Since we have above [p. 46] promised to set forth the glorious and beautiful letter of Luther, which he wrote alone on account of the little word Sola, the same follows from word by word as it is recorded in 5th Tom. Jen. 140. etc. [AE 35, 182-202; StL 19, 968-985]
To the honorable and prudent N., my esteemed lord and friend.
Grace and peace in Christ, honorable, prudent, dear Lord and friend. I have received your writing with the two questions or inquiries in which you desire my report. First, why I have thus translated the words of St. Paul in the epistle Rom. 3 [:28]: Arbitramur hominem justificari ex fide absq. operibus legis: We hold that man is justified without the work of the law, through faith alone. And besides this, you show how the papists make themselves useless above the masses, because the word sola (alone) is not in the text of Paul, and such an addition is not to be suffered by me in God's words, etc. Secondly, do the departed saints also pray for us? Because we read that the angels pray for us, etc.
To the first question, where do you feel like it, you may answer your papists for my sake thus: First, if I, Dr. Luther, could have assured myself that the papists were all at once so skillful that they could rightly and well translate a chapter in the Scriptures, I would indeed have allowed myself to be found humble and asked them for help and assistance in translating the New Testament. But because I knew and still see before my eyes that no one really knows how to interpret or speak German, I spared them and myself to such an effort. You can see that they speak and write German from my interpreting and learning German, and so they steal my language, of which they knew little before, but do not thank me for it, but would much rather use it against me. However, I do not begrudge them this, for it does me good that I have also taught my ungrateful disciples, and my enemies, how to speak.
Secondly, you may say that I have translated the New Testament to the best of my ability and conscience, have not forced anyone to read it, but have left it free and given it to those who cannot do better. No one is forbidden to do better. If anyone does not want to read it, let him leave it, I ask and urge no one to do so. It is my will and my interpretation and shall remain and be mine. If I have made a mistake in it (which I was not aware of and certainly did not want to deliberately misinterpret a letter), I will not suffer the papists to judge, for they still have long ears and their Ika, Ika [hee-haws] is too weak to judge my interpretation.
I know well, and they know it less than the miller's beast, what art, diligence, reason and understanding belong to a good interpreter, for they have not tried it. It is said that he who builds by the way has many masters, and so it is with me. Those who have never been able to speak properly, let alone interpret, are all my masters and I must be their disciple. And if I had asked them how to translate the first two words of Matthew's first chapter, Liber generationis, you would not have known how to say Quack! and the
fine fellows now judge the whole work for me. So it was with St. Jerome, when he interpreted the Bible, when all the world was his master, and he alone could do nothing. And the good man was judged by those who were not enough for him, that they should have wiped his shoes. That is why great patience is needed if someone wants to do something publicly good, for the world wants to remain the master of the horse and must always bridle the horse under its tail. To master everything and not be able to do it herself, that is her way, and she cannot let go of it.
I would still like to see the papist who stands out and translates an epistle of St. Paul or a prophet, provided that he does not use Luther's German and interpretation. There one should see a fine, beautifully praiseworthy German or interpretation. For we have seen the Sudler at this place, who mastered my New Testament (I will not mention his name in my books, for he has his judge and is otherwise well known), who confessed that my German was sweet and good, and saw well that he could do no better, and yet wanted to disgrace it. He went and took for himself my New Testament almost from word for word, as I had done it. And did my preface, glosa and name of it, wrote his name, preface and glosa to it, thus selling my New Testament under his name. Dear children, how woeful it was for me when his prince condemned me with an atrocious preface and forbade me to read Luther's New Testament. But he also ordered me to read Sudler's [Dresden scribbler’s, Jerome Emser’s] New Testament, which is the same one that Luther made!
And lest anyone here should think I am lying, take both testaments for yourself, Luther's and Sudler's, hold them up against each other, and you will see who is the interpreter in both, for what he has embroidered and altered in a few places (although I do not like it all), I can nevertheless bear it well and it does me no particular harm, as far as the text is concerned, which is why I have never wanted to write against it, but have had to laugh at the great wisdom that my New Testament has been so horribly blasphemed, condemned, forbidden, because it went out under my name, but still have to read how it went out under someone else's name
went forth. However, what a virtue it is to blaspheme and desecrate another's book, then steal it and still go out under one's own name, and thus seek eternal praise and name through another's blasphemed work, that I will let his judge find. However, it is enough for me and I am glad that my work (as St. Paul also praises) must also be promoted by my enemies and that Luther's book, without Luther's name, must be read under his enemies' names, how could I take revenge?
And that I come to the point again, if your pope wants to make himself much useless with the word Sola, alone, so tell him quickly thus: Dr. Martin Luther wants to have it thus and says: Papist and donkey be one thing, Thus I will, thus I command, thus the will for reason. (Sic volo, sic jubeo, sic pro ratione voluntas). For we do not want to be the papists' pupils or disciples, but their masters and judges; we want to be proud of them and beat their donkey heads. And as Paul boasts against his great saints, so will I boast against these my asses. You are doctors? So am I. You are scholars? So am I. You are preachers? So am I. Are you a theologian? So am I. Are you a disputator? So am I. Are you a philosopher? So am I. You are dialectici? So am I. You are lecturer? Me too. You write books? Me too.
And will continue to boast. I can interpret psalms and prophets, they cannot. I can interpret, they can't. I can read the scriptures, they can't. I can pray, they can't. And that I come down, I can understand their own dialectics and philosophies, for they themselves are all of them, and know for a fact that none of them understands their aristotelianism. And if there is one among them all who understands a proem or chapter in Aristotle properly, I will let myself be bruised. I will not talk too much now, for I have been educated and experienced in their art from my youth. Knowing almost well how deep and wide it is, they also know well that I know and can do everything they can. The wretched people still act towards me as if I were a genius in their art, who only arrived this morning and have never seen or heard what they teach or can do. They even come in splendidly with their art, and teach me what I tore to shreds twenty years ago, that I must also sing with that metzen to all their plerren and
cries: I knew seven years ago that horseshoe nails are iron.
That is the answer to your first question, and I beg you, do not answer such asses in any other way to their useless babbling about the word Sola, because Luther wants it that way and says: He is a doctor above all doctors in the whole papacy, so let it stay that way. I will henceforth despise and will despise them as long as they are such people (I would say) asses. For there are such impudent drops among them, who have never learned their own, the sophist's art, like Dr. Schmied [Faber] and Dr. Rotzlöffel [Cochlaeus] and their like. And yet they oppose me in this matter, which is not only above sophistry, but also (as St. Paul says) above all the world's wisdom and reason. It is true that a donkey should not sing much, otherwise it is well known among the rulers.
But I will show you and ours why I wanted to use the word (Sola). Although in Rom. 3. I did not use sola but solum, or tantum. So the donkeys regard my text as fine, but I have used it elsewhere sola fide, and also want to have both solum and sola. I have taken to interpreting so that I can give pure and clear German. And it has often happened to us that we have spent a fortnight, three or four weeks, trying to find a single word, and yet sometimes we have not found it.
So in Job we are working, Mr. Philips and I, Auregallus, that in four days we could sometimes barely finish three lines. Better, now that it is translated and prepared, a cedar can read and master it. If one now runs his eyes through three or four leaves and does not even bump into them, but does not realize what piles and clods are lying there, as he now walks over them as over a hoofed board, we must sweat and fear before we clear such piles and clods out of the way, so that one could walk so finely. It is good to plow when the field is clean. But to uproot the forest and the sticks and clear the field, no one wants to do that. There is no thanks to be earned from the world, for God himself cannot earn any thanks with the sun, even with heaven and earth, nor with the death of his own Son. Let it be and remain the world in the devil's name, because it wants nothing else.
So here, Rom. 3, I knew very well that the Latin and Greek texts do not contain the word (solum), and that the papists should not have taught me this. As it is, these four letters (S o l a) are not in it, which letters the donkey's heads look at like the cows look at a new gate, but do not see, which nevertheless has the opinion of the text in it, and where one wants to translate it clearly and violently, it belongs in it, because I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since I had intended to speak German in interpreting. But that is the way of our German language, when a speech is made about two things, one of which is confessed and the other denied, then one needs the word solum, alone, next to the word (not or none). As if one says, the farmer brings all grain and no money. Again, I truly have not money now, but only grain, I have eaten alone and have not yet drunk. Did you write alone and not read over? And the like in countless ways in daily use.
Yes, all of these passages, even if the Latin or Greek language does not do it, the German language does and it is its way that it adds the word (alone), so that the word (not or no) is all the more complete and clear. For although I say, the farmer brings grain and no money, the word (no money) is not as complete and clear as when I say, the farmer brings only grain and no money, and here the word (only) helps the word (no) so much that it becomes a complete German clear speech. ¶ For one does not have to ask the letters in the Latin language: How should one speak German, as the donkeys do. Rather, one must ask the mother in the house, the children in the streets, the common man in the market, and look them in the mouth as they speak and then interpret, so that they understand and realize that one is speaking German to them.
As when Christ speaks: Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. [Matt. 12:34, Luk 6:45] If I am to follow the donkeys, they will lay the letters for me and thus interpret: Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Tell me, is this spoken in German? What German understands this? What kind of German is abundance of the heart? No German can say that. He would say: Unless one has too big a heart, or too much heart, although that
is not right either, for excess of the heart is not German, any more than that is German, excess of the house, excess of the tiled stove, excess of the bank, but thus speaks the mother in the house, and the common man: Weß das Herz voll ist, deß gehe Mund über. This is called speaking good German, that I have not reached and unfortunately not met all the way, because the Latin letters prevent us so much from speaking good German.
So when Judas the betrayer says in Matthew 26 [:8], Ut quid perditio haec? And Mark 14 [:4]: Ut quid perditio ista unguenti facta est? If I follow the donkeys and literalists, I must therefore translate it, why has this loss of the ointments happened? But what kind of German is this? Which German speaks thus: Loss of the ointment has happened? (Verlossung der Salben ist geschehen?) And if he understands it well, he thinks that the ointment is lost, and that he must seek it again, although that is still dark and uncertain. Now if this is good German, why do they not come forward and make us such a fine pretty new German Testament, and leave Luther's Testament? I think they should bring their art to light. But the German man speaks thus: Ut quid &c. What is the use of such nonsense? Or what is the harm of such? Again: it is a pity for the ointment. This is good German, from which one understands that Magdalene had handled the spilled ointment unrighteously and had done harm. That was Judah's opinion, for he intended to take better counsel with it.
Again: When the angel greets Mary and says Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord with thee. Well, so far it has been badly Germanized according to the Latin letters. But tell me, is this also good German? Where does the German man say thus: Thou art full of grace? And what German understands what is said, voll Gnaden? He must be referring to a barrel full of beer, or a bag full of money, which is why I have Germanized it: Du holdselige, so that a German can think all the more about what the angel means by his greeting. But here the papists want to be mad at me that I have spoiled the Protestant greeting, even though I have not used the best German. And I should have used the best German here, and thus Germanized the greeting: God greet you, dear Mary (for that is what the angel wants to say, and that is what he would have said
if he had wanted to greet her in German), I think they should have thought for themselves, for great devotion to dear Mary, that I had so ruined the greeting.
But, what do I ask about it, they rave or rave? I will not prevent them from translating what they want, but I will also translate not as they want, but as I want, whoever does not want it, let me have it, and keep his mastery to himself, for I will neither see nor hear it, they must not answer for my interpreting, nor give an account, that you may hear, I will say: You blessed Mary, you dear Mary, and let them say: You full of grace Mary. Whoever knows German knows well what a heartfelt and fine word this is, the dear Mary, the dear God, the dear emperor, the dear prince, the dear man, the dear child, and I do not know whether the word love can be spoken as heartfelt and sufficiently in Latin or other languages to penetrate and resound in the heart, through all the senses, as it does in our language.
For I think that St. Lucas, as a master of both the Greek and the Ebrew language, has intended to meet the Ebrew word used by the angel with the Greek Kechaiitonicni and to give it clearly. And think me, the narrow one! Gabriel spoke to Mary as he speaks to Daniel, and calls him Hamudoth and isch Hamudoth vir desideriorum, das is, you dear Daniel, for that is Gabrieli's way of speaking, as we see in Daniel. Now if I were to translate the angel's word from the donkey's art according to the letters, I would have to say: Daniel, you man of desires, or Daniel, you man of lusts, oh that would be beautifully German. A German may well hear that lusts or lust are German words, although they are not pure German words, but lust and desire would be better. But when they are summarized in this way, thou man of lusts, no German knows what is said, thinks that Daniel is perhaps full of evil lust, that would be called fein gedolmetschet.
Therefore I must here let the letters go, and inquire how the German man speaks such things as the Hebrew man speaks ish Hamudoth, so I find that the German man speaks thus, thou dear Daniel, thou dear Mary, or, thou lovely maid, lovely maiden, thou tender woman, and the like, for he who would interpret must have a great store of words, that he may have the choice where one will not read in all places.
And what shall I say much and long about interpreting? If I were to indicate the causes and thoughts of my words, I should probably have a. I should have a year to write about it: What an art, toil and labor interpreting is, I have well experienced, therefore I will not suffer a pope's ass or a mule, who have tried nothing, to be judge or reprover in this. Whoever does not want my interpreting, let him have it, the devil thank him, whoever dislikes it or masters it without my will and knowledge. If it is to be mastered, then I will do it myself, if I do not do it myself, then let me do my interpreting in peace and let everyone do what he wants for himself and have a good year.
I can testify with a clear conscience that I have shown my utmost faithfulness and diligence in it and have never had any wrong thoughts, for I have not taken a penny for it, nor sought nor gained anything by it. Thus I have not meant my honor in it, God knows, my Lord, but have done it for the service of the dear Christians and in honor of One who sits above, who does me so much good every hour that if I interpreted a thousand times as much and diligently, I would still not have deserved to live an hour or to have a healthy eye. It is all his grace and mercy that I am and have, yes, it is his precious blood and sour sweat, therefore (if God wills) everything should serve him in honor with joy and from the heart. If the Sudlers and papists blaspheme me, well then, the pious Christians, together with their Lord Christ, praise me, and I am all too richly rewarded if only a few Christians recognize me as a faithful worker. I ask nothing of papists; they are not worthy that they should recognize my work, and I should be sorry in my heart that they should praise me. Their blasphemy is my highest glory and honor; I want to be a doctor, even a full-fledged doctor, and they shall not take away my name until the last day, I know that for certain.
But again I have not let the letters go too freely, but have taken great care, together with my helper, to see that, where a word is needed, I have kept it according to the letters, and have not gone away so freely. As John 6 [:27], where Christ
says: This one has been sealed by God the Father, it would probably have been better to say in German, this one has been marked by God the Father, or this one is meant by God the Father. But I would rather break away from the German language than from the word. Ah, interpreting is not the art of every man, as the mad saints think; it requires a heart that is pious, faithful, diligent, fearful, Christian, learned, experienced, and practiced; therefore I believe that no false Christian, nor a riotous spirit, can interpret faithfully, as it seems to have been done in the prophets at Worms, in which great diligence has indeed been done, and my German has almost been followed, but there have been Jews among them who have not shown great favor to Christ, otherwise there would have been art and diligence enough.
Let this be said of interpreting and the nature of languages. But now I have not only trusted and followed the manner of languages, that I have added Roman. 3 [:28] Solum (alone), but the text and the opinion of St. Paul demand and enforce it by force. For there he deals with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without all works of the law, and cuts off all works so purely that he also says that the works of the law (which is God's law and work) do not help to righteousness. [Rom. 3:20]
And take the example of Abraham, that he was justified even without works, that even the highest work, which at that time was newly commanded by God, for and above all other laws and works, namely circumcision, did not help him to righteousness, but that he was justified by faith without circumcision and without all works. As he says, Rom. 4 [:2]: If Abraham was justified by works, he may boast, but not before God. But where all works are so purely cut off, there must be the meaning that faith alone justifies, and whoever wants to speak clearly and firmly of such a cutting off of works must say: faith alone and not works make us righteous. This is forced by the matter itself apart from the language.
Yes, they say, it is annoying and people learn from it that they must not do good works.
Beloved, what is there to chase, is it not much to be desired, that St. Paul himself does not say, faith alone, but pours it out more roughly, and knocks the bottom out of the barrel, and says, without the work of the law. And Gal. 2. not by the values of the law, and that rather in other places. For the word (faith alone) would still find a gloss, but the word (without the value of the law) is so coarse, vexatious, disgraceful, that no gloss can help. How much more might people learn from this to do no good work, since they hear preaching with such dry, strong words about the works themselves (no work, without work, not by work). Isn't it annoying that people preach (without works, no works, not by works)? Why then should it be offensive to preach this (faith alone)?
And what is even more annoying, St. Paul does not condemn evil common works, but the law itself. Someone might be even more annoyed by this and say that the law is condemned and cursed by God, and that we should hasten to do evil as they do. Rom. 3 [:8] Let us do evil that it may become good, as also a riotous spirit began to do in our day; shall we for the sake of such vexation deny St. Paul's word, or not speak fresh and free from the faith?
Beloved, St. Paul and we want to have this kind of disagreement, and for no other reason teach so strongly against works, and urge faith alone, than that people should fret and stumble and fall, so that they may learn and know that they will not become godly by their good works, but only through Christ's death and resurrection. Now if they cannot become godly by good works of the law, how much less will they become godly by evil works and without the law? Therefore it does not follow that good works do not help, but evil works do. Just as not finely follows: The sun cannot help the blind man to see, therefore night and darkness must help him to see.
But I am surprised that people are so reluctant in this public matter. Tell me whether Christ's death and resurrection is our work, which we do or not? It is not our work, nor is it some of the work of the law. Now Christ's death and resurrection alone makes us free from sin and pious, as Paul says in Rom. 4 [:25]: He died for
our sins and rose again for our righteousness. Tell me further, what is the work that we may grasp and hold Christ's death and resurrection? It does not have to be an outward work, but only faith in the heart. This alone, indeed alone without all works, grasps such death and resurrection where it is preached through the gospel.
Why, then, should people rage and fume, make heretics and burn, when the matter itself is basically clear and proves that faith alone can grasp Christ's death and resurrection without all works, and that this same death and resurrection is our life and righteousness? If, then, it is evident from Himself that faith alone brings, grasps and gives us such life and righteousness, why should we not speak thus? It is not heresy that faith alone grasps Christ and gives life, but it must be heresy whoever says or speaks this. Are they not mad, foolish and nonsensical? They confess the things to be right, and yet punish the talk of the same thing as wrong. Both right and wrong must be the same thing.
Nor am I alone, nor the first, in saying that faith alone justifies. Ambrose, Augustine and many others have said it before me, and whoever reads and understands St. Paul must be able to say this and cannot do otherwise: His words are so strong and suffer no, indeed, no work at all. If there is no work, it must be faith alone. Oh, what a fine, good, unpleasant doctrine it would be if people were to learn that, in addition to faith, they could also become pious through works, for it is much to say that not only does Christ's death take away our sin, but our works also do something for it. This would be honoring Christ's death so that our works could help him and do what he does, so that we would be as good and strong as he is. It is the devil who cannot leave the blood of Christ undefiled.
Because the matter itself requires that one should say: Faith alone makes righteous, and our German language, which also teaches this, has the example of the holy fathers for this, and also compels people's minds that they do not remain attached to works and lack faith and lose Christ, especially at this time, when they have been accustomed to works for so long, and
are to be torn from it with power, it is not only right, but also highly necessary, that one should say most clearly and completely that faith alone without works makes one pious. And I repent that I have not added to this, all and all. So without all the works of all laws, that it would be fully and completely expressed. Therefore it shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the papist asses become foolish, they shall not take it away from me.
That is enough of this now, I will speak of it further (if God gives grace) in the booklet de Justificatione.
To second question: Do the deceased saints pray for us?
I will now answer this recently, for I intend to have a sermon on the dear angels, in which I will continue these pieces (God willing).
First of all, you know that in the papacy it is not only taught that the saints in heaven pray for us, which we cannot know because the Scriptures do not tell us this, but also that the saints have been made gods, that they must be our patrons, whom we should invoke, Some, too, who have never been, and have given each saint special power and authority, one over fire, this one over water, this one over pestilence, fever and all kinds of plagues, so that God himself had to be very weary and let the saints host and create in his place. The papists now feel or sense this abomination and secretly putting up their pipes, cleaning and adorning themselves with the intercessions of the saints. I will postpone this now, but what does it matter if I forget it and let such cleaning and adorning go unpunished?
Second, you know that God never commanded angels or saints to intercede. Nor is there any example of this in Scripture, for we find that the dear angels spoke to the fathers and prophets. But none of them was ever asked for intercession,
nor did the patriarch Jacob ask his angel of war for intercession, but took the blessing from him alone [Gen. 32:24-29]. But one finds the counterplay in Revelation (Apocalypse), where the angel did not want to be worshipped by John [Rev. 22:9]. And so we find that the service of the saints is a mere human act and a founding of its own apart from God's Word and the Scriptures.
But because it is not proper for us to intercede in worship without God's command, and whoever does so is tempting God, it is neither to be advised nor to be suffered to call upon the departed saints for intercession, or to teach them to do so, but rather to condemn them and teach them to avoid it. For this reason, I do not want to advise it, nor burden my conscience with other people's misdeeds. It has become so sour for me that I have torn myself away from the saints, for I have been deeply immersed and drowned in it beyond all measure. But the light of the Gospel is now so bright in the daytime that no one is excused from now on if he remains in darkness. We almost all know well what we should do.
Beyond this, it is an annual, annoying service to Himself that people easily become accustomed to turning away from Christ, and soon learn to place more trust in the saints than in Christ Himself. For without this, nature is all too prone to flee from God and Christ and to trust in men. Indeed, it becomes exceedingly difficult for us to learn to trust in God and Christ, just as we have vowed and owe. For this reason, we should not tolerate such a rebellion, so that the weak and carnal people may commit idolatry against the first commandment and against our Baptism. One can only confidently drive the confidence and trust from the saints to Christ, both with doctrines and practice. Nevertheless, it is hard and difficult enough to come to him and take hold of him. One must not paint the devil on the door, he will find himself.
Finally, we are sure that God is not angry with us because of this, and we are sure that we do not appeal to the saints for intercession, because he has not commanded us anywhere, for he says that he is a zealot who visits iniquity on those who do not keep his commandment. But there is no commandment here, so there is no wrath to fear. Because here on this side there is safety, and there great peril and vexation against God's Word, why should we turn from safety
into peril, since we have no Word of God to keep, comfort or save us in trouble? For it is written that he who willingly goes into danger will perish in it. God's commandment also says: You shall not tempt the Lord your God.
Yes, they say, you are condemning the whole of Christendom, which has held such things everywhere up to now? Answer: I know very well that the priests [Pfaffen] and monks seek such a cover for their abominations and want to blame Christendom for what they have neglected. So that when we say that Christendom does not err, we should also say that they do not err either, and thus no lies or error may be punished against them, because Christendom holds it so. So I then no pilgrimage (how evidently the devil is there), no indulgence (how gross the lies are), is unjust, in short, vain holiness is there. This strange thing they therefore mix, that they may lead us from this thing. We are now dealing with God's Word; what Christianity is or does belongs in another place. What is or is not the Word of God? What is not God's Word does not make Christianity.
We read at the time of Elijah the prophet that there was no word of God nor worship in public among all the people of Israel, as he says, Lord, they have killed your prophets and dug up your altar, and I am all alone [1 Kings 19:10, 14]. Here King Ahab and others will have said: Elijah, with such talk thou condemnest all the people of God. But God would have kept seven thousand all the same [1 Kings 19:18]. Do you not think that God could have kept His own under the papacy, even though the clergy and monks in Christendom have become vain teachers of the devil and have gone to hell? Many children and young people have died in Christ, for Christ, under his antichrist, has forcibly preserved baptism, the plain text of the Gospel in the pulpit, the Lord's Prayer and the faith, so that he might preserve many of his Christians, and thus his Christendom, and has said nothing of this to the devil's teachers.
And even though Christians have committed some of the papal abominations, the papacy has not yet proved that Christians have done so willingly. Much less does it prove that Christians have done right;
Christians can indeed err and sin, all of them, but God has taught them all to pray for forgiveness of sins in the Lord's Prayer. And has forgiven their sins, which they had to commit unwillingly, ignorantly and forced by the Antichrist, and yet the priests and monks do not say anything about it. But it can be proved that all over the world there has always been a great secret grumbling and complaining against the clergy, as if they were not dealing properly with Christianity, and the popes have resisted such grumbling with fire and sword until this time. Such mummering proves how gladly the Christians saw such abominations and how rightly they were treated. Yes, dear papists, come here now and say that it is the doctrine of Christendom what you have forged, lied and imposed on dear Christendom by force as the villains and traitors, and as the arch-murderers, murdered many Christians over it. Yet all the letters in all the papal laws testify that nothing of the will and counsel of Christendom has ever been taught, but vain “we teach and strictly command” (districte praecipiendo mandamus) is there, that their Holy Spirit is nourished. Such tyranny has Christendom had to suffer, so that the sacrament is robbed from her and kept in prison through no fault of her own. And the asses wanted to sell themselves and the painful tyranny of their iniquity to us now as a willing act and example of Christianity, and thus preen themselves, but this is getting too long now. Enough for now on the question, more another time, Pardon my long writing. Christ, our Lord, be with us all. Amen.
From the desert on Sept. 8
(Ex Eremo octava Sept. )
1530 (Anno M. D. XXX. )
Martin Luther.
Your good friend.
Chapter Navigation