Paul says in the Acts of the Apostles 14, 16.? For the Church of GOD is not so mean a thing, dear Erasmus, as the name: Church of GOD; nor do the saints of GOD meet with one so frequently as the name: saints of GOD; they are pearls and precious gems, which the Holy Spirit does not cast before swine, but, as the Scripture calls it, He keeps them hidden, that the ungodly may not see the glory of GOD. Otherwise, if they were publicly known by all, how would it be possible for them to be thus afflicted and afflicted in the world? As Paul says 1 Cor. 2:8., "If they had known them, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

I do not say this because I want to deny that those whom you cite are saints or the Church of God, but because this cannot be proven if someone denies that they are saints and says that this rather remains quite uncertain: therefore, the doctrine of their holiness is not reliable enough to confirm any doctrine of faith with it. I call them saints and consider them so; I give them the name Church of God and consider them so, according to the rule of love, not according to the guideline of faith; that is, love, which thinks all the best of everyone, which is not suspicious, which believes everything and assumes good from the neighbor, calls every baptized person a saint, and there is no danger if it errs. For the nature of love is that it is deceived, being exposed to the use and abuse of all; it is the general servant of the good, the bad, the believing, the unbelieving, the true and the false. But faith calls no one a saint who is not declared so by divine judgment, because it is the nature of faith not to be deceived. Therefore, although we should all consider each other saints according to the right of love, no one may be considered a saint according to the right of faith, as if it were an article of faith that he or she were a saint, like the pope, that adversary of God, who sets himself up in the place of God,

1740 D- v- L. vn, 175 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvni, 2154-2157. 1741

canonizes that is, declares holy his saints, whom he does not know.

I only say this about these your saints, or rather our saints, that since they themselves do not agree among themselves, one should rather have followed those who have spoken the best, that is, against free will for grace. But those should have been left aside who, according to the weakness of their flesh, have rather testified to the flesh than to the Spirit. Therefore, a selection should have been made among those who do not remain the same, and the part should have been accepted where they speak from the spirit, but that should have been left out where the flesh manifests itself in them. This would have been fitting for a Christian reader, as for a pure animal that has cloven hooves and chews the cud. But now we make no distinction and eat up the whole mess, or, what is still worse, by judging quite wrongly, we reject the better and approve the worse in the writings of one and the same author, and then we still attach to just these worse things the name and prestige of their holiness, which they have earned because of the best and only because of the spirit, but not because of the free will or because of the flesh.

What are we supposed to do? The church is hidden, the saints are unknown. What and whom shall we believe? or, as you very shrewdly disputes, 1) who will make us certain? "How shall we test the spirits? If we look at learning, there are masters on both sides; but if we look at life, there are sinners on both sides; if we look at Scripture, both sides appeal to it; and the dispute is not about Scripture, because it is not yet clear enough, but about the understanding of Scripture. On both sides, however, there are also men; as their quantity, learning, and high dignity do nothing to the matter, so much less their small number, ignorance, and lowliness." The matter is thus left in doubt, and the controversy remains undecided, so that we seem to act wisely when we agree with the opinion of the skeptics.

  1. Diatribe § 5.

The best way to do this is to say that you are in doubt in such a way that you testify that you want to search for and learn the truth, leaning toward the side that claims free will until the truth comes to light.

Here I answer: You say something, and yet nothing. For we cannot test the spirits on the grounds of scholarship, life, high intellect, multitude, high dignity, ignorance, lack of education, small number, or low estate. Nor do I agree with those who put all their strength into boasting about the spirit. For in this year and still now, the fight against the swarming spirits, who want to subjugate the holy scriptures to their spirit and interpret them accordingly, has been sour enough for me. For this very reason I have so far attacked the pope, in whose realm nothing is more common or better suffered than this speech, that the holy scripture is dark and doubtful, that one must ask the spirit as an interpreter from the apostolic see at Rome, since nothing more pernicious can be said, because godless men have thereby exalted themselves above the scripture and made of it whatever they pleased, until the holy scripture has been completely trampled underfoot, and we have believed and taught nothing but the dreams of mad men. In short, this speech is not a human invention, but a poison sent into the world by the incredible wickedness of the prince of all evil spirits himself.

We say thus: The spirits are searched or tested by a twofold judgment; the one is an inward one, by which each one, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, or by a special gift of God, for himself and only for his salvation, judges in the most certain way and decides about the teachings and the sense of all, of which it is said in 1 Cor. 2:15: "The spiritual judgeth all things, and is judged of none." This belongs to faith and is also necessary for every Christian, even though he is not in public office. This is what we called above the inner clarity of the Scriptures. Perhaps this is what those who answered you meant, that everything is decided according to the judgment of the spirit.

1742 L. V. a. VII, 176-178. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2I57-21SS. 1743

must be made. But this judgment is of no use to anyone else, and one does not ask for it in this matter, and I believe that no one doubts that it is so.

Therefore, the other is an external judgment by which we judge the spirits and the teachings of all in the most certain way, not only for ourselves but also for others and for the sake of the salvation of others. This judgment belongs to the service of the word and the external ministry, and it is mainly due to the leaders and preachers of the word, and we use it when we strengthen the weak in faith and refute the adversaries. This we have called above the external clarity of the holy Scriptures. Thus we say that the Scriptures are to be judges, to test all spirits according to them in view of the church. For this must be established among Christians and be the most certain thing, that the holy Scriptures are a spiritual light, far brighter than even the sun, especially in those things which concern eternal blessedness, or which a Christian must necessarily know.

But since we have long since been persuaded to the contrary by the above-mentioned pernicious speech of the sophists, that the Scriptures are obscure and doubtful, we are compelled first of all to prove ourselves just this our main foundation (primum principium), from which everything else must be proved. Among the philosophers one would think that this would be something quite inconsistent and impossible to do.

First Moses says in the fifth book Cap. 17, 8-11: If a serious matter should occur, then one should go to the place, which the Lord has chosen for His name, and there ask the priests for advice, who are to judge it according to the law of the Lord.

According to the law of the Lord (he says), but how could they judge if the law of the Lord was not outwardly quite clear, thereby giving them satisfaction? Otherwise it would have been enough to say that they should judge according to their spirit. Yes, this is how it is in the government of all nations, that all disputes of all people are settled by laws. But how could they be settled, if there were not certain laws, which are also a light in the people?

For if the laws were ambiguous and uncertain, not only could no controversial matters be settled, but there could be no firm moral way of life. For laws are given in order that the way of life may be established according to a certain rule and that disputed questions in matters may be decided. Therefore, that which is the measure and guide for other things must be by far the most certain and clear; of this kind is the law. Since this light and certainty of laws in unholy worldly matters, where temporal goods are involved, is both necessary and given freely by God's gift of grace to the whole world, how should he not give his Christians, namely the elect, many more bright and certain laws and rules, according to which they could judge themselves and all things and settle everything, since he wants his own to despise temporal things? For since God so clothes the grass that stands today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, how much more us? But let us go on and overthrow that pernicious word of the sophists with Scripture.

In the 19th Psalm it says v. 9., "The commandment of the LORD is bright or pure, and enlightens the eyes." I believe that which enlightens the eyes is not dark or doubtful.

Likewise Psalm 119:130:. "The door of your words enlightens and gives understanding to the simple." Here he says of the words of God that they are a door and something revealed, which is clearly set forth to all and enlightens even the simple.

Isa. 8, 20. He directs all questions to "the law and testimony", and if we will not do this, he threatens us that we shall not have the light of dawn.

In the 2nd chapter Malachi v. 7. he commands, "that one should seek the law out of the mouth of the priest, because he is an angel of the LORD of hosts". This, of course, would be a very angel of his, or messenger of the LORD, bringing forth such things as would not only be ambiguous to himself, but also obscure to the people, so that he himself would not know what he spoke, and the people would not know what they heard.

And what is said throughout the Old Testament, especially in the 119th Psalm, in praise of the Scripture

1744 L. v. a. vii. 178-iM. 68. that free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2159-2102. 1745

said more often than that it is the most certain and obvious light? For thus he praises its clearness Ps. 119, 105.: "Thy word is a lamp unto my foot, and a light unto my path." He does not say, your spirit alone is my foot's lamp, although he also assigns its office to it and says Ps. 143, 10.: "Your good spirit leads me on a level path." Thus, God's word is also called a way and a path, naturally because of its exuberant certainty.

Now let us move on to the New Testament. Paul says Rom. 1, 2, "the gospel is promised through the prophets in the holy scriptures", and Cap. 3, 21, "the righteousness of faith is testified by the law and the prophets". What kind of testimony would this be if it were dark? Yes, in all his epistles he calls the gospel the word of light, the gospel of clarity, but then he also speaks of it in particular with rich words 2 Cor. 3, 7. ff. and Cap. 4, where he speaks gloriously of the clarity of Moses and Christ.

Peter also says 2 Petr. 1, 19: "We have a very certain 1) prophetic word; if you pay attention to it as to a light shining in a dark place, you do well." Here Peter calls the word of God a bright light, but everything else darkness; and we make darkness and gloom out of the word?

Christ John 8:12 so often calls himself the light of the world and John the Baptist John 5:35 a burning and shining light, no doubt not because of the holiness of life, but for the sake of the word, as Paul calls the Philippians 2:15 bright lights of the world, "because ye (he says) hold fast because of the word of life"; for life without the word is uncertain and dark.

And what do the apostles do when they prove their sermons with the Scriptures? Do they darken their dark things with even greater darkness, or do they prove what is known with what is unknown? What does Christ do when he teaches the Jews Joh. 5, 39, "that they should search the Scriptures,

  1. In Latin valcts esrtnm, in the Vulgate ürrnlorsili.

which would bear witness about him"? Did he do this to make them doubt their faith in him? What do they do, Apost. 17:11, who, after hearing Paul, read the Scriptures day and night to see if it was true? Does not all this prove that the apostles, like Christ, refer to the Scriptures as the brightest testimony of their speeches? How, then, can we presume to say that the Scriptures are dark?

I ask you, are these words of Scripture also obscure or ambiguous: "God created the heavens and the earth"; "the Word became flesh", and all that the whole world has accepted as articles of faith? From where did it accept it? Did it not get it from the Scriptures? And what do those who still preach today, interpret and explain the Scriptures? But if the Scriptures they expound are obscure, who can make us sure that their explanation is reliable? Another, new explanation. Who will explain this one? So it will go on ad infinitum.

In short, if the Scriptures are dark or ambiguous, what need would there have been for God to give them to us? Would we not have been dark and doubtful enough if darkness and ambiguity and darkness had not been increased for us from heaven? Where then will the apostle's saying remain 2 Tim. 3, 16.: "All Scripture inspired by God is useful for teaching, for punishment, for chastening"? Yes, dear Paul, it is quite useless; with the fathers, accepted by a long series of centuries, and with the Roman see, one must fetch such things as you attach to the holy Scriptures. Therefore your statement must be revoked, since you write to Titus 1, 9.: "Let a bishop be mighty to exhort by wholesome doctrine, and to punish the gainsayers, and to shut up the useless babblers and seducers of souls." How can he be powerful if you leave him only the dark scriptures, that is, weapons made of tow and light straws instead of a sword? Then Christ would also have to revoke his statement, which would give us a false confidence in him.

1746 D. V. L. VII, I80-I82. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2162-2165. 1747

saying Luc. 21:15, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand." How shall they not be able to resist us, since we contend against them with dark and uncertain things? And how can you also, Erasmus, prescribe for us a way of Christian living, since the Scriptures are dark to you?

But I believe that I am even burdensome to the unintelligent here, because I lose so many words in such an exceedingly clear matter and dwell on it so long. But I have had to pour over the impertinent speech that the holy scripture is dark, so that you too, dear Erasmus, might see what you are saying when you deny that the scripture is clear. For in doing so, you must necessarily also assert to me at the same time that all your saints, whom you attract, are much less clear. For who makes us certain of their light, if you have made the Scriptures dark for us? Therefore, those who deny that the Scriptures are entirely bright and clear make us nothing but darkness.

But here you will say, All this does not concern me; I do not say that the Scripture is dark everywhere (for who should be so nonsensical?), but only in this piece and similar things. I answer: Neither do I speak against thee alone, but against all who hold the same opinion. Furthermore, I say against you of the whole Scripture that I do not want any part of it to be called dark, for there it says what we have quoted from Peter 2 Ep. 2:19: "that the word of God is to us a bright light shining in a dark place". Now if a part of this light does not shine, it will rather be a part of the dark place than of the light. For Christ did not so enlighten us that he willed that any part of his word should be left dark to us, when he commands us to take heed; for in vain does he command us to take heed, if it shine not.

Accordingly, if the doctrine of free will is obscure or uncertain, it does not concern Christians and the Scriptures, but is to be abandoned altogether, and definitely to be reckoned among the fables of which Paul forbids that the

Christians should not quarrel about it. But if it belongs to Christians and to the Scriptures, it must be clear, manifest, and distinct, and quite similar to all other perfectly distinct articles. For all the articles of Christians must be of such a nature that they are not only quite certain to themselves, but also corroborated against others with passages of Scripture so manifest and bright that they can shut the mouths of all, that they cannot speak anything against it, as Christ promises us, saying Luc. 21:15., "I will give you mouths and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist." Therefore, if our mouth is weak in this piece, so that the adversaries can resist, what he says, that no adversary can resist our mouth, is false. So, either we will have no adversaries in the doctrine of free will, which will be the case if it is none of our business, or if it is ours, we will have adversaries, but ones who cannot resist.

But that the adversaries are not able to resist (because we have come to it here), this is so, not that they are forced to give up their opinion, or that they allow themselves to be persuaded to confess their error and to remain silent. For who can force them against their will to believe, to confess their error or to keep silent? For what is more talkative than empty delusion? says Augustine. But their mouths are shut in such a way that they cannot raise anything against it, and although they say many things against it, common sense judges that they say nothing. This is better shown with examples. When Christ shut the Sadducees' mouths in Matth. 22, 34. by citing Scripture and proving the resurrection of the dead from the second book of Moses, Cap. 3, 6: "I am the God of Abraham." 2c "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." They could not resist, nor could they say anything against it; but did they let go of their opinion for the sake of it? And how often did he convict the Pharisees with the clearest scriptures and reasons, so that the people saw publicly that they were overcome?

1748 L. V. E. VII, 182-184. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2165-2168. 1719

and they themselves felt it! Nevertheless, they remained stubborn opponents. Stephen, Apost. 7, 51 ff., spoke in such a way, as Lucas testifies, that they could not resist the wisdom and the spirit that spoke in him. But what did they do? Did they give in? Rather, because they were ashamed to be overcome and could not resist, they became foolish, covered their ears and eyes and brought false witness against him, Acts 7:56. 7, 56. Likewise, when he stood before the council, see how he refutes the opponents, as he lists the benefits that God had bestowed on the people from the beginning, and proves that God never commanded that a temple be built for him (because he was accused of the question, and that is what the matter was about). Finally he admits that a temple had been built under Solomon, but from this, he concludes in this way v. 48.: "But the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands", and for its proof he cites the prophet Isaiah Cap. 66, 1.: "What is this house which you have built for me?" Say, what could they say against such a revealed scripture? But they were not moved by it and stood firm on their opinion. Therefore he also attacks them and says v. 51, "You uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. "2c He says they resisted, since they could not resist.

But we want to come to our time. Since John Hus disputes against the pope from Matth. 16, 18: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my church", is there any darkness or uncertainty in this? But the gates of hell have the supreme power against the pope and his people, because they are notorious (nobiles) in the whole world through obvious ungodliness and crimes. Is this also dark? So the pope and his people are not the church Christ is talking about. What could they have contradicted here? or how could they have resisted your mouth that Christ had given him? But they still resisted and firmly insisted on their opinion, so that they also burned him, so completely would they not leave their opinion.

And Christ does not conceal this either, since he says: "Your resisters shall not be able to resist"; they are resisters (he says), therefore they will resist, otherwise they would not be resisters, but would become friends, and yet they shall not be able to resist. What is this but to say, though they resist, yet shall they not be able to resist?

If, therefore, we too can refute free will in such a way that the opponents are not able to resist, although they insist on their opinion and resist their conscience, then we have done enough. For I have sufficiently learned that no one wants to be called overcome, and (as Quintilian says) there is no one who would not rather be regarded as knowing than as learning; although with us all have this saying in their mouths, more habitually than from the heart, so that they misuse it: I desire to learn, I am ready to be instructed, and if I am instructed, to follow the better; I am a man, I can err. (This is spoken,] so that under this pretense, as it were under a beautiful semblance of humility, one may be at liberty to speak confidently: I am not satisfied with it; I do not understand it; he does violence to the Scriptures; he stubbornly asserts: of course they are convinced that no one can fall into suspicion, that a man of such great humility stubbornly resists and fiercely fights even the recognized truth. Thus it is not to be ascribed to their malice that they do not dissent from their opinion, but to the obscurity and uncertainty of the reasons.

So did the philosophers of the Greeks; so that it would not seem as if one had given way to the other, even though it was evidently overcome, they began to deny the fundamentals (prima principia), as Aristotle relates. Meanwhile, we gently persuade ourselves and others that there are many good people on earth who would gladly accept the truth if only there were one to teach it clearly, and it is not to be supposed that so many learned people have erred in so great a series of centuries.

1750 L. v. a. vii, i84 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2168-2172. 1751

or have not recognized the truth, as if we did not know that the world is the devil's kingdom, where, in addition to the natural blindness that is innate in us from the flesh, we are still hardened in this blindness by the most ungodly spirits that rule over us, and we are held by diabolical, no longer human darkness.

If, then, you will say, the Scriptures are bright, why, in this piece, have men who have excelled in high intellect been so blind for so many centuries?

I answer: They have been so blind to praise and honor of the free will, so that that gloriously praised power would be presented, by which man can prepare himself for what belongs to eternal bliss, namely that he does not see what is seen, does not hear what is heard, much less understands or desires it. For here belongs what Christ from Isaiah [6, 9.) and the evangelists Matth. 13, 14. Luc. 8, 10. so often assert: "With hearing ears ye shall not hear, neither shall ye understand; and with seeing eyes ye shall not see." What is this but that the free will or the human heart is so oppressed by Satan's power that, unless it is miraculously awakened by the Spirit of God, it cannot even see in itself, nor hear, what apparently falls into the eyes and resounds in the ears, so that it would like to be grasped with hands? so great is the misery and blindness of the human race. The evangelists also wondered how it came about that the Jews did not accept the works and words of Christ, which were quite irrefutable and undeniable. They answer themselves with that passage of the Scriptures, namely, that man, when left to himself, does not see with seeing eyes and does not hear with hearing ears. Which is more strange? "The light," he says John 1:5, "shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not." Who should believe this? Who has ever heard such a thing? That a light shines in the darkness and the darkness nevertheless remains darkness and is not illuminated?

Accordingly, in divine matters it is not

to wonder that in so many centuries the people distinguished by high intellect have been blind. In human things it would be a miracle, in divine things it would be much more miraculous if one or the other were not blind, but no miracle at all if all were blind. For what is the whole human race without the Spirit but the kingdom of the devil (as I have said), a confused mass (chaos) of darkness? Therefore Paul calls Eph. 6, 12. the evil spirits the rulers in this darkness. And 1 Cor. 2, 8. he says, "that none of the rulers of this world has known the wisdom of God". What do you think he will think of the others, since he claims that the rulers of the world are servants of darkness? For by the chiefs he understands the first and highest in the world, whom you call people who are distinguished by high talent (excellentos ingenio). Why have all the Arians been blind? Were there not also people of high talent? Why is Christ a foolishness to the Gentiles? Were there no people of high talent among the Gentiles? Why is he an offense to the Jews? Have there been no people of high ability among the Jews? "God knows (says Paul 1 Cor. 3, 20) the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain"; he did not want to say "of men", as the text Ps. 94, 11 has it, and designates the first and highest among men, so that we estimate the other men according to them.

But we will perhaps speak about this in more detail later; it is sufficient that we have sent this in advance at the beginning, that the Scriptures are quite clear, so that we are able to defend our cause through them in such a way that the adversaries cannot resist. But what cannot be defended in this way is far away and does not concern Christians. But if there are people who cannot see this clarity and are blind in the bright light of the sun and bump into it, they show, if they are godless, how great the majesty and power of the devil is over the children of men, that they neither hear nor understand the very clear words of God, as if one, deceived by a spell, believed that the sun was

1752 L. V.". VII, 185-187. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2172-2175. 1753

a cold coal or a stone for gold. But if they are godly, they must be counted among the elect who are led astray for a time, so that God's power may be revealed in us, without which we can neither see nor be able to do anything at all. For it is not sluggishness of mind (as you pretend) that God's word is not grasped, indeed, no one is more skilled in grasping God's word than those who have a weak mind; for for the sake of the weak and to the weak Christ came and sent them his word. But it is the wickedness of the devil that sits in our weakness, reigns and resists the word of God; if the devil did not do this, then by one sermon of God, if it were heard only once, all men in the whole world would be converted, and nothing more would be needed.

But what need is there of many words? Why do we not put an end to the whole thing with this entry and judge you from your own words according to the words of Christ Matth. 12, 37.: "From your words you will be justified and from your words you will be condemned"? For you say that the Scriptures are not bright here. Then you leave the matter undecided and dispute on both sides what can be said for and what can be said against; you do nothing else in your whole book, which for its sake you would rather have called a treatise (äiatribon) than a firm explanation (apopüasin) or something else, because you wanted to put everything together (ooilaturus), but still nothing so written that you assert it as certain. If therefore the Scripture is not bright, why are those people here, whom you praise so highly, not only blind, but also declare and assert free will sacrilegiously and foolishly, as if this happened from the certain and bright Scripture? I mean 1) "the so numerous series of the most learned men, whose opinion has been unanimously approved for so many hundreds of years up to the present day, most of whom, apart from their admiration for free will, have been the only ones who have been able to explain it.

  1. Diatribe § 4.

The same applies to a godly way of life that is recommended by a worthy insight into the holy scriptures. Some have confirmed the Christian doctrine, which they have defended in their writings, with their blood." If you speak this from the heart, then it is certain with you that free will had such people as its defenders (assertoros), who were gifted with an admirable knowledge of the holy Scriptures, so that they also testified to this doctrine with their blood. If this is true, then they considered the Scriptures to be clear. Otherwise, what would have been their admirable insight into the holy scriptures, indeed, what recklessness and sacrilege to shed one's blood for an uncertain and obscure cause? For this would not befit the martyrs of Christ, but the devils.

Now you, too, consider and ponder whether you think that more should be placed on the judgment of so many scholars, so many saints, so many martyrs, so many old and new theologians, so many high schools, so many councils, so many bishops and popes who have held that the holy scriptures are clear, who have believed that the holy Scriptures are clear, and have confirmed this both with their writings and with their blood, than on your, a single man's, private part, since you deny that the holy Scriptures are clear, and perhaps have never lost even one tear or sigh for the teaching of Christ. If you believe that they have judged rightly, why do you not follow them? If you do not believe it, why do you boast with full cheeks, with such a great torrent of words, as if you wanted to overwhelm me with a storm and with a kind of deluge of speech, which, however, floods much more strongly over your own head, but my ark swims above in safety. For you attribute to so many and so great men at the same time the greatest folly and the greatest sacrilege, since you write that they had great knowledge in the holy Scriptures, and had firmly testified to it with their pen, with their life, with their death, and yet you claim that it is dark and uncertain. This is nothing else than to represent those men as if they were quite inexperienced in knowledge and quite foolish in their firm testimony. So I would not have

1754 D- vii> iN f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm. 2175-2177. 1755

honored, who I despise for my person, as you do, her public eulogist.

So I hold you here, as they say, with a reasoning that has horns (cornuto syllogismo); for one of the two must be false: either what you say, that those were admirable because of their knowledge of the holy Scriptures, because of their life and martyrdom; or what you say, that the Scriptures are not bright. But because you rather let yourself be carried away to believe that the Scriptures are not bright (for you do this in the whole book), nothing else remains but that you have said, either in jest or out of flattery, but by no means seriously, that they had a great knowledge of the Scriptures and were martyrs of Christ, in order to make a pretense before the eyes of the ignorant people, but to give Luther a hard time, so that you would burden his cause with hatred and contempt by such empty words. But I say that neither is true, but that both are false; I maintain first that the holy Scriptures are all light, further that those people, in so far as they assert free will, have no knowledge at all of the holy Scriptures, and finally that they have confirmed this doctrine neither by their life nor by their death, but only with the pen, but in such a way that their spirit has stumbled in it.

Resolution of the response to the introductory remarks of the diatribe. 1)

Therefore I conclude this little discussion thus: By Scripture, as dark in this piece, nothing certain about free will has been established so far, nor could anything be established, as you yourself testify; but by the life of all men from the beginning of the world nothing is shown for free will either, as has been said above. Therefore, to teach something that is not indicated by any word in Scripture and that is not proven by any fact outside of Scripture does not concern the teachings of Christians, but belongs to the truthful narratives.

  1. This heading is set by us, instead of the not quite correct one of Jonas: "Resolution of the answer to the preface.

i.e. fables of Lucian. Only that Lucian plays with amusing things in jest and with insight and neither deceives nor harms anyone, but these people, with whom we are dealing, act nonsensically in a serious matter, which moreover concerns eternal bliss, to the ruin of countless souls.

Division of this book. 2)

So I could close the whole question of free will here, since the testimony of the opponents also speaks for me and argues against them, since there is no stronger proof than the own confession and testimony of the one who is accused against himself. But since Paul commands to shut up the useless talkers, let us proceed to the matter itself and treat it in the order that the diatribe keeps. First we want to refute the reasons given for free will. Then we will defend what is supposed to be refuted by our reasons. Finally, we will argue against free will for the grace of God.

First part of this book.

a. Against the first part of the diatribe, by which it seeks to establish free will. 3)

And first, as is proper, let us begin with the explanation of free will, which you give as follows: 4)

"Further: by free will we understand here the faculty of the human will, according to which man is able either to turn to that which leads to eternal bliss, or to turn away from it."

Truly cleverly you set up the bare explanation without making even a bit of it clear (as others are wont to do), because you perhaps feared that you would suffer shipwreck more than once. Therefore, I am forced to make the one-

  1. This superscription is found in the translation of Justus Jonas, but not in Latin.
  2. This heading is inserted by us.
  3. Diatribe § 8.

1756 L. v. L. vii, 188-iW. 68: That free will is nothing. W. xvin, 2177-2180. 1757

The first part of the text is the "definition". If one listens carefully, one finds that the thing about which the declaration is made (definitum) certainly has a much broader meaning than the declaration (definitio). Of such a definition the sophists would say that it is not long, because the declaration does not cover what is declared; for above we have shown that free will belongs to no one but GOtte. You could perhaps ascribe a will to man with some justification, but that is too much to ascribe to him a will in divine things, because the word free will is said, according to the judgment of everyone who hears it, by him who is able and does against God whatever he pleases, bound by no law, by no rule. For a servant who acts under the rule of a lord could not be called free, but how much less can this be said in truth of a man or an angel, who live their lives under the most unlimited rule of God (let alone sin and death) in such a way that they cannot exist for even a moment by their own strength.

Therefore, the explanation of the word and the explanation of the thing quarrel against each other already here in the entrance, because the word designates something different than one imagines under the thing itself. It would have been more correct to call it a fickle will or a changeable will. For thus Augustine, and after him the Sophists, detract from the honor and power of this word "free," and make that diminishing addition, that they call it a changeable free will. And so it behooves us to speak, lest with pompous and splendid words, since there is nothing behind, we deceive the hearts of men, as Augustine also holds that we must speak with sober and proper words according to a certain rule. For in teaching, simplicity and the rational choice of proper expressions (proprietas dialectica) are necessary, not high-sounding words and figures of speech in order to persuade.

But lest it seem as if we had a desire to quarrel over words, let us in all this yield to abuse, as

It is a great and dangerous abuse to say that free will is the same as the will of Wankel. We also want to let Erasmus off the hook that he makes of the power of free will a power of the human will only, as if the angels had no free will, because in this booklet he has set himself the task of dealing only with the free will of men; otherwise the explanation in this piece would also be narrower than what is explained.

Now we want to come to the pieces around which the main matter revolves. Some of them are clear enough, others flee the light, as if they had an evil conscience and feared everything, since nothing should be made clearer and more certain than the explanation (definitione); for to explain something darkly is just as much as to explain nothing. These pieces are evident: "the faculty of the human will," likewise: "according to which man is able," likewise: "to eternal blessedness"; but these pieces are blind strokes: "to turn," likewise: "to that which leads," likewise: "to turn away. To what then shall I turn to understand what this "turning" is? likewise, "turning away"? likewise, what are these things "that lead to eternal blessedness"? To what do these things extend? I have to do, as I see, with a right Scotus or Heraclitus, so that I am wearied by double work; first, that I must (which is a daring and dangerous undertaking) seek my opponent groping and groping in pitfalls and darkness, and, if I do not find him, fight in vain and with ghosts, and do aerial strokes in the darkness, but only then, when I have drawn him out into the light, can I at last, already wearied by the search, fight him with equal advantage.

Now I believe that you call the power of the human will the power, or ability, or skill, or fitness, to will or not to will, to choose or to despise, to accept or to reject, and other such acts of the will. But what this should be, that this power turns and turns away, I do not understand, unless the wanting and not wanting itself, the choosing and despising, the accepting.

1758 L. v.". vii, 190-192. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm. 2180-2183. 1759

We must therefore imagine that this force is a kind of middle thing between the will and its activity, so that the will itself produces the activity of wanting and not wanting, and thus the action of wanting and not wanting is brought about. Something else can neither be imagined nor thought here. If I am wrong, the blame falls on the author who has given the explanation, not on me who tries to investigate it with diligence. For it is a right word among the jurists: The words of him who speaks darkly, when he could have spoken more clearly, are to be interpreted against himself. And here I do not want to know anything about my new theologians (Modernos) with their subtleties, because one must talk roughly out of it in order to be able to teach and understand. But that which leads to eternal blessedness, I believe, are the words and works of God, which are offered to the human will, so that he turns to them or turns away from them. But I call God's words both the law and the gospel; by the law works are required, by the gospel faith. For there are no other things that lead both to the grace of God and to eternal blessedness than God's word and work. For grace or the Spirit is life itself, to which we are led by God's word and work.

But this life, or eternal blessedness, is a thing beyond human comprehension, as Paul introduces the saying of Isaiah 64, 4. in the First Epistle to the Corinthians Cap. 2, 9. introduces: "Which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, which GOD hath prepared for them that love Him." For this is also one of the highest articles of our faith, since we confess, "And life eternal." But what free will is able to do in this article, Paul testifies in 1 Cor. 2:10: "GOD (saith he) hath revealed it unto us by his Spirit," that is, if the Spirit had not revealed it, no man's heart could know or think anything of it, so little is it able to turn to it or desire it.

Look at the experience, what the most excellent, most gifted people among the pagans have thought of the future life and of the resurrection. Is it not so, that the more splendid understanding they have had, the more ridiculous has been to them the resurrection and eternal life? Were they not also highly intelligent philosophers and Greeks, who in Athens had heard Paul (Apost. 17, 18], who taught this, a fool and a proclaimer of new gods? Porcius Festus, Apost. 26, 24. called Paul a frenzy because of the preaching of eternal life... What does Pliny blaspheme (latrat) about these things in the seventh book? What Lucian, who had such a high mind? Have they all been fools? So it goes also still today with very many. The higher their intellect and erudition, the more they ridicule this article and consider it a fairy tale, and that publicly. For secretly (in the heart, because he is permeated by the Holy Spirit) no man knows, believes or desires eternal life, although he boasts of it in word and scripture. And, would God that you and I were free from this leaven, dear Erasmus, so rare is a truly believing heart in this article. Have I now not met the meaning of your explanation?

Thus, according to Erasmus, free will is a power of the will which can will and not will God's word and work from itself, whereby it is led to that which exceeds all its grasp and understanding. But if he can will and not will, he can also love and hate. But if he can love and hate, he can also fulfill the law to some extent and believe the gospel. For it is impossible, if I can will or not will something, that I should not be able to perform at least something of a work by this will, even if I could not perform it completely, because another prevents it. Yes, since death, the cross and all the evils in the world are to be counted among the works of God that lead to salvation, the human will can also want death and its own destruction. Yes, it can want everything, since it

1760 L. V. L. VII, I92f. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2183-2186. 1761

the word and work of God; for what can there be under or but, within or without the word and work of God, but God Himself? But what is left here for grace and the Holy Spirit? That is to say, to completely attribute deity to free will, because wanting the law and the gospel, not wanting sin, and having a desire for death, belongs to divine power alone, as Paul says in many places.

Accordingly, after the time of the Pelagians, no one has written more correctly about free will than Erasmus. For we have said above that free will is a divine name and denotes a divine power. But this no one has yet attached to it free will than the Pelagians, for the Sophists, whatever opinions they may have had, certainly speak quite differently. Yes, Erasmus even surpasses the Pelagians by far, because they attach this deity to the whole free will, but Erasmus to half of it. For those make two parts of the free will, the power to distinguish and the power to choose; those attach it to the understanding, but these to the will, which is also done by the Sophists. But Erasmus sets aside the power to discriminate and exalts only the power to choose, thus making a lame and half-free will a god. What do you think he would have done if he had described the whole free will?

But not satisfied with this, he also goes beyond the philosophers. For with them it is not yet decided whether a thing can move by itself, and about this the whole body of philosophers, the Platonists and Peripatetics, are still in agreement, but with Erasmus free will not only moves by its own power, but it also turns to that which is eternal, that is, to that which is incomprehensible to it: a quite new and unheard-of explainer of free will, who leaves the philosophers, the Pelagians, the Sophists and all far behind .leaves behind. And even this is not enough for him; he does not spare himself either and is more at odds with himself and argues more against himself than against all others. For

Previously he had said that the human will is completely incapable of anything without grace (but he may have been joking), but here, where he gives his explanation in all seriousness, he says that the human will has such a power that it is able to send itself to that which serves eternal bliss, that is, to things that are immeasurably higher than that power; so Erasmus also goes beyond himself in this piece.

Do you see now, dear Erasmus, that you reveal yourself by this statement (I think, unawares), that you do not understand anything at all about these things, but rather write about them quite carelessly and indifferently, and do not know what you are talking about or asserting? And, as I said above, you apply less to free will and yet attach more to it than all others; since you do not even describe the whole of free will, you nevertheless attach everything to it. Much more to suffer is what the Sophists teach, at least their father Peter Longobardus, who say that free will is the ability to distinguish, then also to choose, namely the good when grace is there, but evil when grace is gone. And he completely agrees with Augustine, who says that free will can do nothing of its own power but fall, and that it has no other power than to sin. Therefore, in the second book against Julianus, Augustine calls it a servile will (servum arbitrium) rather than a free will.

But you make the power of free will equal on both sides, so that it can both turn to the good and turn away from the good out of its own ability without grace. For you do not consider how great a thing you attach to him by the pronoun "himself" or "himself". Since you said, "He can turn away," you completely exclude the Holy Spirit with all his power, as it were as superfluous and not necessary. Therefore your explanation is also reprehensible according to the judgment of the sophists. If they were not so nonsensical, blinded by their hatred of me, they would rather rage against your book. Now, however, because you attack Luther, everything you say is holy and Christian, even if you are

1762 L.?. g,. vii, 193-19S. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 2186-21W. 1763

speak against yourself and against them; so great is the patience of the holy people.

I say this not because I approve of the Sophists' opinion of free will, but because I believe it to be more tolerable than that of Erasmus, for they come closer to the truth. For they do not say, as I do, that free will is nothing; however, since they say that it can do nothing without grace, especially the Magister Sententiarum, 1) they argue against Erasmus; indeed, they also seem to argue against themselves and to labor in mere verbal quarrels, and are more eager for argument than for truth, as this seems to the sophists. For suppose that a sophist, who is not at all malicious, were to be procured for me, with whom I could secretly discuss these matters in confidence and demand a sincere and free judgment in this way: If someone said to you, that is free, which by its power is able to do something only to one side, namely to evil, but to the other side, namely to good, it is able to do something, but not by its own power, but only with the help of another, could you then suppress your laughter, dear friend? For in this way I would easily prove that a stone or a block also has free will, for they can turn downward and upward, but by their own strength only downward, but only upward with the help of another. And as I said above, at last we would like to reverse the use of all languages and words: None is all; nothing is all; in that we refer the one word to the thing itself, but the other to a thing not belonging to it, which could be there and come to it.

Thus, through too much bickering about free will, they finally came to the point of making it free by something that happens to be added (per accidens), because it could well be made free once by another. But the question is what free will is capable of in and for itself, and of the essence of free will. If this question is to be solved, nothing remains.

  1. Petrus Lombardus, died 1164.

They leave nothing but the empty word "free will", whether they want it or not. The sophists also fail to attribute to free will the ability to distinguish good from evil; likewise, they also omit the rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit and attribute to it, as it were, only quite externally that foreign help of which I will speak later. But this is enough of the explanation (definitione). Now let us look at the reasons with which they wanted to blow out this empty little word.

First is the passage Sirach 15:14-17: 2) "God created man from the beginning and gave him the choice. If thou wilt, keep the commandments, and do that which pleaseth him in right trust. He has set before thee fire and water, whichever thou wilt. Man has life and death before him; whichever he wills, that shall be given him."

I could, of course, justifiably reject this book, but I accept it for the time being, so that I am not drawn into the question and lose time over which books are included in the Canon of the Hebrews, against which you are quite biting and mocking, comparing the Proverbs of Solomon and the Song of Songs (as you call it with ambiguous teasing), a love song, with the two last books Ezra; Judith, the history of Susanna and the dragon, and Esther. Although they have this in the canon, it would, in my judgment, be worth more than all of them not to be considered canonical.

But I could briefly answer with your own words: The scripture is dark and ambiguous at this point, therefore it proves nothing certain. But since we are on the negative side, we demand of you that a passage be produced which convincingly demonstrates in clear words what free will is and what it can do. This you will perhaps do when roses grow on the ice, 3) although you, for the sake of this un-

  1. Diatribe § 8.
  2. In Latin: nck Oalenckus ^i.e. never. As Suetonius reports, this is an expression, which the emperor Augustus often used, because the Greeks have keim Galsnäus.

1764 D- v.". vii, iss-197. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2139-2192. 1765

You are also inventing a fourfold grace, so that you can also attach some faith and love to the philosophers; likewise a threefold law, nature, works, and faith, free. Likewise you invent a fourfold grace, so that you can also attribute a certain faith and love to the philosophers; likewise a threefold law, of nature, of works and of faith, admittedly a new fable, in order to be able to claim stiffly and firmly that the precepts of the philosophers agree with the precepts of the gospel. Then the passage, Psalm 4:7: "Lord, lift up the light of your countenance upon us," which actually speaks of the knowledge of God's countenance, that is, of faith, which you attribute to reason, which is completely blind. If a Christian holds all this against each other, he will have to suspect you of mocking and ridiculing the teachings and religion of Christians. For that I should ascribe so great an ignorance to him who has investigated all our matters with such great care and has kept them so well in his memory, is something that I do not want to succeed in at all. Now, however, I will let this go and be content with the fact that I have hinted at it until a more suitable opportunity presents itself. But I beg you, dear Erasmus, do not put us to the test as if you were one of those who say: Who sees us? because it is dangerous to joke in such a great matter in front of all kinds of people and constantly with wobbly words. But to the point.

You turn one opinion about free will into a threefold one 1): "Hard seems to you the opinion of those, but still quite probable, who deny that man can will the good without special grace, deny that he can begin, deny that he can continue and accomplish 2c" You approve of this opinion "because it leaves man an effort and endeavor and yet does not admit that he should attribute the least to his own powers. Harder is the opinion of those who maintain that free will can do nothing but sin, that grace alone can do nothing but sin.

  1. Diatribe § 9, at the end.

2c The hardest opinion, however, is that of those who say that free will is an empty name, but that God works both good and evil in us, and that everything that happens happens out of pure necessity. Against these last two opinions you intend to write."

Do you also know what you are talking about, dear Erasmus? You make three opinions here, as if they were three sects, because you do not understand that one and the same thing is stated in different ways, sometimes with these words, sometimes with those words, by us who profess one and the same thing. But we want to reproach you and prove the carelessness or rather the weakness of your judgment.

I ask: how does the explanation of free will which you gave above agree with this first quite probable opinion? For you said that "free will is the faculty of the human will according to which man can turn to the good"; but here you say, and approve of it, that man cannot will the good without grace. The explanation affirms what the example given for it denies. In your free will you find "yes" and "no" at the same time, so that you agree with us and reject us at the same time, yes, you also condemn yourself and let yourself be right in one and the same doctrine and article. Or do you think that it is not a good thing to turn to what concerns eternal blessedness, which your declaration attributes to free will? For no grace would be necessary if only the good were also in free will, by which it could turn to the good. Therefore, this is a different free will, which you declare, than the free will, which you defend. Thus, Erasmus has two free wills before all other people, which completely contradict each other.

But let us leave aside what your explanation has invented and look at what, on the contrary, that first opinion establishes. You admit that man cannot want the good without special grace (for we are not dealing now with what God's grace is able to do, but what man can do without grace).

1766 L. v. a. vii, is7f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2192-2195. 1767

You admit, then, that free will cannot will the good; this is nothing else than that it could not turn: to that which concerns eternal blessedness, as your explanation has been. Even, just before, you say, "that the human will, after sin, was corrupted to such a degree that, having lost its freedom, it had to be a servant of sin and was not able to improve itself. And if I am not mistaken, you say that the Pelagians had this opinion. I believe that here at last no escape is possible for Proteus; he is held fast, imprisoned in plain words, namely, that the will, having lost freedom, is under constraint and held in the bondage of sin. O a perfectly free will, of which Erasmus himself says that it has lost its freedom and is subservient to sin! If Luther said this, nothing more inconsistent could have been heard and nothing more useless could have been spread than this strange saying, so that one would have had to write diatribes against him.

But perhaps no one will believe me that Erasmus said this; one only reads his diatribe at this point and is surprised. But I am not very surprised about it, because whoever does not consider this matter to be a list, and does not take the matter to some extent to heart, but is not at all in it with his mind, has a disgust for it, or is cold, or strangles himself with it: how should he not say here and there inconsistent, tasteless and contradictory things, since he, as it were, acts drunkenly or dreamily about the matter, and belches it out under his snoring: Yes, No, depending on the different voices rushing before his ears? That is why speakers demand from the one who leads a matter that his heart be in it; rather, theology requires such a participation in the matter that makes the administrator watchful, exact, careful, cautious and courageous.

If, therefore, free will, without grace, having lost freedom, is forced to serve sin, cannot will good either, I should like to know what that endeavor is? what be

What effort does that first and acceptable opinion leave? It cannot be a good endeavor, a good effort, because free will cannot want the good, as the first opinion says, and as it is admitted. So only an evil endeavor, an evil effort remains, which, after freedom is lost, is forced to serve sin. Yes, what is also said with this, I ask you? This opinion leaves an aspiration and an effort and yet leaves nothing that can be attributed to one's own powers? Who can understand this? If an endeavor and effort is left for the powers of free will, why should it not also be attributed to them? But if it is not to be attributed to them, how can it be left? Or should this endeavor and effort before grace also be left to the future grace and not to the free will, so that it is at the same time left and not left for the same free will? If these are not strange propositions, or rather monstrosities, what are monstrosities?

But the diatribe perhaps dreams this, that between the two things, being able to will the good and not being able to will the good, there still lies a middle thing, namely the will in and for itself (absolute velle), where no consideration is taken; neither for good, nor for evil, so that we thus escape the cliffs by a dialectical subtlety and say: In the will of man there is a certain willing, which without grace is not capable of anything good, but without grace does not immediately want only evil, but it is a pure and mere willing, which through grace can turn upward to good, through sin downward to evil. But where then remains what is said above: After freedom is lost, the will must serve sin? Where then remains that endeavor which is left, and the effort? where the power to turn to that which belongs to eternal blessedness? For the ability to prepare oneself for blessedness cannot be a mere willing, if one does not want to say that blessedness itself is nothing. Furthermore, the effort and endeavor cannot be a mere will either, because

1768 L. v. L. vii, 198-200, 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2195-2193, 1769

The endeavor must be directed to something (namely to the good) and strive for it and cannot be turned to nothing or rest on nothing. In short, wherever the diatribe turns, it cannot escape the contradictions and contradictory statements, lest the very free will which it defends be a captive one just as much as it itself is captive. For in freeing the will, it becomes so entangled that it is held together with free will in indissoluble bonds.

Furthermore, it is a completely dialectical myth that in man there is a mere will standing in the middle, and those who assert it cannot prove it; it has arisen from ignorance of things and reverence for words, as if it were in reality always as it is stated in words; such things are without number among the sophists. The matter is rather as Christ says Luc. 11, 23., "He that is not with me is against me"; he does not say, He that is not with me, nor against me, but is in the midst. For when GOD is in us, the devil is gone, and only the will of good is there. When GOD is gone, the devil is there, and only the will of evil is in us. Neither God nor the devil allow a pure and mere willing in us, but, as you rightly said, after freedom is lost, we are forced to serve sin, that is, we want sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.

Behold, the insurmountable and exceedingly powerful truth has driven your diatribe quite unawares, and made its wisdom foolishness, that it had to speak against itself and for us, since it wanted to speak against us: just as free will does something good; for then, when it does something against evil, it does most evil against good, so that the diatribe is just in speaking as free will is in doing. But diatribe, too, is nothing at all but an excellent work of free will, for by defending it rejects, and by rejecting it defends,

that is, it is doubly foolish when it wants to seem wise.

So it is with the first opinion, if one considers it for itself, that it denies that man can want something good, and yet an aspiration is left, which, however, is also not his own. Now let us hold it against the other two. For the one is harsher, which holds that free will has no other faculty than to sin. This is the opinion of Augustine, which he expresses in many other places, but especially in the book "Of the Spirit and the Letter", if I am not mistaken, in the fourth or fifth chapter, where he uses these very words.

The third, hardest opinion is that of Wyclef and Luther, that free will is an empty name, and everything that happens, happens out of pure necessity. With these two opinions the diatribe contends. Here I say that perhaps we do not understand enough Latin or German, so that we have not been able to fully indicate the thing itself with words. But I call God to witness that I did not want to say anything else with the words of the last two opinions, nor did I want anything else to be understood than what is expressed in the first opinion. I also do not believe that Augustine intended anything else, I also do not understand anything from his words other than what the first opinion says, so that the three opinions cited by the Diatribe are nothing to me than that my One Opinion. For since it is admitted and accepted that free will, after losing its freedom, is forced under the bondage of sin and cannot will anything good, I can hear nothing else from these words than that free will is an empty word whose content is lost. My German (Grammatica) calls a lost freedom no Freiheil. But if one attaches the title of freedom to that which has no freedom, this is called attaching an empty word. If I am mistaken here, let whoever can rebuke me; if this is dark and uncertain, let whoever can make it light and certain. I cannot call a lost health health, and if I am not healthy, I am not healthy.

1770 D. v. L. vii, 200-202. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2198-2201. 1771

If I were to attach the same to a sick person, I believe that I have attached nothing but an empty name to him.

But away with these abuses of words ! For who could suffer such an abuse in speech as to say at the same time that man has a free will, and yet at the same time firmly maintain that, having lost freedom, he is forced under the bondage of sin, and cannot will anything good? This is contrary to sound reason and completely nullifies the use of language. Rather, the diatribe must be accused, which sleepily babbles its words and pays no attention to other people's words. I say that she does not consider what it is and how much it holds when one says: Man has lost freedom, he is forced to serve sin, and he cannot want anything good. For if she would watch and pay attention, she would see clearly that the three opinions have only one meaning; but she makes of them different, conflicting opinions. For he who has lost his freedom and is forced to serve sin, what can be more correctly concluded about him than that he sins (of necessity) or wants evil? For so would also the sophists conclude in their final speeches. Therefore, the Diatribe unhappily argues against the last two opinions, while it approves of the first, which is one and the same with them, rejecting itself according to its way and proving our case in one and the same article.

Now let us come to the passage from Jesus Sirach and compare with it that first acceptable opinion. The opinion says: Free will cannot will the good; but the passage from Sirach is taken to prove: Free will is and is able to do something. Thus the opinion which is to be proved from Sirach conceives something else in itself than the other for which Sirach is taken to confirm it; just as if someone wanted to prove that Christ was the Messiah, and wanted to cite a passage which proved that Pilate was governor in Syria.

  1. Reesssario-von Noth is missing in the Jena edition.

or anything else that would agree with two octaves at the same time. In this way, too, free will is proved here; not to mention what I demanded above, that nothing is said or proved in a clear and certain way what free will is and what it is capable of. But it is worth the effort to look closely at the whole passage.

First, he says, "GOD created man from the beginning." Here he talks about the creation of man, but says nothing yet, neither about free will, nor about the commandments.

It follows: "And gave him the choice." What does it say here? Is free will claimed here? But here the commandments are not even thought for which the free will is demanded, nor is anything read about it at the creation of man. What is therefore understood here (by choice) must rather be interpreted according to what is said in the first and second chapters of the first book of Moses Cap. 1, 26.: Man is set as lord of all creatures, that he should rule over them freely, as Moses says: "Let us make men to rule over the fishes of the sea." And from these words nothing else can be proved. For then man could deal with the creatures according to his will, as such things as were subject to him. Finally, he calls this man's counsel, 2) as it were, another than God's counsel. But after he has said that the choice is given and left to him, he continues:

"He added his laws and his commandments. 3) To what did he add them? Certainly to the counsel and will of man and to the establishment of man's dominion over other things. By these commandments he took from man the dominion over a part of the creatures (namely, over the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), and rather intended that he should not be free. After the commandments were added, however, there could be talk of a will of man against God and what God is.

  1. Consilium according to the Vulgate; "election" in Luther's translation.
  2. According to the Vulgate.

1772 ' L. a. VII, 202-204. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2201-2204. 177Z

"If you will keep the commandments, they will keep you" 1) 2c So from this passage: "Will you" begins the question of free will, so that we can understand from Sirach that man is divided into two kingdoms, one in which he is governed by his will and counsel, without God's commandments and orders, namely in matters that are under him. Here he rules and is lord, since his choice is released to him. Not that God left him in such a way that he did not participate in all things, but that he granted him the free use of things according to his will and did not prevent him by any laws or commandments, as if to say in the same way: the gospel left it in our choice that we may rule over things and use them as we wish. But Moses and the pope did not leave us in this choice, but kept us in constraint with laws and rather subjected us to their will. But in the other kingdom, he is not left to choose, but is led and guided by the will and counsel of God, so that just as he is guided in his kingdom by his will without the commandments of another, so in the kingdom of God he is guided by the commandments of another without his will. And this is what Sirach says: "He added commandments and laws"; "Will you" 2c.

If this is now clear enough, we have contended that this passage of Sirach does not apply to free will, but against free will, because thereby man is subjected to the commandments and will of God and is deprived of his will. If this is not clear enough, we have nevertheless established that this passage cannot apply to free will, because it can be understood in a sense other than its own, namely, in ours, which we have just given, which is also not incoherent, but quite appropriate and in agreement with the whole of Scripture, while the sense which those put into it disputes with the whole of Scripture and is drawn only from this One passage, against the whole of Scripture. Therefore, we stand securely on the good sense which is the

  1. According to the Vulgate.

free will until those have proven their affirmative, difficult and forced mind.

Therefore, when Sirach says, "If thou wilt keep the commandments, they will keep thee, and wilt thou keep the pleasing faith," I do not see how free will can be proved from these words. For it is a word in dependent form (conjunctivi modi), "If thou wilt," which asserts nothing, as the dialecticians say: that the conditional speech asserts nothing but: If the devil is GOD, he is rightly worshipped; if the ass flies, the ass has wings; if there is free will, grace is nothing. Sirach, however, would have had to speak in this way if he had wanted to assert free will: Man can keep the commandments of GOD, or man has the ability to keep the commandments.

But here the diatribe will raise quibbles: By saying, "If thou wilt hold," Sirach indicates that in man there is the will to hold and not to hold, for what else should this mean, that one should say to him who has not the will, "If thou wilt"? Is it not ridiculous if someone wanted to say to a blind man: If thou wilt see, thou shalt find treasure; or to a deaf man, If thou wilt hear, I will tell thee a good story? That would be laughing at their misery.

I answer: These are reasons of human reason, which tends to give such wisdom. Therefore, we no longer have to argue with Sirach, but with human reason about the conclusion, because it reason interprets the Scripture of God with its conclusions and final speeches and pulls it wherever it wants; and we will do this gladly and confidently, because we know that it only babbles foolish and unruly things, especially when it begins to show its wisdom in holy things.

And first of all, when I ask how it is proved that this is the opinion or that this follows from it, that there is a free will in man, every time it is said: If you will. If you do. If you hear? then it reason will say: Because it seems so, that it is the kind of the words and

1774 L. v. Ä.vn, 204f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2204-2207. 1775

The use of language among men requires. Thus it reason measures divine things and words according to the use and things of men. What is more wrong than this? For the former is divine, the latter human. Thus it proves itself to be foolish, as it can have no other than human thoughts of God.

But how, if I prove that the kind of words and the use of language also among men do not always bring it with them that those are laughed at who are not able, as often as one says to them: If you want. If you do. If you hear? How often do parents play with their children when they entice them either to come to them or to do this or that, just for the sake of it, so that it may become apparent how incapable they are, and they are forced to call upon the father's assistance? How often does a dutiful physician tell a stubborn sick person to do or not to do something that is either impossible or harmful to him, in order to make him realize through experience his illness or his incapacity, which he could not make him realize through any other reason? And what is more common and frequent than to offer and challenge defiance with words, when we want to show either enemies or friends what they can and cannot do? I only mention this to show reason its conclusions, how foolishly it imputes them to Scripture, then also how blind it is that it does not see that the same does not always hold true even in human things and words. But when it sees that this sometimes happens, it is immediately carried away hastily, and judges that it happens quite generally in all the words of God and of men, and makes a general out of the particular, as its wisdom is wont to do.

Now if God wanted to act like a father with us as with his children, in order to show us, who do not know it, our inability, or like a faithful physician to make our illness known to us, or to offer us as his enemies, who hopefully resist his advice. To offer us defiance and, for our sake, to hold up his commandments to us (by which he can most conveniently accomplish this).

and said: Do, listen, keep, or: If you want to hear, if you want to do, if you do, would it be possible to conclude from this in a correct conclusion: So we can do it freely, or God mocks us? Why should this not rather be the conclusion: So God is tempting us, in order to bring us to the knowledge of our inability through the law, if we are friends; or then, in truth and rightly, would He offer us defiance and mock us, if we are trustworthy enemies? For this is the cause why God gave the law, as Paul teaches. For human nature is blind, that it does not know its own powers or rather illnesses, in addition it is proud and lets itself think that it understands and can do everything. God has not been able to counter this pride and ignorance with a more effective remedy than by giving His law. We will say more about this in the proper place; here it is enough that a small sample is given to refute the conclusion of carnal and foolish wisdom: If thou wilt, therefore thou mayest freely will. The diatribe dreams that man is intact and healthy, as he is according to human reputation in his affairs; therefore it cleverly concludes that with these words: If thou wilt. If you do. If you hear, man would be mocked if his will were not free. But the Scripture paints man as depraved and captive, so that he despises and does not recognize his depravity and captivity. Therefore it stings him with these words and wakes him up, so that he may at least be brought to the realization by tangible experience how nothing of these things he is able to do.

But I want to tackle the diatribe itself: If you really think, O wise woman of reason, that those conclusions are certain: "If you will, therefore you have the free faculty," why do you yourself not comply with them? For you say in that assumable opinion that free will cannot want anything good. By what inference, then, from this passage: "If thou wilt hold," may this origin be, since thou sayest that it follows from this that man freely wills and does not will?

1776 L. V. E. VN. MS-207. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2207-2210. 1777

could? Does sweet and bitter flow from the same source? Or do you rather mock man here, saying that he can hold what he can neither want nor desire? Therefore you too do not heartily hold that it is a good conclusion, "If you will, then you have a free faculty," although you raise so great a dispute about it; or you do not heartily say that that opinion is acceptable which holds that man cannot will the good. Thus reason is caught by inferences and words of its wisdom, that it knows not what or whereof it speaks. But it is very appropriate that the free will is defended by such reasons, which consume each other and close against each other, just as the Midianites corrupted themselves by strangling each other, when they fought against Gideon and the people of God Judges 7:22.

Yes, I want to make a further complaint against this wisdom of the diatribe. Sirach does not say, If you have the endeavor or effort to keep, which yet is not to be ascribed to your powers, as you conclude, but he says thus, "If you will keep the commandments, they will keep you." Now if we want to draw conclusions according to the use of your wisdom, we will conclude thus: So man can keep the commandments. But in this way we would not place a very small effort or a very small endeavor in man, but the whole fullness and abundant keeping of the commandments would be attributed to him; otherwise Sirach would mock man by commanding him to keep what he knew he could not keep. And it would not be enough that he had the effort and endeavor, for even so he would not escape the suspicion of mockery if he did not show that he had the strength to keep it.

But let us assume that this effort and endeavor of free will is something; what shall we say to those, namely the Pelagians, who on the basis of this passage denied grace altogether and attributed everything to free will? The Pelagians would have won completely, if the conclusion of the Diatribe was certain. For the words of Sirach are of holding, not of endeavoring or of

Effort. If you now want to deny the Pelagians the conclusion of holding, they will again deny you the conclusion of endeavor with much greater right. And if you want to take away the whole free will from them, they will also take away the remaining little piece, since you cannot claim from a little piece what you deny to the whole. What you therefore also want to say against the Pelagians, who on the basis of this passage attribute everything to free will, we can say much more conclusively against the quite small effort of your free will. And the Pelagians agree with us insofar that if their opinion cannot be proved from this passage, much less any other could be proved from it. For if the matter must be dealt with by inference, Sirach proves most strongly for the Pelagians, since he speaks in clear words of the whole keeping: "Wilt thou keep the commandments." Yes, he also says of faith: "Will you keep the faith that is pleasing", so that, according to the same conclusion, keeping faith should also be in our ability, which is God's special and rare gift, as Paul says.

In short, since so many opinions are put forward in favor of free will, and there is none that does not claim this passage for itself, and they are different and contradictory among themselves, therefore they can prove nothing from it. But if that inference is admitted, it alone proves for the Pelagians against all others; therefore it proves also against the Diatribe, which at this point is strangled with its own sword.

But we say, as in the beginning, that this passage of Siruch is by no means favorable to any of those who assert free will, but that it is opposed to all. For that conclusion must not be admitted: If thou wilt, therefore shalt thou also be able; but it must be understood in such a way that by this and similar words man is reminded of his incapacity, which without these divine admonitions he would neither recognize nor feel out of ignorance and arrogance.

But we are not talking about the first

1778

L. r.". vn, sor-ras.

XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus.

W. xvin, Aio-srir.

1779

The commandment is not to be understood of man alone, but of any man, although it matters little whether it is understood of the first man or of any man. For although the first man was not incapable, since grace assisted him, God sufficiently shows him in this commandment how incapable he would be if grace were not present. Since this man, while the Spirit was still with him, was not able to will with a new will the good that was presented to him anew, that is, obedience, because the Holy Spirit did not add it, what would we be able to do without the Spirit in the good that we have lost? Therefore, we have been shown in this man, with a terrible example to break our pride, what our free will is capable of when it is left to itself and is not constantly driven and strengthened more and more by the Spirit of God. Adam was not able to come to a stronger spirit, whose firstfruits he had, but fell from the firstfruits of the spirit: how then should we be able to come to the firstfruits of the spirit, after they are taken away, since I have fallen, especially since the devil already rules in us with full power, who overthrew him, since he did not yet rule in him, through the One Challenge? Nothing stronger could be brought against free will than if this passage of Sirach were treated together with the case of Adam; but now it is not in the place, and perhaps elsewhere the opportunity will present itself. For now it is enough that it has been shown that Sirach speaks absolutely nothing in favor of free will in this passage, which they nevertheless consider to be the main passage, and that this passage and similar ones: If thou wilt, If thou hear, If thou do, show not what man is able to do, but what he owes.

Another passage is referred to by our diatribe?) Gen. 4, 7. where the Lord says to Cain: "But do not let sin have its way, but rule over it." "Here it is stated (says the diatribe) that the desire for evil could easily be overcome and that there is no need to sin.

  1. Diatribe § 10.

would bring with it." This "the desire for evil could be overcome," although it is spoken ambiguously, must nevertheless, according to the context and what follows, and according to the matter itself, be understood in such a way that free will is able to overcome its impulses to evil, and that those impulses do not entail the necessity to sin. What is omitted here that is not attributed to free will? What is the spirit needed for? what is Christ needed for? what is God needed for? if free will can overcome the impulses of the heart to evil? Where is now again the acceptable opinion which says that free will cannot even will the good? Here, however, the victory over evil is attributed to free will, which neither wants nor desires the good. The carelessness of our diatribe is all too great!

Take the matter simply, as I have said. By such sayings, man is shown what he owes to do, not what he can do. Therefore it is said to Cain that he should rule over sin and keep its will under him. But this he did not do, nor could he do, since he was already under the foreign rule of the devil. For it is known that the Hebrews often speak of a thing that is to come to pass in such a way that they say it will come to pass (indicativo fu- turo uti pro imperativs), as Ex. 20: "Thou shalt not have other gods," "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and innumerable such sayings. Otherwise, if they were taken in the manner of a statement (indicative) (as they read), they would be promises of God, and since He cannot lie, it would happen that no man sinned, and the commandments would be given without need. Thus our interpreter should have translated more correctly in this place thus: "But her desire shall be under thee, and thou shalt rule over her:" As it should also have been said of the woman [Gen. 3, 16.): "Thou shalt be under thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." For the fact that it was not said in the manner of a statement to Cain proves it, because then it would have been a divine promise; but it was not a promise, because the opposite occurred and happened through Cain.

1780 8. v. l. VII, rm f. 68. that free will is nothing. W. XVIII, Aiz-LLIS. 1781

The third passage 1) is from Moses (5 Mos. 30,15.19.): "I have set before you the way "to life and the way to death, choose the good 2c. What (says it the diatribe) can be said more clearly? He leaves the freedom of choice to man."

I answer: What is more manifest than that you are blind here? Where, I ask you, has he left the freedom of choice? In that he says: Choose? So immediately, as Moses says "choose", it happens that they choose? So again, the spirit is not necessary. And since you repeat and inculcate the same thing so often, I will also be permitted to say the same thing again more often. If there is freedom of choice, why has the acceptable opinion said that free will cannot will the good? can it choose without willing or when it does not will? But we want to hear the same thing: 2)

"It would be ridiculous to say to someone who is standing still at a crossroads: here you see two paths, go whichever one you want, since only one would be open to him."

This falls under what I said above about the reasons of carnal reason, that it thinks man is mocked by an impossible commandment, of which we say that he is to be admonished and awakened by it, so that he recognizes his inability. So, in truth, we are at the crossroads, but only one way is open, indeed, none is open; but it is shown by the law how the one to good is impossible unless God gives the Spirit, but the other how broad and easy it is if God allows it. Therefore, it would not be ridiculous, but the one standing still at a crossroads would be told with a necessary seriousness: go whichever way you want, if he, although weak, wanted to think himself strong, or if he claimed that neither of the two ways was blocked.

Therefore the words of the law are spoken, not that they should confirm the power of the will, but that they should confirm the blind ver-.

  1. Diatribe § 10.
  2. Diatribe § 10.

The law enlightens the will, so that it may know how its light is nothing and how the power of the will is nothing. "Through the law (says Paul Rom. 3, 20.) comes knowledge of sin"; he does not say, to do away with or avoid sin. The whole cause and power of the law lies solely in the knowledge, and that only of sin, in order to bring it about, but not in the display or transmission of any power. For knowledge is not power, nor does it give power, but teaches and shows that there is no power, and how great is the weakness. For the knowledge of sin, what can it be but the knowledge of our weakness and wickedness? For he does not say that through the law comes knowledge of power or of good; but all that the law does (as Paul testifies) is to bring us to the knowledge of sin.

And this is the passage from which I have taken this answer, that man is admonished and taught by the words of the law what he ought to do, not what he can do, that is, that he may know sin, not that he may think he has any power. Accordingly, dear Erasmus, as often as you hold the words of the law against me, I will hold against you that saying of Paul: "By the law comes knowledge of sin," not power of the will. If, therefore, from the greatest collections of biblical passages (ex Concordantiis magoribus), all the words which are spoken in a commandment-like manner are brought together in one heap, only that they are not promises, but demands and words of the law, I will soon say that by them it is always indicated what men should do, not what they can do or really do. And this is also known by the teachers of language and the children in the gaffes, that by words in the form of command nothing more is signified than what is to happen. But what happens or can happen must be said by words that express reality (idicativis).

How is it, then, that you theologians are so foolish, as if you were two-fold children, that when you find a word in the form of a command, you immediately conclude from it the reality, as if immediately, as only commanded, it is also

1782 D. V. E. VII, 210-212. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2216-22IS. 1783

How often does it happen that what you command, no matter how possible, is not done? How often does it happen that someone does not get the morsel that he thinks he already has in his mouth? 1) How often does it happen that what you command, however possible, does not happen? So far are commanding words and words indicating reality from each other, even in ordinary and quite easy things. And you make us in these things, which are farther apart than heaven and earth, and which are even impossible, so suddenly words of reality from commanding words, that you want them to be immediately kept, done, chosen and fulfilled, so much so that they become such from our powers as soon as you hear the voice of him who commands: Do, keep, choose.

Fourth, from the fifth book of Moses in the third and thirtieth chapters, you contribute many similar words of choosing, turning away, and keeping, 2) such as, "If you keep, if you turn away, if you choose 2c This, you say, would all be spoken in vain if man's will were not free "for good."

I answer: And you, dear Diatribe, take from these words quite clumsily the freedom of the will. For you only wanted to prove the effort and endeavor of free will, but you do not cite any passage that proves such an effort. But you cite such passages which, if your conclusion were true, attribute everything to free will. Here, therefore, we must again distinguish between the words of Scripture cited and the inference of the diatribe attached to them. The words quoted are commanding, they only say what is to happen, for Moses does not say: You have power or ability to choose, but: Choose, keep, do. He gives commands what to do, but he does not describe the ability of man. The conclusion, however, which the wise diatribe has attached to it, concludes: So man can do such things, otherwise they would be commanded in vain. To this is answered: Mrs. Diatribe, you conclude badly, you also do not prove the conclusion, but your blindness and drowsiness are the reason for it.

  1. Intsr 08 6t oKam, a saying in Cato.
  2. Diatribe 10.

This seems to follow and to be proved by the greatness of the command. But it is not commanded clumsily and in vain, but that the haughty and blind man may thereby learn the disease of his inability when he tries to do what is commanded. So also your similitude is useless, since you say: 3)

"Otherwise, it would be just like saying to a man who was tied in such a way that he could only stretch out his arm to his left side, 'Behold, there you have the most delicious wine on your right and poison on your left; stretch out your hand to whichever one you wish."

I believe that these parables of yours particularly tickle you, but at the same time you do not see that, if your parables stand, they prove much more than you have undertaken to prove, yes, that they prove what you deny and want to be rejected, namely, that free will is able to do everything. For you have constantly forgotten in this business that you said that free will can do nothing without grace, and prove that free will can do everything without grace. For this is implied by your conclusions and similes, that either free will is able of itself to do what is said and commanded, or that it must be commanded in vain, ridiculously and clumsily. But these are the old songs of the Pelagians, which are also rejected by the Sophists, and which you yourself have condemned. But in the meantime you show by this forgetfulness and your bad memory how you do not understand this matter at all and how you do not care about it. For what is more disgraceful for a speaker than to constantly treat and prove other things that have nothing to do with his cause, yes, than that he always speaks against his cause and himself?

I therefore say anew: The words of Scripture which you cite are commanding and prove nothing, teach nothing in regard to human powers, but prescribe what one should do and refrain from doing. But the inferences or additions and your parables, if they prove anything at all, prove this, that free will is able to do everything without the-

  1. Diatribe § 10.

1784 D- V. a. VII, 212-214. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2219-2222. 1785

Grace. But this you have not undertaken to prove, nay, you have denied it; therefore proofs of this kind are nothing else than the strongest counter-proofs. For if I conclude (whether I can perhaps rouse the diatribe from its drowsiness): If Moses says, Choose life and keep the commandment, but man could not choose life and keep the commandment, Moses would have ridiculously commanded man to do so; would I then have proved by this reason that free will can do no good, or that it can strive without its own powers? No, rather I have proved with a very strong reason that man can either choose life and keep the commandment as he is commanded, or Moses would be a ridiculous lawgiver; but who would dare to say that Moses was a ridiculous lawgiver? So it follows that man is able to do what is commanded. In this way, the diatribe argues against what it itself has established, of which it promised that it would not act in such a way, but that it would demonstrate a certain effort of free will. But she does not remember this much in the whole series of reasons, much less does she prove it, yes, she even proves the opposite, so that she rather says and acts everything mockingly.

It may be ridiculous, according to the above equation, that one who is tied with his right arm is asked to stretch out his hand to the right side, since he is only able to do so to the left side: Is it ridiculous, then, if he himself, bound by both arms, should arrogantly claim, or from ignorance presume, that he is able to do everything on both sides, and is then ordered to stretch out his hand on both sides, not to mock his captivity, but so that the false delusion of freedom and his own ability might be taken away from him? What is the reason for this? Is it so that the false illusion of freedom and his own fortune would be taken away from him, or so that the ignorance of his captivity and his misery would be made known to him? The diatribe constantly presents us with such a man, who either is able to do what is commanded, or at least recognizes that he is not able to do it.

But such a person is nowhere. And if there were such a one, then in truth either impossible things would be commanded to us, or the spirit of Christ would be in vain.

But the Scriptures hold before us such a man, who is not only bound, miserable, imprisoned, sick and dead, but who, through the action of his prince, the devil, adds to all his misery the misery of blindness, so that he believes he is free, blissful, unbound, strong, healthy and alive. For the devil knows that if man would recognize his misery, he would not be able to keep anyone in his kingdom, because God could not help but immediately have mercy on and help those who recognize their misery and call upon Him. For in the whole Scripture it is preached with great praise that God is near to those who have broken hearts, so that also Christ testifies, Is. 61, 1. 2. that he was sent to preach the Gospel to the poor and to heal the brokenhearted. Accordingly, it is the work of the devil to keep people from acknowledging their misery, but to presume that they can do everything that is said. But the work of Moses and of a lawgiver is opposed to this, that through the law he should make man's misery manifest, so that when he is thus broken and has become a disgrace through the knowledge of himself, he may prepare him for grace and bring him to Christ, and so make him blessed. Therefore, what is done by the law is not ridiculous, but very serious and necessary.

Those who now understand this also easily understand at the same time that the diatribe with the whole series of reasons does absolutely nothing, since it only brings together commanding words from Scripture, of which it does not understand what they mean and why they are said; But then, by adding its inferences and carnal parables, it makes such a great mash that it asserts and proves more than it intended, and argues against itself, so that it would not be necessary to go through the details further, for by One Solution everything is solved, since everything is based on One Ground. But so that the great multitude with which it has overwhelmed me-

1786 L. V. L. VII, 214 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2222-2225. 1787

I will continue and quote a few more sayings.

^1^) "Is. 1, 19: 'If you will and hear me, you will eat the goods of the land where it would have been better,' according to the judgment of the Diatribe, 'if there were no freedom of will, that it should say: If I want, if I do not want."

According to the above, the answer is clear. Furthermore, what kind of speech would be appropriate if it were said: If I will, you will eat the goods of the land? Or does the diatribe, with excessive wisdom, hold that the goods of the land can be eaten against the will of God, or that this is something strange and new, that we do not receive the goods otherwise, except when God wills?

"So also is the passage Isa. 21:12: 'Though you ask, ask, repent, and come again.' What is the use of exhorting them when they are not at all capable of themselves? As if one would say to one who is in chains, 'Get thee hence,'" says the Diatribe. 2)

Yes, what is the use (I say) of citing passages which by themselves prove nothing, and which, if one appends conclusions, that is, twists their sense, attribute everything to free will, since only a certain effort, which, however, must not be attributed to free will either, should have been proven?

^3^) "The same can be said about the passage Is. 45, 22: 'Gather yourselves together and come near; turn to me, and you will be saved'; and Cap. 52:1, 2: 'Arise, arise, get thee out of the dust, loose thyself from the bands of thy neck'; likewise Jer. 15:19: 'Where thou cleavest to me, I will cleave to thee; where thou teachest the pious, but from the wicked, thou shalt be my teacher.' More clearly, however, Zechariah indicates the effort of the free will, and the grace which is ready to him that striveth Zech. 1:3., 'Turn ye (saith he) unto me, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the LORD.'"

  1. Diatribe § 10. 2) § 10. 3) Diatribe § 10.

In these passages our diatribe makes no distinction at all between words of the law and of the gospel, for so blind and ignorant is she that she does not see what is law and what is gospel. For out of the whole of Isaiah she cites no word of the law, except the one passage, "If ye will"; all the rest are gospel sayings, by which the brokenhearted and afflicted are called to comfort by the word of the grace offered. But the diatribe makes them words of the law. But I ask you, what can he do in a theological matter or in the holy scriptures who has not yet come so far as to know what is law and what is gospel, or, if he knows, yet despises to take it into consideration? He must mix everything up, heaven and hell, life and death, and will not make any effort to know anything about Christ. I will talk more about this below with the diatribe.

See the Proverbs of Jeremiah and Zechariah, "Where you cleave unto me, I will cleave unto you," and, "Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you." Does it then follow that: Turn ye, and ye shall be converted? Does it follow: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, so you can love Him with all your heart? What, then, do reasons of this kind prove other than that free will does not need the grace of God, but is able to do everything by its own power? How much more right, therefore, are the words taken as they are put? "If thou shalt repent, I also will repent unto thee," that is, if thou shalt cease to sin, I also will cease to punish thee, and if thou shalt repent and live aright, I also will do good, and turn away thy captivity and thy evil. But it does not follow from them that man can convert by his own power, nor do the words themselves say this, but they simply say, If thou wilt convert; whereby man is reminded of what he owes to do. But when he has recognized and realized that he cannot do it, he will seek where he can get the strength, if not the leviathan of the diatribe.

1788 L.V..L. VII, 215-217. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2225-2228. 1789

(that is, the addition and its conclusion), which said: Otherwise it would be spoken in vain: "Convert yourselves", if man could not convert himself by his own strength. Enough has been said about what this means and what it is worth.

It is a kind of obtuseness or drowsiness that one believes that by those words: Convert, If you convert, and the like, the power of free will is confirmed, and does not pay attention that for the same reason it would also be confirmed by this word: Thou shalt love GOD thy LORD with all thy heart, since in both passages there is an equal expression of beseeching and demanding. But love for God is not demanded less than our conversion and the keeping of all commandments, since love for God is our true conversion. And yet no one infers free will from that commandment of love, but from those words: If thou wilt. If you hear. Convert, and the like, all infer it. If, then, it does not follow from the words "Thou shalt love God thy Lord with all thy heart" that free will is or can be anything, it is certain that it does not follow from this either: If thou wilt. If thou hear. Convert, and similar ones, which either demand less or demand less strictly than this: Love GOD, love the LORD.

Everything that one therefore answers to that word "love GOD", that it does not prove free will, the same can be said with regard to all other words by which something is commanded or demanded, that they prove nothing for free will. Namely, by the word "love" the form of the law is shown, what we owe, but not the power of the will or what we are able to do; rather, what we are not able to do. The same is indicated by all other words which require something. For it is known that even the scholastics maintain, with the exception of the Scotists and the Modernists, that man cannot love God with all his heart. Thus, he cannot keep any of the other commandments, since in this One Commandment all the others hang, as Christ testifies. Thus, only remains, also according to the testimony of the scholastic

Doctors, that the words of the law do not show the power of the free will, but that they show what we owe and what we are not able to do.

But our diatribe concludes from the saying of Zechariah 1, 3.: "Convert yourselves", not only the reality of conversion (indicativum), but claims to prove from it also the effort of free will and the grace which is prepared for him who makes the effort.

And here she finally remembers her effort. And according to the new linguistic doctrine, in her "to turn" means the same, which means to strive, that the meaning should be: "Turn to me", that is, strive that you turn, and: "I will turn to you", that is, I will strive to turn to you, so that she also once ascribes a striving to God and perhaps also wants to prepare grace for his God's striving; for if in one place "to turn" means to strive, why not everywhere?

Again, by the passage Jer. 15, 19: "When you shall separate the precious from the unworthy," 1) she says, the freedom to choose, not only the effort, is proven, since she had previously taught that it was lost and turned into the necessity to serve sin. You see, then, that the diatribe in truth has free will in its treatment of sacred Scripture, so that words in the same form must prove effort in one place and freedom in another, as it pleases.

But I want to let go of these trivial things. The word "convert" convertere is used in two ways in Scripture, in legal usage and in evangelical usage. In the legal use it is a word of a driver and a bidder, which requires not an effort, but the change of the whole life, as Jeremiah often uses it when he says 35:15, "Turn every man from his wicked ways"; 4:1, "Turn to the Lord." For there he includes the requirement that all the commandments should be kept as is sufficient in the day. According to the evangelical spirit

  1. According to the Vulgate.

1790 L. v.". vii, 217-2i9. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 2228-2230. 1791

If we do not need it, it is a word of comfort and promise from God, whereby nothing is required of us, but the grace of God is offered to us. As the word, Ps. 126, 1.: "When the LORD shall w.end the captivity of Zion," and Ps. 116, 7.; "Return, my soul, unto thy rest." Zechariah, therefore, in the greatest brevity, makes the twofold sermon, both that of the law and that of grace. The whole law and summa of the law is where he says, "Turn ye unto me"; grace is where he says, "And I will turn unto you." Now, no more than free will is proved from this word, "Love the Lord," or from any word of a single law, no more is it proved from this word, which is a brief epitome of the law, "Turn ye." Therefore, it behooves a discerning reader of Scripture to be careful which are words of law and which are words of grace, lest he confound them according to the manner of impure sophists and our drowsy diatribes.

For see how they treat the glorious passage Ezek. 18:23 33:11: "As surely as I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that he should repent and live." "First (it says) is repeated many times in this chapter: Where he turneth, where he doeth, where he committeth Ezek. 18:22, both in good and in evil: and where is there any that said, Man doeth nothing?"

Please, look at the excellent conclusion. It wanted to prove the effort and endeavor of the free will, and proves that the whole is done, that everything is fulfilled by the free will. Dear, where are now those who need grace and the Holy Spirit? For so they reason and say: Ezekiel says 18, 21.: "Where the wicked turneth and keepeth all my statutes, and doeth right and well, he shall live," so the wicked doeth so immediately, and can do so. Ezekiel indicates what is to be done, but the Diatribe understands that this is done and is done, and wants to teach us again with its new linguistic doctrine that it is one and the same, to owe and to have, to demand and to perform, to ask and to give.

Furthermore, this word of the sweetest gospel 1) Ezek. 18,23: "I do not want the death of the sinner" 2c, turns it around in this way: Does the holy God complain here about the death of his people, which he* himself works on them? If he does not want death, then it is certainly to be attributed to our will if we are lost. But what can be attributed to him who can do nothing, neither good nor evil?"

Pelagius also sang the same little song when he attributed to free will not the endeavor and effort, but the whole power to fulfill and do everything. For these conclusions (as we have said) prove this power, if they prove anything at all, so that they contend as strongly, and still more strongly, against the diatribe itself, which denies that power of free will and asserts only effort, as they contend against us, who deny the whole of free will. But we want to leave their ignorance and speak of the matter itself.

It is a gospel word and the sweetest consolation for wretched sinners, since Ezekiel 18, 23. says: "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that he should repent and live", in every way, as also the passage Ps. 30, 6.: "For his wrath endureth for a moment, and he delighteth unto life"; and Ps. 69:17: "How sweet is thy mercy, O Lord"; likewise, "Because I am merciful"; and the word of Christ Matt. 11:28: "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you"; likewise the saying Ex. 20:6: "I do mercy unto many thousands that love me." And what is almost more than half of the holy Scriptures but pure promises of mercy, by which mercy, life, peace and blessedness are offered to men by God? For what do the words of the promise have in them but this: "I do not want the death of the sinner"? Is it not the same when he says Jer. 3, 12: "I am merciful", as when he said: "I am not angry, I will not punish, I will not let you die, I will forgive, I will spare"?

  1. Diatribe § 10.

1792 2. v. a. VII, 219-221. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2230-2233. 179Z

And if these promises of God were not firm, by which the shattered consciences, frightened by the feeling of sin and the fear of death and judgment, could be raised up, how could forgiveness or hope take place? What sinner would not despair? But as free will is not proven from other words of mercy, or promise, or comfort, neither is it proven from this: "I will not the sinner's death. "2c

But our diatribe again does not distinguish between words of the law and the promise, makes this passage of Ezekiel a word of the law and interprets it like this: "I do not want the death of the sinner", that is, I do not want him to sin mortally or to become a sinner guilty of death, but rather that he turns from the sin he may have committed and thus lives. For if it were not so interpreted, it would serve no purpose. But this is to utterly overthrow and take away the very sweetest word of Ezekiel, "I will not death." If we want to read and understand the Scripture in this way according to our blindness, what wonder if it is then dark and ambiguous? For he does not say, I do not want the sin of man, but, "I do not want the death of the sinner," clearly indicating that he is speaking of the punishment of sin which the sinner will have to feel for his sin, namely, the fear of death. And the sinner, who is in this misery and despair, he raises up and comforts him, so that he "does not extinguish the smoldering wick or break the crushed reed" Is. 42:3, but gives hope of forgiveness and blessedness, so that he may convert the sooner, namely, by turning to blessedness from the punishment of death, and live, that is, that he may be of good courage and gain a firm and cheerful conscience.

For this is also to be noted: As the word of the law only comes to those who neither feel nor recognize their sin, as Haulus says, Rom. 3, 20: "Through the law comes the knowledge of sin," so the word of grace only comes to those who feel their sin, are crushed, and are filled with guilt.

will be challenged by doubts. Therefore you see that in all the words of the law sin is indicated, since it is shown what we are to do. On the other hand, as you see, in all the words of the promise the evil is indicated from which sinners suffer, or those who are to be raised up, as here: "I do not want the death of the sinner"; there he clearly names death and the sinner; both the very evil that is felt and the very man who feels it. But in the "Love God with all your heart" it is indicated what good we owe to do, not what evil we feel, so that we recognize how we are not able to do this good.

Therefore, nothing more clumsy could be cited in favor of free will than this saying of Hefekiel; indeed, it argues most strongly against free will. For it is shown here how free will behaves when it recognizes sin or in conversion and what it can do there, namely, that it would only fall deeper and add despair and impenitence to its sins if God did not soon come to its aid and call it back and raise it up through the word of promise. For the fact that God, who promises grace, takes such pains to call the sinner back and to raise him up, is a very great and reliable reason why free will can only get worse for itself and (as the Scripture says) sink to hell, if you do not believe that God is so frivolous that He pours out the words of the promise so abundantly, without it being necessary for our salvation, but for the pleasure of chattering; that you can see from this that not only are all the words of the law against free will, but also that all the words of the promise completely refute it, that is, that the whole of Scripture is against it. Therefore you see that nothing else is intended by this word "I do not want the death of the sinner" than that the divine mercy be preached and offered in the world, which only the afflicted and those tormented by death receive with joy and gratitude, since in them the law has already accomplished its office, that is, the knowledge of sin. But those who have not yet experienced the ministry of the law

1794 L. V. E. VN, 221 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2233-2236. 1793

and do not recognize their sin, nor feel death, they despise the mercy promised by this word.

By the way, why some are struck by the law and others are not, that some accept the offered mercy and others despise it, that is another question and is not dealt with here by Ezekiel, because he speaks of the preached and offered mercy of God, not of that hidden will of God, which is to be regarded with reverence, which decrees according to his counsel which and what kind of people are to be capable of and partakers of the preached and offered mercy according to his will. This will may not be investigated, but it is to be worshipped with reverence as the most profound holy secret of the divine majesty, which it alone has reserved and forbidden to us, and which is to be held in much greater reverence than Corycian caves in infinite quantity.

If now the diatribe smiles: "Does the holy God lament the death of His people, which He Himself works on them?" for this seems too inconsistent to her:

Thus we answer, as we have already said: One must speak differently of God or the will of God, which is preached to us, which is revealed to us, which is offered to us, with which we concern ourselves, than of the God who is not preached, not revealed, not offered, with which we have nothing to do. Therefore, as far as God hides Himself and does not want to be known by us, He is none of our business. For here belongs in truth the word: What is above us is not for us. And lest anyone think that this is my distinction, I follow Paul, who writes to the Thessalonians of the Antichrist 2 Ep. 2, 4. that he will rise above every GOt preached and worshipped, and clearly indicates that someone can rise above GOt provided he is preached and served, that is, above the word and service according to which GOt is known to us and has intercourse with us. But above the GOD who is not worshipped nor preached, as He is in His essence and majesty, nothing can exalt itself, but everything is under His mighty hand.

We must therefore leave God in his majesty and in his essence unresearched, for in this we have nothing to do with him, nor does he want us to have anything to do with him in this way, but, insofar as he is clothed in his word and has given himself through it to the day, through which he has offered himself to us, we act with him. This is his adornment and his glory, wherewith, as the Psalmist Ps. 21:6 boasts, he is clothed. Thus we say, the holy GOD does not lament the death of the people which he works in them, but he laments the death which he finds in the people and endeavors to put away. For this is how the preached God deals with it, that he might take away sin and death and that we might be blessed. For Ps. 107:20, "He has sent His word and made them whole." Whereas GOD, as He is hidden in majesty, mourns not, neither taketh away death, but worketh life, death, and all things in all. For there GOtt has tightly confined Himself by His word, but has kept Himself free over all.

The diatribe, however, makes a mockery of itself through its ignorance by making no distinction between the preached and the hidden God, that is, between the word of God and God Himself. God does many things that he does not indicate to us in his word; he also wills many things that he does not indicate to us in his word that he wills. In this way he does not will the death of the sinner, namely according to his word; but he wills it according to that inscrutable will. But now we must look at the word and let that inscrutable will stand; for we must be guided by the word. Not by that inscrutable will. Yes, who could be guided by the absolutely inscrutable and unknowable will? It is enough that we know only that there is a certain inscrutable will in God; but what, why, and how far it wills, that is not for us to ask, to want to know, to care about, or to concern ourselves with, but only to worship with fear and trembling.

Therefore, you are right in saying, "If GOD does not will death, it is, however, to our will if we are lost." Right,

1796 L. V. L. VII, 222-224. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2236-2239. 1797

say I, if thou shouldst speak of the preached GOtte, for he wills that all men be saved, because he cometh with the word of salvation unto all, and it is the fault of the will which suffereth him not, as it is said Matt. 23:37, "How often have I willed to gather thy children together, and thou hast not willed." But why the divine majesty does not take away this infirmity of our will, or does not change it in all men, since it is not in man's power, or why God imputes it to him, since man cannot be without it? this must "not be inquired into, and though thou wouldest inquire much, yet thou couldst never find it, as Paul says Rom. 9:20: "Who then art thou, that thou wilt be right with God?" This may be enough concerning this passage of Ezekiel; now let us proceed to the following.

On this, the diatribe 1) pretends: "so many exhortations in Scripture would necessarily lose their force, likewise so many promises, threats, exhortations, reproaches, prayers, blessings and curses, such a great number of commandments, if it were not in anyone's power to keep what is commanded."

Constantly the diatribe forgets what it is about, and deals with something different from what it had intended, nor does it see how everything contends more strongly against it than against us. For from all these passages she proves freedom and the ability to hold everything, as also the conclusion from the words which she puts under them, while she had wanted to prove that free will is such that it cannot will anything good without grace, and that any effort cannot be attributed to its powers. I do not see that such an effort is proved in any of these sayings, but that they only demand what should be done, as has already been said many times. But it must be repeated so many times, because the diatribe fiddles so much on one string and stalls the reader with useless verbiage.

As one of the last sayings from the Old

  1. § 10.

The commandment that I command thee this day is not hidden from thee, nor is it far off, nor is it in heaven, that thou shouldest say: Who shall take us up to heaven, and fetch us to hear and do it? But the word is almost near thee in thy mouth and in thine heart, that thou shouldest do it." The Diatribe asserts, 2) that in this passage it is declared that "what is commanded is not in us alone, but it even falls to us (in proclivi esse)," that is, it is easy or at least not difficult.

Thank you for such great scholarship! So, if Moses states so clearly that in us there is not only the ability to keep all the commandments, but even that this is quite easy for us, why do we struggle so much? Why did we not bring this passage forward at once and assert free will unhindered (libero campo - in the open field)? What more do we need of Christ? What need have we of the Holy Spirit? For now we have found the saying that shuts everyone's mouth and asserts in a very clear way not only the freedom of the will, but also teaches that the commandments can be easily kept. How foolishly Christ acted that he also shed his blood to acquire for us the spirit that we do not need, so that keeping the commandments would be easy for us, because we are already such people by nature. Yes, even the diatribe must revoke her words by which she said that the free will without grace could not will anything good; on the contrary, she now says that the free will has such great power that it not only wills what is good, but can also keep the highest and all commandments with ease. Behold, I beseech thee, what such a man does who has not his heart in the matter, as he cannot but make himself known. Is it still necessary to refute the diatribe? Or who can refute it more strongly than it refutes itself? This is the animal that ate itself up; how true it is: A liar must have a good memory.

We have from this place in the 5th book

  1. § 10.

1798 D- ". vii, 224-226. XII? Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 2239-2241. 1799

Now let us briefly discuss them without reference to Paul, who treats them powerfully in Romans 10. You see that nothing at all is said here, and not the slightest syllable says that it is easy or difficult, that free will or man can or cannot keep it or not keep it: only that those who take the Scriptures captive by their conclusions and thoughts make them obscure and uncertain to themselves, so that they can make anything they like out of them. Now if you cannot see, at least hear, or grasp it with your hands. Moses says: "It is not over you, 1) nor too far, nor in heaven, nor beyond the sea." What do you mean: over you? What: afar off? What: in heaven? What: beyond the sea? Do they also want to obscure the linguistic doctrine and the most common words, so that we cannot speak anything certain, just so that they maintain that the Scripture is dark?

Our linguistic doctrine does not designate by these words the quality or greatness of human powers, but a spatial distance. For "above thee" does not mean a certain power of the will, but a place which is above us. Thus, "afar off, beyond the sea, in heaven" is not a power in man, but a place which is upward, toward the right, toward the left, backward or forward from us. Someone might laugh at me that I disputire so roughly and, as it were, present to such great men what one chews to children who do not yet know the ABC, and teach them to put the syllables together. What should I do? Since I see that one seeks darkness in such a bright light, and those want to be deliberately blind, who enumerate for us such a long series of centuries, so many wise heads, so many saints, so many martyrs, so many teachers and with such great prestige raise this saying of Mosi and yet do not allow themselves to look at the syllables properly or to control their thoughts only so far that they think about the passage, which they praise highly, only once. Now let the diatribe go and say how it may be....

  1. According to the Vulgate.

should be possible that a single unknown man (privatus) could see what so many all-known people (publici), the greatest in many centuries, have not seen? Surely this saying convicts them, that even a small child recognizes that they have been not rarely blind.

What else does Moses want to say with these extremely clear and plain words than that he has directed his office as a faithful lawgiver in the best way? That it was not up to him if they did not know everything and if all the commandments had not been laid before their eyes, and they could no longer excuse themselves by saying that they did not know or have the commandments, or that they had to get them from somewhere else: so that if they did not keep them, the fault was neither with the law nor with the lawgiver, but with them. For the law is there, the lawgiver has taught it, so that there is no excuse for ignorance, but only accusation of negligence and disobedience. It is not necessary, he says, to fetch laws from heaven or from regions beyond the sea or from far away, nor can you plead that you have not heard them and do not have them: you have them close at hand. For God has commanded them to you, and through my ministry you have heard them; with your heart you have grasped them and so received them that they should be preached continually through the Levites in your midst. My word and my book are witnesses to this; only this is lacking: that you do them. I ask you, what is attributed to free will here? It is only demanded that he do the laws which he has, and the excuse is taken away from him that he does not know the laws and that there are no laws.

This is approximately what the diatribe from the Old Testament cites for free will. Since this is refuted, nothing remains that is not refuted in the same way, be it that it cites still more, be it that it wants to cite still more, since it can bring nothing else than words that express either a command or an obligation (verba conjunctiva) or a desire, by which is signified, not what we can or do (what we do to the so often

1800 L. V. a. VII, 226 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2241-2244. 1801

They prove what we are guilty of and what is required of us, so that our inability may be made known to us and the knowledge of sin may be wrought. Or, if they prove something by added inferences and parables invented by human reason, they prove this, namely: that the free will has not only an effort, or a certain very small effort, but complete power and the freest ability to do anything without the grace of God, without the Holy Spirit.

And so, by all this verbose, repeated, and broadly trodden discussion, nothing less is proved than what should be proved, namely, that acceptable opinion by which the declaration is made about free will that it is so incapable that without grace it cannot will anything good, is forced under the bondage of sin, and has an effort which cannot be attributed to its powers. Namely, that undoing comes out of it that he at the same time is unable to do anything out of his powers and yet has an effort out of his own powers, which undoing consists in a quite obvious contradiction.

Response to the testimonies from the New Testament. 1)

Now the diatribe goes over to the New Testament. There again an army of commanding words is put into the field for that miserable bondage of the free will, and the auxiliaries of carnal reason are brought in, namely conclusions and parables, as if you were seeing or dreaming, as the king's (stipatum regem) densely packed warband of flies with straw lances and shields of hay moved out against a true and real battle array of human warriors, so the human dreams of the diatribe fight against the hosts of divine words.

At the top 2) goes the word Matth. 23, 37. as it were the Aechilles 3) of the flies: "Je-

  1. This superscription is in the translation of Justus Jonas, but not in Latin.
  2. § 12 of the Diatribe.
  3. The greatest hero before Troy.

rusalem, Jerusalem, how often have I wanted to gather your children, and you have not wanted." "If everything (she says) is done by necessity, Jerusalem could not have answered the Lord with "right: Why do you torment yourself with vain tears? If it was not your will that we should give ear to the prophets, why did you send them? Why do you impute to us that which was done according to your will and out of necessity that compels us (nostra necessitate)?" Thus speaks that one the diatribe.

But we answer: We want to admit for the time being that this conclusion and argument of the diatribe is true and good; what, I ask you, is proved by it? Is it the acceptable opinion which says that free will cannot will the good? Rather, it proves that the will is free, healthy and completely powerful (potens) in relation to all that the prophets have spoken. But to prove such a will, the diatribe did not undertake. Yes, let the diatribe answer here itself: Because the free will cannot will the good, what is it credited to him that he did not hear the prophets, whom, although they taught good, he could not hear because of his strength? What does Christ lament with vain tears, as if those could have willed, of whom he knew for certain that they could not will? Let, I say, the diatribe absolve Christ from nonsensical behavior (insania) in favor of their own acceptable opinion, then also our opinion is immediately freed from this fly-Achilles. So this passage in Matthew either proves the whole free will, or it argues just as strongly against the diatribe itself and destroys it with its own weapons.

We say, as we have said before, that the secret will of the (divine) Majesty must not be disputed, and that human presumption, which, as it is always wrong and leaves the necessary pending, always sets about and strives to investigate (tentat), must be prevented and drawn away from it, so that it does not occupy itself with the investigation of those secrets of the Majesty which are impossible to attain,

1802 L. V. a. VII, 227-229. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2244-2247. 1803

since it "dwells in a light that no one can approach", as Paul testifies 1 Tim. 6, 16. [But let man occupy himself with the incarnate God, or (as Paul speaks Col. 2, 3) with Jesus crucified, "in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," but "hidden," for through Him he has abundantly that which he should know and not know. The incarnate God thus speaks here: I have willed and you have not willed. The incarnate God, I say, is sent to will, to speak, to do, to suffer, to offer to all what is necessary for salvation, although he gives offense to most people who, according to that secret will of the Majesty, have either been left to themselves (relicti), or are obdurate and do not receive him who wills, speaks, does, offers, as John [1, 5.The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not"; and again v. 11: "He came into his own, and his own received him not."

With this incarnate God it is now found (hujus Dei etc. est) that he weeps, laments, sighs over the perishing of the godless, although the will of the Majesty, according to the intention, lets some go and rejects them, so that they perish. And we do not have to inquire why he does so, but God is to be worshipped, who is both able and willing to do so. Nor do I believe that anyone here will dispute (calumniabitur) that that will of which it is said: "How often have I willed" was also offered to the Jews before the incarnation of God, because they are accused of having killed the prophets before Christ and thus resisting His will. For it is known among Christians that everything was directed by the prophets in the name of the future Christ, who was promised that God should become man. Therefore, Christ's will is rightly called everything that has been offered to people from the beginning of the world through the servants of the Word.

But here reason will say, as it is nose-wise and loquacious: this evasion is beautifully invented, that as often as we are cornered by the force of reasons, we take our refuge in that

reverently avoiding (metuendam) the will of the Majesty, and silencing the adversary as soon as he has become troublesome, not unlike the way astrologers avoid all questions about the movement of the whole heavens by finding out the subsidiary circles (epicyclis).

We answer: This is not our invention, but a commandment confirmed by the holy Scriptures.... For so Paul says Rom. 9, 19-21.: "Why then does God consider us guilty? Who can resist his will? Yes, dear man, who are you that you want to be right with God? Has not a potter power?" 2c And before him Isaiah, Cap. 58, 2: "They seek me one day after another, and want to know my ways, as a people who have already done justice. They demand righteous judgments from me and want to come close to GOD." I think that by these words it is sufficiently indicated that men must not inquire into the will of the Majesty. Furthermore, this matter is of such a nature that it is primarily in it that perverse people pursue that will which is to be reverently avoided, therefore it is especially in the place to admonish them there to silence and reverence. In other matters, where such things are done whose reason can be stated, and where we are commanded to state the reason, we do not do so. Now, if someone continues to investigate the reason of that will and does not give room to our memory, we will let him go and fight with God in the manner of the giants and see what victory such a one will achieve. We are sure that he will not interfere with our cause and that he will not further his own. For this will remain certain: he will either prove that free will is able to do everything, or the scriptural passages cited will argue against him. Whichever of the two may happen, he is defeated and we are victorious.

The second passage is the word Matth. 19, 17: "'If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments'. How could it be said to him who has no free will: Will you?" Thus the diatribe.

To this we answer: According to this word of Christ, then, is the will free? But you wanted

1804 D. V. a. VII, 229-231. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2247-2250. 1805

prove that the free will cannot will anything good and necessarily serves sin if grace is not there. How dare you make the will completely free?

The same must be said of Proverbs 1): "Will you be perfect"; "Will anyone follow me"; "Whoever will preserve his life"; "Do you love me"; "If you abide in me." (Finally, as I have said, all the connective words "if" and all the commanding words can also be brought together to help the diatribe at least in the accumulation numero of words). "All these commandments (she says) are ineffective if nothing is attached to the human will. How badly the connective word if rhymes with mere necessity."

We answer: If they are invalid, they are invalid through your fault; indeed, they are nothing, since you assert that nothing is attributed to the human will, representing free will in such a way that it cannot will the good; and again, you represent it here in such a way that it can will everything that is good. But perhaps the same words are both hot and cold with you, 2) since they assert everything and deny everything at the same time. And I wonder why it has pleased the author to repeat the same thing so often, although he is constantly unaware of what he has undertaken. Perhaps he has despaired of the matter and wanted to win the victory by the greatness of the book or to tire the opponent by the weariness and arduousness of reading. By what inference, I beg you, can it happen that the will and the ability must soon be there, as often as it is said: If you want, If someone wants. Will you? Do we not very often rather designate the inability and the impossibility with such speeches? E.G.: If you want to equal Virgil in writing (canendo), dear Mävius, 3) then you must write differently; if you want to surpass Cicero, Scotus, then instead of your subtleties you must use the

  1. Diatribe § 12.
  2. aräsiit 6t trlA6nt, 'i.e. exceedingly important and quite useless.
  3. A bad poet at the time of Birgil.

If you want to be compared with David, you must also make such psalms. Here, what is impossible for one's own strength is clearly expressed, even though everything is possible through divine strength. This is also the case in the Scriptures, that through such words is shown what can happen in us through the power of God, but which we are not able to do.

Furthermore, if such things were said, which are quite impossible to do, so that even God would never do them, then it would be rightly said that they the words were either ineffective or ridiculous, because they were spoken in vain. But now they are said in such a way that not only is the incapacity of free will shown, for the sake of which none of this happens, but also it is expressed that all this will one day take place and be accomplished, but through foreign power, namely the divine power, if we want to allow that in such words it is somehow expressed what is to be done and what is possible. And, if someone so interprets: If thou wilt keep the commandments, that is, if once thou shalt have the will to keep the commandments (but thou shalt not have it of thyself, but of GOtte, who offereth it to whomsoever he will), they also will sustain thee. Or, to speak more broadly of it, those words, especially the obligatory ones (conjunctiva), also seem to be set for the sake of God's provision (praeäestinätionsm) and to include the same as one unknown to us, as if they wanted to say so: If thou wilt, wilt thou, that is, if thou art such a man with God that he should esteem thee worthy of this will to keep the commandments, then thou shalt be preserved. By this way of speaking (tropo) both are given to understand, namely, both that we are not able to do anything, and that when we do something to Him, God works in us. This is what I would say to those who would not be satisfied with saying that these words only indicate our inability, but would claim that they also prove a certain power and ability to do what is commanded. Then it would be true at the same time,

1806 D. V. L. VII, 231 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2250-2253. 1807

that we are not able to do any of the things that are commanded, and at the same time we are able to do all things; in that the former is of our strength, the latter of grace.

God is attributed.

Thirdly, the Diatribe 1) is also angry about this: "Where so often," she says, "good and evil works are mentioned, and where the reward is thought of, I do not see how a mere necessity can take place; neither nature," she says, "nor necessity has any merit."

Truly, I do not understand this either, except that this acceptable opinion asserts a mere necessity by saying that free will cannot want anything good, and yet it also attributes a merit to it here. So much is the free will advanced at the same time with the growth of the book and the discussion of the diatribe, that it now not only has an effort and its own endeavor, yet from outside forces, yes, not only wills and does in the right way (bene), but also deserves eternal life, since Christ says, 2) Matth. 5, 12: "Be glad and of good cheer, because your reward in heaven is great." "Yours," that is, ^the reward] of free will, for so the Diatribe understands this passage, so that Christ and the Spirit of GOD are nothing. For what need would we have of these, if we have good works and merit by free will? I say this so that we may see that it is not uncommon for excellent people of high intellect to be blind in a matter that is obvious even to a grossly unlearned head, and how weak is a ground of proof in divine matters that is based on human reputation, for in this only divine reputation is valid.

Two things must be said here: first, about the commandments of the New Testament; second, about merit. We want to deal with both briefly here, because we have talked about them more extensively elsewhere. The New Testament actually consists of promises and exhortations, as the Old actually consists of laws and threats. For in the New Testament the gospel is preached, which is nothing else than the sermon,

  1. § 12.
  2. Diatribe § 12.

through which we are offered the Spirit and grace for the forgiveness of sins, which was acquired for us through Christ crucified for us, and that for nothing and only through the mercy of God the Father, which is granted to us, even though we are unworthy and deserve condemnation more than anything else. Then follow the exhortations, which are to provoke those who have already been justified and have obtained mercy to be valiant in the fruits of the righteousness given and of the Spirit, and to practice love in good works, and to endure steadfastly the cross and all the other tribulations of the world. This is the sum of the whole New Testament. How little the diatribe understands of this is sufficiently shown by the fact that it does not know how to distinguish between the Old and the New Testaments, for it sees in both almost nothing but laws and commandments by which men are trained to a good life. But what is the rebirth, the renewal of mind and spirit, and the entire effectiveness of the Holy Spirit, she sees absolutely nothing of that, so that it is an astonishment and a wonder to me that a man who has worked so long with such diligence in it, knows nothing at all in the Holy Scriptures.

So that word, "Be glad and of good cheer, for your reward in heaven is great," fits free will as well as light rhymes with darkness. For Christ is not exhorting free will, but the apostles, who were not only in a state of grace and righteousness beyond free will, but also in the ministry of the word, that is, on the highest level of grace, that they should endure the tribulations of the world. But we especially argue about the free will without grace, that it is guided by laws and threats or by the Old Testament to the knowledge of itself, so that it may run to the promises offered by the New Testament.

But the merit or the reward held out, what is it but a promise? But by this it is not proved that we are able to do something, since by it nothing else is indicated than when someone does this, that is, when he does that.

1808 L. V.". VII, 232-234. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2253-2256. 1809

or that, then he shall have the reward. But our question is not in what way or what kind of reward is given, but whether we can do such things for which the reward is given. For this should be proved. Would this not be a ridiculous conclusion: To all who run in the ranks 1 Cor. 9:24 the jewel is held out, so all can run and obtain it? If the emperor overcomes the Turk, he will seize the kingdom of Syria, so the emperor can defeat the Turk, and he overcomes him? If free will overcomes sin, it will be holy before the Lord, so is free will holy before the Lord? But let us leave aside these very crude and palpably inconsistent things; only it is quite fitting that free will should be proved on such beautiful grounds. Let us rather speak of the fact that necessity has neither merit nor reward. If we speak of the necessity of constraint, it is true; if we speak of the necessity of immutability, it is false. For who would give a reward to one who works against his will, or credit it to him as merit? But to those who do good or evil by will (volontier), even if they cannot change this will by their powers, the reward or the punishment follows naturally and necessarily, as it is written Rom. 2, 6.: "You will give to each one according to his works." It follows naturally: If you sink into the water, you will be suffocated; if you swim out, you will remain alive:

And, to speak briefly, the merit or the reward is either the worthiness or the consequence. If you look at worthiness, there is no merit, no reward. For if free will alone cannot will the good, but by grace alone wills the good (for we speak of free will to the exclusion of grace, and ask what each of them is actually capable of), who does not see that to grace alone belongs that good will, merit, and reward? And here the diatribe is again at odds with itself, in that from the merit it excludes the free will.

The author concludes that the free will is a matter of will, and she is in the same condemnation with me, against whom she argues, namely, because it argues against herself that there is a merit, that there is a reward, that there is freedom, since she claimed above that the free will does not want anything good, and had taken it upon herself to prove this. .

If you look at the result, there is nothing, good or bad, that does not have its reward. And the error comes from the fact that in the case of merits and rewards we trouble ourselves with useless thoughts and questions about the worthiness that is not there, since only the consequence should be discussed. For the wicked face hell and the judgment of God as a necessary consequence, although they themselves neither desire nor think of such a reward for their sins; indeed, they strongly detest it and, as Peter 2 Ep. 2, 11 says, blaspheme it. Thus the kingdom is imminent for the godly, although they neither seek it nor are anxious for it, because it has been prepared for them by their Father, not only before they themselves were, but before the beginning of the world Matth. 25, 34.

Yes, if they did good in order to attain the kingdom, they would never get it and would rather belong to the godless, because with a mischievous, reward-seeking eye they also sought their own in God. The children of God, however, do good for nothing with a cheerful will, seek no reward, but only the honor and the will of the Father, ready to do good even if - to set the impossible case - neither the kingdom nor hell would be. This, I believe, is sufficiently proved from the one saying of Christ, which I have just quoted, Matth. 25, 34: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." How should they deserve that which is already theirs and prepared for them before they became? so that we might more correctly say that the kingdom of God rather deserves us, its possessors, and we must put the merit where those put the reward, and the reward where those put the merit. For the kingdom is not prepared, but it is prepared; the children of the

1810 * L. V. a. VII, 234-236. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W* XVIII, 2256-2259. 1811

But the children of the kingdom are prepared, not they prepare the kingdom, that is, the kingdom earns the children, not the children the kingdom. Thus also hell rather earns and prepares its children, since Christ says Matth. 25, 41.: "Go, you cursed, into the eternal fire, which is prepared for the devil and his angels."

Why do the words that promise the kingdom threaten hell? Why is the word "reward" repeated so often in the whole scripture? "Thy work (says it 2 Chron. 15, 7.) hath its reward"; Gen. 15, 1.: "I am thy very great reward"; likewise Rom. 2, 6.: "Which shall give to every man according to his works"; and Paul, Rom. 2, 7.: "Who with patience in good works seek eternal life," and many similar passages. To this is to be answered: By all this nothing is proved but the consequence of the reward, and by no means the worthiness of the merit, namely, that those who do good do it not from a servile and reward-seeking disposition for the sake of eternal life, but seek eternal life, that is, they are on the way by which they attain to eternal life and find it; so that "to seek" is to strive diligently for it, and to strive with unceasing effort for that which tends to follow a good life. But it is announced in the Scriptures that this reward or punishment will occur and follow after a good or evil life, so that men may be instructed, awakened, provoked and frightened. For as through the law comes knowledge of sin and the remembrance of our inability, but from this it does not follow that we are able to do anything: so also through these promises and threats a remembrance takes place, by which we are instructed what follows from sin and from our inability, which has been shown to us through the law; but by these no worthiness is ascribed to our merits.

Therefore, just as the words of the law serve for instruction and enlightenment, to teach us what we owe, then also what we are not able to do, so the words of the reward, by indicating what will happen, serve for exhortation and threat, thereby

the godly are provoked, comforted and raised up to continue, persevere and overcome in doing good and enduring evil, so that they do not become weary or broken, as Paul exhorts his Corinthians, saying 1 Cor. 16:13, 15:58: "Be manly"; "Know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." Thus God raises up Abraham, saying Gen. 15:1, "I am your very great reward." Not differently than if you comforted someone in this way, that you indicated to him that his works surely pleased GOtte well. This kind of comfort is not infrequently used in Scripture, and it is no small comfort to know that one pleases God, even if nothing else follows; although this is impossible.

Here belongs everything that is said about hope and waiting, that what we hope for will certainly come to pass, even though the godly do not hope for it or seek it for their own sake. Thus the ungodly are frightened and humbled by the words of the threat and the judgment to come, so that they may cease and desist from evil, so that they may not be puffed up, become secure, and rise up in their sins. . Now if reason should turn up its nose here and say: Why should God want this to be done by words, since nothing is accomplished by words, nor can the will turn to either side; why does he not do what he does without speaking the word (tacito verbo), since he could do everything without the word? and yet the will, by its own power, is not able or does more after it has heard the word, if the Spirit is absent, which inwardly impels, nor would it be able or do less, although the word had been withheld, if the Spirit were there, since everything depends on the power and action of the Holy Spirit: Then shall we say, Thus it pleased God, that he would not give the Spirit without the word, but by the word, that he might have us to be his fellow-laborers, speaking outwardly that which he alone inwardly giveth (spirat), whithersoever he will. He could still do this without the word, but he does not want to. Who are we now?

1812 L. V. a. VII, 236-238. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 22S9-226I. 1813

that we should search for the cause of the divine will? It is enough to know that God wills it this way, and it behooves us to honor, love and worship this will and to restrain the presumption of reason. Thus He could nourish us without bread and indeed gives the power of nourishment without bread, as He says Matth. 4, 4: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by the word of GOD." He is pleased to nourish us through the bread and with the outwardly applied bread inwardly through the word.

It is certain, then, that merit is not proved from reward, at least in Scripture; furthermore, that free will is not proved from merit, much less such free will as the diatribe has undertaken to prove, namely, which by itself can will no good thing. For if you also admitted the merit, you would, as usual, add these similes and inferences of reason, namely, it is commanded in vain. In vain the reward promised, in vain the threats used, if the will were not free. If this, I say, proves anything, it proves that free will alone can do everything. For if it is not able to do everything by itself alone, then the conclusion of reason remains: therefore commands are given in vain, promises are made in vain, threats are used in vain. Thus the diatribe constantly disputes against itself, while it disputes against us. But God alone works in us by his Spirit both merit and reward, both of which he makes known and known to the whole world by his outward word, so that even among the ungodly and unbelieving and ignorant his power and glory and our inability and shame may be proclaimed, though only the godly take it to heart, and the faithful hold it fast, but others despise it.

But it would be too tedious to repeat all the individual commanding words that the Diatribe lists from the New Testament, always appending its conclusions and claiming that what is said is futile, superfluous, by virtue of

ridiculous, nothing, if the will were not free. For we have already said again and again, to the greatest weariness, how nothing is established by such words, and if anything is proved, then the whole free will is proved. But this would be nothing else than to overthrow the whole diatribe, since it has taken it upon itself to prove such a free will, which is not capable of anything good and serves sin, but instead proves such a free will, which is capable of everything, in that it constantly knows nothing about itself and forgets itself. These are mere sophisms, since she speaks thus 1): "By their fruits, says the Lord, you will know them. The fruits he calls works, and these he calls our works: but how can they be our works, if all is done by necessity?"

I ask you, do we not rightly call our own also that which we did not do ourselves, but which we received from others? Why, then, should the works that God has given us through the Spirit not be called ours? Or should we not call Christ ours because we did not make Him, but only received Him? Again, if we make what is called ours, we have made our own eyes, we have made our own hands, and we have made our own feet, or they ought not to be called our eyes, hands, and feet. Yea 1 Cor. 4:7., what have we that we have not received? saith Paul. Shall we say, then, that it is either not ours, or that it is of our own making? Now imagine that the fruits are called ours because we have done them; where then is the grace and the Spirit? For he does not say, "From the fruits, which are yours in a very small part, you will know them. Rather, these are ridiculous, superfluous, futile, powerless, even foolish and hateful sophisms, by which the holy words of God are defiled and desecrated.

Thus also that word of Christ on the cross is mocked Luc. 23, 34.: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what

  1. Diatribe §12.

1814 L. V. a. VII, 238 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. LVIII, 226I-226S. 1815

they do." While one should expect a statement there, which would like to justify the free will, so she ^the diatribe] goes again to inferences 1): "With how much better right," she says, "he would have excused them, "because they have no free will, nor can they act otherwise, even if they wanted to." But even by this inference is not proved that free will which can will no good thing, about which it is a question, but that which is able to do all things, about which no one acts, and which all deny, with the exception of the Pelagians. Yes, since Christ publicly says that they do not know what they are doing, does he not thereby also testify at the same time that they cannot will what is good? For how can you want what you do not know? Surely no one desires what is unknown. What can be said more strongly against free will than that it is so nothing, that it not only does not want what is good, but does not even know how great evil it does and what is good? Or is there a darkness here in any words: they know not what they do? What is left in Scripture that could not, through the action of the diatribe, confirm free will, since the exceedingly clear word of Christ, which is completely opposed to it, confirms it? It would be just as easy for someone to say that free will is also confirmed by that passage: "But the earth was desolate and empty," or by that: "GOD rested on the seventh day," or a similar one. But then the Scripture will become doubtful and dark, yes, will be at the same time everything and nothing. But to be so bold and to treat the divine words in such a way indicates a spirit that disgracefully despises God and man, that does not deserve patience at all.

And that word Joh. 1, 12: "He has given them power to become God's children", captures them like this 2): "How is power given to them to become children of God, if our will has no freedom?" And this passage is a hammer against free will, as is almost the whole Gospel of John; yet it is drawn for free will. Let us watch, I pray you. John does not speak of any work of man-

  1. Diatribe § 12. 2) Diatribe § 12.

The new man is neither a big nor a small man, but just the renewal and change of the old man, who is a child of the devil, to a new man, who is a child of God. Here man behaves purely suffering (passive, as they say), does not do anything either, but "becomes" completely. For it is of becoming that John speaks, he says, that they become God's children, by the power given to us by God, not by the power of free will that lies within us.

But our diatribe deduces from this that free will is capable of so much that it makes children of God, or is ready to declare that John's word is ridiculous and powerless. But who has ever so exalted free will as to attribute to it the power to make God's children, especially such a one as cannot will the good as the diatribe has assumed? But this may go with the other conclusions so often repeated, by which nothing is proved, if anything at all, but what the diatribe denies, namely, that free will is capable of everything. John wants this: Since Christ came into the world through the. Since Christ came into the world through the gospel, by which grace is offered and no work is required, all men are given the opportunity, and a glorious one at that, to be God's children, if they will believe. By the way, just as free will has never known nor thought of this willing, this believing in His name before, so much less can it do so from its powers. For how should reason think that faith in Jesus, the Son of God and of man, is necessary, since it cannot grasp or believe even today, although all creatures proclaim that there is a person who is both God and man? Rather, she is annoyed by such talk, as Paul says 1 Cor. 1, 23. So much is lacking that she would or could believe.

Therefore, John praises the riches of the kingdom of God, which have been offered to the world through the gospel, but not the powers of free will, and at the same time indicates how few there are who accept him.

1816 V. a. VII, 239-241. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2265-2268. 1817

The free will, which has no other power than to reject the grace and the spirit that could fulfill the law, since the devil rules over it. Such is the power of his effort and endeavor to fulfill the law. But later we will say more extensively what a thunderbolt this passage of John is against free will. I am not a little moved, however, that such clear passages, which are so strongly against free will, are attracted by the diatribe for free will, whose obtuseness is so great that it makes absolutely no distinction between the words of the promise and those of the law; for after it has established free will in a quite ludicrous manner by the words of the law, it then seeks to confirm it in the most insincere manner by the words of the gospel. But this inconsistency is easily recognized according to its reason, if one considers how little the diatribe is with her heart in the discussion of this matter and how she despises it; for she cares nothing whether grace stands or falls, whether free will lies or sits, only therefore she is concerned that by vain words hatred be cast upon the matter and the tyrants be served.

Hereupon one also comes to Paul, the most obstinate enemy of free will, and also he is forced to establish free will, 1) Rom. 2, 4: "Do you despise the riches of goodness, patience and long-suffering? Do you not know that God's goodness leads you to repentance?" "How," she says, "can contempt of the commandment be imputed where there is no free will? How can GOD entice to repentance, since He is the author of impenitence? How can condemnation be just, where the judge compels wrongdoing?"

I answer: With regard to these questions, may the Diatribe watch. What do they concern us? For they said, according to the acceptable opinion, that the free will cannot will the good and is forced by necessity to the service of sin. How, then, can the contempt of the commandment be imputed to him if he does not want the good?

  1. Diatribe § 13.

How can God entice to repentance, since he is the author, that he does not repent by leaving him or by not giving him grace? How can God entice to repentance, since he is the author, that he does not repent by leaving him or by not granting him grace, since he alone cannot want the good? How can condemnation be just, when the judge, by withdrawing his help, compels the wicked to remain in iniquity, since by his power he cannot do otherwise? Everything falls back on the head of the diatribe, or if it proves anything (as I have said), it proves that free will is capable of everything, which has been denied by it and by all. These conclusions of reason plague the diatribe in all the sayings of Scripture, that it seems ridiculous and useless to urge and drive men with such vehement words where there is no one to do it, while the apostle's purpose is to bring the ungodly and proud to a knowledge of themselves and their inability by these threats, so that he may prepare for grace those who have been humbled by the knowledge of sin.

And why is it necessary to list individually everything that is drawn from Paul, since it collects nothing but commanding or obligatory words, or those by which Paul exhorts Christians to the fruit of faith? But the diatribe, by its added inferences, supposes that the power of free will is such and so great that it can do without grace all that Paul prescribes in his exhortations. Christians are not driven by free will, but by the Spirit of God, Rom. 8, 14. To be driven is not to work, but to be carried away, like a saw or an axe is driven by a carpenter. And so that no one doubts here that Luther says such inconsistent things, the Diatribe 2) cites his words. These I truly acknowledge, for I confess that that article of the Wiclef (that everything happens by necessity 3) of the elen-

  1. § 14.
  2. In the Jena edition it is added here: "that is, by the unchangeable will of GOD and that our will, though not forced, is of itself incapable of good.".

1818 D. V. L. VII, 241-243. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2268-2271. 1819

The diatribe itself defends the same with me by claiming that free will cannot will anything good of its own strength and is necessarily a slave to sin. Yes, the diatribe itself defends it with me by claiming that free will cannot will anything good from its own powers and is necessarily the servant of sin, even though it absolutely states the opposite under the evidence.

b. Against the second part of the Diatribe, by which Erasmus thought to overturn Luther's reasons. 1)

This may be enough against the first part of the diatribe, by which it wanted to establish free will. Now let us look at the second part, by which ours is refuted, that is, that by which free will is abolished. Here you will see what the smoke of a man is able to do against the lightnings and thunderclaps of God.

First, after having cited innumerable passages of Scripture in favor of free will, as it were an exceedingly fearful army (to make the witnesses Confessoro and martyrs and all the saints of free will, men and women Sanctos et Sanctas, stout-hearted, on the other hand, to make all those deniers and sinners against free will cowardly and trembling), it invents a contemptible heap against free will, and even leaves only 2) "two passages which are clearer than the others" on this side, and is of course only ready for slaughter, and that without much effort, one of which is 2 Mos. 9, 12. is: "The LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart", the other Mal. 1, 2. 3. "Jacob I love, but Esau I hate." But since Paul interprets both passages more extensively in his letter to the Romans, it is to be wondered at how hateful and useless a discussion he has undertaken, according to the judgment of the Diatribe. But if the Holy Spirit were not also a little versed in the art of oratory, it would have been to be feared that he, bowed down by so great an art of feigned contempt, would have despaired of the matter altogether, and would have been in despair of the matter.

  1. This superscription is found in the translation of Justus Jonas, but not in Latin.
  2. Diatribe § 15.

The first one is the one who, at the beginning of the battle, concedes the palm of victory to the free will. But I will, strengthened by those two passages, show below also our troops, although, where the battle can be decided in such a way (tatis 68t PUANL6 fortuna) that one can drive ten thousand into flight, no troops are necessary. Because if one place has overcome the free will, also innumerable multitudes will be of no use to him.

Now here the diatribe has invented a new trick to escape the clearest passages, namely, that she thinks that in the simplest, clearest words there is a figurative speech, so that, as above she made a mockery of the commanding and obligatory words of the law by attached inferences and parables, Now, when she wants to act against us, she twists all the words of promise and divine promise by the little thread of figurative speech (per tropum repertum), wherever one may look. Thus it is everywhere a Proteus, which one cannot grasp. Yes, just that it demands with great seriousness that it must be allowed by us, because we likewise, if we were driven into a corner, would escape by finding figurative speech, as there 3): "'Reach out to whom you will', that is, grace will stretch out your hand to what it will; 'Make you a new heart', that is, the grace of God will make you a new heart", and the like. It seems unreasonable, therefore, if Luther should be at liberty to give such a forcible and forced explanation, and not much more be permitted to follow the explanations of the most approved teachers. So you see here that it is not about the text itself, also no longer about inferences and parables, but about figurative speeches and interpretations. When, then, will we be able to find any simple and pure text for free will or against free will without figurative speeches and inferences? Does the Scripture have such texts nowhere, and will the matter of free will always be doubtful, since it is confirmed by no certain text, but only by inferences.

  1. Diatribe § 22, something after the middle.

1820 L.v.a.vn, 243f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2271-2274. 1821

and figurative speeches, which are introduced by people who disagree among themselves, is moved back and forth like a reed by the wind?

Rather, we want to keep it this way, that in no place of the Scriptures neither an inference nor a figurative speech should be admitted, if this is not forced by the clear conditions under which the words are spoken (eireuw8tLntia vsrdoruln eviäsns), and the inconsistency of an obvious thing, which violates some article of faith; but everywhere one must adhere to the simple, pure and natural meaning of the words which the linguistic doctrine and usage (usus loqusnäi) that God has created in man entails. Now, if each one should be free to invent inferences and figurative speeches in the Scriptures according to his liking, what would become of the whole Scripture but a reed moved to and fro by the wind, or a kind of Vertumnus? 1) Then, in truth, in no article of faith could anything certain be either established or proved that could not be made a mockery of by some figurative manner of speaking. On the contrary, every figurative way of speaking that is not enforced by Scripture itself must be avoided as the most effective poison.

See how Origen, who spoke figuratively (tropoIogo), fared in his interpretation of Scripture, how he gave the blasphemer Porphyrius good cause, so that Jerome also thinks that those who defended Origen do little. What happened to the Arians with the figurative speech, by which they made Christ an adopted (muwupativum) GOtte? What happened in our time to these new prophets with the words of Christ: "This is my body", where one assumes figurative speech with the pronoun "this", another with the tense word "is", another with the noun "body"? I have observed that all heresies and errors in the Scriptures have not come from the simple words, as is proclaimed almost in the whole world,

  1. Changing god, god of the seasons.

but from the neglect of the simple words and from the figurative speeches or inferences contrived from one's own head.

For example, "Reach out to whom you will," I have never (as far as I remember) given this forcible interpretation, that I said: Grace will stretch out your hand to whatsoever it will; "Make you a new heart," that is, grace will make you a new heart, and the like, though the diatribe so pervades me in a public book, namely, because it is occupied with figurative speeches and inferences, and by the same is deafened, that it sees not what it speaks of any one, but thus I have said: 2) ."Stretch out your hand" 2c, if Mail takes the words simply as they are, excluding figurative speeches and inferences, nothing else is expressed than that the stretching out of the hand is demanded of us, and thereby indicated what we are to do, as it is the manner of a commanding word among the grammarians and according to the usage of language.

The diatribe, however, does not accept this simple meaning of the word, but interprets it by inferences and forcibly figurative speeches: "Stretch out your hand," that is, you can stretch out your hand by your own strength; "Make a new heart," that is, you can make a new heart; "Believe in Christ," that is, you can believe: so that it is the same to her whether it is spoken commandingly or according to reality (inäwativo), otherwise she is ready to declare that the Scripture is ridiculous and vain. And these interpretations, which no teacher of language can bear, must not be called violent and contrived in the theologians, but they are those of the most approved teachers, which have been accepted for so many centuries.

But it is easy for the diatribe to allow and accept figurative speeches at this point, since it does not care whether what is said is certain or uncertain; indeed, it assumes that everything should be uncertain, since it gives the advice to abandon the doctrines of free will rather than to er-

  1. Sir. 15,16. according to the Vulgate.

1822 2 V. a. VII, 244-246. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2274-2278. 1823

research. Therefore, it was enough for her to nullify in every possible way the sayings by which, as she well realizes, she is driven into a corner. But we, for whom this is a serious matter, and who seek the most certain truth in order to firmly base consciences on it, must proceed quite differently. To us, I say, it is not sufficient if you say that there can be a figurative speech here, but that is the question whether there should and must be a figurative speech here. If you cannot now show that there is necessarily a figurative speech in it, then you are definitely not making a point. There is the word of God Ex. 7, 3: "I will harden Pharaoh's heart. If you say it must be understood this way or can be understood this way: I will suffer it to be hardened; I hear indeed that it may be so understood; I hear that this figurative speech is common in popular language, as: I have corrupted you because I did not chastise you immediately when you were absent. But this proof does not take place here; it is not the question whether this figurative speech is in use, it is not the question whether someone could claim the same in this passage of Paul, but this is the question whether it is certain and certain that it is used in the right way in this passage and whether Paul wants to use it; it is not the question which is the foreign use of the reader, but what is the use of the author himself, Paul.

What wilt thou do with a conscience which thus asks, Behold, GOD, as the writer, says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." The meaning of the word "harden" is evident and known; but a person reading this tells me, "Harden" in this passage means: to give cause for hardening by not immediately chastising the sinner. By what reputation, by what counsel, by what necessity is that natural meaning of the word thus perverted to me? How if the reader and interpreter were mistaken? By what is it proved that this twisting of the word must happen in this place? It is dangerous, yes, ungodly, to twist God's word without necessity, without justification (autoritate). Can

Do you then advise the poor suffering soul: Origen thought this way or that way; refrain from investigating such things, since they are impertinent and superfluous? But she will answer: Moses and Paul should have been reminded of this before they wrote, yes, even God Himself. Why do they plague us with rash and superfluous writings?

Therefore, the diatribe does not help this miserable evasion, that they are figurative speeches, but here our Proteus must be bravely held that he must make us quite sure about the figurative speech of this passage, and that with quite clear scriptural passages or by apparent miracles. That it means so, even with the aid of what has been brought about by the diligence of all times (oonsentieats omnium 866ulorum inäu8tria), we believe nothing, but continue and insist that there can be no figurative speech here, but that the speech of God must be understood simply as the words read. For it is not in our arbitrariness (as the diatribe persuades itself) to invent and rewrite the words of God according to our liking; otherwise, what would remain in all of Scripture that would not come out of the philosophy of Anaxagoras 1) so that everything arbitrary would become everything arbitrary? For I could say: "God created heaven and earth", that is, He ordered them, but He did not create them from nothing; or: He created heaven and earth, that is, angels and devils, or the righteous and the wicked. Who then, I pray thee, would not immediately, as he opens the book, be a theologian? If, then, this is certain and certain, the Diatribe, if it cannot prove that there is a figurative speech in these passages of ours, which invalidates it, is forced to admit to us that the words must be understood as they are, though it should prove that otherwise the same figurative speech is quite common in all passages of Scripture and in all writers. And by this, everything we said that the diatribe wanted to refute, is defended once and for all, and clearly at the

  1. This Greek philosopher, among others, dealt with such arguments: "The snow is water, the water is black, therefore the snow is black."

1824 L. V. a. vn, 246-248. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2278-2280. 1825

The first day, the second day, the third day, the third day, the third day, the third day.

Therefore, when the word of Moses: "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" is interpreted in this way: My gentleness, with which I bear him that sinneth, bringeth others to repentance, but it will make Pharaoh more obstinate in his wickedness, is beautifully said, but it is not proved that it must be so said; but we, not content that it should only be said, demand the proof.

Likewise that word of Paul Rom. 9, 18.: "He has mercy on whom He wills, and He reproves whom He wills", is interpreted plausibly: that is, God reproves where He does not immediately chastise the sinner; He has mercy where He soon drives to repentance through tribulations; but by what is this interpretation proved?

Likewise that word of Isaiah 63:17, "Why hast thou caused us, O Lord, to err from thy ways, and hardened our hearts, that we fear thee not?" Granted that Jerome, following Origen, interprets it thus: of whom it is said that he deceives who does not immediately call back from error; who makes us certain that Jerome and Origen interpret correctly? Finally, our agreement is that we do not want to fight by appealing to (autoritate) any teacher, but only to Scripture. What, then, does the diatribe, which has forgotten the agreement, hold against us people like Origen and Jerome? since among the church teachers there are almost no writers who have treated the sacred Scriptures more tastelessly and inconsistently than Origen and Jerome.

And, to put it in a word, this arbitrariness in interpretation amounts to confusing everything by a new and outrageous linguistic doctrine, so that when GOD says: I will harden Pharaoh's heart, the persons are interchanged, and you must understand it thus, Pharaoh hardens himself by my leniency; GOd hardens our heart, that is, we ourselves harden ourselves, in that GOd postpones the punishments; You, O LORD, have made us err, that is, we have made ourselves err, since You did not chasten. So when it says that God has mercy, it no longer means that He has mercy, but that He has mercy.

It does not say that he bestows or shows mercy, remits or justifies sin, or frees from evil, but it says that he inflicts evil and chastises.

Through these figurative speeches you will finally be able to say that God had mercy on the children of Israel by sending them to Assyria and Babylon, because there he chastised the sinners, there he lured them to repentance through tribulations; again, when he brought them back and freed them, he did not have mercy, but hardened them, that is, he gave them cause to harden themselves through his gentleness and mercy. So when it is said that he sent Christ as Savior into the world, it is not said that this was God's mercy, but hardening, because through this mercy he gave men cause to harden themselves. But when He has laid waste Jerusalem and rejected the Jews (perdidit) until this day, He has mercy on them because He chastises those who have sinned and invites them to repentance. When he takes the saints to heaven on the day of judgment, he will not do so to have mercy on them, but to harden them, because he will give them the opportunity to abuse his goodness; but when he pushes the wicked to hell, he will have mercy on them, because he chastises the sinners. I ask you, who has ever heard of such mercy and wrath of God?

It may well be that the good are made better both by the gentleness and the severity of God, but since we speak of good and evil at the same time, these figurative speeches will make wrath out of God's mercy and mercy out of wrath, by speaking in an entirely twisted way, since they call it wrath when God is benevolent and mercy when he punishes. But if it is to be said that God hardens when He pleases and deceives, but has mercy when He strikes and chastises, why is it said that He hardened Pharaoh more than the children of Israel, or even the whole world? Or hath he not done good unto the children of Israel? doth he not do good unto the whole world? doth he not bear the wicked? doth he not send rain upon the good and upon the evil? Why is it said that he is more pleased with the children of Israel than with the whole world?

1826 D- v. a. vii, 248 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. , W. xvm, 2280-2283. 1827

Did he not strike the children of Israel in Egypt and in the desert? It may be that some misuse God's goodness and wrath, while others use it rightly. But you interpret this as follows: to harden is as much as to have forbearance against the wicked out of kindness and goodness, but to have mercy is not to have forbearance, but to afflict and punish. Therefore, as far as God is concerned, with constant kindness he does nothing but harden, with constant punishment he does nothing but show mercy.

But this is by far the most beautiful thing: It is said of God that He is obdurate when He is lenient with sinners through His leniency, but He is merciful when He visits and strikes, inviting repentance through His severity. What, I pray you, has God omitted to strike, to chastise, to call Pharaoh to repentance? Are not ten plagues enumerated there? If your explanation stands that "to have mercy" is to chastise and call the sinner immediately, then surely GOD had mercy on Pharaoh. Why, then, does GOD not say, "I will have mercy on Pharaoh," but says, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart"? Ex. 7, 3. For precisely by having mercy on him, that is, as you say, smiting and chastening him, He says: I will harden him, that is, as you say, I will do him good and carry him. What more monstrous thing could you hear? Where are your figurative speeches now? where Origen? where Jerome? where the most proven teachers, whom one man, Luther, presumptuously contradicts? But the imprudence of the flesh forces to talk like this, playing with God's words and not believing that they are serious.

So this text of Moses itself irrefutably shows that those figurative speeches are fictitious and do not belong to this passage at all, and that by those words: "I will harden Pharaoh's heart" something far different and much greater is meant than benevolence and visitation and chastisement, since we cannot deny that both were tried on Pharaoh with the greatest zeal and the greatest care. For how could the wrath and chastening be more severe?

How could Pharaoh be more shocked than by being struck with so many signs, with so many plagues, that even Moses himself testified that such things had never happened? Yes, even Pharaoh himself is repeatedly shaken by them, so that he seems to come to his senses, but he is not thoroughly moved and does not persevere. How can there be greater gentleness and goodness than when God so easily takes away the plagues and so often forgives the sin, so often shows good again, so often takes away the evil? Nevertheless, neither of these things does any good, yet he says: "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh. I will harden Pharaoh's heart." So you see, although we willingly admit your hardening and your mercy (that is, according to your interpretation and your figurative speech), both as far as the use of the word is concerned and as far as that example is concerned, as can be seen in Pharaoh, nevertheless the hardening is certain, and the one Moses speaks of must necessarily be a different hardening than the one you dream of.

But since we are struggling with people who bring up fabrications and with larvae, let us also make a larva and fabricate and make the impossible case that the figurative speech, which the diatribe dreams up, is valid at this point, in order to see how it wants to escape this, so that it is not forced to confess that everything happens solely by God's will, but on our part out of necessity, and how it wants to excuse God that he is not the author and the cause of our hardening. If it is true that it is said of God that he hardens when he bears by his leniency and does not punish immediately, then both of these things still stand firm. First, that man is nevertheless necessarily the servant of sin. For since it has been admitted that free will cannot will anything good (which the diatribe has undertaken to prove), it becomes nothing better through the goodness of God, who carries it, but necessarily worse, unless the spirit is given to it by God, who has mercy; therefore everything still happens on our part out of necessity.

Secondly, that GOD seems to be equally cruel when, by His leniency.

1828 L. V. a. VII. 24S-2S1. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2283-2286. 1829

than when he, as is thought to be preached by us, hardens himself by his willing according to his inscrutable will. For since he sees that free will cannot will the good, and is made worse by the leniency of him who bears it, he seems to be exceedingly cruel on account of this leniency, and to delight in our evil, though he could cure it if he would, and could not bear it if he would, yea, could not bear it if he would not; for who would compel him against his will? Since now that will is established, without which nothing happens, and it has been admitted that free will cannot will anything good, what is said to excuse God and to accuse free will is said in vain. For free will always says: I cannot, and God will not; what shall I do? Of course, he may take pity on me by chastising me; I have no use for that, but must inevitably become worse if he does not give me the spirit. But this he does not give me; but he would give it if he wanted to; therefore it is certain that he does not want to give it.

Also the attached parables serve nothing to the matter, since it is said 1): "Just as by the same rays of the sun the dung becomes hard and the wax soft, and by the same downpour a cultivated land bears fruit, an uncultivated one thorns, so by the same gentleness of God some are hardened, others converted."

For we do not divide the free will into two different kinds according to the nature (ingenia,) that the one is like dung, the other like wax, or the one a cultivated land, the other an uncultivated land, but we speak of One, who is in all men in the same way incapable, who is only dung, only uncultivated land, so that he cannot will the good. 2) Therefore, just as the dung becomes harder and harder, and the uncultivated land becomes more and more dormant, so the

  1. Diatribe § 15.
  2. Here the following words are inserted in the Jena edition: "Paul also does not say that God, as the potter, makes one cask to honor, the other to dishonor, out of different clay, but out of the same clay (he says) he makes 2c"

free will is always made worse, both by the leniency of the sun, which hardens, and by the softening downpour. If, then, in all men there is a free will that can only be interpreted in one way and has the same incapacity in itself, then no account can be given as to why the one attains to grace and the other does not, if nothing else is preached than the gentleness of the sustaining and the chastening of the merciful God. For a free will is placed in all men, which is described in the same way, that it cannot will anything good. Then 3) also God cannot choose anyone and there remains no place for the choice, but only the freedom of the will, which either accepts or rejects the gentleness and the anger. If God is thus deprived of the power and wisdom of election, what else will he be but an idol of fate, by whose power (numine) everything happens by chance? And finally it will come about that men will be blessed or damned without God knowing it, since He has made no distinction between those who are to be blessed and those who are to be damned through a certain (certa) election, but has left it up to men, through the general sustaining and hardening leniency offered to all, and then also through the chastening and punishing mercy, whether they want to be blessed or damned. In the meantime, he himself may have gone to a banquet with the Moors, as Homer says.

Aristotle also depicted such a God, namely, who sleeps and lets all who want to use and abuse his goodness and chastisement. And reason cannot judge him differently than the diatribe does here. For as it snores and despises divine things, so it judges of God as if he snores, does not use his wisdom, his will, his omnipresence to choose, to discern, to give the Holy Spirit, and to give men this laborious and troublesome task.

  1. If only the gentleness of the sustaining and the chastening of the merciful God is preached.

1830 D. V.". VII, 251 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2286-2289. 1831

I have entrusted to you the difficult work of accepting and rejecting His leniency and wrath. This is what happens when we want to measure and excuse God according to human reason, when we do not want to venerate the mysteries of God, but rather penetrate them in an inquiring manner, so that we, overwhelmed by the desire for fame, instead of making one excuse, utter a thousand blasphemies, not even remembering ourselves, but at the same time speaking against God and against ourselves, as nonsensical people do, when we want to speak in great wisdom for God and for ourselves. For here you see what this figurative speech and interpretation (glossa) of the diatribe makes of God; then also how finely it agrees with itself, since it previously made free will the same and the same for all men by means of an explanation (definitione), but now, under the discussion of its own explanation, it forgets to make the one a cultivated one, the other an uncultivated one, making, according to the difference of works and way of life (morum), also different free wills of men, one who does good, another who does not, out of his powers before grace, although she had previously stated (definierat) in the explanation that he could not will good out of these powers. Thus it happens that, not granting to the will of God alone the will and the power to harden and to have mercy and to do everything, we attribute to free will itself that it can do everything without grace, although we have denied that it can do anything good without grace.

Therefore the simile of the sun and the downpour does not fit here at all; a Christian would rather use this simile in such a way that he calls the gospel the sun and the downpour, as the 19th Psalm v. 5, 6 and the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cap. 6, 7, but the cultivated land the elect, the uncultivated the rejected; for those are built up by the word and become better, these are vexed and become worse; otherwise free will is in itself in all men 1) the kingdom of the devil.

  1. In the Jena edition, the following is inserted here: "the undeveloped land and".

Let us also consider the reasons for which a figurative speech was invented in this passage. "It seems inconsistent (says the Diatribe^2)^ ) that God, who is not only just but also good, should be said to harden a man's heart so that he might glorify his power through his wickedness." Therefore, it goes back to Origen, "who confesses that GOD gave occasion for the hardening, yet he blames Pharaoh." Furthermore, the same (Origen) noted that the LORD said: Just for this purpose I raised you up, he does not say, just for this purpose I made you. Otherwise Pharaoh would not have been ungodly, if GOD had so created him, who looked at all his works, and behold, they were very good." So much for the diatribe.

So the inconsistency is one of the main causes that the words of Moses and Paul are not to be understood simply? But against what article of faith does this inconsistency offend? or who is offended by it? Human reason is annoyed, which, although it is blind, deaf, foolish, godless and blasphemous in all the words and works of GOD, is brought in as a judge of the words and works of GOD in this place. By the same token, you could deny all articles of faith and say] that it is the most absurd thing and, as Paul says 1 Cor. 1:23, "foolishness to the Gentiles and an offense to the Jews" that God is man, the Son of a virgin, crucified, seated at the right hand of the Father. It is inconsistent (I say) to believe such. So let us invent some figurative speeches with the Arians, so that Christ is not simply God. Let us invent some figurative speeches with the Manichaeans, so that he is not true man, but a ghost, which passed through the virgin, like a ray through the glass, and was crucified. This is how beautifully we will treat the Scriptures if we follow reason.

But the figurative speeches do not help after all, nor does it avoid the inconsistency.

  1. § 15.

** **1832 L. V.". VII, 2S2-2S4. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2289-2292. 1833

For it remains inconsistent (according to the judgment of reason) that the just and good God should demand impossible things from your free will, and since free will cannot will the good and necessarily serves sin, he should nevertheless impute it to it. And by not bestowing the spirit, that he would then act no more kindly or graciously than if he were obdurate, or allowed them to be obdurate. Of these things reason will say that they do not belong to a good and gracious God. They are too much beyond its comprehension, and it cannot allow itself to be captivated into believing that God is good, who does and judges such things, but, setting aside faith, it wants to feel and see and comprehend how he is good and not cruel. But she would then understand him if it were said in this way with regard to God: He hardens no one, he condemns no one, but he has mercy on all, he makes all blessed, so that, after hell has been destroyed and the fear of death has been laid down, there would be no future punishment to fear. That is why it is so heated and strains to excuse and defend God as a just and good one. But faith and the spirit judge differently, since they believe that God is good, even though he would push all people into ruin (porderot). And what good is it that we struggle with these thoughts, that we lay the blame of hardening on free will; free will may do what it can in the whole world and with all its powers, but it will not produce an example by which it can avoid being hardened if God does not give the Spirit, or by which it can show that it can deserve mercy if it has been left to its own powers. For what does it matter whether he is hardened or whether he deserves to be hardened, since hardening necessarily lies in him as long as that incapacity is in him according to which he cannot will the good, as the diatribe itself testifies. Since these figurative speeches do not take away the inconsistency, or, if they are taken away, greater inconsistencies are added, and the free man is not able to understand them.

If everything is attributed to God's will, then let the useless and deceptive figurative speeches pass away and let us hold on to the pure and simple words of God.

The other cause is, 1) that what God has made is very good, and God has not said: Just for this I have made you, but, just for this I have raised you.

First, we say that this was said before the fall of man, where what God had made was very good. But soon, in the third chapter, it follows how man became evil, abandoned by God and left to himself. From this thus corrupted man all the wicked were born, even Pharaoh, as Paul says Eph. 2, 3., "We were all children of wrath by nature, even as the rest." God therefore created (condidit) Pharaoh as an ungodly one, that is, from an ungodly and corrupt seed, as it is said in the Proverbs of Solomon 16, 4.: "The LORD makes everything for its own sake, even the ungodly to be evil days." 2) Now it does not follow from this, God created the ungodly, therefore he is not ungodly; for how should he who comes from ungodly seed not be ungodly? as the 51st Psalm v. 7. says, "Behold, I am conceived in sins," and Job [14, 4. 3): "Who can make a clean person out of him who is conceived from unclean seed?" For although God does not make sin, yet He does not cease to form and multiply the nature, which is corrupted by sin, after the spirit is taken away, as if an artist were making image columns out of corrupted wood. Therefore, whatever the natural nature (natura) is, the people become such, since God creates and forms them from such a nature. Secondly, I say: If you want the words "it was very good" to be understood of the works of God after the fall, you must note that this is not said by us, but by God. For it is not said: Man looked at what God had done, and it was very good.

  1. Diatribe § 15.
  2. The Jena edition has here in parenthesis: (indeed not by creating wickedness in him, but by forming and ruling him from evil seed).
  3. According to the Vulgate.

1834 V. a. VII, 264-256. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2292-2298. 1835

good. Many things seem and are very good before God, which seem and are very bad to us. Thus the visitations, evils, errors, hell. Yes, all the best works of God are very bad and damnable before the world. What is better than Christ and the gospel? but what is more cursed for the world? Therefore, how that can be good in the sight of God, what is evil for us, only God knows, and those who see with the eyes of God, that is, who have the Spirit. But such a sharp discussion is not yet necessary; the previous answer is sufficient for the time being.

The question may be raised as to how God can be said to work evil in us, as hardening, giving over to lusts, misleading, and the like. One should truly be satisfied with the words of God and believe what they say, since the works of God are quite unspeakable, but in order to please reason, that is, human foolishness, we want to be childish and foolish and slanderously try to see if we can do something about it.

First. Reason and diatribe also admit that God works all things in all 1 Cor. 12, 6 and that without Him nothing happens nor is effective, for He is omnipotent, and this belongs to His omnipotence, as Paul says to the Ephesians 1. 19. Now the devil and man, fallen and abandoned by God, cannot want the good, that is, what pleases God or what God wants, but they are constantly intent on their lusts, so that they cannot but seek what is their own. This will and nature of theirs, thus turned away from God, is not nothing, for neither the devil nor the godless man is nothing, or has no nature or will, even though they have a corrupt nature turned away from God. Therefore, all that remains is that we say: the natural being (naturae) in the ungodly and the devil, as it is a creature and work of God, is no less subject to the omnipotence and divine action than all other creatures and works of God.

Since God moves and works everything in everyone, He also necessarily moves and works in the devil and in the ungodly.

But he works in them in such a way as they themselves are constituted and what he finds them, that is, since they are turned away from GOtte and evil and are driven by the movement (motu) of the divine omnipotence, so they do only, what is contrary (aversa) and evil to GOtte, as if a rider leads (agit) a horse that has only three or only two sound legs, but he leads it in such a way as the horse is, that is, the horse goes along badly. But what should the rider do? He leads such a horse at the same time as healthy ones, the former in a bad way, the latter in a good way; he cannot do otherwise unless the horse becomes healthy. Here you see that God, since He works in evil and through evil, allows evil to happen, but that God nevertheless cannot act evil, although He works evil through evil, because He Himself, as the Good, cannot act evil, yet He uses evil tools, which cannot escape the impulse (raptum) and the movement (motum) of His power. The fault lies in the tools, which God does not allow to be idle, so that evil happens by God Himself moving (movente), not unlike when a carpenter hacks evil with a rough, rough axe. Hence it is that an ungodly man must always err and sin, because, being moved by the impulse of divine power, he is not permitted to be inactive, but must will, desire, and do in such a way as he himself is constituted.

This is certain and certain if we believe that God is omnipotent, then also that the ungodly is God's creature, but, turned away from God and left to himself, can neither will nor do good without the spirit of God. God's omnipotence means that the ungodly cannot escape God's movement and action, but obeys it as one who is necessarily subject to it. But his corruption or the turning away of his person from God makes it impossible for him to be moved and driven in a good way. God cannot make His omnipotence stand for the sake of turning away from Him, but the wicked cannot change his turning away. Thus it happens that he constantly and inevitably sins and errs,

1836 L. V. E. VII, W6-2S8. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2295-2298. 1837

until he is corrected by the spirit of God. In all this, however, the devil still reigns in peace and possesses his palace in peace under this effect (motu) of the divine omnipotence. But after that follows the trade of hardening, which is like this: The ungodly (as we have said) as well as his prince, the devil, is entirely turned toward himself and his own; he does not seek GOD, nor does he care for what is GOD's; his treasures, his glory, his works, his wisdom, his wealth (posse), and in general his kingdom he seeks and wants to enjoy these things in peace. Now if someone resists him, or wants to diminish any of these things from him, he is also moved and indignant by the same averted from God's attitude according to which he seeks those things, and rages against his adversary. And no more can he refrain from raging than he can refrain from desiring and seeking his own, and no more can he cease to desire than he can cease to be, since he is a creature of God, though a corrupt one.

This is the raging of the world against the gospel of God, because through the gospel comes that stronger one who wants to overcome the calm owner of the palace and condemns these lusts of honor, wealth, wisdom and his own righteousness and everything in which he trusts. This very irritation of the wicked, that God says or does the opposite of what they wanted, is their hardening and anger (ingravatio). For since they are turned away from God by themselves through the corruption of nature, they are then turned away much more and become angry when their turning away is resisted or spoken of in a diminutive way. Thus God provoked the godless Pharaoh, wanting to snatch his dominion from him, and hardened and hardened his heart more and more by attacking him through the word of Moses, as if he wanted to take his kingdom from him and withdraw the people from his dominion, and did not give him the spirit inwardly, but allowed his godless corruption to be angry under the dominion of the devil, to rise up proudly, to rage and to continue in great security and contempt.

Therefore, let no one think that when God is said to harden or work evil in us (for to harden is to do evil), He is acting as if He were creating evil in us all over again, as if you thought that a wicked gift-giver, who is himself evil, poured or mixed poison into a non-evil vessel, the vessel itself doing nothing but receiving or suffering the wickedness of the poisoner. For this is how they seem to imagine that man, who in himself would be good or not evil, would suffer an evil work from God, when they hear that it is said of us that God works good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God, who works, by a necessity in which we behave purely passively (mera necessitate passiva), in that they do not sufficiently mean how restless God works in all his creatures, and that he leaves none idle. Rather, whoever wants to understand such things in any way, that God works evil in us, that is, through us, must think in such a way that this does not happen through God's fault, but through our fault. For since we are evil by nature, but God is good, and since He drives us by His effect (rapiens) according to the nature of His omnipotence, He can do nothing else than that He, who is good Himself, does evil through the evil instrument, although according to His wisdom He uses this evil for His glory and for our salvation.

Thus, he also finds the will of the devil to be evil, but he did not create it that way; rather, since God left him and the devil sinned, he became evil. He drives him by his effect and moves him to what he wants, although this will does not cease to be evil by this very movement of God. In this way David said of Shimei in 2 Sam. 16, 11: "Let him curse, for the LORD has commanded him" to curse David. How could God command to curse, which is such a poisonous and evil work? Such an outward commandment was nowhere to be found. Therefore, David has in mind that the Almighty God spoke, and it happened thus, that is, He does everything through the eternal Word. The divine action (actio) and omnipotence thus drives (rapit) the man with all his limbs.

1838 V. Ä. VII, 2S8 f, XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2298-2301. 183A

already evil will of Shimei, which had already burned against David before, since David came in his way at an opportune time, as he then deserved such blasphemy, and the good GOD himself commands through an evil and blasphemous instrument, that is, he speaks and does through the word, namely through the drive of his action (raptu actionis suae), this blasphemy.

Thus, he hardens Pharaoh by holding up to his ungodly and evil will a word and work that he hates, namely out of innate error and natural corruption. And since God through the Spirit does not change him inwardly, but rather continues to offer him His words and works and to impress them upon him, but Pharaoh looks at His powers, riches and might and trusts in them according to the same natural fault, it happens that he becomes puffed up and arrogant on this side through the conceit of his things, but on the other side through the lowliness of Moses, and because the word of God comes in a contemptible form, a proud despiser and in this way becomes hardened; then, that the more Moses persists and threatens, the more he becomes irritated and hardened. This evil will of his would not be moved or hardened by itself, but since the almighty actor drives (agat) him with inevitable movement, like the rest of the creatures, it is necessary that he wants something. Then, at the same time, he opposes him outwardly with what irritates and annoys him according to his nature. Thus it comes that Pharaoh cannot avoid his hardening, just as he can neither avoid the effect of the divine omnipotence, nor the turning away from God or the malice of his will. Therefore, the hardening of Pharaoh by GOtte is accomplished in such a way that he outwardly opposes to his wickedness that which the latter hates by nature; then he also inwardly does not cease to move the wicked will (as he found it then wicked) by omnipotent impulse (motu), and the latter, according to the wickedness of his will, cannot avoid hastening that which is repugnant to him and trusting in his powers. He becomes obdurate, so that he neither hears nor has insight, but is carried away as one possessed by the devil, as it were senseless and mad.

If we have presented this in a convincing manner, we have won in this matter, and since the figurative speeches and interpretations of men have been abandoned, we take the words of God simply, so that it is not necessary to excuse God or to accuse Him of unreasonableness. For when he says, I will harden Pharaoh's heart, he speaks simply, as if he said, I will cause Pharaoh's heart to be hardened, or that by my working and doing it will be hardened. How this happens we have heard, namely: inwardly I will move the evil will by the general drive (motu), so that it continues in its effort and its course of wanting; I will neither stop moving it nor can I do otherwise. Outwardly, however, I will hold word and work before him, against which that evil effort will resist, since he is capable of nothing but wanting evil, in that I set evil in motion through the power of omnipotence.

Thus God was quite certain and pronounced it in the most certain way that Pharaoh should be hardened, since he was quite certain that Pharaoh's will could neither resist the impulse (motui) of omnipotence, nor give up its wickedness, nor even yield to the adversary presented to him, Moses, but that, since his evil will remained, he would inevitably become angrier, harder and prouder by opposing in his course and with his effort what he did not want and what he despised by trusting in his ability. So you see here that even by this word it is confirmed that the free will is only able to do evil, since God, who does not err out of ignorance, nor lie out of malice, so surely foreshadows the hardening of Pharaoh, namely, since he is sure that the evil will can only want evil and by the fact that the good that is opposed to it is offered to it, it cannot help but become angrier.

Now it remains here that someone would like to ask why God does not take mass from this impulse of omnipotence, by which the will of the wicked is moved, so that it continues to be evil and to become worse. To this is to be answered: That is to wish,

1840 L. V. L. VII, 2W-261. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 23ÜI-2304. 1841

that God may cease to be God for the sake of the wicked, in that such a one desires that His power and effect cease, namely, that He may cease to be good, so that they may not become angry. But why does he not at the same time change the evil will which he moves? This belongs to the mysteries of the Majesty, where his judgments are incomprehensible. And it is not for us to inquire into this, but to worship these mysteries. Now, if flesh and blood should grumble here in anger, it may grumble after all, but it will do nothing, God will not become different because of it. And even if the angry wicked should go away in however large numbers, the elect will still remain. The same must be said to those who ask: Why did he allow Adam to fall, and why does he allow us all to be born infected with the same sin, when he could have preserved that one, and could have created us elsewhere or only from purified seed? He is God, for whose will there is no cause nor reason that could be prescribed to him as a rule and standard, since nothing is equal or superior to him, but he himself the will of God is the rule for everything. For if there were any rule or standard for him, or any cause or reason, it could no longer be God's will. For what he wills is not right because he must or had to will it that way, but on the contrary, because he wills it that way, what happens must be right. Cause and reason are prescribed for the will of the creature, but not for the will of the Creator, unless you want to put another Creator above him.

Hereby, I believe, the figurative diatribe with its figurative speech is sufficiently refuted; but let us come to the text itself to see how this and the figurative speech fit to each other. For it is the way of all those who escape the grounds of proof with figurative speeches that they bravely despise the text itself and direct their efforts solely to it, that they twist some extracted word with figurative speech and crucify it according to their sense, taking no account either of the circumlocution or of the meaning.

The diatribe does not care about what Moses is talking about or what his purpose is. Thus, at this point, the diatribe cares nothing about what Moses is talking about or what his speech intends, and tears this little word "I will harden" (at which she is annoyed) out of the text and writes all sorts of things as she pleases. Meanwhile, she does not even think about how it the speech could be reinserted and adapted so that it rhymes with the whole of the text. And this is the reason why the Scripture is not sufficiently clear in so many proven and learned men in so many centuries; it is also not to be wondered at, since also the sun would not be able to shine if it were treated with such artifices.

But, to go over what I have shown above, it is not rightly said that Pharaoh was hardened because God bore him with gentleness and did not punish him immediately, since he was chastised with so many plagues; Why was it necessary for God to promise so often that He would harden Pharaoh's heart when the signs occurred, since even before the signs and before this hardening, Pharaoh was in such a condition that, carried by divine leniency and not punished, he inflicted so much evil on the children of Israel, puffed up by happy success and power, when to harden means to carry in divine leniency and not to punish immediately? Do you see, then, that this figurative way of speaking in this passage serves absolutely in nothing to the point? for this inauthentic speech refers quite generally to all who sin, borne by divine leniency. For in this way we could say that all men would be hardened, since everyone sins, but no one would sin if he were not supported by divine mildness. Therefore, the hardening of Pharaoh is something quite different from the general toleration on the part of divine gentleness.

Rather, Moses is not so much preaching Pharaoh's wickedness as the truthfulness and mercy of God, so that the children of Israel will not mistrust the promises of God,

1842 L. V.". VII, 261 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2304-2307. 1843

since he promised that he would deliver them. Since this was a very great thing, he tells them the difficulty beforehand, so that they would not waver in faith, knowing that all this had been foretold and was to be done by decree of the one who had promised it, as if he were saying: I will indeed deliver you, but you will hardly believe this, so much will Pharaoh resist and delay the matter; but trust nevertheless, even all this, that he drags it out, is done by my working, so that I may do the more and greater miracles to establish you in the faith and to show my power, so that afterwards you may believe me the more in all other things. In the same way, Christ, at the institution of Holy Communion, foretold to his disciples many difficulties, his own death, and many tribulations that would befall them, so that when it happened, they would believe all the more.

And Moses does not give us this meaning in a dark way, since he says 2 Mos. 3, 19. 20.: "But Pharaoh will not let you go, so that many miracles will happen in Egypt", and again 2 Mos. 9, 16.: "And that is why I have raised you up, that my power may appear in you, and my name be proclaimed in all lands." You see here that Pharaoh is hardened for the sake of it, so that he resists God and delays the redemption, whereby cause is given for many miracles and for the proof of the power of God, so that this is proclaimed and believed in him in all lands. What is this but that all this is said and done to strengthen the faith and to comfort the weak, so that they should believe God as a true, faithful, powerful and merciful one? as if it were said to little children in a very caressing way: Do not be frightened by Pharaoh's harshness. For I also work them and have them in my hand, I who deliver you. I will only use them to perform many miracles and to make my majesty known for the sake of your faith.

This is why Moses repeats almost after every single plague: "And Pharaoh's heart was hardened, so that he would not let the people go.

as the Lord had said Ex. 9:12, 4:21. What does this: "As the Lord had said", other than that the Lord should appear to be true, since he had predicted that he would be hardened? If there had been any possibility of change or freedom of will in Pharaoh, which could have turned to either side, God could not have predicted the hardening of him with such certainty. Now, however, since it is promised by Him who can neither lack nor lie, it must necessarily and certainly happen that he would be hardened; this could not have happened if the hardening were not entirely outside of man's powers and solely in God's control, in the way we said above, namely, that God was certain that He would not allow the general effect of omnipotence in Pharaoh, or for Pharaoh's sake, to continue, since He cannot refrain from it.

Furthermore, it was equally certain that the will of Pharaoh, which was evil by nature and turned away from God, could not agree with the word and work of God, which was contrary to it. Therefore, by the effort (impetu) of the will in Pharaoh, which was obtained by the omnipotence of God, and by the opposing of the contrary word and work, which was outwardly held against him, nothing else could happen but annoyance and hardening of the heart in Pharaoh. For if God had refrained from the effect of His omnipotence on Pharaoh, at the time when the word of Moses reproached him with what was repugnant, and it was imagined that Pharaoh's will alone had acted out of His power, then perhaps there would still have been room for dispute as to which of the two he could have leaned toward. Now, however, since he is driven and carried away (rapiatur) to will, no violence happens to his will, because he is not forced against his will, but is driven by the natural effect of God to will naturally, just as he is constituted (but he is evil), therefore he cannot but push against the word and thus become hardened. Thus we see that this passage strongly argues against free will, in

1844 L. V. a. VII, 262-264. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2307^-2809. 1845

In the sense that God, who promises, cannot lie, but if he does not lie, then Pharaoh's hardening cannot fail.

But let us also look at Paul who takes this passage from Moses Rom. 9, 17. How miserably the diatribe writhes in this passage! So that it does not lose its free will, it turns in all directions. Soon it says, 1) it is a necessity of the consequence, but not of what follows; soon, it is an ordered or revealed will (voluntas signi), which can be resisted, soon it is a will, of the hidden counsel (voluntas placiti), which cannot be resisted. At one time the passages drawn from Paul do not serve as proof, do not speak of man's blessedness; at another time the foreknowledge of God imposes necessity, at another time no necessity; at another time grace precedes the will so that it will, accompanies it on its way, gives a happy outcome, at another time it does everything as the main cause, at another time it works through secondary causes and keeps itself quiet. With these and similar games with words, it accomplishes nothing, except that it brings time and in the meantime takes the matter out of our sight and draws it elsewhere. It considers us to be so dull and unintelligent, or thinks that we are so little touched by the matter as it assumes to be, or acts after the manner of little children who, where they are afraid or playing, cover their eyes with their hands, and then think that they are then seen by no one, because they themselves see no one. This is what the diatribe does in every way. Because it cannot bear the rays, yes, the flashes of the clearest words, it pretends that it does not see what it is about, and at the same time also wants to persuade us that we also should not see with covered eyes. But all these things are signs of a spirit that is convicted and sacrilegiously opposes the unconquerable truth.

That little argument about the necessity of the consequence and what follows has been refuted above. The diatribe may write poetry and um-

  1. Diatribe § 17.

If God knew beforehand that Judas would be the betrayer, then Judas necessarily became the betrayer, and it was not in the hands of Judas or any creature to do otherwise or to change the will, although he did not force himself to do so, but that will was the work of God, 2) which moved His omnipotence, as well as everything else. For the saying is insurmountable and clear Hebr. 6, 18: "God does not lie" and is not missing. Here are not dark or doubtful words, although the most learned men of all centuries should have been all blind, so that they thought and said otherwise. And even if you make many excuses, your conscience and the conscience of all will be convicted, forced to say thus: If God is not lacking in what he foreknows, it is necessary that precisely what is foreknown should come to pass, for otherwise who could believe his promises, who could fear his threats, if what he promises or threatens does not necessarily follow, or how should he promise or threaten if his foreknowledge is deceptive or can be hindered by our mutability? This exceedingly bright light of certain truth completely clogs the mouths of all, resolves all questions, and has gained the victory against all sophistical evasions.

We know, of course, that the foreknowledge of men is wrong, we know that a solar eclipse does not come for the sake of it, 3) because it is foreknown, but that it is foreknown because it will come. What have we to do with this foreknowledge? We dispute about the foreknowledge of God; if you do not ascribe to it that what is foreknown is necessarily effected (necessarium effectum praesciti), then you have already taken away the faith and fear of God, have made all divine promises and threats shaky, and have even denied the Godhead itself. But even the diatribe itself, after struggling for a long time and trying everything

  1. In the Jena edition: "was his work, which GOtt excited by his omnipotence."
  2. Diatribe § 15, at the end.

1846 L. V. L,VII, 264-266. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2309-2313. 1847

had, finally, driven by the power of truth, confesses our opinion and speaks: 1)

"The question of the will and purpose (destinatione) of God is even more difficult. For God wills precisely what He knows beforehand. And this is what Paul Rom. 9, 19. 18. gives to understand: 'Who can resist his will, if he have mercy on which he will, and if he harden which he will?' For if there were a king who 2) could bring forth whatever he willed, and whom no one could resist, he would be said to do whatever he willed. Thus the will of God, because it is the main cause of everything that happens, seems to interpret a necessity to our will." So far those.

And finally once we can thank GOtte for the healthy conception (sensu) of the diatribe. So where is the free will now? But again this eel slips away and suddenly says:

But "Paul does not resolve this question, "but gives a rebuke to the one who wants to discuss such things: 'O man, who are you that you want to be right with GOD?'"

O a beautiful evasion! Does this mean that the divine Scriptures are being acted upon, when one makes such a statement out of one's own power, out of one's own head, without Scripture, without miracles, yes, falsifies the clearest words of God? Paul does not solve this question? What does he do? (She says) he gives the disputant a reprimand. Is not this reprimand the most perfect solution? For what was asked in this question about the will of God? But whether he interpreted a necessity to our will? But Paul (Rom. 9, 18.answers that it is so: "So he 'has mercy' on whom he wills (he says), and hardens whom he wills." Rom. 9, 16.: "So then it is not up to anyone's willing or running, but up to God's mercy." And not satisfied with the fact that he has given the solution, he introduces moreover those talking who murmur and chatter for free will against this solution, then there would be no merit and we would be without our guilt ver-

  1. Diatribe § 16.
  2. In the Erlangen edition yui is missing here, which we have added from the Diatribe.

and the like, that he might subdue their murmuring and indignation by speaking Rom. 9:19. according to the Vulgate:

"So you say to me, 'What then does he complain about?' Who can resist his will?" Do you see that he introduces other persons speaking (prosopopoeiam)? Those, having heard that the will of God lays out a necessity for us, murmur blasphemously and say, "What else does he complain about?" that is, why does God insist, urge, demand, and complain like this? What does he accuse us of? What does he accuse us of? as if we humans could do what he demands if we wanted to. He has no just cause for this complaint; rather, let him accuse his will, let him complain, let him urge. For who can resist his will? Who can obtain mercy if he does not will? Who can become soft when he wants to harden? It is not in our hands to change his will, much less to resist the will that wants us as hardened, since we are forced by that will to be hardened, we may want or not.

If Paul had not solved this question, or if he had not declared in a definite way that a necessity is imposed on us by divine foreknowledge, why would it have been necessary to introduce such people who grumble and argue that one cannot resist his will? For who would grumble or be indignant if he did not think that this necessity was expressed in a certain way? The words are not obscure in which he speaks of resisting the will of God. Or is it doubtful what resisting is, what the will is, or of whom he speaks, since he speaks of God's will? Admittedly, countless thousands of the most proven teachers may be blind here, and may invent that the Scriptures are not clear, and fear the question as a difficult one. We have the very clear words: "He has mercy on whom he wills, he hardens whom he wills"; likewise: "So you say to me: What does he complain about? Who can resist his will?"

It is also not a difficult question, yes, nothing easier even for the healthy person

1848 L. v. ü. vii, 266 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2313-2315. 1849

as that this conclusion is certain, firm and true: If God foreknows, then this necessarily comes true, if this is assumed from Scripture as a prerequisite that God neither errs nor lacks. I admit that it is a difficult, even an impossible question, if you want to establish both at the same time, both the foreknowledge of God and the freedom of man. For what is more difficult, indeed more impossible, than that you assert that contradictory or opposing things do not conflict with each other, or that any number is ten and the same number is also nine? There is no difficulty in our question, but the same is sought and brought in, not otherwise than as ambiguity and obscurity are sought and forcibly brought in in the Scriptures. He therefore subdues the ungodly, who were annoyed by these very clear words, because they realized that God's will is fulfilled by our being subject to necessity, and realized that it had been pronounced certain that nothing was left to them in terms of freedom or free will, but that everything was based solely on God's will. But he subdues them in such a way that he commands them to be silent and to worship the glory of God's power and will, against which we have no right; but he has full right against us to do what he wills, and we are not wronged, since he owes us nothing, has received nothing from us, has promised nothing, except as much as he willed and pleased him.

Here, then, is the place, here the time, not to worship those Corycian caves, 1) but the true Majesty in her terrifying marvels and in her incomprehensible judgments, and to say, "Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." But we are nowhere more irreverent and presumptuous than when we attack and punish these very unsearchable mysteries and judgments. Meanwhile, we impute to ourselves an unbelievable reverence in researching the holy Scriptures, which God commanded to be researched. Here we do not investigate, but there, where He has forbidden to

  1. Diatribe, slightly before the middle of § 2.

we do nothing but research with constant presumption, not to say blasphemy. But this is not inquiring, if we sacrilegiously (temere) direct our efforts to rhyme the completely free foreknowledge of God with our freedom. Here, we are always ready to break God's foreknowledge if he does not leave us free; or if he interprets the necessity to speak to the grumbling and blaspheming: "Why does he still complain? Who can resist his will?" Where is GOD, who is the most gracious according to his nature? Where is He who does not want the death of the sinner? Did He create us for the purpose of taking pleasure in the torment of men? and similar things that will be howled at those in hell and the damned for eternity.

But that the living and true God must be of such a nature that he must impose necessity on us through his freedom, even natural reason must admit, namely, because that would be a ridiculous God, or more correctly, an idol who foresaw future things in an uncertain way, or was deceived in the events, since even the pagans attributed an inevitable determination of fate (fatum) to their gods. He would be equally ridiculous if he could not do everything or if anything happened without him. But if one admits the foreknowledge and the omnipotence, then it follows naturally with irrefutable conclusion: That we are not made by ourselves, nor live, nor do anything, but by his omnipotence. But since he knew beforehand that we would be of such a nature, and now makes us such, and drives and governs us as such, I beg you, how can it still be pretended that anything is free in us and happens in a different way than he knew beforehand or does now.

Therefore, the foreknowledge and omnipotence of God is virtually contrary to our free will; for either God will be mistaken in foreknowledge and also mistaken in action (which is impossible), or we will act and be driven according to His foreknowledge and action. The omnipotence of God, however, I do not call that ability according to which-

1850 L. V. a. VII, 267-269. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 23IS-23I8. 1851

chem he does not do many things which he can, but the power which is active (actualem), by which he powerfully works all things in all, as the Scripture calls him omnipotent. This omnipotence, I say, and the foreknowledge of God abolish the doctrine of free will from the ground up. And here no obscurity of the Scriptures or difficulty of the matter can be pleaded. The words are quite clear, known even to children; the matter is clear and easy, proven also by the common natural judgment of reason, so that no matter how great a series of centuries, times, and persons who write and teach otherwise, it is of no avail.

Of course, this is most annoying to the common sense or natural reason, that God alone, according to His will, abandons, hardens, condemns people, as if He delights in the sins and in such great and eternal torments of the wretched, while it is praised of Him that He is of such great mercy and goodness. To have such an opinion of GOD, that seemed unreasonable, that seemed cruel, that seemed intolerable; at this also so many and so great men have been vexed in so many centuries. And who should not be annoyed by it? I myself have often been offended by it to such an extent that I almost fell into the deep abyss of despair, so that I also wished I had never been made into a man before I knew how salutary this despair would be and how close to grace. That is why one has tried and tried so hard to excuse the goodness of God, to accuse the will of man. Here one has invented the distinctions between the ordered (ordinata) will of God and the will of God in itself (absoluta); full of the necessity of the consequence and the necessity of what follows, and many similar things. But with this nothing has been accomplished, except that unlearned people have been deceived by trivial words and by holding up a science falsely so called. Nevertheless, the sting always remained in the innermost heart, both of the unlearned and of the learned, when it came to the point of seriousness that they realized that there was necessity on our side.

The people believed in the foreknowledge and omnipotence of God.

And even natural reason, which is annoyed by this necessity and tries so much to get rid of it, is forced to admit it, convicted by its own judgment, even if there were no scripture. For all men find this opinion written in their hearts, recognize it, and approve of it (however unwillingly) when they hear it presented: First, that God is omnipotent, not only in power, but also in working (actione) (as I have said), otherwise He would be a ridiculous God; second, that He knows and foreknows all things, and can neither err nor fail. Since these two things are admitted by the hearts and minds of all, they are immediately forced by unavoidable inference to admit that we do not become by our will, but by necessity, and that we therefore do not do everything arbitrarily out of what free will is able to do (pro jure liberi arbitrii), but as God has foreknown and casts it, according to his infallible and unchangeable counsel and power. Therefore, at the same time, it is found written in all hearts that free will is nothing, although this is obscured by so many arguments to the contrary and so great a reputation of so many men who have taught otherwise for so many centuries, just as every other law (as Paul Rom. 2:15 testifies) that is written in our hearts is recognized when it is rightly acted upon, but is obscured when it is wrongly treated by godless teachers or mastered by other opinions.

I will come back to Paul. If he does not solve the question in Rom. 9, 20. 21. and does not conclude from God's foreknowledge and will that we, for our part, are under the necessity, why did he need to introduce the simile of the potter who makes one vessel out of the same clay for honor, the other for dishonor? Does not a work say to its master, "Why do I make this? For he speaks of men, whom he compares to clay, and God to a potter. This, of course, is dull,

1852 L. V. L. VII, 269-271. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2318-2321. 1853

yes, the simile is ludicrous and introduced in vain, if he does not hold that our freedom is not Freihei. Yes, the whole discussion of Paul Rom. 11 is in vain, with which he upholds (tuetur) grace. For the whole letter is concerned with showing that we are not able to do anything, even when we seem to do well, as he says there Rom. 9:31 that Israel, being inferior to righteousness, did not attain righteousness, but v. 30 the Gentiles, not being inferior to it, attained it. I will speak more extensively about this when I present our troops.

But the diatribe pretends not to see the whole main point of Paul's discussion and where Paul is aiming at, and consoles itself with some picked out and twisted words. Also, it does not help the diatribe that Paul afterwards admonishes Rom. 11, 20. again and says: "You stand by faith, see that you are not proud"; likewise [v. 23?: "also those, if they should believe, will be grafted in" 2c For there he says nothing about the powers of men, but brings commanding and obliging words; what is directed by them is sufficiently said above. And Paul himself in this place precedes those who boast of free will, and does not say that those can believe, but GOD is able, he says, to graft them in. In short, the Diatribe proceeds so timidly and hesitatingly in her treatment of those passages of Paul, that one sees that she holds differently in her conscience than her words do. For when she should most have continued and proved, she almost always breaks off the speech, saying 1): "Let this be enough of it"; likewise, "Now I will not examine that"; likewise, "It is not my purpose here"; likewise, "Those would say so", and many similar things, and has left the matter undecided, so that you cannot know whether she speaks for free will, or whether she wants to be regarded as only wanting to slip away from Paul with vain words, and that according to her right.

  1. Diatribe § 18. § 17. § 18.

and custom, because she is not serious about this matter. But we must not be so cold-headed, not walk on eggshells or be moved like a reed by the wind, but assert with certainty, steadfastly and fierily, then also prove in a well-founded way and skillfully and abundantly what we teach.

But now, how beautifully she maintains freedom at the same time as necessity, by saying 2): "Not even every necessity excludes free will, as God the Father necessarily begets the Son, and yet begets the same willingly and freely, because he was not forced to do so."

I ask you, are we now discussing compulsion and force? Have we not testified through so many books that we speak of the necessity of immutability? We know that the Father willingly testifies that Judas willingly betrayed Christ, but we say that this willingness must have happened in Judas himself certainly and infallibly, if God had foreknown. Or if what I say is not yet understood, let us refer the one necessity, which compels by force (violentam), to the work, and the other necessity, according to which something infallibly comes to pass (infallibilem), to time. Whoever hears us may understand that we speak of the latter, not of the former, that is, we do not dispute whether Judas became a traitor against his will or with his will, but whether it had to happen infallibly at the time predetermined by God that Judas betrayed Christ with his will (volendo).

But see what the diatribe 3) says here: "If you look at the infallible foreknowledge of God, then Judas had to practice the betrayal with necessity, and yet Judas could change his will." Do you also understand, dear Diatribe, what you are talking about? To pass over the fact that the will can only will evil, as has been proven above. How could Judas change his will, since the infallible foreknowledge of God is at hand? Could he change God's foreknowledge and make it one that can be absent (fallibilem)?

  1. Diatribe § 17.
  2. § 17.

1854 L. V. L. VII, 271 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2321-2324. 1855

Here the diatribe succumbs, abandons the flags, throws away the weapons and leaves the battlefield by throwing the disputation away to the scholastic quibbles full of the necessity of the consequence and the necessity of what follows, as if it did not want to pursue these quibbles. Certainly, it is quite prudent, after you have brought the matter into the fiercest battle, and now a disputator is most needed, that you just then break away (terga vsrras) and leave to others the task of answering and bringing the matter to an end (definisnäi). You should have followed this advice from the very beginning and abstained from writing altogether, according to the words: He who does not know how to fight, abstains from fighting in the tournament. For this was not expected of Erasmus, that he should set in motion (movsrsr) that difficulty, as God certainly foreknew, and yet ours might, might not (aoMinZonter) happen; this difficulty was in the world long before the Diatribe; but it was expected that he should answer it and give the decision. But he uses an oratorical transition and drags us, who are ignorant of the art of oratory, along with him, as if nothing of the matter were being dealt with here and only certain mere quibbles were there, and bravely plunges out of the midst of the melee, crowned with epheum and laurel.

But not so, dear brother, no oratory is so great that it could deceive a true conscience; the sting of conscience is stronger than all the powers and images of eloquence. We will not suffer here that the speaker should pass over it and dissemble; here is not now the place for that artifice. Here one demands the center and the main point of the trade. And here either free will will be destroyed, or it will completely win the day. But you, realizing the danger, yes, the certain victory against free will, stand as if you noticed nothing but sophistry. Does this mean acting as befits a faithful divine scholar? Should the matter move you seriously, since in such a way you both leave the listeners in suspense, and the discussion, after it has come to the most serious point, is not yet finished?

How can you let go of the argument that has come to the point (pserturbatam) and has been carried to extremes (exaspöratam), but nevertheless want to appear as if you have honestly satisfied and won the victory? This deviousness and cunning can be endured in worldly matters: in a theological matter, where the simple and clear truth is sought, it is worthy of the greatest hatred and unbearable.

The Sophists, too, felt the insurmountable and irresistible force of this reason of proof, therefore they invented the necessity of the consequence and the necessity of what follows (nsoessitarem oon86HU6MM6 60N86gu6Mi8); but we have taught above how nothing at all this little thread accomplishes, namely, they, too, pay no attention to what they say and how much they, against themselves, allow. If one admits the necessity of the consequence, then free will is defeated and laid low, and it does not help in the least, neither the necessity, nor the contingency (conttnZtzntia) of what follows. What is it to me if free will is not forced, but does with will (volsmer) what it does? It is enough for me that you admit that it will inevitably happen that he does what he does with will, and he cannot behave differently if God has foreknown it that way. If God foreknew that Judas would commit treason or that he would change his will to betray, whichever of the two he foreknew would necessarily come to pass, or God would be lacking in foreknowledge and prediction, which is impossible. For this brings about the necessity of the consequence, that is, if God foreknows, it necessarily happens. That is, the free. Will is nothing. This necessity of the consequence is not obscure nor doubtful, so that even if the teachers of all centuries should be blind, they are nevertheless forced to admit it, since it is so obvious and certain that it can be grasped with the hands.

But the necessity of what follows, with which they comfort themselves, is a mere figment of the imagination (pbanta8ma), and virtually argues against the necessity of the consequence. For example, it is a necessity of the consequence,

1856 L. V. a. VII, 272-274. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2324-2327. 1857

If I say: God knows beforehand that Judas will be the betrayer, then it will certainly and infallibly happen that Judas is the betrayer. Against this necessity and consequence you console yourself thus: But because Judas can change the will to betray, therefore it is not the necessity of what follows. I ask you, how can those two pieces rhyme: Judas cannot "will to betray"; and: "it is necessary that Judas will betray"? Doesn't this contradict and conflict with each other? He will (you say) not be forced to betray against his will. What does that matter? You said about the necessity of what follows, namely, that it is not caused by the necessity of the consequence; you said nothing about the compulsion of what follows. The answer should have been given about the necessity of what follows, and you give an example of the necessity of what follows. I ask about one thing, and you give information about another. This brings about that to and fro wavering, for the sake of which no attention is paid to how nothing at all that little question about the necessity of what follows.

This about the first passage, which dealt with the hardening of Pharaoh, which however comprehends all passages and many troops in itself, and indeed insurmountable ones. Now we want to look at the other one of Jacob and Esau, of series, since they were not yet born, it was said Gen. 25, 23.: "The greater will serve the lesser." The diatribe 1) escapes from this passage in such a way "that it does not actually concern man's blessedness, for God can will that a man be a servant and poor, he may or may not, but that he nevertheless not be excluded from eternal blessedness."

Dear, see how many byways and evasions a slippery spirit seeks, which flees the truth, yet cannot escape it. It may be admitted, after all, that this passage does not refer to the blessedness of man; of this later. For the sake of this, should "Paul, who cites it, do nothing with it? Would we not then find Paul

  1. § 19.

to make a ridiculous or ludicrous man in such a serious discussion? But this is a saying of Jerome, who several times dares to say with great presumption, but at the same time with a blasphemous mouth: This serves as proof (pugnars) in Paul, which in its original context (suis loeis) proves nothing. This is only to say that by laying the foundations of Christian doctrine, Paul is only falsifying divine Scripture and deceiving the souls of believers by an opinion that has been invented out of his head and forcibly introduced into Scripture. Thus the Holy Spirit must be honored in that holy and chosen armor of GOD, Paul. And although Jerome must be read with good judgment, and this saying is to be counted among the ungodly sayings which this man has written in great numbers (for he is so vacillating and obtuse in his understanding of Scripture), the diatribe nevertheless picks it up without judgment and does not think it worth the trouble to soften it even with any interpretation, but judges and interprets the Scripture of God according to it, as if it were a very certain saying from heaven. Thus we accept the ungodly sayings of men as a rule and standard for the holy Scriptures. And then we still wonder that the same becomes dark and ambiguous, and that so many fathers are blind in it, since it the Scripture becomes it dark and uncertain by this ungodly and blasphemous way.

Cursed therefore be he who says that what Paul proves does not serve as proof in the original context. For this is only spoken, but not proven; but it is spoken by those who understand neither Paul nor the passages he cites, but go astray by understanding the words according to their, that is, according to an ungodly opinion. For even if this passage Gen. 25, 23. is to be understood only from a temporal bondage (which is not true), it is nevertheless correctly and effectively used by Paul Rom. 9, 12., since he proves by it that not for the sake of Jacob's or Esau's merit, but by grace of the caller to

1858 L. V. L. vn, 274-276. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2327-2330. 1859

Rebekah 1) had been said, "The greater will serve the lesser."

Paul disputes whether they came to what is said of them by power or merit of free will, and proves that this is not the case, but that Jacob came to what Esau did not come to only by the grace of the caller. But he proves this by insurmountable words of Scripture, namely, that they were not yet born, likewise, had done nothing good or evil. And in this proof lies the main weight of the matter, this is what this matter is about. But the diatribe passes over all this with excellent eloquence, pretends not to see it, and disputes nothing of your merit, which she had nevertheless taken upon herself to do and which Paul's exposition demanded, but makes an empty talk of temporal bondage, as if this belonged to the matter, only so that it would not seem as if she were defeated by Paul's exceedingly powerful words. For what else could she deliver against Paul for free will? What would free will have helped Jacob? What harm did it do to Esau? For already, by the foreknowledge and determination of God, it had been determined to each of them, when they were not yet born and had not yet done anything, what they were to receive, namely, that the one was to serve, the other to rule. The reward is determined before the laborers are born and work. Here the diatribe should have given an answer; Paul urges that they had not yet done anything good, not yet done anything evil, and yet by the divine saying the one is determined to be master, the other to be servant. It is not asked whether this servitude belongs to salvation, but by what merit is it imposed on the one who did not deserve it? But it is very vexatious to argue with those who have the ungodly endeavor to pervert the Scriptures and escape from them.

Furthermore, that Moses does not deal with the bondage of those alone, and Paul is also right in this, that he understands it of eternal blessedness (although this is not at all very

  1. In the Erlangen edition aü Lärmn.

I will not suffer Paul to be defiled by the slanders of the wicked) is convincingly demonstrated by the text itself. For this is the divine revelation in Moses Mos. 25, 23]: "Two nations shall be separated out of thy womb; and one nation shall be superior to another, and the greater shall serve the lesser." Here two peoples are obviously distinguished, the one is taken up into the grace of GOD, namely the lesser, so that it may overcome the greater, admittedly not by its own strength, but by GOD's assistance, for how else could the lesser overcome the greater if GOD were not with it? Therefore, because the lesser will be God's people, not only the external dominion or bondage is treated there, but everything that belongs to God's people, that is, blessing, word, spirit, Christ's promise and eternal kingdom, which Scripture also confirms quite extensively afterwards, since it describes how Jacob was blessed and received the promises and the kingdom. All this Paul briefly indicates, since he says that the greater will serve the lesser, pointing us to Moses, who treats this more expansively, so that you can say, against the ungodly opinion of Jerome and the Diatribe, that this has stronger evidential force (pugnet) in its original context than in Paul, whatever he attracts. This is true not only with respect to Paul, but also with respect to all the apostles who cite scriptural passages as witnesses and corroborators of their preaching. But it would be ridiculous to cite as testimony that which testified nothing and served no purpose. For if among philosophers those are considered ridiculous who prove something unknown by something still more unknown or by something not belonging to it, how could we be so impudent as to ascribe this to the highest leaders and originators of Christian doctrine, on which the salvation of souls rests, especially where they teach what are the chief things of faith? But this is proper for those who are not seriously moved by the divine Scriptures.

But the saying of Malachi 1, 2. 3., which Paul added Rom. 9, 13:

1860 L.v.a. vii. 276 p. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2330-2333. 1861

"Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated", she twists 1) with diligence in three ways. The first is: "If one wants to press the letter (she says), God does not love as we love, nor does he hate anyone, because such movements of the mind do not come to God."

What do I hear? Is the question how God loves and hates, and not rather why He loves and hates? It is a question of what merit on our part He loves or hates. We know very well that God does not love or hate like us, since we love and hate in a variable way. He loves and hates with an eternal and unchanging nature, and thus coincidences and movements of mind do not occur with Him.

And it is precisely this that compellingly proves that free will is nothing, because love is eternal and unchanging, and God's hatred of men eternal, before the world came into being, not only before the merits and works of free will, and that with us everything happens with necessity, according to the fact that he either loves or does not love from eternity: so that not only the love of God, but also the way of loving implies a necessity for us. And so you see how the diatribe's evasions serve to make her run everywhere the more she tries to escape; so much so that she does not succeed in resisting the truth. But let the figurative speech be permitted to you, that the love of God is the effect of love, and the hatred of God is the effect of hatred; do these effects happen without and against the will of God? Or will you also say here that God does not will as we do, that the affectum of the will does not take place with Him? So, if those effects happen, they happen only through the willing God. But what God wants, he either loves or hates. Answer therefore: for what merit is Jacob loved and Esau hated before they are born and before they do a work? Therefore Paul stands firm, who introduces Malachi in the best way for the opinion of Moses, namely, that for the sake of

  1. Diatribe § 19.

He called Jacob before he was born because he loved him, not because he was first loved by Jacob, or because he was moved by any merit of Jacob, so that Jacob and Esau might show what our free will is capable of.

The second way how the diatribe twists the saying Mal. 1, 2. 3. is 2): "Malachi seems not to speak of hatred, whereby we shall be damned for ever, but of a temporal plague, for those are rebuked who would reban Edom."

This again is spoken to the shame of Paul, as if he had done violence to the Scriptures. So let us not be afraid of the majesty of the Holy Spirit, if only we can raise up our own. But for the time being, let us endure this dishonor and see what it proves. Malachi speaks of temporal plague. What follows from this? Or what does it serve to do? Paul proves from Malachi that this plague was imposed on Esau without merit and solely through the hatred of God, in order to conclude from it that free will is nothing. Here you are cornered, here you should have answered. We discuss merit, you talk about reward and talk in such a way that you do not escape what you wanted; yes, by talking about reward you admit the merit, but pretend not to see it. Say therefore, what was the cause with God, that he loved Jacob, and hated Esau, when they were not yet? But this also is false, that Malachi alone speaks of temporal plague, nor has he to do with the desolation of Edom, and with this second way thou pervertest the mind of the prophet altogether. The prophet indicates adequately in the clearest words what he wants, namely, he reproaches the Israelites for their ingratitude, that since he loved them, they in turn neither love him as a father, nor fear him as a lord. But that he loved them, he proves both by scripture and by deed, namely, that since Jacob and Esau were brothers, as Moses writes in the first book Cap. 25, he loved Jacob.

  1. Diatribe § 19.

1862 L. V. a. VII, 277-279. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2333-2336. 1863

and chose him before he was born, as was said shortly before, but hated Esau in such a way that he made his land a wasteland, then also hated him with such persistence and continued to do so, that while he brought Jacob back from captivity and reinstated him, he did not allow the Edomites to be reinstated, but even though they said they wanted to rebuild, he threatened them with destruction. If the very clear text of the prophet does not contain this in itself, let the whole world call me a liar. So it is not the presumption of the Edomites that is reproached, but (as I have said) the ingratitude of the children of Jacob, who do not see what he bestows upon them, and takes away from their brethren the Edomites, for no other cause than because he hates here, loves there.

How can it be that the prophet speaks of a temporal plague? Since he testifies with perfectly clear words that he speaks of two peoples that were born of two patriarchs; the one was accepted and preserved as a vain people, but the other was abandoned and finally destroyed. To be accepted as a people and not to be accepted as a people does not only concern temporal good or evil, but refers to everything. For our God is not only a God of temporal things, but of all things. He does not want to be a God to you or to be worshipped in such a way that it only happens halfway or with a limp 1 Kings 18:21, but with all his strength and with all his heart, that he may be a God to you both here and in the life to come, and in all things, cases, times and works.

The third way is that according to the opinion of the figurative way of speaking he God neither loves all Gentiles, nor hates all Jews, but from both people some. "By this figurative way of speaking it is effected that this testimony (says it^1^ ) does not fight anything to prove the necessity, but serves to put a stop to the arrogance of the Jews." After this path has been taken, the diatribe slips out: it is said of God that he hated those who were not yet born.

  1. Diatribe § 19.

because he knows in advance that they would do what is worthy of hatred; and so the hatred and love of God does not stand in the way of Wilson's freedom. Finally, it concludes that the Jews were cut off from the olive tree by what they earned with their unbelief, and that the Gentiles were grafted in by the merit of faith, according to Paul, and he gives hope to those who were cut off that they might be grafted in again, and arouses fear in those who were grafted in that they might be cut off.

I want to be of the death, if the diatribe itself understands what it speaks. But perhaps also here is a rhetorical trick, which teaches to make the sense dark, because a danger threatens, you might be seized at the" word. For we do not see any figurative speeches at this point, which the diatribe is dreaming up, but not proving. Therefore it is no wonder that for them the testimony of Malachi in a figurative sense proves nothing, because it is not there. Furthermore, we do not discuss cutting and grafting, which Paul speaks of in his exhortation. We know that people are grafted in by faith and cut out by unbelief, and that they should be exhorted to believe so that they will not be cut out. But it does not follow, nor is it proved, that they can believe or not believe by virtue of free will, which is what we are talking about. We do not dispute which are the believers and which are not, which are the Jews and which are the Gentiles, what follows believers and unbelievers; that belongs to an exhorter. But by what merit, by what work they come to faith, by which they are grafted in, or to unbelief, by which they are cut off. This comes to a teacher; this merit describe us. Paul teaches that this is not granted by any work on our part, but only by the love and hatred of God; but to those who are granted it, he exhorts them to persevere, so that they will not be cut off. But an exhortation does not prove what we are able to do, but what we owe. I am forced to fight the enemy almost with more

1864 v. a. VII, 279-281. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2336-2339. 1865

He must hold fast to the words, so that he does not, by letting the matter go, digress elsewhere than by using words to deal with] the matter itself. And yet, if I could hold him firmly to the matter, I would already have gained the victory: so clear and insurmountable are the words; and that is why he has almost nothing else to do than to avoid it and withdraw from sight, and to undertake something else than he had intended.

The third passage she takes 1) from Is. 45, 9.: "Does the clay also say to its potter, what are you doing?" and Jer. 18, 6.: "As the clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand." Again, she says that these passages prove more in Paul than in the prophets from which they are taken, because in the prophets they read of temporal tribulation, but Paul Rom. 9:20. uses them to prove eternal election and reprobation, to strike a blow at Paul's presumption or ignorance.

But before we see how it proves that both passages do not exclude free will, I will first say that it does not seem as if Paul took this passage from the prophets, nor does the diatribe prove this. For Paul is wont to give the name of the author, or to testify that he is bringing something from Scripture; but here he does neither. Therefore, it is more correct that Paul, by this general simile that others use for other things, himself uses it in his own spirit for his own cause, as he does with the simile: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump of dough," which he applies to 1 Cor. 5, 6. to the morals that are easily corrupted, in other places he holds it against those who lead God's word falsely Gal. 5, 9., just as Christ Marc. 8, 15. calls the leaven of Herod and the Pharisees. May the prophets therefore speak especially of temporal tribulation, of which I do not want to say anything now, so that I am not so often occupied with distant questions and thus delayed, Paul nevertheless uses his spirit against free will. That

  1. Diatribe § 20.

But if the will is not deprived of its freedom, if we are like clay to God, who is at home, I do not know where this belongs, or why the diatribe claims this, since there is no doubt that the tribulations come from God without our will, and bring with them the necessity to bear them, whether we want to or not, and it is not in our hands to avert them, even if we are admonished to bear them willingly.

But it is worth the trouble to listen to the sophistry of the diatribe, how Paul's speech does not exclude free will by this similitude. For she accuses him of two inconsistencies; one she takes from Scripture, the other from reason. From the Scriptures she concludes thus: 2)

Paul would have said so, 2 Tim. 2, 20. 21., in a large house are golden, silver, wooden and earthen vessels, some to honor, others to dishonor, but soon joined to them: If therefore any man purge himself from such men, he shall be a vessel unto honors 2c Then the diatribe thus concludes, "What would be more foolish than for a man to say to an earthen vessel, if thou purge thyself, thou shalt be a vessel unto honors? But this is rightly said to a vessel endowed with reason, which, when remembered, is able to do the will of the Lord." By this she thinks she has proved that the likeness does not rhyme with the matter in all respects, and that it is so removed that it can prove nothing.

I answer, not to take this up, that Paul saws not: If any man purge himself "from his filthiness," but "from such men," that is, from the vessels of dishonor, that the mind may be: If anyone remains separate and does not mix with ungodly teachers, he will be a vessel of honor 2c We will also admit that this passage of Paul completely proves (facere) what the diatribe wants, that is, that the similitude is not striking (non efficacem); how will it prove that Paul wants the same thing in that passage, Rom. 9, 20. f., of which we are discussing? Is it enough, then, to use another passage

  1. Diatribe § 20.

1866 L. v. a. vii, 281-283. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 233g-2342. 1867

and not to care at all whether it proves the same or something quite different? In the treatment of Scripture, no error is more easily made, nor is any more frequent, than to combine passages of different kinds from Scripture as if they were the same, as I have often shown, so that the comparison of the passages with which the diatribe is emblazoned proves less than this passage of ours, which refutes it. But not to be quarrelsome, let us admit that both passages of Paul want the same thing, and, what is quite indisputably true, that a similitude does not always and in all pieces fit the thing, otherwise it would not be a similitude, nor a transferred thing (translatio), but the thing itself, according to the proverb: A similitude limps and does not always walk on four legs.

But in this the diatribe errs and is lacking, that it disregards the cause of the parable, on which most must be seen, and quarrelsomely takes up the words. For Hilarius says that understanding is to be taken from the causes of speech, not from the words alone; so also the efficacy of a parable depends on the cause of the parable. Why then does the diatribe pass over that for whose sake Paul uses this simile, and takes up that which he does not say with reference to the cause of the simile? Namely, this belongs to exhortation, that he says, "If any man purify himself"; but that belongs to doctrine, that he says, "In a great house are vessels," 2c so that you may understand from all the circumstances of Paul's words and opinion that he is speaking of the diversity and use of the vessels, so that the meaning is: since so many depart from the faith, we have no other comfort than to be sure 2 Tim. 2:19, "The firm foundation of God standeth, and hath this seal: The Lord knoweth them that are his, and from unrighteousness passeth every one that calleth on the name of the Lord." So far goes the cause and the evidence (efficacia) of the parable, namely, that the LORD knows his own. Then follows the similitude, namely, that there are different vessels, some for honor, others for dishonor. Hereby the doctrine is completed (absolvitur) that the vessels do not prepare themselves.

but the Lord. This is also the intention of Rom. 9, 21, that a potter has power 2c Thus Paul's equation is quite conclusive that the freedom of the will is nothing before God.

After this follows the exhortation, "If any man purify himself from such men. "2c What this contains in itself is sufficiently known from what has been said above. For it does not follow: therefore they can purify themselves; indeed, if anything is proved, it is proved that free will can purify itself without grace, since it is not said if grace purifies someone, but if he purifies himself. But words of command and obligation have been superfluously spoken, and a similitude is not presented with words of obligation, but with such as indicate the reality (indicativis): as there are elect and reprobate, so there are vessels of honor and dishonor. In short, if this evasion (elusio) were to hold, Paul's whole discussion would have no value, for in vain would he introduce those who grumbled against the potter, God, if it seemed to be the fault of the vessel and not of the potter; for who would grumble if he heard that someone worthy of damnation was condemned?

The second inconsistency which she imposes on the equation she takes from the so-called human woman's reason, namely, that not the vessel but the potter is to be blamed, especially since it is such a potter who also creates and prepares the clay himself. "This vessel" (says the diatribe "is thrown into the eternal fire, because it deserves nothing, only because it is not its own master."

Nowhere does the diatribe reveal itself more clearly than in this passage. For you hear that here, though in other words, yet in the same sense, is said what Paul puts into the mouths of the ungodly [Rom. 9:19. "What then does he owe us? Who can resist his will?" This is what reason can neither grasp nor suffer, this is what annoys so many men distinguished by spiritual gifts, to whom so many centuries of-

  1. § 20.

1868 D. V. a. VII, 283 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2342-2S45. 1869

and followed throughout the ages (receptos). Here they demand that God act according to human rights and do what seems right to them, or he should cease to be God. The mysteries of majesty can avail him nothing, he give an account of why he is GOD, or why he wills or does what has no appearance of righteousness, as if you were to ask a cobbler or a bagman to stand trial. The flesh does not consider God worthy of such great honor that it should believe him to be just and good when he speaks and does something higher or beyond what the book of Justinian's Law or the fifth book of Aristotle's Moral Doctrine has established. The Majesty, who created all things, gives way to a yeast of her creature, and that Corycian cave, by reversing the thing, is afraid of her beholders. It is therefore inconsistent that he should condemn him who cannot avoid the merit of damnation, and because of this inconsistency it must be wrong for God to have mercy on whom he wills and to harden whom he wills Rom. 9:18, but he must be brought back to order, and laws must be prescribed for him so that he condemns no one unless he deserves it according to our judgment. Thus enough has happened to Paul with his parable, namely, that he revokes it and does not allow anything to be valid, but shapes it in such a way that the potter here (as the Diatribe interprets it) makes a vessel for dishonor, because of the preceding merits, just as he rejects some Jews because of their unbelief, but accepts the Gentiles because of their faith. But if God works in such a way that He looks at the merits, why do those murmur and confront Him? Why do they say: what does he owe us? who can resist his will? Why did Paul have to silence those? Because who is surprised, I don't want to say indignant, or confronts when someone who deserves it is condemned? Furthermore, where is the power of the potter to do what he wants, if one subjects him to merits and laws and does not let him do what he wants, but demands of him that he should do what he must? For the prestige of merit is in conflict with the power and freedom of the potter.

The father of the house, who held up the freedom of will with respect to his goods to the grumbling workers who demanded their rights, proves this. This shows that the interpretation of the diatribe is inadmissible.

But, dear one, if we assume that God must be of such a nature that He sees the merits in those who are to be condemned, will we not insist in the same way and admit that He also sees the merits in those who are to be blessed? If we are to follow reason, it is as unreasonable that such as are not worthy should be crowned, as that such as are not worthy should be punished. Therefore, we must conclude that God must justify for the sake of the preceding merits, or we will declare Him to be unreasonable because He takes pleasure in evil and godless people and challenges and crowns their godlessness with rewards. But then woe to us poor with such a god! For who could be saved? Behold, therefore, the wickedness of the human heart: when God makes blessed the unworthy without merit, yes, justifies the wicked, who have deserved it by many other things, it does not accuse him of inequity, it does not question him as to why he wants this, although in his judgment it is quite inequitable; but because it is advantageous to him and comes easily, he judges it to be just and good. But since he condemns those who do not deserve it: because this is inconvenient to him, this is unreasonable, this is offensive, here God is confronted, here there is grumbling, here there is blasphemy.

So you see that the diatribe does not judge with her own in this matter according to fairness, but according to her selfish attitude. For if she were to look at equity, she would likewise be right with God when He crowns those who are not worthy of it, just as she would be right with Him when He condemns those who have not earned it. Likewise, she would also praise and glorify God when He condemns those who do not deserve it, as she does when He makes the unworthy blessed. For there is equal inequity on both sides, if you look at our minds. It would certainly be the same

1870 D. V. a. vn, 284-WS. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvlil, 2348-2348. 1871

It would be unfair for you to praise Cain for his murder and make him king, as if you wanted to imprison or kill the innocent Abel. Therefore, because reason praises God by making the unworthy blessed, but accuses him by condemning those who do not deserve it, it is convicted that it does not praise God as God, but as one who serves its own advantage, that is, it seeks and praises in God itself and its own, not God or what is God. But if God pleases you by crowning the unworthy, he must not displease you by condemning those who do not deserve it; if he is just there, why should he not be just here? There he showers grace and mercy on the unworthy, here he showers wrath and severity on those who do not deserve it. On both sides he does too much and is unjust before men, but just and true with himself. For how this is just, that he crowns the unworthy, is now incomprehensible, but we shall see it when we come to where we no longer believe, but see with unveiled face. Likewise, how this is just, that he condemns those who do not deserve it, is incomprehensible now, but we will believe it until the Son of Man is revealed.

The diatribe, however, vehemently annoyed by this parable of the potter and the clay, is somewhat indignant that it is so much cornered by it, and finally comes back to the fact that, after various passages from Scripture have been brought forward, some of which seem to attribute everything to man, others everything to grace, it resentfully asserts that both passages must be understood according to a sound interpretation and not simply accepted. Otherwise, if we insist on this equality, she is again ready to corner us with those commanding and obligatory passages, especially with that of Paul 2 Tim. 2:21: "If any man therefore purge himself from such men"; here 1) she contradicts Paul with herself and lets him attribute everything to man.

  1. Diatribe § 20, towards the end.

The same is true of the likeness of grace. If now here the interpretation is admitted that grace is left room, why then should the parable of the potter not also admit an interpretation that there is room for free will. Why should the parable of the potter not also permit an interpretation that there is room for free will?

I answer: I do not care; you can take it simply, twice or a hundred times? I say this, that by this healthy interpretation nothing is aligned nor proven, which is in question. For it must be proved that free will cannot will anything good. But in that passage, "If any man therefore purge himself from such men," because it is an obligatory discourse, neither nothing nor anything is proved; Paul only exhorts. Or if you want to add the conclusion of the diatribe and say: he exhorts in vain, if he cannot purify himself, then it is proved that free will is able to do everything without grace, and so the diatribe proves against itself.

So we still expect some passage of Scripture that teaches this interpretation; we do not believe those who invent it out of their heads, for we deny that there is any passage that attributes anything to man. We also deny that Paul contradicts himself when he says, "If any man therefore purge himself from such men," but we say that both the contradiction is invented in Paul, and the interpretation is devised which forces it the diatribe out, and that neither can be proved. This we freely admit, if the Scripture may be multiplied by the inferences and additions of the Diatribe: "In vain is commanded, if we are not able to do that which is commanded"; then Paul in truth argues against himself and the whole Scripture, because then the Scripture would be another than it has been; then it also proves that free will is able to do everything. But what would be surprising if it then also argued against what it says elsewhere, that God alone does everything. But the Scripture thus amplified does not argue against us alone, but also against the diatribe, which declared that free will could not will anything good. Let it therefore first free itself, and say how these two

1872 D. L. VII. 286-288. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm. 2348-2351. 1873

Pieces agree with Paul: Free will cannot will anything good, and: If someone purifies himself, he can purify himself, or it is said in vain. So you see that the diatribe is in distress and defeated by that parable of the potter and only deals with it so that it may escape from it, and in the meantime does not consider how much the interpretation harms the cause that it has taken upon itself, and how it refutes itself and makes a mockery of it.

We, however, as we have said, have never contrived an interpretation, nor have we said: Stretch out your hand, that is, grace will stretch out. All this the diatribe invents from us for the benefit of its cause. But we have said that there is no contradiction in the statements of Scripture, and that no interpretation is necessary to untie the knot. But the very teachers of free will seek difficulties that do not exist, and dream up contradictions. For example, this does not contradict each other: "If anyone purifies himself," and: "God works all things in all." It is not necessary, in order to untie the knot, to say: Some things God does, some things man does, because the first saying contains in itself an obligatory speech, which does not at all assert or deny a work or a power in man, but prescribes what works or powers should be in man. Here is nothing figurative, nothing that needs interpretation; it is simple words, it is a simple sense, only may you not attach inferences and corrupting additions after the manner of the diatribe, for then an unsound sense would arise, but not through the fault of the words, but through the fault of the corrupter.

The latter passage, however, "God works all things in all," is a speech that indicates reality and asserts that all works, all power, are in God. How, then, should the two passages argue against each other, since the one deals with nothing of man's power and the other ascribes everything to God, and not rather agree with each other in the best possible way? But the diatribe is so drowned, suffocated and corrupted by the opinion of that carnal thought, "impossible things would be lost.

It is a fact that she cannot control herself, but rather, as often as she hears a commanding or obliging word, she immediately adds her conclusions that it is in reality so (indicativas), namely: Something is commanded, therefore we can do it and do it, otherwise it would be commanded in a foolish way. Based on this, it breaks out and boasts of victory everywhere, as if it had proved that these conclusions were confirmed with its thinking as if they were of divine standing. Based on this, she surely proclaims that in some passages of Scripture everything is attributed to man, therefore there is a contradiction there and an interpretation is necessary. And she does not see that all this is an invention of her head, which is nowhere confirmed in Scripture by a little bag, then also of such a kind that, if it were admitted, it would refute no one more strongly than herself, since she proves with it, if she proves anything, that free will is capable of everything of which she has undertaken to prove the opposite.

So she also repeats so often 1): "If a man does nothing, there is no merit; where there is no merit, there can be neither punishments nor rewards."

Again, she does not see how by these carnal grounds she refutes herself more than she refutes us. For what do these conclusions prove but that all merit is with free will? Where then can there be room for grace? Further, if free will deserves very little, but the rest is merited by grace, why does free will receive the whole reward? Or do we want to impute even a very small reward to it? If merits take place, so that rewards can take place, then the merit must also be as great as the reward. But what am I wasting words and time on a thing that is nothing? Now, even if all that the diatribe imposes were true, and it were partly man's and partly God's work that we deserve, they cannot indicate the work itself, what it is, how it is, and how great it is, therefore this is a dispute about nothing.

  1. Diatribe § 22, middle.

1874 L. v. a. vii, 288 f. xil. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2321-2354. 1875

But since she cannot prove anything of what she says, neither the contradiction, nor the interpretation, nor the passage which ascribes everything to man, but all these things are figments of her thought, Paul's similitude of the potter and the clay stands untouched and unconquerable, that it is not in our will as to what kind of vessels we are formed. But Paul's exhortations, "If any man purify himself," and the like, are forms according to which we are to be formed, but not testimonies of our work or endeavor. This may be enough about those passages of Pharaoh's hardening, of Esau, and of the potter.

Other part of this book: defense of the attracted sayings. 1)

Finally, Diatribe 2) comes to the passages that Luther cited against free will and also wants to refute them. The first of these is the saying Gen. 6:3 according to the Vulgate: "My spirit shall not dwell among men, for they are flesh." This passage refutes them in several ways. First, flesh does not mean here the ungodly inclination, but a weakness; secondly, it adds to the text of Moses that his saying refers only to the people of that time, not to the whole human race, therefore be said: In the Hebrew this saying is different, namely of goodness, not of severity of God, according to the process (autors) of Jerome, perhaps wanting to persuade us that, since this saying does not refer to Noah, but to the ungodly, to Noah belongs not the goodness, but the severity of God, but to the ungodly belongs the goodness, not the severity.

But let us leave aside these antics of the diatribe, which everywhere announces that it considers the Scriptures to be fables. We are not interested in what Jerome is fooling here; it is certain that he proves nothing, and we are not disputing

  1. This superscription is found in the translation of Justus Jonas, but not in Latin.

2.) § 23.

from the opinion of Jerome, but from the understanding of the Scripture. The Scripture twister may invent that "the Spirit of God" signifies "indignation" (indignationem). We say that he cannot prove two things; first, that he cannot produce a passage of Scripture in which the Spirit of God is taken for indignation, since, on the contrary, the Spirit is everywhere said to be kind and loving; second, if he could prove that it is everywhere taken for indignation, he cannot immediately prove that it necessarily follows that it must be so taken in this passage also. So he may invent that "flesh" is taken for "weakness," but he proves nothing in the same way. For when Paul calls the Corinthians "carnal" 1 Cor. 3:1, 3, 4, he is certainly not referring to weakness, but to ungodliness (vitium), since he is punishing them because there are sects and mobs among them, which is not weakness or an inability for stronger doctrinal food, but wickedness and the old leaven, which he commands to be interpreted. Now let us look at the Hebrew.

"My spirit will not judge among men forever, for they are flesh"; for so it is written from word to word in Moses. And if we let our dreams go, the words there (I mean) are clear and plain enough. But that they are words of the angry God is sufficiently shown by the preceding and following together with the effect, the flood. For the cause of speaking thus was that the children God took the daughters] 3) of men to wives out of mere lust of the flesh, then also oppressed the land with tyranny, so that they forced the angry God to hasten the Flood and to postpone it only another hundred and twenty years, whereas otherwise he would never have let it come. Read Moses with care, and you will clearly see that this is his opinion. But what is it to wonder that the holy scripture is dark, or that from it you establish not only a free will, but even a divine will, if one

  1. The words bracketed here are missing in Latin; they are found in Jonas.

1876 L. V. a. VII, 289-291. 68: That free will is nothing fei. W. XVIII, 2354-2358. 1877

may play his game with it as if you were looking for scraps 1) from Virgil in it? Namely, this means to untie knots and to eliminate questions by interpretation. But Jerome and his Origen have filled the whole world with these antics and have been the originators of this pernicious example that one did not direct one's effort to simple treatment (simplicitati) of Scripture.

It has been enough for me to prove from this passage that God's word calls men flesh, and so much flesh that the spirit of God could not remain among them, but had to be taken from them at the appointed time. For the fact that God says that His Spirit will not judge among men forever, He declares soon afterwards by fixing a hundred and twenty years in which He will still judge. But he opposes the spirit to the flesh, that men, being flesh, do not admit the spirit, but he, being the spirit, cannot put up with the flesh; so that after a hundred and twenty years he must be taken from them. Therefore, the passage in Moses must be understood thus: My Spirit, which is in Noah and other holy men, punishes those ungodly by the word of preaching and the life of the godly (for "to judge among men" Means, by the ministry of the word, to act among them, to punish, to rebuke, to plead urgently, in time or out of time), but in vain. For those who are blinded and hardened by the flesh become all the more angry the more they are judged, as is always the case when the Word of God comes into the world, namely that they become all the more angry the more they are instructed. And this cause has caused the wrath to be accelerated, just as the flood of sin has been accelerated there, since now not only sin is despised, but also the grace of God, and, as Christ says John 3:19: When the light came, men hated the light.

Since men are flesh, as God Himself testifies, they cannot do otherwise than

  1. Here, too, the reading oentonas instead of 66Ntori68 is found, as in the explanation of Luther's third thesis 'Dom Ablaß. Cf. above, Col. 107.

They have to be carnally minded, therefore the free will can only have the ability to sin. Since they also become more and more angry when the spirit of God calls and teaches among them, what should they do when they are left to themselves without the spirit of God? And here it does not matter that Moses speaks only of the people at that time. The same concerns all men, since all are flesh, as Christ says, John 3:6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." What a grave moral infirmity (vitium) this is, he himself teaches just there, since he says that no one can enter God's kingdom unless he is born again. A Christian should therefore know that Origen and Jerome with all their followers are corruptly mistaken, since they deny that by flesh in these passages the ungodly disposition (affectu) is to be understood. For also the saying 1 Cor. 3:3, "Ye are yet carnal," goes to ungodliness. For Paul's opinion is that there are still ungodly among them, but then also the godly, as long as they are carnally minded, are carnal, even though they are justified by the Spirit.

In short, you may pay attention to this in the Scriptures, wherever the flesh is spoken of in contrast to the Spirit, you can understand by flesh approximately everything that is contrary to the Spirit, as in the passage John 6:63: "The flesh is of no use." But where it is used for itself alone (absolute), you should know that it means the constitution and nature of the body, like Matth. 19, 5.: "The two will be one flesh"; Joh. 6, 55.: "My flesh is the right food"; Joh. 1, 14.: "The word became flesh." In these passages, with modification of the Hebrew way of speaking, one could say body instead of flesh, for the Hebrew language denotes by the word flesh that which we express by the two words flesh and body. And I would that it had been so translated with different words all over the Canon of Scripture. So I believe that my passage from Gen. 6, v. 3 will still stand against free will, if it is proven that the flesh is, of which Paul says Rom. 8, 7. that it also cannot be subject to God, as we will see in that passage.

1878 L. V. a. VII, 2S1-2S3. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 23S8-2361. 1879

and the diatribe itself says that it cannot want anything good.

The second passage is Gen. 8, 21: "The thoughts and aspirations of the human heart are inclined to evil from youth"; and Cap. 6, 5: "All thoughts and aspirations of the human heart are inclined to evil forever. She escapes from this saying thus: 1) "The inclination to evil, which is found in most men, does not entirely abolish the freedom of the will."

But, I ask you, does God speak of most people and not rather of all? Since after the flood, as if he were sorry, he promises the remaining and future people that he will not let a flood come again for the sake of man, and gives the cause because man is inclined to evil, as if he wanted to say: If the wickedness of men should be looked upon, the flood of sin should never cease; but I will not henceforth look upon what they deserve 2c Thus you see that both before the flood of sin and after the flood of sin God says of men that they are wicked, and it is therefore nothing that the Diatribe speaks only of most. Furthermore, the Diatribe seems to regard the inclination or inclination to evil as a matter of little concern, as if we could either set it in motion or dampen it by our power, whereas Scripture wants to designate by this inclination that constant pull and urge of the will to evil. Or why did it not consult the Hebrew also here, since Moses says nothing of the inclination, lest you have cause to quibble? For so it is written in the sixth chapter v. 5: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xx xx xxx, that means: "All poetry

The thoughts of his heart are only evil at all times. He does not say that he is directed or inclined to evil, but that he is absolutely evil, and that in the whole of his life nothing else is thought of or aspired to but evil. The essence of his wickedness is described, that he neither does nor is able to do anything else, because he is evil. For, as Christ testifies Matth. 7, 17, an evil man is not evil.

  1. Diatribe § 23.

Tree also can not bring other than poor fruit.

But that the diatribe 2) asks: "Why was a time limit given for repentance, if no part of the change of mind depends on our will, but everything is governed by necessity?" I answer: The same you might say with all the commandments of God, why he commands, if everything happens by necessity? He commands in order to instruct and remind, so that they men, humbled by the knowledge of their wickedness, may come to grace, as is said superfluously enough. Thus, even this passage still stands unconquered against the freedom of the will.

The third passage 3) is the saying Is. 40, 2.: "She has received double from the hand of the Lord for all her sin." "Jerome (says she) interprets this of the divine punishments, not of the grace which GOD bestows on men for iniquities."

I hear Jerome say so, so it is true. I dispute about Isaiah, who speaks with the clearest words, and Jerome is held against me, not to say too harshly, a man without judgment and care. Where is that promise by which we made the agreement that we would deal with the Scriptures themselves, not with the interpretations of men? The whole chapter of Isaiah, according to the testimony of the evangelists, speaks of the forgiveness of sins proclaimed through the gospel, since they say that "the voice of the preacher" Is. 40, 3 refers to John the Baptist Matth. 3, 3. And we are to tolerate that Jerome, according to his way, imposes on us Jewish fairy tales sprung from blindness as a historical understanding, and his fool's antics as a spiritual interpretation, so that we are to understand, with complete reversal of the linguistic doctrine, the passage which speaks of forgiveness as of punishment? I pray you, what is this punishment which is fulfilled by the preaching of Christ? But let us see the words themselves in Hebrew.

  1. § 23.
  2. Diatribe § 34.

1880 V- a. VII, 293 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2361-2363. 1881

It says Isa. 40, 1.: Comfort, comfort, O my people, or comfort, comfort my people (populum), says your God. I believe that he who commands to comfort will not press for punishment. It follows Isa. 40:2, "Speak to the heart of Jerusalem and preach to her." It is a Hebrew way of speaking "into the heart", that is, to speak good, sweet things, caresses, as Gen. 34, 3. Sichem speaks into the heart of Dina, whom he had violated, that is, he gave the soothing balm of caresses to the mourner, as our translator has interpreted. But what good, sweet things these are, which by God's command are to be preached for her consolation, he explains by saying: "For her knighthood has an end in that her iniquity is forgiven, for she has received double from the hand of the Lord for all her sin."

The "knighthood" (militia), for which our books 1) corruptly have "malice" (malitia), seems to the foolish Jewish teachers of language to denote the appointed time, for so they understand the word Job 7, 1.: "The life of man on earth is a knighthood", that is, the time is appointed to him. I hold that it is simply called, as grammar teaches, a knighthood, so that Isaiah is to be understood as speaking of the toil and labor of the people under the law, as they struggle, as it were, in the barriers. For so Paul likes to compare both the preachers and the hearers of the word "fighters" (militibus), as where he 2 Tim. 2, 3. commands Timothy as a good fighter 1 Tim. 6, 12. also to fight a good fight, and of the Corinthians he speaks 1 Cor. 9, 24. as of such as run in the stocks; likewise 2 Tim. 2, 5., No man is crowned, he fights but rightly; the Ephesians 6, 13. f. and Thessalonians 1 Ep. 5, 8. he arms with weapons, and boasts 2 Tim. 4, 7., he fought a good fight, and similar things elsewhere. So also 1 Sam. 2, 22. is written in Hebrew that the sons of Eli slept with the women who practiced knighthood 2) at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,

  1. The Vulgate has Isa. 40, 2. malitia; in Heb.
  2. Heb: MXIXN; Luther: served.

whose knighthood Moses also remembers in the 2nd book Cap. 38, 8., and therefore the God of this people is called the LORD of hosts, that is, the LORD of warfare or of the hosts.

Isaiah thus announces that the knighthood of the people of the law, because they were plagued under the law, as it were, with vain unbearable burdens, as Peter testifies in the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 15, 10, shall come to an end, and that those freed from the law shall be transferred into the new knighthood of the spirit. Furthermore, this end of the exceedingly hard knighthood and the following new, completely free knighthood will not be given to them out of their merit, since they were not able to bear that either, but rather out of their unmerit, because their knighthood will be ended in such a way that their iniquity will be forgiven them in vain. Here are not dark or doubtful words. Their knighthood shall have an end, he says, because the iniquity of it is forgiven, by which he clearly indicates that the strivers under the law have not fulfilled the law, nor could they have fulfilled it, but that they have exercised the knighthood of sin and that the strivers have been sinners; as if God wanted to say: I am compelled to forgive their sins, if I will that the law be fulfilled by them, yea, at the same time to help up the law, because I see that they cannot but sin, especially when they exercise their knighthood, that is, endeavor to fulfill the law out of their strength. For the Hebrew word xxxx "the iniquity is forgiven" signifies that something is given freely out of free good pleasure. And therefore the iniquity is forgiven without any merit, yea, with unmerit. And this is what he adds:

"For she received double from the hand of the Lord for all her sin." This, as I have said, is not only the forgiveness of sins, but also the end of knighthood. This is nothing else than, after the law was abolished, which was the power of sin, and sin was given, which was the sting of death, they should

1882 V. v. L. vii, 2S4-M6. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvni, WW-WM. 1883

reign in twofold liberty through the victory of JESUS Christ; this is what Isaiah says, "By the hand of the LORD." For it is not by their powers or merits that they have obtained this, but by Christ the Victor and Giver they have received it. "In all sins" is spoken after the Hebrew manner, which German is said "for," or "because of sins," as Hosea 12:13: Jacob served in a woman, that is, for a woman's sake; and Psalm 17:9: They have compassed me about in my soul, that is, for my soul's sake. Thus our merits, by which we obtain that twofold freedom, that both the knighthood of the law is ended and sins are forgiven, Isaiah paints in such a way that they were nothing but sins and all sins.

Should we now suffer that this very beautiful and insurmountable place against free will should be so defiled by the Jewish filth brought by Jerome and the Diatribe? Let that be far away! But my dear Isaiah stands as the victor against free will and states that grace is not given to the merits or efforts of free will, but to sins and undeservings, and that free will can exercise nothing else from its powers but the knighthood of sin, so much so that even the law, which is thought to have been given to help him, has been intolerable to him and has only made him more of a sinner while he served under it.

But that the Diatribe 1) disputes: "Although sin has become powerful through the law, and where sin has become powerful, grace also becomes powerful, it does not follow from this that man, before he becomes partaker of the grace that makes him pleasurable, cannot, under divine assistance, prepare himself for divine grace by morally good works."

It would be wonderful if the diatribe spoke this from her head and did not pick it out of some note which was sent to her from somewhere else or which she received from somewhere else and inserted it into her book. For she neither sees nor hears,

  1. § 24.

what their words say. If sin is powerful through the law, how is it possible that man could prepare himself for divine grace through moral works? How can works avail, since the law does not avail? Or what is it but that by the law sin is made powerful, and that the works which are done according to the law are sins? But what does it say that man, under divine assistance, can prepare himself by moral works? Are we discussing divine assistance or free will? For what should not be possible by divine assistance? But it is what I have said: the diatribe despises the thing that leads it, therefore it snores so and yawns in speech.

But it cites 2) the centurion Cornelius as an example, whose prayer and almsgiving Apost. 10, 4. had been well-pleasing before he was still baptized and filled with the Holy Spirit.

I have also read Lucas in the Acts of the Apostles, but I have not found that only one syllable indicates that the works of Cornelius were morally good without the Holy Spirit, as the Diatribe dreams, but I find the opposite, that he was righteous and God-fearing, for so Lucas calls him; but that he is called righteous and God-fearing without the Holy Spirit is the same as if Belial were called Christ. Then the whole discussion there is about Cornelius being pure in the sight of God, as witnessed by the face sent down from heaven to Peter, which punished him; indeed, with such great words and things the righteousness and faith of Cornelius are praised by Lucas. Nevertheless, the diatribe with its sophists is blind with open eyes in the brightest light of words and in palpably clear things, and they see the opposite; so little trouble do they take to read and pay attention to the holy Scriptures, which must then be desecrated as dark and ambiguous. Admittedly, he had not yet been baptized and had not yet heard the word of Christ's resurrection.

  1. Diatribe § 24.

1884 L. V. L. VII, 296-298. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2366-2369. 1885

that he was without the Holy Spirit? So you could also say that John the Baptist with his parents, then also the mother of Christ and Simeon were without the Holy Spirit. But away with such a gross darkness.

The fourth passage 1) from the same chapter of Isaiah 40, 6. 7.: "All flesh is hay, and all his goodness is like a flower of grass. The hay is withered, the flower withered, for the Spirit of the Lord blows in it," 2c, "seems" to my diatribe 2) "to be too forcibly drawn to grace and free will." Why this, I ask? "Because Jerome (says it) takes the spirit for unwillingness (indignationem), the flesh for the weak constitution of man, which can do nothing against GOD." Again, Jerome's antics are brought before me instead of Isaiah's. I have to fight more strongly against the disgust by which the diatribe torments me with such great indelicacy (not to say something harsher) than against the diatribe itself. But we have shortly before pronounced our judgment on Jerome's opinion.

But, I beseech you, let us compare the Diatribe with itself: "the flesh (it says) is the weak constitution of man, but the spirit the divine unwillingness."

The divine will, then, has nothing else to wither (exsiccet, 3) but that miserable and weak condition of man, which it should rather help up?

But this is even more beautiful 4): "the flower of the grass is the glory which comes from pretenses in bodily things. The Jews "boasted of their temple, their circumcision, their sacrifices, the Greeks of their wisdom." So the flower of the grass and the glory of the flesh is the righteousness of works and the wisdom of the world. Now how can righteousness and wisdom be called fleshly things in the diatribe? How

  1. Diatribe § 24.
  2. In Latin, as follows from the corresponding passage in the Diatribe, the punctum before viNetur must be deleted and instead of Niatrike men - Niatrikae raemo must be read. Erasmus says there: "victetur rruki"; this miki is rendered here by üiatribuo vaoao.
  3. With reference to Isa. 40, 7.
  4. Diatribe z 24.

rhymes then to Isaiah himself, who interprets himself with his own words, saying, "Verily, the people is the, hay," he does not say, Verily, the hay is the weak condition of man, but the people, and asserts this with an oath. But what is the people? Is it only the weak nature of man? Whether Jerome understands the weak condition (conditionem) of man to mean the nature of man himself (creationem), or the miserable lot and the miserable condition of man, I do not know. But whichever of these two it is, then the divine will certainly wins praise and a rich booty by withering the wretched creature or unfortunate man, and not rather Luc. 1, 51. ff. scattering the hopeful and pushing the mighty from their seats and leaving the rich empty, as Mary sings.

But let us leave such empty things (larvis) and follow Isaiah. The people (he says) is grass. But the people is not the mere flesh or the weak constitution of human nature, but includes all that is in the people, namely rich, wise, righteous, holy, unless someone wanted to say that the Pharisees, elders, princes, noble people, rich 2c did not belong to the people of the Jews. The flower of the grass is quite correctly called the glory, namely, that they boasted of their kingdom, their regiment, but especially of the law, of God, of their righteousness and wisdom, as Paul discusses Rom. 2. 3. and 9. So since Isaiah says: all flesh, what is that different from all grass, or all people? For he does not simply say: flesh, but all flesh. But to the people belong soul, body, mind, reason, judgment lind everything that can be called and found in a man only as the most excellent. For he excludes no one who says that all flesh is grass, but the spirit that withers. Nor does he leave out anything that says the grass is the people. Admit, then, that free will, admit that whatever may be considered the highest and the lowest among the people, that all these are called flesh and grass by Isaiah. For these three

1886 L V. a. VII, 290-soo. XII. Luther's controversy with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2369-2372.' 1887

Names, flesh, grass or hay and people have the same meaning in this passage according to the own interpretation of him who is the author of the book.

Further, you yourself affirm that the wisdom of the Greeks and the righteousness of the Jews, which have withered away through the gospel, are the grass or the flower of the grass. Or do you think that the wisdom of the Greeks was not the most glorious thing they had, and the righteousness of the Jews was not the most glorious thing they could have? Teach thou something more glorious. Where, then, is thy confidence, with which thou didst even (I think, mock Philip 1), saying 2).

"If anyone would assert that what is most excellent in human nature is nothing but flesh, that is, that it is ungodly, I will easily agree with him if he proves what he asserts with testimonies from the Holy Scriptures"?

Here you have Isaiah proclaiming the people, who are without the Spirit of the Lord, as flesh with a loud voice, although you do not hear it so. You have your own confession, since you (perhaps carelessly) call the wisdom of the Greeks grass, or the glory of the grass, which is the same as calling it flesh, if you do not want to claim that the wisdom of the Greeks does not belong to reason or xxxxxxxxx, as you say, that is, to the most important part of man. Listen, I beg you, if you despise us, at least you, even where you, caught by the power of truth, speak right. You have read John 3, 6.: What is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the spirit is spirit. In this passage, which evidently proves that what is not born of the Spirit is flesh, for otherwise the division of Christ, who divides all men into two parts, flesh and spirit, would have no validity; in this passage, then, as if it did not teach you what you desire, you bravely pass by and, after your own fashion, go elsewhere, meanwhile arguing that John says that those who believe are born of God and are children of God.

  1. Melanchthon.
  2. Diatribe § 24.

Gods and a new creature. You do not care what conclusion the division brings with it, but instruct us with idle words who are those who belong to the one part of this division, trusting in your art of speech, as if there were no one who would pay attention to this going over and such a cunning dissimulation, as if you did not see it.

It is hard not to believe that you do not act deceitfully and treacherously at this point, for he who treats the Scriptures with such mischievousness and hypocrisy as you do, can certainly say of himself that he is not yet proved by the Scriptures, but wants to be taught, while he wants nothing less and only prates this to the dishonor of the exceedingly bright light in the Scriptures and to adorn his obstinacy. Thus the Jews say to this day that the Scriptures do not prove what Christ, the apostles and the whole church have taught. The heretics cannot be instructed in anything by the Scriptures, the papists are not yet convicted by the Scriptures, although even the stones cry out the truth. Perhaps you expect a passage from the Scriptures consisting of these letters and syllables: The chief part of man is flesh, or that which is most excellent in man is flesh, otherwise you will be an insurmountable victor, just as if the Jews demanded that a saying from the prophets be taught consisting of these letters: Jesus, the carpenter's son, born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem, is the Messiah and the Son of God.

Here, where you are overcome by the clear sense of Scripture, you prescribe the letters and syllables which we are to teach; elsewhere, where you are overcome both by the letters and by the sense, you have figurative speeches, knots and sound interpretations. Everywhere you find something to say against the Scriptures, and this is not to be wondered at, because you deal with nothing else but that you fumble what you may say against it. Sometimes you run to the interpretations of the ancients, sometimes to the inconsistencies before reason; where

1888 ' V. s. VII, 300 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2372-2375. 1889

neither of them helps you, you discuss distant and near things, only so that you may not be held down by the present passage of Scripture. What shall I say? Proteus is not Proteus if he is compared with you; nevertheless, you cannot escape even in this way. How great victories boasted the Arians, because these syllables and letters

ύμοαύσως were not contained in the Scriptures, and did not care that by other words the same was most powerfully proved. But whether this is the way of a good, I do not want to say a godly heart, even godlessness and injustice could give a verdict.

Therefore have victory, we confess as the defeated that these signs and syllables "the most excellent thing in man is nothing but flesh" are not found in the holy scriptures. But you see of what nature your victory is, since we prove that it is found abundantly in Scripture that not one part, even the most excellent or principal part of man, is flesh, but that the whole man is flesh, and not only that, but that the whole race is flesh, and even this is not enough, but that the whole human race is flesh. For Christ says [Joh.

3, 6.]: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." You untie knots, invent figurative speeches, follow the interpretations of the ancients, or else recite verses about the Trojan War, only not to see and hear the present passage. We do not believe, but see and experience that the whole human race is born of the flesh. Therefore, we are forced to believe what we do not see, namely, that the whole human race is flesh, since Christ teaches it. Now whether the chief part (hegemonica pars) in man is comprehended in the whole man, in the whole people, in the whole human race, we leave to the sophists to doubt and dispute; I know that "in the whole human race" is comprehended body and soul with all powers and works, with all vices and virtues, with all wisdom and folly, with all righteousness and unrighteousness. All of this is flesh, because in all of this the

The mind is set on the flesh (sapiunt carnem), that is, on their own, and they lack the glory they should have in God and the Spirit of God, as Paul says, Rom. 3:23.

That you therefore say 1): "Not every inclination of man is flesh, but there is one part which is called the soul, there is another which is called the spirit, by which we strive for that which is honorable, as the worldly wise have striven, who taught that one must wish to die a thousand times rather than commit a shameful act, though we knew that no man would experience it, and that God would forgive the same":

So I answer: To him who believes nothing for certain, it is easy to believe and to say anything. Not I, but your Lucian may ask you, whether you can point out in the whole human race even one (be he twice or seven times even a Socrates), who has done this, what you say here and write that they have taught it? What do you fable with empty words? They should strive for respectability, who did not even know what respectable would be? You may call it honorable, if I shall give an excellent example, that they went to death for the fatherland, for wives and children, for their parents, or that they did not speak lies or become traitors, endured selected tortures, as Mncius 2) Scävola, Marcus Regulus and Aridere were people of such kind. But what can you show in all these other than only the outward appearance of the works? Have you seen their heart? Yes, by the outward appearance of the work it has become evident at the same time that they did all this for the sake of their honor, so that they were not ashamed to confess and boast that they sought their own honor. For it was only out of ardent ambition that the Romans, as they themselves testify, did what they did in virtue, as did the Greeks, as did the Jews, as did the whole human race.

  1. Diatribe § 24.
  2. In Latin Q - Huintus.

1890 L. V. L. VII, 801-SOS. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2378-2378. . 1891

But even though this may be something honorable before men, there is nothing more dishonorable before God, indeed, it is the most ungodly and the highest blasphemy, namely, that they did not act for the sake of God's honor, nor did they praise Him as God, but, by taking away God's honor through the most ungodly robbery, and by taking it for themselves, they were never more dishonorable and shameful than while they were shining in their highest virtues. But how could they have acted to God's glory, since they did not know God and His glory; not that the same did not appear, but that the flesh did not permit them to see God's glory, because they were mad and senseless at their own glory. Now here you have that ruling (titzA6vaoniouin) spirit, the main part of man that strives for what is honorable, that is, the robber of divine honor and the one that strives for divine majesty, especially when people are most honorable and shine the most by their highest virtues. Now deny that these are flesh and corrupt by their ungodly inclination.

I do not think that the Diatribe would be so much annoyed at this speech, that man is called flesh or spirit, if the Latin said: Man is carnal or spiritual. For it must be admitted that this, as well as many other things in the Hebrew language, e.g. when it is said: Man is flesh or spirit, means the same as when we say: Man is flesh or spiritual, as the Latins say 1): Something sad is the wolf to the stables; something sweet is the moisture to the seeds, or when they say: This man is crime and wickedness itself. So also the holy scripture, for the sake of emphasis, calls man "flesh", as it were the carnality itself, because he lives and weaves (sapiat) all too much and in nothing else than in that which is of the flesh; and "spirit", because he lives and weaves, seeks, acts and endures in nothing else than in that which is of the spirit.

Perhaps someone here would still like to ask: If the whole person and the pre-

  1. Virgil, LuwLea, Ldogs III, 80. 82.

If the most acceptable thing in man is called flesh, does it immediately follow that everything that is flesh must also be called ungodly? We say that he is ungodly who is without the Spirit of God. For this reason the Scripture says that the Spirit is given to justify the ungodly. But since Christ distinguishes the spirit from the flesh" by saying Joh. 3, 6. 7.: That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and adds that that which is born of the flesh cannot see the kingdom of God, it evidently follows: Everything that is flesh is also ungodly and under the wrath of God and does not belong to the kingdom of God, but if it does not belong to the kingdom of God and cannot have the spirit of God, then it follows with necessity that it is under the kingdom and spirit of the devil, since there is no intermediate realm between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil, which constantly fight each other. This is what proves that the highest virtues of the pagans, the best of the worldly wise, the most excellent of men, are indeed called honorable and good before the world and also appear so, but that all this is flesh before God and serves the kingdom of the devil, that is, that it is ungodly and unholy and evil in every respect.

But, beloved, let us suppose that the opinion of the Diatribe holds good, that not every inclination is flesh, that is, ungodly, but such as is called spirit, honorable and wholesome: behold, how many inconsistencies follow from this, not indeed before human reason, but in the whole Christian religion, and in the highest articles of faith! For if the most excellent thing in man is not ungodly, nor depraved or damned, but only flesh, that is, coarser and lower inclinations, I pray thee, what kind of a Saviour would we make of Christ? Do we want to make the value of his blood so low that he only redeemed what is the least in man, but the most excellent in man was able to do something by itself (valeat) and did not need Christ's work? so that we henceforth preach Christ as a redeemer, not of the whole man, but of his worst part, namely the flesh, but man himself.

1892 L. V. a. VII, 303-30 pp. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2378-2381. 1893

be his own redeemer according to his better part.

Choose which of the two you want, if the better part of man is healthy, then he does not need Christ the Redeemer. If he does not need Christ, he has greater honor than Christ and triumphs over him, because he provides for himself as the better part, while Christ provides only for the worse. Furthermore, the kingdom of the devil will be nothing, since it rules only over the worse part of man, but is dominated by the better part. Thus, by this doctrine of the chief part of man, man will be elevated above Christ and the devil, that is, he will become a god above gods and a lord above lords. Where is now that acceptable opinion which said that the free will could not want anything good, but here claims that it is a most essential and indeed a healthy and honorable part, which does not even need Christ, but is more capable than God himself and than the devil?

I say this so that you may see again how dangerous it is to approach holy and divine things without the Spirit of God, with the presumption of human reason. If Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, it follows that the whole world is under sin, damnation and the devil, and the distinction between the principal and the nonprincipal parts is of no use, for the world refers to people who live and weave in the worldly in all respects.

"If the whole man (she says^1)^ ), even the one born again by faith, is nothing but flesh, where is the Spirit, born of the Spirit? where the child of GOD? where the new creature? On this I would like to be instructed." Thus the diatribe.

Where? Where, my dearest Diatribe, what do you dream? Do you desire to be taught how the spirit is born of the spirit of flesh? With how cheerful and sure victory you defy us, the conquered, as if it were impossible for us to exist here!

  1. Diatribe § 24.

In the meantime, you want to abuse the reputation of the ancients, who teach that certain germs (semina) of the honorable are implanted in the minds of men. First of all, if you so wish, you are free on our account to use or abuse the reputation of the ancients; you will be recognized for what you believe, since you believe people who speak their own without the word of God. And perhaps, in your concern for religion, you are not much troubled by what someone believes, since you so easily believe people, and you do not care whether what they say is certain or uncertain. And we would like: to be instructed about it, when we have ever taught what you so freely and publicly burden us with? Who should be so nonsensical as to say that he who is born of the spirit is nothing but flesh?

We clearly separate flesh and spirit as contending things, and say with divine revelation that the man who is not born again by faith is flesh. Then we say that the one who is born again is not flesh any more than there are remnants of the flesh which contend against the firstfruits of the Spirit received. Nor do I believe that you intended to invent this in order to arouse spite against us; otherwise what more shameful thing could you have laid upon us? But either you do not understand anything about our things, or you do not seem to be equal to the greatness of the matter, by which you are perhaps so depressed and confused that you are not fully aware of what you are saying both against us and for yourself. . For that you believe, according to the reputation of the ancients, that certain germs of respectability are implanted in the minds of men, you say again with a certain forgetfulness, since you asserted above that free will can will nothing good. But I do not know how "not being able to will anything good" can suffer certain germs of respectability in itself. Thus I am constantly forced to remind you of the main thing that you have taken upon yourself, from which you digress in constant forgetfulness and act differently than you had intended.

Another passage is Jer. 10:23: "I know, O Lord, that man's doings are not in his power, and are in no man's hands.

1894 L v. a. vii. 395 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2331-2333. 1895

Power, how he walks or directs his course." "This passage (she says^1^ ) concerns more the outcome of pleasing circumstances than the faculty of free will."

Here the diatribe again confidently brings an interpretation, as it seemed to her, as if the scripture was completely under her control. But that he should look at the meaning and the absehen of the prophet, why did a man of such great reputation need that? It is enough, Erasmus says it, so it is so. If the opponents are allowed this arbitrariness to make interpretations, what is left that they do not want to obtain it? Let him therefore prove this interpretation from the context of the same speech, so we want to believe. But we teach from the context itself that the prophet, seeing that he teaches the wicked in vain with such great perseverance, at the same time gives to understand that his word is not able to do anything unless God teaches within, and therefore it is not in the power of man to hear and to will good. When he perceives this judgment of God, he asks him, frightened, that he may chastise him with measures, if he is to be punished at all, and that he may not be subjected to the wrath of God along with the wicked, whom God allows to become hardened and remain unbelieving.

But we still want to imagine that this passage is understood by the outcome of pleasant and sad circumstances; how then, if just this interpretation most strongly embraces the free will? This new evasion is invented, so that unlearned and sleepy readers, deceived, should believe that enough has happened, just as they do with the evasion of the necessity of the consequence. For they do not see that, as they are rather entangled and caught by these evasions, so also they are made to turn aside by these new words. If now the outcome of these things is not in our power, which are temporal and over which man, Genesis 1, has been appointed lord, I pray you, how then can that heavenly thing, the grace of God, be in our power, which alone is based on

  1. Diatribe § 25.

is based on the will of God? Can the effort of free will attain eternal bliss, which cannot hold a penny, not even a hair on its head? We do not have the ability to attain the created, and should have the ability to attain the Creator? What are we racing for? Now this belongs especially to the outcome (eventus) that a man strives after good or evil, because there he errs more on both sides and has less freedom than by striving for money, or honor, or pleasure. How beautiful, then, is this interpretation (glossa) escaped, which denies the freedom of man in regard to what end a thing goes out to, in small and created things, and preaches the same in the highest and divine things, as if you said: Codrus cannot pay a stater, but he can pay innumerable thousands of gold florins. And I am surprised that the Diatribe, which has so strongly persecuted the statement of Wiclef that all things happen in a necessary way, now itself admits that the outcome of things for us is a necessary one.

Furthermore, she says 2): "If one wants to force this on free will, then everyone must confess that it is in no one's power to walk rightly without the grace of God. Nevertheless, we ourselves also strive to the best of our ability, for we pray daily: Lord, my God, direct my path before you; he who asks for help does not cease from his efforts."

The diatribe thinks that it doesn't matter what she answers, if she only doesn't keep silent and says something. Then she wants to be respected for having done enough; that's how much she trusts in her reputation. It should have been proven whether we strive from our strength, and she proves that the one who prays strives for something. I ask you, is she mocking us or is she mocking the papists? He who prays prays through the Spirit, yes, the Spirit Himself prays in us, Rom. 8:15. How, then, through the effort of the Holy Spirit does the

  1. Diatribe § 25.

1896 12 V. a. VII, 306-308. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2383-2386. 1897

What is the capacity of the free will? Are free will and the Holy Spirit one and the same in the diatribe? Are we now discussing what the spirit is able to do? The diatribe thus leaves the passage of Jeremiah untouched and unconquered and only brings out of its head this little bell: We also strive with our strength. And Luther should be forced to believe this, if he only wanted to!

Likewise the saying, 1) Sprüchw. 16, 1: "A man sets it before him in his heart, but from the Lord comes what the tongue should speak"; of this it says that it also refers to the outcome of things.

As if by this own statement of hers, without any other reason and proof, enough had happened to us. And it makes it truly enough, because in admitting the opinion of the outcome of things, we have completely won, according to what we have just said, that since the freedom of the will is nothing in our affairs and works, rather there is none in divine things and works.

But see their perspicacity 2): "But what about the fact that a man imagines something in his heart, since Luther claims that everything is guided by necessity?"

I answer: Since the outcome of things is not in our power, as you say, how can it come to a man to direct things? What you would have answered me, now accept as answered you. Yes, therefore especially must one act, because everything future is uncertain to us, as Ecclesiastes 11, 6. says: "Early sow thy seed, and in the evening let not thine hand depart: for thou knowest not whether this or that shall come to pass." To us, I say, it is uncertain, according to our knowledge, but necessary according to the outcome (eventu). Necessity instills in us the fear of God, lest we decay and be secure; but uncertainty gives birth to confidence, lest we despair.

But she returns to her old ditty, 3) that in the book of proverbs many things for

  1. Diatribe § 26.
  2. Diatribe § 26.
  3. Diatrrbe § 26.

the free will is said; the kind is Prov. 16, 3.: "Command the Lord thy works"; "hearest thou," says she, "thy works"?

Namely, because in this book there are many commanding and obliging words, also pronouns of the second person, because by these basics the freedom of the will is proved, like: "Command", so you can command your works, so you do them. Thus the word: "I am your God" Deut. 5, 6 you must understand in this way: that is, you make me your God. "Your faith has helped you" Matth. 9, 22.: do you hear? "Thy"; interpret it thus: thou makest faith: then thou hast proved free will. Here I am not mocking, but showing the diatribe that it is not serious in this matter.

The word in the same chapter Prov. 16, 4.: "The Lord makes everything for His own sake, even the wicked for the evil day", models them 4) also by their words, and excuses God that He created no creature evil.

As if I were talking about creation and not rather about that constant effect of God in the created things. Through this effect, God drives even the wicked, as we said above about Pharaoh. 5)

Also the word from the 21. 6) chapter v. 1. seems to prove nothing to her: "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he inclines it whithersoever he will." "He does not immediately compel who inclines "something," she says.

As if we were talking about compulsion and not rather about the necessity of immutability. This is signified by the inclination of God, which is not such a sleepy and lazy thing, as the diatribe invents, but it is that exceedingly active working of God, which he man cannot avoid and cannot change, but through which he must necessarily change such willing.

  1. Diatribe? 26.
  2. In the Jena edition this is added: But he creates the wicked, not by creating wickedness or a wicked creature, which is impossible, but from corrupt seed; while GOtt works, the wicked man or is created [as a wicked^, not through the fault of him who makes rhn, but through the corruption (vitio) of the substance ("nmtsria") sden he works on^.. .
  3. In the diatribe? 27: 6x eapits 20th, which has passed m the Latin editions in our place.

1898 L. V. a. VII, 308 f. XII. Luther's controversy with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2386-2386. 1899

as God has given it to him, and as He God carries him away by His impulse *motu*; as I said above.

Furthermore, since Solomon speaks of the heart of the king, the Diatribe thinks 1) "that this passage is not rightly made into a generally valid sentence, but wants to say the same thing that Job says in another way Job 34:30: 'He makes a hypocrite reign over them because of the sins of the people'." Finally, it admits "that a king of GOtte is also directed to evil, but in such a way that he allows the king to be driven by evil lusts to chastise the people."

I answer: If God allows or directs, this very allowing or directing does not happen without the will and the effect of God, because the king's will cannot escape the action of the almighty God, because the will of all is torn to will and do, may it be good or evil. But that we have made a general proposition out of the particular will of the king, that. I think we have done neither clumsily nor unlearnedly. For, if the heart of the king, which, as you can see, is most free and rules over others, nevertheless cannot will otherwise than where God inclines it, how much less can any other man! And this conclusion would apply not only to the will of the king, but also to that of any other man. For if a man, however lowly his position (quantumlibet privatus), can will nothing else before God than where God inclines him, this can also be said of all men. Thus, the fact that Balaam could not speak what he wanted is the clearest justification in Scripture for the fact that a person has neither free choice nor free action under his control, otherwise the examples in Scripture would have no validity.

After she had said hereupon, 2) "that such testimonies as Luther would have collected from this book could be brought together in great numbers, but that they are

. 2) Diatribe § 27.

by a skilful interpretation both for and against free will", she finally cites 3) "Luther's Achilles' sword, his irresistible weapon, John 15:5: 'Without me you can do nothing'" 2c.

I also praise him who advocates free will with splendid eloquence, who teaches to model the testimonies of Scripture by clever interpretations, as seems good to him, so that they really stand for free will, that is, prove, not what they should, but what we like. After that, he may well pretend that he fears the One Sword of Achilles so much that an incomprehending reader, after this main saying has been defeated, may think the others all too contemptible. But I want to watch the boastful and heroic Diatribe to see with what strength she could overcome my Achilles, since she has not yet beaten a common soldier, not even a Thersites 4), but has made herself miserable with her own weapons.

Now she takes up this little word "nothing", chokes it with many words and many examples and stretches it to the point that "nothing" can be the same as something small and imperfect, namely by expressing in other words what the sophists have taught so far in this place in the following way: Without me you can do nothing, namely in a perfect way. She makes this long outdated and rusty gloss into a new one by the power of oratory, and insists on it as if she were the first to bring it forward and it had never been heard before, as if she wanted to present it to us instead of a miracle. In the meantime, however, she is quite sure and does not even think of the text itself, not of what precedes or follows, from which, after all, understanding must be taken. I am silent about the fact that she proves with so many words and examples that the word "nothing" can be taken at this point for something small and imperfect, as if we were discussing the possibility of taking something, while it is to be proved that the word "nothing" can be taken for something small and imperfect.

  1. Diatribe § 28.
  2. The ugliest, in body and mind, among the warriors before Troy; Achilles slew him because he blasphemed him. Lom H. II, 217.

1900 L. V. E. VII, 309-311. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2389-2391. 1901

whether it must be taken in this way, so that this whole great interpretation accomplishes nothing, if it accomplishes anything at all, but that this whole passage of John becomes uncertain and ambiguous. And this is not to be wondered at, since the only thing the diatribe wants is that the Scripture of God is everywhere ambiguous, so that it is not forced to use it, but the sayings of the ancients are certain, so that it is free to misuse the Scripture. This is really a strange worship of God, that the words of God should be useless, but the words of men useful.

But this is very beautiful to see how well she agrees with herself: "Nothing can be taken for a little thing, and "in this sense (she says^1^ )) it is very true that we can do nothing without Christ, for he speaks of the evangelical fruits, of which others are not made partakers, but those who abide in the vine, that is, in Christ. "2c

Here she herself confesses that the fruits are not given to others, but only to those who remain on the vine, and this she does in the skillful interpretation by which she proves that "nothing" is the same as something small and imperfect. But perhaps this subordinate word "not" must also be interpreted in the same way, that it indicates that the evangelical fruits can also be given to someone apart from Christ to some extent, or that a small and imperfect fruit can be given to someone, so that we might preach that even the ungodly without Christ, who, since Satan rules in them, also fight against Christ, 2) are able to bring forth something in fruits for life, that is, that the enemies of Christ work for Christ; but we will leave this aside.

Here I would like to be taught a way in which to resist the heretics, who are everywhere in Scripture

  1. Diatribe § 28.
  2. We assume that instead of puZnants - puZnant is to be read, and have translated accordingly. This change is due to: 1) the fact that qui is not followed by verburu ünituru; 2) the fact that gui contra 6tiristuiu pusnant is immediately followed by: bostes OUristi.

would like to apply this law and claim that "nothing" and "not" is to be taken for something imperfect, e.g. Joh. 1, 3.: "Without the same nothing is made", that is, a little. [Ps. 14, 1: "The Thor says in his heart, God is not," that is, God is imperfect. Ps. 100, 3.: "He made us, and not we ourselves," that is, a little we have made ourselves. And who can count the places in Scripture where "nothing" and "not" are written? Shall we say here that one must look to a fitting interpretation? But there is no heretic to whom his interpretation is not suitable. Yes,' does that mean to untie knots, if one opens the gate to corrupt hearts and deceitful spirits for such a great arbitrariness? I believe that to you, who do not respect the certainty of the Scriptures, such an arbitrary interpretation would be quite acceptable, but for us, who strive to fortify consciences, there can be nothing more unskillful, nothing more harmful, nothing more pernicious than this skilful interpretation (commoditate). Hear therefore, great victor over Luther's Achilles: If you do not prove that "nothing" in this passage not only can be taken for a little, but that it must also be taken for a little, you have accomplished nothing with so great a quantity of words and examples, but that you have fought with barren stubble against flames. What do we have to do with your "can", since it is demanded of you that you prove the "must"? If you do not manage to do this, we will stick to the natural and linguistic meaning of the word and ridicule both your armies and your triumphs.

Where is now your acceptable opinion, which stated that the free will can want nothing good? But perhaps here at last comes the clever interpretation that "nothing good" means "something good" according to a completely outrageous linguistic doctrine and art of inference, that "nothing" is the same as "something," which would be impossible with the dialecticians, since they are contradictory things. Where is it also that we believe that the devil is the prince of the world, who rules, as Christ Joh. 14, 30. and Paul [2 Tim. 2, 26. Eph. 2, 2.1 testify, in the will and heart of men-.

1902 V. a. VII, 311-313. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2391-2394 1903

who are his prisoners and serve him? He, namely the roaring lion, the implacable and restless enemy of the grace of God and the salvation of mankind, should let it happen that man, a servant and part of his kingdom, should strive with any movement or impulse for the good, by which he would like to escape his tyranny, and should he not rather provoke and urge him to want and do with all his strength what is contrary to grace? Even the righteous and those who work in the spirit of God can hardly resist this and want to do good, so he rages against them.

You, who invent that the human will is something that is in a free middle state and is left to itself, can easily invent at the same time that it is an endeavor of the will on both sides, because you also invent that both God and the devil are far away, as it were only spectators of that variable and free will; but you do not believe that they drive and move the imprisoned (servae^1)^ ) will, since they are in the fiercest struggle with each other. If this alone is believed, our opinion is sufficiently established, and free will lies prostrate, as we have also taught above. For either the kingdom of the devil in man can be nothing, and then Christ would be lying; or if its kingdom is of such a kind as Christ describes Luc. 11, 18. ff., then free will is nothing but a captive beast of burden of the devil, which cannot be freed unless the devil is first cast out by the finger of God.

From this, I believe, you understand sufficiently, dear Diatribe, what this is and how much it applies, that your author, who detests the persistence of Luther's assertion, is wont to say, namely, that Luther penetrates the matter very much with passages of Scripture, which could nevertheless be resolved with a single word. For who does not know that all Scripture can be dissolved with a single word? We knew this quite well, even before we heard the name of Erasmus. But this is the question: whether this is enough, if with one word all Scripture can be dissolved.

  1. Thus Luther himself translates in "Grund und Ursach", article 36. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1859, p 235.

Is the Scripture being dissolved? Whether it is resolved correctly or whether it must be resolved in this way? This is the subject of dispute. Let him look here, and he will see how easy it is to dissolve Scripture, and how detestable Luther's persistence is. But he will not only see that those little words do nothing, but also not all the gates of hell.

Therefore, what the diatribe does not allow for its affirmative position (affirmativa), although we are not obliged to prove our "no" (negativam), we nevertheless want to do, and to wrest from it by the force of the reasons of proof that "nothing" in this place not only can be taken, but also must be taken, not for something small, but for what the word means according to its nature (natura); but we want to do this, and still above it to that insurmountable reason by which we have already won. We will add the following, namely, that words must be kept in the natural use of their meaning unless the opposite has been proved, which the diatribe has neither done nor can do. But we want first to force this from her by the nature of the thing itself, namely, that it has been shown by scriptural passages, which are neither ambiguous nor obscure, that the devil is by far the most powerful and cunning prince of the world (as we have said), under whose rule the human will, now not free, nor its own master, but the servant of sin and of the devil, can will only what that prince of his wants. But he will not allow the will to want anything good; even though, if the devil did not rule over him, even sin, of which man is the servant, would make him burden enough that he could not want the good.

Furthermore, the context of the speech, which the diatribe bravely despises, although I would have indicated it sufficiently in many words in my "Assertion" (Assertionibus^2)^ ), is also denied to her. For Christ continues Joh. 15, 6: "Whoever does not abide in me is thrown away like a branch and withers, and they gather them and throw them away.

  1. Cf. the note to § 14 of the Diatribe.

1904 L. >. a. vii. 313-sis. 68. that free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2394-2397. 1905

it into the fire, and must burn." This, I say, the diatribe has passed over with the most beautiful oratory, and hoped that the Lutherans, who were so unlearned, would not notice this passing over. But you see that here Christ himself, as the interpreter of his parable of the branch and the vine, explains clearly enough what he wants to be understood by the word "nothing," namely, that the man who is apart from Christ is thrown away and withers. But what else can be cast away and wither than to be given over to the devil and to become worse all the time? But to become worse is not to be able to do something or to strive for something. The withering vine becomes more and more ready for the fire the more it withers. If Christ himself had not so extended and applied this simile, no one would have dared to so extend and apply it. Therefore it is certain that "nothing" must actually be taken in this place, as the nature of the word entails.

Now let us also consider the examples by which she proves that "nothing" is taken anywhere for something small, so that we also prove in this piece that the diatribe is nothing and achieves nothing. Even if it were really something in this, it would still accomplish nothing, since the diatribe is nothing in all things and in every way.

"In general (she says^1)^ ) one is wont to say of him that he does nothing who does not get over what he desires, and yet he who strives is often advanced by a significant amount."

I answer: I have never heard that one generally speaks in this way: you invent it in this way, according to the liberty you take. The words must be considered (as they say) according to the thing it is about (secundum materiam subjectam) unb ηαφ ber ) and according to the intention of the speaker. Now no one calls "nothing" what someone strives for with his doing. He who speaks of "nothing" does not speak of the effort, but of the effect; for this is what he has in mind who says, "This one does nothing, or he does nothing," that is, he has not achieved it, he has not

  1. Diatribe § 28.

attained. Then, even if the example were valid, which is of no value, it would serve us better. For this is what we assert and want to show, that free will does many things that are nothing in the sight of God. What can it profit him that he strives, if he does not attain what he strives for? Therefore, wherever the diatribe may turn, it runs up and refutes itself, as it is wont to do to those who lead a bad cause.

Thus it also evilly cites this example from Paul [1 Cor. 3:7: "So then neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but GOD who gives the flourishing." "That in which there is little interest, and which in itself is useless (says she^2)^ ), He calls nothing."

Who? You, O Diatribe, say that the ministry of the word is in itself useless and of very little importance, while Paul praises it everywhere with such great exaltations and especially 2 Cor. 3, 7, where he calls it a ministry of life and clarity? Again, you do not look at the thing it is about, nor even the intention of the speaker. To give flourishing, to this he who plants and he who waters is nothing, but to planting and watering he is something significant, since teaching and exhorting is the highest work of the Spirit in the church of God. This is Paul's opinion and the words obviously bring this along. But granted that this clumsy example is also valid, the same will again serve our cause. For by this we deal that free will is nothing, that is, useless, in itself, as you interpret it, before GOtte, for of this kind of being (essendi) we speak, knowing very well that an ungodly will is a something and not a mere nothing.

Likewise the word 1 Cor. 13:2: "If I did not have love, I would be nothing." Why she gives this example, I do not see, if she did not only look for a large number and crowd, or if she was of the opinion that we lack weapons with which we could put an end to her. For really and actually he is nothing before God who is without love. So teach

  1. Diatribe § 28.

1906 L. v. a. vii, 3i5 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2397-2400. 1907

we also from the free will. Therefore, this example also stands for us, against the diatribe, unless the diatribe might not yet know what we are fighting for. For we do not speak of the being of the natural being, but of the being of grace (as it is called) (non de esse naturae, sed de esse gratiae). We know that free will does something in the natural being, as eating, drinking, begetting, governing, so that it does not laugh at us with that madness, as if it were a shrewd little finger, 1) "that one could not even sin without Christ, if we wanted to insist so strongly on the word 'nothing,' since Luther admitted that free will is not capable of anything except sinning; To penetrate such exceedingly inconsistent things in this serious matter, the Diatribe has been pleased. For we say that man, apart from the grace of God, nevertheless remains under the general omnipotence of God, who does everything, moves everything, drives everything, with necessary and infallible course, but that what man thus driven does is nothing, that is, is good for nothing before God and is to be regarded as nothing but sin. Thus he who is without love is "nothing" in grace. Why, then, does the diatribe, even though it itself confesses that we are dealing in this passage with the evangelical fruits, of which one cannot become partaker without Christ, here immediately completely divert from the matter, begin another little song, and make sophistical speeches about natural works and human fruits? But how could it be otherwise than that he who is deprived of the truth nowhere agrees with himself?

So also the passage Joh. 3, 27.: "A man can take nothing, except it be given him from heaven."

John speaks of the man, who was already something, and says that he can take nothing, namely, not the spirit with its gifts; because of this he spoke, not of the natural being. He also did not need the diatribe as a teacher, so that she would teach him that man already has eyes, nose, ears, mouth, hands, mind, will, reason and everything that is of the natural being.

  1. Diatribe § 28.

is a man, if the diatribe does not believe that the Baptist was so mad that, when he called man, he thought of the primordial matter (chaos) of Plato, or of the emptiness of Leucippus, or of the infinite (infinitum) of Aristotle, or of some other nothing, which would only become a something by a gift from heaven: yes, that is to cite examples from Scripture, if one plays his game in such a manner in such a great matter.

To what end, then, does this great multitude of words serve to teach us that 2) the fire, the fleeing of that which is harmful, the striving after that which is useful, and other things come from heaven, as if anyone did not know or deny this? We speak of grace and, as she herself said, of Christ and the evangelical fruits; but meanwhile she prattles on about the natural being, spends time and drags the matter out, and makes a haze to the unintelligent reader. In the meantime, not only does she not give an example where "nothing" is taken for a little thing, as she had intended, but she also clearly betrays that she understands nothing about it and cares nothing about what Christ or grace is, or how grace is something different from the natural being, since even the most unlearned sophists have known this and have made this distinction commonplace in their schools through extremely frequent use; and at the same time she does not recognize that all her examples serve for us and against her. For this is proved by the word of the Baptist, that man can take nothing, except it be given him from heaven, that free will may be nothing. Thus my Achilles is defeated, in that the weapons are presented to him by the diatribe, by which she, who is weaponless and defenseless, is defeated. Thus, with a single word, the scriptural passages are dissolved, with which the persistent assertor, Luther, so strongly assails her.

After that, she gives many parables, by which she accomplishes nothing, except that, according to her habit, she diverts a foolish reader to distant things and, in the meantime, the

  1. Diatribe § 28.

1908 L. V. L. VII, 316-318. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 24VÜ-2463. 1909

The main thing is that God maintains the ship, but the shipman brings it into the harbor, therefore the shipman does something. This equation attributes to both a different work, namely, that of preserving to God, and that of steering to the shipman. Thus, if it proves anything, it proves that the whole work of preserving belongs to GOtte, the whole work of directing to the shipman, and yet it is a beautiful and fitting simile.

Thus the plowman brings in the fruits, GOtt has given them. Here again different works are attributed to God and man, if it does not make the husbandman at the same time the creator who gave the fruits. But even if nan admits that God and man did the same works, what would these parables prove? Nothing else than that the creature cooperates with God, who works. But are we now talking about the cooperation and not rather about the own power and effect of the free will? Where then does that orator flee, who wanted to speak of the palm tree and now speaks of nothing but the pumpkin? One began to make a barrel, why has it now become a pitcher?

Also we know that Paul is God's co-worker in teaching the Corinthians 1 Ep. 3, 9., preaching outwardly and teaching God inwardly, also in a different work. Similarly, when he speaks in the spirit of GOt, he also works with GOt in the same work. For this we assert and defend, that when GOtt works without the grace of the Spirit, He works everything in -all, even in the ungodly, since He moves, drives, and carries away everything that He alone has created, also alone, by the movement of His omnipotence, which those created things can neither avoid nor change, but necessarily follow and obey, each according to the nature of its endowment (virtutis) given to it by GOtt, and thus everything, even the ungodly, works with Him. Furthermore, when he works through the Spirit of grace in those whom he has justified, that is, in his kingdom, he drives and moves them in the same way, and they, as they are a new creature.

follow and participate, or rather, as Paul says Rom. 8, 14, they are driven. But this was not the place for this; we are not discussing what we are able to do through the action of God, but what we are able to do, namely, whether we, who are already created from nothing, can make ourselves into something, or through that general movement of omnipotence can strive to be born into a new creature of the spirit; here the diatribe should have given an answer, and not diverted to something else. For here we answer thus: Just as man, before he is created, does nothing to become a man, or strives for something by which he becomes a creature, so afterwards, as one who has become and been created, he does nothing or strives by which he remains a creature, but both take place solely through the will of the almighty power and goodness of God, who creates and sustains us without us. But he does not work in us without us, since he created and preserved us for this purpose, so that he would like to work in us and we would like to work with him, whether this happens outside of his kingdom through the general omnipotence, or within his kingdom through the special power of his spirit.

So we further say: Man, before he is renewed into a new creature in the realm of the spirit, does nothing, strives for nothing, by which he is born into this renewal and this realm, then also when he is born again, he does nothing, strives for nothing, by which he could persist in this realm, but both does only the spirit in us, which without us again gives birth to us and keeps us as born again, as also Jacobus [1, 18.He has begotten us according to his will by the word of his truth, 1) that we might be the firstfruits of his creatures"; he is talking about the regenerated creature. But he does not work without us, since he has reborn us and keeps us for this very purpose, so that he may work in us and we may work with him. Thus he preaches through us, has mercy on the poor, comforts the afflicted; but what is thereby attributed to free will? Yes, what is

  1. In Latin, probably only by mistake, virtutis instead of veritatis.

1910 L. V. a. VII, 318 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. will, 2403-2405. 1911'

left him with only "nothing" and truly "nothing".

Therefore, read the Diatribe here through five or six leaves, where it does nothing else with such parables, then also with the most beautiful passages and parables drawn from the Gospel and Paul, than that it teaches us that innumerable passages are found in Scripture (as it says, 1) that teach of the cooperation and assistance of God. If I conclude from this: "Man can do nothing without the assistance of divine grace, therefore no work of man is good," she concludes with an oratorical turn as follows: "Rather, (she says) man can do everything with the assistance of the grace of God, therefore all works of man can be good. Accordingly, as many passages as there are in the Holy Scriptures, which think of the assistance, there are also as many passages, which assert the free will, but they are innumerable. Therefore, if we judge the matter by the number of testimonies, I have won." So those. Do you think the diatribe was quite sober or in her right mind when she wrote this? For I would not ascribe this to her malice and unworthiness; perhaps she wished to torment me half to death by these things constantly repeated to excess (perpetuo taedio), in that, remaining everywhere the same, she always treats other things than those she has set before herself. But if she has found pleasure in being inconsistent in such a great matter, we also want to find pleasure in going through her deliberate inconsistencies publicly.

First of all, we do not dispute, nor is it unknown to us, that all the works of man can be good if they are done with the assistance of divine grace, then also that man is able to do everything through the assistance of God's grace. But we cannot be surprised enough at your carelessness that, since you had intended to write about the power of free will, you write about the power of God's grace as if all men were blocks and stones,

  1. Diatribe § 33, at the end.

you dare to say publicly that free will is asserted by passages of Scripture that praise the assistance of God's grace. And not only do you dare to do so, but you also sing a victory song as a pompous victor and triumphator. But now I know, just from this saying and doing of yours, what free will is and is able to do, namely, to be nonsensical. I ask you, what can be in you that speaks in such a way, if it is not free will itself?

But hear your conclusions: The Scripture praises the grace of God, therefore it proves free will; it praises the assistance of the grace of God, therefore it teaches free will. Why not the opposite: grace is praised, therefore free will is annulled; the assistance of grace is praised, therefore free will is destroyed? For to what end is grace bestowed? Is it so that the pride of free will, which is strong enough in itself, may play with grace, as it were with a superfluous ornament, on days of exuberant pleasure? Therefore I, too, will reverse your conclusion, even though I am not an orator, but with a more reliable oratory than you: As many passages as there are in the holy scriptures that commemorate the assistance, as many there are that abrogate the free will. And they are innumerable. Therefore, if the matter is estimated according to the number of testimonies, I have won. For this is why grace is necessary, why the assistance of grace is bestowed, because free will of itself is incapable of anything, and, as she herself said, according to that acceptable opinion, cannot will the good. Thus, by praising grace and preaching the assistance of grace, the incapacity of free will is preached at the same time. This is a sound conclusion and an established inference that even the gates of hell cannot overturn.

Here we will stop defending ours against the refutations of the Diatribe, so that the book does not become excessively large; the other things, which are worthy of it, will be treated in the assertion of ours. For what Erasmus says in his conclusion

1912 V- a. VII, 3I9-S2I. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2405-2408. 1913

(Epilogo^1^ ) repeats that if our opinion were fixed, then so many commandments, so many threats, so many promises would be in vain, neither merits nor demerits, nor rewards, nor punishments would be left room; Then it would also be difficult to defend the mercy, yes, the justice of God, 2) if God condemned those who sinned with necessity, and also other clumsy things would follow from this, at which the greatest men would have been so offended, 3) that they would also have fallen over it. We have given an account of all this above. We neither tolerate nor accept that middle position which I believe he urges upon us out of good opinion, namely, that we should grant free will a very little, so that the conflicting passages of Scripture and the aforementioned clumsy things might be all the more easily lifted, for by this middle position nothing is helped, nor anything proved. For if you do not want to ascribe the whole and everything to free will, as the Pelagians do, nevertheless the contradiction of Scripture remains, merit and reward are nullified, the mercy and justice of God are nullified, and all the annoying things remain, which we want to avoid by assuming a very small and ineffective faculty of free will, as we have sufficiently shown. Therefore one must go to the extreme of denying free will altogether and ascribing everything to God. In this way Scripture will not argue with itself, and the inconvenient things, if not abolished, will at least be borne.

But this I ask of you, dear Erasmus, that you do not believe that I am conducting this matter more in blind zeal than with proper consideration. I do not suffer to be accused of such hypocrisy, as if I had a different opinion from the one I wrote, and I have not only been made to think so by the heat of the defense (as you write about me^4)^ ).

  1. Diatribe § 34.
  2. Diatribe § 35.
  3. Diatribe § 36.
  4. Diatribe § 36, after the center.

I have been carried away to the point that only now I completely abolish free will, whereas before I would have granted it some property. You will not be able to prove this anywhere in my books, I know that. My propositions (themata) and theses (problemata) are still there, in which I have constantly maintained up to this hour that free will is nothing and a thing (this is the word I used at that time) in name only. 5) Defeated by the truth and challenged and forced by the dispute, I have held and written like this. But that I have acted so violently, in this I confess my guilt, if it is a guilt, yes, I rejoice with all my heart that in the cause of God this testimony is given to me in the world. And yet God wanted that God Himself also confirmed such a testimony on the last day. For who would then be more blessed than Luther, who is praised by such a powerful testimony of his contemporaries (sui seculi), that he did not pursue the cause of truth sluggishly nor deceitfully, but rather fiercely, or rather too fiercely? Then I shall blessedly escape the words of Jeremiah 48:10, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord unadvisedly."

But if it seems that I am too harsh against your diatribe, you will forgive me, for I am not doing this out of malice, but I was moved by the fact that you have brought this cause of Christ into great harm by your reputation, even though you have done nothing by scholarship and in the cause itself. For who can keep his pen in check everywhere so that it does not even get warm? Although you are almost cold in this book out of a desire for restraint, you sometimes hurl fiery and bitter arrows, so that you seem to be poisonous if the reader is not very patient and kind. But that is not part of the matter. We must gladly give each other credit for such things, since we are human beings and everything about us is human.

  1. In the ^886rtio in the 36th article: renr äs 8olo titulo. Germanized by Luther himself in "Grund und Ursach" 2c; "a vain name."

1914 D. V. L. VII, 321-323. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. LVIII, 2408-2410. 1915

The third part, that everything is done by God's grace and not by free will. 1)

Now we come to the last part of this book, in which we have to present our troops against free will, as we promised. But we cannot let them all advance, for who could do that in a small booklet, since the whole of Scripture is on our side with all its individual jumbles and letters? Nor is this necessary, both because free will has already been defeated and laid low by a twofold victory - the one, since we prove that all that stands against it of which it the diatribe thought that it served for it, the other, since we prove that that which it wanted to refute still remains unconquered - and also because enough has already been accomplished, although it would not yet be defeated if it were laid low by one or the other projectile. For what need is there to pierce the enemy, who has been killed by some projectile, with many other weapons after he is dead? Therefore, if the matter suffers, we will now act very briefly and bring two commanders with some of their armies from such a large number of armies, namely Paul and the evangelist John.

Paul in the letter to the Romans begins his discussion against free will for the grace of God in this way Rom. 1, 18.: "For the wrath of God from heaven (he says) is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold out the truth in unrighteousness." You hear here a general saying about all men that they are under the wrath of God; what is this but that they are worthy of wrath and punishment? He designates the cause of the wrath, that they do only such things as are worthy of wrath and punishment, namely, that all are ungodly and unrighteous, and hold out the truth in unrighteousness. Now where is the power of free will that strives for any good? Paul indicates that it is worthy of God's wrath, and judges it to be ungodly and unjust. But what deserves wrath and is ungodly, that strives for

  1. This superscription is in the translation by Justus Jonas, not in Latin.

and is able to do something against grace, but not for grace.

Here Luther's sleepiness will be ridiculed because he did not look at Paul properly, and someone might say: Paul does not speak of all men, nor of all their aspirations, but only of those who are ungodly and unrighteous, and, as the words read, of those who endure the truth in unrighteousness; from this it does not follow that all are of this kind. Here I say: with Paul it is the same whether it is said: about all ungodly beings of men, or whether it is said: about the ungodly beings of all men. For Paul speaks almost everywhere after the manner of the Hebrew language, so that the meaning is: All men are ungodly and unrighteous and hold up the truth in unrighteousness, therefore all are worthy of wrath. Further, in the Greek, not as in the Vulgate is the referring pronoun put "of those men who (the truth)," but the article, in this way: God's wrath is revealed against the ungodly nature and unrighteousness of men, "those who hold out the truth in unrighteousness," so that this is, as it were, a word (epithowii) attached to all men, "that they hold out the truth in unrighteousness," as that is an epithet (opitlloton) when one says, Our Father, "who art in heaven," which otherwise would be expressed, Our "heavenly" Father, or "in heaven." For it is said for the distinction of those who believe and are godly.

But it shall be void and vain, if it does not force and convict of it Paul's discussion itself. For Paul had said before v. 16., "The gospel is a power of GOD, which maketh blessed them that believe on it, the Jews chiefly, and also the Greeks." Here are not obscure or ambiguous words; to the Jews and the Greeks, that is, to all men, the gospel of the power of God is necessary, that they may believe and be saved from the wrath revealed. I beseech thee, he that setteth forth the Jews, who were strong in righteousness, in the law of God, and in the faculty of free will, without distinction, so that they might

1916 D. V.' a. VII, 323 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2410-2413. 1917

are empty and in need of God's power, so that they might be saved by it from the revealed wrath, and shows this power to be necessary for them, should he not consider that they are under the wrath? What kind of people would you then be able to point out who would not be subject to the wrath of God, since you are forced to believe that the highest people in the world, namely the Jews and the Greeks, are of such a nature? Furthermore, which, even among the Jews and Greeks, can you single out, since Paul, without any distinction, sums them all up in one word and subjects them all to the same judgment? Is it to be believed, then, that among these two eminently excellent peoples there were not men who would have been zealous of respectability? or should none have endeavored according to the powers of free will? But Paul cares not for this, but casts all under wrath, proclaiming all to be ungodly and unrighteous. Must we not believe that in the same way the other apostles, with the same preaching, also cast all the other Gentiles, each in his own district, 1) under this wrath?

Therefore, this passage of Paul's is quite firm and strongly insists that free will, or the most excellent thing in people, no matter how excellently endowed with law, justice, wisdom and all virtues, is ungodly, unjust and worthy of God's wrath. Otherwise, Paul's argument would have no force; but if it has force, his division does not allow for a middle state, according to which he assigns blessedness to those who believe the gospel, wrath to all others, shows the believers as righteous, the non-believers as ungodly, unrighteous and subject to wrath. For he wants to say this much: The righteousness that is valid before God is revealed in the Gospel, that it is of faith, therefore all men are ungodly and unrighteous. For God would be foolish if He revealed to men a righteousness that they either already knew or had the germs of. But since he is not foolish, and yet reveals to them the righteousness for salvation, it is in the day that the free

  1. sort6 8U", not korto 8UÄ, as the Erl. Ausg. has.

The will, even in the highest men, not only has nothing or is not able, but does not even know what righteousness is before God; unless the righteousness that is valid before God is not revealed to those highest men, but only to the least; while Paul boasts that he is a debtor to this righteousness Rom. 1, 14. of the Jews and the Greeks, of the wise and the unwise, of the educated and the uneducated. Therefore, in this passage, Paul definitely groups all men together in one heap and concludes that all are ungodly, unrighteous, and ignorant of righteousness and faith; so much is lacking in them that they want or can do anything good. And this conclusion is firm because God, sitting in ignorance and darkness, reveals to them the righteousness of salvation; so they know nothing about it from themselves. But those who do not know the righteousness of salvation are certainly under wrath and condemnation, and because of their ignorance, they cannot work their way out, nor can they strive to come out. For how could you strive if you do not know what, where, how, or in what way to strive?

With this conclusion the thing itself and the experience agree. For show me one person in the whole human race, even if he is the holiest and most righteous of all, to whom it has ever occurred that this is the way to righteousness and salvation, namely, to believe in him who is both God and man, died for the sins of men and was raised again and seated at the right hand of the Father, or who would have let himself dream of this wrath of God, of which Paul says here that it will be revealed from heaven. Look at the highest worldly wise men who have given an opinion about God, which they have handed down to us in their writings about the future wrath. Behold the Jews, who have been persistently taught by so many signs, by so many prophets, what they have thought of this way; not only have they not accepted it, but they have hated it so much that no nation on earth has accepted Christ.

1918 L V. a. VII, 324-326. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2413-2416. 1919

The people have been persecuted more cruelly up to the present day. But who would dare to say that in such a great people there was not a single one who upheld free will and strove in its power? How is it, then, that all strive in different directions, and that which was most excellent in the most excellent of men not only did not uphold this way of righteousness, not only did not know it, but also, after it had been made known and revealed, rejected it and wanted to eradicate it? so that Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:23 that this way is an offense to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.

Since he calls Jews and Gentiles without distinction, and it is certain that Jews and Gentiles are the most important peoples on earth, it is certain at the same time that free will is nothing other than the highest enemy of justice and the blessedness of men, since it was impossible that some 1) among the Jews and Gentiles should not have acted and striven with the highest power of free will, and yet just by this only waged war against grace. Now you only go and say that free will strives for good, since good (bonitas - goodness) itself and justice are a nuisance and foolishness to it. Nor can you say that this concerns only some, not all. Paul speaks of all without distinction when he says: to the Gentiles a foolishness and to the Jews an affliction, and excludes no one except the believers. To us (he says), that is, to the called and the saints, it is 1 Cor. 1:18 the power and wisdom of God. He does not say: some Gentiles, some Jews, but simply, Jews and Gentiles (he says), who are not of us, by clearly dividing the believers from the unbelievers and leaving no middle. But we speak of the Gentiles, who act without grace; to them, says Paul, the righteousness of God is a foolishness, which they abhor; and this is the praiseworthy effort of the free will for good.

  1. aliquot, not aliquoä, as the Erl. Ausg. has.

Furthermore, see if he does not himself cite the highest people among the Greeks, since he says Rom. 1:21 that they had become foolish and darkened the hearts of those who were the wiser among them; likewise they had become vain that is, foolish in their sharpest thoughts (xxxxxxxxxxx), that is, in their sophistical disputations.

I ask you, does he not touch here that highest and most excellent of the educated (Graecis) people by touching their sharpest considerations? For these have been their highest and best thoughts and opinions, which they have considered to be right constant wisdom. But as elsewhere he calls this wisdom foolishness, so here he says it was vain in them, and by striving for many things came to be worse, and at last in darkened hearts they offered up idols Rom. 1:23, and committed the abominations which he mentions hereafter v. 24. If therefore the best endeavor and work among the best of the Gentiles is evil and ungodly, what wilt thou think of the rest of the great multitude, as it were the worse Gentiles? For here also he makes no distinction among the best, since he condemns the endeavor of their wisdom without regard to the person. But since the work itself, or even the endeavor, is condemned, so are those condemned, however many they may be, who have endeavored, although they have acted from the highest power of free will. Even of their best effort, I say, it is said to be sinful; how much more of those who also put it into action.

So he also soon after Rom. 2, 28. 29. rejects the Jews without any distinction, who are Jews according to the letter, but not according to the spirit. You (he says), who are under the letter and circumcision, disgrace God v. 27, 23; likewise v. 28, 29: For not he is a Jew who is a Jew by heart, but he who is a Jew in secret.

What is clearer than this division? A Jew who is by heart is a transgressor of the law. But how many Jews, do you think, are exceedingly wise without the faith, learned in the law?

1920 D a. VII, 326-328. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2416-2419. 1921

have been knowledgeable, honorable people, who have striven for justice and truth with the highest effort? How he often gives them the testimony that they are zealous for God Rom. 10, 2. 9, 31., that they follow the law of righteousness, that they strive day and night to become blessed, that they live without blame; and yet they are transgressors of the law, because they are not Jews in spirit, but rather stubbornly resist the righteousness of faith. What remains, therefore, but that free will, when it is at its best, is at its worst, and the more it strives, the angrier it becomes and behaves the worse? The words are clear, the division is certain; nothing can be said against it.

But we want to hear Paul himself as his own interpreter. In the third chapter he makes as it were the conclusion (epilogum) and speaks v. 9: "What do we say now? Have we any merit? None at all." For we have proved above that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin.

Now where is free will? All (he says), Jews and Greeks are under sin. Are there figurative speeches or knots here? What can the interpretation of the whole world do against this very clear statement? He excludes no one, since he says "all", he leaves nothing good, since he declares that they are under sin, that is. Servants of sin. But where did he state this cause, that all, Jews and Gentiles were under sin? Nowhere but where we have indicated it, namely, when he says Rom. 1:18, "God's wrath from heaven is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." And he then proves this by the experience that they, as ingrates against God, were subject to so many vices, convicted, as it were, by the fruits of their ungodliness, that they wanted and did nothing but evil. Then he judges the Jews in particular, since he says that the Jew is a transgressor under the letter, and proves this likewise by the fruits and experience by saying Rom. 2, 21. f.: "You preach that one should not steal, and you steal, you abhor before idols and rob God of what is his.

Spirit. And here is no opportunity for you to make an excuse and say: Though they be under sin, yet the best in them hath the good endeavor. For if there be any good endeavor left, it is wrong for him to say that they are under sin. For since he calls Jews and Gentiles, he includes here at the same time all that is in the Gentiles and Jews, if you do not want to turn Paul around and say that he wrote thus: The flesh of all the Jews and Gentiles (that is), their grosser inclinations are under sin; but the wrath from heaven revealed against them will condemn them entirely, unless they are justified by the Spirit, which would not happen if they were not entirely under sin.

But we want to see how Paul proves his opinion from the holy scriptures, whether perhaps the words have stronger evidential power in Paul than in their original place. [Rom. 3, 10-12: "As it is written" (he says Ps. 14, 3): "There is not one who is righteous, not one; there is not one who understands, not one who asks after God; they have all gone astray and have all become unfit; there is not one who does good, not one" 2c.

Here, let whoever can give me a skillful interpretation; create figurative speeches, pretend that the words are doubtful and dark, and defend free will against these condemnatory judgments, whoever dares to do so. Then I, too, will gladly give way and recant, and then I, too, will be a confessor and assertor of free will. It is certain that this is said in relation to all people. For the prophet introduces God as he looks upon all men and passes this judgment upon all. For it is said in Ps. 14, 2: "The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of men, to see if any are wise and ask after God; but they are all gone astray." 2c And lest the Jews think that this does not concern them, Paul preempts this by claiming that this concerns them the most.

"We know" (he says Rom. 3, 19.) "that what the law says, that it says to those who are under the law." Here he wanted to express the same as when he spoke [Rom.

1922 L. V. L. VII. 328-330. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2419-2422. 1923

2, 9.]: "Of the Jews in particular and also of the Greeks."

You hear, then, that all the children of men, all those who are under the law, that is, both Gentiles and Jews, receive such a judgment before God that they are unrighteous, not wise, do not ask after God, not even one, but all deviate and are unfit. But I believe that among the children of men and those who are under the law, there are also counted those who are the best and most honorable, who by the power of free will strive for what is righteous and good, and of whom the diatribe boasts that they possess the mind and the germs of honorableness as implanted in them; if perhaps it does not want to claim that those are the children of angels.

How, then, can those strive for the good who all together do not know God, nor care about God, nor ask about Him? How can they have the power that is capable of goodness, since they all deviate from goodness and are completely incapable? Or do we not know what it means not to know God, not to be wise, not to ask about God, not to fear God, to deviate and be unfit? Are these not exceedingly clear words, and do they teach that all people both do not know God and despise God, and then also deviate to evil and are unfit for good? For here it is "not a question of ignorance in the acquisition of subsistence or of contempt for money, but of ignorance and contempt for religion and godliness. But such ignorance and contempt are undoubtedly found not in the flesh and the lower and coarser inclinations, but in those highest and most excellent powers of man in which righteousness, godliness, knowledge and worship of God should reign, namely in reason and will, and even in the power of free will itself, in the germ of respectability itself, or in the most excellent thing that is in man.

Where are you now, my diatribe, since you promised above that you would gladly agree that the most excellent thing in man is flesh, that is, ungodly, if this were proven with Scripture?

Agree, then, when you hear that the most excellent thing in all men is not only ungodly, but does not know God, despises God, is turned to evil and is incapable of good. For what is being unjust but that the will (which is one of the most excellent things) is unjust? What is not knowing God and the good but that reason (which is another of these most excellent things) does not know God and the good, that is, is blind in the knowledge of godliness? What else does it mean to be deviant and incompetent, but that men, according to none of their parts, and especially according to their most excellent parts, are completely and utterly incapable of doing good, but only of doing evil? What does not fear God mean other than that people are despisers of God in all their parts, especially in their most excellent parts? But to be despisers of God means at the same time to be despisers of all things that are God's, namely the words, the works, the laws, the commandments, the will of God. Now what right should reason prescribe, which is blind and ignorant? What good should the will choose, which is evil and incompetent? Yes, whom should the will follow, to which reason prescribes nothing but the darkness of its blindness and ignorance? Since reason is therefore in error and the will is turned away, what good can man do or strive to do?

But perhaps someone would presume to raise quibbles: Although the will deviates and reason is ignorant, nevertheless the will by its doing 1) can strive for something, and reason can know something from its powers, since we are able to do many things that we do not do; namely, we argue about the power of the faculty, not about doing.

I answer: The words of the prophet include both the doing and the ability; and it is the same to say, Man asketh not after GOtte, as if

  1. It seems to us that the comma after aotu should be deleted and placed before aetu. After that we have translated.

1924 L. V. L. VII, 830 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2422-2425. 1925

It was said: Man cannot ask for God. You can infer this from the fact that if there were in man the faculty or the power to want the good, since he is not permitted by the impulse of divine omnipotence to be idle or to lie still (feriari), as we have explained above, it would be impossible that this faculty and power for the good should not stir in something, or at least in some man, and come into use and exercise in some way. But this does not happen, for God looks down from heaven and does not see anyone who asks or makes an effort; therefore it follows that this power, which makes an effort or wants to ask for Him, is nowhere, but rather all deviate. Further, if Paul were not at the same time to be understood of inability, his discussion would be of no avail. For Paul's intention is entirely to make grace necessary for all men. But if they could do anything by themselves, grace would not be necessary for them. Thus you see that free will is fundamentally abolished in this passage, and that nothing good or honorable is left for it either, since the declaration is made about it that it is unrighteous, does not know God, despises God, has turned away from God and is unfit before God, and the prophet proves strongly enough, both in the original passage and in Paul, who cites it.

And it is not a small thing when it is said of man that he does not know God and despises God, thinking that these are the sources of all shameful deeds, the den of sins, yes, the hell of evil. What evil should not be there, where there is ignorance and contempt of God? In short, the kingdom of the devil in people could not have been described in shorter words, nor even in more powerful words, than calling them such people who do not know God and despise God. There is unbelief, there is disobedience, there is taking from God what is his, there is blasphemy against God, there is cruelty, there is unmercifulness against one's neighbor, there is selfishness in all divine and human things. There you have the glory and the faculty of free will.

But Paul goes on and testifies that he speaks of all men, and especially of the best and most excellent, saying Rom. 3:19 f., "That every mouth may be stopped up, and all the world may be guilty unto God, because by the works of the law no flesh can be justified in his sight."

I ask you, how should the mouth of all be stopped up, if there is still a power left by which we are able to do something? For one might say to God: Here is not absolutely nothing, but something that you cannot condemn, since you yourself have given some ability; this at least will not be silent, nor will it be punishable before you. For if that power of free will is a healthy one and capable of something, it is wrong for the whole world to be delinquent or guilty before God, since that power, which does not need to have its mouth plugged, is not a small thing or in a small part of the world, but the most excellent and the most general in the whole world; or if its mouth must be plugged, it is necessary for it to be delinquent and guilty before God with the whole world. But with what right can something be called guilty if it is not unjust and ungodly, that is, worthy of punishment and vengeance?

I would like to see, dear one, by what interpretation that power of man could be absolved from the guilt in which the whole world is entangled against God, or by what artifice it could be exempted that it should not be included in the whole world. Great thunderclaps and piercing lightnings and truly the hammer that breaks rocks (as Jeremiah 23, 29. says) are these words of Paul Rom. 3, 12. 19. 10.: "They have all gone astray"; "all the world is guilty"; "there is none righteous", thunderbolts by which everything that exists is shattered, not only in one man, or in some, or in any part of them, but also in the whole world, in all, absolutely without any exception, so that the whole world should tremble, be terrified and flee at these words. For what could be said that is more powerful and stronger than: The whole world is guilty, all human kin-

1926 ü. V. L. VII, 331-333. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2425-2427. 1927

who are deviated and unfit, none fears God, there is none who is not unrighteous, there is none who is understanding, there is none who asks about God. Nevertheless, the hardness and unreasonable (insensata) stubbornness of our heart was and is so great that we neither heard nor felt these thunderbolts and lightnings, and in the meantime raised and erected the free will and its powers against all this, so that in truth we have fulfilled the word Mal. 1, 4. fulfilled: "They build, I will demolish."

The apostle also speaks powerfully in this passage Rom. 3:20: "No flesh shall be justified in his sight by the works of the law. A mighty word is "by the works of the law", as also that "the whole world", or that "all the children of men". For it must be observed that Paul introduces no persons, and thinks only of their endeavors, namely, that he may include all persons, and all that is most excellent in them. For if he had said that the little people among the Jews, or the Pharisees, or some of the ungodly are not justified, it might have seemed as if he had left some who, by virtue of the power of free will and by virtue of the assistance of the law, were not altogether unjustified. But since he himself condemns the works of the law and makes them ungodly in the sight of God, it is evident that he condemns all who have been exceedingly diligent in law and works. But only the best and most excellent directed their efforts to the law and the works, and that only with their best and most excellent gifts (partibus), namely, with their reason and their will.

If, then, those who with the highest zeal and effort, both of reason and will, that is, with all the power of free will, exercised themselves in the law and works, were then also supported, instructed, and provoked by the law itself as with divine aid, if, I say, these are condemned for ungodliness, so that they are not justified, but are declared by them to be flesh before God, what then remains in the whole human race that is not flesh and

would be ungodly? For all are equally condemned who deal with the works of the law, whether they have practiced the law with the greatest, or with mediocre, or with no zeal at all, there is nothing in it. All could do nothing but works of the law, but works of the law do not justify; if they do not justify, they accuse those who do them as ungodly and leave them so. But the ungodly are guilty and worthy of the wrath of God. This is so clear that no one can even protest against it.

But they use to slip and escape Paul here in such a way that they call the works of the law works of outward worship (ceremonialia,) which are to be death-dealing after the death of Christ.'

I answer: This is Jerome's error and lack of understanding, which Augustine, of course, strongly resisted, but since God withdrew his hand and the devil retained the upper hand, it went out into the whole world and has remained to this day. That is why it was impossible to understand Paul and the knowledge of Christ had to be obscured. Moreover, if there had been no error in the church, this one would have been pernicious and powerful enough to suppress the gospel. By this error Jerome, if God's special grace did not intervene, deserved hell rather than heaven, so far is it from my mind that I would dare to declare him a saint or to say that he was a saint. Therefore, it is not true that Paul speaks only of works of outward worship; otherwise, how could his argument stand, by which he concludes that all are unrighteous and in need of grace? For someone might say, Admittedly, from works of outward worship we are not justified, but someone might be justified (ex moralibus) from the works of the holy ten commandments concerning the moral life? Therefore, you have not proved by your conclusion (syllogismo) that grace is necessary for these works of the holy ten commandments. What would be the use in this case of that grace, which only exempts us from works of the external.

1928 L. V. E. VII, 333-335. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2427-2430. 1929

God's service, which are the easiest of all and can already be extorted by fear or selfishness?

Now it is also erroneous that the works of outward worship are deadly and unlawful after the death of Christ. Paul never said this, but he says that they do not justify and are of no use to man in the sight of God, that he thereby becomes free from ungodliness. This means that someone can do them and still not do anything unlawful, just as eating and drinking are works that do not justify and do not make us pleasing before God, but therefore he who eats and drinks does not do anything unlawful.

They also err in not recognizing that the works of outward worship were commanded and required in the old law in the same way as the holy ten commandments, and that these therefore applied neither less nor more than the latter. But to the Jews Paul speaks primarily, as he says Rom. 2, 9. Therefore let no one doubt that by the works of the law all the works of the whole law are understood. For they cannot even be called works of the law if the law is abolished and deadly, for an abolished law is already no longer a law. This Paul knew very well, therefore he does not speak of the abolished law when he mentions the works of the law, but of a valid and ruling law. How easily he could have said otherwise: The law itself is already abolished! That would then have been clearly and plainly spoken. But we want to cite Paul himself, who interprets himself best, since he says Gal. 3, 10: "Those who deal with the works of the law are under the curse. For it is written: Cursed be every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." You see here that Paul, where he does the same thing as in the letter to the Romans and with the same words, as often as he remembers the works of the law, speaks of all the laws that are written in the book of the law.

And what is even more wonderful, he himself cites Moses, who curses those who are not in the

He preaches that those who do the works of the law are cursed, citing a contrary passage for a contrary opinion, since that passage is negative and this one is affirmative. But he does this because the matter before God is that those who are most diligent in the works of the law fulfill the law the least, because they do not have the spirit that is the fulfiller of the law. They may apply themselves to the law with their powers, but they cannot accomplish anything. So both are true, that, according to Moses, those are cursed who do not remain, and, according to Paul, those are cursed who deal with the works of the law. For both require the Spirit, without which the works of the law, however many they may be, do not justify, as Paul says; therefore they do not abide in all that is written, as Moses says.

In sum, Paul's division confirms what we have said, for he divides those who labor under the law into two parts; of some he says that they labor in the spirit, of others that they labor according to the flesh, and leaves no middle ground. For he says thus Rom. 3:20, "No flesh can be justified by works of the law." What does this mean other than that those without the Spirit labor in the law, since they are flesh, that is, ungodly and do not know God, so that these works are of no use to them. So he applies Gal. 3, 2 the same division and says: "Have you received the Spirit by works of the law, or by the preaching of faith?" And again Rom. 3:21, "Now without the law the righteousness that is before God is manifested"; and again Rom. 3:28, "So then we had it that a man might be justified without works of the law, through faith alone." By all this it is clear and evident that in Paul the Spirit is contrasted with the works of the law, not unlike all other non-spiritual things and all powers and relations (nowivibu8) of the flesh, so that it is certain that Paul's opinion is the same as that expressed by Christ Jn. 3:6, that whatever is not born of the Spirit is flesh, it is

1930 D. V. L. VII, 335-337. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2435-2433. 1931

Even the most beautiful works of the divine law may be done with great powers, no matter how beautiful, holy, or excellent they may be. For Christ's Spirit is necessary, without which everything is nothing, and only damnable. Therefore, it is to be taken for granted that Paul does not understand by works of the law those of outward worship, but all the works of the whole law. At the same time it will also be established that in the works of the law everything is condemned that is without the Spirit. But without the Spirit, that power of free will, for of this we are discussing, is the most excellent, namely, in man. For "to deal with the works of the law" is the most glorious thing that can be said of a man; for he does not say those who deal with sins and ungodliness against the law, but those who deal with the works of the law, that is, the best and those who make use of the law, that is, those who still have the assistance of the law above free will, that is, those who have been instructed and exercised in it.

Therefore, if free will, which has been supported by the law and has dealt with the law to the utmost of its ability, helps nothing and does not justify, but remains in godlessness and in the flesh, what is to be believed that it can do on its own without the law?

"Through the law (he says Rom. 3, 20.) comes knowledge of sin." Here he shows how much and how far the law is of use, namely, that free will by itself is so blind that it does not even recognize sin, but needs the law as a teacher. But whoever does not know sin, what can he do to take away sin? Certainly that he will not consider sin to be sin and that which is not sin to be sin. This is sufficiently shown by experience, how the world, through those whom it considers the best and most zealous in righteousness and piety, hates and persecutes the righteousness of God, which is preached through the gospel, and reviles it as heresy, error, and by other exceedingly shameful names. However, their works and deeds, which are truly sin and error

He praises them and spends them for righteousness and wisdom. Therefore, Paul blocks the mouth of the free will with this word, teaching that sin is shown to him by the law, as to one who does not know his sin. So much is lacking that he should grant him any power to strive for the good.

And here the question of the diatribe is solved, which is repeated so often in the book: If we are not able to do anything, what is the use of so many laws, so many commandments, so many threats, so many promises? Here Paul answers, "Through the law comes knowledge of sin." He answers this question quite differently than man or free will thinks. He says: "Free will is not proven by the law, it does not contribute to righteousness, because through the law does not come righteousness, but knowledge of sin. For this is the fruit, this the work, this the office of the law, that it is a light to the ignorant and blind, but such a light that shows the sickness, the sin, the evil, the death, the hell, the wrath of God, but it does not help, nor does it deliver from it, but is content that it has shown such. After man has recognized the disease of sin, he becomes distressed, anxious, yes, he despairs; the law does not help, much less can he help himself. But another light is needed to show the remedy. This is the voice of the gospel, which shows Christ as the deliverer from all this. This is not shown by reason or free will, and how could it show it, since it is darkness itself and needs the light of the law to show it the disease, which it does not see by its own light, but thinks it is health?

So he also treats the same question in the letter to the Galatians and says Gal. 3, 19.: "What then is the law for?" But he does not answer after the manner of the diatribe, concluding that it is a free will, but says thus, "It came to be for the sake of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." For the sake of the transgressions (he says), and not to limit them, as Jerome dreams, since Paul discusses.

1932 L. v. n. vii, 337 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2433-2136. 1933

that this is promised to the future seed, that he takes away sin and restricts it by his given righteousness, but to increase the transgressions, as he says Rom. 5:20: "The law came in beside, that sin might be made more powerful"; not as if without the law the sins did not happen or were not powerful, but because they were not recognized as transgressions, or as such powerful sins, but the most and greatest were taken for righteousness. But where sins are not recognized, there is neither opportunity nor hope for healing, because they do not suffer the hand of the Savior, since they consider themselves healthy and think they have no need of the physician. Therefore the law is necessary to make sin known, so that the proud man, who thinks he is healthy, may be humbled by the knowledge of the shamefulness and greatness of sin, and long and groan for the grace that is held out to him in Christ.

See, then, how simple the speech is: "Through the law of God comes knowledge of sin," and yet it alone is powerful enough to overthrow and destroy free will. For if it is true that he does not know of himself what sin and evil are, as he says here and in Rom. 7:7: "I did not know that evil desire was sin, when the law had not said, 'Do not lust'"; how could he ever know what righteousness and good are? If he does not know righteousness, how can he strive for it? The sin in which we are born, in which we live, weave, and are, yea, which lives, drives, and rules in us, we know not. And how should we know the righteousness which reigns apart from us, in heaven? These sayings make that miserable free will nothing, nothing at all.

Since this is so, Paul proclaims with full confidence and emphasis (autoritate) what he says Rom. 3, 21-25.: "But now without the law the righteousness that is before God is revealed and testified by the law and the prophets. But I speak of such righteousness before God as comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all and to all who believe in him.

For there is no distinction here; they are all sinners and lack the glory they should have in God, and are justified without merit by His grace, through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus, whom God presented as a mercy seat, by faith in His blood. "2c

Here Paul speaks loud flashes against the free will. First (he says) "the righteousness that is before God is revealed without the law"; he separates the righteousness of God from the righteousness of the law, because the righteousness of faith comes from grace, without the law. This, that he says without the law, can be nothing else than that Christian righteousness exists without the works of the law, so that the works of the law are not able for it or do anything to obtain it. As he says soon after Rom. 3:28., "We hold it therefore that a man is justified without works of the law, by faith alone"; and, as he said before Gal. 2:16., "By works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight." From all this it is quite clear that the effort or endeavor of the free will is quite nothing; for if righteousness before GOD exists without the law, and without works of the law, how should it not much more exist without the free will? since this is the highest endeavor of the free will, when it exercises itself in moral righteousness, or in works of the law, whereby its blindness and inability are supported. This word "without" cancels moral good works, it cancels moral righteousness, it cancels all preparation for grace; finally, compose whatever you can that free will should be able to do, so Paul will stand firm and say, Without such does righteousness exist before GOD. And although I will concede that the free will could be promoted somewhat by its efforts, namely to good works or to the righteousness of the civil or moral law, it does not come closer to the righteousness that is valid before God, and God does not consider in any respect the efforts it makes to attain its righteousness, saying that its righteousness is valid without the law. But if he does not promote

1934 L. V. a. VII, 338-340. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2436-2439. 1935

If a man is righteous in the sight of God, what good would it do him if by works and efforts (if it were possible) he also progressed to the holiness of the angels? I believe that there are no obscure or ambiguous words here, nor is there any room left for any figurative speeches, because Paul clearly distinguishes two kinds of righteousness, one of which he attributes to the law, the other to grace, and the latter is given without it and without the works of it, but the latter without it does not justify and is not able to do anything. Therefore I would like to see how free will could stand and be defended against it.

The second lightning is that he says "that the righteousness which is before God should be revealed and come to all and upon all who believe in Christ, and there should be no distinction" Rom. 3:22-24.

Again, in very clear words, he divides the whole human race into two parts: to the believers he gives the righteousness that is valid before God, to those who do not believe, he takes it away. Therefore, no one can be so foolish as to doubt that the power of free will is something other than faith in Jesus Christ. But Paul says that everything that is outside of this faith is not righteous before God. If it is not righteous before God, it must necessarily be sin. For with God there is no middle between righteousness and sin that is neither (neutrum - neutral), as it were neither righteousness nor sin. Otherwise, Paul's entire discussion, which emerges from this division, would be in vain: that which happens or is done among men is either righteousness or sin before God; righteousness if faith is present, sin if faith is not present. Among men, of course, there are intermediate things (media) and indifferent things (neutralia), in which men neither owe each other anything nor perform anything. But against God the wicked sins, whether he eats or drinks or does anything else, because he abuses God's creature in constant wickedness and ingratitude, and does not give God his honor even for a moment from the heart.

Also this is not a small flash that

He says Rom. 3:23, "They are all sinners and lack the glory they should have in God, and there is no difference here."

I ask you, what could be said more clearly? Point out one who works in free will (operarium liberi arbitrii), and answer whether he also sins with that effort of his? If he does not sin, why does Paul not exclude him, but includes him without distinction? Surely he who says "all" excludes no one, in any place, at any time, in any work, in any endeavor. For if you were to exclude any man in any work or endeavor, you would make Paulum a false teacher (falsum). For even he who works and strives in free will is included among "all" and in "all," and Paul should have looked out for him and not so freely and generally numbered him among sinners. So also the word that he says, "They lack the glory which they should have in GOD." 1) "The glory of GOD" could be taken here in a twofold way, in an active and in a suffering way (active et passive). 2) This comes from Paul's Hebrew way of speaking, which he often uses. In an active way, the glory of God is that by which He boasts before us; in a passive way, that by which we boast before God. However, it seems to me now to be taken passively, for "the faith of Christ" according to Latin expresses the faith which Christ has, but among the Hebrews "the faith of Christ" is understood of the faith which one has in Christ. Thus, "the righteousness of GOD" in Latin means that which GOD has, but among the Hebrews it is understood of that which one has from GOD and before GOD. Thus, we take the glory of GOD not according to Latin, but according to Hebrew, the one we have in GOD and before GOD, and it could be called the glory in GOD.

  1. In the Vulgate: iLAont Aorta Del - They lack the glory of GOD.
  2. According to the grammatical terminology now in use, we would say: vst can be either "Oenitivu", sudjsotivus or Osnitivus odjsottvus.

1936 L- V. L. VII. 340-342. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2439-2442. 1937

For he boasts in God who knows for certain that God is gracious to him and honors him with His gracious sight, so that what he does is pleasing in His sight, or that what is not pleasing in his sight is forgiven and borne in his sight.

Therefore, if the effort or endeavor of the free will is not sin, but something good in the sight of God, he can certainly boast and confidently speak in this glory: this pleases God well, God is gracious to him, he puts up with it and accepts it, or at least God bears and forgives it. For this is the glory of the faithful in God; those who do not have it are rather disgraced before God. But Paul says no to this here and says that they definitely lack this glory. And this is also proven by experience. Ask me of all those who strive in free will, whether you will be able to point out one who can sincerely and from the heart say about any of his efforts and endeavors: This, I know, pleases God. If I am overcome, I will grant you the palm of victory, but I know that none will be found. But if this glory is not there, so that the conscience cannot dare to know and trust for certain, this pleases GOtte, it is certain that it does not please GOtte. For as he believes, so happens to him, for he does not believe that he is certainly pleasing, which is necessary, since this is the very sin of unbelief, to doubt the mercy of God, who wants one to believe with the firmest confidence that he is merciful. Thus we convict them with the testimony of their own conscience that free will, because it has no glory in God, is constantly guilty of the sin of unbelief with all its powers, efforts and endeavors.

But what do the protectors of free will want to say about what follows Rom. 3:24: "And are justified without merit by his grace"? What is this "without merit"? What is "by his grace"? How do effort and merit agree with righteousness given freely? Perhaps they will say here that they attached extremely little to free will, kei

nally a complete merit (moritum condignum). But these are empty words. For this is sought by free will, that there is room for merit. For so the diatribe has constantly pretended and asserted 1):

"If there is no freedom of will, how can merit take place? If no merits can take place, how can rewards take place? To whom can anything be credited if justice is done without merit?"

Here Paul answers that there is absolutely no merit, but all, as much as they are justified, are justified without merit, and this is attributed to no one but the grace of God. But after righteousness has been given, the kingdom and eternal life have been given at the same time. Where is the effort now? where the endeavor? where the works? where the merits of the free will? What is the benefit of these? Darkness and ambiguity you cannot pretend; the things and the words are quite clear and simple. For though they ascribe only a very small thing to free will, yet they teach that by this very small thing we can obtain righteousness and grace. For with no other reason do they resolve this question: Why does God justify this one and abandon that one? other than by establishing free will, namely, that this one has made an effort, that one has not made an effort, and God looks upon this one graciously for the sake of his effort, but despises that one, so that he would not be unjust if he did otherwise.

And although they pretend orally and in writing that they do not obtain grace through complete merit (condigno merito), nor do they call it complete merit, yet they fool us with the word and nevertheless hold the matter. For how can the excuse be valid that they do not call it a complete merit and yet ascribe to it everything that is due to a complete merit, namely, that he who strives obtains grace with God, but he who does not strive does not obtain it?

  1. e.g. Diatribe § 8, at the end; §10; §12 and others.

1938 L. V. a. VII, 342 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2442-2444. 1939

Is this not clearly what is due to complete merit? Do they not make God one who looks at works, merits and persons? Namely, that the one, through his fault, lacks grace because he did not strive, but this one obtains grace because he strived, but would not have obtained it if he had not striven. If this is not complete merit, I would like to be taught what could then be called complete merit. In this way you could play your game with all words and say: It is not a complete merit, but it does what the complete merit does; the briar is not an evil tree, but only does what an evil tree does; the fig tree is not a good tree, but does what a good tree does; the diatribe is not godless, but it speaks and does only what a godless one does.

To these protectors of the free will happens what the proverb says: Some want to run away from the rain and fall completely into the water. 1) For out of the desire to have a different opinion than the Pelagians, they began to deny the complete merit, and just by denying it, they raise it all the more. In word and writing they deny it, in the matter itself and in the heart they establish it, and in two respects they are worse than the Pelagians. First, because the Pelagians simply, sincerely, and straightforwardly confess and assert complete merit, call every thing by its right name, and teach what is their opinion. But our people, while holding and teaching the same as the Pelagians, yet mock us with lying words and false pretenses, as if they were at variance with the Pelagians, when this is not at all the case, so that, looking at hypocrisy, we might be considered the bitterest enemies of the Pelagians, but looking at the matter and the heart, we are two-faced Pelagians. Secondly, because through this hypocrisy, we have far exceeded the grace of God.

  1. Thus Hai Jonas very appropriately reproduced the well-known saying: Inoiäit In LoMarn, äurn vult vitars

and hold it in lower esteem than the Pelagians. For these say that it is not something very little in us by which we obtain grace, but whole, complete, perfect, great, and many endeavors and works; but our people say that it is something very little and almost nothing by which we merit grace.

If, then, they are to err, they err more honestly and less arrogantly, because they say that the grace of God is highly valued, and hold it dear and precious, than those who teach that it is cheap and amounts to very little, and hold it trifling and contemptible. But Paul casts both into one lump by one word, saying, "All are justified without merit;" likewise, "That they may be justified without the law, without the works of the law." For he who asserts that justification takes place without merit in all who are justified, leaves none that can work, merit, and prepare, and leaves no work that could be called a congruum or condiguum, and crushes with the one thunderbolt of this lightning both the Pelagians with all their merit and the Sophists with their very tiny merit. The justification without merit does not suffer that you put people who work it out (operarios), because that obviously contradicts "to be given in vain" and "to be acquired by some work". Furthermore, "being justified by grace" does not suffer you to attach any worthiness to the person of any man, as he also says later in II Cap. v. 6. "But if it is by grace, it is not by merit of works, else grace would not be grace; as he also says Cap. 4, 4. Says, "But to him that dealeth in works the reward is not imputed by grace, but by duty." Therefore my Paul stands firm, as an unconquered wicked man of free will, laying low two armies with one word. For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether they be very small or great, for

1940 L. V. a. vn. 343-345. 68: That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2444-2446. 1941

he excludes none, but flashes against all in the same way.

And here see the sleepiness of all of us and what it helps if someone relies on the old fathers who have been approved through a series of so many centuries. Have they not likewise all been equally blind, and even left aside the very clear and plain words of Paul? I pray thee, what can be clearly said for grace against free will, if Paul's speech be not clear and plain? In a comparative manner (per contentionem) he proceeds to extol grace against works; then, using the clearest and simplest words, he says that we are justified without merit, and that grace would not be grace if it were acquired with works, most clearly excluding all works in the transaction of justification, in order to establish grace alone and justification without merit. And we still seek darkness in this light, and since we cannot ascribe to ourselves anything great and everything, we strive to ascribe to ourselves very tiny and small things, only in order to obtain that justification by the grace of God is not without merit and without works, as if he who denies us the greater and everything, did not rather also say no, that what is mine and small would be conducive to our attaining justification, since he has decreed that we shall be justified by his grace alone, without any works, and even without the help of the law, in which all works are included, great and small, inadequate and complete. Go now and boast of the reputation of the ancients, and rely on their sayings, of which you see that they all with one another despised Paulum, the brightest and clearest teacher, and as it were with diligence fled the morning star, even this sun, namely, because they were caught in the carnal opinion that it seemed inconsistent that no room was left for merit.

Now we want to give the example that Paul introduces in the sequel Rom. 4, 2. f. of Abraham. "If Abraham (he says) is justified by works, he has well

Glory, but not before God. What does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and this is counted to him for righteousness."

Note, I beg you, also here the division of Paul, who states a twofold righteousness of Abraham. One is from works, that is, moral and civil, but he denies that he is justified before God by this, although he is justified before men by it. Then he has glory before men, but through this righteousness he also has no glory before God. And there is no reason for anyone to say that the works of the law or of outward worship are condemned here because Abraham lived so many years before the law. Paul is simply talking about the works of Abraham and only his best. For it would be ridiculous for anyone to argue about being justified by evil works. Therefore, if Abraham is not justified by any works, but is not clothed with another righteousness, that of faith, both he himself and all his works are left under ungodliness. It is obvious that no man contributes anything to righteousness by his works, then also that no works, no endeavors, no efforts of free will are any good before God, but that they are all condemned as ungodly, unrighteous and evil. For if he himself is not righteous, neither are his works or endeavors; but if they are not righteous, they are damnable and worthy of wrath. The other is the righteousness of faith, which does not consist in any works, but in the fact that God is gracious and reckons according to His grace. And yet see how Paul bases himself on the word "reckon", how he insists on it, repeats it and inculcates it.

"But to him who works (Rom. 4:4 ff.) the reward is not reckoned by grace, but by duty. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," according to the purpose of God's grace. Then he introduces David, who speaks of the reckoning of the faith to righteousness.

1942 .v- a. vii. 345-347. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 2446-2449. 1943

Grace says Ps. 32, 2.: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity" 2c

He repeats the word "impute" ten times in this chapter. In short, Paul contrasts the one who works with the one who does not, leaving no middle ground between the two; he denies that righteousness is imputed to the one who works, but claims that righteousness is imputed to the one who does not work, if only he believes. Here is nothing by which free will can escape or slip away by its effort or endeavor. For he will either be reckoned to those who deal in works, or to those who do not; if to those who deal in works, you hear here that righteousness is not reckoned to him; if to those who do not deal in works, yet GOtte believes, righteousness is reckoned to him. But then there will no longer be any power of free will, but a creature renewed by faith; but if righteousness is not imputed to him who deals in works, it will be evident that his works are nothing but sins, evil and ungodly in the sight of God.

And here no sophist can be so bold as to say that, though man be evil, yet his work cannot be evil. For Paul here makes reference to man, not par excellence, but as one who deals in works, in order to declare in a very clear word that even the works and endeavors of man are condemned, of whatever kind they may be, and with whatever name or appearance they may be endowed. But he is speaking of good works, because he is speaking of being just and deserving. And since he speaks of him who deals with works, he speaks in general of all who deal with works and of all their works, but especially he speaks of good and honorable works, otherwise his division of those who deal with works and those who do not deal with works would not hold.

I pass over here the very strong evidence

There are no reasons that come from the purpose of grace, from the promise, from the power of the law, from the original sin, from the election of God, of which there is none that does not by itself fundamentally abolish free will. For if grace comes from purpose Eph. 1:11 or predestination, it comes by necessity, not by our effort or endeavor, as we have shown above. Likewise, since God promised grace before the law, as Paul concludes here and in the letter to the Galatians Gal. 3:17, 18, it does not come from works or the law, otherwise the promise would be nothing. So also faith would be nothing Rom. 4, 14 (by which Abraham was justified before the law), if the works were able to do something. Likewise, since the law is the power of sin 1 Cor. 15:56, the

If the law only shows sin, but does not take it away, it makes the conscience guilty before God and threatens wrath. This is what he says, Rom. 4, 15: "The law causes wrath." How, then, would it be possible that righteousness should be obtained through the law? But if we are not helped by the law, how could we be helped by the power of the will alone?

Likewise Rom. 5, 12., since by the One offense (delicto) of the One Adam we are all under sin and condemnation, how then can we do anything that is not sin and condemnation? For since he says "all," he excludes no one, not even the power of free will, not even any operarium, whether he does or does not do works, whether he strives or does not strive, under "all" he is necessarily included with the others. And we would not sin or be condemned by Adam's one offense if it were not our offense; for who should ever be condemned for another's offense, especially before God? But ours will not be by imitation or by doing, since this could not be Adam's one offense, since it was not he but we who committed it; but ours will be by imitation or by doing, since this could not be Adam's one offense, since it was not he but we who committed it.

1944 L. V. a. VII, 347 f. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2449-2452. 1945

through birth. But this must be discussed elsewhere. Therefore, even original sin allows free will to do nothing but 1) sin and be damned.

These reasons of proof, I say, I pass over because they are quite obvious and very strong, then also because we have already said something about them above. If we now wanted to cite everything that overthrows free will in Paul alone, we could do nothing better than to treat the whole of Paul in a continuous commentary and show that almost in every single word the so highly praised power of free will is refuted, as I have already done in the third and fourth chapters. I have treated these mainly for the sake of showing the drowsiness of all of us who read Paul in such a way that we read nothing less in these quite clear passages than these exceedingly strong grounds of proof against free will; and in order to show that confidence, which is based on the reputation and writings of the old teachers, to be a foolish one; at the same time I wanted to leave it to be considered what those quite obvious grounds of proof would accomplish if they were treated with care and right judgment.

I say of myself, I am very surprised that although Paul so often uses those general words: all, none, not, nowhere, without, like Rom. 3, 12.: "They have all gone astray"; Rom. 3, 10. "there is none righteous"; Rom. 3, 12. "there is none that doeth good, not even one"; Rom. 5, 12. "all are sinners and condemned through one man's sin"; Rom. 3, 21. 28. "by faith without the law; without works we are justified"; so that if any man would speak otherwise, yet he could not speak it more clearly and distinctly; I wonder, I say, how it could happen that contrary, yea, contradictory, expressions could have arisen against these general expressions and sayings, namely, Some are not departed, not unjust, not wicked, not sinners, not condemned; there is something in man that is good, and after good.

  1. In Latin, yuaria is missing here, probably only by oversight.

as if the man who strives for the good, whoever he may be, were not included in this word all, none, not. I would have nothing, even if I wanted to, what I could hold against Paul or answer, but would be forced to include the power of my free will together with his effort among those all and none, of which Paul speaks, if a new linguistic doctrine or a new use of language were not introduced.

And one could perhaps assume a figurative speech and twist out words, if he used such a designation only once or in one place. But now he uses them constantly, then also simultaneously in affirmative and negative sentences, and everywhere holds the opinion of the general expressions (partium) in comparative and dividing speech (per contentionem et partitionem) in such a way that not only the nature of the expressions and the speech itself, but also the following, the preceding, the secondary circumstances, the intention and just the core (corpus) of the whole discussion convince the common sense that Paul's opinion is that apart from faith in Christ there is only sin and damnation. And we promised that we would refute free will in such a way that all opponents could not resist. I believe to have fulfilled this, even if the defeated should not agree with our opinion or remain silent. For that is not in our power, that is a gift of the spirit of God.

But before we listen to the evangelist John, we want to add to the resolution (coronidem) of Paul and are ready, if this should not suffice, to let the whole Paul enter the field with a continuous explanation against free will. In Rom. 8, 5, where he divides the human race into two parts, into flesh and spirit, as Christ does Joh. 3, 6, he says: "Those who are carnal are carnally minded, but those who are spiritual are spiritually minded. That Paul here calls all carnal who are not spiritual is evident both from the division itself and the contrast of spirit and flesh, and from the words of Paul himself, where it follows v. 9, "But ye are

1946 L. V. L. VII, 348-350. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2452-2454. 1947

not carnal, but spiritual, otherwise God's Spirit dwells in you. But he that hath not Christ's Spirit is not his." For what else does he mean here, when he says: "You are not carnal if God's Spirit is in you", but that those are necessarily carnal who do not have the Spirit? And whoever is not of Christ, what is he but of the devil? Therefore it is certain that those who do not have the Spirit are carnal and under the devil.

Now let us see what he thinks of the effort and the power of the free will of those who are carnal Rom. 8:8: "Those who are carnal may not please God"; and again v. 6: "To be carnally minded is death"; and again v. 7: "To be carnally minded is enmity against God"; likewise v. 7: "It is not subject to the law of God, for neither is it able." Here may a protector of free will answer me, how can that strive for good which is death, which is not pleasing to GOtte, which is enmity against GOtte, disobedient to GOtte, and cannot obey? For he did not mean to say: To be carnally minded is dead or an enemy of GOD, but death itself, enmity itself, to which it is impossible to be subject to the law of GOD or to please GOD, as he had also said shortly before [Rom. 8,3.For what was impossible for the law (because it was weakened by the flesh), that God did." 2c I am also familiar with Origen's fable of a threefold direction of the mind (affectu), one of which he calls flesh, the other soul, the third spirit; but the soul is that middle thing which can be turned to either side, either of the flesh or of the spirit. But these are his dreams, he only says them, but does not prove them. Paul here calls flesh all that is without the Spirit, as we have shown. Therefore, the highest virtues of the best people are carnal, that is, dead and hostile to God, not subject to God's law, not able to be subject, and not pleasing to God. For Paul not only says that they are not subject, but also that they are not able to be subject. So also Christ says Matth. 7, 18: "An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

and Cap. 12:34: "How can ye speak good, being evil?" Here you see that we not only speak evil, but also cannot speak good.

And although he says elsewhere Matth. 7, 11. that we, even though we are bad, can still give good gifts to our children, he still denies that we do good, even in the giving of good gifts, because the creature of God is good, which we give: nevertheless we ourselves are not good, nor do we give those good gifts in a good way. But He speaks to all, even to His disciples, so that this twofold judgment of Paul is established: "The righteous lives by faith" Gal. 3:11, and Rom. 14:23: "Whatever does not come from faith is sin." The latter follows from the former. For if there is nothing by which we are justified except faith, it is evident that those who are without faith are not yet justified; but those who are not justified are sinners; but sinners are evil trees, and can do nothing but sin and bring forth evil fruit. Therefore, free will is nothing but a servant of sin, death and the devil, does nothing and can do nothing but evil.

Take the example in the 10th chapter Rom. 10, 20., which is drawn from Isaiah: "I am found of them that sought me not, and am appeared unto them that asked not for me." This he says of the Gentiles, that it was given to them to hear and know Christ, since they could not even have a thought of Christ before, much less seek him or prepare for him with the power of free will. By this example it is sufficiently clear that grace comes so completely without merit that not even a thought of it, let alone an effort or endeavor, precedes it. So also Paul; when he was still a Saul, what did he do with that supreme power of free will? Surely he had in his heart the best and most honorable thing in view of reason. But behold, by what effort did he find grace? Not only does he not seek it, but he even receives it while he was still raging against it. On the other hand, of the Jews he says

1948 L. V. a. VII, 350-3S2. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVIII, 2454-2457. 1949

in the 9th chapter Rom. 9, 30. f.: "The Gentiles, who have not stood after righteousness, have obtained the righteousness that comes by faith. But Israel hath walked after the law of righteousness, and hath not obtained the law of righteousness." What can any protector of free will murmur against this? The Gentiles, at the time when they are filled with ungodliness and all vices, attain righteousness without merit from God's mercy; the Jews lack it, while they apply themselves to righteousness with the highest effort and endeavor. Is this not so much as saying that the effort of the free will is in vain while it strives for the best, and is it not indicated that it rather grows worse and goes back? Nor can anyone say that they did not strive with the highest power of free will. Even Paul gives them the testimony in the 10th chapter Rom. 10,2, "that they strive for God, but with lack of understanding". Therefore, the Jews lack nothing that is attributed to free will, and yet they attain nothing, but the opposite happens. With the Gentiles there is nothing that is attributed to free will, and yet the righteousness of God follows. What is this but that by the very clear example of both peoples Jews and Gentiles, then also by the very clear testimony of Paul, it is confirmed that grace is given in vain to those who have not earned it and are not worthy of it at all, and that it is also not "attained" by any efforts, endeavors, tiny or great, even of the best and most honorable people who seek righteousness with burning zeal and follow it.

Now let us also come to John, who also with many words and violently puts down free will. Right at the beginning he ascribes to free will such a great blindness that it does not even see the light of truth; so much is lacking in it that it could strive for the same. For he says thus John 1:5: "The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not"; and soon after v. 10:III: "It was in the world, and the world knew it.

not. He came into his own, and his own did not receive him."

What do you think he means by the world? Can you exclude any other person from this name than the one who is born again through the Holy Spirit? And in this apostle there is a peculiar use of this word "world"; he understands by it the whole human race. Therefore, everything he says about the world must be understood from the point of view of free will, since this is the most excellent thing about man. Therefore the world does not germinate the light of truth Joh. 1, 10.; the world hates Christ and His own Joh. 15, 19.; the world does not know and see the Holy Spirit Joh. 14, 17.; the whole world is in trouble [1 Joh. 5, 19.All that is in the world is the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the life of hope; do not love the world 1 Joh. 2, 16. 15.; you are of the world (He says Joh. 8, 23.); the world cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I testify of it that its works are evil Joh. 7, 7..

All these and many similar things are loud testimonies (praeconia) of the free will, namely about the most important part, which rules in the world under the devil's kingdom. For John also speaks of the world in contrast [to the Holy Spirit, so that the world is what has not been brought to the Spirit by the world, as he says to the apostles [Joh. 15, 19. 16.2c Now if there were some in the world who by virtue of free will strove for good, as there should be if free will were capable of anything, John would rightly have used a milder expression (wmpsrassot vsrbuiv) out of consideration for them, lest by the general word he should also include them among so much evil of which he accuses the world. Since he does not do this, it is evident that he makes free will guilty in every respect, as well as the world, for whatever the world may do, it does by the power of free will, that is, by reason and will, the most excellent parts of it. It follows John 1:12, 13:

"But as many as would receive him, to them gave

1950- L. V. a. VII, 352 f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2457-2430. 1951

he power to become God's children who believe in His name. Who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of GOD."

By this perfect separation, he rejects from the kingdom of Christ the blood, the will of the flesh, the will of the man. The blood, I believe, are the Jews, that is, those who wanted to be children of the kingdom because they were children of Abraham and the fathers, namely, by boasting of the blood. By the will of the flesh I mean the efforts of the people by which they practiced the law and works. For flesh here means carnal people without the spirit, who have the will and the effort, but have it in a carnal way because the spirit is not there. By the will of man I understand in general the efforts of all, whether they be in the law or without the law, namely of the Gentiles and of any people, so that the opinion is: neither from the birth of the flesh, nor from efforts in the law, nor by any other human effort children of God are born, but only by divine birth. If, then, they are not born of the flesh, nor raised by the law, nor prepared by any discipline of man, but are born again of God, it is evident that free will can do nothing here. For I believe that "man" in this place is taken according to the Hebrew way for any arbitrary one or rather for any one, as "flesh", for the sake of contrast, must be taken for the people without the Spirit; "will", however, for the highest power in man, namely, for the most important part of free will.

But even if we do not understand all the individual words, the main part (summa) of the matter itself is quite clear, because John, by this division, rejects everything that is not divine birth (generatio), saying that God's children do not become other than by birth from God, which, as he himself interprets it, happens by believing in His name. Under this rejection, the will of man, or free will, is necessary.

way included, since it is neither a birth from God, nor also faith. But if free will were capable of anything, John should not have rejected the will of man, nor should he have withdrawn men from it, and should have referred only to faith and regeneration, lest the word of Isaiah, Cap. 5, 20, be said to him: "Woe to you who call good evil. But now that he likewise rejects the blood, the will of the flesh, the will of the man, it is certain that the will of the man is no more able to make God's children than the blood or the fleshly birth. But there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the birth of the flesh does not make children of God, as Paul also says in Romans 9:8: "These are not the children of God who are children according to the flesh," and he proves this by the example of Ishmael and Esau.

The same John introduces the Baptist, who speaks of Christ as follows John 1:16., "From His fullness we have all taken grace for grace."

He says that we have received grace from the fullness of Christ, but for what merit or effort? For grace (he says), namely of Christ, as Paul also says Rom. 5:15: "God's grace and gift abounded to many through the grace of the one man JEsu Christ." Where is now the effort of the free will, by which grace is acquired? Here John says that grace is not received by no effort on our part alone, but even by foreign grace or foreign merit, namely of the one man JEsu Christ. So it is either wrong that we receive our grace by a foreign grace, or it is obvious that free will is nothing, because both cannot exist at the same time, that the grace of God is so small that it is obtained in general and everywhere by a tiny effort of some man, and again so dear that it is given to us in the grace and by the grace of this one so great man.

At the same time, through this passage, I would like to have reminded the protectors of free will that

1952 L. v. a. vii, 3S3-3SS. 68. that free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2460-2463. 1953

they should know that they are deniers of Christ when they claim free will. For, if I obtain the grace of God through my efforts, what do I need Christ's grace for in order to receive my grace? Or what do I lack if I have the grace of God? But the Diatribe said, and all the Sophists also say, that we obtain the grace of God by our efforts, and prepare ourselves to receive it, not completely (de condigno), but to some extent (de congruo), that is, completely denying Christ, for whose grace we receive grace, as here the Baptist testifies. For I have refuted that "in a complete way" and "to some extent" above, and have shown that they are empty words, but that in fact they hold the opinion that it is a complete merit, and that in greater impiety than the Pelagians, as we have said. Thus it comes about that the godless sophists, together with the diatribe, deny the Lord Jesus Christ, who bought us, more than the Pelagians or any heretics have ever denied him, so that grace does not suffer any part or any power of free will beside itself. But that the protectors of free will deny Christ is proved not only by this scripture, but also by their own lives. For this reason they have no longer made Christ a lovely mediator, but a terrible judge, whom they strive to appease through the intercession of the mother Christ and the saints, then also through many self-invented works, customs, services, vows, with all of which they strive to appease Christ and to obtain grace from him; but they do not believe that he represents them to God Rom. 8, 34. and obtains grace for them through his blood, and grace (as it says here) for grace. And as they believe, so it happens to them, because Christ is in truth and rightly an inexorable judge for them, since they leave him as their mediator and most gracious Savior and regard his blood and his grace less than the efforts and endeavors of free will.

Now let us also hear an example of free will. Namely Nicodemus is a

Man in whom no deficiency can be found with regard to what free will is able to do, for what has this man omitted in endeavor or effort? He confesses Joh. 3, 1. ff. that Christ is true and has come from God, he praises the signs, he comes at night to hear and discuss the rest. Does one not see that by the power of his free will he has sought that which pertains to godliness and blessedness? But look how he starts when he hears that the true way to blessedness is taught by Christ through regeneration; does he acknowledge it or does he confess that he has ever sought it? Yes, he so abhors it and becomes so confused that he not only says he does not understand it, but also turns away from it as from something impossible. How (he says) can this happen? And this is really not to be wondered at, for who has ever heard that man must be born again of water and the Spirit unto blessedness? Who has ever thought that the Son of God had to be exalted so that all who believe in Him might not perish but have eternal life? Have the most perceptive and best worldly wise men ever thought of this? Have the most distinguished in this world ever recognized this wisdom (scientiam)? Has the free will of any man ever striven for it? Does not Paul confess Rom. 16, 25. f. 1 Cor. 2, 7. that this wisdom is hidden in secret, foretold through the prophets, but revealed through the gospel, so that it has been hidden from eternity and unknown to the world?

What do you want me to say? Let us consult experience. Even the whole world, even human reason, even free will, is forced to confess that it did not know or hear of Christ before the gospel came into the world. But if he did not know Him, much less did he seek Him, or seek Him, or strive for Him. But Christ is the way, the truth, the life and the blessedness Joh. 14, 6.. So he confesses, willingly or unwillingly, that he could neither know nor seek that which is the way, the truth, and the blessedness.

1954 L. v. a. vii, 355-357. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xviii, 2463-2465. 1955

Nevertheless, we are nonsensical against this confession itself and our own experience, and argue with empty words that there is such a great power left in us that knows and can apply itself to that which concerns blessedness; This is nothing else than saying that Christ, the Son of God, is exalted for us, although no one could ever have known or taken it into consideration, yet even this ignorance is not ignorance, but knowledge of Christ, that is, of the things that belong to blessedness. Do you not yet see and grasp with your hands that the assertors of free will are quite nonsensical, since they call that knowledge of which they themselves confess that it is ignorance? Does this not call darkness light? Is. 5, 20. Namely, God blocks the mouth of free will so violently by his own confession and experience; yet even so he cannot remain silent and give glory to God.

Further, since Christ is called the way, the truth, and the life, and in such opposition that all that is not Christ is neither a way but error, nor truth but a lie, nor life but death, free will, because it is neither Christ nor in Christ, must consist in error, in falsehood, and in death. Where, then, and whence, is that middle and indifferent thing (neutrum == neutral), namely, that power of free will, which, though it is not Christ (that is, the way, the truth, and the life), nor error, nor lie, nor death, yet is supposed to exist? For if all that is said of Christ and grace were not spoken in contrast, so that it is opposed to the opposite, namely, that all that is apart from Christ is nothing but the devil, which is outside grace, nothing but wrath, which is outside light, nothing but darkness, which is outside the way, nothing but error, which is outside the truth, nothing but lies, which is outside life, nothing but death, what, I pray thee, would all the preaching of the apostles and all the Scriptures accomplish? Certainly everything would be said in vain, since it would not prove compellingly that Christ is necessary,

They would then find a middle thing, which in itself would be neither evil nor good, neither Christ's nor the devil's. It would be neither true nor false, neither living nor dead. This would be called the most excellent and highest thing in the whole human race.

Therefore, choose whichever of the two you like. If you admit that Scripture speaks in opposition, then you will only be able to say of free will what is opposed to Christ, namely, that error, death, the devil and all evil reign in it. If you do not admit that it speaks in opposition, you invalidate Scripture so that it can do nothing, nor prove that Christ is necessary, and so you empty Christ and corrupt the whole of Scripture by establishing free will. Furthermore, when you pretend in words that you confess Christ, you deny him in fact and in your heart, for if the power of the free will is not entirely erroneous and also not damnable, but looks to what is honorable and good, and to that which concerns salvation, and wants the same, then it is healthy and has no need of Christ as a physician Matth. 9, 12], nor has Christ redeemed that part of man, for what need is there of light and life where there is light and life?

But if it [the power of free will) is not redeemed by Christ, then the best in man is not redeemed, but is good and unharmed by itself. Then God is also unjust when he condemns any man, because he condemns what is best and healthy in man, that is, an innocent man, because there is no man who does not have free will. And even though an evil man abuses it, it is taught that the power itself is not extinguished by it, that it does not and could not strive for the good. But if it is of this nature, it is undoubtedly good, holy and just; therefore it must not be condemned, but separated from the man to be condemned. But this cannot happen, and if it could happen, then man would now, without free will, no longer even be a man, could neither be

1956 L. V. a. VII, 357-359. 68: That free will is nothing. W. LVIII, 2465-2468. 1957

He could neither be damned nor saved and would be completely an unreasonable animal and no longer immortal. Therefore, it only remains that God is unjust, who condemns that good, righteous, holy power that does not need Christ in man, even if it is connected with an evil man.

But let us continue in John: "He that believeth on him (saith he Cap. 3, 18.) is not judged; but he that believeth not is judged already, because he believeth not the name of the only begotten Son of GOD."

Answer whether free will is to be counted as a believer or not. If he is, then he has no need of grace, because he believes in Christ through himself, whom he neither knows nor thinks of in himself. If he is not to be counted among the faithful, then he is already judged; what is that but that he is condemned before God? But GOt condemns only the ungodly, so he is ungodly. But what godly thing should the ungodly strive for? Nor do I believe that the power of free will can be exempted, since he speaks of the whole man, of whom he says that he will be damned. Then unbelief is not a gross inclination (affectus), but the highest, which sits and reigns in the castle of the will and reason, as well as the opposite disposition to it, namely faith. But to disbelieve is to deny God and to make Him a liar, 1 John 5:10: "If we do not believe, we make God a liar." Now how can that power, which sets itself against God and makes Him a liar, strive for good? If that force were not unbelieving and godless, he should not have said of the whole man, "He is already judged," but thus: man according to his gross inclinations is already judged, but according to what is best and most excellent in him he is not judged, because he strives for faith, or rather he is already believing.

So, where the Scripture so often says Ps. 116, 11.: "All men are liars", we will say for the sake of the reputation of free will: On the contrary, rather the Scripture lies, because man according to his best part is not a liar.

Liar, that is, according to reason and will, but only according to the flesh, blood and marrow, so that that whole, from which man has his name, namely reason and will, is sound and holy. Likewise also the word of the Baptist Joh. 3, 36. f.: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him," must be understood thus: "on him," that is, on the gross inclinations of man abideth the wrath of God, but on that power of the free will, namely the will and the reason, abideth grace and everlasting life. In this way, in order for free will to exist, one would like to draw everything that is said in Scripture against the ungodly, by assuming the whole to be said for one part (per synecdoche), only to the animal part of man, so that the part endowed with reason and truly human would remain unharmed. Then I would be able to give thanks to the assertors of free will, "sin" with confidence, and be sure that reason and will, or free will, could not be condemned, because it is never extinguished, but remains constantly healthy, just, and holy. But where will and reason are blessed, I shall rejoice that the shameful and animal flesh is separated from it and condemned; so much so that I would not wish Christ to be a redeemer for it. You see where the doctrine of free will takes us, that it denies everything divine and human, temporal and eternal, and makes a mockery of itself with so many monstrosities.

Likewise, the Baptist says John 3:27, "A man can take nothing, except it be given him from heaven."

Here the diatribe may only stop boasting of its great store, since it lists everything we have from heaven. We are not talking about nature, but about grace, and the question is not what we are like on earth, but what we are like in heaven before God. We know that man is made Lord over the things that are under him, over which he has right and free will, that they should obey him and do what he himself does.

1958 ' D. v.a. vii, 359f. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. XVIII, 2468-2471. 1959

wants and thinks. But this is the question whether he has free will against God, that he must obey and do what man wants, or rather whether God has free will over man, that he must want and do what God wants, and can do nothing but what he wants and does. Here the Baptist says that he can take nothing but what is given to him from heaven; therefore free will must be nothing.

Likewise John 3:31, "He that is of the earth is of the earth, and speaketh of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all."

Here again he makes all earthly, and says that those are earthly minded and speak, who are not Christ's, does not leave some in a middle position. But free will is definitely not that which comes from heaven, therefore it must be from earth and must necessarily be earthly-minded and speak earthly. Now if any power in man, at any time, in any place, or in any work, were not earthly-minded, the Baptist would have had to exclude it, and not say in general of all who are apart from Christ: they are of the earth, they speak of the earth.

So Christ also says afterwards in the 8th Cap. V. 23: "You are of this world, I am not of this world; you are from below, I am from above.

But those to whom he spoke had free will, namely reason and will, and yet he says they are of the world. What new thing would he say to them if he said that they were of the world according to the flesh and the gross inclinations? Did not the whole world know this before? Furthermore, what need would there be to say that men are of the world according to the part in which they are animal, since in this way also the animals are of the world?

Furthermore the word where Christ Joh. 6, 44. says: "No one can come to me unless my Father draws him", what does it leave to the free will? For He says that it is necessary for someone to hear and learn from the Father Himself, then also v. 45 that all must be taught by God. Here he teaches

Truly, not only that the works and efforts of the free will are in vain, but also that even the word of the gospel itself (which is spoken of in this passage) is heard in vain, unless the Father Himself speaks, teaches and draws within. No one can, no one can (he says) come, that is, of that power by which man could strive for Christ in anything, that is, for that which serves for blessedness, it is claimed that it is nothing. And it is of no use to free will what the diatribe from Augustine adduces in order to remove this quite clear and exceedingly powerful passage, namely, that God draws, just as we lure a sheep by holding out a twig. By this similitude, she thinks, it is proved that in us resides the power to follow the course of God. But this similitude has no power here, because God does not only hold out one good, but all His goods, and then even His own Son Christ, and yet no man follows if the Father does not hold out and draw inwardly in another way; indeed, the whole world pursues the Son whom He holds out. This simile fits the godly very well, who are already sheep and know God, their shepherd. They live in the spirit and follow the impulse of it wherever God wants and whatever He may hold before them. But the ungodly does not come, even if he has heard the word, unless the Father draws him within and teaches him; this he does by giving the spirit. There is a different pull than that which happens outwardly, there Christ is held out by the illumination of the Spirit, by virtue of which man is drawn to Christ by the sweetest impulse (raptu), or rather God (Deum), who draws him and speaks to him as a teacher, suffers, 1) than that man himself should seek and run.

We want to cite another passage from John, where he says Cap. 16, 9. "The Spirit will punish the world for sin, because they do not believe in me."

Here you see that it is sin not to believe

  1. i.e. he behaves suffering against God, not active.

1960 D- V- a. VII, 360-362. 68. That free will is nothing. W. XVHI, 2471-2474. 1961

in Christ. But this sin is not attached to skin or hair, but is in the reason and the will itself. But since he makes the whole world guilty of this sin, and since it is known by experience that this sin was just as unknown to the world as it was to Christ, since it is revealed by the punishment of the spirit, it is clear that the free will with its will and its reason is caught in this sin and is considered condemned before God. Therefore, as long as he does not know Christ, nor even believes in him, he cannot want anything good nor strive for it, but inevitably serves sin where he Christ is unknown. In short, because Scripture everywhere preaches Christ in opposition and contrast (as I have said), that it subjects everything that is without Christ's Spirit to the devil, to ungodliness, to error, to darkness, to sin, to death, and to the wrath of God, so also all the testimonies, however many they are, which speak of Christ, will fight against free will, but they are innumerable, indeed, all Scripture. Therefore, if we submit the matter to the judgment of the holy Scriptures, we have won the victory in every respect, so that there is not a single letter or tittle left that does not condemn the doctrine of free will.

But that the Scriptures preach Christ in opposition and contrast, this all Christians know and confess in general, although the great theologians and protectors of free will do not know this, or pretend not to know it. They know, I say, that there are two kingdoms in the world, which oppose each other most fiercely, and that in the one the devil rules, who is called the prince of this world by Christ John 12:31 and the god of this world by Paul 2 Corinthians 4:4.], who holds all captive according to his will, who are not snatched away from him by the Spirit of Christ, as Paul 2 Tim. 2, 26. also testifies, and does not allow them to be snatched away by any power, except by the Spirit of God, as Christ testifies Luc. 11, 21. in the likeness of the strong man who keeps his palace in peace. In the other, Christ reigns. This one contends ceaselessly with the devil's kingdom and against

We are placed in it not by our own strength, but by the grace of God Col. 1, 13, through which we are delivered from this evil world and saved from the authority of darkness. The recognition and confession of these two kingdoms, which constantly fight each other with such great strength and zeal, would alone be sufficient to refute the doctrine of free will, because we are forced to be servants in the devil's kingdom if we are not pulled out by God's power. This, I say, the common people know, and also confess it abundantly by proverbs, prayers, aspirations and by their whole life.

I pass over the saying that is truly my Achilles, which the diatribe has bravely passed by without touching, namely, that Paul teaches Rom. 7:15 and Gal. 5:17 that there is such a mighty battle of the spirit and the flesh in the saints and the godly that they cannot do what they will. From this I have drawn the conclusion: If the nature of man is so evil that in those who have been born again through the Spirit it not only does not strive for good, but also fights against it and is hostile, how should there be an effort for good in those who, not yet born again, are slaves in the old man under the devil? For Paul does not speak there only of the gross inclinations, through which the diatribe, as it were, is wont to escape from all scriptural passages by a practicable (commune) evasion, but he reckons among the works of the flesh heresy, idolatry, strife and discord, which prevail without fail in those highest powers, namely in reason and the will. Therefore, if the flesh fights against the Spirit in the saints through these impulses (affectibus), it will fight much more against God in the ungodly and in free will. Therefore he calls the same Rom. 8, 7. an enmity against God. This reason, I say, I would like to see refuted, and that free will would be defended against it.

I truly confess of myself, even if it could happen, I would not want a free will to be given to me, or that

1962 v. L, vii, 362-364. XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus. W. xvm, 2474-2476. 1963

I would not be left with anything in my hands by which I could strive for salvation, not only because I could not stand up to so many adversities and dangers, then also against so many attempts of the devils, and would not be able to keep it, since a devil is more powerful than all men and also no man could become blessed, but because, even if there were no dangers, no adversities, no devils, I would still be forced to constantly toil in the unknown and to make strokes of the air, because even my conscience, even if I lived and worked forever, would never become certain and sure how much it would have to do in order to do enough for God. For with every perfect work there would still remain the fear of conscience, whether it would please God, or whether he would still demand something beyond that, as the experience of all work drivers proves and I have learned enough to my great detriment in fo many years.

But now that God has taken my blessedness from my will (arbitrium) and placed it in His own, and has promised that He will preserve me not by my working and running, but by His grace and mercy, I am sure and certain that He is faithful and will not lie to me, then also so mighty and great that no devils, no adversities can overpower Him or snatch me from Him. "No one" (he says) "will snatch them out of my hand, because the Father who gave them to me is greater than all" John 10:28, 29. Thus it comes to pass that, though not all, yet some and many will be saved, whereas by the power of free will no one at all would be saved, but we would all be lost altogether. Then we are also sure and certain that we please God, not by the merit of our work, but by the grace of his mercy, which is promised to us, and that he does not impute to us if we have done too little or too badly, but fatherly forgives and corrects. This is the glory of all the saints in their God.

But if you find it difficult to defend God's goodness and justice, because He condemns those who do not deserve it, that is, those who are so ungodly that they are born in ungodliness.

cannot advise themselves in any way that they should not be godless, remain and be condemned, and be forced by the necessity of their nature to sin and be lost, as Paul says: "We were all children of wrath, just as the others were," since they were created as such by God Himself from the seed that was corrupted by the sin of the one Adam:

Thus, God is to be honored and feared as the most gracious (reverendus) in those whom he justifies and makes blessed as completely unworthy, and at least something of his divine wisdom is to be conceded, so that one believes that he is just, even where he seems to us to be unjust. For if his justice were of such a nature that it could be declared just by human comprehension, it would not be divine at all, and would differ in nothing from human justice. But since He is the true and only God, then also completely incomprehensible and inaccessible to human reason, it is reasonable, even necessary, that His justice is also incomprehensible, as Paul exclaims in Romans 11:33, saying: "O what depth of wisdom and knowledge of God! How utterly incomprehensible are his judgments and inscrutable his ways!" But they would not be incomprehensible if we were able to understand in all things why they are just. What is man compared to God? How much is our power compared to his power? What is our strength compared to His powers? What is our knowledge compared to His wisdom? What is our essence (substantia) compared to his essence? In short, what is everything that is ours versus everything that is his?

If, therefore, we confess, as nature teaches us, that human power, strength, wisdom, knowledge, essence, and all that is ours, is nothing at all, if it is held against divine power, strength, wisdom, knowledge, and essence, how great is our folly, that we alone find fault (vexemus) with the justice and judgment of God, and arrogate to our judgment such greatness as to apprehend, judge, and estimate the judgment of God? Why do we not say

1964 L. V. L. VII, 364-366. 68: That free will is nothing. W. xvm, 2476-2479. 1965

Similarly, here too: Our judgment is nothing if it is compared with God's judgment? Consult even reason, whether it be not convicted and forced to confess itself foolish and presumptuous, that it does not let the judgment of God be incomprehensible, since it confesses that all other divine things are incomprehensible. Namely, in all other things we concede divine majesty to God, but in judgment we are ready to deny it, nor can we believe so much that he is just, although he has promised us that it will happen when he reveals his glory, that we shall then see and grasp with our hands that he has been just and is just.

I will give an example to strengthen this belief and to enlighten the ungodly eye (ad consolandum) that suspects God of unrighteousness. Behold, God so rules this fleshly world in outward things that if you look at the judgment of human reason and follow it, you are forced to say either there is no God, or God is unjust, as that poet says: "Often I am sorely tempted to think that there is no God. For behold, how exceedingly well the wicked fare, and how exceedingly ill the good, as the proverbs testify, and the experience from which the proverbs come: The greater the evil, the better the fortune. "The tabernacles of the wicked (says Job 12:6) have abundance"; and the 73rd Psalm v. 12 laments that sinners have great riches in the world. I pray thee, is it not quite unreasonable in the judgment of all, that the wicked prosper, and the good suffer misfortune? But this is the way of the world. Here even the best minds have fallen in such a way that they deny that God is, and invent that fate arranges everything by chance, like the Epicureans and Pliny. Then Aristotle also holds that his highest being (primum Ens), in order to free it from all misery, sees nothing of all things but itself, because he believes that it would be very annoying for him to see so much evil and so much injustice.

But the prophets who believed that GOD is, are challenged even more because of the unrighteousness of GOD, like Jeremiah,

Job, David, Assaph and others. What do you think Demosthenes and Cicero thought, since they had done everything they could and received such a reward that they perished miserably? And yet this injustice of God, which is very evident to reason (probabilis) and is demonstrated by such reasons of proof that no reason nor light of nature can resist, is very easily overruled by the light of the gospel and the knowledge of grace, by which we are taught that the wicked live well in body, but are lost in soul. And this is the short solution of this whole insoluble question in one word, namely, that there is a life after this life, in which everything that has not been punished and rewarded here will be punished and rewarded there, since this life is nothing else than the forerunner or rather the beginning of the life to come.

If, therefore, the light of the gospel, which alone stands in the word and faith, does so much that this question, which at all times has been treated and never solved, is so easily resolved and settled, what do you suppose will happen when the light of the word and faith cease, and the matter itself and the divine majesty as it is will be revealed? Do you not think that then the light of glory can most easily resolve the question which is insoluble in the light of the word or grace, since the light of grace so easily resolves the question which is insoluble in the light of nature? Grant me a threefold light: the light of nature, the light of grace, and the light of glory, as is commonly and well distinguished. In the light of nature it is insoluble that this should be just, that the good should be afflicted, and that the evil should prosper. But the light of grace resolves this.

In the light of grace, it is insoluble how God can condemn him who, by his own powers, can do nothing but sin and be guilty; here both the light of nature and the light of grace decide that the guilt lies not in the wretched man but in the unjust God, for they can

1966 L- v.". vo, "> s. XII. Älther's dispute with Erasmus. V. xr-i", ""nv-rr". 1967

not judge God differently, who bestows the crown of victory (coronat) on one godless man for nothing, without merit, and not on another, but condemns him, even though he may be less godless or at least no longer godless. But the light of glory decides otherwise, and will hereafter show that God, whose judgment is now made according to an incomprehensible justice, is of an entirely just and manifest justice - that we should believe this for the time being, reminded and fortified by the example of the light of grace, which performs a similar miracle with respect to the light of nature.

Conclusion of the whole book. 1)

Here I will conclude this booklet, and I am ready, if it should be necessary, to treat this matter even more extensively, although I believe that here the godly reader, who wants to give room to the truth without stubbornness, is amply satisfied. For if we believe that it is true that God foreknows and predestines everything, then also that in his foreknowledge and predestination he cannot be lacking or hindered, and that nothing happens except by his will, which even reason must admit, then at the same time, according to the testimony of reason itself, there can be no free will, neither in man, nor in an angel, nor in any creature. Thus, if we believe that the devil is the prince of the world, who constantly lies in wait for Christ's kingdom with all his strength and fights it in order not to let go of the captive people, unless he is driven to it by the divine power of the spirit, then it is again obvious that there can be no free will.

So also, if we believe that original sin has so corrupted us that even those who are driven by the spirit find it exceedingly difficult to cope with it, because it fights strongly against what is good, it is clear that in the man who does not have the spirit there is nothing that can turn to good, but only to evil. In the same way, if the Jews, who by all their strength were opposed to righteousness, were rather in unrighteousness, they would not be able to do good.

  1. This translation can be found at Justus Jonas

If we believe that Christ overthrew mankind by his blood, and that the Gentiles, chasing after ungodliness, attained to righteousness in vain and without delay, it is likewise evident, even from work and experience, that without grace man can desire nothing but evil. But in short, if we believe that Christ redeemed men by his blood, we are forced to confess that the whole man was corrupt, otherwise we would either make Christ superfluous or a redeemer of the worst part of man, which would be blasphemous, and rob God of what is his.

Now, dear Erasmus, I ask you for the sake of Christ, that you will now also keep what you have promised. But you promised that you would give way to the one who taught you better. Let the reputation of the persons go. I confess that you are a great man, adorned with many and splendid gifts from God, to say nothing of other things than your sharp mind, your erudition and your eloquence bordering on the miraculous. But I have nothing and am nothing, except that I would almost boast of being a Christian. Then I also praise and extol this about you very much, that you alone have attacked the matter itself before all, that is, the brief epitome of the matter, and have not tired me with distant (alienis) things about the pontificate, purgatory, indulgences and similar things, which are rather posies than things, with which almost all have hounded me so far, though in vain. But you have recognized the main point and put the knife to my throat, for which I thank you from the bottom of my heart, because I like to deal with this matter as much as time and leisure allow. If those who have attacked me so far had also done this, and if those who now boast of a new spirit and new revelations would still do it, we would have less turmoil and mobs and more peace and harmony. But God has thus punished our ingratitude through the devil. But if you cannot do this thing differently than you have done in this diatribe, I would very much like you, satisfied with your gift, to continue the sciences and languages, as you have hitherto done with great benefit and honor.

1968 68. that the freit will is nothing. ". xr-ni,1969

thau, you nurtured, adorned and promoted. With this effort you have also served me not a little, so that I confess that I owe you much, and in this respect I hold you high and look up to you with a sincere heart. God has not yet willed that you should be equal to this cause of ours, nor has He given it to you. I beg you not to think that this is said out of presumption, but I pray that the Lord will soon make you as great and as much higher than me in this matter as you are superior to me in all other things. For it is not something new that God instructs Moses through a Jethro and teaches Paul through an Ananias. For that you say that this is far from the mark, if you do not know Christ, I believe that you yourself see how it stands. For that is why not all will err, even if we, you or I, err. God is the one who is praised for his miracles.

The saints who are farthest from holiness are considered to be saints. For it can easily happen that you, being a man, neither understand correctly nor pay enough attention to passages of Scripture or sayings of the Fathers, by whose guidance you think you hit the mark. That word is a sufficient indication of this, that you write that you do not want to assert anything, but only hold it against each other. He does not write in this way who sees through a matter completely and understands it correctly. But in this book I have not held one against the other, but assert and assert, and do not want the judgment to stand with anyone, but advise all that they may follow. But the Lord, whose this thing is, enlighten thee, and make thee a vessel unto honor and glory. Amen.

End.

Appendix of some of Luther's letters,

referred to in this eighteenth part of his writings.

Newly translated from the Latin.

*1 Luther to Johann Lang. )

18 May 15I7.

He contends that in Wittenberg the true biblical theo-

and that before the lectures on the

Aristotle and the scholastics have a disgust.

To Johann Lang, his father, hermit prior at Erfurt with the > Augustinians.

JEsus.

  1. salvation. I had no cause to write to you, except this only, that I am for-

held, you, my father, should not send letter and greeting to me in vain. I am comforted by God's grace because Brother John Guman has come home in good health. The venerable Father Vicarius writes that he wants to come to us very soon.

Our theology and St. Augustine are being pursued with good progress at our university under God's assistance. Aristote-

*) This letter is found in Latin in Aurifaber I, fot. 35; in Löscher's ReformationS-Acta Vd. I, p. 834; in Dr Wette, vol. I, p. 57; in Erlanger Briefwechsel vol. I, p. 100. The latter "Ausgab" brings it according to your Loci. Lothan. . .4.. 398, col. 1241; according to this we have translated.

** **1970 L Br.-W. I, iov-102. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. xvm, 2486-2488. 1971

The lectures on the books of Sententiarum disgust everyone, so that no one can promise himself an audience who does not know about this theology,

that is, reading about the Bible, or about St. Augustine, or about any other teacher in the Church's esteem. Farewell and pray for me. Monday after Vocem Jucunditatis May 18 1517.

Br. Martin Luther.

*2 Luther to Johann Lang. )

July 16, 1517.

He recommends Ulrich Norlingen and reports that he is preparing a number of candidates for the Master's degree, to Aristotle's disgrace and to make him many enemies.

To Johann Lang, his brother dear in Christ, hermit prior at Erfurt.

JEsus.

Hail. I beg you, best father, to let this man, Ulrich Norlingen, 1) be diligently commanded to your loyalty and love. For he writes a common handwriting, has a brilliant lecture; possesses an unusual intellect, and at the same time has the adornment of an informal, amiable demeanor. He has sought services with our prince; but you are well aware of the desperate barrenness and the almost more than bourgeois nature at the court of our duke. Everything is occupied. Moreover, he has secret temptations in his soul, such as no one in your convent knows except you, as I believe. If he will discover them to you of his own free will, then you may speak comfort to him, as the Lord will give it to you.

2 I say this so that you may more easily have compassion on the man who, through the weather of temptations, has even fallen into beggary. He came to us

  1. Häulrieus AortinAM is Ulrich Pinder from Nuremberg. His father, of the same name, came from Nördlingen.

and brought with him good testimonies from honest men, namely letters and letters of support. And what can I say, his respectable behavior and honest mind will soon move you to do what I ask: I mean that you should ask Provost Henning for him, whether he can obtain some kind of work from the prelate that suits his skills, until he regains his strength a little, because he is completely impoverished. If you would also accommodate him in the monastery for a while, I believe you would be accommodating Christ. Farewell.

I have been waiting for the venerable Father Vicarius for three weeks now and have never hoped more surely that he would arrive from Herzberg than today. Commend me to the fathers and brothers, so that they may pray for me, the poor, because among the beloved brothers, who are increasing wonderfully from day to day, I am now growing weak, so that it may be fulfilled: they must increase, but I must decrease. I am preparing six or seven candidates (magi- strandos) for the forthcoming examination, among whom Hadrianus will be one, if the Lord wills, to the shame of Aristotle, whom I would like to make enemies of as many as possible quite soon. Farewell and greet both the fathers and the masters. From our monastery, July 16, 1517.

Brother Martin Luther, Augustinian.

*This letter is found in Latin in Aurifaber, vol. 1,1c "I. 35 d, in Löscher's Reformation Acta, vol. I p. 835; in De Wette, vol. I, p. 58 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. I, p. 101, which takes it from the manuscript of the 6oä. Ootüau. 399, toi. 124. After that we have translated.

1972 n. Br.-W. 1,63 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2488-2496. 197Z

*3 Luther to Spalatin. )

19 October 1516.

He speaks against the theology of Erasmus, who in Paul wants to understand the righteousness from the works only from the ceremonial law, likewise from the true righteousness, which is valid before God, through which only the works become good works. He then passes judgment on Jerome and Augustine, and prefers the latter to the former.

To the servant of Christ and priest of the Lord, the highly learned M. > Georg Spalatin, his sincere friend and faithful brother.

JEsus.

  1. salvation. What I do not like about Erasmus, the highly learned man, is this, dear Spalatin, that in explaining the apostle Paul, he understands by righteousness of works, or of the law, or by one's own righteousness (as the apostle calls it) the observance of ceremonial and exemplary laws. Furthermore, he also claims that the apostle does not speak clearly of original sin (which, however, he admits) Rom. 5. But if he would only read Augustine in the books he wrote against the Pelagians, especially about the spirit and the letter, further about the merit and the forgiveness of sins, likewise against two letters of the Pelagians, finally against Julianus, which are all in the eighth part of his works, and would see, how he teaches nothing according to his own opinion, but according to the opinion of the most excellent fathers, Cyprianus, Nazianzenus, Rheticius, Irenaeus, Hilarius, Olympius, Innocentius, Ambrosius, then he will perhaps not only understand the apostle correctly, but also think that Augustine is worthy of a higher esteem than he has hitherto believed.

2 I have no hesitation in departing from Erasmus in that I place Jerome inferior to Augustine in the interpretation of Scripture to the extent that he places Augustine everywhere inferior to Augustine.

Jerome adds. Not that out of zeal for my order I should praise St. Augustine, who, before I read his books, had not the slightest reputation with me; but because I see that St. Jerome falls with diligence on a historical mind, and, what is still more to be wondered at, explains Scripture in a more wholesome way when he passes briefly over it, for example, in letters, than when he treats it with diligence, as in his works.

(3) Therefore the righteousness of the law, or of works, is by no means in ceremonies only, but rather more properly in the works of the ten commandments. If these are performed without faith in Christ, they taste as little like righteousness as the arlesberry does like figs, even though they make such men as Fabricius, Regulus, and the most righteous men in the sight of men. For not, as Aristotle thinks, do we become righteous by acting righteously, unless in a hypocritical way, but (that I say so) by becoming and being righteous we do righteous works. First the person must be changed, then the works; first Abel pleases God, then his sacrifice; but I have spoken of this elsewhere.

4 Therefore I ask you, out of friendship and Christian love, to give news of this to Erasmus, whose reputation, as I hope and wish, will rise high; but I also worry that many, moved by it, will take the liberty of defending his literal, that is, the dead mind, of which the explanation of Lyra and almost all after Augustine are full. For even the otherwise spiritual and honest Faber of Staples (Stapulensi viro) lacks this understanding when interpreting the writings of others.

*) This letter is handwritten in the Ooä. .Ion. V., col. 16 and 281; in the Ooä. (lotUan. L. 28, fol. 172, with the superscription: D. Outiisri äuäisium äs katridus st äs Lrasmo, sx suo släroZraxUo transsrixturo 28. Ostovri 1551. In following prints: Aurifaber, vol. I, toi. 26 d; Hottinger tu xrimit. IIsläsIdsrZ. x. 221 (supposedly from the original, but incorrect, cf. Tentzel, Hist. Bericht, vol. I, p. 180); Seckendorf, Historia Imtk., iid. I, p. 22; ssst. 8, § 8, aää. VII, according to Aurifaber; Löscher, Reformation Acta, Wd. I, p. 825 (where it is also confirmed that the text in Hottinger is corrupted); De Wette, vol. I, p. 39; Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. I, p. 63. We have translated according to De Wette.

1974 L. Br.-W. 1,64 f. 87 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2490-2492. 1975

rer, which he nevertheless proves perfectly in his own way of life and in the encouragement of others.

  1. by the way, you could easily think me foolhardy for rebuking such great people, if you did not know that I do it for the sake of the

for the sake of God and the salvation of the brethren. Farewell, my dear Spalatin, and pray for me. In haste, in the corner of my monastery, on the day after the feast of St. Luke 19 October 1516.

Br. Martin Luther, Augustinian.

*4 Luther to Johann Lang. )

March 1, 1517.

A judgment of the theology of Erasmus, which knows nothing of Christ.

To the venerable and God-fearing teacher, Mr. Johann Lang, licentiate > in theology, prior of the Augustinian monks at Erfurt, his Lord in > Christ.

  1. Hail. Venerable Father, according to the order of the venerable Father Vicarius, I am sending this brother Gabriel 1) to you; you too should follow his order and see to it that he and others behave well, that is, in a Christian manner. It has seemed good to us and is beneficial to him that he keeps himself monastic in all things. For you know that he has not yet seen and learned the customs and habits of our order; on the other hand, you may let the brother whom you promised to send in his place go with this brother Leonhard as soon as possible. For we lack a brother as a substitute for Gabriel. I have translated the Psalms into German and explained them. Even if no one likes them, I like them very much. But John, 2) the printer, is waiting for you to finish with the ones I sent you.

2 I read Erasmus, but I had less and less interest in him every day. I like the fact that he refers to the friars and to the

  1. Gabriel Didymus or Gemini.
  2. Johannes Grünenberg.

I am afraid that he will not properly promote Christ and the grace of God, in which his ignorance is much greater than that of Faber of Etaples. For he places more emphasis on human testimonies than on divine ones. Although I do not like to judge him, I do it nevertheless to warn you, so that you do not read or even accept everything without right judgment. For we are now living in dangerous times and I can see that not everyone is a true Christian because he is a Greek and a Hebrew, because even St. Jerome, with his five languages, does not equal your Augustine, who understood only one language, although Erasmus is of a completely different opinion. For it is different with the judgment of him who concedes something to the will of man; but it is different with the judgment of him who knows nothing but grace.

3 However, I had this judgment completely secret, so that I would not strengthen the reputation of his enviers. The Lord will give him right understanding in his time. Farewell and greet the Fathers, Magisters and the Lector, and inquire whether D. Jodocus will not answer me. From our wasteland, Wittenberg on Sunday Invocavit March 1 1517.

Br. Martin Luther, Vicarius of the Augustinians.

*) This letter is in Latin in Aurifaber, Vol. I, toi. 33d; in Löscher, Reformation-Acta, vol. I, p. 832; bet De Wette, vol. I, p. 51; in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. I, p. 87; handwritten in Ooä. Ootiinn. 399, toi. 123 d. We have translated according to the Erl. Ausg. translated.

1976 L. Br.-W. 1,140-142. appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. xvm, 2492-2494. 1977

*5 Luther to Spalatin. )

January 18, 1518.

What order a theologian must follow in learning the Holy Scriptures. Enclosed is an excellent judgment on Erasmus, St. Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose.

To his Georg Spalatin, the righteous disciple of Christ in truth, his > brother, etc.

JEsus.

1st Hail. Up to now, my dear Spalatin, you have demanded such things of me that were within my capacity and in which I was allowed to dare something; but now, since you demand guidance on that which concerns the thorough knowledge of the holy scriptures, you demand something that goes far beyond my powers. For I myself have not been able to find anyone who would have guided me in this so important matter. Here different people, even the most learned and astute, have different opinions. Erasmus publicly claims that St. Jerome is such a great church teacher that he alone wants him to be regarded as such. If I now oppose him to St. Augustine, I will be regarded as a very biased and suspicious arbiter, not only because of my attachment to my order, but also because Erasmus' judgment is very well known and has been accepted for a long time, since he said that it would be quite impertinent if someone wanted to compare Augustine with Jerome. Others judge differently. I do not dare, with my small gifts of erudition and understanding, to pronounce anything definite about such important matters among such great judges.

2 I always praise Erasmus extremely highly among those (that is, among all) who are either deliberately hostile to the fine sciences or, out of laziness, do not want to know anything about them; I also defend him as much as I can, and am careful not to let that lead me out in which I depart from him, lest others also be strengthened in their hatred of him by my speeches. But there is a great deal in Erasmus that does not seem to me to fit the knowledge of Christ, if I am to speak of the matter as a divine scholar, not as a teacher of language: otherwise Jerome himself, who has been singled out so much by Erasmus, would not have seen anything more learned and perceptive. There you have my judgment about Erasmus; but if you should make it known to another, know that you would thereby violate the duties of friendship. I do this reminder with good deliberation. There are (as you know) many who diligently seek opportunities to blaspheme the fine sciences. Therefore, keep secret what I have said; indeed, do not believe me until you have read and examined the writings. If you nevertheless want to entice my order in studying from me, then I will not let anything go unheeded to you, as my very trusted friend, but in such a way that you only follow me with good deliberation.

3 First of all, it is quite certain that one cannot penetrate the Scriptures by one's own diligence and understanding. Therefore, the first thing to be done is to begin with prayer, that is, to call upon the Lord, if it pleases him.

*) The Latin original of this letter is in the Anhaltisches Gesammtarchiv at Zerbst. Handwritten copies of the letter are available in the Oock. Osssnv. in Zerbst, No. 2; in the Ooä. Kolter. Orssä. 6. 351, Bl. 62 b; in the 6oä. 3sn. a., toi. 17; in the Oock. Eluslxbsrbitauns 11, 10, toi. 250; in 6oä. ElusIpUsrb. 202, toi. 109. further printed in Aurifaber's collection of letters, vol. I, toi. 47; In X. Driesus 8v1vuln Ksntsntinruni p. 222 b; in Löscher's Reformation Acta, vol. II, p. 600; in De Wette, vol. I, p. 87; in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. I, p. 140. German in Hallischer Theil (1702) p. 153 and twice in Walch in the old edition, namely vol. X, 260 and vol. XVIII, 2492. Although this letter has now already been published in the 10th volume of the St. Louis edition, it is still in print. Louis edition, we nevertheless consider it necessary to insert here a new translation according to the Erlangen edition, because the latter has reproduced the text according to the original, and this letter (as Seidemann, De Wette, vol. VI, 599, note 1., remarks) belongs to the many letters that are carried around a lot, "which everyone arranged at will", therefore presenting numerous variants, gaps and excrescences.

1978 L. Br.-W. 1,142 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2494 f. 1979

that something may be done through us for his glory, not for ours or any man's, let him give us the true understanding of his word according to his great mercy. For there is no master in the Scriptures but he from whom they originally came, hence it is said John 6:45., "they shall all be taught of GOD." Accordingly, you must completely despair of your efforts and at the same time of your understanding, and rely solely on the inspiration of the Spirit. Believe me this, I who have tried it myself. Then, after a humble despair has gained room, read the Bible in order from beginning to end, so that you only first grasp the simple story in your memory (which I believe you will have done long ago). For this, St. Jerome, both with his letters and with his interpretations, will do excellent service; on the other hand, for the knowledge of Christ and the grace of God (that is, for the more secret understanding of the spirit), St. Augustine and Ambrose seem to me to be much more useful, especially since St. Jerome seems to follow Origen too much (that is, to make obscure interpretations). I do not want to have said this to the detriment of Erasmus' opinion, since you have not asked me for Erasmus', but for my judgment.

  1. but you can (if you like my order in studying) with the holy augu

stinus begin with the book "Vom Geist und Buchstaben" Of the Spirit and the Letter, which our incomparably learned Carlstadt has now provided and published with very beautiful interpretations; then take the book against Julianus; likewise, that against two letters of the Pelagians. You can also take St. Ambrose on the profession of all pagans; although this book seems to have been written by someone other than Ambrose in terms of style, thought and time, it is nevertheless written in a very scholarly manner. The rest I will tell you later, if you should have liked this one. Forgive me only my audacity, that I dare in such a difficult matter to present my instructions beyond the greatest men (ultra).

Finally, I will send you Erasmus's protective letter; but I regret very much that such a great fire has started among the greatest and most distinguished scholars. Erasmus, it is true, stands out far above others and speaks better, but also more bitterly, although he is very anxious to preserve friendship in the process. Farewell, my dear Spalatin. From our monastery, on the day of St. Prisco Jan. 18, on which you sent your letter, 1518. Br. Martin Luther. 1)

Staupitz is in Munich, because he recently wrote to me from there.

  1. In the original Latin: Eleuthrrius.

*6. D. Martin Luther's judgment of Erasmus Roterodamus. )

May 28, 1522.

To Caspar Börner, Professor of Fine Arts at the Academy of Leipzig.

  1. God's grace in Christ. Your last letter, dear sir, I have happily received.

I am pleased to receive you, since I see that you are doing well and increasing in the matter of pure Christian doctrine, and I ask and wish that the Lord may accomplish what he has begun.

*) This letter first appeared in Latin under the title: luäieiuni D. Murt. Imtiisri äs Lrusmo Kotsroäumo. kpistoiu uä uroisurri. Then in German, but not by Luther himself, in the collection: "Urtheil D. M. Luther and Phil. Melanchthonis by Erasmo Roterodam. A Christian epistle from D. M. L. to D. Wolfg. Fabrit. capitonem 2c Christ letter of indulgence" 2c Further Latin in Aurifaber, vol. II, toi. 66; in the Wittenberg edition, Toro. II, toi. 456. (gl. 424.); De Wette, vol. II, p. 200. German in a different translation from that previously given in the Wittenberg, vol. IX, toi. 176; in the Jenaer, vol. II, toi. 260 (edition of 1585 toi. 246 d.); in the Altenburger, vol. II, p. 343; in the Leipziger, vol. XIX, p. I. In the old Walch edition twice, once here, the other time vol. XXI, col. 785 in different translations. We have translated this Brie according to De Wette.

1980 De Wette II, 200 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2496-2498. 1981

I am sorry to hear that you are raging against Christ in this way; but it will happen that either your prince 1) will change his anger himself of his own free will, or another will change it against his will and that in a short time.

I knew before that Mosellanus is like Erasmus in the election of grace, because he is completely Erasmian. But I think that Erasmus knows more about the election of grace, or he shows less knowledge than the schools of the Sophists have known so far. There is also no reason for me to fear that I would fall because I did not change my mind. Erasmus is not terrible in this matter, as well as almost not in the whole epitome of Christian doctrine. Truth is mightier than eloquence, spirit higher than understanding, faith greater than learning, and, as Paul says 1 Cor. 1:25., "divine foolishness wiser than men are." The eloquence of Cicero has often been overcome by lesser eloquence in courtroom dealings; Julian is more eloquent than Augustine. In short, the victory is with stammering truth, not with lying eloquence, as it is written Ps. 8:3., "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou wrought a power for thine enemies' sake, to destroy the enemy and the revenger." I will not challenge Erasmus; indeed, if cause should be given me once or twice, I will not soon strike again. But it does not seem advisable to me that he should try the power of his eloquence on me. For I fear that he will not find a Faber Stapulensis 2) in Luther and cannot boast as he boasts about him. Everyone wishes me luck, that the Frenchman 3)

  1. Duke George.
  2. Jakob Faber Stapulensis (Is k'övrs ä'l^taplss), a theologian of great merit in biblical literature. Cf. Guerjcke, Kirchengeschichte, 7th ed., vol. Ill, p. 21, note 3. Not to be confused with Johannes Augustanus Faber of Freiburg in Switzerland, (lonstuntisnsis. Cf. Tischreden, cap. 28, § 12, Walch, St. Louis edition,

Vol. XXII, col. 940.

  1. Latin: dalluni. We are of the opinion that this here is not a proper name, but that with it La-.

is defeated. If he gets involved in this game, he will see that Christ is not afraid of the gates of hell, nor of the mighty in the air, and I, as a miserable stammerer, will meet the exceedingly eloquent Erasmus with confidence and will regard his reputation, name and favor as nothing. I know what is in this man, since we also know what Satan has in mind; but I expect him to reveal more and more every day what he intends against me.

4 I discuss this with you in such detail, so that you may see that you have no reason to be concerned or afraid for my sake, nor to be frightened by the considerable boasts of others. But greet Mosellanus, because for his sake I am not averse to him, because he follows the teaching of Erasmus more than mine. Yes, tell him that he should only be bravely Erasmian. The time will come when he will change his mind; in the meantime, one must bear the very weak understanding of a very good heart. And you too, be at ease in the Lord. Wednesday after Urban May 28 in the year 1522.

Your M. Luther.

Another judgment by D. M. Luther by Erasmus Anno 1533. 4)

An Enemy of All Religions / Of Epicurus and Luund/ cian's Perfect Image

a special enemy of Christ, / and pattern.

I wrote it with my own hand, M. Luther.

To you, my dear son, and to all of you, both my children and the children of the Holy Christian Church. You may well take this to heart as a matter of importance.

The name "Latomus" is used to describe Latomus, against whom Luther in June 1821 had published the great writing included in this volume No. 47. In the table speeches Latomus is also called "the Frenchman". Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 945. Tischreden, Cap. 28, § 20. Likewise vol. XV, 1586, § 10 of the old edition: dallulus, the Frenchman.

  1. Cf. Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 111. This verdict is found in Latin, attached to the letter, in the editions given for the previous letter, except for De Wette.

1982 DeWetten,660f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIH, 2498-2500. 1983

*7 Luther to Spalatin. )

November 1, 1524.

He asks to report to him whether the Elector Frederick of Saxony wants to disperse the Wittenberg University (as the rumor about it has spread); interprets the passage about the sacrifice pleasing to God and about the pure sacrifice in all places 2c, also gives his judgment about the booklet of Erasmus about free will.

To the pious and learned Georg Spalatin, the servant of Christ, his > most beloved in the Lord.

  1. grace and peace. What I have already said the other day, my Spalatin, I say and remind you once again, that you may carefully inquire whether the prince really has in mind to let this high school fall and go. I would like to know this all the better, so that I do not detain in vain those who daily receive a call elsewhere. For this rumor has spread in such a way that the Nurembergers, through emissaries, have asked that they call Philip away, since they were so completely of the opinion, and also wrote that there would be an end to this high school. But you know that the prince should not be forced, nor can he be. In the meantime, however, by dithering, that which can perish is perishing, and others must not be neglected who can still be advised in time.

I cannot promise a copy to the married Benedictine, since I cannot even provide half of ours with it, and would gladly do everything, if only I could.

  1. the sacrifice of Judah and Jerusalem, which is pleasing to God, and the pure sacrifice in all places, is precisely what Paul praises Rom. 15:16, saying, "I offer the gospel of God, that the Gentiles may become a sacrifice pleasing to God." For the

Ministry of the Gospel, through which GOD is sanctified, glorified and proclaimed, is the completion summa of all the sacrifices of ancient testa

ments. This is the purest sacrifice. For what can be purer than the word of God, through which the sacrifice of praise to God is offered? By this sacrifice we offer ourselves; in that the old man is crucified by the word and the new man is given to God as a complete sacrifice to the Lord in faith. This is the only sacrifice in all places and no other, "for its cord has gone out into all lands," Ps. 19:3, and "it has been preached to all creatures," says Paul. But the old sacrifices, because they were legal works, and not the word, nor the power of the word, were pure only in so far as he that offered them was pure; but in and of itself unclean things make no man clean. But this sacrifice sanctifies both those who offer and that which is offered.

Caspar Tauber 1) has pleased me, thanks be to the Lord Christ. It is impossible to describe what disgust I have at the booklet of Erasmus on free will, and yet I have hardly read more than two sheets of it. It seems difficult to me to reply to such an unlearned 2) book by such a learned man. Farewell and pray for me. Wittenberg, Tuesday, All Saints' Day Nov. 1, 1524. Martin Luther.

  1. A martyr of the gospel, beheaded at Vienna on Sept. 17, 1524. Cf. the following letter to Hausmann and the letter to the Christians at Bremen. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 96, § 2.
  2. In the facsimile of the letter given by De Wette Vol. II, iuerudito instead of erudito, to which Köstlin Vol. I, 806 draws attention.

*) This Brie is found in the original in the Ood. ekart. 122 toi. Lidl. OotN.; transcribed in the 6od. den. a; toi. 331; in Aurifaber, II, 237 d; in De Wette, vol. II, p. 560. We have translated according to De Wette.

1984 De Wette II, 562 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. LVIII, 2506 f. 1985

*8 Luther to Nicolaus Hausmann. )

November 17, 1524.

He promises to answer Erasmus; says why he hesitates to answer Carlstadt in the sacramental matter; Zwingli and Leo Jude in Switzerland held it with Carlstadt; he wishes that the mass be held in German, but does not want to set up an assembly for this, for certain reasons which he gives; he tells of two martyrs, Caspar Tauber and a certain bookseller in Hungary.

Grace and peace in the Lord. I have not forgotten you, my dear householder, although it is true that because of the many and various things that have gone before me, my memory also grows weaker with increasing years. I will answer Erasmus, not for his own sake, but for the sake of those who abuse his reputation for their glory against Christ. What you have already reminded me of the Last Supper, I feel until Carlstadt will publicly spread his poison, as he has promised me and has already received a gold florin from me, even though I already hold most of his tasteless conclusions. Zwingli is associated with Leo Jude in the opinion of Carlstadt in Switzerland. So far this evil spreads, only the Lord Christ rules and fights.

  1. That the mass be said in the German language, I wish more than I promise, because I am not equal to this work, which requires music and a special spirit; in the meantime, I leave each one with his opinion until Christ will give something else. 1) I do not think it advisable that a meeting of our people be held for the sake of unity in church customs, for it is a matter that requires a
  2. The following, from here to the end of this. §, is introduced in the old editions of the Table Talks as the third § of the 34th chapter.

The church assemblies have taught us from the beginning that in the apostolic assembly, too, almost more was said about works and statutes than about faith, but in the following assemblies nothing was ever said about faith, but always only about certain opinions and questions, so that the name of a council is almost as suspicious and hateful to me as the name of free will. If one church will not voluntarily follow the other in external matters, what need is there to impose on the people by the decisions of the conciliums things that will soon be turned into laws and ropes for the souls? So let one church voluntarily follow another, or let each one keep its customs; if only the unity of the spirit in faith and in word is preserved, then the diversity and variety in earthly and visible things does no harm.

I have no doubt that you have read the history of the new martyr in Vienna, Caspar Tauber, of whom it is written that he was beheaded and burned for the sake of the word of God. The same thing happened to a bookseller in Ofen, Hungary, named Johannes, 2) who was also beheaded and burned for the word of God.

  1. In the letter to the Christians of Bremen, Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 96, § 2, he is called Georg Buchführer. Buchführer", as we see from our letter, is not to be regarded as a proper name, but stands for bookseller. Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 77, says: In the original to "Johannes" is the remark: He was called Johannes, the servant of my brother Martin Cordatus, but the books, which he wanted to sell, had been bought for my, the Conrad Cordatus (0.6 "räi.), money.

") This letter is found in Latin in Aurifaber, vol. II, col. 243 and in De Wette, vol. II, p. 562. The second half, which has also passed into the Tischreden, keUelUorn, II, 41, takes from an old manuscript

and after him Ktrobol-UÄUner p. 106 as a separate letter. So, says De Wette, we have also found it in the Ooä. ekart. 4021. lidl. 6otU. and in the Ooä. The original of this letter is in Latin; the two pieces given by Seidemann in the 6th volume, p. 53 ff. of De Wette's edition are different translations. The former is by Aurifaber, in the old editions of the Tischreden, Cap. 34, § 3; the other by another translator. We have translated according to De Wette.

1986 De Wette II, 563. ill, so f. appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2501-2503. 1987

n books that were placed all around him was burned and suffered steadfastly for the Lord. Blood draws blood, which connects the pope with the kings and their kingdoms.

will suffocate. Farewell and pray for me poor sinner. Wittenberg, Thursday after Martinmas November 17 Anno 1524.

Martin Luther.

*9. Luther to Spalatin. )

September 28, 1525.

He writes what he thinks of the strange miraculous thing, recommends to him M. He recommends to him M. Eberhard Brisger, who has been called to Altenburg; thinks that he must remind the prince that the parishes are being reformed; reports that the Nurembergers have demanded that Philip come to them, and that he will soon begin his journey so that he can help promote the new establishment of the Christian school there; he is working on a treatise Against Erasmus and his book On Free Will; the peasants have taken up arms again at Bafel because of the excessive vehemence of the princes. Finally, he wished Spalatin, as the bridegroom, all the best, but the priests in the monastery nothing but evil.

To the venerable Lord in Christ, Georg Spalatin, Bishop of the Church > at Altenburg, his brother.

Grace and peace in Christ. Before the strange things I am horrified, as before all strange things, in that what they imply does not come off without harm, although the Sophists dream from their Aristotle that it happens naturally; only the world learns in a miserable way that this is wrong. M. Eberhard Brisger 1) will come to you, whom I command you, although you would let him be commanded to you without my request'. It is now

  1. Also "Breisger" written by Luther himself. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 730. He was prior of the Augustinian monastery at Wittenberg.

It remains that, since our high school is in good condition, we also advise the prince to begin reforming the parishes as soon as possible; which God Himself will best advise and carry out, amen. The council of Nuremberg, which is willing to establish a Christian school, has called our Philip to him in order to give him good advice. He will also go soon. I hope that our dear Lord Christ will bless his word. I am now occupied with Erasmus and free will alone, and will take care that I do not allow him to say anything right, as he has indeed said nothing with reason. Ask the Lord for his help on my behalf, so that his work may proceed quickly for his glory. Amen. It is said that the peasants at Basel are again in arms, because the raging of the princes against them is unbearable. That. Brisger will tell the rest orally. Fare well with your bride and your whole community. May the Lord tread down this Bethaven house of wickedness in a short time, amen. Wittenberg, the evening before Michaelmas September 28, Anno 1525, Martin Luther.

**10 Luther to Hausmann. )

September 27, 1525.

He admonishes Hausmann that he should continue to cleanse the church in his place as much as possible, along with the neighboring congregations, if they should send for him, until the prince's order arrives, for which he promises to seek it from him, and indicates that he is working on a refutation of the Erasmian Scripture on free will.

Grace and peace in Christ. Do what you can and carry what you can, my dear Nicolaus. I am now entirely occupied with the refutation of Erasmus, but I know that the churches of a re-

*) This letter is found in Aurifaber, vol. II, col. 299 d (cf. Cod. Ion. a; col. 204), and in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 30. According to the latter we have translated.

**) This letter is found in Latin in Aurifaber, vol. II, col. 300 and in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 30. According to the latter we have translated.

1988 De Wette m, 30. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. L. XVIII, 2503-2505. 1989

I am also working on this, and for this reason I will also appeal to the prince. Otherwise, I can see that we are trying in vain if they are not provided with faithful shepherds: it will be like the Levites in the past, they will want to be served. If there is still no proper order in our church today, what can be expected in others, since new complaints come to me every day? Satanas is in the middle

stepped among them. Therefore, visit those at Schneeberg and all others whom you know only when they call you and they need you, because you know that it is not displeasing to the prince. I am putting off the edition of the catechism for a while, because I would like to finish it all at once. Be well and pray for everyone, as you do. My Ribbe wife greets you. September 27, 1525.

Martin Luther.

*11 Nicolaus Amsdorf's and D. Martin Luther's letters against Erasmus of Rotterdam. )

a. Nicolaus Amsdorf's letter to Luther.

January 28, 1534.

To the venerable in Christ and true servant of Christ D. Martin > Luther, his most beloved father.

After I, venerable Father in Christ, have now read over your book on the corner mass again, I find something that does not seem alarming to me, but perhaps to some pious and godly hearts, since you say: A Christian can see and hear the mass. For those of Halle and Leipzig want to gloss over their godlessness, if not defend it. That is what I dislike. The rest pleases me very much, and I have found nothing that is offensive or could be offensive to a pious and godly person. Yes, it is all of the kind that is necessary at this time; and if the booklet were not already printed, it would still have to be printed cheaply.

There is a rumor that you wanted to answer Witzeln. I wonder with what intention, since he has already been answered enough by this book about the corner mass. But he would be answered even more, if you would hand out the book of the church. Witzel has stolen all that is his' from Erasmus. One would have to answer

and despise it, so that Erasmus would be painted with the right colors. For this is the summa of his teaching: Luther's teaching is heresy, because it is condemned by emperor and pope, but his is orthodox, because bishops and cardinals, princes and kings send him and give him golden cups. If something else is in his books, I want to be of death. This is the wisdom of human reason, that we have gracious bishops, kings 2c.

I recognize God's work and see His miracles, that faith is His gift, His work, which He alone works through the power by which He raised Christ from the dead, where and when He wills. When you see these peasants (?), you see God's work, God sustain and strengthen them! Amen.

4 But do you continue to write such books for us, especially about the Church, which the adversaries defy and always accuse us of! Fare well, dear Father in Christ, and pray to God for us, especially for the brethren afflicted by the bishops. Magdeburg, Wednesday after Paul's conversion 28 Jan in 1534.

Your Nicolaus Amsdorf.

*This letter of Amsdorf together with Luther's answer to it appeared in Wittenberg in 1534 in octavo under the title: Lxistolao Domini Meolai ^msäorüi ot D. Martini Dntüori äo Drasmo kotoroäamo. Then in the Latin Wittenberg edition, Dom. II, toi. 526. the letter of Luther's reply alone, in De . Wette, vol. IV, p. 506.

1990 De Wette IV, 507 f.' Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. xvm, 2505-2508. 1991

b. Mart. Luther's Answer to Amsdorf.

February 1534.

Grace and peace in Christ! I thank you, dear Lord, that you judge freely of my little book. For I do not care that the papists should be offended at it, because it is not written for their sake, as they are henceforth not worthy that we should write or speak for them. For God has given them a wrong mind, so that they also dispute the recognized truth.

Our cause was heard at Augsburg before the Emperor and the whole world, and was found blameless and equal to sound doctrine. Thereafter, our confession and apology came out and is in the light of day throughout the world; thereby we answer countless books and all past, present and future lies of the papists.

We have confessed Christ before this wicked and adulterous generation. He confesses us again without a doubt before God the Father and His angels. Our light shines on the lampstand. He who sees may see more and more; he who is blind may become more and more blind; he who is righteous may become more and more righteous, and he who is unrighteous may become more and more unrighteous! Their blood be upon them! We are pure from their blood. We have told the ungodly of his ungodliness, but he will not repent: so he may die in his sins. We have saved our souls. Therefore we do not need to write, or to have written, for their sake.

4 That you also advise one to despise the wretched interpreter of language or word-stealer, whom you call Erasmus' thief, and rather answer Erasmus himself: you should know that I have already despised him enough, because I have not read a single leaf by him. Jonas wrote against him once, without my will, because I, like you, advised him to despise him. For I know the man from within and without as such a man, who is not worthy that an honest man should have anything to do with him or talk to him, because he is such a fundamentally envious and hostile hypocrite.

5 Moreover, you know how I tend to overcome such writings with silence and contempt. For how many books of Eck, Faber, Emser and Cochlaeus and many others, which seemed to go pregnant like mountains and to give birth to who knows what monstrous things, I have so muffled with silence that they are no longer remembered! Cato calls them "courageous brawlers" (vitilitigatores), and lets their speeches pass by, but they would have become famous if he had gotten involved with them. The well-known saying is true:

Hoc scio pro certo, quod si cum stercore certo, Vinco vel vincor, semper ego maculor.

I know for sure that when I fight with dirt, I will always be sullied, I may win or be defeated.

Our glory is this: What can be brought against us in the Scriptures and the Fathers, that has been brought forward and explained. For the rest, they alone have the honor of being able to revile, lie and slander; we will gladly grant them this, because otherwise they cannot become famous by any other virtue.

(6) With regard to Erasmus, however, we have been astonished at your judgment, in that you simply assert that there is nothing substantial about his doctrine except the favor of the people; you attribute to him ignorance and wickedness. If you could persuade the people to accept this judgment, you would be like a little David, knocking down this big-talking Goliath with one blow and destroying his whole sect at once. For what is more vain and deceitful than the favor of men, both in all other things and especially in spiritual things, according to the testimony of the Psalms: "There is no profit in the help of men. And, "All men are liars." So if the whole of Erasmus is vain, it is also based on vanity and lies. What need is there to answer him? He will finally perish even with his vanity, like smoke, if we include him among the shadows and wanton brawlers, who

1992 De Wette IV, 508-510. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2508-2510. 1993

have been taken away (obscuratos) by my silence.

I have already declared him to be a particularly careless and useless talker, because he seemed to me to be so careless with sacred and serious things, and again, to be so serious about bad antics, ridiculous things and jokes, although he is an old man and a theologian, moreover, at this time, when there are so many great trades and so much to do, that I would almost like to believe it to be true what I have heard from respectable and intelligent people: namely, that Erasmus is really childish.

  1. And since I first wrote against his diatribe, and had to consider his words (as John says: Test the spirits), his carelessness, especially in such an important matter, annoyed me, so I stung him as a deep sleeper, so that I awakened the lazy and cold disputator, and blamed him that he would not be much different in mind than Epicurus, Lucianus, or the skeptics, whether he would learn to be a little more careful to act his cause better. But I have done nothing more than to provoke the adder, which out of a furious spirit has given birth to snakes upon snakes (viperaspides^1)^ ), an offspring worthy of the father and very similar to him. But to the matter itself he answered nothing at all; therefore I have from that time on left all hope of his theology.

(9) But now I agree with you that it was not carelessness in him, but in fact, as you say, ignorance and malice; namely, that although he knows our or the Christians' teachings, yet he knowingly and deliberately does not want to know them. Although he really does not understand, nor can understand, what we teach with one another quite clearly against the Pabst's synagogue Rotte: yet he must know the known things which we teach with

  1. In 1526 and 1527, Erasmus published a book in defense of his diatribe under the title: Hvperuspistks d. i. Schildführer oder Vertheidigung. Luther now jokingly calls this writing: Vipsraspiäss. Vipern, is the name of the viper, which gives birth to living young, and means both "shield" and a very poisonous "snake".

of the church under the papacy, because he writes much of it, or, more correctly, mocks it.

(10) For example, the things of the Trinity in the Godhead; of Christ's divinity and humanity; of sin; of redemption of the human race; of resurrection of the dead; of eternal life, and the like. He knows, I say, that many godless and false Christians also believe and teach these things. But he does not like all this. Yes, a true believer who has a little wit (cui Spiritus in naribus est) can easily see that he thinks nothing at all of religion, and especially of Christianity, and detests it. He lets this be known in many places, and will once again betray and corrupt himself with his own traces, like a shrew.

Among other things, he has recently published a catechism that is written with a completely diabolical art, by which he treacherously seeks to infect the youth with his poison so that it cannot later be removed from their minds; just as he has sucked his witches and furies in Italy and Rome, so that he cannot now be cured by any medicine. For what Christian should tolerate the manner of teaching the youth or those inexperienced in the Christian faith, which Erasmus uses? A tender and inexperienced mind must indeed first be educated in the simple, necessary and certain principles, so that it firmly believes them, because every apprentice must necessarily believe. For he who doubts himself or is taught to doubt, what should he ever learn?

(12) Our new catechism teacher, however, deals solely with making his pupils doubtful and suspicious of the doctrines of the faith, since right at the beginning, setting aside all firm foundations, he reproaches them with heresies and vexatious opinions, by which the church has been plagued from the beginning, so that it is almost as much as if he said: There has never been anything certain in the Christian religion. But if an inexperienced mind is overwhelmed with such examples and dangerous questions at the very beginning, what else can it think or do but to be frightened off by the Christian religion as a plague either

1994 De Wette IV, 510 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2510-2512. 1995

secretly or, where it has become bold, publicly detest the same?

And this mischievous sense, he thinks, will be noticed by no one. As if we do not have innumerable examples of such devil larvae in the Scriptures. For the serpent first provoked Eve to doubt, since he made her suspicious of God's commandment from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but when she had become doubtful, he overthrew and overcame her (where Erasmus does not consider this to be a fairy tale).

(14) So he also creeps along with the same serpentine walk, tempting innocent souls: Why have there been so many sects and errors in this one religion of truth (as it is considered)? Why so many different creeds? Why is the Father called God in the Apostles' Creed, the Son not God but Lord, and the Spirit neither God nor Lord but Holy One? and the like,-who (I ask) poses such questions to simple souls whom he wants to instruct, but the devil himself? But who could speak of the creed in such a way? Behold, there you have the beginning, end and turning point of the excellent fable, namely the mouth and tool of the wretched Satan himself.

(15) But behold, I almost fell for the refutation of this catechism, since I only wanted to tell you why I am afraid that one does not have to answer such an adder, but that it already refutes itself enough among all pious and righteous people.

  1. He has done the same play on the apostle Paul (the paraphrases or paraphroneses, 1) that I speak according to his word, I pass over now) in the preface to Romans, where he praises and exalts Paul in such a way that the simple and inexperienced reader can no longer be led away and deterred from reading and learning Paul by any art of speech, because he portrays him as so confused, intertwined, with himself.
  2. As Luther shortly before wrote Hyperaspistes.

titled as Viperasxiäss, so here the karapUrusss (paraphrases) as ?arapNrou6868 (follies).

contentious, changeable, and excruciatingly difficult that one must believe it to be the letter of a nonsensical fool, let alone that one could hope to derive some benefit from it.

17 And among other quite poisonous stings, he also had to pronounce that Peter calls Christ a man, but not a God. 2) That is a good word and very appropriate.

  1. But his doctrine, with all that it comprehends, what is it but a mockery of Christ and all things done by him? Who should grasp anything else from this doctrine than a disgust, even hatred, to learn such a confused, unclear and perhaps fabulous religion.

19 Who would be allowed to speak of the apostle and evangelist John, who is most respected by Christians after Christ, in such a peevish and spiteful (I do not want to say hostile) manner? He has nothing but worlds in his mouth? unless he be thought a foolish and unskilful man. For Christians speak of the apostles with fear and reverence, but he teaches us to speak of them with unholy disgust and rejection. And this is the next step, to speak unholily also of God Himself, whose apostles they are; yes, it is just such hopefulness as if one said that the Holy Spirit (whose words are the apostles') led nothing but worlds in the mouth.

20 Such things are innumerable in Erasmus, or rather, he is that entirely in his theology, which many others have already noticed before me, and notice daily more in him. Nor does he cease to increase his censure daily, and to come out with it more grossly; for his judgment hastens on, and his ruin does not sleep.

21 And this is something peculiar in Erasmus' godliness, that in the Epistle of Christian Philosophy (which, added to his New Testament, is publicly circulated through all the churches), after having raised the question: Why Christ, as such a great teacher, came from heaven, since there are many similar and perhaps more perfect things among pagans? he answers: Christ is (I believe that he is)

  1. Apost. 2, 22. The man from God 2c

1996 De Wette IV, 511-513. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2512-2515. 1997

(which I believe to be quite Erasmusian) came from heaven so that he would do these things much more perfectly and better than the other saints.

22 Here Christ, this poor regenerator of all things, (so he bites the Lord of glory) has lost the honor of a redeemer, and has merely become holier than others. He could not have spoken this word out of ignorance, but must have said it with diligence and will, because even those who do not truly believe know and confess everywhere that Christ came down to redeem us men from sin and death.

This was the first passage that made my mind averse to Erasmus. I immediately began to suspect that he was merely a democritus, or epicurus, or a mischievous mocker of Christ, who was showing his hatred of Christ to his fellow epicurians everywhere; but with such fanciful and cunning words that he could rage quite furiously against the Christians who might be annoyed by his pointed, suspicious words, and not want to interpret everything for the good of their Christ. As if Erasmus alone were entitled in the world to put everything in his speeches, even in the greatest things, on screws according to his arbitrariness, and all people must nevertheless be so subject to him in this servitude that they must all understand and interpret his most scandalous and mischievous speeches in the best and most honest way.

Why does he not prefer to speak honestly and openly himself? Why does he take pleasure in such deceitfulness and dangerous figurative ways of speaking? Such a teacher of oratory and theologian should not only have known, but should also have demonstrated in fact what Fabius teaches: that one should avoid an ambiguous word like a cliff. And if such a thing should happen to slip through our fingers, it can be forgiven; but to seek it with diligence and resolution is not worth forgiveness, but the most just punishment of all. For what is such a two-tongued and hateful way of speaking intended to do, but to scatter and preserve the seeds of all heresies among words and letters that seem to be in accordance with the Christian faith, so that, while it seems as if they teach

and if religion were defended, it would be completely destroyed and annihilated without notice?

25 Therefore all do well who interpret his suspicious and deceitful words against him, and one must not let his cry: false accusation! false accusation! be mistaken, as if one did not interpret his words in a fitting and louder way. For why does he avoid fitting speeches, and seek after unskillful speeches?

For this would be an outrageous tyranny, to force the whole human race under himself in such a way that what sounds mischievous and dangerous should nevertheless be interpreted for the best, and he should be granted the dominion to speak deceitfully at all times. Rather, first compel him to act rightly, and urge him to serve the human race, that is, to shun such two-tongued and unholy speech or vain laundering, as Paul commanded that unholy empty talk be shunned.

27 Therefore the common laws of the Roman Empire also condemn this way of speaking, and punish him who could have spoken more clearly, and yet spoke darkly, by prescribing that his words should be interpreted against him. And Christ Himself condemned the mischievous servant, who excused himself in a sly way, and used His own words against him: Out of thy mouth do I judge thee, O thou servant of rascals. For if one were to get into the habit of speaking doubtfully and cunningly in religion, in law and in all important matters, what would become of it but a completely confused Babel, since in the end no one could understand the other? That would not be learning eloquence, but losing one's natural speech.

(28) And if such a wild liberty were to apply, I could interpret everything a heretic has ever said in a reasonable way, even everything the devil has said or done, or could say and do for all eternity. Where then will remain the ability to refute heretics and the devil? where the wisdom of the Lord Christ, which all adversaries cannot resist? where the art of reasoning, the master of teaching? where the art of speech, which is powerful to persuade?

1998 De Wette IV, 513 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2515-2517. 1999

One will not be able to teach, learn, talk, comfort, frighten anything, because one does not hear anything that would be certain or actually said.

29 When Erasmus says of John the Evangelist, so lightly and ridiculously, that he has nothing but worlds in his mouth, he must be struck with the judgment of Epicurus or Domocritus, and told to learn to speak more reverently of majesty. Fools may sometimes speak immodestly or foolishly to princes, but not always with impunity. But if another would do it with sound judgment and intentionally, he might be punished alive as an insulter of majesty.

(30) Thus, when he says: Peter calls Christ a man, but conceals that he is God, he must be blamed for Arian opinion and heresy, for he could have omitted such treacherous speech in such important matters of divine majesty, or spoken more godly. For here the words clearly indicate that the Arians had no desire to call Christ God, and it was better that he should be called only a man. Although they might or might not be interpreted as referring to the deity of Christ, they are offensive to Christian souls as they stand and read, especially if the author is suspicious, because they have neither one nor a simple mind, and are understood more for the Arians than for the orthodox.

(31) Thus Jerome writes of the Arians of his time, who taught just as artificially: "Another thing the priests speak, another thing the people hear. For it would not have been necessary to tell the Christians that Peter did not call Christ God, even though he did not conceal the truth that Christ was God. And it is not enough to invent: Peter called him a man because of the common people, for since he called him a man, he certainly did not conceal God for that reason, except that he did not put these letters "God" in this place, which Erasmus strictly demands here as well as often in other places, only in order to set traps for the inexperienced and to make our religion suspicious.

(32) Carpi (Carpensis 1), whoever he is, quite rightly rebuked him as a follower of the Arians, in the preface to Hilarius, where he wrote: "We dare to call the Holy Spirit God, which the ancients did not dare to do. Now he has been well reminded that he should recognize and correct his beautiful figurative idioms and Arian pieces; but this he does not do at all, but scolds that they are satanic false accusations, and mocks the Deity once again as much as before. So high he defies his two-tongued art and mischievousness in speech. Nevertheless, he confesses the Trinity quite seriously and does not want to be regarded as anything less than having denied the Trinity in the Godhead; only that he says that the forwardness of the moderns (which he will later want to have interpreted as special diligence) has taken many things from Scripture and dared what the ancients would not have dared. As if the Christian religion were based on human reputation (for that is what he wants to say). This is nothing else than that all religions are considered fables.

Although Carpensis is obviously void in many things and attacks Luther in a hostile manner, Erasmus, out of unheard-of arrogance, imagines that all men are blocks and sticks who are neither able to understand the matter nor to hear the words. For only read the passage, and behold the inveterate devil. This passage has made me (for others may hold it as they wish) not trust Erasmus, even if he confesses in clear words that Christ is God. But I need the. Chrysippus' cunning conclusion (sophisma): If you lie, then what you speak true is also a lie. For what did he need (if he truly believed that the Holy Spirit is God) to say: We dare to call the Holy Spirit God, which the ancients did not dare to do? And the word "dare"

  1. Erasmus's rebuttal to Carpensis is entitled: Xpolo^iu aä Xldertura, Ourxorum prMaipkM. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XVIII, Ein" leitung, p. 108, note Carpi lies in the Duchy of Modena. At that time, it was the capital of the principality of the same name and belonged to the House of Pico.

2000 De Wette IV, 814-816. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2817-2520. 2001.

so to turn about on different sides, sometimes to praise, sometimes to scold, even in the very newer ones; since, after all, we have this from the old ones themselves and we did not dare to do it first?

34 Furthermore, it is an obvious lie that the ancients did not dare to call the Holy Spirit God; if he does not, according to his beautiful figure, understand among the ancients Democritus and Epicurus, or take God according to the letter (materialiter) for the four letters "God". But what is the use of such hateful mischievousness than to make an elephant out of a molehill in front of the unlearned, and to make them understand that the Christian religion is nothing at all, merely because the four letters "God" are not everywhere where he could demand them.

(35) His fathers, the Arians, also made much of the fact that these letters Homousios (equal) and Innascibilis (who cannot be born) were not in the Scriptures, and did not care that the matter itself was clearly shown to them. But where the name of God stood, they soon made a false interpretation, mocking the truth, and pretended that it was not a real God, but a name-god. So one cannot do anything with these vipers, one speaks the same with or without scripture.

This is the wickedness of Satan, when he cannot deny the matter, that he turns to require such words as he prescribes. Thus the devil might say to Christ himself, "Though thou speakest true, yet speakest thou nothing, because thou speakest not in such words as I would have thee speak, but I would rather that it were said in no words; as Marcolfus would be hanged upon such a tree as he himself would choose. But he did not want to choose one. But of this another time, when God gives time and life. For I intend to leave behind me my true and certain testimony of Erasmus, and to offer Luther to such vipers that they may sting and bite him, but not that they may tear and devour him completely.

(37) But what I have said about our freedom in the will I repeat, namely, that one should not at all suffer Erasmus's tyranny in his ambiguous speeches, but should rather

must simply judge from his mouth. If he speaks Arian, he must be judged Arian; if he speaks Lucian, he must be called a Lucian; if he speaks pagan, he may be called a pagan, unless he improves himself and ceases to defend such words. For example, in a letter he speaks of the incarnation of the Son of God with the most shameful words and calls it: Coitum Dei cum virgine God's intercourse with the virgin. Here he must be judged as a terrible blasphemer of God and the Virgin. And it is of no help to him, if he wanted to interpret ooitum afterwards in the manner of the sound Christian doctrine. Why did he not speak according to it before? Because he knew that the Christians would necessarily be severely annoyed by the word coitus; indeed, 'if he had not wanted to annoy them, he would not have spoken so. We should also be justly annoyed by it; and it must be called an ungodly man who does not get annoyed in such sacred matters by such a shameful, offensive word, although we know what coire means still further. But since doubtful speech is always to be taken in the worst way, it may be pardoned if it comes to the tongue by chance; but where it is used with diligence and intent, it must be condemned without all mercy, as has been said. For to hold fast the doctrines of faith is a hard and divine work, if they be taught in proper, significant, and certain words: how then shall they be held fast if they be delivered in ambiguous, doubtful, and crooked words?

38 St. Augustine says: "The wise men of the world spoke freely in grave matters, and spared no offense. We, however, (he says) must be guided by a certain rule. Therefore he does not want to suffer the words fortuna and fatum, neither in himself nor in others. For even if someone understands by fortune the mind of God, who acts against what is known by nature, and therefore has no evil opinion, he still says: Keep the opinion and change the language!

39 And even if Augustine had not said this, nor had the power to say it, it is in the nature of every profession that it is

2002 De Witte IV, 818 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2520-2523. 2003

sacred or secular, use his certain expressions, and avoid the ambiguous ones. For even bad craftsmen either blame it as something punishable, or laugh at it as a joke, if someone speaks of their things with alienis terminis words not in keeping with the art (as they are called). How much more must one teach in holy things, where certain blessedness or eternal ruin follows, with certain and proper words! Let us play with ambiguous words in other minor things, such as nuts, apples, coins, and such childish and foolish things, but in religion and important things of the world regime let us flee from ambiguity as much as from death and the devil, as much as it is possible.

40 But our ambiguous king sits securely on the throne of his ambiguity, and oppresses us simple-minded Christians with a double trouble. First, it is his will and heart's desire to annoy us with his ambiguous speeches; and he would be sorry that such blocks did not annoy him. Afterwards, when he sees that we are offended by it and fall over his deceitful, flowery speeches and cry out at him, he first rejoices victoriously and is glad that the desired robbery has fallen into his yarn. For then he has found opportunity to practice the art of speech, breaks loose upon us with great power and clamor, mangles us, scourges us, crucifies us and throws us into the deepest hell, because we understood his words to be slanderous, poisonous, diabolical (and what else might be called annoying), since he would have wanted them to be understood in this way. 2c

With this whimsical tyranny (who would think that the woman of ambiguity would be capable of so much, or who could suppose that a man would be so foolish and rely so much on such a basic concealed way of speaking?) he not only forces us to suffer his free desire to ambiguate, but also to the necessity of remaining silent. He wants and desires that we be annoyed, so that he and his Epicureans mock us as fools. Again, he does not want to hear about it, that we are annoyed, so that he is considered to be quite Christian. So we poor people shall suffer pranks upon pranks, and yet neither sigh nor murmur.

Yes, yes, dear Squire, you must be ordered to do so, especially among Christians.

We Christians, however, who are to judge not only bodily things, but also angels and the world, and already really do judge, not only do not suffer such tyranny of the ambiguous, but also oppose it with the freedom of double condemnation. The first is (as I said): that we condemn everything that Erasmus ambiguously speaks and interpret it against him, as Christ says: "Out of your mouth I judge you, you rogue, likewise: Out of thy words thou shalt be condemned. For why hast thou spoken against thy soul? thy blood be upon thy head. The other is that we condemn his skillful interpretations and interpretations twofold, because with them he not only does not correct what is ungodly said, but even defends it, that is, he ridicules us twice as much with his interpretation as with his first speech.

For example, by coitum Dei et virginis he does not want to understand a common coitus, but another kind of union, namely between God and the virgin, since Gabriel is the wooer and the Holy Spirit fulfills what otherwise the seed does 2c.

44 Behold, for the sake of Christ, what we must suffer and hear from such an interpreter of himself. But he says all this in order to defend such a shameful and obscene word even against Christians by mockery and to force such annoyance upon us, because he knows well that such a mystery of the most holy incarnation cannot be expressed for anyone with doubtful and shameful words. But what they can make Epicureans understand, I am afraid to think. Why do we not also want to call God's conversation with Moses and other prophets a coitum, and write that the angels are the wooers, and the Holy Spirit is the sperm ejaculator, or what else may be called more obscene? But here it is the sex, which seemed to him useful for this mockery, by which it could be said of God that he mated with the virgin, so that such a fairy tale would become of it,

  1. Victualin, food stuff.

2004 De Wette IV, 517-SIS. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. xvm, 2523-2525. 2005

how that, in which Mars is said to have been with Nhea, Jupiter with Semele, and what the Christians hold (secta christianoruin), becomes, as it were, one of the pagan fables, and you would like to see that people of such a fundamentally depraved brain can be found who take such things for seriousness and truth and do not mean what shameful and tasteless stuff they believe and worship. This, of course, had to be made clear to the Christians, the simple-minded louts, by such blurry expressions, so that they might begin to doubt and, through doubting, fall away from the faith, and thus the whole religion would perish before a man would realize it.

(45) This is the parable, Matt. 13, where the enemy sowed tares in the night when the people were asleep, and went away. We Christians are surely asleep, and even if we were not asleep, such sweet sirens would easily put us to sleep with their flattering speeches and make night before our eyes: however, the weeds of the flowery and deceitful words are sown. And since now and then the Sacramentarians, Donatists, Arians, Anabaptists, Epicureans 2c rise up again, we ask: Wherefrom the field of our Lord hath tares? But those who sowed it have gone away and give themselves such an appearance with their clever interpretations, adorning themselves in such a way and eluding our eyes that it would seem that they had sown wheat. So he Erasmus escapes and goes safely away with honor and praise, and seems to be a friend, when in truth he is the enemy. enemy. This is the way of the adulterous woman who devours and wipes her mouth and says, "I have done no evil," Proverbs 30:20.

But so much to your letter, dear Amsdorf, is perhaps already too much and too burdensome. However, I have to report why it seems to me that Erasmus is not to be answered either. For I have enough to do with teaching, strengthening, improving and governing our people. Furthermore, the work of translating the Bible alone occupies us completely. From these works, Satan might try to pull me away, as

he did before, that I left better things, and went after clouds and vain things. For the servile will (servum arbitrium) alone can show you how difficult it is to touch Erasmus, the changeable Proteus, because of his slippery and changeable way of speaking, on which he relies excessively. For he does not remain in a certain place, and is cunning to avoid the pranks, like a disturbed wasp.

But I, the wretched, must hold my peace in an inconvenient place, as a sign of contradiction. For everything that Luther writes was condemned ten years ago, Luther alone writes out of envy, hope, bitter gall, yes! out of Satan himself, but those who write against him all write out of the Holy Spirit.

48 Before these years, it required much effort and tremendous expense to make a dead monk a saint. But now there is no easier way to make even living people, even if they are people, like Nero and Caligula, saints (canonisandi); for this it is only necessary to hate Luther. One may hate Luther and bravely blaspheme, and thereby he is equal to a saint, yes, almost equal to our most holy Lord, the servant of the servants of God that is, the pope.

But who would think that hatred against Luther would be such a powerful and profitable thing? He brings wealth even to beggars, yes. He brings wealth even to beggars, yes, to blind men, moles and frogs, he brings grace from princes and kings, he brings prebends and dignities, he brings bishoprics and offices. He brings even the donkeys the reputation of scholarship and science, he brings the grammarians freedom to write books, yes, finally he even brings about the eternal crown of honors and victory in heaven. O blessed people, all of you who are like Luther, who so easily and without effort attain such high things at once, which all the most excellent people could not attain at once by any wisdom, by any virtues, not even Christ himself with all his miracles, both his own and those of the apostles and all the saints.

50 But this is how the Scripture is fulfilled: Blessed

2006 De Wette IV, 519 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2525-2527. 2007

are those who persecute Luther, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Blessed are you who curse and say all evil against Luther. Rejoice and leap in that day, because your reward is great in heaven. For this is what they did to the apostles and holy bishops, to John Hus and similar people who were before Luther. Therefore, it seems even more advisable to me now not to answer, but to leave my testimony about Erasmus behind me, also for his sake, so that he may finally be rid of the worry that, as he complains, lies so anxiously on his heart, namely, that he will be taken for a Lutheran. For as Christ lives, they do him great injustice, and I must defend him even against his enemies who call him a Lutheran: for he is, as I must most certainly and faithfully testify, by no means Lutheran, but merely an Erasmus.

51 I would like to see the whole of Erasmus banished from our schools, for even if he does not do any harm, he is of no use: he neither teaches nor does anything. And it is of no use to the Christian youth

It is not at all useful to get used to this Erasmian way of speaking. For it will not learn to speak or think seriously and emphatically about any matter, but only to mock all others in the manner of a crow or a buffoon, and otherwise to do nothing but foolish antics. Through such levity and vanity, however, it gradually weans itself from religion, until at last it has an abhorrence of it and becomes quite nefarious. It should be left to the papists, who are worthy of such an apostle, and thus would get the right food for their mouths (haberent labra suas lactucas).

Our Lord Jesus, whom Peter does not conceal from me as God, but in whose power I know and am certain that I have often been saved from death, in whose faith I have begun and accomplished all these things, which the enemies themselves admire, may He also protect and save us to the end: He is the Lord, our true God, to whom alone with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory and honor forever and ever. Amen.

*12. D. Martin Luther's Preface to Antonius Corvinus' Book of Erasmus' Proposals for Church Unification. )

Anno 1534.

To the godly reader, salvation in Christ! D. M. Luther.

1 The printer has forced this preface, which was to appear under my name, from me, so that this booklet, which is already popular in itself, would be made even more acceptable by my testimony, as it were, even though it is, both in terms of the subject matter and the delicate style of writing, as well as in terms of the

I am also very pleased with the way it is presented, and it will undoubtedly be much more pleasing to pious and learned people, even without my testimony. And I gladly confess that it is not my custom to act so gently and mildly in such a matter as our Corvinus is dealing with here, especially since there is no agreement between the Erasmian theologians and the

*The book to which Luther wrote this preface was published in Wittenberg in 1534 by Nicolaus Schirlentz in octavo under the title: tzuatenii8 expedirt aeäitain rooons Rrasini äs Mroiencia RooloÄao oonooräia Rationen,. 8e<Mi, tantisper äurn aüparatur 8^noäu8, 4uäieiuin Vntonii Oorvini ete. In 1544 it was reprinted at Hanau. The preface is found in Latin in the Erlanger, ox>i>. var. ar^., vol. VII, p. 526. In the excerpt in Seckendorfs Hi8t. Rutü., IU>. Ill, x>. 53, and translated from it in Elias Frick, Uebersetzung der Historie des Lutherthums, vol. 3, § 42, p. 1387. This translation is printed in the Leipzig edition, vol. XXII, appendix p. 12, and in the old Walch edition, vol. XIV, 316. We have translated according to the Erlangen edition, which brings the text according to the first edition.

2008 L. V. L. VII, 527-529. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2527-2529. 2009

However, for the sake of the booklet, I will overcome myself as much as I can, and say this much without vehemence: that, of course, the way of teaching that this Julianus defends for Erasmus cannot be made acceptable to me. I do believe myself that perhaps Erasmus and his disciples would like to advise the cause out of good opinion or unrest, through such a middle position and mutual condonation against each other, namely out of fear that it would come to a dangerous outbreak. But conscience and truth cannot suffer this kind of concord. 1) For another is the unity of faith, another the unity of love. According to love, nothing has ever been omitted on our part that we have not offered with all our heart either to preserve peace and harmony or to restore them. We have always been exceedingly willing to do, suffer and observe whatever the adversaries may command, impose or bring before us, without harm to the faith. We have always proved this with the deed itself and with the fruits. For we have never longed for their blood, much less shed it. We have not harmed them in any way, nor have we taken anything from them. Yes, we have always stood, worked and labored bravely for them, against the rebellious and fanatical spirits, and (as pious and godly people, yes, even many among them, confess) have done more than they themselves to preserve their status; hence we have also incurred all the greater and more bitter hatred. For the rebels and swarming spirits are much more lenient in their hatred against the papists than against the Lutherans, while the papists always continue to spill our blood and to drink, and also to persecute us with sword, fire, water and all kinds of fury, for no other reason than because we cannot respect their human statutes as equal to God and his word against our conscience, or even above God and his word.

  1. From here on has been compared: V. L. Seckendorss Historia Lutiioranismi, lib. Ill, 53, where the following is given after a manuscript.

raise his service. Therefore, God will be the judge here, whether it is due to them or to us that no unity can be kept among us. For this is our glory, that we have a quite happy testimony of our good conscience, that we have sought, requested and demanded unity, as far as love is concerned, with the utmost diligence, even after much blood of ours has been shed, and we have had to endure innumerable cruelties and enmity from the adversaries.

  1. But Erasmus seeks in vain the harmony of faith and doctrine by the advice that we should yield to and credit one another, not only because the adversaries neither yield nor want to yield anything, but rather now defend everything much more sharply and fiercely than ever before, so that they have now also dared to demand such things, which they themselves condemned and disapproved of before Luther's time, but also because we cannot approve of that either, which obviously disputes with the holy Scriptures and which does not allow for anything in the middle (as it is called). For the doctrine of faith does not contend with flesh and blood, as does love, which has to do with men and their faults, namely, to bear them, to punish them, and to amend what can be amended, and which always has hope, which endures even unto death, of converting the sinner; but it contends with the spirits of wickedness, and with such as all is lost, whose ungodliness is hardened for ever, without any hope that they will be converted or change their hearts. Therefore, between the faith or doctrine of Christ and the will of evil spirits, there is no peace, no concord, no friendship to try. He the devil is a murderer and father of lies, and can no more cease to prey upon the doctrine of faith than he can put away his lying will and purpose to harm. For how does Christ and Belial agree? What kind of fellowship is there between light and darkness?

(3) But the papists likewise boast of the doctrine of Christ and do not want to be regarded as teaching the devil's errors. They do boast, but the tree is known by its fruit.

2010 . V. L. VII, p29f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. LVIII, 2S29-2S3I. 2011.

And that I do not deal with it extensively here, it is known enough that they do not ask anything about what they teach thoroughly and efficiently to satisfy the consciences. They only shout: Church! Church! Church! and call the church also godless men, who can hold opinions and make statutes over and against the Scriptures, and that by divine power. This speech of theirs is also confirmed by Erasmus, who everywhere promises that he will follow the church, and yet teaches nothing but doubtful and uncertain things. But if we are to call that the church, of which they always cry out that it is the church, and believe according to it what their church says and does, then what is the need of the holy Scriptures? why do they punish vices? why are we in danger because of the confession of the truth? since we can make it up in a nutshell and be blessed without effort if we only speak in this way: I believe that the papists are the church, and I believe that everything the papists teach is true. But how shall we advise pious and godly souls who, caught in the image of Scripture as the word of divine truth, cannot believe what is evidently taught against Scripture? Shall we say to them: One must hear the pope, so that peace and unity may remain? or must we leave them in uncertainty, and in the meantime leave it until the pope has decided otherwise with his own? [Others, who like this, may ask so little about their blessedness and be so sure, surely a mind that fears God and earnestly flees from eternal death and desires eternal life cannot be calmed by uncertain and doubtful teachings.

Therefore, in my Servo Arbitrio on the theology of Erasmus, I also rebuked such an opinion of the doubters. For one must have in the church a certain doctrine, a certain word of God, which one can believe with certainty and certainty and in such certainty of faith live and die both. Because Erasmus asks little about this certainty, and the papists do not teach it (and how could they, because they do not understand anything about it?), but hate and persecute it,

o peace and harmony in doctrine and faith can come about, because the church cannot do without this firm anchor of faith, and no faith can exist apart from or above the word of God. Therefore, whatever the papists or Erasmus say or advise here is all in vain and useless. They cannot and will not help the consciences with such human advice and means, for they want to hear the voice of their one shepherd and master and the voice of their bridegroom. But to the strange voice they say: Because this cannot be proved from the Scriptures, it is as easily rejected as accepted. I am not speaking now of disputes that are raised on the basis of Scripture, but of those that are defended by the adversaries apart from and against Scripture, and are demanded with violence and all kinds of fury. Such things are not merely heretical (for godless spirits invent their heresies from Scripture), but quite wicked and certainly diabolical. Therefore, Erasmus would do best to leave theology altogether and use his eloquence in other things for which he has the gifts. For divine learning wants a mind that earnestly and simply seeks and loves God's word, as it is written: "Seek Him with simplicity of heart, for He is found by those who do not tempt Him;" and Paul Rom. 12. 1 Peter 4: If any man speak, he speaketh as the word of God; and 2 Peter 1: The prophecy of the scripture is not of his own interpretation: for the prophecy is not of the will of man. And we have experienced with great sorrow more than too much under the papacy, with how many winds of doctrine we have been driven about, since we have invented our own articles apart from the Scriptures out of human will, until at last we have even worshiped the cowls of monks, by which idolatry we have far surpassed all the abominations of the heathen. For those who cry out that the church believes in many articles that are not found in the Scriptures, follow their madness and invent a completely different church, namely the school of Satan, and under the name of

2012 D. V. a. VII, 350 f. Appendix of some of Luther's letters. W. XVIII, 2531. 2013

of the holy church, the virgin and bride of Christ, they decorate with the most impudent lies of the devil's vixen and whore and offer the same.

5 But I will speak about this in more detail when I write about the church and the Lord gives me time and strength to do so.

6 However, as long as the devil's kingdom lasts, we must not promise ourselves peace or harmony in doctrine. It is only

A certain way, namely, patience in the love of Christ, that we let them rage and rage, but we bear their hatred and malice with a calm mind. For we must in truth be Christophori Christ-bearers and of the order of the holy cross. But Christ will convert his elect and finally redeem us all, for his is the victory, the power and the glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever! Amen.

End of the eighteenth part.

Part 1 - 1538 - 1546

Reformation Writings Part 1 - 1538 - 1546

Part 2 - 2/3

Reformation Writings Part 2 - 2/3

Made by Kyrie Eleison