Luc. 17, 11-19.
And it came to pass, as he journeyed toward Jerusalem, he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. And when he was come into a market, ten leprous men met him, which stood afar off, and lifted up their voice, and said: JEsu, dear Master, have mercy on us. And when he saw them, he said unto them: Go and show yourselves to the priests. And it came to pass, as they went, they were cleansed. And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned again, and praised God with a loud voice, and fell on his face at his feet, and gave thanks unto him. And this was a Samaritan. And Jesus answered and said, Were not ten of them clean? But where are the nine? Has no one else been found who has turned back and given glory to God, except this stranger? And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath helped thee.
(1) Before we proceed to the interpretation, we must first clear out of the way the tares of false doctrine, which are drawn from this gospel and deceive the people with it; for because Christ directs the lepers to the priests, they pretend that secret confession is commanded with it. And although this is a foolish interpretation, yet the simple are frightened by it from the ravening wolves, who desire nothing so nearly as that no one among the poor people should know anything of the real truth and their foolishness: I must go on with this saying about what I wrote in the sermon on confession, and as much as I am able, I must dispute it, so that they do not blind us with their seeing eyes, as they would like to do; and as they dispute a thing many times, we must dispute it many times.
(2) First, Christ does not call these lepers to confess their sin, but to present themselves badly to the priests, as all lepers were required to do under the law of Moses. Where then do you want to turn and change the languages so that "to show" is as much as "to confess", "leprosy" is as much as "sin"? So in all places of the Scriptures "to show" would have to mean "to confess": so Christ would have confessed when he showed his disciples his hands and feet on Easter Day; and God would have confessed to Mosi when he showed him the wood that he threw into the bitter water of Marath, and thus would become a desolate thing in the Scriptures.
3. the same, so "Ausfatz" "sin"
If leprosy is a sin, it is a strange sin, since no one willfully becomes or remains a leper, or even hates and flees it with all his heart, so that they are also called lepers because they are taken from the congregation and abandoned in special houses; but "sin" is a thing that is accepted willfully. Further, if leprosy is sin, then only the lepers must confess, and all the others need not confess, for they have no leprosy, that is, according to this interpretation, they have no sin. What could be said more foolish and foolish?
4 On the other hand: Yes, they say, the leprosy means sin, and the showing means confession.
Answer 5: This is not valid and does not help, there must be clear words of confession and sin, because the figures and meaning, only for themselves, do not prove and force anything, as St. Augustine says. For when the people of Israel passed through the Red Sea, it meant baptism, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:2. Item, the same baptism was also signified by the river Sint in Noa times, as St. Peter says 1 Ep. 3, 20. 21. and in many more figures. But if Christ had not instituted and commanded baptism with actual and clear words, who would ever have thought of being baptized? Yes, who would be so bold as to be baptized without such a clear institution of baptism, for the sake of the meaning alone? Such baptizing would not be baptizing, but only baptizing.
Mockery and jugglery against God. Further, where such a figure and meaning would be sufficient to compel to do that which it signifies, Noah would have been guilty of baptizing himself with his own; for the Flood, the meaning of baptism, was present at the time, so that the people of Israel would also have been guilty of running themselves into the Red Sea, since the meaning of baptism was, and had both Noah and they all mortally sinned, they would also have been lost, that they had not done enough of the interpretation.
6 Item, it is held that Melchizedek signified the mass when he offered bread and wine, Gen 14:18. Now if the signification is alone, without a new actual institution of the mass by Christ, who would or could keep the mass? Yes, Melchizedek and all the patriarchs would have sinned by not keeping mass and doing enough for the meaning. But since the meaning does not compel, even forbid, that one do nothing, unless God establishes anew what it means, it would have been a sin and a great misdeed against God to keep the mass only because of the meaning. And what would it have been necessary to institute baptism and mass anew, if the meanings were enough to compel us to do so? Then there would be no difference between the New and Old Testament, no difference between the figures and fulfillment.
7 Item, Genesis 22, that Isaac, Abraham's son, was sacrificed and yet was set free, signifies the resurrection of Christ and all of us on the last day. Now if the meaning were enough, and compelled to do what it signifies, Abraham, Isaac, and all of us would be damned for not yet rising from the dead, as the figure teaches us. Therefore, it is a foolish thing to try to establish or prove something on the basis of a mere figure, which does not bind us at all, so that it is in no way in our power to fill it, nor do we know when it is time to fulfill it, but God alone fulfills it when and how he wills, through his new actual appointment; as long as we do not have it, the figures do not concern us, nor do they force us to do anything; but when the appointment and fulfillment have taken place, then we come to the end of the matter.
Then the figures are added and show how this was meant to happen through them in the past. Just as the holy Hannah Luc. 2, 38 stood with Christ in the temple and spoke of him.
Item 8: All Scripture testifies and signifies that the Son of God was to become man. If the meaning is enough, what need is there that he became man, since we have his figure? Then all fathers and prophets would be condemned, who waited for his birth and did not let themselves be satisfied with the figures. What could be more clumsy than these sophists, who deal with the holy scripture only with figures and do not present the fulfillment of the same? This is nothing else than giving us the shell from the nut, the husk from the grapes, the bran from the flour. It would be better to give both with each other, or only the kernel and juice and flour, as befits the New Testament; therefore we see how St. Augustine said: Figura nihil probat. (Figures prove nothing.)
(9) So also here, if they had already contended that "to show" is as much as "to confess", which they may not contend; nevertheless, they would have to prove this meaning fulfillment clearly, where God has fulfilled and instituted the same in the New Testament. For where the figure would have been enough, confession should not have been used, and all would have sinned in the Old Testament, because they had the figure of confession and yet none confessed it. And if we also cannot prove this appointment and fulfillment of the figures, we are not only not guilty of confession, but do the most grievous sins and iniquities when we confess; for thereby we subject ourselves to fulfill the figure ourselves, and to appoint what it signifies, which, however, belongs to no one but God alone, who has also appointed the figure himself and alone. Do you think, fool, that he will allow you to do the greatest and best, and keep the least for yourself? You have never made nor set the figures that are the least, but only God, and you miss to make and set the fulfillment that is the greatest. Are you not senseless against your God? But so it is with those who are in
of the type driving with their light and playing with bare figures.
(10) Now, in addition to the fact that they do not conclude anything with figures and do not like to prove their fulfillment, they also fail to prove that they do not have a figure. They take for a figure that which is not a figure, and thus pretend that they have neither figure nor fulfillment. It would be a sorry foolishness that they nevertheless lead with mere figure, whether they did not have fulfillment. But this is also not a figure, which they want to make a figure, and so they take hold of God's two hands, want to make a figure and a fulfillment themselves, the greatest with the smallest, just as if they had the power to lead the people of Israel through the Red Sea into a figure and then also to use the baptism for the fulfillment.
(11) This is also a certain rule: He who cannot prove the fulfillment in the Scriptures beforehand, certainly lacks the figure and takes his own dream for the figure; for the fulfillment of all figures is in the New Testament; therefore one must first bring the fulfillment from the New Testament and then draw the figure on it, so that it gives itself and harmonizes sweetly with one another, and one wheel goes in the other, as Ezekiel says in chapter 1, v. 16. V. 16. Since they cannot prove from the New Testament that one should confess sins, their figure is already meaningless, that "to show to the priest" is as much as "to confess sins"; for it is no sooner compulsory, since you know where there is something in the New Testament about confessing sins; therefore you have certainly missed the figure and it is your own dream.
(12) For I may well use the same "showing to the priest," if I want to go without Scripture, in another way than confession, as you do, and say that it means to honor or greet the priest, or to bring him a book, or to tell him something; and I would like to see how you will put down such an interpretation for me. I have ever as good a power to figure as thou hast; so the New Testament agrees with me, and says much of honoring the priest; but of thy confession it says not one letter. O, what a wild and desolate study and preaching should follow from this wanton figuration; as it has been done.
For such dream preaching and dream teaching now reigns in all the world, previously in the monasteries, foundations and high schools, pretending to preach Scripture to us, if it is only their jugglery, exaggerated over the Scripture.
13 This is not also an honest play, that they also do not act their futile, fictitious figure correctly. So completely can the blindly wicked people nothing, that they also do not submit their own dreams; for lying and deceiving is also art, who should do it well. They make the leprosy spiritual, but they do not make the showing spiritual, the priest also not spiritual, the man also not spiritual, so it should and must be all spiritual, what the figure interprets. That is quite a knavery and Satan's way: to take one piece spiritually and make the other all fleshly, and then boast that one has interpreted the figure. Therefore, as the leprosy is spiritual, so must the priest also be spiritual; but they are each bodily priests, as we shall hear, so is confession ever so bodily, which is done with the body, with going into a bodily place, with bodily speech, outwardly to a bodily priest, as these ten lepers have shown themselves bodily. Now is this not a fine interpretation of the figure, since a bodily thing signifies and fulfills another bodily thing? Millstones should be hanged on their necks and they should be drowned, as Christ considers them worthy, Matth. 18:6, who cause such trouble and pervert the Scriptures in the poor innocent hearts because of their shameful belly.
So you see how far this seductive people is from the truth. They do not have the fulfillment of the figure, they do not have the figure either, in addition they cannot act their dream figuratively, they lie and deceive about one piece more than threefold harmful lies. But what the figure means, we will say later; now let it suffice that "confessing sin" may not be meant or figured by "showing it to the priest". Not only because confession is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament, but also because such priests, such confessors, such lepers are not mentioned in it; for leprosy does not mean all sin, as we shall hear.
15 Thirdly: If now such fool
If it were not for the work and the dream fables, and if all their figurations and interpretations were true, that the priest should be commanded to confess by showing them, it is still far from what they seek, for they want all men to understand confession. Christ said only to the lepers that they should show themselves to the priests; this cannot be understood by all men, since they are not all lepers. But if they say that through the lepers all men are signified, then they are quite right.
16 First, that they put their thing again on the fur sleeves and crawl to the figure, of which they do not like to indicate any fulfillment, and thus bring up dream poem for figure, in addition to laying them out with bodily things, bodily men by bodily men mean, as is said above; therefore this is not useful and disgraces itself.
(17) Secondly, they speak against themselves and against all the fathers' interpretations, who agree that lepers do not mean all men, but only heretics and false teachers, who misuse Scripture and truth for their lies, just as these confessors do; and leprosy is nothing else than doctrine that mixes falsehood with truth. If the interpretation is true, the meaning, even if it means confession, may not compel all men to confess, but only heretics and all false teachers and disciples; such a figure is of no concern to other sinners. What do they want to say about this? They have forced the sentence on all sinners, and themselves confess that it concerns only the lesser part of sinners, even in its meaning, and in addition have forced it on confession, since the fathers did not force it. Are they not deceivers and liars, the servants of the belly?
(18) About this, thirdly, that the lepers are all men, we ask: Who then are the priests to whom Christ directs them? They are not the lepers, nor are they signified by them; so they are certainly not of the number of all men who are signified by the lepers; what then are they? Further, if they are anything else than the lepers, then they are not sinners, so they must not confess: but who sins more and who
confesses more than the priests? Therefore Christ should have called the priests together, and show themselves to each other, so that the confessors may stand with their dream. But since he sends the lepers to them, it follows, according to their theology, that the priests are not men nor sinners, nor should they confess, or we must seek other priests here who are not sinners nor men, and count our priests among the lepers. But if we do this, we are free from confession; for Christ does not call the lepers to go together and confess among themselves (that is, one sinner cannot confess to another), but the leper must go to the pure priest, who is none on earth, for they are all sinners also; Or they must confess that they are not priests rather than pure, and may not hear confession, nor absolve, nor measure, unless they are holy, which they have condemned as the highest error; but it will thus follow mightily from their own understanding. Woe to their poor stomachs then, how their stomachs should burst when the consequence arises that they are to be holy or not priests as their doctrine concludes.
019 Behold, how manifold abominable blows do the lies that run contrary to the scriptures, that whithersoever they turn and turn, vile abominations follow therefrom, and the very contradiction they meet with. Just as here, when they wanted to force us to confession by this saying, they make us free of it with their own glosses; and so that they want to rise above us, they make themselves null and void, that they remain neither priests nor men, but only liars and deceivers. Truly, by this example we see how not to scold (joke) with the Scripture, it strikes too horribly, and makes its philistines, as the ark did, manifoldly eternal disgraces.
20 Fourthly: Even if we all wanted to cover up their clumsy lies and foolishness, and to believe that leprosy means all sin, and that lepers are all sinners, as they pretend, they still do not want to go on with their confession. Their belly has been too full, has not let their head go.
The penny of confession has seemed too bright to him and has pleased him too much, so he has been too hasty. Let us admit to them that leprosy means all the sins that are to be confessed; let us fight with their own sword, and demand of them again that they admit to us that dropsy, drought, blindness, gout, lameness, death, and all the sicknesses that Christ expelled in the gospel, also mean sin; they must confess and admit this.
21 So we ask them: How is it, then, that none of these ever once turned Christ to the priests, but only the lepers? Now let us stand against each other: Christ in the gospel has only twice called the lepers to go to the priest, thus proving confession; so we take the other signs all of the whole gospel against the two of the lepers, thus proving that confession is not to be made, here let everyone judge whether our reason is not stronger, which has the whole gospel, that they have only two small pieces; since sin has been signified by all sickness, and not once to the priests, because only twice, the sick are directed. So it follows that either confession is to be confessed and not confessed at the same time, or confession is not well founded by them on leprosy; for they may not say why those with many other diseases, which also mean sin, are not sent to the priests. If then they urge hard that the lepers should present themselves to the priest, we urge much harder that the lame, the blind, the gouty, the possessed, the deaf, the dumb, the dead should not present themselves to the priests.
22. further, when he raised the virgin from death, Marc. 5, 43, he strictly forbade them not to tell anyone. And, Marc. 7, 36, when he healed the mute and the deaf, he also forbade them not to tell anyone. From this we conclude that the confession of sin is forbidden, as much as they conclude that it is commanded; since they cannot deny that death, the deaf and the mute also mean sin, and yet he does not want anyone to know about it.
23 Again, Marc 5:19, he commanded the possessed man to go to his house,
and say what God had done to him. Let us conclude from this that confession is not only to be made to the priests, but also to the wife, child and servants; for Christ does not direct these people to the priests. Behold, what a strange thing confession is to become, that it is commanded and forbidden at the same time, to be done to the priests and not to the priests. What can they say to this, but that their stingy belly must be ashamed that it has thus deceived God's words, and that it has so miserably deceived the world, the poor multitude?
24. item, what will also become of it, that Christ does not direct the lepers to one priest, but to many, and says: "Go, and show yourselves to the priests"; this may not mean a secret confession, which is only to be done to one.
(25) Even so our confessionists pretend that they destroy sin. But this is not what this figure means; for the priests did not make these lepers clean, but received the sacrifice according to the law from them, who were already made clean by Christ. If only they had so much sense that they would say: This showing to the priests would be like confession; so it would be; for as I show myself to him to whom I go, so he that confesseth shows himself to the priest. So that confession might have many similes, namely, of all those who show themselves to others; but that they make a divine figure and commandment out of it, there the belly snores too firmly after the confession penny.
(26) Therefore, is not the guardian of the belly, Squire Avarice, a cunning rogue? He had drawn no disease from the whole gospel on confession, but only leprosy. Dear, why that? He saw that the priests alone are called there, that one should sacrifice to them; then he thought: "Wait, this will be good, here we want to make a confession, then the confession penny must come along; the other miraculous signs, whether they also mean sin, but because they do not assign the sacrifice to the priests, we do not want to let them serve for confession. What do you think? Has it not pleased you that they have become our masters?
and deprived us of our property with such crude, shameful lies? that I do not know whether they deserve more punishment, that they have thus cheated us, or we, that we have been such stock fools, and have allowed ourselves to be blinded by such foolish, clumsy lies.
Lastly, we come to the main point. They must ever confess that this figurative priesthood, which was in the Old Testament, is now no more: so we ask them whence they have power to say that they themselves are signified by those priests, and make themselves priests of the New Testament alone. There is not one letter in the whole New Testament in which they are called priests. What do they want to say about this? Let the lepers go to the priests; where are the priests? St. Peter 1 Ep. 2, 9 says that in the New Testament there are no special priests, but all Christians are priests, which means priests; because they are not priests, the figure and the saying do not concern them, much less the sacrifice and the sacred penny of confession.
028 Neither does it help that some of the holy fathers have called their state priesthood, for nothing is brought up out of the Scriptures by it; they have written more things that are not written in the Scriptures; shall they therefore be received for articles of faith? They have been men in many things. Much less does the evasion help, which the liar of Leipzig has made, and writes that two kinds of priesthood are to be understood in St. Peter's words: a spiritual one, according to which all Christians are priests, and a physical one, according to which they alone, the shorn and smeared multitude, are priests; for such a poem stands on butter-feet. If St. Peter were to understand tenfold, even a thousandfold priesthood, they would still be common to all Christians; for his words are spoken to all Christians, as no one can deny; therefore, if in it shorn or unshorn priesthood is understood, it must be understood by all Christians. However, since not all Christians are ordained priests and plate-bearers, it is not possible that St. Peter could have been called a priest by the plate-bearer.
The same liar lies and deceives.
29 And why did they not call up Moses and say that he instituted confession with these words? for they are not Christ's own words, but the words of Moses, who commanded in Deut. 13:2 and Cap. 14:2 that the lepers should present themselves to the priest, and that Christ should not put them on as his own, but as the words of the law. If they are to base confession on the fact that Christ attracts them, they should rather base confession on the Law of Moses, where they originally stand; or if the words of the Law mean something different and new, that Christ attracts them, then this should also mean something different, because Moses wanted, since Christ attracts from Deut. 6:5: "You shall love God, your Lord, with all your heart." Item, so they would like to say, he would have appointed church consecration, since he leads Matth. 21, 13. the saying Jesaiä Cap. 56, 7: "My house is a house of prayer," and drove out of it the buyers and sellers; and so henceforth all sayings would interpret something else than they have in the law, of which he introduces many. But what else would they say, but that Christ was a liar and a transgressor of the holy scriptures? What do they want to say to this, the dear bellies and gluttons, because they are a people who have no consideration nor prudence, plummeting in like a sow, what they think of, they talk about, it hit or miss?
(30) Hereby, I hope, it is clear enough how confession is so falsely drawn from this gospel, and how with great, gross lies they have interpreted by priests themselves, by leprosy all sin, by showing confession, by lepers all men, by the sacrifice the penny of confession; and how it is not enough to put on figure, where the fulfillment may not first be thoroughly and clearly proved in the New Testament. Therefore, if we cannot find out what the figure of leprosy and showing it to the priest means, let us remain in the simple and certain understanding of the Law of Moses, that for this reason Christ directed the lepers to the priests, so that he would keep the Law of Moses and not tear it apart. But that he sent none of the others to the priests.
The priests were not told about the blind, the lame, the gouty, the deaf, the dumb, the possessed, the dropsy, the dead and other diseases, but only about this fleeting and devouring, flying addiction of leprosy. What this means, I myself am not sure, but let us try it, if we have the gospel according to its written and main meaning. Now to say of this, because the tares are rooted out and have given us room.*)
Non of the figure and interpretation.
First of all, I do not want to say that I am correct about this figure. For I have said above, where one cannot find the interpretation of the figures from the New Testament, one should not rely on it. For the evil spirit is a master of interpreting figures apart from Scripture; where he seizes a soul to interpret without Scripture and builds on it, he can throw it to and fro like a dice; which he cannot do where there is Scripture or is interpreted in such a way that one does not build on it. Which seductive interpretation he has brought up almost a lot in the spiritual right and through the school teachers. As when they interpret the pope by the sun, the emperor by the moon. Where there is no clear scripture, the interpretation is the best and closest, since the parables rhyme best; thus the figure is physical and the interpretation spiritual. Otherwise, what kind of figure and interpretation would it be if they were both physical and external? Just as those who interpret the pope through the high priest in the law do, both of which are bodily and external.
32 And that I say it out, figure interpretation may happen in three ways: first, when the Scripture itself interprets; as when St. Peter 1. ep. 3, 20. 21. interprets the baptism by the Sintfluss and Archa Noä, and St. Paul
1 Cor. 10, 1. 2. through the Red Sea; and Christ his cross through the serpent, Joh. 3, 14. Such interpretations compel and are articles of faith.
The other is when the Scriptures do not interpret themselves, but when every believer's mind introduces the figures and bases them for the sake of their likeness on some clear sayings. As here, where St. Augustine draws the leprosy on heresy. Although Scripture itself does not say that leprosy means heresy, and does not impose such an interpretation as an article of faith, what Scripture says about heresy is nevertheless true: therefore it also imposes on itself alone, the figure and interpretation remain where they want; the reason "is ever fixed, whether the building does not apply. So anyone may interpret without all danger. For even if his interpretation is lacking, the scripture on which he draws the interpretation is not lacking.
34 The third way is a mere interpretation out of their own conceit, since the figure is alone and there is nothing else in Scripture that they want to interpret by it. This interpretation is error and the devil's and the Pabst's own with his own. As if they interpret the pope through Aaron, the scripture does not say a single letter about the pope or the papacy. But if they had a saying about the pope beforehand and then put the figure of Aaron on it, it would be to suffer; even though such a figure and interpretation do not compel, the saying they point to does compel. Item, if they interpret here in the gospel, that the confession is the showing of the lepers before the priests, is a merely naked, self-conceived interpretation; but if they led a clear saying, which said about the confession without any figure, and then led the figure on it, then they force us well, not for the sake of the figure or interpretation, but for the sake of the saying, which they based the figure and interpretation on.
The other interpretation may be various, and as St. Paul says in the first epistle to the Corinthians in the third chapter v. 12: Some build straw, some wood, some hay on this ground, but some gold, silver and precious stones. So I consider that everything Moses wrote about leprosy, 3 Mos.
13, may be finely drawn to Paul's epistle to the Colossians in 2 Cap. V. 8, where he masterfully describes conceit and the doctrine of men. But I would not believe such an interpretation if I did not believe St. Paul's clear text beforehand. So, if someone tells me that Moses means St. Paul, therefore I should take St. Paul for a teacher and apostle: I did not want to reject the meaning, but for its sake I did not believe it, because I do not know whether it is right or wrong; but I know another reason of Scripture, which clearly shows me St. Paul a holy apostle, for the sake of which I accept the same interpretation.
36. So it is certain that these lepers do not mean physical, outward, but hidden people; and so hidden, that it is not said of the natural hiddenness, as the soul is hidden in the body; but in the spirit, that is, you must think of two worlds: One physical, where the sun shines, and one looks at the other according to the body; the other spiritual, where Christ shines through the gospel, and one looks at the other, not according to the soul's nature, which is how philosophers deal with it, but according to his faith, conceit, will, heart, and courage, all of which are enlightened and known through the gospel, when one hears his word from him. For the gospel illuminates and tells each one what the other has in his heart spiritually, that is, not that he knows what he wants to do, but whether it is right or wrong before God. This figure belongs to the physical world, the interpretation to the spiritual world.
Thus leprosy is an affliction of the soul before God and in the spirit; but not any affliction, as the blind figurists interpret it, that it signifies all sin to be confessed. The holy fathers, especially Augustine, say that it is false doctrine and heresy. And although they do not refer to it in Scripture, they do not follow the parables badly, and they are right. Therefore let us remain on the same course; but not as if it were an article of faith to hold thus. For I do not want to advise anyone to believe, because I know what I am building him on. Souls and eternal life are at stake when one
I will therefore make myself and everyone with me certain that we can stand against all the gates of hell, even before God, through His word; on this alone is to be built, and on no angel, except on the word of the saints. Matth. 16, 18.
(38) And say further, I would that such things were not called figures; but it has become too deeply ingrained and habitual that I must call it so also. The Scriptures do not call them figures, but allegoriam, umbram, faciem, and the interpretation mysteria, abscondita, secreta. They called it figures, from the saying of St. Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians in the tenth chapter, v. 11, where he says: "All these things happened to them in figures." But St. Paul in that place does not speak of figures, but of examples, and says: "We should fear lest the same happen to us, for they were figures and examples to us. And St. Peter 2. Ep. 2, 6. calls the same "examples", and St. Paul also in many places formam. It is the fault of the Latin interpretis (translator), who transferred typos now "figure", now "example", that they bumped into it and made figures out of it.
Heresy here is not only to be called that which our people now call heresy, who also make heresy what they will, but what Scripture calls haeresin; as St. Paul teaches to Tito in the third v. 10: "You shall avoid the haereticum, after he has been twice admonished; you shall be sure that such a one is perverse and sins, and already has his judgment. The word haeresis comes from the Greek language: haerein, which means to choose, select and separate. Therefore, haeresis means a special, chosen, self-imagined doctrine and way of living and believing apart from the common way, which is now called sects, estates and orders. So the Jews called the Christians a haeresin or sect of the Nazarenes, Acts 24, 14. 24, 14. But Paul did not want to call them so, but a "way", and said: "I walk according to the way, which they call kaolin or sect."
40 Hence it has come about in Christendom that all those are called haeretici who step outside the unity and common way of the Christian faith and being, and have a special
The two words catholicus and haereticus are in conflict with each other. Catholicus means one who is with the multitude and unanimously agrees with the whole collection in faith and spirit; just as St. Paul says to the Ephesians in Cap. 4, v. 5: "One baptism, one faith, one Lord, one Spirit. V. 5: "One baptism, One faith, One Lord, One Spirit" etc.; but haereticus, who conceives his own way and party. Therefore haereticus is actually called a stubborn man in divine matters, an eccentric who knows something better, and chooses for himself a way to heaven that the common Christian man does not go. What vice the last doctors call singularitatem, capitositatem, etc., singularity and self-will.
From this it is clear that the leprosy, which is supposed to mean heresy, means nothing else than one's own mind, the conceit, the good opinion, which suspends itself from the congregation in things that concern the soul and God, of which Moses says Deut. 12:8: "You shall not do what seems right to you. And there is no vice so contrary to the right way and faith that the apostles, Peter and Paul, had much concern about it, and the Mother of God calls the same serpent's head, mens cordis sui, the conceit of her heart, Luc. 1, 51. And the German name "Aussatz" (leprosy) is especially fine for such people to be put out of the congregation; item, St. Paul's word, when he says to Tito (Tit. 3, 10.): He should avoid such a one. Although they are now being burned, the small heretics from the great ones, or, to put it bluntly, the Christians from the heretics. For from the foregoing it is easy to understand where heretics are now; namely, since the good sense, the right leprosy, apart from and above the common Christian faith, sets up special sects, orders, ways and means of being pious and becoming blessed, and sets parties apart from the congregation, as those who want to find something better, so that the common Christian man stinks against him and counts for nothing.
(42) Therefore, among the monasteries, convents, high schools, and the entire clergy, there are no heretics now, but vain heretics, before the great love of God; just as if
no more than there are black birds among the ravens and black people among the Moors. For as among the lepers there is no one leprous, so among these heretics there is no one heretic; and do not the gentle people see that there are almost as many ways, sects, parties among them as there are heads and brains, that vain conceit is their master, the poisonous leprosy, and that none of them goes the common way of Christian faith, but each makes his own way to heaven; that one can see how all heresies that have ever been, now flowed together, come into one basic soup, and have drowned the world with a river of pure leprosy under the regime of the end-Christ; as this is proclaimed. Nevertheless, these lepers do not go to the priests and confess this sin. Yes, it must be holy, and whoever says otherwise must be a heretic.
(43) Now it is established in the Scriptures that there is no way to heaven except by faith. Therefore St. Paul calls the doctrine of faith sound doctrine, Titus 1:13 and 2:2, and commands that one should be sound in faith. So that he points to the leprosy, that all who want to be saved by works are certainly these unhealthy and lepers. Therefore we will now compare some parables of leprosy and conceit.
44 First, the priests were not commanded by any disease except leprosy. This is sufficient to mean that leprosy is a vice that is contrary to right doctrine and God's word. For the word of God is the only office of the priests. Now it is obvious to all that faith and God's word have no enemy, except this one conceit: the other sins all together, even if they fall in faith, still let faith and God's word remain; that man, even if he already sins, still knows well how and what he should believe, he only lacks the power. But this unrighteousness guards against such sins, and corrupts faith by abandoning it and going its own way. For faith may not suffer a byway with itself: one must perish, both may not remain.
45 Therefore, as the priests of old alone were commanded concerning leprosy, so all the commandments of the apostles are, that the doctrine of works and the doctrine of men should be taken heed of; and they will not let any thing be set up beside faith. But the other sins and infirmities they command to be tolerated and borne, for they corrupt neither doctrine nor faith. So that there is a great difference between doctrine and life, between faith and works; for even our papists have far more than resin and peccatum, and call one errorem in fide, the other, in moribus, or one, contra fidem, the other, contra mores; without making fidem and contra fidem what they think.
46 Secondly, leprosy is an addictive, sticky plague. So is the sect thing. It glitters finely in appearance, therefore it easily eats away. Because man is naturally inclined to build on himself and his works, and his conceit naturally pleases him. Therefore, if there is not diligent attention, as St. Paul did, a whole nation is easily deceived, as the false prophets did in Israel in the past. But now, under the pope's and spiritual rule, no one is deceived, so that no one goes in the right way anymore.
Third, leprosy is an eternal plague that cannot be cured. This is what St. Paul means when he says to Tito Cap. 3, 10, 11: "You shall avoid the obstinate after two admonitions, and you shall be sure that he has been turned back, and his judgment has already passed upon him." Hereby he interpreted the law of Moses, who commanded in Deut. 13, 5. 6. that the leper should be seen and examined twice, and then separated. St. Paul calls the twice-seeing and twice-doing "twice admonishing" and then "shunning. For surely, if there be not a hardened conceit, it can be said in the first or in the second time; but if he be hardened, that he should be admonished a thousand years, it is of no avail. For not only does he not want to listen, but he sets himself up for opposition, to defend his own and to disturb the faith. This sin is called St. John 1 John 5:16: Sin unto death, for which no man shall plead. And Christ calls it Matth. 12, 31: a sin into the
Holy Spirit, which is not forgiven here or there. Therefore St. Paul also says that it is certain that such a one has finally been converted, and his judgment has already gone over him, that he sins.
(48) The fourth thing, that the lepers are put out of the congregation, is, as it is said, that the people that are wayward go their own way. Moses wrote in Leviticus 13:45 about how the lepers should be recognized and how they should wear cut clothes and go bareheaded and cover their lips. All this would take a long time to write about, and would probably make a book. But we will leave it at that, and come to the gospel with the figure.
49 All the walking of Christ, which he did to and fro in the land, means preaching in the world; therefore also the Scripture calls his preachers his feet; Ps. 68:24: "That thy foot may be dyed in blood"; and Ps. 147:15: "His word runneth fast." And St. Paul therefore calls his ministry a running, Gal. 2, 2. since he says, "lest I should run in vain." Through such preaching and spiritual walking he comes to many places, that is, into many hearts, where some receive him and some reject him. And these same hearts are not all alike in infirmity; though there be none without infirmity, which have not need of the gospel.
(50) That he now comes through Samaria and Galilee into a little town, where ten lepers meet him, is the meaning that through the gospel and right faith the great martyrs, the saints of works, will be enlightened and redeemed from their sour and difficult life, which they lead without faith. For some of these hearts are naturally good, and would gladly do right and do well; therefore they fall on the commandments and labor exceedingly. When they hear that it must not be by works, but by faith alone, they are glad of such preaching and knowledge or the future of Christ, and with all their heart they run toward such teaching, desiring thereby to be cleansed from their miseries and leprosy. But they stand afar off, and think themselves too small of such grace. For they
is too deeply settled in the leper nature that one should overcome God with works, and does not easily believe that such grace is given for nothing and without all merit, and even wants to do or pay something for it. Therefore they call and ask, that is, they heartily desire to know the real truth and to become certain of the things they hear about faith. This is the prayer in which they say, "O JEsu, dear Lord, have mercy on us." They still call him a master, who only teaches and tells what is to be done; they are not yet out of the works, so that they call him a beatific, who not only teaches us, but also works in us and lives through his grace.
51 Hence the names "Samaria" and "Galilee". "Samaria" means a guard or custody; therefore that such work saints almost guard and keep, or take care of their real life, are strict, and are forced with the commandments of God, which they do not out of love, but out of need and fear. For he who does not do good out of free love (which faith gives) is still in Samaria. Now he cannot come out of himself, but Christ must come to him in his journey to Jerusalem; that is, no one finds the gospel, God must send it to him and have it preached all the way to Jerusalem, to eternal life.
But "Galilee" means a border, where the countries end. So this people of works is with its nature only in the border of the outer nature. For they keep the commandments not in the midst of the heart, but only bodily, outwardly in the works. And this is also the leprosy, if they think that such a nature is right. For conceit is far from the common manner of the saints, who are justified and saved not by works, but by faith. So these are all Galileans, frontiersmen, who do not willingly keep God's commandment, which is not possible without faith.
(53) The little town means especially the Jewish people, who were before all people in this Samaria and Galilee. For they had the commandments of God, and worked almost within them; and to them also the gospel is preached chiefly, they from such Samaria.
ria and Galilee to lead in a freely believable life.
(54) And the fact that they are ten also signifies the people under the law, who were included in the Ten Commandments. But what is said of the same people is also to be understood of all others like them, who want to become godly by their own works. For all this is leprosy and far from the common Christian teaching.
55 Who then are the priests to whom Christ directs these lepers? If Christ's spiritual coming is no other than to preach through the apostles into the hearts and consciences, then the apostles may not be such priests, for they are the ones who bring Christ into Samaria and Galilee. But if the apostles are not, much less are the bishops and clergymen who now sit in the apostles' stead. Where then will confession remain? The whole priesthood in the law means the one true priest Christ, who mediates for us in heaven before God; as St. Paul Rom. 8, 34. and Hebr. 9, 24. Therefore Christ is everything. He comes spiritually through the gospel, and with it he points us to himself in heaven. For in the old law no one was allowed to offer for himself whatever he wanted to offer, but the priest took it from him and lifted it up and offered it before God. So this is what we have been saying about the faith of Christ, that there is a difference between bad faith in God and the faith of Christ.
(56) The high school teachers have misled the world into thinking that they no longer need Christ, and have driven people to the priests with confession for so long that, driven completely by Christ, they no longer know what Christ is or what this showing of the priests means. For they teach how man may do so much by his natural ability that God may give him His grace; and so they appear before God for themselves, and act with Him without any means and without Christ. What should Christ be necessary or useful to them, if they have obtained God's grace by their own means? O, the most horrible, most terrifying heresy! Is this what St. Peter 2 Ep. 2, 1. proclaims and says: "There will be false teachers among you.
who deny the Lord who bought them", has it not become true in such devilish teaching? With their mouth they confess Christ, but with their doctrine, life and whole being they deny him, precisely by saying that nature may do good out of its own powers and acquire grace. Where this is true, Christ died in vain and must not be. Behold, this is now of the high schools and of all ministers. Faith, so deep-rooted that they call heretics and burn all who do not accept it. This is a faith to God, but not in Christ; not even Christ's faith, but the devil's poem and blasphemy, denying Christ and disturbing Christianity. Hence it comes that they give so much to works, and will not let their thing be nothing. This is a terrible leprosy.
But we should know that where Christ does not mediate, there is only wrath and condemnation. God does not want and does not like to suffer a man before Him who is a sinner. Now we are all sinners by nature; therefore Christ came, did enough for our sin, and gave us his suffering, that through him we might stand before God. Therefore, do not be deceived into believing much in God and doing your best. This is vain anti-Christian poison from the high schools. You must have a mediator who will first do enough for you in divine righteousness, and so make you worthy, that you may put into his hands your works and your being, and take them from you and offer them before God. But this is Christ alone. This is what Moses meant by the figure that all the people's sacrifices had to pass through the hands of the priests.
(58) It is also that Christ here directs the lepers to the priests. For the gospel (which is Christ's revelation in Samaria and Galilee) teaches us nothing else than to build on Christ and to comfort ourselves, instructing us that we must fail in ourselves and comfort ourselves alone with Christ and His merit, so that we are regarded and accepted through Him; as He says John 14:6: "No one comes to the Father except through Me."
59 So now this is going and showing yourself
The priests have nothing else to do but to confess and believe that all our things are nothing, but that we are saved by the means of Christ alone. Therefore no one makes clean from this leprosy except Christ's faith, preached through the gospel. The same, because it condemns our things and exalts Christ alone, annihilates and brings to nothing all the conceit and presumption of our works. Therefore you see how unchristian and pagan the high schools and clergy are now in their preaching, teaching and life, so that Daniel Cap. 8, 19 calls this time of the end of Christ the time of wrath, when faith should be destroyed in all the world.
60 This is also the reason why Lucas does not write here how the priests turned away the nine, in honor of this holy meaning, that Christ was signified by the priests; otherwise he would not have kept it silent. For they also did evil about their priestly office. They were not to speak more than they were pure, and to receive their sacrifice: in this they were Christ's figure, according to the ordinance of the law. Thus thou seest how far also is the interpretation of their dream of confession, and how evil they interpret the figures to themselves, or bodily priests, without any ground of Scripture, and take it from Christ. Only to destroy and deny Christ is all their preaching, work and life. That he calls not one, but many priests, does not hinder anything; it was all one office of all priests, and the same office is Christ's figure. Although it should be said here that these ten did not show themselves to one priest, but each in his city to his priest, or one part to one priest, the other part to another priest.
(61) But that the ten shall continue, that only one shall stand and come again, is the grievous prophecy which St. Paul describes in 1 Tim. 4:1 and 2 Tim. 3:1 ff, that in the latter times many shall fall from the faith. For since the time that the world was cleansed and enlightened by the gospel, the bishops and clergy have done no more than to throw everyone from the faith into their doctrines of men, until they had brought it wherever they wanted,
that now the faith and gospel of the Christians are completely down. Therefore our bishops and spiritual confessors are not signified by the priests, but by those whom they have turned away from Christ, whom Lucas is silent about, nor was it necessary to name. For there would have been no room for figure and interpretation; but being of one thing, both are priests in the flesh, and of the same office, teaching the same error, that none might be signified by the other; as little as now one preacher is signified by another, since they both teach the same error.
(62) But this tenth Samaritan is the poor few in the world who return, fall under the feet of Christ and give thanks to him; that is, they cling to the gospel, fall under it, give thanks to it, are devoted to it, and surrender to it completely. Therefore they receive the gospel completely, saying, Arise, go thy way; thy faith hath made thee blessed, Matt. 9:6, 22. This is the true voice of the gospel. So we have Christ spiritually in the gospel and
bodily in heaven, that we may have access to the Father through Him, as St. Paul says Rom. 5, 2; and yet always keep ourselves to the Gospel, because we live here, so that we do not begin to make our own steps and grope after God, as the school teachers teach us. For the gospel is our lamp in this dark time and place, says St. Peter, 2 Petr. 1, 19.
I do not say that this interpretation of the gospel is right or alone, but that what is said in it is right and the clear text of the gospel, which only teaches to recognize Christ. Because this is what this figure says, it is to be accepted and not despised; as St. Paul says in 1 Thess. 5:20: "Do not despise the prophecies"; but if they are equal to faith, Rom. 12:7, that the interpretation of the figure and prophecy also has a clear reason elsewhere. That is enough about the leprosy this time; because what Moses writes about it 3 Mos. 13. wants to have more rest, time and spirit than I have.