From the very solennen Actus of this world-famous Leipzig Disputation itself.
A. From the public speech given at the beginning of the same.
376 Speech by Petrus Mosellanus at the castle, on the proper way to debate theological matters, with which he opens the act, exhorting the disputants to modesty, love of truth, and respect for the Holy Scriptures, and that the convinced party should gladly recognize its error. June 27, 1519.
krot6MN8i8 orutio, Huurn illu8tri88ilni (IkorM, 8axonio.6 duem, prineixM 8ui, nornin6 in 1r6<in6Nti88imo illn8triurn aliquot 6t dooti88imorum koininuin oon
V6ntu d. 27. Innii anno 1519. dixit. Iüp8iu6 1519 in 4. Attached are two letters of Erasmus, one to Mosellanus, the other to Luther. Reprinted in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. ill, p. 567.
Translated from Latin.
From the way of disputing, especially in theological matters, of P. Mosellanus, Protegenfls, speech, which he held in the name of the most illustrious Duke George of Saxony in a large assembly of distinguished and learned people.
I. I do not wish at all, most noble princes and you other excellent men, however many and of what rank may be assembled here, that they should cheer me, one who is despondent at the beginning of this speech, by their benevolence, or listen to the speech of a young person with amazement (for I did not appear in such confidence), but that they, under
This young person 1) quietly and attentively heard the most illustrious and most wise Prince George, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave in Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, speak, this our famous university all-mildest Mäcenas and protector, a hero who deserves an eternal memory; whose principality, armed with weapons and crew, endowed with all excellent arts and adorned with Christian manners, in short, in every respect in the highest flourish, may be preserved and protected until the end of this world, which will perish, by the prince of all princes, God, who alone is kind and wise, who alone is in truth the Most High, from whom all power comes, whether in heaven, where there is constant harmony without any tumult of war, or in this world, which, because it is in trouble, often deviates from its first image, the heavenly community, and thus plunges the human race into great misfortune. Our dearest father and prince tries to avert this evil from us and from our civil as well as our scholarly community to the best of his ability, and therefore does everything, tries everything, and makes it his utmost concern. And since he is interested in knowing what is going on publicly and particularly in his lands, and how it is due, he has instructed me that in the name of his Serene Highness I should not, of course, instruct you who have come together for this public doctrinal battle (since you are highly learned yourselves), but only remind you; not what reasons you should use against your adversaries, but how great modesty respectable theologians have to show in the holy business, who in a foreign country, under another prince, from the meek doctrine of JEsu Christ, the patient Lamb, in the intention to investigate the truth, raise a public dispute, and that not without great spite even of the great ones. But even though my age is still weak, my teaching somewhat young, and my eloquence not so ready that I can properly represent the person of such a great hero, I do not hope that my simple speech will take away anything, even the least, from the reputation of such a wise prince. For the simpler and more unaffected the speech is, the more clearly it reveals the prince's opinion.
1) In the preface to the above-mentioned single edition of this speech, which is addressed to Otto von Pack, it is reported that Mosellanus wrote out this speech by order of Duke George, which was to be delivered by a boy. Because it was very long, however, Otto von Pack was supposed to memorize and recite it. He became ill two days before the disputation, and so Mosellanus had to deliver it himself (Löscher, Vol. Ill, p. 579).
and come closest to the truth. For, to my mind, Polinices says much more correctly and truthfully in the tragic poet: the speech of truth is simple and simple, that it would not be necessary for the interpreter to make many a circumlocution, as Hecuba, in another fable by the same poet, pompously says: that the reputation of the person also makes an unjust speech credible or valid. Yes, with common listeners who do not look at the reason as well as at the sound of pompous words, and who look more than is fair at the great being made in the trade than at the thing, what Hecuba says here may be true. But the prudent, on the other hand, looks not at who says something, but at what is said, and does not take the well-known word for an empty saying: Often also a lowly man (olitor == cabbage gardener) has spoken very well to the matter.
(2) But what is the use of using much worldly evidence in a holy matter? Since in the Gospel, the one who wants to come to the kingdom of heaven, that is, to Christianity, as the true theology, is absolutely denied all access, who does not become a child again, and shows this age, manner and manners in all simplicity. Samuel not only walks as a child in the house of the Lord, but is also chosen by divine call to be a prophet. And we young men, if we are born, not of the blood and will of a man, nor of the will of the flesh, but of God and His promise, should be denied to do great things and (to speak so) to do things belonging to the ancients? Yes, Christ himself (which comes to my mind in passing, but at the right time), who wanted his whole life to serve as an example for us, did not spend this age in childish things, as usually happens, but, since he was barely twelve years old, out of eagerness for heavenly wisdom, He sat there quietly and calmly among the public teachers of wisdom, sometimes asking some of them meekly, sometimes answering others who asked him honestly. In this way, of course, he wanted to show by deed that no age of a truly Christian man is excluded from dealing with theology, indeed, that the Holy Spirit, as the only teacher of true wisdom, is nowhere more dear or his presence more visible than in the minds of simple-minded people who have not taken up wrong opinions and doctrines and whom no impurity of sin stains. For God, the Giver
He does not count the years, but looks at the hearts. For he respects not gray hairs, but purity of soul. But if someone is so foolish that he only looks for eloquence, and expects painted words and artificial flowers from a simple young man who speaks of the most simple kind of teaching in the most respectable assembly of people, he would be just as foolish as if he asked for roses in the extreme winter cold and snow in the greatest summer heat. I think that I must also speak of the most simple teaching or wisdom of Christ in a simple way. For he is the best speaker among Christians who speaks only purely and without error, and seeks the greatest virtue of speech in the greatest clarity. Let us leave the rest to those who, with I know not what arts and wiles of words, impudently boast of making a great man who has nothing good to say, and of making a man who has better things to say the lesser. But where do I end up? My intention was to give you the order of the most illustrious prince. But I have forgotten myself and have spent a good part of the time talking about myself, so that one can see from this that what Aristotle said about the easy forgetfulness of children also applies to young men, so that one does not think that they have nothing blameworthy about them. If I have made a mistake in this, let it be attributed to my age. Having been instructed by this mistake, I will continue to follow my orders all the more carefully.
First of all, I ask you, you famous men and leaders of the cause on both sides, to consider to what extent you have grown from a small beginning, from what angle (that I say so) you have stepped into such a large arena, and what spark has ignited this great flame of disagreement. For the sharpness of your spirit, since it still rages with full force, will not converge to a doubtful outcome of the dispute, but since it has already been at each other from afar several times through the pen, as a shot arrow, and tested what could be promised, will now, as it were, bring everything to a main meeting in the vicinity, 1) and either defend the boundaries of their confession and faith with proper reasons from Scripture, or give up the field to the victorious enemy and, citing Scripture, make a retraction. One
1) Instead of: äeeretabunt at Löscher will read äsesrtabnnt.
first attacked the matter with mere short conclusions, which in a short time were miraculously spread throughout Germany, indeed, almost the whole of Christendom. Soon they began to trade in attack and protection writings. Since this was of no avail except that the booksellers benefited from it, one finally resorted to the weapons of a public disputation after both sides had agreed to it. This famous seat of studies seemed to be very suitable for the dispute of a final disputation to take place on it, as on a public battlefield. The parties turned to our most noble Prince George and asked him not to deny the place to a matter that aimed at common harmony. The most gracious prince gladly granted it. This day has been set aside for the dispute. There are here two universities, as they are called, namely the Ingolstadt and Wittenberg universities, almost the most distinguished lights, Johann Eck and Andreas Carlstadt, the field heirs of this war; 2) people who are highly famous because of their reputation and scholarship, each with his men of war. Here is the most illustrious prince of Pomerania, Barnim, at the time Rector of the Wittenberg School; probably quite Magnificus. There are high officials of our ducal court here, people who are both great by noble origin and outstanding by exceptional wisdom, who represent our absent most illustrious Prince George by their presence. Here is also the highly respectable Rector of this famous university of ours. You also see the high-born Prince George of Anhalt, a pupil of this school of ours, who is particularly distinguished. There are also at present the fathers of the University of Erfurt; people who are not only adorned with holy life and reputation, but have also attained the fame of a special scholarship. Yes, there are also other very learned people from elsewhere, each of whom has a famous name, all of whom have been lured from afar by such a rare battle. Our whole school is also present: theologians who, in addition to their great erudition, are also of great age. Jurists of special wisdom; physicians of deep insight and experience; philosophers who study nature with all diligence. There is a large number of studi-
2) Luther is not named here, for he came to Leipzig only "under the wing of Carlstadt," whose escort letter included those he would bring with him.
the youth are present, as well as the honorable council of this city. In short, all eyes are on you; everyone is sitting full of expectation as to how the dispute will proceed. To fulfill the expectations of these great princes, of so many noblemen, gentlemen and scholars, of so many old and young, this simple way is open, namely, that you, as the importance of the matter demands and as befits your own decency, treat the matter that has been started.
This will be done if you consider carefully, first, what it is that the common people call disputing; second, what it is in theological matters, that is, disputing about God and divine things, and to what extent such disputing is advisable and permissible both according to respectability and according to the most holy examples of men. For this is not right disputing, as those who are a rabble of disputants think, when one, just to show one's wit, seizes every occasion for false accusations, shouts loudly when one misleads the poor adversary with contrived conclusions; when one stamps with anger, when one absolutely wants to be right, and shows that one is full of hatred toward one another (which, God grant it, should not take place at all in the schools of Christians), but when, out of mere eagerness to learn, one considers one's own with others, and does not trust one's wit to everything, but rather wants to listen to another's opinion gently and calmly, and takes it as it should be taken, even if one has taken it rightly, accepts it with pleasure if it is halfway tolerable and good, and rejoices, as it were, in the gain, and would rather recognize that one is a little late in arriving at the truth than that one always wants to err. If, however, it is too clumsy to be accepted as true in view of the circumstances, it must be refuted with clear causes and the error denounced, and all this without anger, without boasting or reviling in a spiteful way; so that one need not give a suspicion anywhere as if one wanted to revile, but show everywhere that one holds Christian love in honor on both sides. He who does not go thus to dispute is not a philosopher, but a philonicos or rightist; not a disputant, but a brawler; not an investigator of truth, but a teacher of error and discord. If we also praise this modest and friendly way of disputing in the pagans, since some of them have given a good example in it, it would be not only shameful but also dangerous for you, men of high value, to use the same in the Christian world.
It is not possible to lack the kind of humility that stands at the bottom of modesty, as it were, and rises through all the levels of virtue to the summit of cordial love between one another. Among the rabble, which tends to be very far from perfection, such quarrelsomeness would not bring so much common harm; but that such evil should be seen tearing at the noblest leaders of the Christian community, the theologians, is almost unforgivable. If the salt becomes tasteless, with what will we wretches be folded against the rottenness of vice? When our light becomes dim, who will illuminate us who stumble around in this darkness of the world?
God's nature, with which the whole of theology has to do, has so contracted into its widest confines, and has so departed from the light of human understanding into quiet and dark solitude, that even no angelic understanding can see through it as it is now, with all its sharpness, that therefore he who has rightly been called a theologian has rightly said: no one can express God and God's nature rightly, let alone reach them with his thoughts or words. Paul, the prince among the apostles, whom Christ chose as his instrument, and who was worthy to be admitted to the mysteries of the third heaven, when he stalled over the explanation of the mysteries, did not so quickly blurt out what occurred to him, but recognized the human weakness and the inexpressible difficulty of the matter, and exclaimed [Rom. 11:33, 34]: "O what a depth of riches, both of wisdom and of knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments and his ways inscrutable! For who hath discerned the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counselor?" And we poor people, who are not worthy to untie the apostle's laces, are subject to all things, decide everything brazenly, and would rather let go of a paternal inheritance, even of life, than of our preconceived opinion.
But someone might say: Moses talked with God face to face. I admit that; but he alone, and only on the seventh day, after he had purified himself for a whole six days and then rested from this work of his. And yet it would not have happened, whether he had purified himself for so many days, if God had not lowered himself from the invisible tent of his glory, which he had prepared for himself on high, to the mountain of human reason, which is still nebulous. But what use has such a conversation been to him?
brought? Certainly this one, that he boasts to have seen only God's back [Ex. 33, 23.He is sure of this, that he boasts to have seen only God's back [Exodus 33:23], namely the most glorious glory of God, as it shines forth in the marvelous construction of this world, while Aaron, although high priest, and other chosen elders of the people, heard the sound of God's voice only from afar, and the people, who had not yet given up the dominion of the emotions, were kept far down from the mountain, that is, from touching the heavenly wisdom. For (so Gregorius says) not everyone can attain exact knowledge of God (φιλοσοφεί"). It is not such a small thing that she let herself be acted upon by those who crawl on the earth and obey the belly like cattle. She kisses only those with her kiss, lets only those into her closed garden, this queen of all sciences, theology, the quite beautiful virgin, who is not sullied with any stain of human error, who is chosen among many thousands, like that spiritual bridegroom, who, like that spiritual bridegroom, has previously washed the feet of her body, which always resists the spirit, from all filthiness of vicious inclinations with the milk of purity and simplicity, and whose head has been moistened with the dew of heavenly grace at night through the silence of the soul. If Paul, such an excellent apostle, if Moses, the leader of the faithful people, with the highest peace of mind, was allowed to worship more than to look at, to admire more than to expound traces of divine wisdom, how can we think that the right understanding of the Scriptures will not be lost from us, if we on both sides, with bitter tempers and mad cries, confuse everything and argue as if it concerned life and limb? No sensible and intelligent man will like to be at a 'gasterei, where one with the cups dedicated to joy (as Flaccus says), like the Thracians, drives at each other to wounds and blows. And do we think that the peaceable spirit of Jesus Christ will come to such a disputation, which shoots the arrows of sophistical intrigues full of deadly poison against each other?
(7) But let no one think that for this reason I entirely reject ordinary disputation, which is generally accepted, or that one cannot sometimes usefully disputate even in theological matters; but let us remember that when similar disputes arise out of human frailty, one must in such cases be careful.
1) This non, which is missing in Löscher, has already been suitably added by the ^lte translator.
The first is that we must always keep things in moderation, and that there are certain limits beyond which we cannot go without violating theological decency. For if we believe Paul [1 Cor. 11:19], there must always be divisions in Christendom, either because each has his own opinion, or so that from such a comparison it will be clearer which opinion comes closest to the same life-giving spirit. For we must indeed debate, but to the end that, when we act as Christians with Christians, the ineffable Trinity and the main articles of faith, as the foundation of the theological confession, are not called into doubt and publicly put at stake. But when we are dealing with people who do not accept Christ's teaching, everything must be done in such a way that it does not seem as if we want to win more with deceitful eloquence and fancy words than with the example of a good life and glorious miracles.
(8) Since we have many examples of both kinds, let us leave it at this time to pick out a few special ones from the colorful meadow of Scripture. The apostle Paul (that I speak of the last part first) attacked the Gentiles at Corinth, who were armed with the weapons of Greek worldly wisdom, not with words of human wisdom and eloquence, but with proof of the Spirit and the power of God, that the building of the Christian faith was not based on human wisdom, but on God's power [1 Cor. 2:4, 5]. With these final speeches, which are not taken from Aristotle's Organon, the teacher of the pagans refuted barbaric superstitions of so many pagans, yes, Athens itself, the inventor of such sciences, and brought them to the faith of Christ. These are the weapons of our knighthood, not carnal, but mighty before God, by which one can disturb the counsels of the ungodly, and all fortifications that rise up against the knowledge of God, and take captive to the obedience of Christ all reasoning of the adversaries [2 Cor. 10, 4. 5.] For all Scripture, inspired by God, is useful for teaching, for punishment, for correction, for chastening, so that the man of God may be sent to all divine work [2 Tim. 3, 16. 17.]. For I have never been satisfied with those who hold that to refute the errors of unbelievers, the futile subtleties of the worldly wise do more than the powerful simplicity of evangelical doctrine, since (apart from the prophetic spirit threatening to destroy the wisdom of the
(In the same way, nothing can be asserted by human reasons that cannot also be overturned by the same reasons. But who will dare to brazenly resist the sayings of eternal wisdom, if there is holy life in it? Shall I make this clearer with an image from ancient theology? The Israelite people fought against seven vicious nations, namely the Cananites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Gergesites, Hivites and Jebusites; but who was their commander? A Pharaoh, a prince of Egyptian wisdom? Not at all. Who then? Moses, that is, the almighty God's law. And yet, even so, it would not have triumphed if he had not prayed for and obtained the assistance of the clear mind with raised hands from God. And when he lowered his hands, Israel was overcome [Ex. 17:11]. For the mind of the secret Scripture must not be twisted according to human desires, but must be solicited from the fountain of all good, the Holy Spirit, with godly supplication. David also fought as a boy against a stranger, namely Goliath, who defied human strength, but after he had first thrown away the proud Saul's weapons, which he had made man's art, with which he had clothed himself before in vain and had felt more burden than benefit from it. Afterwards he looked for five stones from the brook of secret writing, with which he finally knocked down the enemy, after he had hit him violently on the forehead [1 Sam. 17, 38. ff].
9 And would God that we would be moved by such examples to trust only in the weapons of divine wisdom today, and not prefer them to most of the reasons of human worldly wisdom, or not use them so excessively in theological matters! because many, and perhaps even rightly, think that from such presumption, as from a seed, arise all questions and disputes about words, about which the red spirits are quite mad, and which Paul so often commanded to avoid.
(10) But how? (one will say) are not the pagans also to be refuted by pagan reasons and to be beaten as it were with their own sword? Did not Basil also read pagan writers and command others to read them? Answer: He certainly did; but he also attributes the cruel destruction of the Arian heresies to the teachings that come from outside. Jerome also placed almost too much emphasis on pagan writings.
and allows others to read them in a letter to Magnus the orator. Nevertheless, he also testifies that the philosophers were rightly called patriarchs of heretics, and that the Pelagian heresy came entirely from them; that therefore one can see from these various judgments how dangerous it is if one does not keep moderation in the application of the external sciences. It seems to me that after Paul, whom we must regard as the best model in all theology, the Greeks are the most thoughtful and careful in this, especially Origen, Basil, Gregory, Athanasius and Chrysostom. For the Latins, especially the newer ones, do not keep their beloved captive [maid or slave] so pure, and do not cut her nails so precisely, that she cannot be recognized as a stranger among the maids of the queen, Wisdom. And if it is to be provided on one side, then I would rather be satisfied with the evangelical doctrine of simplicity, and dispense with the external sciences, than go too far over the mark, and almost be suspected of paganism.
(11) In any case, from what we have said, it will be sufficiently seen how Christians must deal with unbelievers. Now we must likewise show by some examples how Christians are to proceed in their disputes. First of all, Peter and Paul, the princes of one and the same religion, had different opinions, but only in observance of the ceremonies; yet so modestly and amiably that after the free punishment with which Paul, as he testifies, resisted Peter to his face [Gal. 2:11.], nevertheless no enmity grew out of it, and no tragedy, because of the error committed, was offered by a public spectacle. Therefore Augustine also took occasion to think differently of it than Jerome. But how they were not at all angry against each other because of this or how they went out (although both of them had a very hot spirit, the one because of fresh youth, which also included the episcopal reputation; the other because of his natural fire and good conscience), is shown by their mutual letters, which are full of love and reverence for each other. And since they got to know each other on this occasion (for they never saw each other with their eyes), they subsequently helped to promote the common good of the church unanimously and diligently, setting aside all differences.
12) So also among the Greeks, Gregory and Basil, two lights of the Oriental world
The two brothers and sisters of the Church, although they sometimes, though very seldom, had different opinions, nevertheless cultivated their friendship, which was finally interrupted by the death of one of them, with great zeal. How gently, and even how lovingly, they try to completely dissuade the highly restless defenders of the Arian heresy from their harmful error, since they soon call them brothers, soon honestly show how they have gradually, as it were step by step, fallen into such an abyss of error through foreign philosophy, and how they could much more easily return to the confession of truth!
And lest it appear that I do not gratefully recognize the blessedness of these times, the great prince of learning Erasmus and Jakob Faber, StapuIensis, disagreed so much in the interpretation of the Psalms that one attacked the other by name. But how Christian Erasmus answered to this, all know, who have read his beautiful responsibility writing. For since the honest man was so cornered that he either had to be called ungodly or had to quarrel publicly with a great, famous friend, he preferred to answer the reproached than to give many thousands of people cause to think ill of him. To think evil of him. However, he acts so wisely and conscientiously that, since he partly refutes the accusation, partly excuses it, and in turn also forcedly punishes one and the other in the adversary, he still does not injure his honor with a single word, or forgets brotherly love. Therefore, Faber would not be praiseworthy if he did not acknowledge such kindness and started the quarrel again. We do not believe that he would be guilty of such a learned and godly man.
Let such examples serve as a model for you. Let your fight be arranged in such a way that you look at them. Take great care not to overpower the other with quarrelsome shouting, to make him laugh as an ignorant man, so that he only wins and is praised by the mob for it, so that he returns to his own with honor, but that he presents his reasons from the holy scriptures with all composure, He should present his reasons, which he puts forward from the sanctity of Scripture, with all composure and allow them to be judged, so that one seeks to preserve the other's honest name and finally either saves the adversary from his error through obvious truth, or willingly surrenders to the truth shown to him and allows himself to be guided. Otherwise, if you only quarrel, what is the big difference between a
and a blood-shedding swordsman? There is no difference, except that in the case of the former it is a matter of life, but the latter fights for the most vain glory of the name with even more vain clamor. Yes, we hear that some are even so daring that they also pride themselves on defending their antics so stiff-necked that they even want to take a chance on whether they should also burn over it; while no prudent man will praise such an example. At least neither the princes of the theologians, the apostles, prescribed this, nor did the highest teachers of ancient theology among the Greeks and Latins hold it so. For the fact that very many of them gave their necks into the ungodly hands of the executioners for Christ and for the faith of the Gospel, I do not believe that it would be interpreted as these pompous battles of conflicting Christians.
What else can we expect from our doctrinal battles, if they are healthy, than that we help each other according to the rule of love? In this kind of struggle, what is to be victorious but to bring back a brother from the error that often settles in us under the pretense of truth? and not to put the lamp of the mind lit by God under a bushel, but on the lampstand, so that it may shine for all in the house of God? But what does it mean to be overcome, but to come out of the error into which human infirmity has led us, back onto the path of truth, and to be brought back into the fold of the eternal Shepherd as a lost sheep that has been snatched from the jaws of the wolf? so that one should almost rather desire to be overcome than to overcome, because the one who overcomes does not share his but God's gift with others (for what do we have that we have not received?), whereas the one who is overcome receives the light of truth, which enlightens all men who come into this world, and thus becomes better than he was. It is more praiseworthy to teach others, but to be taught is more useful.
(16) No one should be ashamed to confess his error, but the wise should confess that a good part of wisdom lies in it. For what is it to know oneself (which word is said to have come from heaven, as the ancients believed) but to take one's frailty to heart, and to recognize that good and evil are mixed together among men? especially since all men are like that. Yes, the more a man imagines himself to know, the more he knows.
He is subject to greater and more serious errors. "For we all err manifoldly," says Jacobus [Cap. 3, 2.], "He that lacketh in no word is a perfect man." God alone is truthful, but all men are liars. The pagan Socrates is praised by Plato for preferring to be overcome in debate rather than to overcome others. And we Christians, confessors of holy humility, should think that we would lose our name and honor if we let ourselves be led to the truth by others from time to time? On the other hand, the books of Chrysippus, because they contained so much sophist wit and boasting, were burned by public order of the Athenians. And yet, does anyone prefer to imitate the pile-driving of this man rather than the praised humility of Socrates?
Therefore, dear theologians, in theological matters also act theologically! Deal with holy things in a holy way. Think that you are stepping onto the battlefield before the all-seeing eyes of God, and that the whole heavenly host is watching this battle. Think in what a place, before what judges and witnesses, and with what expectation of the whole Christendom you are going to this battle. Everything requires the highest modesty: the high command of our most handsome prince, the reverence owed to these princes here, so many great ones from the court, so many university teachers, so many old and young, in short, the judgment of the whole world. Nothing can be more pleasing to all of them than that Christian peace and harmony should grow out of this quarrel, and nothing more repugnant than that your quarrel should, through obstinacy, seem to have become a drinking bout of drunken men. If I have spoken a bit seriously in some parts, I ask you not to take it amiss. For I have not spoken what seemed good to me, but to my most gracious prince.
B. The actual act of the disputation that took place.
The acts transcribed during the disputation itself and published soon after with a preface, which are reprinted here in their entirety because of their importance. Probably published in December 1519.
Eck arrived there for the disputation in Leipzig on June 22, the Wittenbergers on June 24. On Sunday, June 26, Eck and Carlstadt agreed on the rules according to which the fight should be conducted:
"Namely, that Doctor Eck shall first oppose the Conclusiones Doctoris Carlstadt, as much as he will ascribe to him the evening before, then Doctor Carlstadt shall respond, and the following day Doctor Carlstadt shall oppose Doctoris Eck's Conclusiones, as he will also ascribe to him the evening before, then Doctor Eck shall respond, and thus continue to proceed one day after the other until the end of the disputation." Furthermore, it was decided that the mutual ar^umentu and soiutioN68 be transcribed by four notaries and compared at the end of the disputation. Also, a copy was to be given to each party, but with the condition that the acts should not be published before the judge's decision was received. Luther could not take part in the disputation without the permission of Duke George. Eck, who was burning with desire to compete with Luther, provided him with this permission. Therefore, Luther did not sign the agreement between Eck and Carlstadt until July 4, with the reservation that his appeal to a council would remain justified and that the Curia would not have to pronounce judgment on the disputation. The disputation lasted from June 27 to July 15, with the disputation between Eck and Luther lasting from July 4 to 14. Already on July 14 they united about the arbitration court. For Carlstadt and Eck the University of Erfurt was chosen, for Luther and Eck the Universities of Paris and Erfurt. The latter refused the arbitral office, Paris made its judgement only later.
Before a verdict had been pronounced, the acts of the Leipzig disputation appeared in December 1519 under the title: "Disputatio excellentium .D. doctoru Iohannis Eccij & Andreae Carolostadij q cepta est Lipsiae XXVII. lunij. An. M.D.XIX Disputatio secunda ,D. Doctoru Iohanis Eccij & Andreae Carolostadij q cepit XV. [sic] lulij. Disputatio eiusdem .D. Iohannis Eccij & D. Martini Lutheri Augustiniani q cepit .IIII. lulij. Without place and time. 62 leaves in quarto. In his "Leipzig Disputation" p. 74, Seidemann referred to Luther's words in his letter to Johann Lang in Erfurt: "See to it that we get the printed disputations as soon as possible" to the above-mentioned printing, and also expressed the assumption that the acts were printed in Erfurt. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Luther's friend Lang, who was present at the disputation, would also have been the editor, who describes himself in the preface as a listener. Lang could easily obtain a copy of the copy sent there through his connection with the university. He was also not bound by any promise that would have prevented him from publishing it. In October 1519, Duke George sent a certified copy of the notaries' notes to Paris, and around the same time one will have reached Erfurt.
These acts are printed in their entirety only in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, Vol. Ill, p. 292, with the use of a manuscript which had been made available to him "from the Freybergische LidliotlieeÄ xudliou", of which he assumes that it "was produced at the Actu Disputationik itself". However, according to the exact correspondence with the above print, it can be assumed that it is also based on the notarial transcripts. Walch says, without further proof, that "such manuscripts can also be found in other libraries," to which the Weimar edition remarks: "We have not come across any such manuscripts. In the complete editions of Luther's works, the ver-
Acts between Eck and Carlstadt omitted; those between Eck and Luther are found in the Latin Wittenberger (1550), torn. I, lol. 242d; in the Jena (1579), tom. I, lol. 228; in the Erlanger, opx. var. arZ;., tom. Ill, p. 23, "everywhere full of errors" (says the Weim. Ausgabe, which Löscher noted before it about the two old editions), and in the Weimar edition, vol. II, p. 250. The latter also brings only the disputation between Eck and Luther, but has printed the editor's preface in the introduction, p. 252, and Carlstadt's and Eck's protestations as a note, p. 254. German only in Walch, and that according to Löscher. We have revised the disputations between Eck and Carlstadt according to Löscher; the disputation between Eck and Luther has been retranslated according to Weimar. The correct chronological order of the disputations, which was altered in the original print, has been restored by Löscher according to his manuscript; we have followed him in this, as has Walch.
Translated into German.
The disputation of the excellent Doctors Eck and Andreas Carlstadt, which took place on June 27, 1519.
To the reader.
You have here, dear reader, whoever you are, the famous disputation which we saw and heard in Leipzig, held between the excellent men, D. Johann Eck, Andreas Carlstadt and Martin Luther. Some will perhaps be reluctant to see it published; others, however, will even condemn it for being printed, because both parties are said to have expressly agreed that such disputations would not be disseminated in any way. But do not turn to such speeches, my reader! For if they had really wanted this sea and this immense heap of words to be kept secret, they would not have allowed anyone to catch and copy it at will before everyone's eyes. 1) For since more than thirty copies have been copied there and distributed everywhere among half the world, it is clear enough that they wanted to let it all come to the people; unless they only wanted to bind copies of the notaries (who were specially appointed for this) to these laws. We have seen to it that we would also like to create some benefit for the godly reader. There is much in it that we did not know before, or did not dare to know. If this turns out well, then those who are concerned with the matter may look on,
1) Löscher reports that apart from the notaries "otherwise probably thirty private persons have copied for themselves". The following is correct; perhaps Löscher has taken it from it.
what truth will come out of it. At least one hopes that some freedom will grow out of it, so that one will speak and hear about church matters and Christianity more confidently and joyfully. Although there is much in this great heap that does not rhyme with the matter, we have not done anything about it, but have wanted to tell everything completely according to the bare truth, as it has been spoken and has happened. Furthermore, since we know and think well what we have to do here, we cannot give or take anything away from either part, nor can we get involved in a judgment that will engage or avert the reader's mind. We therefore leave everything to the judgment of each. Since this will undoubtedly be various, we wish that the best may apply, for the praise of God and the common benefit of Christianity. Fare well, godly reader, and read with a godly mind what we present to you in the same way; this you will do if you interpret our effort for the best.
The 27th of June at 2 o'clock, 1519.
Carlstadt's protest by a responder to his side.
First of all, we testify and make it known everywhere that we do not want to deviate from the Catholic Church one finger's breadth, and if something of this kind is found, we want it to be regarded as something that escaped us out of human weakness, without having meant it intentionally, and that it should therefore be considered as good as revoked. We do not take anything away from the scholars' judgment, nor do we want to deprive the public schools of their authority and reputation. Everyone may be free in his judgment, if only he does not blindly follow the Scriptures, but acts completely. But to the holy Scriptures we give the honor of neither setting nor accepting anything without them; in other matters, however, which cannot be clearly taught from them, we leave the supreme place to the church teachers alone, and do not depart from them. Which we have sufficiently testified in the letter to D. Eck, 2) which thus reads: "If I do not have the most holy Father in Christ" etc., and testify to it again here, as before.
Eck's Protestation.
He called for help.
I testify in theological honesty: How I made this effort for the praise of God, the glory of the churches,
2) This is Document No. 364.
If I have taken upon myself the salvation of souls and the explanation of truth, I do not intend to say or teach anything that is either against the Holy Scriptures or against the Holy Mother, the Church. I am ready to be instructed and corrected by the apostolic see and by those to whose judgment, after yesterday's settlement, we want to submit this disputation of ours: which I testify, as above.
Eck laughed. 1)
Since one of the main topics of our argument is in the eleventh proposition 2), where this matter is dealt with: how free will behaves in a good and meritorious work, on which other preceding and subsequent things depend, I will prove that this is in accordance with the holy Scriptures, the holy fathers of the Christian faith: That the free will, the human will, has an active causality, and the power to work out and produce the meritorious work, without excluding the grace and spiritual help of God; so much so, that the contrast is so much clear as to harbor Manichaean error.
And for this I first of all quote the text of the holy scripture, which has already been mentioned in the "defense" in the ninth conclusion 3), from Sir. 15,14. ff.: "God has created man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his counsel, he has given him commandments and laws. If thou wilt keep the commandments (si voluerissi volueris), they shall preserve thee, and keep the good faith for ever. 4) He has set before thee water and fire; reach for whichever thou wilt. It is before man life and death, good and evil, whatsoever he pleases, that shall be given him. And because many is the wisdom of God, and strong in might, who looketh on all without ceasing" etc. Here the wise man expressly gives to free will, if one considers the words: "If thou wilt" correctly, the power which we have explained, and interprets such that it is a choice or a will which is worked out or brought forth by free will. And against this, nothing is valid that the Doctor says in his "defense" 5) against it: I would have the knot and the dissolution to-
1) This is not in the manuscript (eraser). - It will probably be in print.
2) Carlstadt's series of theses, St. Louis edition, Vol. XVIII, 716 f. The correct number is in the manuscript, in print it is: "14.".
3) See Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 689. Eck's "Monomachie" or "Vertheidigung" is contained in Carlstadt's writing there in its entirety.
4) Instead of facere in the Vulgate, Eck has: 86I-VÄI-6.
5) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 690.
I have added a passage from Scripture that would be contrary to my opinion, because the wise man speaks of man as he was created in the beginning, and Scripture says that God created man righteous; if righteous, then also with the first grace. This evasion, I say, does not nullify my testimony. For although the wise man remembers man as he was first created, no one need think that the wise man addressed Adam only after so many hundred years and wanted to say, "If you will keep the commandment," etc., but rather that he addressed the then present and the future men, which is indicated by the words at the end, "Who without ceasing sees all," etc. Then also St. Jerome in his letter to the Virgin Demetrias, right after the beginning, refers to this saying of the wise man for the people of his time. Not to mention that the opinion of the holy fathers makes no great difference between the beginning of the free will and its continuation, except that at the beginning it was completely unharmed and perfect, but in the further course it was wounded by the stains of sin (as St. Ambrose speaks of the profession of the heathen), and became limping, according to Augustine in the third book hypognosticon against Pelagius. Which Bernhardus de lib. ard., in my edition Columne 8, testifies quite clearly: Adam, he says, undoubtedly kept the freedom of the will both after and before sin always unchanged; and in the following Columne: The will still remains, as in good, so also in evil, in the same way. This is more clearly stated by St. Jerome in the third book against the Pelagians, where Atticus says to Critobolus: "This is what I had said from the beginning, that it is in our power to sin or not to sin, and to take the good or the evil, that the free will remains (but he limits it at the end): but according to the nature and time and condition of human frailty.
Carlstadt's response.
The testimony of the wise man Cap. 15,14. ff. is about the first man and the whole human race; because according to the apostle, sin entered through one man to all men. As sin entered through one man, so would righteousness have been imparted to the whole human race if the first man had remained in rightness and innocence, so that he had been created, and each had been free to stretch out his hand for good or evil;
as the text clearly says. He says: "He formed man from the beginning and made him righteous"; and then follows: "has left him in the hand of his counsel". For grace rules the hand and stretches it out. Just as Paul also says: that those who are children of God are driven by the Holy Spirit. And John in his canonical epistle says: "Everyone who does right is born of God."
Secondly, I wonder that the excellent Doctor distinguishes the times by the Holy Spirit, as far as truth and righteousness are concerned, as if the Holy Spirit speaks truth at one time, which he overturns at another; and I refer to what has been said before.
To Bernhard I answer: that his testimony does not serve the cause, because the thesis speaks of freedom from sin, but the testimony cited by the doctor speaks of freedom in willing (volitionibus). And that this is so, Bernhard's words read thus: But he has lapsed from not being able to sin, into not being able to do otherwise than sin.
The words of Augustine, when he cites this saying: "God has man from the beginning," etc., thus read: This is the first grace, by which the first man could have stood, if he had wanted to keep the commandments of the Lord. This he has now lost, since man has been corrupted by his disobedience, and has become a prisoner through the righteous judgment of the serpent, that is, of the devil (whom he preferred to obey rather than God); therefore it is written: "By whomsoever a man is overcome, that man's servant is he," 2 Pet. 2, 19, and again: "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin," etc. [John 8:34.]
To Jerome I say that Jerome was never so ignorant of Scripture as to think that fallen man could avoid sin without grace. Rather he argues with all his might against the Pelagians and proves that good works, good merits are not in man's power. 1)
On Ambrose I say that Ambrose lib. I, 2. says: The free will without grace, or the will itself, is uncertain, wandering and changeable, which can do nothing of itself that is pleasing to God, just as the church already sang: Sine tuo numine nihil est in homine, nihil est innoxium, i.e., the will of a man is not in his own right.
1) In the manuscript it says in the margin: Eck said: if he had read in the theologians, he would not have said it. But in the print: Thereupon etc.: he had read it ages ago.
Without the grace of the Holy Spirit, nothing can be done that is pleasing and acceptable to God, but everything he does is harmful.
Eck denies it, and replies.
First of all, when the wise man speaks of the first man and through him to the whole human race, I have what I want, namely of what kind free will is in us. This serves the first purpose.
Concerning the other, that the Holy Spirit does not have different truths according to different times: I deny this with regard to the reminders, commandments and orders, and say that God has given different, even repugnant, commandments according to the times, as when he ordered circumcision in the Old Testament as necessary, but in the time of grace the apostle cried out, "If ye be circumcised, Christ is of no use to you." So this word [Sir. 15,14. ff.] is a reminder, which the wise man could not address to the dead for any benefit, just as this commandment of the Lord: "Go into all the world and preach" etc. did not apply to the dead.
Thirdly, what the erudite doctor has further cited in his defense does not serve the cause at all. For I have not cited the saying of the sage that free will can do something good without grace, which was the damned heresy of the Pelagians. For in this I gladly agree with him, as a Christian who firmly holds to the Christian faith; but this was our matter, and about this we argued, that free will, our rational power, which is assisted by grace, should not be cheated of its natural working and good-producing virtue; that is to say, that the will should not behave merely sufferingly toward the good, and that free will after sin should be nothing but a mere sound of words, but rather should cooperate when God helps with His grace. And this is the purpose of the text in the holy Gospel Matth. 25, 20, where the servant says: "Lord, you have given me five pounds; behold, I have gained five more." For if free will were merely suffering for the good, the servant would have thanked God and rightly confessed that he had received ten. But since he had received five from God as a gift, and since he had acquired five through his merits and the cooperating grace of God, he confesses in general, without hope, that he had gained five more. For St. Hilarius also testifies that through these pounds the merits of the righteous are understood.
Furthermore, I have not quoted Augustine or Ambrose as if I understood the scriptural passage from said passages in such a way that free will was entirely the cause, but I only wanted to show from the meaning of Bernard, Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose, how the holy fathers unanimously held that free will was not a mere empty name after the fall, but remained unchanged, although wounded according to Ambrose, limping according to Augustine, and to be respected according to the measure of human frailty, according to Jerome. For this also pleases me: that free will without grace can do nothing that is pleasing or pleasing to God.
Carlstadt's response.
At first, when the doctor says that he has what he wants from my answer, I say no to it.
On the other hand, since the excellent Doctor cites some testimonies by which he wants to show that the Holy Spirit or the truth of the Holy Spirit has been changed by time, as the commandment of circumcision etc., I say that it is another when remedies are changed that were prescribed against diseases; another that the truth itself perishes. For this is still true today, that the circumcision of the fathers was valid. Therefore this contradiction is brought forward without good judgment.
Thirdly, I say that this saying does not prove that man, having obtained grace, still has a special natural efficacy that is distinct from grace. For the saying of the five pounds is not contrary to this, although from the outward appearance it has the appearance of benefiting the Lord Doctor, but according to the right view the word of that servant, if he has spoken rightly, must be understood in this way: Not I have gained, but the grace of God which is with me; as Paul says, "I have labored more than all, not I, but the grace of God which is with me." And so similar testimonies must be understood. For what in one place does not stand at the same time with, is not therefore denied. But what is doubtful must be decided from clear testimonies. Therefore, it does us little harm what the doctor has cited against us in this case in the third place.
Finally, when he says that free will has not the empty name, but also the thing, I answer: He makes the right freedom, who is truly free, namely Christ our Lord.
Fourthly, I say that both Augustine and Ambrose say that the good merits are entirely God's, and not partly ours, according to the activity, but that they become ours through the bestowal of grace.
Eck's rebuttal:
In the first place, that you have said, No, or, I deny it, I could also deny it, but that is not enough.
On the other hand, that this answer does not invalidate my assertion. For I have not said that a truth becomes a falsehood, but that the exhortation [Sir. 15] which the wise man made does not apply to the dead, in whom it would be of no use. Rather, I want it to be, have been, and will remain a theological truth, explaining how God has left man in the hands of His counsel for good and evil.
Thirdly, I say that such an answer does not sound well in my ears, I do not know what others judge about it, that one speaks so doubtfully, whether that servant has spoken well or not; since the Lord praises him and says, "Enter into the joy of your Lord!" Likewise, that his scholarship confesses that the testimony given is in appearance for me, but not in fact, which it has so declared: Here are five other pounds, which I have not gained, but the grace of God, which is with me: so I leave such explanation of the affirmative words by the negative, but am still satisfied with the interpretation, because the servant, whom the Lord praises, will undoubtedly have had the same humility with the apostle. In the meantime, my intention also benefits from such a core and interpretation: for if the grace of God has won with that servant, then one can easily see both of them working; which first of all can be seen from the little word ["with"], which expresses the fellowship. For he who disputes with me, disputes he? and he who works with me, does he work or not? For the rest, St. Jerome took this apostolic saying in just this sense. For he says of the same words, 1 Cor. 15:10, "I have labored more," that is, neither he without grace labored in the gospel, so that he did not add to what he had said before, nor grace without him, so that he retained free will and kept his dignity; by which he evidently testifies, and the Scriptures clearly declare, that both grace and the apostle labored.
Therefore, free will is not deprived of its effectiveness.
Eck said that he would answer the fourth one the next day because the time had passed. Carlstadt added: For the same reason he had left out the testimonies that were not yet brought forward from the Scriptures, because the next day it would be his turn to prove. 1) But Eck answered: he would have lost if he did not answer.
The 38th of June early at 7 o'clock.
Doctor Eck lets it happen that Carlstadt answers.
Carlstadt's response.
To the first I answer no, and point the reader to what has already been said before.
But that V. Eck makes so much of the passage Sir. 15,14. ff.: "If you will keep the commandments" etc., Augustine answers it quite nicely de gratia et lib. arb. c. 15: By grace (he says) becomes so great a will that he can keep the divine commandments which he wills; for to this belongs what is written, "If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments," etc. Then the same Augustine says: "The same one who said, "If you will, you will keep the commandments" says in the same book Cap. 22:33: "O that I had a lock upon my mouth, and a seal upon my lips, that I should not fall thereby, and that my tongue should not corrupt me." Now if this be true, "If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments"; why then doth he require a lock for his mouth? And further on, the same Augustine says, "If thou wilt, thou shalt keep the commandments." It is certain that we keep the commandments if we will, but because the will is prepared by the Lord, we must ask it of Him that we will as much as is necessary that we may do by will. It is certain that we will when we will, but he makes us will good things, of whom it is written, "By the Lord his course is directed, and so he wills his way," Ps. 37:23. "He that worketh in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure," Phil. 2:13. Therefore see the Lord. Therefore, since God bestows both the good will and the good work, see to it that he does not overthrow the free will by an evil interpretation of the Scriptures, and that he does not put into the hearts of ignorant people, who are not well versed in the law of God, a pompous hope instead of theological science.
1) In Löscher: augumöntancki instead of: arxunwntÄnäi.
For I say this, that Christ came to rescue from the devil's jaws the free will that was his slave; for for this reason Christ, who knows no sin, was made sin for us, that in him we might have righteousness in God, as Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:21.Because free will cannot do righteousness unless Christ first takes on the sins of the free will and transfers it into the kingdom of light, that Christ alone may be righteous in the pious, just in the justified, sanctification in the sanctified, and redemption in the redeemed, so that no one may seek his glory, as Paul writes 1 Cor. 1:30: "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who is made unto us of God wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, as it is written, he that will boast may boast in the Lord," as Jeremiah says. This is the right science of theologians, knowing nothing but Christ's power and our weakness. For power becomes mighty in weakness, and grace alone is sufficient for us, 2 Cor. 12:9.
The last testimony: "If you want", does not have the shadow of the Sacrament that has ceased.
On the other hand, as far as the change of truths is concerned, I say that the doctor is seeking deviations and wants to drag me elsewhere so that he can secretly hide himself and his cause. For I have said enough that grace extends the hand of our council for good, but he always brings me the same words again without further testimony.
Thirdly, when the excellent doctor says that he does not like and that it sounds bad in his ears what I said about the servant who answered, "Behold, Lord, I have gained five other pounds," I answer that I have not made a definite statement about it, so that it could be annoying to the ears, and that such doubtfulness does not concern our matter; but I would like D. Eck to take better care of the people who speak and, as Augustine reminds Orosius, to be diligent about who speaks in the Scriptures. Eck would take better care of the persons who speak and, as Augustine reminds us of Orosius, Cap. 9, would diligently observe who speaks in the holy Scriptures. But that he cackles: affirmative words were explained in a negative way, I care little, and one leaves such objections to those who deal with logical trifles and how something can be interpreted. But that he considers this little word "with me" and still attributes to free will its own efficacy, which does not come from grace, is sufficiently known to those who understand St. Paul correctly, how miserable he is.
whose testimony is contrary to the explicit opinion of the holy apostle, who has rejected all work that does not come from grace, because he says: It is not I, but the grace of God that is with me, that is, I am not the one who has a special activity (activitatem), as the school teachers speak, but it is grace that gives me all activity, that gives and offers all powers, that drives and governs me; for "by his grace I am what I am, and his grace has not been in vain to me"; that is, all that I have worked, all that grace has done, all good works the grace of God has bestowed upon me. He says this even more clearly in 2 Cor. 4:7: "We have this treasure in earthly vessels," that is, in weak vessels of flesh we have everything that belongs to grace. But let the Doctor consider that St. Paul does not call them vessels of grace, and pay attention to what follows (why we have this treasure of Christ in earthen vessels), "that the abundant power may be of God," he says, "and not of us." What further testimony can we have? Why do we make do with trifling things? Why do we hover in doubt, since all Scripture, which is high and praiseworthy, clearly ascribes not to our power, but to God's? For love alone suffers all things in us and with us; it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, works all things, 1 Cor. 13:7, that is, grace makes us patient, faithful and doers; it also makes our entrance and exit. This opinion is also served by what John the Baptist humbly and truthfully said: "A man can take nothing unless it is given him from heaven," John 3:27. And yet my Lord still wants to work and attribute a special work to free will as far as the works of grace are concerned, since he hears the Lord's forerunners confess that a man can take nothing unless it is given him from heaven. But the creators of good works can only grab themselves, since the Baptist of the Lord cannot take anything, unless it is given to him from above. This is what Ambrose lib. 2, cap. 9, says so elegantly about the calling of the Gentiles: "Grace itself does this with all kinds of healing and help, that in the one whom it calls, it first of all prepares for itself the will, as a recipient and servant of its goods. Behold, he says that grace makes the will capable of receiving, namely, the gifts of grace, and all that pertains to a good work; which John said in the words, "No one can take anything away" etc. After this he says: that grace makes the will capable of service.
of the gifts of God. But my Lord Eck makes the will the king, because he says: the will has a special effect, which is natural and works in good merits. Hereby, I think, the last quotation from Jerome is answered, because this same Jerome lib. 1. against the Pelagians, Columne 12, the quoted saying of John: "No one can take anything" etc., likewise draws on the help of God, and many other testimonies more, which serve for my cause, pile up.
Fourthly, I am very glad to see that the excellent Doctor awaits my reasons of proof, with which I hope, and have firm confidence in the Lord, to prove bravely and strongly that the good merits or works in all things, that is, are entirely God's, as far as their efficacy or bestowal (largitionem) is concerned, and that they become ours only in the way that they are given to us free of charge by divine goodness. And it is very dear to me that the excellent Doctor, my former adversary, immediately after the first fight that we had together, agreed with my opinion, yes, with the opinion of the Holy Spirit, and teaches that the free will, or rather the fallen will, can do nothing that is pleasant and pleasing to God before God's grace straightens it out and sets it right again. So then, the school crickets of the [merit] according to equity (de congruo) may have a good night, and also the repentance go their way, which they attribute to the will that has not yet been healed. It may grab Aristotle, who concocted such opinions, who has now been taught for over four hundred years, with great harm to souls, and disregarding the integrity and spirit of the Scriptures! Meanwhile it remains with my eleventh conclusion, 1) which is actually that of Augustine, de spir. et lit. 6. 3. that the free will before grace can do nothing but sin. The twelfth thesis should also be established, which is that of Ambrose, on the vocation of the pagans, lib. 1, c. 2, in the last column: that the will, which is not guided by the divine will, approaches ungodliness the more zealously it is intent on action. There may also pass away what the common rabble of theologians have taught: that if a man do as much as is in him, he can push away the bar which stands against grace; for this has been sufficiently refuted in the thirteenth thesis.
1) See Carlstadt's theses against Eck, Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 716 f.
Corner.
Since our action is a disputation and not a lecture written at home, and in order to alleviate the gentlemen's displeasure, I say to the first that I quite like St. Augustine's explanation of grace and free will in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and twentieth chapters; because in these places the holy father leaves the rights of free will uninjured, namely: "As you wish" etc., and yet does not conceal what is necessary, namely, the cooperating grace of God, which indeed cooperates in such a way that the deed of the good work may be attributed to God and to grace, which are the primary agents. Therefore, a Christian man must both praise grace and defend free will, as the learned Augustine lib. 2, o. 18. taught about infant baptism, and St. Ambrose reminded us in the introduction to voc. gent. Also Jerome reports lib. III against the Pelagians, that he had always been eager to assert the omnipotence of God at the same time as free will. But secondly, that the respectable Doctor reminds me that I do not bring the turgidity of hope into the hearts of crude people with my defense of free will: he should not have suspected this of me at all, for I defend free will in such a way against the abominations of the Manichaeans that I nevertheless place grace, as the noblest thing, far above it, against the damned Pelagians, and that Augustine lib. 3. hypogn. regards grace against free will no differently than the rider against the horse: so I willingly put up with what has been said therein in praise of grace, may God bestow it upon us all! As for the other, I say that I do not insist on anything so often as that I want the law of liberty to have been declared by the wise man, of which also Cyprian remembers Pope Cornelius, and says: Christ did not reproach those who went behind him, but rather turned to his apostles and said: Will you also go away? namely, they keep the law by which man is left to his freedom and, standing in his free will, chooses death or life. This law, I say, I wanted to see presented through the memory of the wise man, and this memory is addressed to the living and the descendants, but not to those who died before.
Thirdly: Thirdly, since the reverend Doctor blames me without reserve, as if I were miserably twisting the Apostle's word: "Not I, but the grace of God, which is with me, is with me," he says.
and ascribes to free will a special efficacy that does not come from grace: I wonder very much how this occurred to him, that he only added Jerome's words to those of the apostle, and I wonder still more that, since he had the transcript of our disputation yesterday from the notary, he interprets to me, contrary to our settlement, that I had taught that free will has its own special efficacy, which grace does not produce, which I had not even thought of; therefore I refer to the transcript of the notary. But what he has finally referred to, more in opposition than in answer, of grace being given from above: who does not know this? since even children know the well-known word of Jacob: "All perfect gift is from above" etc. Therefore I also gladly accept Ambrose, who makes the will capable of good and a servant of it. But that the highly learned Doctor ascribes to me: I would have wanted to make a king out of the will, I admit, I say, as I have put in my "defense" in the sixth conclusion: 1) If the will is held against the lower forces that put it into work, then it is true that it is in the soul like a king in his kingdom: which I also want to prove; but if it is held against grace and God, then it is certainly only servant and servant.
Finally, since he answers Jerome with attraction to another passage of his from lib. 1. against the Pelagians, Col. 12, I would have liked the Doctor to answer to the words I have attracted from Jerome, which attribute to free will its power to act. For to put forward aJnstanz is not to answer. But one must answer what is interjected.
Carlstadt wanted to draw a conclusion from Eck's objections and what he almost admitted; but Eck argued very cleverly: the time was up, and he did not concede everything to Carlstadt either. The matter was then brought to the regents (rectores) and superiors, according to whose judgment the matter was postponed to another hour.
Corner at 3 o'clock.
Since the word of the servant has been explained by the apostle's word, "I have labored more than all, yet not I, but the grace of God which is with me," etc., I will show more strongly in reply that the apostle meant to say as much in that place: that both he and the
1) Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 688.
Grace have worked, except the explanation, which I have attached yesterday from Hieronymus. For so St. Bernard de grat. et lib. arb., Col. 15, expressly assures me. Hence Paul, when he had related many things which God had done through him, says at last, "Not but I, but the grace of God with me." He could say: through me; but he rather wanted to say, what is more, 1) "With me"; in that he thereby indicates that he is not a servant by tool effect, but as it were a journeyman of the active one, by attunement. There can be nothing clearer than these words, which alone should convict the opponent, because St. Bernard does not refer to the apostle as a mere servant, but as a journeyman of the effect. After this, the same Bernard teaches in the same Columne that grace and free will together are the complete cause of a meritorious work. According to his statement, I do not divide the meritorious work in such a way that it comes partly from grace and partly from free will. Bernhard's words are these: But it works this with free will in such a way that it precedes it at first, but accompanies it for the rest. No doubt this is why it precedes him, so that he afterwards works together with it, but in such a way that what grace alone has begun is afterwards accomplished by both of them, mixed with each other; not separately, so that they work together at the same time, not alternately, through all good works. Here the holy father explains not only the causality or activity of free will, but also its nature.
Fourthly, did the doctor want to know from me whether I wanted to answer the reasons that his glory would give against me in this? To this I answered in the affirmative, because I had taken such a long way to do so. But what he has stated without need of more than one, wiser than I may judge: whether all religious theologians, even the secular theologians, are to be held in such contempt for 400 years, as if Christ, who promised to remain with us until the end of the world, had left his bride. For my own part, since I am now dealing with theological matters, I do not want to take upon myself the protection of Aristotle, but I know this much to comfort philosophers and philosophers, that Aristotle is praised by the highest and most learned men, whose judgment already has so much to say, and their honesty in praise is so unadulterated, that one cannot reject it in the least. How then do I
1) Minus, must rather mean inujus (Walch).
I could also easily attract Cicero, Quintilianus, Plato and others. However, as I said earlier, I am now dealing with theological matters and will not take up philosophy.
Carlstadt expressed his sympathy over the reasons put forward by Eck.
To know the Scriptures is not to recite a heap of testimonies from one's head, but to seek and taste the spirit contained in the Scriptures and our Lord Christ, and also to present the testimonies according to the sense of the writers. Therefore, the doctor reproaches me in vain for having come to the disputation yesterday with a prepared lecture.
Regarding the testimony that the Doctor brings forward from Augustine: namely, that Augustine does not abolish the faculty of free will, I say: I have never doubted that grace makes free will effective. Secondly, Ambrose de vocatione gentium is clear that free will receives its effect from grace. On Jerome's testimony against the Pelagians, I say exactly what Jerome also widely proves. In Augustine lib. 3. hypogn. whose testimony he cited, that grace behaves against free will/as the rider does against the horse: so I answer that the Doctor reads Augustine with dark eyes, and cites Augustine against his opinion. Augustine's words are these: And laid him on his beast, that is, on the help of the grace of the Incarnation, since, as it is written, he bore our sins. This is what Augustine says. So the likeness is even greater, that the free will behaves against grace, as a weak, wounded man behaves against the beast that carries him away.
Cyprian's testimony does not prove a special effectiveness of the free will. But there are other testimonies of the same Cyprian, which clearly say that Christ works all good works in the free will.
That the doctor admits that free will has no special efficacy in good works, we accept with all thanks, and we are surprised that he is of such an extraordinarily different opinion and contradicts himself so much in the same dispute and at the same hour. But it is not without suspicion that he had other thoughts, since he draws testimonies by which he wants to prove that free will has such efficacy. I am also satisfied with Jacob's testimony, since he says: "All perfect gift comes" etc.
As for Bernard's saying: that grace undoubtedly precedes for the purpose that it [free will] may henceforth work with it, that what grace alone has begun may be carried on by both alike, in a mixed, not single, way, nor even alternately, in all good conduct, not partly by grace, partly by free will, but that both do everything in an inseparable way: so in Bernardus himself follows the further explanation: The whole indeed does this (that is, the free will), and the whole (namely, the good work) does this, namely, grace: but as everything in it, that is, the free will, so everything happens from it, namely, grace. So the understanding is this: grace works the good works in the free will, and so grace has the efficacy of the good works, but the free will has the receiving; namely, what the same Bernard says Col. 1 in the very book de grat. et l. arb.: This work cannot happen without two, namely one, from whom it, the other, to and in whom it happens. According to this, the good works are rather accomplished in the free will than that they happen through the effectiveness of the free will. For Bernard immediately adds and says: God is the author of blessedness, free will is only the recipient or capable of it. Note the word "only", which only allows the ability and takes away the effectiveness. It follows in Bernhardus further: No one can give such (blessedness) but God, nor can anything else seize it but free will. And again: Consequently, free will rather receives good works than works them out; indeed, it does not do good works. Bernard lists three kinds of creatures through which God works salvation or blessedness: namely, through the creature, without it; sometimes through the creature, against it; and sometimes through the creature, with it. Through the unreasonable creature he works without it, because it, since it has no understanding/) cannot even know about it; through the devils and the ungodly he sometimes works salvation against them; but through the pious in such a way that God works with them, who both do and will what God wants. For those who agree with the will do 2) the work of the Lord; what God accomplishes through them He communicates to them. Therefore Paul says: "It is not I, but the grace of God.
1) We have retained the reading that both the manuscript and the print offer: intslisstu Cursus, while Löscher has put instead of sarsns: prasssns, because the latter seemed to him to run counter to the sense.
2) Here we have inserted Lusiunt. Without a change or an addition, the sentence is untranslatable.
tes with me." He could say: through me. But he rather wanted to say what was more 3): "with me", that he did not make himself merely a servant through (tool) effect, but as it were a journeyman through attunement. Bernard does not mean that the free will has any effect in a good work, which God or grace did not create, but that the grace of God gives the will the good attunement, and therefore, he says, it is less said: through me; 4) because God works through some creatures without the same attunement; namely, when he works through unreasonable creatures, or through the godless against their will.
Corner, on the other hand.
Although I must confess the low nature of my teaching, which the respectable doctor holds contemptible, I may nevertheless, with permission, in order to become more learned, say the following against the given answer. For, that he introduces Augustine, when he says: grace makes free will work, he thereby gives us right. For since grace makes free will work, the effect of grace is not in vain; therefore free will will also work something. Ambrose's saying does not serve his opinion well either. For, let it be that free will receives the effect from grace, the conclusion is nevertheless wrong that therefore free will does not work, since not only free will but also other creatures receive the effect from God, so that one may rightly say: When the main cause stops working, all the other lower causes cease to work. The fire also receives its warming power from the Creator, but that is why it warms. But when the respectable doctor says that I looked at Augustine with stupid eyes, I wish that he could see as sharply as I do. But the doctor has accepted for himself one passage that was not attracted, but he has left alone the other one that was attracted. For Augustine acts in the passage attracted for me in the 3rd book against the Pelagians, book, m, since he says: I hold that free will can rightly be compared to the animal; hence also there it says: I have become like a beast before you, but grace with him who sits on it. This allegory leads
3) minus for masus. (Walch.)
4) Minus one sees that it has been quite improved above, by: the several: or one must make above from maluit noluit if minus is to remain. (Walch.)
I do this so that the learned doctor or anyone else will not blaspheme that I have only read the school teachers and that I am only a school theologian, while others are true scholars of God.
That our friend answered Cyprianus: Cyprianus has very often written that Christ works all good in us, so I am in trouble, about which I have also complained in the past, that he does not answer the objections as well as give me an answer. For what Cyprianus otherwise taught I do not want to deny, but I maintain that his opinion of the free will's ability in the cited passage is correct.
The excellent doctor thanks me for agreeing with his opinion and for not granting free will its own effectiveness for the good. But with permission, he states our things in a mutilated way. For I gladly conceded that free will has no special efficacy that grace does not create, but that grace and free will accomplish the good work inseparably with each other, according to Bernhard's testimony, which I have cited. To this the Doctor answered us with a lengthy narration of many of Bernard's words. But since the following would be more suitable for him if he were to make objections than if he were to give an answer, I would still like to know whether free will is merely suffering in relation to a good work, since Bernhard says that grace and free will are mixed and accomplish the same thing at the same time! And would also like to know how Bernard understands the difference between the work begun and the work to be accomplished? If free will behaves in a purely suffering way, it will behave in the same way when it receives for the beginning and when it receives for the completion.
In the same way, the respectable doctor and friend of Bernhardus draws words around from St. Paul. But I would like to know what Bernhardus says elsewhere: if he considered Paul to be a co-worker of grace through attunement, what this attunement is other than the effect of free will. And that this is quite certain, for this I cite the words of Augustine, which cannot be twisted at all, from the fourth treatise on the epistle of St. John, where the holy father treats the words of this holy writer: "Everyone who has such hope in him purifies himself, just as he also is pure." Behold, he says, how he has not snatched away the free will, since he has given
said, "Purify yourselves." Who justifies you but God? But God does not justify you against your will, but because you add your will to God's, He justifies you; He does not purify you from yourself, but from the one who wanted to dwell in you. But because you do something with your will, something is also added to you. But it is added unto thee, that thou shouldest say, according to Ps. 27:9, Thou art my helper, forsake me not." When you say, "You are my helper," you also do something; for if you do nothing, why is he given to help? This is what Augustine says. By this he clearly shows that we are given effectiveness, and by the fact that God helps us, he seeks to prove that we also do something ourselves. And certainly, if Augustine had not wanted to defend the law and ability of free will, which the wise man (Sirach) has indicated above, in his books everywhere, then the dear father would not have been so hostile to Julianus lib. 4, 6. 8. that he also said: he was lying, that he had pretended that Augustine had abolished free will.
Carlstadt's response.
To the first, second, third, and sixth arguments I say that grace does indeed give efficacy to free will; and this I have never denied, but only this, that free will has a special and natural efficacy in good works. Hereby I answer the long discourse which the Doctor drew from the fourth treatise of Augustine on the epistle of John. For I gladly admit that God is the helper of free will, that is, gives power and effect to free will.
Thirdly, that the free will is compared to an animal does not serve the cause and purpose of the excellent doctor. For free will is certainly a beast, that it may be tamed and prepared for necessary good works; but that it may be restored to health, grace is also called (the Samaritan's) beast (that carries the wounded), as we have sufficiently shown from the beginning of this doctrinal struggle.
To the fourth I answer on account of Cyprian that it is incumbent on the opponent to prove and expound his speeches so that they can be understood. But Cyprian's saying, because it is doubtful, will never conclude that free will has a special efficacy by nature; as above.
With regard to Bernardus, the Doctor would like to know and understand how a pious and justified person is a journeyman of the working grace.
It has been answered sufficiently that this takes place because of consent, which, however, grace imparts to free will itself.
Eck dawider.
Although our friend, the respectable Doctor, finally drawn over to my opinion, freely admits that he has never denied the efficacy of free will, which he received from grace, I have nevertheless been able to surmise from many of his writings and other various circumstances that the Doctor is of the opinion as if free will has no efficacy at all in a good work; firstly because of his 14th conclusion, 1) since he says: Since D. John does not see how a good work is entirely from God etc. Next, because my 7th conclusion 2) clearly states this: He errs who denies that free will etc. Thirdly, because the venerable father D. Martin Luther speaks against me in the 7th conclusion 3): [Who shows that he does not know] neither what faith, nor what repentance [nor what free will is] etc. And just the venerable father in a printed disputation Col. 13 speaks: Free will after the fall has only the empty name or title; and Col. 14: Free will after the fall to the good etc. Fourth, because the honorable Doctor often writes in his "defense": free will only suffers and does not work for good; as is evident from b 4. facie 2. and c 2. fac. 1. and g 4. fac. 1. and fac. 2. and in many other places, where the honorable Doctor says: the will alone receives, but does not work. However, if he gives the free will an efficacy that it has from grace, I am already satisfied. If he had admitted such a thing from the beginning of our disputation, namely, that grace and free will work together and mixed, we would not have had to argue against each other. And that he says that St. Augustine, lib. 3. hypogn., who will probably be attracted to me rightly and with good eyes, does not serve the point: so perhaps the respectable gentleman, as people can easily forget something, will not remember that I attracted Augustine. My purpose was to show that grace and free will together would be quite a complete cause of the meritorious work; but in such a way that grace would be the noblest, but free will the lesser (minus principalem) cause. To this my proposition
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 717.
2) St. Louis edition, ibiä., Col. 713.
3) St. Louis edition, 1. e. Col. 719. Here one can see in which way Eck citirt.
The symbol of Augustine, who compares grace to the rider, as the most noble cause, and free will to the horse, as the lesser cause, is undoubtedly suitable, according to the opinion of all.
Carlstadt's response.
In the first place, since the Doctor takes from my 14th conclusion that free will has no efficacy, I agree with him as far as natural efficacy is concerned, but as far as the efficacy which grace confers is concerned, I say that free will has an efficacy. But perhaps the doctor does not want to understand either me or St. Bernard, who says that each individual (namely, grace and free will) accomplishes the whole thing in an inseparable way; who therefore attributes efficacy or active action to free will, because the grace of God works in it, so I also attribute efficacy to free will? For the free will acts or works, because in it is worked; as the running is not of the running.
He is satisfied with the other things and did not want to argue about the words: animal, rider etc.
I cannot be surprised enough that the excellent doctor wants to reject our things at his discretion, 4) since he says: I thought that the respectable doctor believed that free will had no efficacy.
Eck, who did not trust himself with anything good, here interfered with Carlstadt's speech that he should not use a piece of paper or a book; and in order that he might boast of his clever and cunning head, as if he alone deserved praise and the prize of victory with his wit, he said that this was the way of arguing in Italy, that no books were brought forward, but everything was stated from the head, which was the only thing that mattered here. Carlstadt often made humble objections against this. Eck shouted in the middle of the meeting: "The matter will be brought to the prince and the superiors. The most prominent people also stepped down and spoke together, but their judgment aroused more suspicion than justice. Most of them were of the opinion that Carlstadt should leave out the books. This opinion was accepted by all, and Caesar Pflug made a speech with the following content: "Gracious sir, and honorable gentlemen. There has now arisen a contradiction between the worthy gentlemen D. Eck and Carlstadt, namely, that Doctor Eccius did not want to yield to Doctor Carlstadt to read his argument from a book or a piece of paper, and threw himself on the use and practice of other universities and customs, saying that it is not customary to dispute from books. Therefore, Doctor Eccius, out of special request, has yielded to Doctor Carlstadt,
4) On the margin it says: Carlstadt read this from a piece of paper.
from the note today; but if they will not comply with such an objection tomorrow, and henceforth complete their disputation as raised, we will be well satisfied." 1)
Carlstadt, however, did not adhere to the theologians' judgment, and finally, after listening to the speech, they unanimously left their place and ran out to the auditorium with a crowd. There everyone shouted that the disputation would now end.
In the evening, however, immediately corners were again scheduled for the following day, firstly because many famous people would have come together from afar; secondly, so that such an important matter would not become a mockery.
July 1, 1519 early at 8 o'clock.
Carlstadt.
The excellent doctor seems to have set some repugnant and self-contradictory things in the matter of faith. Therefore, I will first of all ask the doctor to discuss this with me.
But it is this repugnance in the beginning of his disputation. There he says that free will, which receives help from grace, has its special and natural efficacy in good works. Afterwards, however, in the further course of the disputation, he said that it had never occurred to him that free will had a special efficacy that grace did not create.
Now here I ask: Since having efficacy from another is not the same as having it from oneself, but something foreign, not something proper to man; how such speech contending with itself may be united, so that we do not contend in wind and in vain?
This happened on June 28 early Wider the 11th thesis.
Eck's response.
The respectable doctor and friend pretends that in the past few days I have brought things into dispute with myself, because in the beginning of the disputation I attributed to free will its own, natural and special efficacy in good works, and afterwards claimed that such a thing had never occurred to me:
Thus I answer and say that neither at the beginning of the disputation nor during its progress did I ever say that free will has a natural efficacy in regard to the good work, but in opposition to the Doctor I only assumed it in order to prove that free will has a causal capacity to produce the good work if it is assisted by grace.
1) The preceding speech of Caesar Pflug is German in our original.
Postscript of the notaries. Therefore, since I have added the help of grace, I have attributed to the will not a natural, but a supernatural efficacy, which has been imparted to it by grace, in which opinion I still persist.
That the doctor from this brings forward a double conclusion (dilemma) by asking: whether then to have efficacy from another is not so much as to have an alien efficacy and no efficacy of one's own; and whether that therefore is not so much as to have it not from or of oneself, but from another?
So I answer: that to have an efficacy communicated by another is as much as to have one's own. And although the Doctor has not put on anything for his speech, nevertheless, in order to strengthen my answer, I cite in this matter the testimony of St. Jerome to the virgin Demetrias: Thus, he says, since God willed to endow the rational creature with the gift of a voluntary good and the part of a free will, namely, that he might reach for both things, he gave him the quality of being able to will, so that, being capable of evil and good, he might by nature be able to do both, and the will incline to one of the two. For man cannot have the name that he chooses the good voluntarily, if he cannot also choose the evil. The Creator has given both to our ability. Jerome expressly testified to this and said that man has both abilities as his own. Therefore, this is completely in accordance with the way the holy fathers speak.
But I want to add this to the rest: one must interpret the own effect of free will in such a way that it includes the effectiveness, but does not exclude the participation of another cause.
Finally, I admit that free will has its own and special efficacy for good works, but such as God and grace give.
Carlstadt's response.
The world may judge! 2)
For the other, I ask the doctor: How could there be two causes of one and the same good work, both of which produce the whole work; as St. Bernard, whom he attracted, says? For if not one of them has to do with it in a suffering way, but the other in an acting way, it is difficult to understand how the whole work of both comes into being completely or totally?
2) This is missing in the manuscript.
Eck's response.
Since the most respectable gentleman and friend wants to know from me how two causes, namely grace and free will, each of which can produce and work the whole work, without understanding it in such a way that the one appears to be suffering, but the other to be working and active in it?
So I answer that to everyone who has only looked around a little in philosophy, the question is quite easy and clear, which concerns the kind of interaction of the causes in one thing. For I readily admit that each of these causes produces the whole. But that the doctor finally put the words: completely and totally, we do not accept, because Bernhardus says in the same place that they act in a mixed way or with each other, not alternately. For no one may imagine that many 1) causes work together in such a way that one cause performs one part and the other the other, as the doctor believed in his "defense" when he answers my fortieth sentence 2). For there he says: He binds the rod with which he will receive blows, and to some extent he deviates from what he has absorbed from Scotus. 3) But that would be too bold a beginning, writes Ambrose at the end of the epistle, that one would only want to need God's good actions in one piece, but not in the other. And in the thirty-second sentence he concludes thus against me: If a good work is partly in your ability, then it is something after this part. 4) Therefore I have said in refutation of this: that this is contrary to all philosophy and true concept, since one imagines that a partial cause produces only one piece. And that this is so, I prove from all the order of causes. The fire also warms; 5) St. John says: All things were created by God. Therefore, this can be understood by a person not ignorant of philosophy quite easily and without difficulty in this matter of ours. St. Bernard 6) asserts this about free will, as far as I remember.
1) It is to be read piurlum instead of piurirnurn.
2) In Latin, by mistake, propoui stands for propositiorü.
3, Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 709.
d,4) St. Louis edition, I. e. Col. 705.
5) It has already been said above that it has the power of God.
6) In the manuscript: Augustine.
Carlstadt's response.
The fact that the doctor arms himself with pagan weapons in a theological dispute, he does according to his nature, but does not yet satisfy me. I therefore ask in one word: Is the good work entirely of God (effective) or not? If he admits the first, we are one; if he denies it, I reject his proposition.
Corner.
When the respectable doctor accuses me of arming myself with pagan weapons in theological matters, I answer that since I do it with weapons that have not been thrown down, I should think that it should not be held against me, because the greatest people in all times have done the same, even, along with the church fathers, St. Paul. Paul; however, I wonder how he could blame me for such a thing at this time, since with all diligence I do not cite the theologians, whom he calls school teachers, nor the great wonder of nature, Aristotle, and in the answer to two questions I have attracted nothing but Jerome, Bernard and St. John. But that the venerable Doctor asks: whether the meritorious work is entirely of God in an active way? this is already answered; for he could quite well see that God performs the whole (totum) meritorious work in an active way, but not completely (totaliter), which is clear from Chrysostom's "of the contrition of the heart," lib. I.: For we can also give these heretics an occasion in the cause of faith, because the apostles and all the saints did not become admirable from their excellency and work, but from the grace of God alone; for they will say: What hinders that all do not become such people? etc., and consequently. And St. Bernard agrees above that they do not work piecemeal, but together and blended.
Carlstadt.
The contradiction that the doctor brings up anew, not to mention the "completely" and "not completely", may, as far as Aristotle is concerned in theological dispute, tell us Jerome's opinion lib. I., Col. 9 against the Pelagians: I do not ask, he says, what Aristotle teaches, but what Paul teaches.
For the rest, since the excellent doctor admits that the good work is entirely from God, I will rather approve than disapprove. But I prove it from the little prayer that the Roman Church prays every year.
O God, from whom all good things come, grant to us who humbly ask you that we may think what is right by your inspiration etc. The text is clear that all good comes from God, and the Lord Himself bestows and gives right thoughts.
Corner.
Since the esteemed Doctor holds up St. Jerome to me, who says in the place mentioned: I do not ask what Aristotle says, but what Paul says, so I do not intend, as I might well do, to defend Aristotle, nor have I yet used Aristotle in this business; but only this I have said, that I could use the unthrown weapons of the Gentiles, and receive gold and silver from the Egyptians, as unlawful owners, just as Origen draws this fact to it; therefore, of course, one must be more concerned with Jerome about Paul than about Aristotle.
After that, the respectable Doctor assumes that I have admitted that the good meritorious work is entirely from God, working way, and he seeks to confirm that. But I ask the Doctor to consider what role he has on himself, and that it is not his place to prove or confirm my things, but to reject them. The church prayer is therefore not repugnant to me, but confirms my opinion, for it certainly says that God bestows good, and that help comes from God, but does not therefore exclude free will.
He added: all school teachers would be of the opinion. But also after the end of this proof v. Carlstadt added that the teachers of theology, whom he calls school teachers, held the same.
Carlstadt.
Capreolus has the opinion: that the free will causat the essence of the work, and the Holy Spirit the manner. Scotus, however, holds the distinction that according to the principalitatem entitatis in a good work, the will is the principal cause, but according to the meritorious essence, grace is then the principal cause.
Corner.
Because I have said: that the best theologians, whom the highly venerable 1) Doctor calls schoolteachers, did not depart from this Christian opinion, namely that all the good work of
1) col. will have to be resolved by eolenaeus.
The respectable doctor has held up two of them to me, Capreolus, who is not very well known to me, and the sensible Scotus, whom I have read only too diligently. Although the main point of the dispute is not what this or that teacher holds, but what we should hold and believe according to Christian truth, I will nevertheless excuse these good people, lest one have unjust thoughts of them.
The passage from Capreolus has not attracted the Doctor according to the place; but I believe certainly that he was of the opinion, what also his guide has asserted quite clearly in various places, I mean, St. Thomas Aquinas, the great church light, in 12. y. 109. 109, especially art. 6. in qu. 24. of the truth, in the beautiful book against the pagans lib. 3. and other places, where the holy father everywhere slackens and admits: the free will is not capable of a good meritorious work, if it is not supernaturally moved by God and grace; thereby he cites Jerome and Augustine with the passages of the Bible, which the holy fathers thought of.
But as for Scotus, nay, the whole host of the best theologians who have written theological Summaries, the respectable Doctor should have looked at the right seat of this doctrine, where by them the Summa of the present trade is dealt with, which is not done Dist. 17. of the first book, in the 27. and 8. of the second, where he will find Thomas, Aegidius, Albertus, Durandus, Gabriel, and others, all of whom, according to Peter Lombard, unanimously maintain that free will by itself, without special and supernatural help from God, is capable of evil, but of no good works, so much so that the inner inspiration of God precedes all good impulses of the will. In this connection, Bonaventure and others cite the very strange saying of St. Augustine, which I remember in my "defense," that it alone is enough to remove all difficulty in the matter. For in the 25th sentence I said: 2) Therefore, for all the sayings that must be cited for 3) each of the two parties, Augustine's excellent solution is sufficient; whoever does not have it, easily gets into danger between door and hinge, for that is the art of putting each in its proper place.
2) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 701.
3) Instead of per, read pro.
bring. This saying of Augustine is found in c. 21. de dogmatibus ecclesiast. and is also repeated in the book de Spir.: The beginning of our salvation we have from God's mercy; that we give room to the salutary giving is in our power; that we attain what we desire by such willing and giving room is a divine gift; that we do not fall in the attained gift of salvation is both in our ability and at the same time in the divine help.
St. Bonaventure and others want Augustine to have made four scales in order to assign to each its own, although Bernard Col. 15 only thinks of three: First, the beginning is God's; second, the consenting or the giving in is of the will; third, the grace is God's alone. According to this scale one must understand Bernard when he speaks Col. 1: God is the author of salvation, the free will is only capable of it. For Bernhard does not refer the ability to the good work, as the Doctor said, but to grace. To the third stage Augustine adds that neither anyone gives it as God, nor anyone receives it as free will, namely by considering the salvation of which Bernard speaks. Thus the free will is merely receiving.
Therefore, in his "defense," the doctor blasphemes me without cause for having praised the praiseworthy saying of Augustine: that I tear up the holy Scriptures, bite the holy church teachers, and wonders at my insolence that I put on Augustine so wrongly; while he nowhere remembers this passage of Augustine.
From this it is evident that the best and most heavenly theologians, whom he calls school teachers, have rightly asserted grace against Pelagius, and have not taken away the effectiveness of free will. I ask, however, that the doctor prove to the schoolteachers and to me that free will behaves only in a suffering way against a good meritorious work.
Carlstadt.
As for the school teachers, whom the excellent doctor cites and wants to understand alone, he may rather distort them. For the opinion of Scotus and Capreolus is clear, that they ascribe what is causally effective in a good work to free will, so much so that they also say that free will in some works affects the essence of the deed, which can continue until God pours in his grace.
But this I will prove, 1) that free will without grace and faith can do no good work, neither according to the nature of the work, nor according to the wisdom or the meritorious quality. And that the Doctor does not slip out of my hands by his circumlocutions, before I explain Augustine and Bernard, whose words he quotes and falsifies the sayings; I ask him again and request of the Doctor that he tell me: what then is that which in a good work works causally with grace? for that is what the scholastics teach, so may their advocate also teach it.
Corner.
I am very surprised that the respectable doctor calls the holy teachers Thomas, Bonaventure and others immodestly mercatores. And yet he reproaches me as if I alone understand and falsify the school teachers.
Let this be far from Eck's modesty, to boast so honorably; for I not only do not understand all, but also not as if others did not know just as much, from whom I would also like to be instructed, if they can do more.
But as for the explanation and interpretation which the respectable Doctor attaches to the sayings of Scotus and the school teachers, when they say that free will is the main cause of the essence of action, so that the will can continue the same by production until God pours in His grace: I do not remember to have read such a thing in any scholastic theologian; but they admit that grace is given and created by God instantaneously, and hold this to be truth: The Holy Spirit's grace does not come slowly.
It is true that if the respectable doctor is so well versed in the school teachers that they argue among themselves: whether grace, just like God Himself, has the principalitatem activitatis in the good work or not? not all agree on this. However, Wilhelm Occam in his Bedenken, addit. 4, also attributes efficacy to grace; and that I also had this opinion seven years ago, the Doctor could clearly see from the Crysopasso praedestinationis, if he had read it as diligently as he immodestly despises it. But be that as it may, the schoolteachers are themselves one with regard to the efficacy of grace, that the free will for good works has nothing to do with it.
1) improkare should mean prokars. (Walch.)
2) niotnm should mean moäum. (Walch.)
The first is that the people are not able to be neither in essence nor in quality, but by the extraordinary help of God.
Finally, when the doctor asks me: what is it that the good work causally works in the essence of the action? then the doctor has promised himself, and wanted to say: what is it in the essence of an action that the free will actually causally works? I answer that this question was answered long before it arose; for in the essence of an action there are not pieces in such a way as in the mines, but, as St. Bernard says, God and free will act in an undifferentiated way. Therefore, I ask once again that the respectable Doctor prove that the free will is only suffering in good works, and that it receives only in this way. For I am ready to drive off his projectile in this in a manly way.
Carlstadt then said that he called them (the fathers) shopkeepers because they preached with profit of souls.
Carlstadt at four o'clock, the holy evening before the Visitation of the Virgin Mary [July 1].
The excellent Doctor has entrenched his cause today with many fortifications that I lay down his, many strength.
First of all, I want to say what is to be thought of Jerome's letter to the virgin Demetrias, as the most distinguished prince of theologians, our Erasmus, after Augustine, uses the following words about it: "It is a very learned and eloquent letter, but the way it is written almost alone obviously betrays that it is not by Jerome. St. Augustine seems to assume to some extent that it was written by a Pelagian heretic, because one thing and another in it smacks of Pelagian teachings. Beda thinks that it is from the heretic Julianus. From this it is easy to conclude how much the answer of the excellent doctor is worth, which he confirms from such a letter.
Secondly. Furthermore, when the excellent Doctor cites Augustine in the book de dogmatibus ecclesiast. 6. 21.: There is the beginning of our salvation etc., the Doctor must also consider what follows e. 44. where this saying is written: If anyone thinks that by virtue of nature one can agree with evangelical preaching, he is deceived by a heretic spirit. Therefore, to obey divine inspiration or preaching is a gift from God. I refer him to lib. I. Retract. c. 10, where he says: that all men can keep God's commandments, if they want to; let none of the new
The Lord has prepared this for the heretics and Pelagians, as if it were for them. For it is true that all men can do this if they will, but the will is prepared by the Lord.
Thirdly. To what has been drawn from Bernhardus Col. 15, I say in refutation of the answer of the Herr Doctor, that St. Bernhardus attributes all three scales, as the Herr Doctor calls them, to GOtte, and not to free will. His words are thus: The words are not mine, but the apostle's, who attributes everything that can be good, that is, thinking, willing, and doing according to his good pleasure, to GOtte, not to his free will. Now if God works these three things, that is, thinking, willing, and doing good, in us, the first certainly without us, the other with us, that is, through the attunement which the Holy Spirit imparts, as is evident in the preceding Columne: it follows that the excellent Lord Doctor endeavors to defend his cause more than to defend well, to follow his mind more than to accept faith. For in matters of faith, one need not use the weapons of heretics.
Fourth. It sounds very strange to my ears that God works the whole good work, but not entirely; and that this sounds inconsistent to right theologians, for this I refer primarily to Augustine's book dono1 persev. c. 13, where he says: "So we will, but God also works in us the will. We thus work, but God also works in us the working or doing according to His good pleasure, "God works the good work in us". This is also useful for us to believe and to say. It is godly, it is truthful, so that there may be a truly humble and devoted confession that everything is attributed to God: with thinking we believe, with thinking we speak, with thinking we work what we do. But as far as the way of truth and right worship are concerned, we are not even capable of thinking anything of ourselves, but our capability is from God. This may be considered by those who ascribe to free will the efficacy in good works. For our heart and our thoughts are not in our power. The Church confesses this in the prayer: God of hosts, whose all that is good is etc., therefore good works are entirely from God. Cyprian also teaches this in the Lord's Prayer about the petition: Lead us not into temptation, and in the epistle c. 2 in the book to the martyrs, whose words are these: In his struggle has been (Christ) who has
1) Eraser: "bono" instead of: dono.
the fighters and defenders of his name are raised up, strengthened, encouraged, and always victorious in us. Behold, he clearly says that Christ conquers in the martyrs, referring to Matt. 10:20: "It is not you who speak, but it is your Father's Spirit who speaks in you," as if he were saying, "It is not you who conquer, but it is Christ who conquers in you. This is beautifully described in 2 Chron. 20:15: "Thus saith the Lord, Fear not this multitude: for the battle is not yours, but God's." Behold, the Jews contend, and yet the Scriptures attribute victory to God. Therefore the same Cyprianus, in the same place, in the following Columne, says: "Who is not of the kind to look only out of His servants; but He Himself contends in us, He wrestles and struggles with, He Himself crowns in the strife of our battle, and is crowned also. Now since David rightly confessed 1 Chron. 29 [30,14.], "All things are thine, and of thy hand have we given thee"; as if he said, "We can give thee nothing that we have not received of thee, and we have nothing that thou hast not given. Hence St. Jerome, in the book against the Pelagians, lib. 1, col. 3, and lib. 2, ool. 15. says: "And that we may see that all we do is goodness from God," he says: I will plant them, that they be not cut off; and I will give them such a heart and mind, that they shall know me. If thoughts and mind come from God, where is the proud boasting of free will? From this it can be seen that good works are entirely of God. But that the Doctor says: not entirely, he does so in order to keep it the same as the differently minded, that is, the church teachers and the scholastics; for one never finds with them that the whole work is of God; just as, on the other hand, it is not found with them either that the good works are not entirely of God; where I remember otherwise.
So I wish the excellent Doctor, who strongly contested my 14th conclusion, luck that he now agrees with my opinion, yes, with the opinion of the Holy Spirit, and says: that the whole good work is brought forth by God.
That much I have wanted to say now. From the Bible, I must say other things.
Corner.
As the doctor rejects our answer with many words and read testimonies from the books, and tries to destroy the conclusion or implication of it, I say:
First, let it be with the judgment of Erasmus and the venerable Beda as it is (scil. of the
Jerome's letter), in that they assume more than they judge, it is not unseemly that one has put on a writer's book, which one otherwise tends to put on as one's own. For the doctor uses such little handles in his "defense" against me with the book de eccles. dogm., where it is right for me; especially since the same opinion agrees with the holy fathers, as also that which I have quoted from Jerome. For so Augustine speaks in the book de sententiis Prosperi, that to have faith, as to have love, is man's nature. But the respectable Doctor forgives me that it has a different nature with disputants who reject or refute the answer. For my answer together with the proof would have had to be completely overturned if he wanted to get the victory as he meant. Secondly, that the respectable Doctor does as he is wont to do, namely, he does not destroy the objections, but only tries to invalidate them with other passages that, as he thinks, contradict them. To the 20th chapter of Augustine's de eccles. dogm., where he clearly says: it is in our power to accede to the input etc., he answers nothing, but sends me far down to chap. 44 and 10 of the Retr., since what is said there immediately leads to the answer, also to the way in which the Doctor reads; Augustine scolds those who think that they merely want to follow the preaching by force of nature, without divine impulse, which is a hundred miles away from our opinion.
The doctor also added that I take these secondary things with me: Augustine does not need an interpreter, but only a reader; so I wonder why he interpreted Augustine, as they say.
Thirdly, he presents St. Bernard as if he does not serve our cause at all. I am highly surprised about this, since no living person will read St. Bernard who does not see that he completely agrees with us in all parts. For St. Bernard says: in the first part we do nothing, and there we behave only in a suffering way; not even in the last, but in the middle, that is, in the consent that God works with us at the same time, as he says.
However, something has also been attributed to us, according to Augustine's opinion. And I do not accept the venerable Doctor's interpretation, of which he says that it is, that also the meaning is given. Otherwise, the first, the middle and the last would all be the same, and God would have to do everything completely and totally according to the Doctor,
that St. Bernard would be completely overthrown in this passage. Regarding the other main piece, where I am not mistaken, the honorable Doctor, before he endeavored to prove his intention, unconfidently insulted me that I was arguing more for my cause than for the cause of faith; and since I thought he was a party, he set himself up as a judge. However, I will continue to destroy his cause 1).
The respectable Doctor promises that he now wants to prove that the meritorious work is both 'wholly and completely from God; and I have long since asked him to read from the Fathers of the Church that free will is merely incidental to the good work. I do not want to say that he seeks deviations, but only that he does not want to let that which is the main thing come to light.
But let us look at what has been said. By referring to Augustine Libr. de dono 2) persev. c. 13, where he says: We will, but in what we will, the will is prepared by the Lord, who works in us; so the Doctor has especially laid great stress on the little word: "in us". I do not know, however, if this has much to do with anything, especially since such a testimony cannot prove more than that the good work is entirely of God; as also the following passages: that it is entirely of God, however, is not indicated by any letter.
But let the Doctor know above all that the meritorious effect is an inherent, and not a temporary, action (immanentem, non transeuntem), for which reason he must not be surprised that God works the will in us; for what is worked apart from man confers nothing on him. So also in the church prayer: God of hosts, whose is all that is good etc., I confess that all good gifts are from above. So also I say of Cyprianus and of that which he put on; for I confess that all good is from God, and also say that it is wholly from God; but not wholly, because it is also by our cooperation. "For we are God's fellow-workers," 1 Cor. 3:8. and the apostles preached the Gospel of God, by the co-operation of God, Marc. 16:20. Therefore all our efficiency is of God. And as the apostle says: What do you have that you have not received? This, however, as we have already said, praises God's special and supernatural impulse, but does not cancel the free will. Therefore, I do not know to whom the respectable doctor sang the little song when he admonishes those who do not want free will to be effective.
1) Instead of praspositum, proposltum will have to be read. 2) Again, our original has douo instead of äouo.
The testimonies quoted from Cyprian make it clear that they should think better of it. From 2 Chron. 20, the Lord Doctor says, "Fear not this multitude," etc., and David's words, "All things, O Lord, are thine," etc., as if a man were so stupid and unintelligent as not to know that all good must be ascribed to the Creator of all things. For the Herr Doctor should know that the best theologians, whom he calls school teachers, are unanimous in their opinion that no creature can do anything except through God's general or special impulse, so that God does more through the effect of creatures than He does through Himself. The doctor also conceded that free will also has its effectiveness. I did not go over to his opinion, but rather he took the side of the schoolteacher, where he still does not explain to me that free will behaves in a merely suffering way.
And it does no good that he says: he does not remember having read in the Scholastics that a good work is entirely from God. He still chooses to read in it, and not to deprive these holy fathers of their due honor, as Thomas in the places mentioned today; Peter Lombard, the excellent leader, in the distinction mentioned today, with the Strasbourg (argentoratensi) Thomas and others. If the learned doctor will not bring stronger things about this matter, the opinion of the school teachers will remain unconquered: that although the free will in itself is not capable of good works, nevertheless something is given to it by God's cooperation and sleeve, that it purifies itself, as St. John says, and finally deserves to receive what it has done in life and limb; as Augustine in the third book points the retribution of reward or punishment to such understanding.
Carlstadt.
The excellent doctor often accuses me of making a long speech and does not know that he is doing the same.
Here the disputation was stopped from four o'clock until six o'clock, because the short time and the royal highnesses prevented it. However, the herald announced the continuation of the disputation on Sunday at one o'clock.
After the feast of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary, which was on Saturday.
Carlstadt.
I do not respect the fact that the excellent doctor often pushes book reading ahead of me. Yes, the-
It is my wish that only my studies will be known to posterity. By the way, I do not respect that he wants to present me with rules of disputation: for the laws of the disputators and the name of a concluding artist (argutatoris) is abhorrent to me; to disputate in theology means nothing other than to bring out the understanding of Scripture. This serves the first and the second purpose.
Third, the excellent Doctor answers the proof taken from Eccles. docum. c. 43, but he says nothing about Augustine's text from the first book of the Retract. But so that all may see that when Scripture says that we are able to do a good work, it is to be understood that the will to do it has been given to us by God, read Augustine's First Retract. c. 22, where he says: "It is up to a man to change his will for the better, but such ability is nothing if God does not exist.
Fourthly, in his answer, the Doctor drew on St. Bernard, who says that good consent is not without us, or that the middle is counted to our advantage; and from this the Doctor wants to conclude that the will behaves only passively with respect to the first, but actively with respect to the second, therefore the second part of God is whole, but not complete. But it is the other way around. For Bernard says clearly: Although not of us, yet not without us. And further on: We must be careful, then, that when we see this happening invisibly in and with us, we do not attribute some of it to our will, which is weak, but to grace alone. Here I ask the Doctor what Bernard means when he says: grace works with us, and the good work is not of us, but of grace?
To this Eck replied.
Be it as it may with the excuses of the respectable doctor, which it is not my task to refute now, I cannot accept the new proposition that his dignity (excellentia) has brought forward: that disputing in theology is nothing more than interpreting the truth of the holy scripture, since even Augustine does not take disputing so lib. 22. against Faustus, if my memory does not deceive me: heretics (he says) would rather win than dispute, since he thus reproaches them: that they abstain from fighting, not from the study of the holy scriptures.
But that the doctor reproaches me: First-
If you think that I have said nothing about Augustine's passage from the first retract. 6. 10. which I have nevertheless dealt with the 44. cap. de eccl. dogm.: so I have not heard that something important is in it (ponderare). I dare to say that no passage from Augustine is brought forward in which the participation of free will is not taught at the same time.
But that he refers to the 22nd chapter of the same book: it is within man's power to change the will for the better, but not otherwise than when it is given by the Lord, I confess, as I have often testified, that the free will receives its efficacy for good works from God; but when it is given, it has what is given to it, and uses the same; only one must not boast of it, lest Paul's word be held against us, 1 Cor. 4, 7: "What have you that you have not received?" but rather we must recognize with Jeremiah: I know, O Lord, that a man's way is not with him, nor in a man's power, that he should walk and direct his courses. For all this gives both God his due honor, as it leaves to the will its ministerial cooperation; and Augustine unites the foregoing with free will in the second book de pecc. rsmiss. 6. 16.
On the second, since the learned doctor thinks that I have not understood St. Bernard correctly, because of what follows, since Bernard says that consent also does not come from us; the doctor would probably not have made the objection if he had followed the tradition of the scholastics. For the little word "from" is, as it were, the root and the reason from which the deed or the work springs. But since the will does no good if it is not pulled, St. Bernard therefore denies that the good work arises from us, and in this he agrees completely with the apostle: that we do not do anything from ourselves, but from the obliging grace of God. This was clearly shown by St. Augustine 1) de vocatione gentium according to the apostolic sense: namely, that the righteous are driven by the Spirit of God, which does no harm to free will. And by this, I think, the respectable Lord's concern is lifted: What a difference there is between the three: In us, which is not enough; out of us, which we do not touch; with us, which is within our ability.
1) In Löscher ^.rndrosius instead of
Carlstadt responds to the previous.
The first thing the Doctor says is an evasion.
Let's skip the second one.
But the third, that free will is involved, we must discuss how it is to be taken. For no one is so ignorant as not to know that the willing will and the active will work. But to grasp the understanding of the same, that comes to the theological science.
Furthermore, that the doctor answers: that good works are given to us, and we can use the given ones, I accept as much as is true.
For the sake of brevity, we will not say anything about Bernhardus and the doctor's interpretation of it. But I am confident in the Lord that when it has been proven that the whole good work belongs to both, namely to God in an active way, but to free will in a receiving way, it will be clear that the work is entirely and completely God's, active way. And that this is so, I cite Augustine's testimony from Enchirid. 6. 32. where he says: "If then no Christian may say, 'It is not of the merciful God, but of the willing man, lest he manifestly contradict the apostle,' it must follow that this must be called well spoken: It is not up to anyone to will or to run, but up to God's mercy; so that everything is given to God, who both prepares man's good will so that he can be helped, and helps him when he is prepared; for man's good will precedes many of God's gifts, but not all; but before those it does not precede, among them it is itself. He precedes him that will not, that he may will; but if he will, he follows after him, that he may not will in vain. For why are we exhorted to pray for our enemies, who undoubtedly do not want to live godly, but that God may also work in them the will? Likewise: Why are we exhorted to ask that we may receive, but that what we want may be done by Him who made us want? From these passages one concludes that as God works the willing in us, so also the doing itself; just as Paul also says without distinction that he works in us both the willing and the doing. On the other hand, he concludes that free will also has the good work in its entirety, but in a receiving way, as one receives a gift from another. This is also said by Augustine in the first book Retr. o. 23: Both are
because He prepares the will, and both are ours because it does not happen unless we will. And therefore, since we cannot will unless we are called; and if, after we are called, we will, our willing and running is still not enough, unless God gives powers to the running and leads where He calls: it is clear from this how the good work is ours, and how it is God's, and that grace gives foreign powers to free will, through which it works. Therefore Cyrillus writes about John, lib. 2. c. 56, thus: For they cannot do what is pleasing to God unless they are endowed with superior power. Therefore it was said to one of the ancients, "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and you will become a completely different man," 1 Sam. 10, 6. 1) Thus speaks Cyril, who cites other testimonies on this matter. Gregorius also speaks about Ezekiel in the 9th homily in this way: But it must be known that only our evil is ours, but the good of Almighty God and ours, because he precedes us by blowing on us, that we may will, and afterwards helpfully follows, that we may not will in vain. Finally, he concludes that through the prefiguring of God's almighty grace, the gift becomes our merit. From this we see how the good work is both God's and ours. For this he cites Ezekiel's testimony, who says: "The Spirit of God has entered into me and has set me on my feet. This text clearly says that the works of God are to be attributed to the Holy Spirit.
Corner.
When the excellent Doctor says: I have admitted to him that good works are given by God, I deny this; not that I deny that good works are given, but that he assumes that something has been admitted by me, of which nothing has been said; since he very finely cites Augustine from the 22nd chapter of the first book of the Retr. I have admitted that the ability to change the will for the better is given by God. But it is something different that the faculty for good works is given, than that the good work is given; which the Lord Doctor considers to be one and the same. Secondly, the eminent Doctor, in presenting his opinion, seeks to prove that the good work is from God working and receiving from free will. To this I reply: that the Herr Doctor, if he wants this, that the free
1) In Löscher and Walch: "1st Legum 9."
The fact that the free will behaves in a merely receptive way contradicts what he already admits, namely, that the free will also has its efficacy. Now if he does not exclude the efficacy of free will, no one is so nonsensical as to deny that free will behaves in a receiving way toward good works, especially when one speaks of the inward good effect; and it is a well-known saying that, as the active cause and the final purpose often agree, so also the active cause and the matter in which it acts. But let us consider what he states.
First, Augustine in the 32. c. Enchir. in nothing against us. For we have already said so often that the holy fathers, when they say that all good work is done by God, do not thereby deny the participation of free will, but assert God and grace as the main cause. The words of Augustine clearly prove this, for he says: He prepares to be helped and helps when he is prepared. For under the name of help is the efficacy of free will, as he explains in the fourth treatise on the epistle of John the words already mentioned above: If you say, he says, be my helper, then you must do something; if you do nothing, then how does he help you?
That he also attracted the apostle: that God works in us the willing and the doing; so the apostle says, if my memory does not deceive me: who works in us both the willing and the doing according to his good pleasure. Be it as it may, I gladly admit that God works in us the will; but with us, as Bernard says.
That he, on the other hand, refers to St. Augustine from the first book of the Retr. cap. 23. that the good work is, as it were, a gift from God; so I say: one must look at what kind of object (materia subjecta) the writers are talking about. For there Augustine speaks of faith and of love, to which the will is indisputably only incidental. But it is another thing to speak of good works. Nor do we deny what follows: that the will is incapable of good works unless it is called; for every good action of the will is preceded by God's impulse. We also do not deny that God gives powers; but if He gives them, the will will have them in any case. Therefore, we pray to God to precede our good works by giving them, and to succeed us by helping us.
On Gregorius we say just the same, who in
the books of morals so often rejects the freedom of the will. For we can certainly do nothing that pleases God, if God does not help, who gives grace freely; otherwise grace would not be grace, as the apostle says; and consequently also the good work that comes from it is rightly called God's gift and our merit, according to the word of Augustine to the presbyter Sixtus: If God crowns our merits, he crowns nothing else than his gifts.
Of Cyril and all the others whom one would like to attract, we have no reason at all to deny what is stated. For men, of course, can do nothing that pleases God unless they are clothed with higher power; as the Lord Jesus admonished the apostles: they were to remain in the city until they were clothed with power from on high. For the power, I say, is an implanted goodness and grace, since the will is only a recipient; but when the power is there, it can also work. And the scripture also speaks of the powers in Ezekiel.
Carlstadt.
I thank the doctor that he admits that good works are God's gifts and that God crowns his gifts. But since he accuses me of contradicting myself, I refer him to the preceding and following, and ask: What effect does a stick or a rod have, so that a schoolmaster chastises the boy? When I have the answer, let us go further.
Corner.
The highly learned doctor asks what effect a rod or stick has in order that the schoolmaster beats the pupil? I answer: Since all secondary causes (causa secunda) can also be called tool causes, the tools must necessarily be of different kinds. For sometimes a tool cause has and uses its innate and actual power and virtue, and sometimes the faculty that is imparted. But the least kind of a tool is when the instrument only does what it is guided and governed to do, be it either by the imparting of some force or merely by the power of guidance.
Therefore, I answer the pointed question like this: The stick has an effect, as far as it is led by the hand of the teacher.
I am ready to hear how such things are rejected.
Carlstadt.
Be it as it may with the discernment of the excellent Lord Doctor, Isaiah says this: that as the moving instruments can say nothing to their moving persons, so also the man driven by the Holy Spirit can presume nothing of such movement or effect. Isaiah Cap. 10, 15. speaks thus: "Will the axe also boast against him that heweth therewith, and the saw against him that draweth it? and the rod against him by whom it is moved?" So also the free will, which is compared to such tools, cannot say, The good work is not wholly of God; because, if he says so, he boasts against the Lord.
Corner.
The erudite Doctor counters my answer with the saying of Isaiah 10: "Even the axe may boast against him who cuts with it"; likewise of the drawn saw and the beating stick, from which it is to be assumed that free will cannot say that it does something; for if the will denied that the good work was entirely from God, it would boast against the Lord. I answer: that the words of the prophet are allegorical, which according to the teaching of St. Dionysii de mystic. Theol. 6. 4. they do not express the same thing, but only according to one or the other. Thus Isaiah teaches us that one must not boast of good works: which no one will deny, for he would be senseless, since the apostle admonishes us: "He who boasts, let him boast of the Lord! Therefore, for this purpose, the use of the three images, the axe, the saw, and the stick, is quite suitable. But in the manner of a tool, a stick and free will are not the same in comparison; for the former is an inanimate tool, but the latter is an animate one, indeed, the soul itself. This difference I could, if I dare, 1) cite from S. Thoma qu. 24. de veritate.
Carlstadt.
What to think of this comparison of the tools, I refer to Jerome, and that quite confidently. On the other hand, I say interjectionally: that what the grace-driven free will does is a gift and work of God, which Augustine evidently says
1) namely, because the opponent does not respect school teachers. (Walch.)
Aes 8xir. et lät. s. 2. In addition, Ezekiel Cap. 36, 27: "I will make you walk in my commandments, and keep my statutes, and do them." From this it clearly follows that God makes us do and work. Then I would like to know from the most respectable gentleman: which church teacher has ever written that the good work is all of God, but not entirely. And if I am right, then this is only a spiky miracle animal, which the Doctor invented, so that he would be fearless and not to be collected (inconclusibilis).
Corner.
First of all, as far as Augustine c. 2. de 8pir. st lät. is concerned, it is quite correct, and likewise with the words of Ezekiel: that God makes us do what we only do. How much more does he make us do good, as I have long said, that God does more with the instrumental causes than when he works alone. This the respectable Doctor, if he had wanted to read our things according to love, could easily have seen from the 29th conclusion of the "defense": For I know that my prayer is nothing unless God makes it something.
But that the highly learned doctor reproaches me with regard to the spiky miraculous animal, where church teachers have spoken that the good work is entirely from God, but not completely? so he does, as Arius did to St. Athanasius, when he asked the holy father before the judge Probus: where in holy scripture the word homousia [equality] stands? Because of this newly made word the heretics called the Christians homousians. And Hunnerich, the Wendish king in Africa, gave a law that all Homousians should be killed in different ways. I wanted, it once told me the respectable doctor, since there is no believer who does not know that God is in essence one and threefold in persons, where then the word person is found in the Scriptures? So could be said of the name Theotokos, in the time of St. John Damascene. And in theology we suffer from this poverty of words, because there are more things than words. Therefore, when the matter is established, it is vain to quarrel about a word; and the disputation about words must be left to the obstinate. Therefore, since the Herr Doctor has clearly understood my cause and intention, he strives in vain to hunt for words. I wanted to say this: The whole good work is from God, but because it is
2) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 703.
I have said, in order not to deny such participation, that it is not entirely of God; that is, to state the matter briefly and completely. Therefore, the Doctor does not deny the opinion, but only the words. 1)
The university famulus then publicly announced that the disputation between Herr II. Eck and Martin Luther etc. should begin the following day early at 7 o'clock.
The disputation of the excellent theologians Joh. Eck and Martin Luther begins,
Augustinian,
which was started on July 4, 1519 at 7 o'clock.
Protestation of the Father M. Luther. In the name of the Lord, Amen.
I accept the protestation of both respectable gentlemen, Andreas Carlstadt and Johann Eck, and follow it. The one thing I add is that out of deference to the pope and the Roman church I would have let this subject, which is not necessary and extraordinarily hateful, pass if I had not been drawn to it by the thesis of the excellent Doctor Johann Eck. I am also sorry that those are not present who should be there above all, who, although they have blasphemed me privately and publicly so often with the accusation of heresy, have now, when the judgment of the matter is imminent, made off: I mean the heretics, who have put fraternal remembrance and doctrine behind their accusations.
Subject of the hearing (Scopus):
From the violence, rather from the primate of the Roman pope.
Eck's protestation. 2)
In your name, sweet Jesus.
Before entering the battlefield, I testify before you, most noble, noble, noble, noble, noble, noble, noble, noble, noble, noble.
1) In the margin is written: Mr. D. Carlstadt has thanked Mr. D. Eck for admitting that a good work is a gift of God; and Mr. D. Eck has said: he has always been of this opinion.
2) The first protestation is printed above Col. 861 f.
bare gentlemen, that everything that I shall say and that has been said by me shall first of all be subject to the judgment of the highest chair and of the Lord who sits on it, and then also to that of all others to whom it is incumbent to rebuke the erring and to lead them to the knowledge of the truth. And since the venerable father testifies in his preface, as it were, to his excuse, that he would have gladly, out of deference to the pope, left this subject pending, if he had not been drawn to it by my thesis, let the venerable father, on the other hand, be mindful: if he had not previously denied in his "Explanations" 3) that before the times of Silvester the Roman pope was higher than others, it would not have been necessary for me to put forward the thirteenth thesis; and that in the actions before the legate of the apostolic see 4) he pretends that the holy pope Pelagius has distorted the evangelical writings, who of all has taken the words of Christ most according to the sense of the holy fathers. In vain, therefore, does the venerable father seek to blame me for the matter to which he has more than once given rise. But now, without further ado, let us proceed to the main matter under God's guidance.
Venerable Father! Your thirteenth thesis, which is contrary to mine, states that the Roman Church is higher than others according to the very cold decrees of the Roman popes, which have arisen for four hundred years, and which, as you say, are opposed by the text of sacred Scripture and the proven histories of eleven hundred years. Against the same I argue thus:
A single rule (monarchia) and a supreme rule is established in the Church of God by divine right and by Christ. Therefore, the text of the Holy Scripture or the proven histories do not contradict it. For the contending Church, which according to St. Paul [Eph. 4:16] is as it were One Body, is ordered and made in the image of the triumphant Church [Eph. 5:23 ff], in which there is a single dominion (monarchia), in that everything is joined together in order to the One Head, namely God. Therefore, such an order was also established by Christ on earth, since He confesses, John 5:19, that the Son does nothing except what He sees the Father doing. Therefore
3) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 173 f. - "Eck cites the passage inaccurately in his favor." (Weim. Ausg.)
4) See the 226th Document, § 5, Col. 619 in this volume.
who is not from heaven, who refuses to be under the head, just as he who is not from heaven but from Lucifer, who does not want to be subject to GOtte.
All this can be confirmed in great detail, especially by the holy soul, the blessed Dionysius Areopagita, in the book of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, where he says: "For our kingdom order (hierarchia), which is sacredly established by God through traditional orders, is conformed to the holy and heavenly kingdom orders. Thus Gregory of Nazianzus says in the treatise on the defense (apoIogetico) that the holy mysteries are celebrated according to the likeness of the heavenly image, by which we on earth are badly assimilated to the heavenly orders. For what an absurdity it would be that the Church should be without a head! This has been the aim of almost all heretics, as St. Cyprian tells Rogatianus and Puppianus, so that after the head is weakened, they can drive their errors and their poison into the minds of men with impunity. And this was the main cause, along with others connected with it, why the noble University of Paris condemned John of Tournay for denying the primacy of the Roman Church. Thus it was also an error of the Wiklef that the Roman Church was not higher than others according to the law of the Gospel.
Martin Luther.
Since the doctor proves that there is only one head of the general church, he does very well. And if there is someone who, by a private agreement with the venerated gentleman, has understood to defend the opposite, let him come forward; it is none of my business.
Corner.
Since the venerable father says that it is none of his business to prove the opposite of what I asserted, that by divine right there is an autarchy (monarchiam) in the contending church as in the triumphant one: so I praise him in that he agrees in this also with St. John in the Revelation [Cap. 21, 2: I saw the new holy city coming down from heaven etc. But to come closer to the matter: if the contending church has not been without an autocrat, I would like to hear who the other autocrat would be or ever would have been than the Roman one.
Pabst, or what other supreme (prima) see than the see of Peter and his successors, according to the words of St. Cyprianus, who says in the third letter to the Roman pope Cornelius, when he writes against the Novatians, who deceitfully turn to Rome: After these things, having, moreover, a false bishop 1) appointed to them by heretics, they nevertheless presume to ship to Rome, and to bring to the See of Peter 2) and to the chief church, from which Priestly Unity has sprung, letters from riffraff and unholy people, not considering that the Romans are such people whose faith has been pledged by the Apostle, to whom faithlessness can have no admission. And Jerome testifies the same against the Luciferians: the salvation of the church, he says, depends on the dignity of the supreme priest; if he is not given an extraordinary and supreme power, there will be as many sects in the churches as there are priests. And that this supreme priest is the Roman one is evident from the same Saint Jerome in two letters to Pope Damasus, whose words serve the cause almost without exception, but for the sake of brevity we will show only these: I am talking to the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of Christ; I seek no other reward than Christ; to your holiness, that is, to the chair of Peter, I join myself. I know that on this rock the Church is founded. And further on: He that gathereth not with thee scattereth. From this, every good Christian easily deduces that priestly unity comes from the Roman Pontiff, and that that See has always been supreme and superior to all others, and that it [the See] is the rock of which Jerome says he knows that upon it the Church is founded, or the venerable Father would indicate another supreme lord (monarcham) of the Church in ancient times.
Martin Luther.
I fully admit a supreme rule in the contending church, and that its head is not a man, but Christ himself, and that according to divine testimony. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, Cap. 15, 25, it is said: "He must reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet." And shortly before [v. 24]: "After that the end, when he shall have the kingdom of God.
1) Here the Weimar edition has put pseudoepiscopo instead of the senseless cedo episcopo, which will be based on a hearing error of the notaries.
2) As an aside, not at Peter's footstool.
and your Father will hand over, when he will abolish all dominion." Augustine interprets this in the first book of the Trinity, in the last chapter, of the kingdom of Christ in the present time, namely, in such a way that Christ, the head of the church, through faith will bring us, who are his kingdom, into 1) seeing. Thus it is said in Matthew at the last, "Behold, I am with you unto the end of the world." Likewise in Acts Cap. 9, 4. Paul heard from heaven, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" Augustine again says that the head speaks for its members. Therefore we must by all means not hear those who push Christ out of the contending church into the triumphant one, since it is the kingdom of faith, that is, we do not see our head, and yet we have, as Ps. 122:5 says, "There sit the chairs of judgment, the chairs of the house of David." Namely, there are many chairs on which the One Christ sits; the chairs we see, not the One who sits on them, or the King.
To come to the testimonies of the honorable Doctor: since he claims that in the contending church there is one supremacy by divine right and appointed by Christ, he says his own, but proves nothing. For his first testimony, namely that of Paul to the Ephesians Cap. 4, 15, in which he says that Christ is the head of the church, serves against him for me, since he certainly speaks of the church in conflict and calls Christ its head. It is also the same opinion in the passage opposite to this, 1 Cor. 3, 5 [1, 12. f.]: Who is Apollo? Who is Cephas? Who is Paul? Is Christ then divided? etc., where he obviously forbids another head than Christ.
His second testimony, Joh. 5, 19: "The Son can do nothing, except what He sees the Father doing", speaks neither of the contending nor of the triumphant church, but according to the opinion of all teachers of His equality with the Father, namely that the Father does or can do nothing, what the Son is not also able to do.
I pass over the fact that he said that the
1) Weimarsche: per; Löscher: ad. We have assumed the latter.
is not from heaven, who refuses to be under the head, and is from Lucifer, who does not want to be subject to God. For as the foregoing has been ill-dressed, so also is this ill-dressed.
The third testimony, which is that of Dionysius, is not valid against us. For we do not deny the ecclesiastical order (hierarchium), but we dispute the head of the sole supremacy (monarchiae), not the order of the empire.
The fourth testimony, which is quoted from Gregory of Nazianzus, that through the sacred mysteries we are associated with the sacred heavenly orders,-from which everyone who understands the grammar recognizes that nothing is said therein either of the sole supremacy or of the head.
What he now added, that it would be an absurdity if the church were without a head, I concede; but as this head even the Lord Doctor could set no other head than Christ. And this I prove clearly. For if his head, which he calls the Roman pope, dies, as he is a man, then the church is already without a head; but if Christ is meanwhile the head of the church until another is chosen, it is no less an absurdity that Christ should depart from the living pope and follow the dead one.
The fifth testimony is of St. Cyprian, who argued against the heretics because, after the head had been weakened, they strove to imprint their errors on the people with impunity: this does not serve the point at all. For he does not speak of the Roman head, but of any head of any diocese. And if the respectable doctor wants to stand by Cyprian's testimony, we will end the disputation in this hour. 2) For he never greets Pope Cornelius other than as a very dear brother. Then, describing in many letters the election and confirmation of bishops, he proves most conclusively from sacred Scripture that it belongs to the people and to two or three neighboring bishops, as is also established in the most holy Concilium at Nicaea. Yes, the same hei
2) As an aside, Eck said that won't happen.
The first martyr, as St. Augustine states in the second book, Cap. 2, "Of Baptism," says thus: For none of ours raises himself to be a bishop over the bishops, or by tyrannical terror compels his brother bishops to the necessity of obeying, since every bishop has his own authority according to the freedom and power due to him, so that he cannot be judged by another, just as he cannot judge another, but we must all await the judgment of our Lord JEsu Christ.
But that he says that the priestly unity came from the Roman and Peter's chair, I gladly admit, as far as the occidental church is concerned. For in fact, the Roman Church also came from that of Jerusalem; this is actually the mother of all churches. But the conclusion is not valid: the priestly unity came from the Roman church, therefore it is the head and the supreme mistress of all. Otherwise, he would insurmountably conclude that the Church of Jerusalem is the head and mistress of all.
The last testimony of St. Jerome is not properly cited by the honorable Doctor, even if Jerome's testimony were true in all respects, for the Doctor intends to prove that the monarchic power of the Roman Church was instituted by Christ by divine right. This is not contained in the words of Jerome, for he says: unless a special power, higher than all, is given to her, there will arise in the churches as many sects as there are priests. He says: "is given", that is, according to human right it could happen if all other believers give their consent. For even I do not deny that if all the faithful of the whole world unite on the one at Rome or at Paris or at Magdeburg or any other, that he should be the first and supreme bishop, that this one, because of the deference to the whole church of the faithful, which thus agrees, should be considered the supreme overlord (monarcham). But this has never happened, does not happen and will not happen, since until our times the Greek Church did not enter
and yet was not considered heretical. And that this is the opinion of St. Jerome, I prove from the letter to Evagrius, where he says: "Wherever a bishop may be, whether at Rome or Eugubium or Constantinople or Rhegium or Alexandria or Thanis, he has just as much authority and has the same priesthood. The power of wealth and the lowliness of poverty makes him either higher or lower. By the way, all are the successors of the apostles. 1) This epistle is cited in decrees that are not cold, dist. 93. cap. legimus. The same says about the epistle to Titus: "A presbyter is the same as a bishop, and before special efforts in religion arose at the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the people: "I am Pauline, I am Cephian" [1 Cor. 1, 12], the churches were governed according to the common counsel of the presbyters. But when any one thought that those whom he had lusted were his, it was decided in the whole world that one should be chosen from among the presbyters and be set over them, and quoting passages of Scripture he says at the end, "As therefore the presbyters know that according to the custom of the church they are subject to him who is set over them, so let the bishops know that they are higher than the presbyters more by custom than by the truth of the divine decree 2). Therefore, what the Doctor added, that Jerome understood it from the Roman Pontiff, proves nothing, since he says: I talk with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of Christ; and join myself to your holiness, that is, to the chair of Peter; I know that on this rock the Church is founded. It does not follow: I join myself to this church, therefore this alone is the supreme one. Nor does it follow: It is founded on the rock, therefore it alone is founded.
In addition, there is the decree of the African Council, dist. 99. cap. primae. It states:
1) In the margin: DIartirnis "That they did not burn Jerome long."
2) "Probably Luther said äispensationis [not sispositionis], perhaps also the notaries wrote dispesationis." (If. edition.) Compare Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. XVIII, 802 s.
The bishop of the highest (primae) see shall not be called a prince of priests or the highest priest or in any such way, but only: the bishop of the highest see; but even the one at Rome shall not be called a general bishop. Therefore, if the sole rule of the Roman Pontiff existed according to divine right, all this would be heretical; but it is sacrilegious to assert it.
And finally we want to listen to the Lord Himself, who says Luc. 22, 24. ff.: "But there arose a dispute among the disciples, which of them should be considered the greatest". But he said to them: 'The worldly kings reign, and the mighty are called gracious lords; but ye are not so, but the greatest among you shall be as the least.'"
Corner.
The venerable father has come to the battlefield quite well equipped, in that he has his subject matter, put together in good order, in a printed booklet 1) written by him. Therefore, you, most illustrious lords, dignities and gentlemen, will give credit to the corner, who has now been burdened with other business for a long time, if he is not able to heap together so many things so roundly and exactly off the cuff as the venerable father has already brought together; for he comes to dispute, not to publish a book; but what the venerable father has said, we want to look at carefully in turn.
First of all, he intends to prove that the head of the Church is Christ, which was quite superfluous, since no one can deny it but he who is an antichrist. But I am very surprised that he did not consider that (as he promises in the acts before the legate of the apostolic see 2) that he could prove himself to be a juridical theologian), that several subordinate heads can be, wherein the manner of the spiritual or figurative head differs from the manner of a natural head. Therefore, it will soon be proven that besides the headship of Christ, there is another head in the church.
1) Eck means Luther's "Erläuterung über seine dreizehnte Thesis von der Gewalt des Pabstes," Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 720 sf.
2) In Doc. No. 226, § 2, Col. 618 in this volume.
must be sought. And it does not suit him that he quotes the apostle in the first letter to the Corinthians Cap. 3, 5 [1, 13]: "Is Christ then divided?" For although Paul there remembers Peter, yet St. Jerome in the first book against Jovinian, in my edition Col. 18, did not say falsely: One is chosen (he speaks of Peter), so that by the institution of the main the occasion for rottenness may be removed. He clearly calls Peter the head who is appointed in the church. But we want to leave this aside and refute the objections against our citations.
First of all, when he answers to the saying Joh. 5, 12: "For even the Son can do nothing but what he sees the Father do," he said that according to the holy Fathers the equality of the Father and the Son is expressed here. But, I ask the venerable father to read more carefully the holy and not high enough to be exalted (inadulabile) father Bernardus in the third book de consideratione to Eugenius, where he, speaking of the figure of the church, and proving that it is of divine right, used our way [of interpretation], in my edition Col. 7: And you may not disregard this figure because it is on earth, for it has its model in heaven. For the Son can do nothing but what he sees the Father doing, especially since it was said to him under Moses' name [Ex. 25:40], "See that you make everything in the image that is shown to you on the mountain. This is what he saw who said [Revelation 21:2], I saw the holy city etc. For I believe that this is said for the sake of similarity, that as there the seraphim and cherubim and all the others, except the angels and archangels, are ordered under one head, God, so also here under one pope the primates or patriarchs, the archbishops, bishops, presbyters or abbots and the others in such a way. Then Bernhardus adds: "It is not to be disregarded that it both has God as its author and derives its origin from heaven. Who should not now recognize that this ecclesiastical kingdom order, as Bernard says, was instituted by Christ, and that, just as God is the head in heaven, so the pope is the head in the contending church? by no means to the exclusion of Christ, whose governor he professes to be. But as for the scurrilous reason he gave: that the Church, when the pope is dead, remains without a head, unless we were to say, in a ridiculous way, that Christ gives way to the living pope, and follows the pope when he dies.
This is a quite ridiculous bad reason, which is hardly worthy of being mentioned in such a serious matter among such eminent men, since I said in the beginning that this figurative head deviates from the manner of a true natural head in several respects. Nor does Christ, whose kingdom remains forever and whose priesthood is eternal, yield to the pope, nor does he succeed him, since all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him, Matthew the last [Cap. 28, 18.], and when the pope has died, immediately the assembly of cardinals, as after the departure of a bishop the chapter, holds these rights until a new pope is elected.
But what the venerable father says in the second place, that Cyprian speaks of any bishop, not of the Roman pope, I am very surprised about, since the understanding of what is said must be taken from the causes that caused such things to be said, and Cyprian, in the passages I have quoted, chides those who had fallen away from Cornelius, who was certainly a Roman pope. Therefore let the venerable father know that I do not wish to be fobbed off with mere words, as we are wont to feed the sophists. That which he brings for himself from Cyprian, I think he will make more in refuting. For that Cyprianus calls Cornelius a brother, there is no one who does not know that the apostles also were brothers. But Peter, as well as his successor Cornelius, was the head of the apostles, the apex and the chief according to the opinion of St. Dionysius in the third or in the seventh chapter "of the divine names". That which was gathered from the election and conciliar of Nicaea, and that which was gathered from Cyprian, neither furthers our cause, nor hinders the same, much less would Augustine lib. 2., oup. 2. "of the baptism of little children" should have been drawn to Cyprian. For Augustine rebukes the presumptuousness and sacrilege of those who by ambition and presumption force their way into the ecclesiastical high offices, that they should not appoint themselves, nor compel others to appoint them, since every prelate should wait to be appointed, like Aaron [Heb. 5:4].
Thirdly, wishing to nullify another saying of Cyprian in the third Epistle to Cornelius, he replies that while priestly unity in the Occidental Church came from the Roman, it did not in the Oriental; here the venerable Father has concealed the fact that Cyprian, in the foregoing, has made the Roman Church the See of Peter and the most distinguished
Church. But what his refutation is able to do, becomes obvious to the one who looks closely at the core of the words. For the venerable father, according to the grammatical way, understands the emergence of the priestly unity only from the beginning and the beginning, while Cyprian truly wants to explain the origin of the conferral of the office (commissionis), the subordination or the influence, that from the One Peter as from the head came the jurisdiction over all others; otherwise he will not be able to provide One priest, not even at Jerusalem. I am silent that the added miserable gloss about the occidental church does not help him, since St. Jerome, at the beginning of his letter, writing from the East, for this reason calls the occidental church a rotterian one, which tears the undivided skirt of the Lord, woven from above, piece by piece into shreds. These foxes, he says, spoil Christ's vineyard, in that Jerome alludes to what the bride lamented about in the Song of Songs [Cap. 2, 15.]: Fahet uns die kleinen Füchse, die den Weinberg zerstören. Therefore, may, I pray, the venerable Father be silent, and not mock us with the Greeks and those in the East, who, having fallen away from the Roman Church, have also become such people as have forsaken the Christian faith. From this it follows how the conclusion is to be taken: She is the root, therefore the mistress. For we do not speak of the root of the beginning or of the time, but of the root of influence and supremacy.
In the fourth place, the venerable father tries to wriggle out of Jerome's words and avoid them. For he admits that the highest priest is also given the highest dignity, but this is done by human right. But why then does St. Jerome call Damasus the successor of the fisherman and wants to join the chair of Peter? By citing the saying of God, Matth. 16, 18: "I know that on this rock the church is founded. This cannot be attributed to the other churches in such a way, as Bernard concludes, and we have learned, alas! to the greatest harm of Christians, that the gates of hell have overwhelmed the church at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Alexandria, I also add, the one in Bohemia, which, after all, the church, which is founded on the rock, is the only church in the world.
1) Instead of frustra in the editions, the Weimar edition reads trusta.
the unadulterated truth of Christ. But what Jerome says in the same letter [Matth. 24, 28.] is quite true for those who are of faith: Where there is carrion, there the eagles gather. After the paternal inheritance is wasted by the wicked offspring, with you alone the reputation of the fathers is preserved quite unharmed. But this we shall prove quite clearly in the main, 1) that the Roman church holds supremacy not by human but by divine right.
However, it is still necessary to resolve what the venerable father has drawn for himself from Jerome. First, to Evagrius, where he says that the bishop of Rome and of Eugubium, of Constantinople and of Rhegium have the same prestige and the same priesthood; we have known this since time immemorial. Nor is the papacy a rank above the bishopric. For he says in another place that the apostles were equal, when he did not take the first place from St. Peter. But the fact that the venerable father asks me so much that I should not seek any deviations (which I never do), by referring to the Canon legimus, 93. dist., brings me to the pointed question which the gentlemen canonists and theologians discuss: whether the episcopal dignity is a state which, distinguished by a special characteristic, is added to the priesthood: about this I decide nothing for now, since it does not belong to the matter. But I say this, always with the reservation of better consideration, that it seems clear to me that in the first church there was not such a confusion that a bishop should not have been separated from a priest, since the twelve apostles were higher than the two and seventy disciples. In testimony to this, I cite St. Dionysius, who is older than Jerome and a regent of the first church, who in the book "Of the Kingdom Order of the Church" places among the holy orders the episcopal dignity and the supreme church regent, and how he must be ordained. Since I agree with him, I believe that the bishops have been higher than the common priesthood from the beginning of the church.
Fifthly, he has attracted a Canon of the African Concilium, 99. dist.can. primae, where the Concilium forbids that even the Roman Pontiff should not be called a general bishop, and that Christ had forbidden it
1) Weimarsche: probabimus, all other editions: xrnbaviinus. We have assumed the former.
Luc. 22, 25.: The secular kings rule etc. I answer that it is true that the proud name of a general bishop has been forbidden, not as if the Roman pope had ever not been considered by a true Christian to be the first and highest bishop, but because a bishop, especially of the Roman church, is not the proper bishop of any church, but the first, because otherwise the lower bishops would not be given due honor. But there is no injustice in anyone calling the Roman bishop the general one instead of giving him the name of the first. More correctly, however, he will not be called a general bishop, but bishop of the general church, as he is Christ's governor. The fact that the Lord punishes the ambitious quarreling of the apostles, as it is deplored among the worldly, does not abolish the supremacy of the Roman Church, but [the Lord means that] what St. Gregory first did and recognized, that for this reason he was placed before the Roman Church, so that he might recognize himself as a servant of servants, in which we should not attack the following popes with invective, but strive to obtain from God by prayer that they be subdued.
At two o'clock in the afternoon of the fourth of July, 1519.
Martin Luther.
My first answer, in which I showed from Paul's saying 1 Cor. 3, 4. ff. that the apostle forbade that the faithful should not choose Cephas or Paul or Apollo [as their head], was refuted by the respectable Doctor in this way: that although Paul thought of Peter there, Jerome against Joviniauus does not wrongly say: One is chosen, because when a head is appointed, the opportunity for rotting is taken away. He clearly calls Peter the head appointed in the Church. He added: But this let us drive. I answer: I do not suffer that I should depart from a greater testimony for the sake of a lesser one, nor is Jerome fo great that I should leave Paulum for his sake. For Paul not only remembers Peter, as that refutation endeavors to weaken, but with full power he teaches and forbids that no one should say that he is
Peter. Therefore also this very chapter [1 Cor. 3, 22. f.] closes: "All is yours, whether Paul or Cephas, whether death or life. But you are Christ's, but Christ is God's." Therefore, my answer still stands unconquered, and if it is not more strongly refuted, I oppose it to all past and future proofs of the Lord Doctor. For the word of God is above all the words of men.
To Jerome, however, I say that I, too, let this go, since it is a very ambiguous passage, as the Herr Doctor has well noticed.
In my second answer concerning the saying John 5:19, where I said that Christ speaks of the equality of power with the Father, the Doctor asked me to read more carefully St. Bernard, who introduces this saying from the contending church, as has been heard. I answer: I hold St. Bernard in honor and do not despise his opinion, but in the struggle one must take the right and proper sense of Scripture, which can stand in the dispute, from which the holy fathers sometimes depart in order to make their speech richer, and that without blame. But now it is clear from the preceding and the following text that Christ speaks of His same omnipotence with the Father [John 5:16, 18, 19]: "Therefore the Jews persecuted Jesus, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. Therefore the Jews sought after him much more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, and made himself equal with God. Then Jesus answered and said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you: The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father doing." And so it is clear that Bernard treats this word of Christ in a different sense.
To the third answer, namely the scurrilous (as he put it) and ridiculous bad reason that I said that even without the pope the church has its head, he said on the other hand that the reason was not worthy to be given before such great men and in such a serious matter. I answer: It is after all plebeian and ridiculous, if it is only insurmountable, because I still see
not that he is refuted. For I do not see that if the church is not without a head for three or four months, if the pope has died, if there are only other bishops, just as it should not be without a head if there were no pope. For what he said about the cardinals, who have the right of election, etc., strengthens my answer, because it would follow that at the time when there were no cardinals, as at the time of Jerome, there could not have been a pope.
To the fourth answer, the testimony of Cyprian, where I said that he speaks of any bishop, he replied that it is clear from the text that he spoke of Cornelius the Roman Pontiff, against the Novatians. I answer: I have no interest in this, nor do I have this letter in my memory. But I do know that St. Cyprian, in many of his letters, is entirely concerned with the assertion that the head and bishop of each church are ordained by popular vote and the judgment of the neighboring bishops. And therefore, if it is so, as the Doctor states against the Novatians of Cornelius, I say: It is certain that he spoke of the head of the church at Rome, but not of the general church. He also refuted that Cyprian always calls Cornelius brother, but never lord, as the bishops do now, putting a relational without a correlative [that is, a lord without a servant]. He replied that Peter also considered the apostles to be brothers, and yet was the head and highest of the apostles, as Dionysius says. 2) I answer: If the excellent Doctor can prove that Peter ever ordained one of the apostles, even one of the seventy disciples, or ever sent out any of them, then I admit everything and will be overcome. But if I shall prove that not even all the apostles could have sent or ordained one apostle, I pray that he will grant me that Peter did not give any authority to the apostles.
1) This non, which is necessary according to the context, is missing in all editions.
2) In the margin: Us Uivinis noruinidus.
over the other apostles. From this it follows that much less the bishop, the successor of Peter, has authority over the bishops, the successors of the other apostles. But now the very clear text in the Acts of the Apostles Cap. 1, 23. ff. is that the apostle Matthias could not be ordained by the whole assembly of apostles and disciples, but from heaven, like all the others, he was chosen and ordained by Christ. So also, Cap. 13, 2, Saul and Barnabas were accepted for the work when the Holy Spirit set them apart. It is therefore a very obvious error that Peter had authority over the apostles. I freely admit that the apostle Peter was the first in the number of apostles, and that he deserves the privilege of honor, but not of authority. They were chosen in the same way and received the same image. So I also think of the Roman Pontiff that he must be preferred to the others according to the preference of honor, without prejudice to the equal authority of each, and not as Pelagius concludes in his very cold decree 1): Where there is the greater prestige, there is also the greater authority, and the others are left with the necessity to obey.
As for the fifth answer, where I mentioned the election of a bishop from Cyprian and the Concilium of Nicaea, the excellent doctor disregarded it with very pompous words and said that this neither promoted nor hindered the matter. But this does not refute my answer. Therefore, the Nicene decree still stands, or if it does not stand and they have decided this against divine right, then it will not be called a Catholic concilium, but a diabolical, wretched concilium (conciliabulum). Thus, since he thought I should not have put on Augustine, and with his very beautiful gloss put on Cyprian, whom Augustine cited, that Cyprian rebuked the ambition and pride of those who pushed themselves into office before they were called, like Aaron: he said this out of sheer audacity. By the way
1) "Luther has in mind Dist. XXI. e. 3. Huuuavis." (Weim. Ausg.)
the text is quite clear that no bishop who is already a bishop should raise himself to be a bishop over other bishops. Therefore, my answer is still fixed.
In the sixth answer, the same excellent doctor severely rebukes me for having omitted from the other testimony of Cyprian this word: "the most noble church"; then he mocks me as a grammarian for having said that the priestly unity came from the chair of Peter. Therefore, the new dialectician or philosopher explains this origin rather as the conferral of the office, the emergence of subordination or influence; "otherwise", he says, "he will not be able to provide One Priest, not even in Jerusalem". I answer: Whether I have concealed or spoken this word "most noble" is of no consequence. For it cannot be called the noblest with reference to the Oriental Church, as has been sufficiently said. Then, I despise his little word about the "origin of influence" just as easily as he invented it, and it is not difficult for me to procure a priest from Jerusalem, namely Christ Himself, from whom the church began and from whom it sprouted and came forth according to the words of Isa. 2:3: "From Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." If, according to the testimony of Jerome, he added that the Oriental church was a red church and tore the undivided skirt of the Lord into small pieces, I really do not know what he means by this. For he cannot say that the entire Oriental church has also always been red-blooded. Therefore, he cannot deny that the Latin church has also had its rottenness at times, and yet it has remained a church. Therefore, it is nothing that he tells me to be silent, and not to scoff at the Greek church, because since they fell away from the Roman church, they have at the same time become such people who have left the faith of Christ. Rather, I ask Doctor Eck, according to the Eckian modesty he boasts, to spare so many thousands of saints, since the Greek Church has lasted until our times, and no doubt continues and will continue to this day. For Christ did not
The Father has not given us the center of the Roman land, but all the ends of the earth as a possession and inheritance, Ps. 2:8.
To the seventh, which he opposed from Jerome about the highest priest, he said that my answer would be an evasion, therefore, to confirm his statement, he added why then St. Jerome called Damasus the successor of the fisherman and wanted to join the chair of Peter, citing the divine statement, Matth. 16, 18.I know that the church is founded on this rock, which cannot be attributed in such a way to the other churches, and then he deplored the fall of the church at Jerusalem, at Antioch, at Alexandria, and finally also of the Bohemian church, and said that, according to the testimony of Jerome, only among the Romans would the reputation of the fathers be preserved unharmed. I answer and ask the excellent Doctor to cite the sayings of the Fathers according to conscience, so that we do not seem to be sophists instead of theologians. For in that passage Jerome also calls any bishop the highest priest, since he is elevated from the number of the other priests, therefore the passage does not actually refer to the Roman pope. Then the saying Matth. 16, 18. is not only assigned to the Roman church, which is explicitly indicated by the words of Christ when he says: "my church". Therefore, whatever church it may be, it is built on the rock, and not the Roman church alone; or if this word does not refer to the other churches, then the Roman church will be alone, therefore not the first. Therefore the unity of the church is not based on the unity of the Roman supremacy, but much better, as the apostle says Eph. 4,5. on the unity of faith, of baptism, of the Lord, as Cyprian also often says in his letters. And not only among the Romans the reputation of the fathers remained unharmed, except perhaps at the time when Jerome wrote; indeed, the Histories report that the Roman pope Liberius made concessions to the Arians; and Jerome writes this in the "famous men", that Achatius, an Arian bishop at Caesarea, a disciple of the Arian Eusebius,
by order of the emperor Constantius, decreed Felix to be the Roman pope.
Eighth. Refuting Jerome's testimony to Evagrius, which I have quoted, he says that he knew that all bishops had and have the same prestige and the same priesthood, but that the papacy is a rank above the bishopric. 1) But he did not refute my answer, because Jerome ascribes the majesty and lowliness of the bishops not to divine right, but to custom and the power of wealth. Therefore, I still remain with Jerome.
To the ninth answer about the Canon Iegimus, 93. dist. he says that it does not seem to him to have been such a confusion in the first Church that a bishop full of a priest would not have been divorced. I answer: What is that to me? He argues with Jerome and the Canons. But since he states that Dionysius counts the bishopric among the holy estates, I am surprised that he does not also bring from the same author the sole supremacy (monarchiam) of the Roman church, since it has such a great influence on the order of the empire that without this the similarity with the triumphant church cannot exist. It would be proper, however, for someone who claims to write a hierarchy, especially in its most noble part, to do enough with the subject matter; but Dionysius brings it only up to the bishop.
With regard to the tenth answer, to the Canon Primae, 99. dist., where I answered that it was forbidden that the Roman pope be called the general bishop of the church, he refuted thus: Not that the Roman Pontiff should not be the first and highest, but that a bishop, especially of the Roman Church, should not be the proper bishop of any church. I answer: As if such a foolish thought could occur to any man that one person should preside over all the churches and over every one of them, that it would have been necessary to make such a great nonsense of it.
1) Here Luther, as Eck says in his answer, did not understand Eck correctly (he understood sed instead of nec), because the latter had said that the papacy was not a higher state than that of the bishops. Compare Col. 916.
to forbid it! He then abandoned this refutation and gave a more correct one, namely that it should be said that the Roman pope is not a general bishop, but the bishop of the general church. If I did not spare him, I would also overturn this answer. But let the judges and the listeners judge.
Finally, on the saying of Christ, when he said [Luc. 22, 26.]: "But you not so", he said that the ambition was punished, but not the being in the first place (primatum). I answer, This is a petitio principii, 1) as if he had already obtained this, namely, that there was a supremacy. Then the text is clear that he has forbidden not merely ambition, but being higher than others.
Corner.
Regarding the defense of the answers given by the venerable father, I say in regard to the first that Paul did not scold those who said they were Peter because they had their sights set on the supreme place of the apostles, but because they had the particularity of the persons in mind. This is clearly indicated by the words separation and division [1 Cor. 1, 13. 10.] themselves. And although he [Luther] rightly prefers Paul to Jerome, one must still believe, in a godly way, that Jerome understood Paul's opinion well in this passage. For the passage is not doubtful that for this reason a head was appointed in the church, so that the opportunity for divisions would be taken away. This is enough for a reader who knows grammar. In a disputation, the venerable father said of this science that it was the most excellent above the other branches of philosophy and that it was useful for theology.
Secondly. No one except the Arians has denied that Christ Jn 5:19 asserted his equality with the Father, and even Bernard does not cite the passage in a different sense. But the fact that the venerable father thinks that the holy fathers have put on the holy scripture in order to make their speech richer, we reject this, because one must not suspect such a boast from them.
Regarding the third, when the pope has died, that then the Church is without a head, I say that it has never been denied that
1) What petere principiuni is, Luther explains to Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. VIII, 1130 s., p 85.
Christ is the head of the church, also according to the gloss on the Song of Songs, Cap. 5,11: His head is the finest gold. The gloss says: The head, that is Christ. But the pope is his governor. In the consistory, however, bishop and governor are considered to be one person. Therefore it is not allowed to appeal from the governor to the bishop. As for the cardinals, I have said that now, that is, after the church is already organized, the election came to the cardinals by decree of a pope Nicolaus. But I believe that at the time of Jerome there were Cardinals, unless Jerome was not a Cardinal priest. 2)
Fourth, from Cyprian. Certainly it cannot happen that he constricts the words of the holy martyr to the narrow space of the Roman district, because the Novatian bishops came to Rome from Numidia, a country of Africa beyond the Atlas, 3) as Ptolemy and Strabo testify. But that Cyprianus called Cornelius "brother", I think that this was the opinion of the collector [of the writings], not Cyprian. For if we read the letters of the holy bishops, we will clearly find that the praiseworthy and glorious titles were much more common at that time, as it happens now against the Roman pope, as it is known from Ambrose, Augustine, Hilarius and other fathers. For they call themselves among themselves: Most Blessed, Most Holy, Beloved of God etc. With regard to the added, he objects that I am looking for deviations and things that do not serve the cause. With permission I would like to say: It is shameful for a teacher [to instruct others, but not himself]. 4) He asks me to prove that Peter has appointed some apostle; but this does not serve our cause. For we do not ask who has ordained one or the other, but who has obtained from the Lord JEsu the supremacy over the others. The following I reject entirely, because he makes such a conclusion: Peter could not have ordained an apostle, therefore also the successor of Peter could not ordain the successor of another [apostle] or have authority over him. For the antecedent (assumptum) is true, the consequent is obviously false, since the pope now has authority and ordains other bishops. But the way to untie this knot will be this, that the
2) As an aside, Martin replied that Jerome had not been a Cardinal.
3) As an aside: D. Martinus said: This side of the Atlas.
4) The bracketed is put by us instead of "etc.".
Office of an apostle, the foundation of the Church, means more than being a bishop. Therefore Leo the Tenth is the successor of the apostle Peter, not an apostle. But that he admits that Peter is the first of the apostles in number and honor, but not in authority, does not do the matter enough: first, because the evangelists do not begin the number of apostles in the same way, as Chrysostom notes about Matthew and can be seen from the gloss to Matth. 10. Next, that he makes a distinction between the preference of force and honor, that is expressly against the holy martyr Cyprian, who in the treatise de simplicitate prelatorum 1) against Novatianus, speaking of the wiles of the devil, chides those who, as if they were ministers of justice, pass off night for day, ruin for salvation, despair under the pretense 2) of hope, faithlessness under the pretense of faith. And further on: And although after his resurrection he gives equal authority to all the apostles, saying, "Just as the Father sent me," etc. nevertheless, in order to make the unity manifest, he so ordered the origin of this unity by his power that it began from one. The other disciples, too, were just what Peter was, gifted with the same fellowship both in honor and power (this is well to be considered!), 3) but the beginning proceeds from the unity, so that it may be shown that the church is One. And further on: Whoever does not keep this unity does not keep the law of God, does not keep the faith in the Father and the Son, does not keep life and blessedness. These are very remarkable words of Cyprian, who does not distinguish among the apostles 4) the preference of honor and power.
With regard to the fifth, of election, I say, as before, that we are not disputing about the manner of election, but about the nature or rather the greatness (quantitate) of the elect itself. Therefore the Nicene Concilium was not a contemptible Concilium. But as for the action and the use, it can be done according to the nature of the time,
1) Now usually titled ve uuitats soolssias (Weim. ed.).
2) In the text: odtutu. "Older as well as newer editions of Cyprian's works have odtsntu." (Weim. Ausg.)
3) An Intermediate Sentence by Eck (Weim. Ausg.).
4) Here Löscher has the reading upo8tolorura instead of apostolos in the editions. According to Löscher, the last part of the sentence would therefore read like this: which makes no difference between the voitzug of honor and violence of the apostles.
of the persons and the place are changed, as we see in many canons.
As to the sixth, that the reverend Doctor opposes me, that I, as a dialectician, have invented a difference of a twofold origin, we have already heard Cyprian say that he speaks for Eck, who has not such great gifts that he could invent new things, but he interprets the old sayings of the saints according to his ability. But since he gives Christ as the priest of all, he first of all does not obtain Cyprian's opinion, nor Jerome's, because they want Peter to be appointed as the first of the apostles, from whom the power of the other priests flows, not, of course, by inwardly conferring what is Christ's as the head, but by communicating the ecclesiastical power.
Seventh, that he misses Eckian modesty, since he [Eck] declares the Greeks and inhabitants of the Orient to be people worthy of condemnation, I answer that the Greeks have long been not only red-blooded, but extremely heretical, as the great heap of so many errors and their obstinate obstinacy testifies in the Clementine de summa trinitats, as, of the Holy Spirit, of confession, of the falsity of the three evangelists, and innumerable other things, though they have often rendered a fictitious obedience to the Roman Church, as happened at the Florentine Concilium in the days of Eugenius the Fourth. Therefore, if according to the opinion of many in our country only a few will be blessed, how much more will very few or none be blessed in Turkey, except for some monks and their followers who adhere to obedience to Rome.
Regarding the eighth, the venerable father asks that I cite the writers according to conscience; he may not have any misgivings about that. I would like to be able to cite them also according to knowledge. But that Jerome recognizes Damasus as pope, no one can doubt. In the same way, no one doubts that the universal church is founded on the rock. But that this rock is Peter and his successors, I will prove at another time.
But he insults Jerome a little bit, because he had said: with you alone the first reputation will be completely unharmed, as if also the Roman popes had not been without blemish. If he refers it to the time of Jerome, Liberius and Anastasius were before him. I say this because it is rightly stated in the
In the minds of the faithful it is something worthy of admiration that no Roman pope, however evil or erroneous he may have been, has judicially established and decreed anything, as far as I can remember, that is contrary to the commandments of the Christian faith, although they themselves have indeed often erred; rather, if they tried to make such erroneous judgments, they are also punished from God's judgment, as happened with the Arian Leo, against whom Hilarion sat, and with Anastasius, can. Anastasius, 19. dist.
To the ninth. With regard to the Canon Iegimus, 93. äi8t. the venerable father has perhaps not understood me. It never occurred to me that the papacy was a status above the bishopric, but a dignity. But that he says that I am at war with Jerome and the Canons, I have said what my opinion is. At this point I prefer the testimony of Dionysius as the older one. But since the venerable father makes oratorical remarks about Dionysius, why he did not describe the sole supreme ruler 1) of the church, indeed, does not go beyond the bishopric, I can easily answer. For Dionysius goes through the mysteries of the church. But since I have denied that the papacy is a state, the bishopric will receive the highest place after the agreement of all.
Tenth, that he thinks that no one is so nonsensical as to believe that anyone is the own bishop for all the individual churches, - what do I have to complain but that of the fools and those who seek something special, there is an infinite multitude? The venerable father read Alvarus "On the Lamentation of the Church", John de Turre Cremata in the summa ecclesiae, William of Occam (Ocken) in the dialogus, and he will find people who sometimes had this nonsense. But that he wants to overturn our answer, that I said that the pope is better called the bishop of the general church than the general bishop, I did this according to the testimony of St. Bernard and according to the custom of the popes, because Bernard says lib. 2. de consideratione ad Euge- nium, Col. 7: For it is a sign of the special bishopric of Peter etc., and afterwards: since each one of the others has his church, one is commanded to you, the largest ship, which out of all just the
1) Löscher perhaps more correctly (according to the word used by Luther): mormrokiarQ; in the other editions rnonurotmna.
general church has become, spread throughout the world.
Regarding the tithe, he says that the word of Christ, Luc. 22, 24. ff. is not satisfied, as if it were my little bundle. But I do not speak without a warrant. I refer him to Richard Armacanus, lib. 7. c. 3. de quaestionibus Armeniorum, who understands this passage according to the testimony of St. Leo. And that this is true is indicated by the words [v. 26]: and who is the greatest among you etc. Therefore Christ presupposed that any one was the greatest. But who would be the greatest, he did not indicate then, but later [v. 31 f.], when he spoke to Peter of the devil desiring them, and how he would plead for him, that when he was converted, he should strengthen his brethren, where he declared his being greater.
Martin Luther early at seven o'clock on Tuesday, which was July 5.
To refute the answer in the matter concerning the word 1 Cor. 3,5: What is Paul? What is Cephas?, the excellent Doctor said that the intention was not the supreme place, but the particularity of the person, and this is indicated by the words that express division. I answer: I am more moved by Paul's text than by such a violent and forced distinction, which is not based on any solid ground at all, while he wants to conclude from divine right. But it is clear that their quarrel was because of the preference or supremacy of the persons, which Paul's refutation itself indicates by penetrating through the diminishing speeches and comparisons and saying, "What is Cephas? what is Paul? Servants they are, by whom ye believed. Therefore, he who plants and he who waters are one and the same. Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but he who gives the flourishing, God." In this he evidently belittles the person, that is, the cause of division. So also in the Epistle to the Galatians Cap. 2, 6, when the Galatians were seduced by the pretense of the outstanding position of Peter and other apostles - he boldly says: "Those who had the reputation of what they were then," that is, how great, "I do not care; for God does not care about the reputation of men." As if he wanted to
I would like the excellent doctor to read the Scriptures more correctly before he performs them. Therefore, I would like the excellent Doctor to read the Scriptures more correctly before he reads them all. Therefore, it is certain that this supreme authority (primatus) or person does not concern the Church, at least according to divine right.
I pass over the fact that he says Jerome understood Paul's opinion; likewise also that which he admitted John 5:19; likewise also that of the scurrilous bad reason, because it has not been refuted. What he quoted from the bishop and the governor in the consistory does not serve the cause. My reason has wanted this: If the Church is not without a head when the pope has died, neither is it without a head when there is no pope. I pass over that of the Cardinals, because it is known to all when they began. I also pass over that of Cyprian, because the Doctor has said from his own head, I know not what, of a Numidia beyond Atlas, which does not exist in the whole world. Also that Cornelius is called brother by Damasus I pass over, because it is not refuted, although it has been said that they did honor to each other with the most honorable titles, calling each other the most blessed, the most holy; for this I also say. But not only to the Roman pope, as nowadays, was so written; for this should have been proved. I also pass over that he said it did not serve the cause whether Peter had ordained any apostle, for this is the main thing (nervus) and insurmountable against Doctor Eck, therefore he does not pass over it without forethought, lest he should start so that he cannot arise again. Likewise, I admit what he has quoted from the martyr Cyprian about the equal honor and authority of the apostles, and accept it as a favor shown to me by the Lord Doctor. That he has passed over with equal care the election 1) of bishops described by the Concilium at Nicaea and by Cyprian, pleases me; for it cannot be refuted.
1) Instead of ecclesiam in all editions we have assumed electionsrn, which seems necessary to us according to what has been said in Col. 909. 920 and 926.
But what he repeated concerning the distinction in the origin of the priesthood, from which it appears that Cyprian had his intention on the origin of the priestly power, proves nothing to me, since he spoke nothing but his own words. It is even more noteworthy that he, quite modestly, dared to call the Greeks extremely heretical people, while no part of the entire church has produced more excellent writers than the Greek. For the fact that he has so often, secretly biting, advanced Bohemia to me and let other invectives flow in, I refer this to the sophists, for it is too unseemly to be mentioned, let alone reproached, in a serious and theological disputation.
Therefore, let us look at this word, Matth. 16, 18: "On this rock" etc. There I say: "Rock" means in this place either power or faith (because I have the confidence that the Lord Doctor will never do his promise enough, that the rock means the pope or the successor of Christ). If violence, it is said superfluously afterwards [v. 19.], "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," that is, violence; if thou wilt not say, it is given to violence. Then, if it certainly means violence, all churches will have the same, because he says, "upon this rock I will build my church," not the Roman alone. Or if it means faith (which is true), then again all churches will have the same faith. Thus it is evident that this pronoun "my" alone makes the rock a common one, whatever may be signified by the "rock." That is why the decrees of the popes cite this saying without any probative force for the singleness of the supreme rule, while they constantly defend the community of Peter. And so this agrees with the apostle in the Epistle to the Ephesians [Cap. 4,5.]: "One faith, One baptism, One Lord." For, as St. Jerome writes to Evagrius, there is not another faith of the Roman Church, another of Britain, and of the whole world, so neither another Christ nor another Rock. If then the same faith and the same Lord
932 L. V. L. Ill,81-53, Sect. 3, Disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377, W. XV, IIV2-IW4. 933.
and the same baptism of all churches, it follows that all the rest also follows in the same way, concerning faith and baptism and Christ.
Finally, he has interpreted Christ's word from Richard Armacanus of ambition, not of being greater, for, he says, Christ presupposed that one among them was the greatest, though he did not indicate who it was. I answer: Whatever Armacanus is about, the very clear text is more valid than the unknown writer, for it is written that a dispute arose among them as to who among them should be considered the greatest. And Christ sda he says Luc. 22, 26.]: Whoever wishes to be the greatest among you indicates sufficiently that he has presupposed that no one is the greatest?and from the context of the text it is clear that he did not intend that anyone should be the greatest?c. But the fact that he cited the saying of Luca [Cap. 22, 32] to confirm his own: "I have asked for you, Peter, and you strengthen," serves for me because he commands Peter to strengthen Peter's brothers, not to be the greatest.
Corner.
What the venerable father has taught about the apostles, that I say it once and for all, we have heard from Cyprian and Jerome, what also the holy martyr and pope Anacletus testifies in the Canon in novo, dist. 21: that they were equal in apostleship, which no one denies. But the equality in the apostleship does not enter the supreme authority and the supremacy, unless one wants to impudently say that the holy martyr Anacletus contradicted himself in the same decree. But that he [Luther] puts so much weight on the decree of the apostles and seeks protection behind it, I know that Paul freely wrote [Gal. 2, 6.] that after he went out to Jerusalem, he received nothing from those who had the standing. But if this main thing (nervus) is to bind the corner so insurmountably, he will make use of it when the turn comes for him to oppose. But that he says that a favor was shown him by the word, which I have quoted from Cyprian, that the apostles were endowed with equal fellowship in honor and authority: if he calls this a favor, that I nullify his answers, I am ready to show him often such a favor.
point out. For the venerable father had made the distinction that Peter was first according to the preference of honor, not of power; Cyprian puts them equal in both things.
As for Numidia, of which he says that it belongs to Mauritania, and what he has brought, does not concern our trade, and since I have not dealt with geographical matters for a long time, I also do not remember all things. I know that the Turgan 1) and Caesarean Mauritania extend from the Atlas to the sea, and that the Atlas is not set as the extreme end of Africa, but that it divides Africa after a large part into several stages. It is enough that those who came to Cornelius from Numidia did not belong to the Roman district, but turned to the first church. Therefore, that saying of Cyprian still stands unconquered and has not yet been answered. I am surprised that he says, with regard to the flowing forth [of power], that it was my words, since I cited Cyprian against Novatianus, to which the venerable father answered nothing.
Of the Greeks I admit that they were formerly very Christian and learned, since they called the Roman church the supreme see; but since they, puffed up by pride and filled with envy, withdrew from the obedience of the Roman see, they fell into the worst errors and at the same time lost the faith with the rule. But since he suspects that I will not fulfill my promise and has made a reason for proof out of the 16th chapter of Matthew, I am surprised that the venerable father is so hostile to the Sophists, and yet uses the precautions of the Sophists quite nicely, and while he is a responder, takes the side of an opponent. 2) Therefore, I do not answer anything now, but I will prove what he demands to be proved by me, so that the time for deliberation does not always fall on his side.
Finally, he rejects the unknown teacher Richard Armacanus, forgetting that I said that Richard does this according to the testimony of St. Leo. Furthermore, he does not prove from the letter of the text what he desires. Christ rightly rebukes the quarrel that had arisen among the disciples. Therefore, the words of Christ must also be taken in such a way as to suppress the quarrel, but not the supreme
1) Eck said: DurMnioam instead of: linZitanam.
2) That is, while he is supposed to answer interjections, he makes interjections.
Take away place. And the venerable father believes that the text later on serves him, that Christ called the apostles brothers [of Peter], and thus did not make him the greatest. But if he were to consider the words of the text correctly, as he usually does, he would immediately see that Peter is higher than the other apostles, since he who strengthens is greater than he who is strengthened. This is what is said about the answers.
Now I come to the main thing he desires, and will prove that the supremacy (primatum) of the Roman church comes from divine right and from the institution of Christ, so that Peter was appointed as the sole ruler of the church by Christ, with his successors, for which I repeat the reason of Bernardus, which has not yet been refuted. I repeat likewise the saying of Cyprian, and thirdly I prove it by the words of Christ Matt. 16:18.: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." The glossa ordinaria says: "He granted this authority to Peter in particular, so that he might unite us. For this reason he appointed him prince of the apostles, so that the Church would have a supreme governor of Christ, to whom the various members could take refuge if they were at odds among themselves, because if there were different heads, the bond of unity would be broken. Thus St. Augustine, in his letter against the Donatists, declared: "You are Peter, and on this rock, that is Peter, I will build my church. And although the same Augustine interpreted elsewhere: on this rock, that is Christ, according to the sense of the apostle: the rock was Christ, he did not retract his first interpretation in the book retractationum. So also St. Jerome says in the first book against the Pelagians, in my edition Columne 5: What about Plato and Peter? For as the former was the prince of the philosophers, so also the latter was the prince of the apostles, on whom the Church of the Lord is founded by a firm structure, which is not shaken by the impetuosity of the waters nor by any storm. Thus St. Ambrose says in the 47th Sermon that Peter was the rock. Chrysostom also agrees with this opinion, at the beginning of the same chapter. What then does Peter say, he says, the mouth of all the apostles, the summit of the whole company? and further on: Christ gave him higher understanding and made him the shepherd of the future Church, and afterwards he set him over the whole world. This is what the holy martyr Cyprianus admits, saying.
he says to Pope Cornelius: Peter, on whom the church was built by this same Lord, speaks alone for all, answers with the voice of the church and says: Lord, to whom shall we go? etc. [Therefore St. Leo 34, qu. 1. cum beatissimus freely confesses that the Apostle Peter received the supremacy over the Church from the Lord. Thus all the saints agree that Peter received the supremacy over the Church from Christ. I pass over the younger ones, Beda, Bernard and the like. The holy pope and martyr Anacletus, who did not write cold decrees only four hundred years ago, but a thousand and four hundred years ago thundered: The holy Roman and apostolic church has not received the supremacy from the apostles, but from our Lord and Savior himself, as he said to the holy apostle Peter: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock etc., and further on: But this apostolic chair, the head and center, as was said before, was instituted by the Lord and not by others. These words are carried over into the Canon sacrosancta, 22. dist. Thus writes St. Marcellus, the fourth [pope] before Silvester, in the Canon Rogamus, 24. q. 1. to the bishops of Antioch: although the supreme see was at Antioch, it was later transferred to Rome by command of the Lord. Thus says St. Julius 3. q. 6. can. Dudum: "From Christ it is confined that the Roman Church has the supremacy and is the head of the other churches. Thus the pope Pelagius, not for four hundred years, but nine hundred years ago, and following the opinion of twenty-eight holy fathers, took the words of Christ: "and on this rock" etc., in the same way.
Therefore, among the damned and pernicious errors of John Wiklef, this one is also damned: It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is the highest among the others. Thus, among the harmful errors of John Hus, this one is also mentioned: Peter is not and was not the head of the holy Roman Catholic Church. And another: "There is not a shred of evidence that there must be a head who governs the church in spiritual matters, who always has his being in the contending church. And: This papal dignity has come from the emperor. And: The pope's sovereignty and investiture came from the emperor. Thus, since Boniface VIII condemns the heresy of the Lyons, he gives the decision against their error: it is necessary for salvation that all human creatures be brought under Roman rule.
The same is true for the Decretale unam sanctam, which states that Peter was the head of the Church. Also John XXII, when he condemned the heresy of Marsilius at Padua, also rejected this: that Peter was no more the head of the church than the other apostles. Thus, in a long line from the first church on, there has always been the confession among good Christians that the Roman church received the supremacy from Christ, not from human right and consent of the people. I confess that the Bohemians, in the obstinate defense of their errors, mention these things and defend themselves with these poisonous weapons, as can be seen from their petition to the Concil at Basle and in another disputation that took place before the king and the great ones of the empire between Ragusius and the servant of wickedness John Rockenzcena. Therefore I ask the venerable father for forgiveness if I am hostile to the Bohemians (I do not speak of the Christians, but of the Rottians) as enemies of the church, and that I remember them in the present disputation, because also the thesis itself and what was presented yesterday, that the supremacy in the church is ordered by human right, is according to my low and bad judgment very much in favor of their errors, and as one hears, they sincerely wish themselves luck in this. This I have now wanted to state for the present, and now I want to hear the opinion of the venerable father and the refutation of what has been put forward.
Martin Luther.
First of all, I want to refute the blasphemy that the respectable Doctor accuses me of being a follower of the Bohemian mob and clearly makes me their protector (the Lord forgive him), especially in such a large assembly of such great men. Never has any division pleased me, nor will it please me in eternity. The Bohemians do wrong to separate themselves from our unity by their own power, even if the divine right were on their side, since the highest divine right is love and unity of the spirit. I have sought this alone, and I ask every good Christian to be willing to consider, in Christian love, whether it is not by far the most impudent impiety to have so many thousands of martyrs and saints, who are called fourteen hundred
1) It will be read with eraser hanc, instead of üune in all other editions.
The Roman Pontiff is not able to deny that the Church of Christ has been established for twenty years and has been crowned for a great part of the Greek Church. For even if all the flatterers of the Roman Pontiff should become furious, they cannot deny that the church of Christ had been established for twenty years, crowned in a large part of the whole world, before the Roman church came into being through Peter, as is quite clear from the Epistle to the Galatians [Cap. I, 18. 2, 1.], where Paul writes that after three years he came to Peter, then that after fourteen years he went out again to Petro. If we add these years together, we find almost eighteen years after the ascension of Christ, when Peter was still in Jerusalem, to say nothing of the years when he had his seat in Antioch, so that it cannot be said that the Roman church was the first and the head by divine right. Now this proves even more strongly that the Greek Church never received its bishops from Rome until our times, that they were confirmed from there. Therefore, if it had been a divine right for so long a time, all the bishops of Alexandria, Constantinople, some of the most holy people, as Gregory of Nazianzus and many others, would have been condemned, heretical and Bohemian. No more detestable blasphemy can be said.
On the evidentiary grounds of rebuttals:
Since the honorable Doctor says: "The equality of the apostleship does not affect the supremacy," and cites the holy martyr Anacletus dist. 21. can. in Novo testamento, I say briefly: This is one of the coldest decrees, which I contest, and no one will persuade me that this decree is from this holy pope and martyr.
To the second: I did not put weight on the ordinance of the apostles, which we will see in the Opponiren.
Thirdly. That he has cited Cyprian, who equates the apostles both in honor and power, whereas I would have said that St. Peter was first in honor, I very gladly admit, and if necessary, I will gladly
If the doctor can only maintain this as the truth, and then say where the supremacy remains. But I say that the honor of the apostles is equal in relation to others, but among themselves they have rightly given the first place to Peter. For every one of the apostles has equal honor in his part, and as every bishop in his district.
That he reproaches me that I have answered nothing to Cyprian, I have searched for the letter, but have not found it. But it is sufficiently answered in the foregoing that Cyprian in many letters ascribes to each church its own head. Those which were from Numidia do not prove that it was a divine right, but indicate the fact, as in the same way Achatius in fact appointed Felix as Roman pope, which is said yesterday. Yes, Epiphanius, the bishop of Cyprus, deposed the greater bishop of Constantinople, namely John Chrysostom, as stated in the historia tripartitia. But this fact did not become a law. And so there are many other examples. I am very surprised that the respectable doctor has undertaken to prove the divine right, and to this day does not even cite a syllable of Scripture, but only sayings and deeds of the fathers, and those that contradict himself.
The fact that he admits that the Greeks were once very Christian, but that afterwards, since they abandoned their obedience to the Roman church, they lost the faith along with the dominion, is the same as what he said yesterday with the same Eckian dictum that the gates of hell had overwhelmed them, by treating the Scriptures in such a way that he understands by the obedience of hell the loss of earthly life or goods. Surely a very beautiful explanation! As if faith could not remain after the dominion is lost, and thus one might suppose that there were no Christians in Greece because there was no dominion. For the same reason, he will also say that the martyrs were overcome by hell.
He also reproaches me, since he says that I made an opponent out of a responder
(I gratefully accept the reminder), but I would have done this for the sake of having time to think about it. The angular flashes are not so great (so that I also boast something) that I need to think about it. Also that Richard Armacanus did not act from his head, but according to the testimony of Leo the word of Christ, moves me little. He shows from the text itself what he has undertaken: "This is from divine right," and I will be satisfied.
To the last, where he concludes thus: He who strengthens is greater than he who is strengthened, so Peter is the greatest apostle, perhaps because, according to Aristotle, he thinks that the doer is more excellent than the one who suffers from his actions. So I will also conclude in an Aristotelian way: The strengthening one is probably greater in itself (per se), but after the accidental (per accidens) probably smaller, if he does not understand by confirmatio here the sacrament of confirmation, which I do not believe. Otherwise, it is not uncommon that a higher person is admonished, comforted and strengthened by a lower one.
Let this be said about his refutations.
To the main thing.
With regard to the main matter, as he approached it, he proved that Peter was the sole ruler by divine right, and that from the above-mentioned testimony of Bernard, Cyprian, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, then from the consensus of all the saints, and likewise from many decrees and decretal documents of various popes. I answer: Doctor Eck wanted to prove from divine right, and soon he forgot himself and got into the testimonies of the fathers, which we have already treated for the most part and seen that they have sometimes expressed different opinions in different places, and much more and more often for me than for Doctor Eck.
Secondly, we want to look at them one after the other. The first testimony, that of Bernardus, has been sufficiently eliminated above, because he does not prove, but only persuades, because he is based on a meaning that is far removed from Scripture, as the Lord says.
Doctor himself. Similarly, the testimony of Cyprian about the supremacy and the origin of priestly unity has been sufficiently considered. Thirdly, he gave proof with the words [Matth. 16, 18]: "You are Peter, and on this rock" etc., which Augustine interpreted in this way: Upon this rock, that is Peter, and this interpretation he had not revoked. I answer: What is that to me? If he wants to fight against me, let him himself first bring the repugnant sayings into agreement. For it is certain that Augustine has often interpreted the rock as Christ, and perhaps hardly once as Peter. Therefore he serves more for me than against me. If Augustine and all the fathers have understood Peter as the rock, I, who am one, will resist them with the saying of the apostle, that is, with divine right, since he writes 1 Cor. 3:11: "No one can lay a foundation other than the one laid, which is Jesus Christ," and with the saying 1 Pet. 2:4 ff, where Peter calls Christ the living stone and the cornerstone, teaching that we are built on it into a spiritual house. Otherwise, if Peter were the foundation of the church, the church would have fallen by the voice of a servant, the gatekeeper, while the gates of hell should not be able to overpower it. Therefore it follows that the holy fathers, when they call Peter the rock, have suffered something human at this point, or have some other opinion, about which I do not speak now. Therefore I gladly admit the word of Ambrose, since he says that Peter is the rock, since also every Christian is a rock for Christ's sake, on whose firmness he is founded and becomes one with Him. But if Chrysostom calls Peter the shepherd of the future church, and the superior of the whole world, I am satisfied if this shepherding is not understood of the whole church, so that we do not cast a spell on the apostle Paul, who shepherded many more churches than Peter. And I confess that Peter is the first in glory in the whole world, and this also touches Chrysostom, since he says that he is the summit of the whole apostolic society. Summit is not the head of the
1) but a part of the head. Yes, even more clearly he calls him the mouth of the apostles, which Jerome and Cyprian also teach, because he heard not only in his person, but in that of all apostles and the whole church [Matth. 16, 19.]: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" etc.
Of the decrees I say nothing, which I have called quite cold, and especially of that of Anacletus, which has been highly praised in this hour, because a good Christian cannot believe that it is from the martyr Anacletus, who interprets Cephas as the head, and calls the Roman church the center (cardinem).
Finally, since the excellent Doctor dislikes the Bohemians so much, let him show his memory and his good head: he writes against them. I am very surprised that one finds so many accusers and enemies of the Bohemians, and yet there is no one who, in brotherly love, stoops to refute their error in honor of the Roman Church.
Doctor Martinus begged the corner not to do him such great dishonor as to make him a Bohemian, who had always been hateful to him because they separated from Unity.
At two o'clock the disputation was continued on the same day, July 5.
Martin Luther.
In the end, the excellent doctor has opposed me to the articles of Wiklef and John Hus, and Boniface, who condemned them. I answer as before that I neither want to nor can defend the Bohemian schism, but the Greek church in one thousand and four hundred years; if the Bohemians have kept it, it is none of my business. This I know for certain, that neither a Roman pope nor all his flatterers can push down from heaven such a large number of saints who have never been under the power of the Roman pope.
Secondly, it is also certain that among the articles of John Hus or the Bohemians
1) Already Walch remarks here: "should probably mean: summit of the main or head of the main".
many are completely Christian and evangelical, which the general church cannot condemn, as this is and similar: that there is only One general church. For this 1) has been unreasonably condemned at the operation of the exceedingly ungodly flatterers, since the whole of the Church prays: I believe in the Holy Spirit, one holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints. This most noble article of faith they count among the articles of John Hus. Then the article: It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman Church is higher than the others. I know that Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, and countless other bishops of Greece were blessed, and yet they did not keep this article; nor is it in the power of the Roman pope or the heretics to set new articles of faith, but to judge according to those already given. Nor can a believing Christian be forced to go beyond the sacred Scriptures, which are actually the divine law, unless a new and proven revelation is added. Yes, according to divine law, we are forbidden to believe anything unless it is proved either by divine Scripture or by a clear revelation, as also Gerson, though belonging to the newer ones, teaches in many places, and St. Augustine, who is older, observes as a special rule when he writes to St. Jerome: I have learned to pay this honor only to those books which are called canonical; but the others I read in such a way that, however rich they may be in doctrine and holiness, I do not consider it truth for the sake of it, because they have held so, but if they have been able to convince me either by the canonical books or by some acceptable reason. Yes, even the jurists, of whom one would least think it, have established in the Canon significasti, de electione, that the opinion of a private citizen is more valid than the Roman Pontiff, Concilium, and Church, if
1) Haec must be b^ogen to ecclesiu universulis. The relation to artieulus, which is found in the old translator, is not permissible because of the genus.
he relies on a better testimony or a better reason. Therefore, it is nothing that the excellent doctor, while he wants to prove against me from divine right, abandons divine right and concludes against me from the collections of heretical judges. Therefore, if this sentence of John Hus: The papal dignity came from the emperor, is false, then erase the word of Platina in the biography of Benedict the Second, where he writes that Constantinus the Fourth, Greek emperor, decreed that the Roman pope was the general governor of Christ, even though he was not so respected by the bishops of Greece. Therefore, as much as the excellent Doctor urges me with the Bohemians, who are not yet a hundred years old, so much I urge him with the Oriental Church, the better part of the universal Church, and one thousand four hundred years old. If those are heretics because they did not recognize the Roman pope, I will accuse my adversary as a heretic who dares to declare as damned so many saints who are praised full of the universal church. I say the same to Boniface VIII. What kind of a pope he was, and with what faith his deeds are to be accepted, the histories prove sufficiently.
Accordingly, I conclude, and ask the Doctor to admit that the Roman popes were men, and not to make them gods, especially as they often judged in their own cause, then not by themselves, but by quite unlearned flatterers, since St. Gregory, Although he was a Roman pope, St. Gregory, in many letters, denied himself the supremacy over the whole world, citing his predecessor Pelagius, and saying, among other things, that the venerable Synod of Chalcedon conferred this honor of supremacy on the Roman pope, and yet no one dared to accept it. Therefore, if I am mistaken, Gregory I is mistaken with me with his predecessors, and they have sinned damnably in not accepting the supremacy offered. Hereby I want to have proved that from the more recent decrees, condemnations and approvals of the Roman Church nothing is to be found.
against me, since they are all very suspicious and completely contrary to the old truth and custom. Nevertheless, out of reverence and to avoid division, I quite gladly tolerate them, and advise that they be tolerated; only let us not, as a matter of divine right, condemn so many previous saints.
This is what I have had to say about the articles.
Corner.
Since the venerable father, in order to save his honor, denies that he is a patron of the Bohemians, I would praise him highly if the deeds corresponded to the words. But the latter does not agree with the former, since he does not say Christianly that the most harmful errors of the Hussites are exceedingly Christian. But of that hereafter.
But that conclusion I hate, that the Rottirian Bohemians and Picards could receive as one god, 2) if the divine right stood for them. I have always praised the highly praiseworthy Greeks and the holy martyrs, but the venerable father, who is not well instructed in the art of cooking, mixes the holy Greeks together with the Rottians and heretics, so that by the pretense of the holiness of the fathers he may protect the faithlessness of the heretics, since at the same time he also inculcates the one thousand and four hundred years.
(D. Martin Luther protested and said: I protest before all of you and publicly that the respectable doctor speaks this lying and insolent about me. 3) And Eck protested that he wanted to prove with writings and words, in which in a long time the greatest
1) Instead of tantum, which we could not make sense of, we adopted tanquaru.
2) The Latin of the editions reads: Oone1u8ioU6M tarnen illain oäio, guoä setnsrnatmi Lotienri et kiearäl tan^narn äenrn aeeeptare p088ent, ete. About this the Weimar edition says: "The text is corrupted here." But the correction made by the Weimar edition: Conäitionern instead of: Conolu8ion6n>, does not satisfy us. The old translator assumed 6tzU8 a666ptari. We have retained the given reading. The "conclusion" (wnelumo) will be the last paragraph of Luther's preceding speech, and the word in Eck's rejoinder: "receive a god," is to be regarded as a rejoinder to Luther's word, "that Eck does not want to make the popes gods." - This passage will probably remain an erux intsrprsturu, but not much is attached to the more or less correct solution of it, because Luther does not take it into consideration in his answer.
3) In the manuscript: said this falsely and mendaciously.
The light is not in harmony with Belial, nor with the holy martyrs and confessors. But the light does not coincide with Belial, nor the rotterians with the holy martyrs and confessors).
I will speak of the Church that existed twenty years before the Roman one, which the venerable Father tells me: I am not moved that the Greek bishops were not confirmed by the pope, because even the village priests or parish priests are not confirmed by the pope now, but it would be something extremely nonsensical to say because of this that the pope does not have sovereignty over the common priests.
I will talk about the very cold decree of Anacletus later, and I will also defend the other decrees. Regarding Numidia, the venerable father said that it is a fact, not a right, which is contrary to the opinion of Cyprian, who accuses them of being robbers, who dared to appeal to the See of Peter and the supreme Church, from which unity came. That Epiphanius of Cyprus expelled the higher bishop, John Chrysostom, from the diocese, let him see for himself. This, I say, has happened; I judge that it was not right.
Moreover, when he hurls sophistical speeches against me, as if I did not handle the Holy Scriptures correctly, since I am supposed to have said that because of the loss of temporal things and wealth the gates of hell had gained the upper hand against the Greeks, he imposes something on me that I never thought of, for I said that heresies and divisions and errors had gained power against the church of the Greeks. It is true that the loss of dominion has also followed to great disgrace of Christendom.
Then, since the venerable father boasts that he speaks Luc. 22, 24. ff. from divine right, but I cite the unknown man Richard Armacanus, who even relies on the testimony of Leo, he may say that I also believe the same scripture of the Gospel and the divine right. But the venerable father, who relies on his intellect, rejects me, who follow the understanding of the ancients. It is beyond doubt that both Arius (in the words: "The Father is greater than I") as a heretic, and Athanasius had the Gospel; but Arius understood the Scriptures erroneously, Athanasius as the Holy Spirit required. There is nothing in what is added in regard to strengthening, since every sensible person recognizes that he who strengthens others out of the power given him by a superior is greater in this than he who is strengthened. I do not know what the "in itself" refers to.
946 L. V. a. Ill, 6S-S7. Cap. 5. of the Leipzig disputation. W..XV, I1W-II2I. 947
(per se) and "according to the accidental" (per accidenz). 1) This for the first.
Since the venerable father wants to take my reasons for proof against the main thing, he imposes on me in a quite intemperate way that my intention was to prove by divine right that the Roman church is higher than the others, and yet I alone got into the sayings of the fathers and the saints, as if, since I wanted to make a container, I started a little jar. The venerable father forgive me if he did not want to or could not understand my intention. For this is done by divine right enough, since so many holy fathers have said that it is by divine right, even though we have not concealed the divine right, Matth. 16, 18: "On this rock," to which I have cited the testimonies of the holy fathers.
I do not know how the venerable father, forgetting himself, could have said in regard to St. Bernard, whose testimony and at the same time whose reason is insurmountable, that I had allowed St. Bernard to speak in a different sense, which he could not dispute with any weapons. For if the true and proper sense of the Scripture of the equality of the Son with the Father is maintained, then the reason of St. Bernard emerges from it in the best possible way.
Of Augustine and others, who said that Peter is the rock, he says that he does not accept him because he says contradictory things. Against him I say how he can presume to believe that such a holy, such a learned father taught contradictory things in the same book, in the same chapter, in the comparison of both opinions, in the first book retract. cap. 21 But how modestly and humbly the venerable father, an Augustinian! answered, others may judge, since he promised that he alone would oppose so many holy fathers. This is bohemian poison, wanting to understand the Holy Scriptures better than the popes, the conciliar, the doctors and the universities, which are in great bloom, while the Holy Spirit has not left His Church, and it would be surprising if God had hidden this truth from so many saints and martyrs until the venerable father came. The passage quoted from St. Paul does not prove anything either, since his sayings are not at all contrary to the holy fathers and teachers. It is Christ the rock, he
1) In passing: If not on Carlstadt's wagons. Compare the documents No. 355-358.
is the foundation, he is the cornerstone, he is the undoubted head of the church. Furthermore, that this should not be attached to his governor, which goes against the testimony of the holy fathers and martyrs, is not to be assumed.
He has also recently added a bad reason which he has spread in a German sermon 2)): If on a rock, how then could the Church be built on Peter, who at the voice of a lowly maid denied Christ and the Christian faith? The venerable father forgives me, since he despises the Aristotelian philosophy and holds grammar so high: Why did he not see here with his lynx eyes that the verb "I will build" is in the tense of the future? because at the time when the bridegroom was present, when the children were happy, there was no need for a governor. Christ did not give him the power of the keys at that time, but rather he promised it to him. Therefore, before the keys and the power were given to him, St. Peter was addressed by the doorkeeper, which is also testified by Ambrose and then Gregory.
To Chrysostom he answered that Peter was higher in honor, because Paul also shepherded several churches. As if the venerable father had not preached more than now the pope, and for that reason should be called a greater shepherd than the pope! Thus, he plagues himself all too pointedly with the expression "summit", as if Chrysostom had not wanted to understand the supremacy. But who will tolerate this, since it is a figurative expression, and "summit" is used in such figurative speech for the highest place? Thus he is also called the mouth of the apostles, because he often spoke for all the apostles, which St. Chrysostom also considers.
He says of the decrees that they are quite cold decrees, about which I am very surprised, since he stated in his disputation: "That the Roman church is higher than all others is proved from the quite cold decrees of the Roman popes,-which have arisen in the last four hundred years," and I have cited to him many older ones, before the love of many began to grow cold. I do not accept his evasion, in which he denies that those ver-
2) This is the sermon on the day of Petri and Pauli (June 29, 1519) in the disputation hall at Leipzig, Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 2306. It was not printed until after the disputation had ended, and Luther made several changes in the publication, so that the sentence quoted here by Eck does not occur in the present text.
order belongs to Anacletus. For in such a way the decrees of all conciliarities and popes would be destroyed piece by piece, and thus the whole faculty of law would be accused of forgery, as if it were based on false foundations in its lectures, decisions, judgments, and the like, and thus its papal rights would be of no value if they had not been approved by the consensus of all Christendom. Therefore, the opinion of the venerable father is not to be accepted under any condition, since the decrees of all popes and conciliarities are found in very many places, and, as the human race is bold, people would have long since been found who would have torn apart that monkey walking in the lion's skin of Anacletus. Therefore, if he does not prove that those things are not contained in the original writings, I do not believe him.
Finally, he said about the Bohemians, certainly not without maligning Christian teachers, that there were many accusers of the Bohemians: where were those who, out of love and pious zeal, wrote against them and admonished them, proving their good head and memory. Why should I tell a story to a deaf person? But a Christian must not deny that very many, moved by the best zeal, wrote against the Bohemians. Such people were the fathers who were appointed to do so at the Costnitz Concilium: as the doctor who answered the Bohemians at the Würzburg Concilium; so Ragusius; so the man of excellent rectitude and learning, John Capistranus, priest of St. Francis, well known to all the faithful; Nicolaus of Cusa, the most learned of the Germans, with several other, as the venerable father reproaches me, heretical judges, whom I pass over. Therefore, the Bohemians did not lack those who wrote good things, but they lacked them because, obstinate in their heresy, they did not follow the good 1).
We have often spoken of the holy Greeks; but I believe that it is frightening to all Christ's faithful that the venerable Father does not hesitate to say, against the so holy and praiseworthy Costnitz Concilium, which was assembled with such great unanimity of all Christendom, that some of the Hussite and Vicleite articles were eminently Christian and evangelical (Martin protests: "It is not a Christian article, it is an evangelical article").
1) In the Weimar version, non is missing here (intentionally). Our reading is noted in the margin.
It is not true that I have spoken against the Costnitz Concilium. Eck, on the other hand, asks to prove it with words and writings that the general church cannot condemn, just as it is said very badly that the Hussite article was condemned unreasonably with regard to the necessity for blessedness, that the Roman church is higher than the others. Of course, the Bohemians are not unjustly jubilant about this statement, and they have sought it with their prayers to God, 2) but to the great detriment of the Church. Now, if (as St. Augustine elsewhere concludes) any lie has been admitted in the Holy Scriptures, it will be wholly suspect as to the truth, so no doubt the damned Hussites, relying on the protection of the venerable Father (Martin Luther protests: This is a very impudent lie!), will say: If the Concilium has erred in these two articles, which are eminently Christian, its reputation among us will waver in other articles also. Therefore, in a matter that has been condemned before, I will not waste more words on what a Christian must be forced or allowed to do. I say this, that it is brought about by the prestige of a Concilii or the Roman Pontiff that an opinion cannot be defended without the suspicion of heresy, which otherwise could be defended with impunity without violation of the faith. I have an example at hand: whether the being in the Godhead testifies? Richardus has accepted this opinion in the book of the Trinity and thereby does not burden himself with any guilt. But after a decision has been made by a concilium, no one could now say without suspicion of heresy that the being witnesses; I believe in the chapter damnamus of the highest Trinity.
I am not moved by what is introduced from Augustine about the reading of the canonical writings, because he does not exclude the decrees of the conciliar and popes. What my lords jurists put forward in the Canon Significasti, de electione, I do not remember now. But, mindful of their profession as guardians of justice, they will not allow, as I believe, the destruction of the papal laws.
But that he cites Platina, as if he were more than Pabst or Augustine or Cyprian, who, in the biography of Benedict the
2) Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 39.
If the second is said to have told that Constantinus IV decreed that the Roman Church was entitled to supremacy in the Church, read, I beg to ask, the venerable father, what the gentlemen jurists note in the chapter ecclesiae S. Mariae, de constitutionibus, what, how much, and in what way the decrees of secular people apply in ecclesiastical matters, and he will see in what sense the words of Platina (not to say the Roman Emperor, with respect to churches and heretics) must be taken.
In the last place he asserts: I urge on the Bohemians, the Greeks (I admit it of the Rotterian, because the holy Greek fathers who are canonized, I do not condemn) [I want to push out of heaven], 1) like the giants in the fable wanted to drive Jupiter out of heaven. But then the venerable Father rightly opposes us, if he can procure a Greek disobedient and rebellious against the Roman Church, who would have been canonized. And who is this, and we should not praise him? In vain, therefore, does he suppose that he tolerates a sole suzerainty, as if it were not by divine right, but by a kind of toleration of the people and instituted by the consent of the faithful. This is most evident from what has been quoted from Gregory, who rejected the suzerainty among the faithful that had been offered to him. But the venerable father follows the sense, not the outer shell of the words, and he will find in the letters the highest humility of the very pious father, that he tried more by kindness and humility to break the court of the patriarch at Constantinople, than that one could have the suspicion about him of arrogance or court. That is why he first wrote himself "servant of servants". And that this was true, if the venerable father was such a diligent reader of Gregory, he could read in his letters (as he is cited in the decrees in the second Canon, hu. 6. decreto), where the exceedingly humble father, mindful of his authority, although he despised wealth and honor, writes that other bishops, besides the Roman, were called to share in the care, but not to the fullness of authority. There is no one who could doubt here that in the proper sense he wants to give the other bishops a part, but the Roman Pontiff, according to the grammatical sense, the fullness. Therefore, I ask the venerable father to accept what has been said either by others or by me.
1) Added by us.
I don't always throw it away, as if it were said out of an effort to flatter, because I haven't learned to flatter, nor do I know how to flatter.
On the sixth day of July, early at seven o'clock, Martin started.
Since yesterday the excellent doctor did not prove himself to be a party, but presumed the office of a judge, against the contract of the agreement made and against the will of the most illustrious Prince George, our patron, has so often declared and proclaimed me to be a heretic, while it would have been his office to act solely on the grounds and testimonies given, and to leave it to the judges to decide whether I am a heretic or not, let those to whom it is incumbent see whether safe conduct is not violated in this.
First of all, he has objected to the matter that I have called the most harmful errors of Hus exceedingly Christian; with regard to this I testify to my innocence. He will never be able to prove this, and I challenge him to denounce these very articles, which I am supposed to have called exceedingly Christian, although they are exceedingly harmful, or he recants his word.
Secondly, he accuses me of mixing the holy Greeks with the Rottians. What else could he do, since he had nothing to say, since it is quite certain that at the time of the last destruction of Constanünopel the most righteous Christians were in Greece, who were afterwards received in Italy. And even if this should not be an urgent proof, it is still certain that until the Nicene Council there were at least righteous Christians in the whole Orient who were not subject to the Roman Pontiff, as the decree of this very Council at Nicaea clearly testifies, which states in the tenth chapter of the history of the Church: "And that at Alexandria or in the city of Rome the old custom be preserved, that the former should take care of Egypt, the latter of the churches situated around Rome. The same Concilium gave the first place (primatum) of honor not to that of Rome, but to that of Jerusalem, in that it says there: "And that to the bishop of Jerusalem the pre-eminence conferred from time immemorial is given.
right of honor be preserved. Even if this is not enough, it is still a conclusive proof (which the excellent doctor has cleverly concealed) that the Church of Christ existed for at least twenty years before the Roman Church came into being; therefore his refutation is ridiculous that he claims that I mix the saints with the Rottians, while he cannot denounce his Rottians.
Third, refuting my reason that the bishops of Greece were not confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, he said that this was nothing, since the village priests everywhere were also not confirmed by the Roman Pontiff. Who does not see that this is said to spoil the time, since the village priests are ordained by the bishops? At the same time I refer all this to what was said before by Jerome to Evagrius. For the same reason he also repeated that of Numidia so often, since it is written of those that they came to Rome without being appointed, and are accused because they came, - and yet from this history the Lord Doctor ascribes a divine right to the Roman Pontiff. But also that Epiphanius of Cyprus deposed John Chrysostom, he did not take as a right, but as a fact, and thus wants to have refuted, although the latter acted according to the decision of the Council of Nicaea and the testimony of Cyprian "by the decree of the bishops", without the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
It still stands unconquered that the Roman supremacy either did not arise from divine right. It is still unconquered that the Roman supremacy either did not arise from divine right or that the saints of the whole Oriental Church are damned for eternity.
I pass over the fact that he explains the overcoming of hell by the prevalence of heresies, which I do not care about. Nevertheless, he has not shown that the Greeks were heretics, since it is generally known, even by the right, that the Greeks are not considered heretics. I also pass over that of Leo and Armacanus, where he says that he follows the mind of the ancients in taking One Number for a Number, namely that of One Leo, in the singular. Likewise
I say nothing of the strength of the brethren commanded to Peter [Luc. 22, 32.]; enough has been said, since he proves nothing and it has not yet been refuted.
In the main, he says that he held the divine right, because he followed the opinion of the fathers, especially of Ambrose and Augustine, who said that Peter was the rock, with the words Matth. 16, 18: "You are Peter", and he also had the audacity to add that Augustine had not recanted this. Later, when I consult the book retractationum, I find the opposite: for in fact he recants it and says that Peter is not the rock, but that what he confessed is the rock. He says the same thing in the homily which all priests pray on St. Peter's and St. Paul's Day, where he says: "on the rock (not: on you, but on the rock) which you have confessed". I find the same in Ambrose, although he also sometimes speaks differently. Here is at the same time that golden gloss, as they boast, on the chapter ita dominus, which says: "And on this rock" etc. I do not believe that the Lord indicated anything else by this saying than these words which Peter answered the Lord when he said: "You are Christ, the Son of the living God", because on this article of faith the Church is founded. So Christ founded the Church on Himself. It is therefore nothing that the excellent Doctor boasts that the sayings of the Fathers are on his side, since it turns out that they are much more on my side. He could therefore have spared his tongue and our ears, since he exclaimed with an oratorical roar: I alone want to be more learned than all, I want to understand the Scriptures better than the doctors, the universities, the Concilia and the Roman pope, and it would be strange if the truth, which had been hidden for so long, had been revealed to me alone. For that would not mean disputing, but arousing hatred.
But that he ridiculed my bad reason, since I said that the church fell, when Peter denied if it was built on him, putting on grammatically the verbum in the future time: "I will build", as if after the death of Christ the church was built on Peter,
I will pass over this, because everyone can easily see what it is worth. Nevertheless, after the Holy Spirit had been sent, Peter also fell with great distress of faith, Gal. 2,11. ff., since he was punished by Paul, in whom faith and confession remained unharmed; in Peter, faith remained, but he pretended against the truth of the gospel. But I allow that the excellent doctor, who mainly relied on this saying [Matth. 16, 18.], now excludes himself from the same, so that nothing of divine right is left for him in such a way. For if only a promise has been made, one must go to the place where the promise is fulfilled, and one will find this John 20:22 f. 1) where he does not say, Peter, receive the Holy Ghost, but says to all alike, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whom ye remit sins. "etc.
I also pass over that of Chrysostom, where I said that Peter was higher for the sake of honor. Since the doctor wanted to refute this, he replied: Since Paul preached more than Peter, he will also have more honor, as if I had spoken of the amount of work and not rather of the highest position. I also pass over that of the "summit" and its figurative head, for they are empty words.
With regard to the decrees, he is surprised that I say that they are quite cold decrees and have arisen in the time of four hundred years. I will pass over the four hundred years now, but I will talk about them later. For it was not necessary to instruct me that twelve hundred years ago, rather four hundred years ago, there were decrees; yes, that there were also disputes about the supreme authority. In the meantime, the doctor is surprised that he understands the saying of Matthew [Cap. 16, 18.] to be a word of promise, not of fulfillment, while the decrees themselves are based on the same word as a word of fulfillment. Therefore, it follows with necessity either that the decrees act inauthentically, as the doctor himself assumes, or that he himself is mistaken.
I) In the text: Johannis Ultimo.
But that he does not admit that I deny that it is a decree of Anacletus, and what he jokes there about the artificially prepared 2) decrees, I pass over. For he has not yet refuted that the same decree interprets "Cephas" as head. Such ignorance should not be imposed on such a great pope, especially at the time when the languages were flourishing and there was a large number of Jews. But it is known that the Book of Decrees has not yet been approved.
He also persecutes that I said that there are more people who accuse the Bohemians than those who instruct them. Would God that I had spoken a lie! I see that many things are said and written against them, but in an unfortunate way, because they are not called by the name of brothers, which Paul does not deny to the Galatians who fell into Jewish faithlessness. I believe that the Bohemians are human beings and can be won over with friendly speeches and concessions, while they are hardened even more by accusations and vituperations with the heretic name. Therefore, it is nothing that we excuse ourselves with: it is not necessary to tell a story to a deaf person, since according to Paul's commandment [2 Tim. 4, 2.] we are to stop, whether in season or out of season.
We have often spoken of the holy Greeks. But it must be said that, in order to arouse hatred, he shouted a lot: it is frightening to all the faithful of Christ that he [Luther] is not afraid to say against the so holy and praiseworthy Costnitz Concilium that some articles of Hus were exceedingly Christian and evangelical, which the general church could not condemn. I answer: Among the articles of Hus is this one: There is one holy general church, which is the entirety of the elect. Likewise another: The universal holy church is only One, just as there is only One number of all the elect. These two are not of Hus, but of Augustine "on John" almost from word to word.
2) Instead of siAÜIatim (piece by piece), which Eck had used, Luther mockingly puts: siFiUatis, that is, provided with small images.
and they are repeated by the Magister Sententiarum [Peter Lombard] in the fourth book of the Sentences, of the Sacrament of Holy Communion. The third is: Two natures, the Godhead and the humanity, are One Christ. These articles, I believe, Doctor Johann Eck confesses with me. The fourth: An obvious distinction of human works is this, that they are either virtuous or vicious; for if a man is vicious and does something, he does it in a vicious way, and if he is virtuous and does something, he acts virtuously etc. This article, as we heard in the previous week, has triumphed through the excellent Doctor Carlstadt, so that the excellent Doctor Johann Eck has been forced to reject Scotus and the Scotists, Capreolus and the Thomists with all the more famous doctors of his party, and to agree with him.
Therefore, what he spat out against me yesterday, that I was a patron of Bohemia, an exceedingly harmful heretic, and the like, I attribute to himself. Here he keeps it with Johann Hus. Everything he said for himself is for me, against his accusations. I add that I have rightly said: exceedingly Christian and evangelical, especially from the: "Two natures" etc. Therefore, the excellent Doctor should have admitted to me that I believed out of deference to the Costnitz Concilium that these and similar articles were not condemned there, but inserted by some impostor. But since against this the Concilium itself says: some are heretical, some erroneous, some blasphemous, some presumptuous, some seditious, some offensive to godly ears: so the excellent Doctor, according to his prudence, should have put each article in its proper place, and not, against the decision of the Concilium, condemn all of them altogether as heretical, which the Concilium has hardly wanted to declare presumptuous. For even the truest truth may be accused of being presumptuous, vexatious, inflammatory, offensive to the ears, as happened to Christ. But for this reason an article is not false, much less heretical, because it is presumptuous or offensive, and so it is in the day,
that I have been accused of being a heretic all too hastily and far without the modesty of a corner, since he could perhaps hardly prove that I have given offense; rather, since it is not at all incumbent on him to judge about these articles which are erroneous, which are heretical, which are presumptuous, it is clear how unreasonably and boldly he accuses me of being a heretic and with the worst name. Therefore, it has not yet been shown that the article: it is not necessary for salvation that the Roman church be higher than the others, is heretical, even if it is counted among the heretical ones.
But that he concludes according to the example of Augustine: If any lie is admitted in a concilium, the whole reputation of the concilium will be shaken, so it is an unfortunate equation. Augustine makes a conclusion in relation to the Holy Scripture, which is the infallible Word of God, but a concilium is a creature of that Word. Therefore, by this comparison, the word of God is brought into disrepute, since it is admitted that a concilium can err, as Panormitanus notes in the chapter significasti.
I pass over that of the begetting of the divine being, because it does not belong to the matter.
To Augustine, who commands to read all writings with good judgment, with the exception of the Scriptures, the excellent Doctor says that from him the decrees of the Roman pope and the Conciliar are not excluded. This is said, but not proved. Yea, I confirm my answer by the saying of Paul to the Thessalonians [1 Ep. 5:21.], "Examine all things, and keep that which is good." The Roman pope and the concilia are men, so they must be tested, and so kept, and they must not be exempted from this apostolic rule.
When he says that he does not remember the chapter significasti that I mentioned, and exhorts the jurists not to let the papal laws be destroyed, which also serves to arouse spite against me, I reply: "This does not destroy the papal laws if the divine laws are preferred to them. Since the lords
If lawyers do this, the theologians do it very badly, who even resist the best lawyers in this matter.
Of Platina, whom I have attracted, he says that he is no more than a Roman pope, Augustine, Cyprian, as if he had already proved supremacy through Augustine and Cyprian or the pope, since he has so often promised us that he would prove it by divine right, and has brought forward nothing but quite cold decrees and some misunderstood testimonies of the Fathers. I do not attach anything to Platina, but to the history, which is the mother of truth, which Platina writes.
What he says of the regulations I pass over.
Finally, he admits that the holy Greeks are not condemned, but only the Rotterian ones. This is none of our business; for I have never spoken of the Red-Irish Greeks, but of the holy ones, especially of the Nicene Council, just as I do not believe that he means the Latin Red-Irish when he speaks of the Roman Church.
Of Gregorius, whom I have quoted, he says that one must follow him according to the sense, not according to the outer shell of the words, and thus my answer is sufficiently refuted, for the Eckian words alone suffice!
But since he cited 2 qu 6. ca: decreto
When the same Gregory writes that other bishops, besides the Roman one, are called to participate in the care, not in the fullness of power, the Doctor should have shown that he understood all the bishops in the whole world, and not only the bishops of the occidental church. Even if he did this as much as he could, it would not be proven for that reason to be of divine right. Gregorius is a man, and it is proved the less, the more he expresses different opinions in many places, so that I have more of a right to tell the Doctor that he himself should follow the sense and not the outer shell of the words in his citations, or first make him agree with himself.
Finally, since I have quoted Paul 1 Cor. 3:11 against the excellent Doctor, "that no one can lay any other foundation except the one that has been laid, which is Jesus Christ," he has said that this is also true of the place of
The foundation has to be laid by Christ's holder. Therefore he must say thus: No one can lay a foundation outside of yours, except the one that has been laid, which is the Roman pope. And in this way, the very clear testimony of Paul will have to be resisted, or it will have to be revoked and it will have to be said that this is not to be attached to the governor of Christ. In the same way the word of Paul Gal. 2,6. where Paul said: "But of those who had the reputation (he speaks of Peter, James and John), of which they were then, I care nothing, for God does not respect the reputation of men." There Paul says in the clearest possible way that nothing was important about Peter's greatness and reputation, and that God did not pay attention to it either. But if this is out of divine right, then it is quite certain that Paul is lying here. For what is divine right is considered badly by God, and much is attached to it. And therefore this saying of Paul's forces that the supremacy of a man, of a bishop, is not of divine right, and therefore what the doctor has said about divine right must be revoked, since he obviously contradicts the apostle here. Since the matter now stands like this, I say that if the excellent Doctor does not change his opinion, since it is clearly contrary to Paul, I will not consider him a Catholic Christian.
This may be enough with my answer to the objections of Doctor Johann Eck about the thirteenth thesis of the power and the primate of the pope. I leave this to the judgment of the judges and all readers.
Corner.
Since the venerable father accuses me of having taken the office of a judge, this is not the case. I am a disputator, nor did I call him a heretic, but I said that his statements are favorable to the heretics and especially to the Bohemians, and that I protect them, mainly because he took the liberty of making that atrocious statement that some of the articles of John Hus, which were rejected by the holy Costnitz Concilium, are exceedingly Christian and evangelical. Let us rather go to the point. Yesterday he brought forward two such articles, today he has added some more; but of that later.
But as far as the Greeks are concerned, it is astonishing with what zeal the venerable father defends those of whom he claims that they were good even at the destruction of Constantinople, who came to Italy afterwards; I must indicate and name which ones were the red-blooded and heretical Greeks. I am surprised that the venerable father in his letter 1) accuses me of ignorance in the histories, and even on this occasion does not want to know what the whole church knows. Was not Nestorius a Rottirer, not Macedonius, Eutyches, Achacius, John of Constantinople, and after persisting in their Rottirerism for a long time, obeyed the Church under Eugenius IV at the Concilium of Florence, although after their obstinate disloyalty they immediately returned to their Gespeieten? Otherwise, if the Greeks had not been heretics, we would not have the decision about the supreme Catholic faith against the Greeks; or perhaps the venerable father does not know that Thomas published a book about the errors of the Greeks. I add that he has often said that the Oriental Church was not subject to the Roman Pontiff, and that Epiphanius of Cyprus expelled St. Chrysostom from the episcopate, of which the venerable father says that it was well done, according to the testimony of the Nicene Council and Cyprian. But he fell into the pit he made, since St. Chrysostom was cast out by the hatred of the empress and an Arian heretic was put in his place. To this the pope commanded Julius to depart, and reinstated John Chrysostom. Since this was not done, Pope Julius commanded that John Chrysostom be reinstated and put the emperor under ban. He proceeded in the same way against other heretical bishops, so that the histories report that the Greeks departed not once but ten times from obedience to the Roman Church. And now the venerable father may go and say that the Roman pope did not dispose of the Oriental churches, or justify the expulsion of such a holy father, Chrysostom.
Thirdly, of the Nicene Synod, which he cited from the tenth book of the History of the Church, if that is the ordinance he meant in his conclusion, it is good, I say, but it has no force (est frigicda) in relation to the matter at hand. Yes, no synod,
1) This is the 363rd document, Col. 821.
even at the time, was considered legitimate, which had not been assembled by order of the Roman Pontiff. So Leo, so Marcellus, so Julius, holy, not cold popes, have decreed, who lived around the same time. Their decrees one reads dist. 17. can. Synodum, and
in the following. Therefore, the Lord Father should have proved that they gave the patriarch of Jerusalem the privilege of honor, but not the supremacy over the whole church. But the sixth synod expressly gives the supreme see to the Roman church, which is cited in the 22nd dist. This was also obtained by Pope Leo against the Emperor Michael and St. Gregory against John of Constantinople and the Emperor Mauritius.
Therefore, I will also eliminate here that of St. Gregory, whom he cites as having rejected the supremacy, of which it is known that it is quite false, since he attributes so much to Platina, who writes thus of St. Gregory. Moreover, since the bishop John of Constantinople, when a synod of the Greeks was held, had made himself an ecumenical, that is, a general, patriarch, and Mauritius had admonished Gregory to obey John, the man of good character and faith replied that the power to bind and loose was given to Peter and his successors, not to the bishops of Constantinople, therefore let him desist from provoking God's wrath against himself. From this it is clear that Gregory, without doubt a holy and humble father, not only did not reject the supremacy, but even asserted it against the emperor and the bishop of Constantinople. Therefore, I do not want to impose on the holy father what the venerable father does, who by all means does not remain the same as himself, that Gregorius said repugnant and conflicting things, but denied that he was a general bishop, in the sense in which he was stated in an earlier disputation, and yet received the supremacy. That this custom always existed and was observed even at the time of the Nicene Council is evident from the 92nd letter of Augustine and his fellow bishops to Innocentius the First, where they say: "Since the Lord has placed you on the apostolic chair by a special grant of grace, and has given you to us in our time as such, we ask that you will deign to use your pastoral diligence in the great dangers of the weak members of Christ. The pope answers in the following letter: "Therefore, you draw carefully and in a measured way from the dangers of the
I say of the honor of him to whom, besides what are external things, there is also the care of all the churches in regard to difficult things, which opinion must be held, in that you have followed the way of the old rule. What can be said more explicitly than that in the time of Augustine the pope had the care for all churches, and that this did not begin then, but was the way of an ancient rule?
Then the venerable father comes with his Hercules, that is, with the reason of the twenty years when the church is said to have existed before the Roman one. I answer that it is true that in the Gospel Christ did not specifically mention the Roman Church, but Peter, who was appointed prince of the apostles. This is because Peter, who had the supremacy, moved the See from Antioch to Rome by command of the Lord. Therefore, it did not become first at that time by human right, but by God's command, since St. Peter had held the right before, as witnessed by St. Marcellus, martyr and pope, eun. Rogamus, 24. qu. 1: Although the first see was in Antioch, it was later transferred to Rome by the command of the Lord. For who is so foolish as to tie the supremacy to a place? but this is the opinion of the holy fathers: because Peter is appointed governor of Christ by divine right, so are all his successors, just as the Roman popes are, in whatever place they may be, governors of Christ. The Roman king or emperor is therefore not at Rome. Thus, we see, St. Augustine held it against the Manichaeans. He says: "It is evident that in doubtful matters the certainty of faith is served by the prestige of the Catholic Church, which is fortified by the firmly established sees of the apostles, who follow one another to this day, and by the uninterrupted succession of bishops and the consensus of the people. That is why St. Augustine, in his letters, lists the Roman popes.
So much of the foregoing.
Now to the main thing.
Since the venerable father wants to reply to what I have said (for I have said that Peter was set before the other apostles by divine right, Matth. 16. I have referred to Jerome, Bernard, Leo and Cyprian, to which he has answered nothing, although he confesses with his hand in his book that St. Cyprian had the opinion
He said that the Church was founded on the rock, but he took the trouble to add that St. Cyprian was mistaken), he took the trouble to answer Augustine. For it is undoubtedly Cyprian who, in another letter, the eighth to Cornelius, calls the Roman Church the mother and root of the others. He accuses me of quoting a saying that Augustine recanted. The venerable father cannot cloud the reader's judgment; for he is not at all pleased with his former opinion that he also cites St. Ambrose to support it. But what I mentioned at the beginning, Augustine testifies; he also interpreted the rock as Christ. Neither of the two opinions he refutes, neither of them he gives preference, but adds: Which of these opinions is the more probable, let the reader decide. Augustine does not dare to give a decision, and the venerable father wants to reject the one opinion that has been accepted by so many holy fathers, and accept the one that is according to his will. Therefore, I do not allow that Augustine in the same 1) chapter said something contrary or repugnant, but different, because he accepts both opinions: because the rock is Christ, and Peter was the rock. Therefore, I remain with Ambrose, Jerome, Cyprian, Bernard and others, the holy concilia and decrees.
Secondly. Since the venerable father had taken a reason of proof from the doorkeeper to dispute my opinion, I told him that he would better consider the words of Christ in a grammatical way. For according to the unanimous opinion of all, Christ Matth. 16, 18. f.: "On this rock I will build" and: "I will give you" etc., made the promise to Peter, and did not give it to him at that time; but leaving aside his grammar, of which he nevertheless said that it serves theology more than the other parts of philosophy, he replies: Why then do the decrees base themselves on that passage Matth. 16, and I would have based myself on it, from which I now depart? I answer: Because Christ is the way and the truth and the life, therefore it must be believed without doubt that he kept to Peter what he had promised him. Therefore, the decrees conclude quite rightly from that passage where Christ promised, but only after the resurrection he fulfilled it.
1) Here we have adopted the conjecture of the Weimar edition: in eodem capite instead of: in 9. eaxits.
But he implicitly interjects that Christ did not fulfill this to Peter alone, but to all apostles, saying [Joh. 20, 22. f.]: "Receive the Holy Spirit, by whom ye remit sins" etc. The venerable Father did not mean to express where he had given Peter the promised supremacy. For all teachers agree that Christ made the disciples priests at the Lord's Supper, giving them power over the true body of Christ, saying, "This do in remembrance of me" [Luc. 22:19], and that afterwards, on the day of the resurrection, he gave them power over his spiritual (mysticum) body [John 20:22]: "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." But the supremacy and preeminence over the whole church he promised to Peter John at the last [Cap. 21, 17.]: "Feed my sheep." This is attested by Gregory, Chrysostom, and other holy fathers. For Chrysostom says, The noblest of the apostles was Peter, and the mouth of the disciples, the summit of the collegium; hence also, after the denial was blotted out, he promises him supremacy over his brethren; and in the eighth homily on repentance, But the same night Peter fell, and rose again. After this so grievous fall, repentance brought him back to the former level, and gave him the chief place in the church out of all the earth. Thus the gloss to 1 Peter 5, 2. says: "Feed the flock that is under your care": Just as the Lord entrusted to Peter alone to take care of the whole flock etc. Therefore, Christ fulfilled what was promised earlier at that time. St. Gregory also agrees with this: The care of the whole Church and the supremacy is commanded to Peter, namely, "Feed my sheep." Even if I had not shown it before my eyes, where Christ had given it, the truth could not have lied, and many things have happened that are not written, as even his Alexander III 1) teaches in chapter 6um Nurtlms 6te.
But again the venerable father objects, because Peter still sinned after the sending of the Holy Spirit (and he made Peter's sin even great), as is written in the Epistle to the Galatians Cap. 2, 11. ff. is written. Although there was a disagreement, first between the apostles Peter and Paul, then between the church scholars Jerome and Augustine, I cannot be brought to the opinion that any of the apostles sinned after the sending of the Holy Spirit.
1) Rather Innocentius III. (Weim. ed.)
The Holy Spirit's fertilizer has not fallen into any mortal sin, just as those who are sanctified in the womb are not allowed to do so. But this does not belong to our matter. However, assuming, but by no means admitting, that St. Peter had sinned to death in his hypocrisy, he would still have remained the rock and head of the church, unless the venerable father also wants to defend this Hussite article, which I do not believe: there is no one a civil lord, no one a prelate, no one a bishop who is in a mortal sin; which would cause the highest uncertainty in the Christian religion.
Fourth. 2) Of the decrees that are quite cold with him, I say this, that so often in the Church the decrees of the popes have been accepted in matters of faith, and, what is more, the Roman Pontiff formerly did not confirm a bishop if he did not send a note of assurance of faith, in which he publicly affirmed that he believed the Evangelia, the four Concilia, the legitimate synods and the decrees of the popes. Therefore, the pope did not want to confirm John Gilibrecht, bishop of Cologne, because he had not delivered this note of faith completely, as we read in the Canon optatum, 100. dist.
But since he rejects the decree of Anacletus, we said yesterday by what power or with what proof he does this. For since the original writings are at hand, no one has ever said that this decree is not from the holy martyr Anacletus. But Nicolaus of Cusa, the most learned of the Germans, who testifies that he wrote his "Unity of Faith" from the original writings, refers to this decree of Anacletus. The venerable father has given a color to his cause: that in so holy a martyr there should not be so great an ignorance that he should interpret Cephas in this way: that is, chiefly, as if so great a science were necessary to holiness of life. But we want to say one thing, that Kephe or Cephas should be Syrian and well known to the Hebrews, and should mean as much as Peter or firmness, as Erasmus states after Jerome. We also want to add this peculiar circumstance that Cusa, who is learned in Chaldean and Hebrew, testifies in the books Excitationum that "Peter" also means as much as "head of the house". Therefore, Anacletus did not suffer from such great ignorance when he interprets Cephas as head. But as this also
2) No formal third party precedes it.
I do not see with what appearance he can deny other decrees of the holy martyrs and confessors than that of Clement 20 dist., 1) Marcellus, Julius, Pelagius, Nicolaus, Agatho, Simon, Vigilius, Benedictus etc. Therefore, I prefer to join such great fathers and the holy Concilium.
To the offensive things (Ad Scrupos).
Most seriously, I have heard that the venerable father, against the order of the most noble prince, according to which the most noble prince wanted that what was decided by the holy concilium should remain untouched, the venerable father 2) nevertheless hardened himself in yesterday's opinion, and established four articles which have been condemned among the Hussites, which he himself considers to be Catholic and Protestant: he certainly takes the Bohemians quite nicely in defense. But out of deference to the Concilium he wanted them to be added by an impostor. First of all, the excellent doctor and nobleman Jerome of Croaria, 3) who had the Acts of the Concilium printed, had a copy made in a certified form, and since the matter at Constance was obviously handled in this way, the Hussites would not have concealed for so long that some articles had been suppressed. Nor can the venerable father suspect what he assumed yesterday, that this was done by the pernicious action of a flatterer against the Roman pope, since John Hus was burned in 15 [in July], his comrade Jerome in 16 [in May], 4) while Martin V was not elected until 17 on Martinmas. Therefore, holy fathers and men who did not give themselves to flattery, from all the noblest nations, have been ordained to do so, have examined these articles, and the holy church assembly (Synodus) has condemned them, rejected them, and burned the author, and therefore they must be considered condemned and rejected by every good Christian, and let not the venerable Father impose upon me to judge these articles, because they are already judged. There is nothing wrong in the Synod's thinking of them, saying that 5) some are heretical, others are presumptuous, seditious, and offensive to godly ears; for in what order are they to be condemned?
1) "In any case, not properly cited, perhaps 80. ckist. van. In illi8 meant." (If. ed.)
2) Eck has lost the "Constructiv".
3) Thus the Weimar one; in the other editions: Oroutia.
4) The indication of the months is found in the margin.
5) Added by us to make the interrupted Constructiv".
Although he may bring these articles, they cannot be called exceedingly Christian and evangelical, and although I do not want to take upon myself the work of defending the whole church assembly in condemnation of the articles, let us teach something, and that in brief words.
The first article he declares to be Catholic, and it is that of Augustine Cap. 6 on John. I say: Perhaps the venerable father interprets the article in a kindly way; but because the matter is not subject to the speech, but the speech to the matter, the deciders of the Concilium were not obtuse. It is true that there is one holy and universal church; but that it is only one, just as there is only one number of elect in the Hussite sense, is arch-heretical. By this he [Hus] meant that those who are in mortal sin, since faith is lost, are not in the church, while the kingdom of heaven of Christ [Matth. 25, 1. ff.] is compared to ten virgins, of whom five were wise, but five were foolish, along with other similitudes that serve the same purpose. And also Augustine in the 26th Tractate on John does not serve a shake to the Hussite sentence, since he praises the communion of the Lord's Supper, about which, as I wish, the reader may judge for himself. Thus he says of the other article: - "Two natures, the divine and the human, is One Christ." For this, he has not taught anything, except that it is according to faith. In the Athanasian Creed we read differently: God and man is One Christ, not: the Godhead and mankind. In another article, "An obvious distinction of human works," etc., which he quaintly attributes to me, and as if he had been challenged by me to judge, he exclaimed that his college had triumphed. All of you who were present can bear witness to how extremely true the venerable father spoke. And before the victory he sang a victory song at Wittenberg, now he sings another one after the victory is lost, as it were.
To the point.
That article I will never consider Christian, and for that reason I rejected Gregorius of Arimini 28. dist. 2. 6). Nor has it been discussed between us whether there can be a work that is neither good nor evil (indifferens), or whether the whole life of unbelievers is sin, or the like, as far as this article is concerned. Therefore, in order to avoid the Hussite
6) According to Luther it is "in the 2nd book, question 28". Compare St. Louis edition, Vol. XVIII, 829.
In this way he compares John Hus with Christ, but has not suffered me to compare the holy Concilia with the holy Scriptures in regard to a mockery of truth committed in a play. In this he compares John Hus with Christ, but has not suffered me to compare the sacred Concilia with the sacred Scriptures, in both of which is the undoubted and infallible truth, in regard to the mockery of truth committed in one piece. For no Christian need be moved, both by the fact that he says the Conciliar are men, and so creatures, and also that they can consequently err. For if they err, as the Concilium of Ephesus was condemned by Pope Leo, I believe, as that of Arimini, of Aachen, then they are not concilia, but wretched so-called conciliabula. Therefore, we should rather hold on to this with quite constant faith: everything that the lawfully assembled Concilia have established and decided in regard to faith, be quite certain. For thus "Christ abideth with us unto the end of the world," and, "If two be gathered together in my name" [Matt. 28:20, 18, 20]. It is very repugnant to say that because men are in a concilium, they can err. For though they are frail as men, yet it must be believed that a true concilium, lawfully assembled, is not governed by human sense, but by the Spirit of God, so that what a concilium has approved is sufficiently proved, and need not be further discussed according to any particularity or obstinacy, but we must take our minds captive under the obedience of faith. Therefore I am surprised that, since he wants to deny the text, he admits the Sicilian interpreter, the Panormitanus.
Thus, it is evident what he last quoted from the words of the apostle. Of the "reason" I have always said that this is according to the opinion of all Catholics, that Christ is the head of the Church. For he is the principal Lord. But because he has appointed Peter governor, he has also given him authority over the whole Church, as St. Leo testifies in the Canon ita dominus, 19. dist. (and I am very surprised that the venerable father has abandoned the text of St. Leo, and there seizes a gloss that is contrary to the text); indeed, so much does the heaven-bound Christ bestow, that he has appointed in his stead here a governor head, to whom one could have recourse in doubtful matters and other urgent cases, so that the whole Church of Christ should not be a "church of the Lord".
confused Anaxagorean 1) chaos. This opinion is held by the whole Church, as it is said in the responsory which the Church uses of St. Peter: You are the shepherd of the sheep, prince of the apostles. To you God has given all the kingdoms of the world. This is how we pray in the Church. Yes, St. Franciscus, who was confirmed [as a man of God] by the marks of the wounds, taught his brothers and the whole world to obey the pope, and commanded this in his Rule. Therefore, the Church sings of him: Franciscus, the Catholic and wholly apostolic man, taught to hold fast fidelity against the Roman Church. So very many popes, so the holy Concilia have decided, which I do not mention for the sake of brevity. Also many sayings of the holy fathers say the same and approve of it. I will not refrain from mentioning all this in its time, when I have seen the treatise of the venerable father on this trade 2). If, nevertheless, the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff is based only on human right, and he is exalted by the consent of the people, whence comes the privilege of the venerable father that he may beg (mendicitatis), whence this monastic habit (religionis habitus), whence the power to hear confessions, to preach, with other innumerable privileges with which they are showered by the apostolic see, although bishops, archbishops and parish priests often speak against it? Who nevertheless, as obedient children, hear the Roman Pontiff and in him Christ, so that through the good of patience they may attain eternal life.
I wanted to add this little in the present matter of the disputation, as much as time has allowed, otherwise I would add even more, if I were not prevented by weariness and the order of the most noble prince.
Martin Luther.
Two things are incumbent upon me: First, to answer the refutations of the excellent doctor; second, to oppose him according to the contract of the agreement. And since I have now already answered for three days, and the time has been spent that I have not been able to accomplish one thing either, I will briefly say that everything that has been stated by the excellent doctor, although with very many arguments, is not true.
1) Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1823.
2) Luther's "Explanation of his Thirteenth Thesis". Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 720 ff.
970 L.v.in,8s-9i. Cap. 5. of the Leipzig Disputation. W. xv, u48-nsi. 971
He has now promised for three days that he will act against me with divine right, and one has not yet heard a testimony of divine right, except Matth. 16,18. f., of which we have all heard in how many different ways it has been treated by the holy fathers, and that the greater part and their more correct opinion is on my side. He himself has attracted One passage of Augustine for himself, and another of Ambrose; all the rest were words of Pelagius, of Anacletus, of those who have compiled human opinions. Cyprian, however, keeps it almost entirely with me, which I leave to the judgment of an understanding reader. Similarly, the extremely clear text of Jerome to Evagrius and about Titus; then Gregory in the register through almost six letters; then the Histories and the use of the Oriental Church; for it serves no purpose that the Doctor has cited the Rottian Greeks, Nestorius and others; those did not belong to the Oriental Church. I, too, can describe the Latin church by people like Pelagius, Manichaeus, Jovinianus, Vigilantius, Helvidius, and similar monsters; but far be it from me that I should call any whole church a Rottian one for the sake of a few wicked and Rottians. The other I will not be able to pursue, and reserve for myself especially the articles of John Hus, which have been reproached to me, and among these the last of the human actions to pen and paper, and everything else, which I would have wanted to object to, so that I may do in writing what I cannot do here, since I am not given room, and in this I will yield and obey the orders of the most noble prince, the most gracious patron of the university. About this I require you, gentlemen notaries, and call the audience as witnesses.
On the seventh day of July in the year 1519, early at seven o'clock.
Corner.
Because the venerable father would have had an hour yesterday to answer ours, so that we could thus fulfill the orders of the most noble prince.
he called to the pen, since a great deal passes through the word when answering; but after consultation he offered to answer even more completely. I did not refuse out of love for the truth and for its explanation. I wonder how the venerable father dares to roar before so many learned men that I would have said that I would prove the sole supremacy and the supreme authority in the church from divine right, while I would have brought forward only sayings of the holy fathers and decrees of the popes, although I have quoted to him the divine right Matth. 16, 18, about the promise of building on the rock, that Christ especially prayed for Peter's faith, that he especially promised him to strengthen the brethren [Luc. 22, 32], that he especially commanded him in the presence of John and Jacob to feed the sheep three times [Joh. 21,15-17], and that this divine right is to be understood in this way. Then I mentioned the holy fathers, the popes and the martyrs, the agreement of the conciliarities and all the universities. Therefore, it is proved by divine right that there is a supreme authority in the Church; only that the venerable father holds his opinion higher than that of so many holy fathers, popes and the holy Concilium, although the praiseworthy Costnitz Concilium condemned such an article among the pernicious ones of John Hus. The venerable father is silent on this. If he can bring something better to explain the truth, which he could have done yesterday according to the order of the most noble prince, then I am ready to listen, under the condition that he, while he has the office of a responder, does not cunningly put himself in the position of an opponent at the end of the action. But everything he will always object against this irrefutable truth, I am ready to answer with this, what I have mentioned, and to nullify it. This I testify herewith.
Martin.
Since it had been determined yesterday in the name of the most illustrious prince, our patron, that this matter should be concluded that day, and the excellent doctor had taken up the greater part of the time without need and in a more spiteful manner than befitted this brilliant audience, there remained for me a single little hour
left for a three-day answer, in which I should answer [respondiren] to his so great mixture and at the same time also make objections [opponiren]. It pleased our most noble prince of his own accord that I should be given the opportunity to respond as well as to oppose, for which I thank his most noble grace. And therefore, in order to get to the point, before I continue the response I began yesterday, I will first dispel this morning fog of Doctor Eck, since in his way he accuses me of Hussite heresies quite spitefully and again and again, despite the fact that I have purified myself so often, and for this reason I will make a short preface in German, because I hear that I have a very bad reputation among the common man.
He declared, however, that he did not dispute the supremacy and obedience to the Roman Church, and that this could not be disputed by anyone in a Christian way, but he was drawn to declare that this supremacy was not of divine right, just as the imperial power could not be rejected among the Germans, although it was not founded in the Holy Scriptures. Although Doctor Eck said that it was true that this was the point of controversy, whether the sovereignty of the Roman Church was from divine right [, he nevertheless stated], 1) that it is known that this disapproval is Hussite and an article that was rejected by the Costnitz Council, and it was to be deplored if the hearts of Christians were so cold that no one defended it. After that, Doctor Martinus began to continue in Latin.
That he now introduces this scriptural word Matth. 16,18. and claims that sovereignty was promised there, it has been sufficiently answered in the foregoing that the excellent Doctor has hardly two warrantors, and even these are ambiguous with regard to his opinion, while the greater part holds that Peter was the representative (personam) of all apostles and believers there.
1) inserted by us.
which even the text itself demands in its context, since Christ asks all, and not only Peter, since he says Matth. 16, 15. ff.]: "Who do you say that I am?" and Peter answers for all as the mouth of the apostles, as Chrysostom says, and the representative of the apostles, as Jerome and Origen say, and Beda and Augustine and Ambrose. That is why I have said that from this passage of Scripture nothing is proved for the supremacy. Likewise, that the text itself does not say: You are Peter and on you, but: "on this rock", obviously naming another rock (petram), of which Peter is named. Therefore, since there are common laws and the Roman popes themselves testify that the interpretation of Scripture is more valid with the teachers than with them, it should indeed be different in the decision 2) about things.
Yesterday I said enough about that article of Hus that it is not yet proven that it is heretical. This as an answer for this morning.
To return to yesterday's question, since the excellent Doctor objected in the second place that the deposition of Chrysostom was unlawful because it was done out of hatred of the Empress, I deny the implication. For the power to ordain and depose, which was decreed by the holy Concilium, was not unlawful because it might have been used badly by chance. For it is also written in the same history that the Roman pope Victor, a martyr, wanted to banish the bishops of Asia; but they, as superiors, imposed silence on him and ordered him not to disturb the church, in the fifth book of church history. But Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in France, also put the same Roman bishop in check, and in Greece at that time there were Epiphanius, who was most gloriously praised by Jerome, Gregory, and Gregory the Apostle.
2) Wittenberg and Jena: äskeinäsndik; Löscher: üscnUsnäis, which the Weimar edition followed. The sense is the same in both readings, but the former will have to be preferred, since 0NU8N8 (tssoindsrs is a tkrrninus tseUninus, as can be seen Walch, St. Louiser Ausgabe, vol. IV, 1319, § 276.
974 L. V. L. Ill, 92-94. cap. 5. of the Leipzig Disputation. W. XV, HS3-1ISS. 975
of Nazianzus, Basil, exceedingly Christian men, who nevertheless were never under the Roman pope, but were ordained by the bishops of the provinces according to the decrees of the Nicene Council. However, the fact that the excellent Doctor states that Julius I had excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius does not serve the purpose. For Boniface VIII was also subject to it, and wanted to push the king of France from his throne; it is not proven that this is a right, which the Roman popes have always undertaken from time to time out of human frailty. And it is not to be wondered at that these holy men were plagued by the challenge of ambition, since more than once the exceedingly holy apostles, even when Christ was still present, suffered from it.
That he says that the bishop of Jerusalem was given the prerogative of honor, he says right, but does not prove that the supremacy, at least of the Roman pope, is by divine right.
Also, the excellent Doctor says very well that the sixth synod gave the supremacy to the Roman Church, but not the previous synods. For this is what I intended, that this supremacy was given by synodal decrees and by human law with the consent of Christ's faithful, which must not be opposed. St. Gregory also says this in the register in these words: You know that the venerable Synod of Chalcedon has entrusted the supremacy to this apostolic see, and yet none of my predecessors has ever presumed to assume it. Therefore, it proves nothing that the excellent Doctor says that Gregory did not reject the supremacy, but asserted it. Let the godly reader read the letters of Gregory, and he will find that Gregory rejected the supremacy and did not claim the general episcopate, as we have sufficiently proved from the above, dist. 99.
Regarding the testimony of Augustine to the Roman pope Innocens and his answer to the latter, I answer: Let the reader read the words of both, and judge whether or not the apt
The doctor has added new meanings to the words.
Of the twenty years of the church before the Roman one, he said that with Peter the supremacy was transferred to Rome, perhaps wanting this saying: Where the pope is, there is Rome. I answer: It should have been the supremacy that was to be transferred, not the transfer, which I gladly concede.
He has also attracted a testimony of Augustine against the Manichaeans, which, as I assume, is in the second book of the "Christian Doctrine" Cap. 81 ), that in a doubtful matter to the certainty of faith serves the reputation of the Catholic Church, which is fortified by the chairs of the apostles, which follow one another, and by the uninterrupted series of bishops and the consensus of the people. He [Augustine] does not speak of the Roman Church, but of the general one, and this serves for me against the Doctor, because Augustine describes the succession in different apostolic chairs one after another and with the agreement of the people, but not the confirmation of other chairs by one chair.
Now to the matter itself.
About the saying Matth. 16,18.: "You are Peter", and to the attracted warrant men, he said, I would not have answered. I give this home to you, my listeners and readers, whether this is true. He opposed Augustine, who in the retractationes gives the reader the choice between the two views of one and the same saying, saying: he accepts both opinions; which pleases me, and so he proves nothing against me.
The second saying of the divine right, which was quoted by the worthy Lord, is this [Joh. 21, 17.]: "Feed my sheep", Johannis at the last, and I am glad that one finally gets to hear a testimony of the divine right after three days, on which one's opinion shall be firmly based. But we also want to look at it.
First of all, this saying seems to be understood in two ways. According to the one
1) Luther is mistaken: the passage is rather found in Hd. XI, 6. 2. contra I'uustuui Mauiedaeuru. (Weim. Ausg.)
Under the word "love", know that it is the same as trusting in yourself, and that each one is free; and under the word "feed", the same as being first and ruling, and so the meaning will be: "Peter, if you love me", that is, if you seek your own, and do everything that pleases your flatterers, then "feed my sheep", that is, be first and lord over all. I do not have this sense in my Bible. In the other way, "If you love me," that is, deny yourself, if you lay down your life for me, even if you spurn all dignities and love nothing but me, as Augustine gloriously puts it in the same passage, "feed my sheep," that is, teach, preach the word, exhort, pray, set a good example. For the Greek word in this passage does not mean to govern and feed alone, but to care sweetly and gently, and to do all that the sheep may not lack, and this sense, I believe, is the evangelical one. Therefore, I ask Doctor Eck to pray with me to the Lord Jesus Christ, that He will not only give the highest, but also all bishops, that they may believe that these words concern them. There is no doubt that the whole world would welcome such a man with open arms and tearful eyes, who wanted to live by these words. Therefore, if the excellent doctor looks carefully at the text, there is not a right and a privilege granted there, as one thinks, but a command is laid down and a nowadays unpleasant work is imposed, and an office is commanded to him who in fact is already appointed either to the first or to a lesser position, and is not first appointed. Now if he should insist that an office cannot be administered unless there is first a doctrine (loous) of authority, I like that; but then this doctrine must be founded in another way, here this word commands only the office. Therefore the holy fathers were right when they said that this passage concerns everyone. For no one can deny that if Peter is commanded all the sheep here, that he himself did not feed them all, as St. Augustine says, and the book of the Acts of the Apostles clearly states.
and so he would have been disobedient to Christ. And it cannot be said that, though he did not feed them in his own person, yet he did so through other subordinates. First of all, in order to admit that we might take it that Peter was not told in his own person to shepherd, but to shepherd through others, 1) it is clear that neither any of the apostles nor at least Paul was made a subordinate by Peter, since they shepherded many more sheep than Peter. Therefore, the understanding of the word must be taken from the whole Scripture and from the circumstances of the events, that this saying cannot go to Peter alone, or not to all the sheep. Thirdly. If by these words the supremacy will be proved, the supremacy will be uncertain and void, because the supremacy is not set otherwise than under the condition of love. For it is not necessary to tear the Scriptures into different pieces, but rather to bring them into harmony, and therefore, since it is uncertain who loves Christ, it will also be uncertain to us who our shepherd is. And if love is not necessary for him, it will also not be necessary for us to acknowledge him as our shepherd. It is not said, therefore, that this word is a command given to all the rulers of the church, that they should offer themselves for the sheep of Christ, despising riches, dignities, even supremacy, and finally life and death. Who is he, let us praise him!
I pass over what he quoted from Chrysostom about the summit of the college, and how Peter was given sovereignty over the whole earth, because I admit everything that he was the first in honor, but not the only one in administration, at least according to divine right.
From the case of Peter, Gal. 2,11. ff., where the excellent Doctor again spitefully reproached me with a Hussite article:
1) Here Walch has the Conjectur: "It should read: non esse dictum Petro ipsimet in persona propria: Pasce tu, sed: pasce per alium", which the Weimar edition has adopted. The other editions read: ...?etro PU866 P6r LÜUIN, 863 ip8ilN6t in p6r8ONL propria PU866 tu, tarN6N 6t6.
it was not a spiritual or civil lord who was in mortal sin, if I said that Peter was not a superior for this reason, because he had sinned to death, I answer: it was not dealt with, and this disputation is "about the sea-butt". 1) I know, and know it very well, that an evil overlord must not be rejected. That is why I also condemn this Hussite article. But this is what I intended, that Peter, since he gave trouble in the cause of faith, if he had not been set right by Paul, should rightly be removed from the chief place, for a heretical shepherd, or one who hypocrites to the danger of the faith, sins grievously. For through this hypocrisy of Peter, faith in Christ was completely destroyed, as Paul says. Therefore, if Peter had not been corrected, he should have been considered as nothing, let alone the highest bishop. A mortal sin harms one's own person, but a heresy harms the common person and the community. Therefore, I thank the doctor that I have at least learned from this disputation that "to build on the rock" means: to stand under a sovereign, be he good or evil. For I confess that I did not know this meaning of building and rock before, for he said that even if Peter had fallen into mortal sin, he would still have remained the rock, that is, the first and the overlord.
That he says that in the past the bishops would not have been confirmed if they had not delivered a note about their faith, I am satisfied with that. But this has nothing to do with the divine right, because I take nothing from the pope, whatever is attached to him.
After that he dressed Nicolaus of Cusa and excused Anacletus, the holy man, that such a great science was not necessary for him. I concede that to such a holy man. But still it is disgraceful for a pope, may he be holy or not, not to know the gospels, since he is a shepherd of the sheep and a teacher of the gospel. But since "Cephas" is from the
1) a "I rUomMim, luvenal. IV, v. 39 soo. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 1675 f., note.
Since the thunderskiud, which knows all languages, thunders like this, the vanity of the earthly smoke must rightly be silent, whether it be Nicolaus of Cusa, a Chaldean or a Hebrew. Not as if I wanted to reproach the excellent Doctor, who said that Peter means the same as "head of the house" in Chaldean according to his guide from Cusa, but I want to praise the intrepid disputator, who is so bold to enter the battlefield of the theologians, and yet has not previously studied so much in the Evangelio that he would have read the first chapter in the Evangelio Johannis. Likewise, he did not read in his book: Who is Cephas? I forgive that, but let him read the first chapter [v. 12. Cap. 3,4. f. 22.] of the first letter to the Corinthians and he will find it.
Finally, he does not want to pass judgment on the articles of the Bohemians, although he never refrains from insulting me with them. I, too, pass over it and say nothing more than that I approve of Gregorius of Arimini dist. 28, which the excellent doctor has rejected. For he is nothing other than Augustine and the holy scriptures, who contradicts all scholastic teachers, but most of all Aristotle, but has not yet been refuted by anyone.
I agree with the Doctor that the decisions of the Concilium must be accepted in matters concerning the faith. However, I reserve the right, which must also be reserved, that a concilium has sometimes erred and can sometimes err, especially in matters that do not concern the faith. Nor does a concilium have the power to make new articles in the faith; otherwise we would at last have as many articles as opinions of men.
At the end, when he cites St. Francis: we must obey the pope, I wonder against whom he said that. Likewise, I pass over the attacks on the mendicant monks. Even this wretched clothing torments the excellent Doctor. I express it as my opinion: I would like there to be no mendicant order.
Behold, this is what I had to answer to the objections of the excellent doctor against the thirteenth thesis. Therefore, after the answer is finished, it remains that I also present what moves me against the excellent Doctor.
Here Eck thundered that he wanted to answer the objections as if he had been a responder. Martin answered that in this way the disputation would never come to an end, and accused Eck's courageous will, which also tended to catch every single word. It was certainly through God's guidance that the most gracious Duke George was present, at whose beckoning and godly command Martin was allowed to attack Eck's thesis, which is opposed to the one already discussed.
Martin.
Against the opinion of the excellent doctor there seems to argue what he has so bravely skipped in his refutation and what is written in 1 Cor. 3, 5, where Paul takes the reputation of the person from all apostles and says: Who is Apollo? who is Paul? who is Cephas? They are servants through whom you have believed. Here Paul wants to completely remove the cause of strife and division; he denies that any church belongs to any of the apostles, but all are common to all, therefore he says at the end of the third chapter, v. 21 ff: "All are yours, whether Cephas or Apollos or Paul. But ye are Christ's." And the excuse is not valid that it is said that they did not dispute about the supremacy, but about the special gifts of the persons, since the text is clear that they disputed about the dignities of the persons, that some preferred Peter to all, others Paul, some Apollo, but others Christ alone. This is confirmed by what is written in Gal. 2, where the Galatians, seduced by a similar dispute, abandoned Paul and his teaching as unworthy because of Peter's praised supremacy. Against this he proves in a long text that the supremacy of Peter or the other apostles is of no importance, saying that he was neither sent to them by a man nor through a man, that he had not even seen Peter nor learned from him, but that he had had and taught everything without Peter. If, therefore, the reputation of Peter is necessary and
was divine right, then Paul will obviously be ungodly and blasphemous in this passage, since he also does not want to be regarded as being sent by God through a man, and completely rejects Peter's reputation. Thirdly, even more clearly, since he says: "Those who had prestige have taught me nothing, and what they were like in their days is of no concern to me, for God does not respect the prestige of men. Behold, here he clearly says that the dignity (qualitas) of Peter and the other apostles is none of his business, which would be exceedingly ungodly to say if Peter's dignity had to be held by divine right. With the same impiety he would say: "God does not respect the reputation of men", since he commands divine right and what is divine right even under the penalty of eternal damnation. Therefore it is evident that this supremacy and sovereignty, or by whatever name one may call Peter's prestige or dignity, is not ordered by divine right.
Corner.
Since the venerable father cites three testimonies of St. Paul against me, which have long since been raised by the opponents of the apostolic see and explained by the defenders of the apostolic see, I answer him easily by denouncing the evil makeup with which he endeavors to cover his doctrine and to glue people's mouths and eyes. I say, first, that I do not, as he interprets to me, skip over the apostle's passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians Cap. 3, 5. I have skipped over it, although he has wrongly mentioned Cephas with Paul and Apollo, because the text does not have him in the beginning, but at the end he remembers Cephas. But immediately the note (Alossa) placed between the lines confesses that he is greater than all. Therefore, the venerable father should take the holy scripture not according to his head, but according to that of the saints. And I say that the best and irrefutable solution is given, and the make-up of the venerable father, by which he listens to the simple ones, does not make any difference. St. Jerome is witness to this, who in the first book against Jovinianus, Col. 18 in my edition, expressly says that the church was built on Peter. There the venerable father bravely jumped over, and says nothing. And afterwards: so that, after the
The opportunity for division would be taken away if the head is appointed. Therefore, because the apostle Paul wanted to prevent divisions and strife, he did not thereby take away the supremacy, because the divisions cannot be better removed than by a head. Therefore, neither a word nor a tittle serves the cause of denying the supremacy. Therefore he started wrongly today, that I had hardly cited two holy fathers, and ambiguous ones at that, while I have cited certain and undoubted ones, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Leo, Bernardus etc. But that he commends that I accept both opinions of Augustine, lid. 1. rstraet. eap. 21, which he confirms, and he himself does the same. 1)
But that he introduces Paul in the second place in the letter to the Galatians [Gal. 2, 11. ff.], as if he had written against Peter, since he wanted to fortify the Galatians in the faith, and there in the whole course indicates that he was equal to Peter and to the others, because he did not receive it from a man nor through a man, so I say that, if the venerable father were such a diligent investigator of the truth as he promises, he would have learned the right foundations and understanding of the Scriptures, and it would not be necessary for him to say so boastfully in such a large assembly that he alone would resist a thousand. This is the truth and the matter of the apostleship and the dignity of the position. The apostles were all equal. This is what the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers intended. Jerome says that Paul would not have punished Peter if he had known that he was not equal to him. Thus Anacletus says can. In novo, that the apostles were gifted with equal authority; so Cyprianus, so also others. Now since Paul had been ordained an apostle by Christ, he freely said that he had not received it from a man nor through a man, and that Jacob and Peter had taught him nothing; for all this is to be referred to the apostleship.
But it is different with the power of government and administration, where the opinion of the holy fathers and the Concilium against John Hus is unanimous, that just Peter was granted such a supremacy. Therefore, he does not use the testimonies of the Holy Scripture correctly, but draws them differently according to his will.
1) In passing: D. Martin denied that he had done so, as he testified above.
where, contrary to what the Holy Spirit requires. For what he emphasized today, that Paul said he did not care what kind of people they were, does not mean what the venerable father wanted, but this: Peter and Jacob and others would have been unlearned and inexperienced people before they walked with the Lord, and so God does not respect reputation. But he will say, as he is bold, "This is an angular little bundle. Let him read Ambrose on this passage, who does not falsify Paul's opinion and freely testifies that the church is founded on the rock. Therefore, if he cannot bring anything more solid, I beg him to desist from his intention. Therefore, when I said today that it was a Hussite article: ecclesiastical obedience is not expressed by a saying of the Holy Scripture, he answered briefly: the article is not heretical. I would rather deal with the venerable father in an attacking way and say: this is a damned article and he holds it; therefore he holds a damned and rejected article. Likewise I ask: if the article is not heretical, it is either presumptuous, or seditious, or offensive to godly ears. Now whatever the father will accept, he will be either a presumptuous man, or a rebel, suspected of heresy, giving offense to godly ears, against the theological cause [that we intend].
I am surprised with which peacock color he decorates the words of Christ Matth. 16, 15. ff. That Christ asked all disciples, and so Peter answered for all, - who denies that? But he added from his stuff that for this reason he said to Peter for himself and the other apostles: "You are Peter, and on this rock", which I do not accept as a Lutheran confession with the holy fathers.
With regard to Chrysostom, it is astonishing what injustice he does to the Holy Father, as if he had been deposed lawfully and according to the decisions of the Nicene Council, while it is known from the histories that, according to Eusebius of Antioch, I believe a Rottir, Christian bishops were expelled along with others who were rebellious against the Roman pope, who, seeking help from the supreme see, suffered expulsion from the godless Rottians until the time of Theodosius, a very Christian emperor. At that time, when the Rottians had occupied the see for thirty years, St. Gregory of Nazianzus accepted the bishopric of Constantinople, not out of ambition, but so that other Rottians would not succeed him.
984 L- m> 102-104. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377. W. xv, nes-nos. 985
would like. St. Chrysostom, however, having been unjustly expelled by Epiphanius and replaced by the Rottian Arsacius, has returned through the prestige of the Roman pope. And it is not valid that the venerable father blasphemes the Roman pope of that time and the saints who adhered to him, as if they had proceeded against those Rottians by deed but not by right. This he says with his unproven words, that even so many saints, who were praised even by the Lord Father, did not agree with the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, the venerable father now begins without cause to accuse those holy fathers who lived a thousand years ago of ambition, from which vice they have been considered free by the whole Church for so many centuries.
Thus it is also captious and deceives the simple-minded that St. Gregory did not want to call himself an ecumenical and universal shepherd. For the day before he so highly exalted Platina, who, as he said, had followed the truth of history; now he rejects Platina according to his will, which, as he thinks, he is free to do everywhere.
He cites the decree for himself; when it is cited, he rejects it; and when he has quite clear texts, even the Canon Leo's ita dominus, 19. dist. and the like, against him, he adopts the gloss, just as the suitors of Penelope, to speak jocosely, since they could not seize the mistress, went after the maids. It is certain that also holy popes have called themselves general bishops, as Sixtus, as Victor, and as at the Concilium of Chalcedon was called to Leo: Long live the most holy Leo, the ecumenical patriarch! But the popes who followed the figure of humility and Christ abstained from this name, and better confessed that they were the servants of the servants, so that it would not be believed that they were taking away the prestige of the bishops, as St. Thomas has long since answered to those things in the book of the Controversy of the Faith.
Concerning the letter of Augustine, he makes you, gentlemen listeners, the trouble 1) that you should read the words. The words have been heard. 2) Innocentius said eleven hundred years ago that according to the custom of the ancients, in matters concerning the faith, the pope should be consulted.
1) Col. 974 f.
2) Compare Col. 961 f.
Thus the venerable father wanted to transplant the saying against the Manichaeans into his garden, but he will not do so if he reads the letter of Augustine, in which he does not enumerate the series of the entirety of the bishops, but of the Roman popes, from Peter himself to his times. 3)
The answer I gave about the twenty years, he says, is not proven by me. The venerable father is an astute disputator. I have not yet known that a respondent must prove his answer; I have always thought that the respondent offers his answer to the opponent for refutation. His Hercules has been weak, if he relies on foreign help.
But that he suffers from such a great insolence that he dares to give the most illustrious lords and you, venerable fathers, the hand, as if I had not read the first chapter of John, that is truly a tremendous presumption, since I, as a boy of not yet ten years, have read the whole Bible with the exception of the prophets. But that is not the point, how much each one has read. I have said in the defense of Änacletus that his interpretation: Kephas, that is, head, was not so ignorant, in that I know very well that in Greek means head; but because in John, whom I looked up yesterday, in Augustine and the glossa ordinaria Kephas is translated by Peter, so Peter, according to my guarantor of Cusa, also means head of the house. This all makes the venerable father ridiculous, about which the judges to be decreed may judge.
But this is even better, that he surrounds the saying: "Feed my sheep" with such great circumlocutions, just so that he makes the people who see there to be those who do not see. I pass over this, because he has put forward such a ridiculous interpretation invented by him. But I will come to another sense of this passage, since he has said many things. But I do not make use of the peculiarity, which is the mother of errors. Since I have followed the opinion of the holy fathers and the holy mother, the church, I have taken the word "pasture" in such a way that he has appointed him a shepherd and given him the supremacy over the whole church. This is how Gregory understood it, this is how Chrysostom understood it, this is how Ambrose understood it, Lucä the last, who was not quoted by me yesterday. To these the venerable
3) ^.uAU8t. ex. 165. (Weim. Ausg.)
The father passed by very nicely and said nothing about it. However, he used a saying of Augustine about how a shepherd should be. I also accept this [Augustine], and believe that every believer prays that also the pope, every prince, every superior may seek the glory of God and the salvation of his subjects, that this is the right proper pasture, by which they, as they are princes here on earth, are also exalted to rule in heaven. Therefore Augustine does not say things that are against me, that dispute against me, but such things from which a superior should know what he is appointed to do. And it has no validity that the venerable Father said that the sheep were commanded to him under a condition, because there is no condition added, unless the Lord Father has a different gospel than I have. But, indicating how a shepherd must be, Christ demands love, and that is the LiHe of God from Peter, and thus has made him the shepherd of the whole Church, as the holy Mother, the Church, sings, and the venerable Father prays or reads: Thou, Head of the Church, Shepherd of the sheep etc. Therefore, in this place, by divine right, that the Superior must love God, we have Peter appointed shepherd of the sheep, as St. Gregory, St. Ambrose and Chrysostom, who is also a Greek, understood. There is nothing in the very small bad reason given by the venerable father for the opposite, that Peter did not shepherd all the sheep; what is done in our name is also said to have been done by us. Clement testifies that Peter appointed elders, bishops and deacons who were to spread the gospel throughout the world, as we read in the Canon In illis 80 or 81. 1) äi8t. Therefore, he who was sent by the head, as St. Paul was, does not need to be sent by his governor; nevertheless, Paul went up with Titus [to Jerusalem, Gal. 2, 1. ff., and discussed the gospel with Peter, and they gave him the brotherly hand.
Furthermore, that he forges a gloss against me, which I never thought of, as if I had said: to build on the rock is to be under the Roman Pontiff, - O dreams, O whimsical words! never did this occur to me. For Christ builds the church, not those who are under him; for those who are under him must belong to the church that is built.
1) Correct is: 80. äist. (Weim. ed.)
That of Gregory of Arimini, whose opinion displeases me, but pleases him, serves nothing for now. Therefore, I do not want to get involved in these aberrations, but rather, as we began, defend that the article of the Costnitz Concilium is true, and that anyone who contradicts it is wrong and contradicts the truth and honor of the Concilium.
Martin Luther.
Before I come to the testimonies, which are opposed by me, I want to briefly go through what the excellent doctor has put together about my yesterday's and today's answer, since he, among other things, while all his weapons are, as it were, exhausted, desperately seeks the last snip of his confidence in an article of the Costnitz Council, and repeats and defuses it in the most spiteful way, as if not enough had been answered to it above. But I will say it once again.
Since the article of the works of men is enumerated among the damned, and asserted by St. Paul and St. Augustine, then defended by Gregory of Arimini, by all universities to this day, I will not be moved by the exceedingly spiteful inculcations of this article, until the excellent Doctor has proved that a concilium cannot err, has not erred, or does not err, since a concilium cannot make a divine right out of that which by its nature is not divine right. Therefore, only that which is contrary to divine law is heretical. That to this article.
That he takes up that Chrysostom was lawfully deposed, he has not understood me, since I have said clearly today that the power to ordain and depose a bishop was lawful with Epiphanius of Cyprus and Theophilus, although I have not dealt with whether they used this lawful power at that time for good or ill. It is enough for me that without the power of the Roman pope, so many holy and very famous men of Greece, who were completely Catholic and not Rotterian, had the power to ordain and depose bishops.
He also makes a big deal of the fact that I accused the old saints of ambition, and has
Do not forget that I said that the apostles also had this infirmity when Christ was present.
That he now raises Platina so high against St. Gregory, whom I have cited as a witness, it is clear to anyone who has even a mediocre mind what this proves. For I take the histories from Platina, and no more. But that the same Platina cites some reasons, I reject because of the contradictory testimony of Gregorius.
Now I pass over the fact that Sixtus and Victor called themselves general bishops and that this was called to Leo in the Concilium of Chalcedon, about which enough has been said today. It should be noted that the excellent Doctor says that the following popes, following the form of humility in Christ, abstained from this name, which I cannot understand otherwise than that they violated the divine right of humility, became mendacious and disobedient when it is divine right, that is, when it was commanded that they should be general bishops.
Repeating Innocentius' letter of reply to Augustine, he says that it was an old custom to consult the Roman popes in matters concerning the faith. In this he says very well and I like it, especially in the Latin Church. But what has faith to do with supremacy? That is, how does that serve our cause?
He also claimed that I had demanded from him the proof of the answer about the twenty years. The excellent doctor is missing in two ways: firstly, because he has been an opponent for four and a half days and only started to be a nespondent at this time; secondly, I did not demand that he should prove the answer, but that the supremacy had been transferred with Peter.
In wanting also to wiuden out of what is said by "Cephas," which in John is interpreted by Peter, he still insists that Peter means the head of the house, namely, as if John, since he wants to explain the gospel to the Greeks, were not
He said that he had spoken in Greek, but in Chaldean, so that he would not be understood.
He takes the word "pasture" [Joh. 21, 17.] in such a way that he wants it to mean the appointment of a general shepherd, and for this he has cited Gregory, Ambrose and Chrysostom, who were not attracted yesterday, to whom I would have said nothing. Therefore I will say it now, if I should have forgotten it, and at the same time I oppose to him the rule of St. Augustine, that the sayings of all writers are to be judged by the holy Scriptures, whose prestige is greater than the comprehension of the whole human race. It is not that I want to condemn the opinion of the most illustrious Fathers, but that I follow those who come closest to the Scriptures, and above all, if the Scriptures are clear, I seize them myself. Since it is clear that "to feed" according to the meaning of the word and the use of Scripture means nothing else than to teach, to take care of the sheep (Peter 1 Ep. 5, 2: "Feed the flock of Christ as you are commanded"), it is not necessary to make the word ambiguous and not to leave the simple meaning without necessity.
He also refutes that I said there was a condition in Christ's words, "If thou lovest me," since I hold that there is not only a condition but also a contract between Christ and Peter, since the latter says, "Dost thou love me?" and the latter answers, "I love thee." I leave the dialectic, in which the Doctor is very skilled, also the conditional conjunction "if". I would like to hear what he would have to say about the Decretale de elect. c. significasti, where the pope Paschalis clearly says that here is a condition, namely, if the prestige of the Roman pope has such strong validity, as he has claimed so far; for he speaks according to the sense.
He has refuted my reason that Peter did not teach all of them: For, he says, what is done in our name is also said to have been done by us. But I do not believe that the doctor intended to satisfy my reason here, since he cannot say that Paul preached in Peter's name, which is not true.
In the letter to the Romans in the first chapter [v. 5] he says that he is an apostle under the name of Christ. I assume this from the fact that he says, according to Clement, that Peter had appointed bishops, elders and deacons to spread the gospel throughout the world, among whom he does not list Paul. But this seems to serve the purpose that he who has been sent by your head does not need to be sent by his governor. I allow this; if it was first proved that Peter was governor. But now Paul is no less a governor than Peter, as it has already been said that he is an apostle in the name of Christ, and so there are as many governors as apostles.
Now to the matter at hand.
Regarding the testimony of Paul 1 Cor. 3, 5, he first says that "Cephas" is not in the beginning of the text, but he is mentioned at the end, where the gloss confesses that Peter is greater than all. This is something quite minor; I pass it over, since in any case Cephas is placed in the beginning of the first chapter.
Secondly, he says nothing else than that neither a word nor a tittle is full of the denial of the supremacy in the text, and so he wants to have eliminated this testimony. But he has cited the "testimony" of Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Bernard, Leo etc. who say that Peter is the rock. Against this I say and reply: This second statement does not serve the purpose, and it is sufficiently discussed above whether Peter is the rock. Similarly, it is not a correct answer that he says that there is not a word, not a shake of the denial of supremacy. If Jerome also puts a head so that the opportunity for division would be taken away, the clear text argues quite strongly against it, which takes away the head so that the opportunity for division would be taken away. For he says Cor. 3:5], "Who is Paul? Who is Apollo?" in that he wants Christ alone to be the head, through whom in truth all division is taken away. This answer is not enough for me.
Regarding the testimony of Gal.2,1.ff.he says that all apostles are equal, which is also testified by Jerome and the Canon In novo, but that it is
The power of government and administration is something else. That such a great testimony should be disproved with these three words is quite wondrous to me. But I also do not yet understand how he could separate government and administration. But that he said that Paul went out to Peter with Titus to discuss the gospel with them is clear from the preceding and following texts, as Jerome himself interprets that Paul did not do this to consult Peter about the gospel, which he had already preached for more than fourteen years, and boasted that he had not received it from a man, but to shut up the false apostles and to reassure the Galatians that it was the same as what he and the other apostles had preached.
Corner.
That the venerable father mixes the article of John Hus about obedience to the church with the other article about the works of human actions according to the testimony of Gregory of Arimini, which is to be defended by all universities, I have not yet heard that it has been defended in any university, although I have been to very many. But he asks me to prove to him that a concilium cannot err. I do not know what this request is about, whether he secretly also wants to hold the laudable Costnitz Concilium suspicious. I tell you, venerable father, if you believe that a lawfully assembled concilium can err and has erred, you are like a heathen and a tax collector to me. What a heretic is, I will not discuss now.
Regarding Chrysostom, he does not want that he justified his expulsion, but that he praised the ordinance of the bishops instituted by the Nicene Concilium. This pleases me because of the deference to St. Chrysostom, and always the Roman popes in different nations have allowed different ways to elect the bishops. But through Gregory of Nazianzus and Chrysostom's reinstatement, it is sufficiently clear that the Roman pope's power has taken the means, as witnessed by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Paul, and other Eastern bishops who appealed to the Roman pope for reinstatement.
That he indicates that there was also something of human frailty in the apostles, we know. But since they held a public office, one must not disparage such holy men without consideration and cause.
He says of Platina that he accepts his historical testimony; and I, too, have quoted from Platina not a testimony, but a history.
Regarding the letter of Innocentius, he answers that it does not serve the cause, because he allows it to apply to the Latin church, but not to any other. But because this is a Lutheran gloss that is not based on any testimony or evidence, we despise it just as easily as it is cited.
About the twenty years he answers that I have been an opponent for three days now. I should have been in any case, if the venerable father had not, by his precautions, sometimes made the opponent a responder. For I did not object to this ground of proof, but he himself put it forward, and certainly Peter did not take that chair with him to Rome, but transferred the supremacy there.
Regarding the word "pasture", he wants to let Gregory, Ambrose and Chrysostom go, because the simple word should not be made ambiguous. I say: Who does not know that the word "shepherd" is an official name, a name of honor and also of burden! Therefore, he received both the office of the headship and at the same time the burden of shepherding.
I do not accept what the venerable father said about the condition, because Christ, as he is always attached to the letter, did not attach a condition to the pasture. For this would confirm the Hussite error that one who is not in love cannot be a bishop, a prelate, a shepherd etc.
From the Canon significasti, de electione I know that Gerson and other teachers waver in the matter whether a concilium is above the pope. But because the words of the Decretale have not been consulted, I cannot say anything, but assume, without wanting to bind myself by it, that Paschalis took "condition" for "quality".
As for Paul, who is said not to have acknowledged Peter's supremacy, but to have been an apostle of Christ (we are all Christ's, I believe), he nowhere took away Peter's supremacy of the regiment, but, as it is written in the Epistle of the Apostles' Entry, while still dying, he gave the apostle's supremacy of the regiment to Peter.
Peter as the head of the Church. I am not quite sure whether this letter is from St. Dionysius or not.
He said that Paul was a governor of Christ, but not a general one. For also in Revelation [Cap. 21,14.] twelve foundations of the church are laid, and yet [1 Cor. 3, 11.] no one can lay any other foundation, namely the main foundation, than the one that is laid, namely Christ.
Of the second, he said that it did not belong to the matter whether Peter was the rock, and yet this is all our bargain. But the answer I gave the day before, to which I referred, he concealed, since it is literally expressed that Paul disapproved of the quarrel. But I do not know by what perspicacity the venerable father may come to the assumption that Paul for the sake of this had put in abnegation the supremacy, in order that he might resist the schism. Perhaps he has not been in a country that had no prince, because he would have experienced the opposite, how many disputes, quarrels and disunity arise where there is no prince and head who judges and recognizes things. And it seems strange to him if I want to refute such a great testimony with so few words, namely the apostleship and the regiment; the elements (principia) are very small in size and very great in power. If the venerable father had paid attention to these two small words apostleship and regiment, the supreme head and the next after the same, which now dispute against each other, as it seems to him, he would have united the opinion of the holy scriptures and the holy fathers with each other; since this is neglected, strange and foreign doctrines must follow.
July 8.
Martin.
To the testimonies that I have brought from the letters of Paul to the Corinthians and to the Galatians, the excellent doctor, as is his way, has answered nothing, only that he repeats the Costuican Concilium and the Hussites, by which the testimonies are not refuted to me. For, as I have said, the Nicene Concilium, which is much holier and more famous, has established other things. Therefore, as much as he bases himself on his own, I base myself on mine, and say, as I said yesterday: however much a concilium may be attracted
If one becomes a divine right, then one does not receive a divine right thereby yet. Of this alone is the question; therefore a concilium does not serve the cause.
and so in the holy scripture apostleship or administration are generally the same, unless he wanted to understand by administration the dispute in court because of temporal church goods, which is not really an apostolic administration. I confess, if this freedom to invent were allowed, I would also like to invent that St. John is the chancellor, 1) and another apostle something else. But all this is not divine right. Therefore, that element disappears of which, although it is very small in size, it is said to be very great in power, and I am very surprised that the good Lord so shuns the holy scripture and flees from its face, turning away to those dark caves invented by men.
Therefore, the testimony to the Corinthians [Cap. 1, 12. ff. 3, 5.] still stands that Paul, in order to abolish the division, takes away the reputation of Peter, Paul, Apollo etc. and leaves only Christ, leaving him, of course, the ministry of the word, which is indeed the apostleship and the government of the church. And it is not true that he wanted to destroy this exceedingly strong testimony by this dull similitude that a kingdom without a head is subject to divisions and many dangers.
1) As one can see from the following answer of Eck, Luther added here: "Marcus the seal-keeper".
be exposed. For there can be no church without a head, while there can be many bishops without the pope, as we see happen in federations (federibus), where the commonwealths are administered the more beautifully the less they have a common head. For this is before our eyes, that the kingdom of France, "England, Britain, Gaul, and innumerable others in the world, are without a common head, and yet they do not clash, each kingdom being satisfied with its king. Now if in these temporal, fluctuating things, with so many different minds and customs of men, who have neither in heaven nor on earth a common head, there is peace and concord among the countries, how much more can this happen in spiritual, permanent things, that is, among men endowed with One Faith, with the same love, the same customs, then having a common head in heaven, as the apostle says, "One Faith, One Lord," in the Epistle to the Ephesians [Cap. 4, 5.]. Therefore, if there were ten popes, if there were a thousand popes, there would not be divisions for this reason.
Therefore, I still wish that the Doctor would better refute Paul's testimony; likewise also that in the letter to the Galatians [Cap. 2, 6]: "God does not respect the reputation of men" etc., where Paul rejects everything that can only ever be a personal reputation or what is called a personal reputation in Peter and the apostles. This is' not yet touched, let alone refuted.
To end the disputation, I also add that Paul in the first letter to the Corinthians Cap. 12, 28, when describing the body of the church, names in the first place the apostles, in the second place the prophets, in the third place the teachers, and almost in the last place the governors, whom the Lord Doctor calls administrators. Therefore, if Peter's supremacy were such a great and necessary thing according to divine right, Paul would have described the church insufficiently, since he has omitted the most important thing that is in it.
2) It seems from Eck's answer that rather: "Spain, France, England, Hungary" should be read.
Furthermore, it is still certain that neither Peter nor all the apostles could ordain Matthias, Apost. 1,15. ff., nor give him the administration. Therefore, the Roman Pontiff presumes more with the bestowal of administration over the whole world, which he does not find in the apostle who is his predecessor.
In the same way I judge the ordinance of Paul and Barnabas Apost. 13, 2. 13, 2. The Holy Spirit, not Peter or the church, segregated. Therefore he boasts [Gal. 2, 6.] not unjustly that he received nothing from the great apostles. Yes, when he writes to the Corinthians, he says [2 Cor. 11,5. Vulg.] that he did nothing less than the other apostles.
But even this saying restricts Peter still more narrowly, since he writes to the Galatians [Gal. 2:8], "He that was strong with Peter for the apostleship among the circumcision, the same was strong with me among the Gentiles"; and afterwards [v. 9 f.], "They gave me and Barnaba the right hand, and became one with us, that we should preach among the Gentiles, and they among the circumcision; only that we should remember the poor." If I were to rely on this saying, neither the Lord Doctor nor any man could enforce that Peter's apostleship by divine right extended further than over the Jewish land, and that for this reason all the sayings on which he relies [John 21:17]: "Feed my sheep" etc. and [Matthew 16:18]: "You are Peter" etc. must be referred to the boundaries of his apostleship. Alls this way Christ Joh. 10,16. clearly separates the sheep of the Gentiles from the sheep of Israel by saying: "I have other sheep, they are not of this fold."
And finally, what the Doctor also touched upon yesterday, Revelation 21:14, the new Jerusalem is described with twelve reasons besides the main reason, Christ, and yet no distinction is made among the twelve reasons, which would have had to be done if so much were to be thought of Peter's supremacy. Many figures in Scripture refer to the same thing, such as 1 Kings 7:25, the twelve oxen of the brazen sea, the twelve lions at Solomon's throne, the twelve stones, and the twelve lions of the kingdom.
at the Jordan [Jos. 4, .] and the like, in which a complete equality of all apostles is described. And against this no inequality can be proven by divine right.
This shall be said for this thesis, of which I believe to this day that it is quite true, yes, I know for sure, I also do not hope that it will ever be overturned. Therefore, I ask that the excellent doctor, since he has not yet produced any testimony of divine right for his opinion, should at least refute some clearly and without detours, otherwise I will not consider him a theologian who has a right opinion of Scripture, and leave it to the judgment, not of envy nor of the great crowd, but of the judges to be decreed and of every understanding reader and sincere listener.
Corner.
I do not know what the venerable father may want, since he says at the beginning of his speech that I have answered nothing, and yet in the further course of the same he endeavors to overturn my unconquered and exceedingly strong answers given yesterday: whether this rhymes with each other, let him see for himself.
Then, that he does not want to be bound by the reputation of the Costnitz Council, he may see for himself, the judges may see how right he has done it. I do not reject the Nicene Church Assembly in matters that are based on faith and morals, as the ordination of bishops can be changed according to the nature of times and places.
He demands from me that I teach him divine right. Although I have often done this, there is nothing about it in my thesis, but only because the venerable father said in the "Explanations" 1) that the Roman Church was not higher than others before the times of Silvester, which I deny in my thesis: but I confess that the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, according to what I have taught, is from divine right.
Then, in order to reject my answer, he says that my distinction is invented by human will, as if in theology it were not allowed to
1) Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, col. 174, thesis 22. The Weimar edition correctly notes: "Luther had certainly not expressed himself in this way."
would be to make distinctions. Thus Arius wanted to mock Athanasius (for he held too tenaciously to the letter, and said that the Son was a creature) by the word [Joh. 14, 28.]: "The Father is greater than I." This Athanasius refuted by the distinction: The Father is greater than I according to humanity, but not according to divinity. Because Arius did not distinguish the sacred Scriptures, he did not accept this [refutation] 1) and remained obstinate in his error. Thus, in the present trade, since those who expound the sacred Scriptures will have eternal life, distinctions must be made by comparing the various passages of Scripture, lest a contradiction be allowed in the sacred Scriptures, lest one who clings too closely to the letter be killed, but rather be made alive by the Spirit. And because Peter is often preferred to the others in the Scriptures, often found equal to them, it is necessary, in order to avoid contradiction, to make a distinction in accordance with the Scriptures. This is also stated by Jerome and Cyprian, whom I have mentioned, in the fourth book of the ninth epistle, who also confess the equality of the apostleship and yet attribute supremacy to Peter, which cannot happen if it is not referred to different pieces.
It pleases me that he says the apostolate is an office, but only in such a way that he also says it is an honor. For these are names both of honor and burden, as I have said, which the apostle indicates in the Epistle to the Romans Cap. 10, 15. "How shall they preach, if they be not sent?"
With regard to administration, I again agree with the venerable father, namely, that in temporal matters it is much less than in spiritual matters. Let us pray to God that our bishops may recognize this, and not, through their deputies, neglect the spiritual and the temporal themselves. I have indicated the administration of the regiment in spiritual things according to authority (potestive), and it is not opposed to this that the venerable father says, so he too can invent that John is the chancellor, Marcus the seal-keeper etc., because, as Augustine says, the philosophers use free words, but for us it is proper to speak according to a certain rule. Therefore, one must teach such things as receive their reason (fundamentum) from sacred Scripture, as the first member of the apostleship in the equality of the apostles,
1) Thus supplemented by the Weimar edition.
the other member of the government in the supremacy of Peter. Therefore, I confess that Paul's testimony is exceedingly strong, but that it does not contradict me in one letter.
The venerable father disregarded the simile I mentioned about the divisions in a country when there is no overlord, because it is like that in the kingdoms of the faithful in Spain, France, England, Hungary, which are without a head, and yet peace exists because there is unity among them. I wonder how the venerable father can have forgotten so many murders, wars and battles that he must know about. I do not want to say about the so long disunity and the constant hatred between the French and the English, also the deep-rooted hatred between the French and the Spaniards, who have so often waged wars for the Kingdom of Naples with very great shedding of Christian blood, and yet God would that there would finally be a constant and lasting peace! I acknowledge one faith, one Lord, Christ, with the apostle, but I worship the Roman pope as Christ's governor. Therefore, the previous answer stands unconquered and firm, at least according to my poor judgment. Scholars may judge about it. 2)
Moreover, the reverend father says that the words of Paul [Gal. 2, 6.]: "God does not respect the reputation of men", are not touched by me and therefore even less answered. Perhaps he overheard it because I indicated both from Ambrose and Jerome the opinion of these words. For John and Peter were unlearned men and could not read (analphabetici) in the law, Paul, on the other hand, was learned and took to above many of his contemporaries, as he testifies of himself. Therefore, Paul did not want to take into account what kind of people Peter and John would have been, because God does not respect the reputation of men. For He chose the fisherman as well as the learned scribe, but this does not abolish Peter's supremacy. But God cannot be blamed for the reputation of the person, even if He chooses one before another, as Peter confessed of Cornelius [Acts 10:34]: "Now I learn with truth that God does not regard the person."
Now let's move on to what Venerable Father was referring to.
He cites the apostle in the first letter to the
2) In passing, "Because we are all blind, Eck said." - The Erlangen edition notes, "It is to be read: Luther."
Corinthians, Cap. 12, 28, which, in describing the spiritual body, lists the apostles, the prophets, the teachers and finally the government. I say that the apostle did indeed describe them well, but that he neither denied nor taught the supremacy. Therefore, the reason for the proof is without force: Here Paul did not think of such a supremacy, therefore there is no supremacy in the church, both because even children know that a doctrine from a saying has no validity in a negative way, and also because even in the holy Scriptures what is not expressed in one place, according to the teaching of Augustine in the book "Of Christian Doctrine", must be taken from another place, as we have done. Similarly, I answer the word Revelation 21:14. I confess that there are twelve reasons. These may also be represented by the twelve oxen, by the twelve lions, by the twelve stones of Jordan. But in this the twelve number of the apostles is taught, but for this reason the supremacy is not denied. But I have quoted this passage because it is necessary to show that the various pieces of Scripture agree with each other, and since the apostle [1 Cor. 3:11.1] laid one foundation, Christ, and no one can lay another, it is not necessary for this reason to deny Peter as the foundation of the church, because John, who is also holy, laid twelve foundations. If one does not accept the distinction between the foundation of the reasons, which is the most important one, and the one that is put in its place or the one that is put in second place, then one will not be able to unite Paul and John.
In the second place he mentioned that Peter could not have ordained Matthias, so the Holy Spirit had ordained Paul and Barnabas. I answer: Since the apostles were bishops, I do not remember to have found in the Holy Scriptures that bishops were ordained by Christ, since he first ordained them priests at the Last Supper. Therefore, I can also refer this to Peter as far as the ordination to the bishopric is concerned. But because I allow that the office of apostleship was conferred by God alone, it is not surprising that they asked for divine assistance. For they did not cast the lot in a common way, but, as St. Dionysius testifies, that lot was the visible appearance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore this passage serves for the supremacy of Peter, because he exercised the supremacy granted to him [Apost. 1, 15. ff.]: "In those days Peter stood up among the disciples" etc., as also with Ananias and Sapphira [Apost. 5,
3. ff]; so in the apology of the apostles [Apost. 2, 15.] that they were not full of sweet wine; so in the answer and defense before the assembly of the Jews [Apost. 4, 8. ff] and in other things contained in the Acts of the Apostles, where he exercised the rule of the higher position. Thus I believe that Matthias received the apostleship from the Lord and was ordained bishop by St. Peter. I have also long since admitted that Paul received the apostleship from God; I confess that he worked more than the others.
But let us come to the third, which among the other things mentioned by the venerable father seems to be the most relevant, Gal. 2:8: "Who was strong with Peter." And I say that Paul did not make known a divine right there, but tells a fact, because Peter also received the command in the Acts of the Apostles [Cap. 10] to .to instruct the Gentile Cornelius in the faith, and presided over the Gentiles in Antioch, where he had his highest seat, and likewise in Rome, where he was finally crowned with martyrdom by the Gentile Nero, 1) and taught at the same time as the Jews who had been converted to the faith and were to be converted. Therefore it is clear that Paul told a fact at that time. I pass over that St. Paul does not think of the office of the regiment or the supremacy of the first place, but of the exercise of the apostleship, according to which the apostles were given different lands, in which also Peter was equal to the other apostles, according to Anacletus eun. in novo, according to Jerome against Jovinian and about the epistle to the Galatians, according to Cyprian in the ninth letter to the Pope Cornelius, in the fourth book. On this matter, the Scriptures must be understood with precision, so that we may be careful when they speak of the apostleship and when they speak of the regiment of authority or the supreme authority.
There is nothing in the fact that the venerable father still denies that I have cited divine law for the supremacy and have not refuted the testimonies that he has cited, because I could say the same about him. But none of the holy fathers has understood the testimonies which the venerable father has cited in such a way as to deny the supremacy of Peter over the others, as he has cited them. On the other hand, the holy fathers have in many places the testimonies,
1) As an aside, that's not true, Martin said.
which I have quoted, so that they speak of the supremacy of Peter. Therefore, if I have sometimes spoken somewhat bitterly and harshly against the venerable father with respect to this thesis, do not think that it is said against his person, but the matter being treated seemed to me to be so weighty and necessary that sometimes harsher words had to be used; with the other theses you will always experience the corner modesty.
Therefore, I will end this thesis for now by repeating that St. Peter held the supremacy over the whole church from Christ, from the promise given to him Matth. 16, 18. f., as Jerome, Ambrose, Cyprian and others understand it; from the naming, because he is called the first, Matth. 10, 2. according to the gloss there; from the payment of the interest Matth. 17, 24. ff, where he alone was likened to Christ, according to Augustine and Ambrose; from the fact that Christ pleaded for his faith not to cease, and commanded him to strengthen his brethren, Luc. 22, 32. according to Chrysostom and St. Leo; from the fact that he was appointed shepherd of Christ's sheep Joh. 21, 17., according to Chrysostom and Gregory; that Christ [John 21, 19.] says to Peter, "Follow me," not only in the manner of martyrdom, but also in the rank of mastery, according to Theophilus; that [Matt. 14, 29.] Peter alone received the command to come over the sea to Christ, that thus the world, which is signified by the sea, is entirely subject to him, according to Bernhardus de consideratione to Eugenius, and by the other passages quoted above, I hold that this thesis, which has been approved by so many holy fathers and last of all by the Costnitz Concilium, is true. However, I do not want to rely on my own insight, but I am ready to give my mind in these and in all other things captive under the judgment of the judges to be decreed, the apostolic see and other insightful and pious men. Glory to God alone!
Two o'clock.
Martin.
We are forced to add another conclusion, because the excellent doctor, since he refutes my rebuttals, at the same time has objected to very many things and has again forced me to answer. And although I would have wanted to let this pass, I answer the
I will say this in a few words in order to make my opinion clear in all matters to the judges who are to be appointed.
First he interjected that Peter [Apost. 1, 15. ff.] gave a speech before the election of Matthias and admonished the apostles etc. But I believe that even the Doctor does not think that Peter's preaching proves Peter's supremacy, since he himself answered me in the foregoing that the apostleship is something different from the administration of the government. Therefore, he did not correctly say that Peter, by preaching in this way, exercised the administration of the governmental office. Otherwise, Stephen would also be the first and a pope, because he also preached and did many things among the people. And that he believes that the apostle Matthias was ordained bishop by Peter, I am satisfied that he believes what he wants; I do not believe it if he does not prove it. Likewise, that Peter [Apost. 5, 1. ff.] exercised his supremacy by striking Ananias and Sapphira can be said, but it is not proven; for he raised the dead, which the other apostles also did. Likewise, that he excused the apostles [Apost. 2, 15.] that they should not be considered drunk, this is also no sign of supremacy, since, as I said, the excellent Doctor always distinguished supremacy from all other common works and activities. Likewise, that Peter walked on the sea, and Bernard interprets "the sea" through the world, I admit, but this has nothing to do with supremacy, since we too should trample the world underfoot.
I gladly ignore the promise that faith should not cease, since Christ asked for it [Luc. 22, 32...] because I admit that Peter's faith never fell away, even though he fell away from faith. For at that time the thief believed with the faith of Peter, since Peter denied, as Augustine says. The faith is something completely different than the supremacy. Likewise also that [Matth. 17, 24. ff.] that Peter gave the stater for Christ and himself, from which it is added that he was likened to Christ in it, I admit; but that does nothing.
1004 V. a. Ill, 122-124. section Z. Disputation Luthers u. Eck. No. 377, W. XV, I190-II92. 1005.
to the supreme authority, is rather against the supreme authority. For it follows immediately (Matth. 18,1. ff.), as Jerome also interprets it, that the other apostles were angry because they assumed that Peter would be the greatest. They began to talk about who would be the greatest; therefore Christ called for a little child and thus curbed their ambition. And so the following in the text argues more strongly against the supremacy than the preceding for the supremacy.
The word Joh. 21,19., that only to Peter is said: "Follow me", should be understood according to the interpretation of Theophilus not only from the kind of martyrdom, but also from the rank of mastery. I lenghten Theophilus, since only Augustine seems to have a better opinion, who thus says: Follow me in enduring temporal evils; and if Augustine did not say it, the text of the Gospel itself would prove it. For a discourse had gone forth among the disciples that this disciple would not die, since they had heard Christ say: If I want him to stay, what is it to you? You follow me. Therefore it is quite obvious that this following is to be understood in the way of martyrdom and suffering.
Therefore, I ask the Doctor to refrain from introducing new things and especially those that do not serve the cause, since I could also introduce the word Apost. 8,14. where the apostles sent Peter and John as a lower; and Apost. 15, 13. Jacobus confirmed Peter's speech and changed it. But I did not want to bring in this and similar things, since I have long since conceded the supremacy of honor to Peter and have only denied the supremacy of authority over the other apostles. For this is the prestige (yes, also the supremacy of honor), which God does not respect, as I have stated above, but not the prestige of the fisherman and the poor, as Ambrose has interpreted it according to the report of the Doctor. For Jerome interprets Paul better from the glorious character by which the false apostles wanted to overthrow him among the Galatians by means of Peter's reputation. For I am very well satisfied with the fact that the Doctor supports his thesis with testimonies of Jerome.
nymus, Ambrosius, Bernhardus, Leo, besouders about this saying (Matth. 16, 18.): "You are Peter", if only my opinion, as stated in the foregoing, is considered better confirmed with the same and greater testimonies, and which speak more to the matter, and also place this to the judgment Heini, as above.
Corner.
Today, the venerable father opens again what he has closed, and what he has added in the conclusion, as it were side things and ornaments in the thesis, he strikes back again as main things, and brings about a transformation to such a degree that I do not know whether I am transformed into an opponent or a responder.
To the point in short words.
Never have I dreamed of the conclusion: Peter preached, therefore he was the first.
Then he disapproves of my credulity concerning Matthias (Apost. 1, 15. ff.), and yet he does not refute my reason. Matthias and the other apostles were bishops, and were not ordained by Christ, nor did they ordain themselves; therefore they are not ordained other than by Peter, whom Christ appointed as shepherd. Therefore let him believe with me or answer otherwise.
Regarding the apology of Peter (Apost. 2, 14. ff.) he imposes something on me, which I never thought of, that I would have separated the supreme office from the works of the administration of the other apostles; this never occurred to me, yes, I quoted St. Gregory, that the other bishops were called to participate in the care, but not to the fullness of authority.
He says of St. Bernard about the passage of Peter over the sea that this has nothing to do with the supreme power. I wonder how he could say that when he has read Bernhardus. For according to his intention, Bernhardus wanted to prove from this the supremacy of Eugenius over others, and that the whole world must be subject to him, but not in such a way to the other bishops or apostles.
About the stater (Matth. 17, 24. ff.) he wants to bring out the opposite from the following letter, but he did not do it, but Christ muffled the murmuring of the apostles. But I do not take the words of the holy Scriptures according to my own head, but according to that of the holy fathers. For by these words St. Ambrose wished to indicate that Peter was higher than the apostles.
than the others, which Augustine also testifies quite explicitly in the evangelical questions; the question is not present to me now. Therefore, we should not base ourselves on our opinion, but on the holy fathers.
About the faith that should not cease [Luc. 22, 32.], the Father has passed over, citing, however, the word of Augustine, that the thief on the cross kept the faith which Peter denied.- I, too, pass over this saying; but let the venerable father know that St. Cyprian, supported by the words of Christ, willed that no heresies should have arisen at Rome or in other churches, as I said the day before, that in the Roman see there have been two hundred and twelve popes 1) and yet that before their deposition 2) none has erred in a determination and in passing a sentence in the faith.
With regard to Theophilus, whom he denies at his will, without citing any testimony or reason, I am surprised that he despises the Church Fathers so much, since he is very hostile to the Sophists. He has attracted Augustine, who is not opposed to Theophilus, that Christ spoke of the kind of martyrdom; but let him teach where Augustine denied the rank of mastery, since he confesses in the 124th tract of Peter that he had more abundant grace and was also the first apostle; and in the 162nd epistle he says: in the Roman church the supremacy of the apostolic see has always flourished. Therefore, may he not ask me not to defend our thesis, which I believe to be true.
And he has quoted his own from Peter, who is sent to Samaria, and by this the supremacy is taken away from him; as if we do not know that someone sends himself, as the Son of God, who is sent by the Father and by himself. It is not only recently that one has begun to discuss this, but it has all long since been brought to a conclusion by Alpharus, John de Turre Cremata and others. Even if Peter gave way to James at the Jerusalem Council, taking into account the place and its
1) "In his writing Os primatu kstri lib. II. c-np. 29. Eck counts 229 popes except for Leo X." (Weim. ed.)
2) Walch makes here the remark: "arnotionsm, I understand their change after Avignon; or one would have to understand some deposition in the Costnitzerconcilio." The latter will probably be the more correct, because in the Roman Church, almost as Eck states here, one counts 209 popes except for the Concilium at Constance. Ilrsulius iVIuuual, Laltirnors 1863, p. 572.
high age, it does not deprive Peter of his supremacy.
But in order to appear to be doing something, he ascribes to Peter the supremacy in honor, perhaps as an ambitious one, while he has heard from me Cyprian, Jerome and Anacletus that the apostles were equal in honor. Therefore, the venerable father ascribes to Peter the supremacy in honor, which the holy fathers deny, while he denies to Peter the supremacy in dominion, which the unanimous opinion of the holy fathers and the Costnitz Concilium ascribes to Peter. Therefore, I ask him to refrain from boasting that against such holy fathers, against such a famous council, he relies on greater testimonies, because I have often shown that the testimonies he has cited, according to the opinion of any holy father, do not deny the supremacy. Therefore, let him rather with the Greeks, who late become wise, as it is said of the Trojans, finally become wise that the Roman Pontiff, the true governor of Christ, holds the first place in the whole world, as even the Greeks, the emperor, the patriarch and the sovereigns confessed this and rendered obedience to the Roman Church in the year 1439 on November 22, and so let there be peace in our time. I leave all this, as above, to the judgment of those whom it concerns or will concern. Glory to God alone!
Martin.
I do not exactly dislike everything that the excellent doctor said, especially Augustine's word that the supremacy of the apostolic see has always flourished in the Roman church, if he had only added the one word, namely the supremacy of authority over all bishops. And I think that Bernard is twisting the text [Matth. 14, 29.] of Peter's walking on the sea, since what follows clearly attributes this walking to faith, not to supremacy, since Christ says when Peter began to sink [Matth. 14, 31.], "O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt?" And that he wishes me to believe with him that the other apostles were ordained bishops by the apostle Peter: to be at his will in this, I do not like, since all of them were bishops in the same way as Peter, as the text about Judas quoted by Peter [Apost. 1:20] proves: "And let another receive his bishopric." So much about this.
1008 V. s. Ill, 126-128. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377 W. XV, I195-II97. 1009
Corner.
About the bishopric that Judas was also a bishop according to the words of the Psalm [Ps. 109, 8]: "And let another receive his bishopric", I say that bishopric is taken there for apostleship and not for the episcopal state. For with most it is doubtful whether Judas was also only a priest. But that does not matter. But Judas went out after he had taken the bite. Therefore, since Christ ordained the disciples priests at the Last Supper, Judas was not an ordained bishop. This I submit to the judgment like the other.
From Purgatory.
Eck disputes the ninth thesis.
Not only in bad theologians (theologi- stas), but also in the Holy Scriptures and in the Holy Fathers, it is found that this present life is the state and time limit for merit or debt, for which reason those who are in purgatory cannot merit more and thus do not receive greater grace.
That this is so, I prove by Jer. 25:14: "I will recompense them according to their works, and according to the deeds of their hands." So also Paul says [2 Cor. 5:10 f. Vulg.], "We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ, that every man may receive according to his life what is due him, according to what he has done, whether it be good or evil. Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we counsel men."
I add Jerome to descend gradually, as he understands the apostle in this passage: This he says, I say, as long as we, being in this world, have our pilgrimage from the Lord, let us do it in a good walk, that we may please him in the future, not, as some think, that after we have departed from the body, we can still earn anything there by works. The same is confessed by the glossa ordinaria. In vain, therefore, does man promise himself this after the life of the body, which he has failed to procure here. This is how Ambrose understood it, that only the deeds of life are rewarded elsewhere.
From this it is clear: since the grace is increased according to the merits, and the souls in purgatory will not be able to work anything in a meritorious way, then according to the mentioned grace will also not be able to be increased in them. This is clearly stated by Augustine in the Enchiridion, Cap. 109 and 110, and he repeats
The same words mainly quaest 2. about the eight questions of Dulcitius, where he says after many things: Therefore, all merit is brought about here, by which someone can be either relieved or burdened after this life. But let no one entertain the hope that what he has missed here he will be able to earn after his going to God. Therefore, after death, the increase of meritorious works ceases; the increase of grace corresponding to meritorious works also ceases.
Martin.
The excellent doctor has opposed me with two testimonies of the Holy Scriptures and four of the Holy Fathers.
First of all that of Jeremiah [Cap. 25, 14], where God says: I will repay them according to their works. I am very surprised that the excellent Doctor is of the opinion that this and similar things argue against me, since in my "Explanations" 1) I have cited and explained many more testimonies to this effect, as they do not argue against me, or argue just as much against purgatory. For since the whole of holy scripture contains absolutely nothing about purgatory, but everything speaks either of hell or of heaven, I want to have answered this with an answer to all testimonies, that they do not serve the cause, consequently also the interpretations of all fathers, if they do not expressly think of purgatory, for it is to be believed that when they act the holy scripture, they also follow the sense of the holy scripture. And therefore it must be taught with other reasons and testimonies that the souls are certain and that they do not increase in love.
Corner.
Since the venerable father says that he has cited and interpreted more testimonies in his "explanations": so we have seen them. We have also seen that his gloss on the text does not add anything, which we will now show. We also do not accept that there is nothing in the Holy Scriptures about Purgatory. This statement would certainly be favorable to the Greeks and Picards, but contrary to the Christian faith, as he correctly noted in his "Explanations". But we want to use his One answer to the
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 147 ff.
Battlefield, in which he says that the dressed things do not belong to the matter. How appropriately he answers! The apostle says [2 Cor. 5:10] that every man will receive after he has acted in the body. The Lord Father says that man also receives according to what he has done in purgatory. Augustine says that every merit is brought about here, and the Father contradicts this, saying that merit is also brought about in purgatory. Jerome says that after we have departed from the body, we earn nothing from God; the Father, on the other hand, says that after we have departed from the body, we still earn in purgatory. This is how it is written in relation to Ambrosius. Now may the most illustrious sovereigns, and your respectable and dignified ones, judge whether what I have said does not serve the cause, in which there is precisely nothing contrary to the sayings of the Fathers. I therefore ask that he may refute in truth or show how it does not serve the cause, and he may not be surprised, as I will also show him more testimonies, that it should become evident that this is not a matter of bad theologians (theologistarum), but of right theologians.
Martin.
I, who firmly believe, yes, would dare to say, I know that there is a purgatory, am easily persuaded that it is mentioned in the Scriptures, as Gregory in his dialogue cites the word of Matthew [Cap. 12, 32: "It is not forgiven, neither in this world nor in that," since he wants some sins to be forgiven in Purgatory. I also admit this in the second book of the Maccabees [Cap. 12, 45. f.]: It is a good and salutary thought to pray for the dead etc. But I will this, that in all Scripture there is no such mention of sweeping fire as could stand and convict in controversy. For even the book of the Maccabees, since it is not in the Canon, is powerful for the faithful, but does nothing against the obstinate, and the saying of Gregory can easily be nullified, that neither here nor in the future life will sin be forgiven, that is, never. Therefore, I do not want the suspicion to be harbored against me that I am favorable to the Bohemians and Greeks. This for the first.
In response to the doctor's reply, I will say nothing other than what I have already said to you.
before; because he repeats the same, therefore I will also answer the same. For I have said that there is nothing about purgatory in the Holy! For I have said that there is nothing in the Holy Scriptures about purgatory, so neither they nor their interpretation can be applied to the trade of purgatory. After death, however, either good is repaid to the good or evil to the evil. Those who are in purgatory are in the middle; the testimonies do not speak of them. Neither good nor evil has been repaid to them, and so the purgatory has always passed through the middle of the testimonies.
Corner.
That he excuses himself, that he believes and knows that there is a purgatory, I accept well and have known it before, but that he denies that purgatory is proved in the holy scriptures, I reject as something false and taken from the Greeks and stick to the matter at hand, even if neither the same nor other much greater things could be proved against insolent and stubborn people, as happened with Arius and the other fathers. But that it is said for this reason that it is not found in Scripture, because it cannot be convincingly demonstrated against obstinate people, is quite dangerous and contrary to our religion.
As for the books of the Maccabees, of which he says that they serve for the faithful, but are not in the Canon, I say that this is also false. For although they were not in the Canon among the Hebrews, yet the Church included them in the Canon, as the Father of the Lord Father, Augustine, testifies in the book de civitate Dei lib. 18. and St. Ivo (Ipho) inserted in his decrees the decree according to which the Church included these books in the Canon.
That the venerable father wants to insist on his presumption that what I have mentioned does not serve the cause, - it is nevertheless virtually contrary to him. For, first of all, that he says that those testimonies have their purpose in heaven or hell, does not help him, because they just mention the state of merit and demerit, and establish that this state has an end with death. On the other hand, the venerable Father, without relying on a holy teacher, dares to prolong the time of merit for the souls who are out of the body, and to reward the merits of the purgatory in heaven: and yet the apostolic
1012 L. V. E. Ill, 131 s. Section 3: Luther and Eck's disputation. No. 377. W. XV, 1200-1202. 1013
He said that only the works that man has done in the body will be rewarded. Therefore, I have considered the statements in his "Explanations", but could not accept them as insufficient, so that he could eliminate these contradictions beforehand.
Martin.
First of all, that the excellent doctor says that it is not necessary to deny something of the Scriptures because the obstinate cannot be convicted, he says this very well and true, but I am talking about the obstinate who can pierce us with our own testimony and our own bullet. It is clear that the Book of the Maccabees belongs to the Old Testament. Now, since St. Jerome has recorded the Hebrew Canon and states that only the books belonging to the Canon are valid in the dispute, and in this his opinion has been generally accepted, we will easily be beaten with our own weapons if we do not persuade the faithful.
Secondly, he proves that the Book of Maccabees was included in the Canon. He is arguing about an ambiguity, and we will easily agree. I know that the Church has accepted this book, and I have said so. But the Church cannot give more prestige or firmness to a book than it has in itself, just as it approves and accepts the works of other Fathers, but does not therefore make them stronger or better. I therefore pass over that which is called Canon and Canon by many.
Thirdly, he says that the testimonies cited just mention the state of merit, and that it is terminated by death. I answer as before: because they mention nothing of purgatory, but only of heaven and hell, therefore a dying man deserves nothing to heaven, and a dying man nothing to hell, and so in both the state of merit has an end; otherwise from the same testimonies purgatory could be quite clearly proved.
Fourthly, he says that I do not rely on any warrant and prolong the time of earning; likewise, he claims that the merits of the purgatory are recompensed. I admit it, because this I have done in order to zn
and to hear better than I know. For I know nothing more about purgatory than that souls suffer there and that we must help them with our works and prayers, and I am willing to be instructed if anything more can be said about it. Therefore the passage of the apostle [2 Cor. 5:10], which has been invoked against me, that only the works done in life are recompensed, is taken by the Doctor with reference to purgatory, as I have already said that it could not be taken, but only with reference to heaven or hell. If this relation is observed, it is evident that it does not argue against me, or it will prove purgatory.
On the ninth of July. 1)
Corner.
First of all, since the Father says that the testimonies mentioned are not to be understood of purgatory, I like that because the merit is only in this life, therefore they exclude purgatory in this life. Then it is certain that Augustine also speaks of purgatory in the Enchiridion, because he proves there that the souls are relieved by the help of the living, and Jerome scolds those who think that the souls stripped of the body deserve what Isa. 66, 24. teaches about purgatory.
But that he says that his thesis is a disputation, as if he had no great confidence in it, I am very surprised, since he has been considering it back and forth for more than a year now, and has entitled the disputation with the pompous title: "Wider neue und alte Irrthümer" ("Against new and old errors"), also claims that the opinion of the newer theologians is not likely even to a simple-minded person (stulto), and contemptuously calls them bad theologians (theologistas).
But that he expresses the opinion that the word Canon is ambiguous, I do not suffer, because Augustine in the 18th book de civitate Dei could not take this expression, especially in a controversial point, ambiguously, since he says that it was not in the Canon, with the Hebrews, but with the Church. Then this is established, since several
1) The Weimar edition notes: "In the manuscript according to Löscher for it: Lapatlic" D. Marci; presumably a reading error instead: Kadatlio 8. Marias." This means: on Saturday, the Octave after the Visitation of Mary, which is July 9.
The preface (prologus) testifies that the books of the Maccabees were included, but they are placed by the church among the histories of the holy books. But better to the point.
Since he bases himself on the fact that Purgatory is not expressly mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, this is contrary to what the decree of the Council of Florence determined, which the Greeks also accepted after they had renounced their error. Then several passages of Scripture, such as this word [Ps. 66:12.], "We have passed through water and fire, and thou hast brought us through to refreshment." The word of Ecclesiastes Cap. 4, 14. [Vulg.], "Out of the dungeon and bonds some come to the kingdom." The word Matth. 5, 25. f., where the Lord said, "Be willing to your adversary soon etc., lest you be cast into prison. I say unto thee, Verily thou shalt not come forth thence, till thou pay the last farthing." There he understands by the dungeon the place of the sweeping fire, from which a man is not released, if he has not done completely enough, as St. Gregory interprets it in the corresponding passage about Lucas [Luc. 12, 58. f.]. But Gregory's reason for proof, which St. Bernard takes up again in the 66th Sermon on the Song of Songs, is strong: that Christ indicates that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come.
But extremely clear is the text in the first letter to the Corinthians Cap. 3:15: "But if any man's work be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, even as by fire." And [v. 13]: "The day of the Lord will make it clear, for it will be revealed by fire, and what each man's work is, the fire will prove," and there [v. 12.is said of the stubble, hay etc. where St. Ambrose says that the apostle expressly spoke of purgatory. The same testifies the gloss between the lines (inter- linearis), also the ordinary gloss. St. Jerome signs this in the second book against Jovinianus, also St. Gregory takes this from Purgatory, what also St. Bernard does about the Song of Songs. And lest someone oppose me Augustine in the Enchiridion 6. 67. who says that those words could also be understood from the fire of the present time, let him read the same more completely there and the second question of the eight
questions of Dulcitius, and he will find that Augustine understands these words of the apostle also, as they are quite evident', of Purgatory.
Therefore, not only in the books of the Maccabees, which would be bad enough for the Church, but also in other passages of Scripture, purgatory is taught, unless Gregory, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Bernard belong to ' the number of bad theologians; otherwise I do not know how the venerable father could confess that he knows that there is a purgatory, since he wants to rely so strongly on the letter of sacred Scripture, and the testimonies of Scripture are exceedingly clear to the more recent theologians, he also cannot indicate A passage in Scripture where it is asserted that merit or grace is increased in the purgatorial souls (in purgandis ---- in those to be purified), while on the other hand the wise man, Eccl. Sal. 11, 3, says: "And when the tree falls, let it fall about noon or midnight, on which place it falls, there it remains." The glossa ordinaria says: That is, the place which thou shalt have prepared for thyself here, thou shalt have then, for, says Christ [Hoh. 14, 2.], "in my Father's house find many mansions." A certain dwelling is assigned to the dying, beyond which he cannot ascend by his merits in purgatory.
Thus Damascenus testifies in the second book Cap. 4: But it must be known that with men death is that which is the case with angels, and explains this in relation to the goal of earning. Thus says the wise man, Ecclesiastes 9:10: "All things that come into thy hand to do, do them fresh," as the devout and worthy minister of the church, John Capistranus, put it in this sense. The apostle taught this in Gal. 6,7-10: "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For those who sow to their flesh will reap corruption from the flesh. But let us do good and not grow weary. Now that we have time, let us do good to everyone." The gloss says: "What a man sows", namely by the work of the present life. Therefore, merits are not sown in purgatory, but in the present life. Chrysostom also confirms this by the word John 9:4: "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work." "The day," says Chrysostom, is the present life. Therefore Augustine exhorts us that we should work while we live, lest the night overtake us. To this may St. Ambrose also come as a witness.
1016 L. V. a. Ill, 134-136. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377, W. XV, 1204-1207. 1017
Who wants the apostle to speak of the time of the present life, which is allotted to us, that we may walk righteously. Therefore the excellent psalmist says in the 104th Psalm, v. 23: "So man goes out to his work and to his farm until evening."
Finally, apart from what has been mentioned above, Augustine's saying is clear where he nevertheless thinks of the fire of sweeping. His saying is Cap. 3 de fide ad Petrum: The time to attain eternal life, God has given to men only in this life. Jerome also shows in the third book on the word Gal. 6, 5: "Every man shall bear his burden," how men attain help only in this life through their merits, but when they are called before the judgment seat, which happens in death, then neither Job, nor Noah, nor Daniel can stand up for anyone, but every man shall bear his burden. For, as St. Bernard teaches beautifully, at the death of every man a special judgment will be passed on him, which could not happen if he still had a time to accumulate his merits in purgatory and to increase grace, because, as he says through the prophet Zechariah [Cap. 4, 7. Vulg.], he will make grace equal to grace, will repay grace with glory in proportion to the grace of faith.
Even if these testimonies were not so clear, which are very clear, this one thing should deter the venerable father, that a theologian without theological foundation wants to extend the period of merit of the departing souls at his will, since he is not a judge nor an assessor of the judge. Therefore, in relation to this piece, it seems to be concluded that the souls in purgatory suffer enough and are cleansed of their transgressions, but do not deserve greater grace.
As for the second main part, where he denies that the souls in purgatory are certain of their bliss, again this is my opinion, that this is not substantiated by any testimony of the holy scripture. But for now, I cite the word Revelation 5:1 ff. as proof that they are certain of their blessedness: "And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book etc., and no man in heaven, nor in earth, nor under the earth, was accounted worthy to open the book." In hell there is undoubtedly no worthiness to open the book, therefore he speaks of purgatory, in which there are also sometimes holy men who shine by miracles. This is what St. Gregory testifies about St. Paschas in the fourth book of the
Dialogues, and the history of St. Severinus, who was bishop of Cologne, but according to his origin a Swabian. The same teaches the revelation also further down [Cap. 5, 9. 13.]: And all sang who were in heaven and on earth and under the earth. But those who, as it were, despair of blessedness, do not sing. Therefore, the holy soul, by assuring that there is singing, confirms that the souls are certain of their blessedness. Moreover, in the Canon of the Mass, where prayers are said for the departed in purgatory, we say thus: Remember, O Lord, thy servants who have gone before us with the banner of faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace etc. To them and to all who rest in Christ. If, therefore, according to the Most Holy Canon of the Mass, souls rest in Christo, how can they be in such alarm and terror, which is, as it were, despair, as the venerable Father explains in his "Explanations" from the 14th to the 20th thesis 1)? For I do not see how in such terror, trembling, disquiet, and, as it were, despair, all of which expresses the highest unrest, it can be said of the souls to be purified that they sleep in the sleep of peace, because all that has been said before is contrary to peace. But then they will be rightly considered by the true Christians as resting in peace, when they safely await the end of their purification.
This is partly what has moved me and still moves me today to disagree with the venerable Father, but I am willing to leave this to the judgment and instruction of others.
Martin.
The excellent doctor has defended three things in turn against me with many words: first, that the Canon of Scripture also understands the books of the Maccabees; second, that Purgatory is also proven by other passages of Scripture; third, he has endeavored to show that souls are certain of their blessedness.
I answer: About the first two pieces there is no dispute between me and the worthy gentleman, therefore it would not have been necessary to bring together so many testimonies about this matter, which I perhaps assert more firmly than he, since I have confessed that I know that there is a purgatory. But that is what our
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 145 ff.
The purpose (scopus) is whether it can be proven that the souls in purgatory deserve something and whether grace is increased in them. But let us go through it one by one.
First of all, he said that by the testimonies mentioned yesterday it is established that merit only takes place in this life, therefore it is excluded in the future life, which he understands as purgatory, and thus refers the testimonies to purgatory. But I admit it of the future life, either in hell or in heaven. He also cited Augustine, who speaks of purgatory in the Enchiridion, and Jerome, who scolds those who claim that the departed souls deserve it. Both I admit.
He also rebukes me for saying that I dispute this thesis as if I had no confidence in it, while I wrote with a pompous title, "against new and old errors" I will dispute, claimed that the opinion of the newer ones is not likely even to a simple-minded person, and contemptuously called them bad theologians. I say, as I said yesterday, that I do not yet know anything about the matter of souls and purgatory, and that I call it an error that some people presume to assert what they do not know, and proclaim the opinions of the Fathers, as of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and the like, which they themselves have not asserted, as certain articles of faith; these I call bad theologians, and not theologians. Opinions must be treated in the schools, among the people the words and works of God must be preached, Ps. 19, 2: "The heavens tell the glory of God" etc. Therefore, I do not condemn the opinions of the pious fathers, but resist those forges that make articles of faith out of the opinions of men; this is not the office of a good theologian.
That I have made the Canon ambiguous against Augustine, Iib. 18. 6. 36 [de civitate Dei], St. Jerome encouraged me to do so, as did Eusebius in the History of the Church, where he also lists the testimonies of the ancients. Therefore, the ambiguity is certain.
since Augustine holds the older ones differently from the Canon than Jerome, and consequently no strong proof remains in the dispute. Whether the preface of Jerome lists the books of the Maccabees among the divine writings, I do not remember. 1)
I pass over that the four Evangelia are accepted by the prestige of the Church, for this will be another matter.
Then he says that it is against the Concilium of Florence that purgatory should not be expressed in Scripture. I answer: A concilium cannot make that belong to Scripture which by its nature does not belong to Scripture, just as the Church could not make an Evangelia, even though it approved the Evangelia.
That is why we want to look at the testimonies.
First, Ps. 66:12: "We have passed through fire and water." I answer, This has no application to purgatory; he speaks of the persecutions of the saints, as in many other passages; Ps. 17:3 [Vulg.], "Thou hast tried me with fire." Likewise Ps. 26:2 [Vulg.], "Burn my kidneys and my heart." And 1 Pet. 1:6 f.: "Ye that are now a little while sorrowful in divers temptations, that your faith may be found righteous, and much more precious than gold tried by fire." And in short, this is a very common and foggy way of speaking in the Scriptures, that by fire and water tribulations are understood; therefore, he who takes fire for purgatory is too much attached to letters and syllables, which the Lord Doctor interprets to me.
Likewise also the passage of Ecclesiastes [Cap. 4, 14], that some come out of prison and bondage to the kingdom. This is a very clear text of that which deals with the vanity of this world, that by change of fortune he who is now a servant becomes king, and he who is king becomes a servant. If we were to argue with these and similar testimonies against those who deny purgatory, we would accomplish nothing, except to give the adversaries cause to make fun of us.
1) Jerome, after enumerating all the canonical writings in his preface to the Vulgate, adds, "All that is besides these is to be placed among the Apocrypha."
1020 D- v. a. m, 138-140. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377. W. xv, 1200-1212. 1021
I do not want to make fun of us and the church, although I am very happy to allow all this and what is like it.
So is the word Matth. 5, 25. f.: "Be willing to your adversary, so that he does not hand you over to the tormentor" etc., where he says that according to Ambrosius by "dungeon" the place of the sweeping fire is understood. I gladly admit it; but because other fathers have interpreted it differently, especially Augustine, about hell and the one who will never come out, the testimony becomes doubtful, that it can well persuade the faithful, but not convict those who resist, not to mention that the context of the text does not even suffer it to be understood of purgatory, for it speaks of the willing and the unwilling adversary, and wants the unwilling one to sin damnably and against Christ's command. This belongs to hell, not to purgatory.
He says that the reason of Gregory, since Bernard agrees, is strong, that God forgives some sins in the world to come. I answer: This is true with the faithful, but invalid with those who oppose.
After that he says that the text 1 Cor. 3,15. is exceedingly clear: "But if someone's work is burned etc., he himself will be saved, but as by fire", and it is understood by Ambrose and Jerome, the ordinary gloss and those between the lines, Gregory and Bernard the apostle of purgatory, although Augustine says elsewhere that these words could be understood by the fire of the present world. I answer: This text is so not at all very clear that I confess today, since I have searched many things, that I do not yet know the right meaning of Pauli, since the exegetes differ so much from each other, although I gladly admit him for myself of Purgatory. But since the apostle says quite clearly that the work of every man is proved by fire, and in this fire, he says, the day of the Lord shall be revealed, which shall make manifest the work of every man, as the words are clear, it seems to me, according to my little judgment, that he is speaking of the fire of complete burning and of the last judgment, or, as Augustine thinks, figuratively, of the fire of temporal persecution, by which faith in the Lord shall be judged.
steu is proven, and the doctrine of faith and all that is built upon it.
Therefore, there is still nothing clear from the holy scriptures about purgatory that could be valid in the dispute. Therefore, I do not consider the holy fathers to be bad theologians, because I confess purgatory with them, and they also did not put up their opinions and their ignorance about the state of souls as articles, as the bad theologians do.
The doctor wonders how I can know that there is a purgatory, and I also do not have a passage in the Scriptures for me, while these, as he says, exceedingly clear testimonies of the Scriptures, according to his opinion, serve for the newer theologians. I answer: It is not necessary to confess in which way I got to know Purgatory or anything else. Then these very clear testimonies are given for Purgatory, not for the state of the souls in Purgatory.
As for the saying of Ecclesiastes Cap. 11, 3, "on which place the tree falls, whether at noon or at midnight, there it remains," where the ordinary gloss understands it thus: the place that you will have prepared for yourself here, you will have, I do not know how it can reasonably be applied to the present transaction. For if by the place prepared for thee and thou hast kept it be understood purgatory, then thou wouldst have to abide eternally in purgatory; but if "the place which thou shalt have prepared for thee here" be understood, if thou shalt have merited it, then it does not belong to the saying of the preacher, who speaks nothing of merit, but of the death of man.
I pass over the fact that Christ says [John 14:2] that in his Father's house are many mansions, and that a dying man is assigned a certain dwelling, beyond which he cannot ascend; all this is for me. I know that a dwelling is assigned to everyone after death, but he does not come to the dwelling immediately after death, unless one takes "dwelling" again as purgatory, and so it excludes the dying from the eternal kingdom.
Likewise also the word of Damascenus: This is death with men, which is the case with the angels. I answer: If
he therefore fell into purgatory after death, it follows that he will be purified for all eternity, or Damascene, like all the preceding, must be understood of the two last dwellings of damnation and blessedness, and not of purgatory.
So also the passage Ecclesiastes 9:10: "Whatever comes to your hand to do, do it freshly, for in hell, where you are going, there is neither reason nor wisdom." If he understands it of purgatory, purgatory will again be hell. Therefore, the passage speaks of hell alone, without thinking of purgatory.
I will gladly leave the Johannes Capistranus, but outside the dispute.
That he says zero, the apostle speaks Gal. 6, 7. against our opinion: "What a man sows in the flesh, that he will reap", and the word Joh. 9, 4.: "The night is coming, when no one can work", which Ambrosius interprets of the life of the present time, as we deserve: so it is clear that it serves nothing for the matter. For the apostle does not speak of purgatory, but of the last judgment, and Christ understands by the night, yet without prejudice to the deference to Chrysostom, unbelief, as is clear from the next following text [v. 5.), "Because I am in the world, I am the light of the world," and will that without faith in Christ no one can do good works. But I admit Chrysostom because he has the last judgment in mind.
It is permissible that the saying Ps. 104,23: "So man goes out to his work until the evening", is referred to the life and death of man in a figurative sense, but according to its proper sense, which can also argue in battle, it speaks of the admirable arrangement of God, that He has created man in such a way that man goes out to his work until the evening of the natural day.
And Augustine cap. 3. de fide Petrum rightly judges that the time to attain eternal life is given to man only in this life; because, as I said, they always have the future life in mind, not purgatory.
And Jerome on Gal. 6, 5: "Every man shall bear his own burden" etc., also shows very well that men only obtain help in this life through their merits, but when they have been called before the judgment seat, which happens in death, then neither Job nor Daniel can stand up for anyone. I answer that this testimony is very strong against the excellent Doctor, if it is true that a man is called before the judgment seat in death and then neither Job nor Daniel can stand up for him. In vain the church prays for the dead, and thus purgatory is denied. That is why Jerome speaks of the last judgment seat after the end of purgatory.
He also cited St. Bernard for the fact that a special judgment is held in the death of a man, which would not happen if he still had a period of time to deserve. I answer: Whatever it may have to do with the special judgment, the conclusion does not apply.
I pass over the saying in Zechariah [Cap. 4, 7. Vulg.], "He will make grace equal to grace," because it is interpreted in a figurative and good sense, but not in a proper sense.
At the end of this article he says: Even if these testimonies were not so clear, this should still deter me as a theologian, that I so without foundation, according to my liking, since I am neither judge nor assessor, nevertheless extend the period of merit for the departing souls. I apply the same to the doctor, since he himself is neither judge nor assessor, and yet determines a certain condition for the souls according to his delusion, without a basis, especially since he does not want (which I would gladly allow) that it is only an opinion, but a certain knowledge.
At two o'clock the disputation was continued by the same D. Martin, who said that he would declare himself to be correct and honest about the Scriptures.
And because my opinion does not seem to be sufficiently understood by the excellent Doctor, I declare more clearly that the
1024 L. V. a. Ill, 142-144. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No.377. W. XV, I214-I2I7. 1025
In their sayings, the Scriptures and the ancient holy fathers have in mind the future life in which souls will be either blessed or damned, not thinking of purgatory. Therefore, the many testimonies that deny the state of merit after this life do not refer to purgatory. If this is not yet understood, imagine that there is no purgatory, just as there was no thought of it in their minds. Then all the testimonies mentioned above will still stand and be true, that before death there is life, which must be earned.
Then I do not speak of the merits of the souls in purgatory in such a way that they work something, but that they receive greater grace, since it is established with all that the debt is not forgiven, not even the venial, without an increase of grace, and St. Gregory writes, in the 4th book of the Dialogues, that in purgatory the debts are remitted; and this is stated dist. 25. 6. dualis cited. But I assert this in such a way that I consider it an opinion, nay, that I confess it to be an ignorance. I believe that only GOtte knows the state of the souls in purgatory.
With regard to the third main part, about the knowledge of their blessedness, where he first introduced the fifth chapter of Revelation, v. 3, that no one is found either in heaven or on earth or under the earth, who would be worthy to open the book, by wanting "under the earth" to be understood as purgatory, since in the same there were sometimes also holy people, like Paschasius and Severinus, I say that this gloss has no testimony for itself, therefore it is just as easily despised as approved. I do admit that saints have been in purgatory, indeed that no one is in purgatory who is not a saint. Therefore, a pious person could say that "under the earth" is the same as hell or something else, since neither devils nor men nor angels can open the book, as it is said that the threefold structure of things (trina machina rerum) honors God, and in the apostle [Phil. 2:10] it is said that both what is in heaven and what is on earth, as well as what is in hell, bows the knee. For they also tremble
Devil [Jac. 2, 19.], yes, as is the custom in the same book [of Revelation], "under the earth" also means the dead, as it is said in another chapter [Revelation 20, 13.]: The earth gave its dead, and hell gave its dead again.
But what he states in the following [Rev. 5, 9. 13.]: All sang in heaven and on earth and under the earth, but those who despair cannot sing, I say: I did not say that souls ever despair, but since according to the unanimous opinion of the church the punishment of hell and purgatory is the same, I said that they are similar to those who despair, as it is read that also in this life some have been afflicted with despair, as it is said in many places in the Psalter [Ps. 102:3], "Hide not thy face from me," and [Ps. 28:1], "I will be like them that go into hell." Then, "to sing to the Lord" is not always to rejoice and be glad, yes, a new song is the song of the cross, that is, to praise God and to please Him in the midst of tribulation and even in death.
Thirdly, that he has cited the Canon of the Mass, where, praying for the departed, we say: They sleep in the sleep of peace and rest in Christ, he does not see, as he says, how it can be said of them that they sleep in the sleep of peace, when they are in such anxiety, trembling and the greatest restlessness, therefore, interpreting this rest of peace, he says that they surely await the end of their purification. I answer, It is not enough for me this gloss, and the same is proved by the same. For that they are in unrest is proved by what follows in the Canon: Grant to them, O Lord, and to all who rest in Christ, the place of refreshment, light, and peace; and that which we all pray: O Lord, grant them eternal rest; likewise, Grant them peace, which cannot be so understood: Grant them that they may safely await the end of their purification, which, as the Lord Doctor has interpreted it, is peace. More correctly, therefore, in my opinion, they rest in peace as far as the body is concerned. For to sleep in peace means in the Holy Scripture: to rest in the grave, and so it is clear,
that the excellent Doctor has not proved the certainty of their blessedness, indeed, in a sense, he cancels the penalties of the purgatory, since he attributes peace to them.
Corner.
Since the short time we have is determined to finish this matter today, so that I cannot refute the invalid answers and touch on other points of the purgatory, I will add a few things, so that it can be easily recognized that the venerable father has avoided the core of our matter and sought diversions.
Therefore, when I first quoted Augustine: All merit is accomplished here, and no one should hope that what he has neglected here, when he has passed away, he can earn with God; likewise also Jerome; he says that he admits both: but what is it then for obstinacy, when he admits Augustine, that all merit is accomplished here, that he says that grace in souls is increased also in purgatory? Nor does his eye-salve apply in the present case to all the testimonies of which he says that they do not speak of purgatory. For St. Augustine says just that, when speaking of the souls in purgatory, both in the Enchiridion and in the book "Of the Care to be Taken of the Dead," Cap. 1. For after death we cannot work that which is useful, but we receive that which we have worked. For Augustine had run into the difficulty of how the intercessions could be of use to the dead, since they deserved nothing, and resorts to the idea that they deserved in this life what could be of use to them after death. Therefore he tried in vain to instruct me about his view, which I grasped well enough. Also, his bad persuasion has no force among Christians that venial sins should not be forgiven without increase of grace. Let the venerable father prove this; it is not supported by any testimony, indeed, it is false, since a venial sin, according to God's mercy, causes no offense to God. No new grace is necessary for its redemption, but it is sufficient that someone suffers enough for it.
But secondly, since he excuses himself for error, and since I do not see that even one letter has been cited by the Lord Father in support of his new doctrine, it must therefore rightly be considered suspect, while the opinion of the more recent theologians is based on such
many testimonies of the holy scriptures and the holy fathers. Nor does it excuse him that he interprets some to make the opinions of Thomas or Scotus articles of faith; I know nothing of this. I have not cited Thomas or Scotus, but the brightest lights of the Church with the sacred Scriptures; he may see for himself which ones he accuses of being bad theologians.
Thirdly, he speaks of Augustine in relation to the books of the Maccabees, opposing him to Jerome as the stronger. But Jerome nowhere denies that the books of the Maccabees belong to the Canon of the Bible in the Church, indeed, in the Prölogus he constantly maintains that itH is listed among the histories of the sacred writings; therefore, it should not be equated with the works of the holy fathers in the Canon Sancta Romana, 15. äist. But since I had held this against him from the Florentine Concilium, he replied: a Concilium cannot make that something belongs to.sacred Scripture, which does not belong to it. This is true, but what is this? That he defiles such a praiseworthy council with such a great insolence that it decides something so inconsistent! But since there were very learned men at this concilium, I would rather believe the concilium that is governed by the Holy Spirit than Mr. Luther, not because I believe that a concilium makes something into Scripture that it is not, but because I believe that the concilium has better knowledge and understanding in deciding about Scripture, that belongs to Scripture what is found in Scripture.
His excuse that an interpretation can always be found, so that the quoted text should not apply in the dispute against the stubborn, is powerless. For this would be a hiding place for all heretics, who can always bring some pretense for their interpretation, with which they would like to claim that the Catholic truths are not expressed in the Holy Scripture. Thus, the heresy of the godless Arius would still continue today, because the homousia could not be proven from the holy scripture with such explicit words that a stubborn person could not escape with any pretense in the dispute.
Likewise, we know well that the Church cannot make Gospels; yet the Church makes us, leaving aside the Gospels of Nicodemus, Bartholomew, Thomas, and others, believe only four without doubt.
1) This will refer solely to the first book of the Maccabees, which Jerome notes in the prologus that he found in Hebrew.
1028 V- a. Section 3: Luther's and Eck's disputation. No. 377 W. XV, 1219-1221. 1029
The same applies to the understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. This is also the case with the understanding and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
Furthermore, since he accepts the testimonies that I mentioned at the beginning, he thought that this [citing of the testimonies was done without necessity because he also believed that there was a purgatory. He does not remember that he wanted to wriggle out of so many testimonies that put the goal of earning in the present life, because purgatory would not be proven from the holy scriptures. I have had to refute this statement in order to prevent the Picards and other Rottians from taking it up for themselves, who do not know that there is a purgatory. Leaving some things aside, let us look at least at two passages more closely.
Matth. 5, 25. He did not want the dungeon to be understood as purgatory, since Augustine also understands hell by the dungeon, which was not hidden from me. I also add, apart from what the Father has done, that Chrysostom understands the present life, but that the opinion of Ambrose is more correct, or at least not to be despised, who understands purgatory by the dungeon. The words of Christ indicate that he must pay to the last penny, but in hell there is no payment, just as there is no redemption. Nor can the dazzle added to Ambrose's interpretation disprove that he who is to be thrust into the dungeon has sinned unto death, because they are punished in purgatory both for venial and mortal sins, which are nevertheless repented of, which we learn from the books of the Maccabees, where it is said [2 Macc. 12, 45. f.]: "It has been a holy and wholesome opinion to pray for the dead, that their sins might be forgiven them." For those who had been slain, and for whom Judas Maccabaeus offered sacrifices, had sinned unto death by the spoil taken from idols, though they are believed to have repented when they were slain, as the ordinary gloss there says, and the word of the Psalm [Ps. 78, 34.], "When he slew them, they sought him."
Fourth. Since I had referred to the very clear passage of the apostle Paul in the first letter to the Corinthians, Cap. 3,12. ff., which Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, Bernard, Isidore, together with the ordinary gloss of Purgatory understand, the venerable father confesses that he does not have the right sense of this passage; therefore, he
he respected so many holy fathers and brought up a new opinion that the apostle speaks of the fire of complete burning, because the apostle thought of the day of the Lord, and because the fire will prove the work of everyone. But I, who have always heard that one must believe the ancients, especially the saints, accept the opinion of the holy fathers with reverence, and I do not accept the new gloss and the words of Mr. Luther, unless he proves them by the testimony of the holy Scriptures. Therefore, what he asserts here is of no use to him, since the holy fathers have also read this very well. For although the day of the last judgment is especially called the day of the Lord, as Bernard also reminds us, nevertheless, since the judgment takes place at the death of every one, this can be called the day of the Lord, and he does not make such a precise and subtle distinction with the little word "every one," as the Sophists are wont to do, but takes it to mean those who have built stubble, wood, and hay upon it, as Augustine also summarizes this figure of speech (distributionem) in the first chapter of John [V. 9.]: "It [the light] enlightens all men who come into this world." Therefore, the apostolic opinion is insurmountable, that those who build on the ground wood, hay and stubble will be blessed, but by the fire of purification, so that in such a way no evil remains unpunished.
To the word of the Ecclesiastes [Cap. 11,3.] about the falling of the tree he answers: if the same speaks of the purgatory, then it would be proven that the souls remained eternally in the purgatory. I say that the gloss has understood it very well in such a way that by the "tree" man is understood (therefore it [the tree] denotes also in Ezekiel Cap. 31,8. a rational creature: "There was no cedar tree like him in God's garden" etc.), and by the "fall" death, and that nevertheless it does not follow that for this reason he remains eternally in purgatory, but that he [Ecclesiastes, as St. Jerome aptly interprets it, designates by the "noon" the good, by the "midnight" the evil and damnation. Therefore, the wise man did not understand those places, but the state that when he falls, either he is good, and will remain so, without increase of grace because of the redemption of sins, [or] if he is evil, he will remain evil.
He said about the dwellings in John [Cap. 14,2] that soon after death the soul will be assigned a certain dwelling. Now how can it be a certain one, if a greater one is to be found?
Grace is to be added? For then a higher dwelling will necessarily be added. It would also follow that he who enters purgatory with many venial sins would be better off than he who descends with few, or than he who dies with none, because a greater grace would flow to him for the redemption of the many venial sins. I add that it would be harmful and damning to pray for the dead, and that it would be more beneficial for them if they remained in the punishments of purgatory, because of the addition of greater grace, as the venerable father has written elsewhere that a soul that is freed by foreign aid receives less bliss than if it suffers enough for itself alone in purgatory. This is not only against the holy scripture [2 Macc. 12, 45. f.]: "Therefore it has been a holy and salutary opinion" etc., but also against the custom and the godly conduct of the whole church, which we must show towards the dead, as St. Augustine explains exceedingly beautifully in the book "Of the care that must be taken for the dead" and in the book "Enchiridion".
Furthermore, he answers Damascenus that he does not speak of purgatory, because then they would have to remain in purgatory forever. I also hold that neither Damascenus nor the other testimonies speak of purgatory, for otherwise they would be against me and would benefit the Lord Father; but since they speak of the present life, in which they place the goal of merit and demerit, the time of merit cannot be extended beyond the ordered goal, namely death. Therefore, I do not accept any other interpretation than that which the author himself wants, who speaks of the goal of earning in the passage cited.
I can say the same about the others, and not be heaped with the same reproach as the venerable father, because according to the testimony of the holy fathers and the holy scriptures, I end the course and the limit of merit with death. He, however, without being based on a testimony of the holy scriptures, stretches and extends the limit against Augustine and Jerome, although he has the modesty to call this opinion his opinion; but then he should not call the opposite an error.
As for the testimony of Jerome, fo he has endeavored to hurl the same back at me, that neither Noah, nor Job, nor Daniel can vouch for anyone after death, because there of the recent Ge
He does not prove it by the letter of the law. For not only in the last judgment, but also soon after death, each one will bear his own burden [Gal. 6:5].
Finally, as he approaches another piece, he answers the word of Revelation [Cap. 5, 3. 9.] that by "under the earth" hell is understood. But then the following about singing cannot stand, because the devils and the damned do not sing, but blaspheme and howl. Therefore, "under the earth" must necessarily be understood of purgatory, and cannot be understood of hell, although I do not deny that in the Holy Scriptures also the devil is mentioned in hell, in the apostle [Phil. 2,10.]: "Who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth." But this does not serve the point. 1) But he has added a gloss on the word "sing," that it is to bear the cross and to praise God in tribulations. This gloss I despise as one invented by the Lord Father in this place as easily [as he puts it forward].... Yes, John does not suffer it to be so interpreted, for he says [Revelation 5:9], They sang in heaven, not: on earth. Now in heaven they do not bear the cross, nor do they praise God in tribulations, for God wipes away all tears from their eyes, now there is no sorrow nor pain etc. Now even if his interpretation were admitted and true, while it contradicts the letter, it would not overturn this matter. For those who praise God in tribulations after death would have a certain sign of future blessedness, whereas the damned, out of complete hatred for God, constantly blaspheme the Creator. Therefore, the souls to be purified surely sing and praise God, awaiting the end of their purification.
But since I had cited the Canon of the Mass, in which it is affirmed that they sleep in the sleep of peace, he does not suffer my conclusion: if in the sleep of peace', therefore they are safe because of their blessedness, and not in horror, trembling, despair and as it were in despair. He has given a twofold reason: 2) First, because it follows: Give them the place of refreshment, light and peace; secondly, because they are in the sleep of peace.
1) aä Itdornduiri. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 1675.
2) In all Latin editions: aääuxi, which, as the old translator already recognized, is to be changed to aääuxit. For it was not Eck who added this twofold reason, which would be against him, but Luther. Compare Col. 1025 f.
1032 L.V.L. Ill, 150-152, Sect. 3, Disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377 W. XV, 1223-1225. 1033
t because we often pray: Lord, give them eternal rest, and: Give them peace. Therefore, he has given another gloss, that they sleep the sleep of peace, namely, concerning the body. I am not satisfied, neither by his interjection, nor by his new gloss, which has no semblance, nor reason. For the Canon says, Remember them that sleep; and afterward, And all that rest in Christ. He does not say: to those who rest in the grave. Furthermore, what does it matter to the soul whether the body has peace or not, whether it is tossed to and fro by the sea or torn apart by wild beasts? as St. Augustine testifies. And what man can suffer that a body that is dead and dead should sleep in peace? Therefore, he does not like to admit the distinctions of the newer theologians, and yet he distinguishes here very well between the peace of the body and the soul.
Therefore, one must accept the more correct opinion that the souls to be purified both sleep in peace and rest in Christ. Therefore, this rest and peace excludes the disturbance of the soul, horror and, as it were, despair, since the souls are in the greatest restlessness, which are moved by such disturbance of the mind that they, as it were, despair.
To the unimportant objections, however, we answer that we pray and implore God to give them peace, not the peace they already have, namely, the security of their blessedness, but eternal peace, because, as St. Bernard testifies, there is peace both from guilt and from the unhappy state (miseria). May God therefore give the souls in purgatory peace from the punishments, just as He has given them grace against the sins.
Therefore, it is still the right and unshaken truth that the souls in purgatory do not, as it were, despair of their blessedness.
Martin.
Against the answers the excellent Doctor replies from Augustine, who says: All merit is accomplished here; and since he deals with purgatory, that after death we receive only what we have acted. I answer very briefly: So there is no purgatory, or purgatory will be what one receives for the past life. Therefore, it is evident that Augustine could not be understood of purgatory. Because they did not act that in the past life.
that they would like to receive purgatory. But also this testimony comes to me that they have earned the merit by which they deserve. They have earned the merit of receiving help here. But I confess that I cannot understand how the souls in purgatory are helped and how they are freed without any gift of grace, only by taking away the punishments; understand it, whoever can!
Then he says that it is false that venial sins are not forgiven without increase of grace. Since the Lord Doctor wants venial sins to be forgiven without increase of grace, I will not allow this until he proves it; indeed, it is contrary to the explicit text Rom. 7, 14.24. f. and Gal. 5,17. where the apostle says: "I am sold under sin. Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" He answers, "The grace of God through JEsum Christum." But it is certain that the apostle has not been in mortal sin. The other I leave to the future disputation between the excellent Doctor Andreas 2) and Johann Eck. And this is erroneous, that a venial sin does not offend God, since God dislikes everything that is impure, and he rejects the one who dissolves even the smallest [commandment], Matth. 5:19, nor has the Doctor proven that it is enough that they suffer enough.
Secondly, he accuses me of not having cited even one letter for my opinion, while he has brought so many testimonies of the Scriptures and the Fathers for the opinion of the newer ones. I answer: The more he has produced, the more his opinion is suspect to me, because he has pulled them [the testimonies] by the hair and twisted their necks, as I have said sufficiently in the foregoing. Less sinful is he who doubts in his thoughts than he who seeks to raise his doubtful things with the words of God.
1) At all Latin editions: de morts sorporis üujns instead of de corpore inortis ünjus, as it should be, also according to the Vulgate. - The answer that follows is according to the Vulgate, v. 25.
2) It should be noted here once and for all that in this disputation between Luther and Eck, Carlstadt's name has been erased everywhere in the Wittenberg and Jena editions and "N." has been put in its place.
He also says that it is not known to him which people have set up the opinions of Thomas or others as articles of faith, because he has cited the lights of the church with the Scriptures; therefore he warns me to beware of those whom I call bad theologians. I have said today and I say again: I let opinions be opinions and do not impose this on anyone as an error, but if one draws the scripture that is in conflict with it to a foreign meaning in order to confirm the opinions and insists stubbornly on it, this, I say, is the doing of bad theologians.
With regard to the other, the Canon of Books, where, based on the testimony of Jerome and the Concilium of Florence, he prefers to believe the Concilium, which is governed by the Holy Spirit, rather than me, I thank him. For he has a godly opinion; I have never wanted to be believed. But I answer briefly: let him first reconcile with himself Jerome, who in the proIogus galeatus 1) the books of
of the Maccabees and several others are obviously counted among the Apocrypha. By this testimony it comes that the book of the Maccabees is dear and valuable to me, but the disputants are free to reject it. I have said enough of Coucil today, yes, as the Doctor himself says, a Concilium does not err; but if it errs, it is not a Concilium, and that I speak according to my sense, I believe that a Concilium and the Church never err in things pertaining to the faith; in others it is not necessary that they should not err.
But that he exclaims that this is a hiding place for the heretics, who, trusting in it, may reject or accept any interpretations of the testimonies, I answer: Why did St. Augustine, Jerome, and other exceedingly victorious triumphants over the heretics not complain of this, but abandoned ambiguous passages, and endeavored to contend with certain and clear passages? Let us do the same with regard to the souls in purgatory.
1) That is, in the preface to the Vulgate. Compare Col. 1019, where Luther says he does not remember it. Meanwhile, he reread the prolosus. - "with himself," that is, with Eck, who had asserted the opposite.
To the point.
Regarding the answers to the testimonies, he said that I had despised Augustine, Ambrose, Bernard, Jerome, Gregory, Isidore, together with the proper gloss; he said this according to the Eckian modesty, rather arduousness, 2) being all too eager to arouse hatred against me. I have said today and say again that they have not been despised by me; but that he does not accept my gloss, I do not care about that; but he himself also proves his own, since the text is clear about the day of the Lord and the fire in which the day of the Lord will be revealed. Although this can be applied to purgatory, as I have said, and thus have not rejected the opinion of the doctor, namely that there is a purgatory, the mouths of the disputants cannot be shut with this opinion.
Likewise, I have not despised the word Matth. 5, 25. about the prison, as it is according to the opinion of Ambrosius. That the Doctor adds that Christ's words indicate that payment must be made to the last penny, therefore they must not be understood of hell, I answer: This is sufficiently refuted by St. Jerome, who against Helvidius interprets this expression "to" correctly, so that there is no need for it to mean what Ambrose and the Doctor here put it. For it is also written of Joseph in Matth. 1, 25: "He did not recognize her until she gave birth to her son," and yet it does not follow that he recognized her after the birth. So it does not follow here that he will go out after paying, but he will pay and not go out.
But that he has adduced in refutation that he has not sinned unto death who is not willing to his adversary, and that even mortal sins, if only they are repented of, and venial sins are purged in purgatory, to this I say that this text does not speak of mortal sins repented of, for a repented mortal sin is now no longer a mortal sin, and a penitent is no more
2) In Latin, a play on words: modestia- moIsstia.
1036 V- a. Ill, is f. Sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377 W. XV. 1228-1230. 1037
one who is not willing to his adversary. Therefore, Christ speaks of one who is not willing and remains so.
I pass over that of the falling of the tree in Ecclesiastes ]Cap. 11, 3], where he says that Jerome understands by noon the good state, and by midnight the evil state: both I admit, and it has nothing to do with purgatory.
Regarding the certain dwelling in John [Cap. 14, 2.), where he speaks pointedly in this way: how it could become a certain dwelling, if an increase of grace took place, to which a higher dwelling was due? The same can be said of every believer after baptism, who has a certain dwelling provided for him from eternity. Then those who are in purgatory are so ordained that they come to a certain dwelling in this way. Nor does that human argument imply that it should follow that it is better for him who goes down with many sins than for him who goes down with few. If this reason is valid, then it is to be feared that a whore would be better than the holy virgin: as if there were not different degrees of souls in purgatory, since today he himself assured that the saints, who are more excellent before others, are in purgatory.
Then he states the reason of New Year's Eve 1) that it would benefit them if they remained long in the punishments, because in this way it would also be useful for the martyrs to die and suffer until the Day of Judgment: Day of Judgment to die and suffer. As if the Lord Doctor did not know that the punishments are assigned to the souls according to a certain measure. Therefore, it is not reprehensible to pray for the dead, just as it was not reprehensible that the apostle prayed for himself and desired to be prayed for, while his strength increased in weakness. So every believer should pray for every need of every believer, he should help him, regardless of the fact that he deserves more and more through this need.
1) From the "Dialogue of Silvester Prierias" against Luther's 17th thesis. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 321. Compare "Luther's Response to the Prierias Dialogue," ibiä. Col. 374, § 59.
By this I also want to have answered that it is against the custom of the church and godliness that I said that a soul, which is freed by foreign help, receives less beatitude than if it suffers enough for itself in purgatory. This he took as a corollary from my sayings, since I expressed the opinion that one must come to the aid of souls, as much as it is a more perfect kind of merit to do enough for divine justice in every way.
I pass over the Damascenus with the goal of earning and refer to the preceding.
Likewise, he again pulls me through, that I, without being based on a testimony, extend the period of earning, but he bases himself on many, and denies it. I answer: He also bases himself on none, except on those who are forced by force to his opinion, as has been sufficiently said.
Since he also wants to catch me in my words, he says that I called my opinion an opinion, therefore I would have called the opposite an error quite badly. I say as before: I call my opinion not only an opinion, but also an ignorance; I did not call the opposite opinion an error, but that one sets up an opinion as truth.
Then he says that the testimony of Noah, Job and Daniel is not only valid for the last judgment and I cannot prove this from the letter. I leave this to the judgment of the one who has a better insight, since the text clearly states that neither Job nor Daniel pray for a man who is brought before the judgment seat (which happens in death), which must definitely be understood from the last judgment, or at least not from purgatory, because Noah, Job, Daniel and all churches pray for the dead in purgatory.
To the saying of Revelation [Cap. 5, 3. 9.) he correctly says that the devils in hell do not praise God, but blaspheme.
The rest Doctor Martin wanted to write down on a piece of paper, because the time had passed, and show it to the doctor and the notaries. However, on the following day he handed over the following in writing.
That the devils in hell do not praise, but blaspheme God, I know. But that for this reason "under the earth" denotes purgatory, in which the souls sing, does not follow. First, because they are in tribulation and torment, and God has not yet wiped all tears from their eyes. But the Lord Doctor denies that singing is praising God in tribulations. Therefore, he speaks against himself, since he sets praise under the earth in purgatory and the punishments in which they cannot praise at the same time. But I also deny that the souls sing for the sake of having a certain sign of blessedness, because this certain sign should have been proved. Next, I did not say that "under the earth" means hell alone, but also other things, everything that is always under the earth, in which all the praise of God is superfluously present. For everything is full of the glory and praise of God, who is praiseworthy in all his works. Otherwise, the Lord Doctor must understand purgatory not only under the words "under the earth," but also a fourth place in the words "under the sea," since there in Revelation [Cap. 5,13.] also "under the sea" is indicated, "and all that is therein." Therefore we understand it more correctly in such a way that by this quadruple all creatures are indicated, as what the Lord Eck imagines.
But that praising God in tribulations is "singing", I prove that it is not invented by me, as the Doctor says; for Rom. 5:3 [Vulg.] says: "We praise in tribulations", and Ps. 42:9: "The Lord has promised His goodness by day, and by night (that is in tribulation) I sing to Him." And Jac. 5:13: "If any man be in tribulation, let him pray with a good heart, and 1) sing psalms." Likewise Ps. 34:2: "I will praise the Lord always." At all times, he says, even in adversity. On the other hand, he is reproached of whom Psalm s49, 19. Vulg/ says: "He will thank thee when thou hast done him good." I confess, however, that I did not say this of the damned under the earth, but to exclude the opinion of the Doctor.
1) Here Luther read instead of 68t: st, and after oret no punctuation mark.
who wants the singing to take place only because of the certainty of bliss in purgatory.
Regarding the Canon of the Mass, he is not satisfied that I have referred the "sleeping in peace" to the body, because the Canon says: "to those who rest in Christ", not: to those who rest in the grave. Furthermore, what does the soul care whether the body is in the sea or in the air, and does not rest? Likewise, he says, "Who will say that a body that has been disembodied sleeps in peace? I answer: This quibble is not valid, because those who rest in the grave, or wherever they are thrown around after the body, rest in Christ, that is, as the Revelation Cap. 14, 13. says, they rest from their work, namely, because the soul separated from the body now does not toil in the body in the various troubles of this world. Otherwise, how will he deny that Christ's body sleeps in peace in the grave and rests in God? since the Scriptures speak of Him in such a way in so many places, and the church sings [Ps. 4, 9.]: "I will lie down in peace and sleep." 2) And Ps. 16:9 [Vulg.], "And my flesh shall rest in hope." Likewise Revelation 14:13: "Blessed are they that die in the Lord." Likewise Stephen, Apost. 7, 59, "died in the Lord," which is undoubtedly said of bodily death, according to the flowery language of Scripture. If for Eck the disembodied body does not sleep, let it sleep, I pray, for God who will raise it up, and according to the testimony of Scripture.
At the end he says that we are asked for peace, not that which they have, but that which befalls those who have been purified from the misery of punishment. I answer: This is an unproven assertion, 3) because that peace of safety which they are to have has not yet been proven. Therefore, it only remains that they are in punishment, and we should pray that they will be released from it and have peace.
I want to have said all this in such a way that I wanted to show that in relation to the things
2) Thus Luther gives it in his first Psalter translation, St. Louis ed. vol. IV, 7; compare ibid. col. 383.
3) pstitio priüeivii. Compare St. Louis edition vol. VIII, 1130 f., 885.
1040 V.". Section 3: Luther and Eck's disputation. No. 377 W. XV, 1233-1235. 1041
I am ignorant of what God is doing in purgatory; that those who, impatient with this ignorance, would rather invent than confess that they do not know, are taking too much liberty. I cannot prove what is mine, but neither can they prove what is theirs. Therefore my thesis quite rightly intended only this: that it is neither proved by Scripture nor by reason that souls are certain, at least all of them, of their blessedness, and that grace is not increased in them. It is enough that we know that they suffer and that we should come to their aid. The rest we must leave to God alone.
This happened on July 10 in the presence etc.
Eck replied by note on July 11. 1)
The answers of the venerable father seem to me insufficient, mainly that he says that Augustine does not speak of purgatory, since he speaks of it above all things, namely of purgatory. And it cannot be denied that the souls of the departed are refreshed by the godliness of their own who are alive, since the sacrifice of the mediator is offered for them, or mild gifts are made in the church. But this is of use to those who, when they were alive, deserved that it might be of use to them hereafter. For the way of life is neither so good that it should not need this after death, nor so evil that it should not benefit it after death. Therefore, all merit is brought about here by which someone can be either relieved or burdened after this life. Now go, Luther, and say that Augustine did not speak of purgatory here.
Moreover, he does not prove that an increase of grace is required for the redemption of venial sin. I admit that an increase of grace sometimes takes away venial sins, but a venial sin is also taken away by sufficiency. Therefore, the mentioned apostle Rom. 7, 14. 24. f. does not speak of venial sin. Furthermore, if he were speaking of it, he would not exclude the suffering of satisfaction. But of his agreement, since it does not serve the matter, I say nothing for now. The venial sin, I admit, offends, but venially, because it does not lead man into hatred against God.
1) Löscher's manuscript adds: "at one o'clock".
nor does it make an enemy of God out of him, because otherwise he would not be able to stand 2) with grace. Therefore, in purgatory they have venial sins, but without enmity against God.
As for his claim that I am dragging the testimonies by the hair to the point, I will die if he has cited even one testimony in the entire disputation that serves the point as I have cited here. But that is for the judges to judge, not Luther.
He is annoyed why Augustine and Jerome did not also claim this hiding place of the heretics, of which I have spoken. Dear God, as if Augustine and Jerome did not cry out everywhere against the Pelagians, Cyprian and Ambrose against the Arians and Novatians, that they interpret the Holy Scriptures as they please!
He asks that I prove my opinion, while he cannot prove his; but that mine is proven, I leave to the judgment of the judges.
The "until" has a different meaning in Jerome to Helvidius, because elsewhere it is proven from Scripture that Mary has always remained a virgin. Therefore, the "until" does not indicate the consummation there, which it cannot do here.
Furthermore, I do not dwell on my reasons for the sake of brevity. But that he says that I have made it certain from his sayings that the souls liberated by the help of the living receive less bliss, he puts this on me wrongly. For I do not imagine dreams. For one will find in the refutation of my remarks 3) that Paschalis did not want his reward to be reduced, therefore he preferred to burn. But I let this go and order it to the judges.
Furthermore, I do not deny that someone may praise God even in tribulations, but this cannot be assumed in this passage, because it is said [Revelation 5:9] that they sing in heaven, and [Revelation 21:4] that God will wipe away all their tears etc. Therefore it becomes clear to the reader how he twists my opinion. Therefore, according to John, the souls in purgatory sing GOtte, and I demand that he give the cause, if it is not to be the certainty of glory; therefore.
2) This HON has been added by the old translator, as it seems to us, puffing; in the Latin editions it is missing.
3) This is in Luther's refutation of Eck's 14th obelisk, in Luther's "Asterisks," Walch, St. Louis ed. vol. XVIII, 566.
he quite falsely invents that I speak against myself. Therefore, I do not deny that the pious boast and sing in tribulations, but I have denied the gloss which he invented that "singing" is as much as praising God in tribulations; otherwise, the angels and the blessed would not sing to God.
That he endeavors to defend the quite obvious error, namely, that souls sleep in the sleep of peace, namely, as far as the body is concerned etc., because the soul separated from the body does not toil in various troubles, - see the mischievousness, since, while in his answer he had referred to those resting in the grave to the body, he now goes to the rest of the soul from the toils of the body. But listen, good man! Does this mean resting from work, because it does not suffer hardships in the body, but it feels incomparably greater hardships in the soul apart from the body? What use is it if I have rest from fever and am plagued by stone?
With Christ's rest it is something else, who expected the resurrection without decay. Blessed therefore are they that die in the Lord [Revelation 14:13]; but who shall say that the body is blessed, except by the soul overflowing into the body? This is the case with St. Stephen, who died in the Lord.
Finally, he says that I make the unproven assertion: they are at peace, and yet we ask for peace on their behalf. But because it is ridiculous to refer the peace one has to the body, it follows that in the soul it is the knowledge of security.
That he says that he cannot prove his own, I consider to be quite true. Others, however, prove theirs, although an obstinate and stubborn man cannot be brought to rest even by proofs, that he should not always argue that it is no proof, as Gregorius of Ariminum and Petrus Aliacensis do it with Aristotle in the reasons of the first mover in the 7th and 8th book Physicorum.
Therefore, I conclude with the common opinion that grace is not increased in purgatory and that the souls are certain of their bliss.
From indulgences.
On July 11, which was a Monday. 1) Corner.
First of all, before I enter into this disputation of indulgences, I testify that it is not my mei-
1) InLöscher's manuscript fst added: umsieben Uhr.
It is not my intention or intention that by this disputation of mine I want to contravene the commandments of the pope, in which he commands in the decree that begins Cum postquam, 2) that one should not defend or preach anything that is contrary to certain points of the indulgence, under the penalty of banishment, but rather that it is my intention to defend the truth that has been approved in this decree. Having said this, I now proceed to attack the eleventh thesis 3).
To say that indulgences are useful to Christians is right and godly, nor is indulgence an affliction for a good work; therefore it does not seem to be well said that those who assert this are nonsensical. This is proved: because the Church does not err in matters concerning faith, which are intended for the salvation of souls; indeed, as St. Cyprian says, God does not allow the greater part of the clergy to err, but in the general conciliarities and by the entirety of the clergy, indulgences have now been considered useful and godly for Christians for three hundred years. This became evident at the Concilium of Vienna, where the indulgence given by Urban IV for the observance of Holy Communion was approved. For the Concilium added this moving reason, that the faithful of Christ would be more ready to pay the sacrament the due reverence and honor.
Thus Innocentius III, at a general concilium where he issued the extremely useful decree Omnes utriusque, adopted by the whole Church, also made a decree concerning indulgences for the hospitals: For the remission of sins, we charge you to make charitable offerings to them from the goods given to you, so that by your support their lack may be remedied, and by this and other good things which you do by the Lord's gift you may attain to eternal joy.
At the same council, the power of the lower prelates to grant indulgences was limited, which was subsequently approved at the council of Lyons. But if indulgences were an affliction on a good work and useless to Christians, what need would there be to limit the granting of indulgences on a good work?
2) This is the new Decretal of Leo X of November 9, 1518, No. 234 in this volume, which is found in Walch's old edition Vol. XV, 760 ff.
3) Luther's 11th thesis is found in the St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 720, Eck's counterthesis idiä. Col. 714 f.
1044 v. a. in, 161-163. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377. W. xv, 1237-1239. 1045
Works to diminish at a lower prelate, and transfer it to the fullness of power?
In addition, the laudable Concilium at Constance, which among the errors also condemned the contempt of indulgences, granted indulgences to all who were at the Concilium and fasted on Friday, which would have been as much as defiling and corrupting the good works of such great fathers.
And Gerson, whom the venerable father calls an excellent theologian, as he has been very careful about truth and respectability, has certainly declared that the granting of indulgences is not to be underestimated or despised, but must be received devoutly in faith, in the hope and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given men such power of the keys of the church. For it is certain that the doing which is based on such an indulgence is more fruitful and more pleasing to God than another, and which, all other things being equal, is not based on it. This is what Gerson says.
So also other holy and highly esteemed men stood at the time when indulgences were given, which were also given by St. Gregory nine hundred years ago, and by Paschasius six hundred years ago. Therefore, only the prestige of such a great father must move any Christian to believe that the indulgence is useful to Christians, although I know very well that William Altisiodorensis 1) tells that there was no lack of people who even during the lifetime of St. Gregory contradicted the holy father in matters of indulgences.
Furthermore, I will add this: If indulgences are an affliction of a good work, I think that I can chiefly suppose this from the fact that they are sufficient. But by a sufficient work we deserve no less than if it were not sufficient; otherwise it would be better that we did not do sufficient works, lest we diminish our merits for this state. But if we sow in blessing, we shall also reap in blessing. But about this I want to hear the venerable father.
To this may be added the great unanimity of all Christendom in the Jubilees celebrated by the Popes, Boniface VIII, Clement VI, Urban VI, Nicolaus V, an exceedingly honest and very learned Pope, Sixtus IV, and that with the common consent of the most Christian kings and princes of the
1) William of Auxerre.
Pope has often given the fullest indulgences for holy journeys (passagiis) and crusades.
Since the faith of the Church cannot cease, for which Christ prayed that it would not cease, Luc. 22:32, and promised that He would be with us always, to the end of the age, Matt. 28:20, it cannot be admitted that the Church has erred for so long to the perdition of souls. And because the decrees of the popes must be accepted by all who stand in the communion of the holy church, as Gregory says in Canon praeceptis, 12. dist., likewise Canon omnia decretalia, 25. quaest. 1.2) under the penalty of the sentence of excommunication pronounced, that indulgences are useful for the expiation of the penalty for sins, which is due to those who are members of Christ through the bond of love, and because such an indulgence is paid for by the merits of Christ and the saints through the power of the pope: I want a believing Christian to have the firm conviction through all this that indulgences are not an affliction of a good work, nor that to say that indulgences are useful for a Christian is to be nonsensical, which is nothing other than to say that all the clergy in the church have been nonsensical for so long.
Martin.
The excellent doctor attacks my eleventh thesis with twelve reasons. Before answering this, I will first explain what I have called a nonsense, what it is that indulgences are considered good for a Christian, and that they are an affliction of a good work. Therefore I say: since the prophet in the 40th Psalm, v. 5. [Vulg.], dares to call even the statutes of men "false unsiunies," and Ps. 119, 85. [Vulg.How much more nonsensical it is that indulgences, which are neither commanded nor advised, nor necessary for salvation, but rather an indulgence of many good works, are considered to be a good of Christians!
2) Leo X in the new Decretale. Walch, Vol. XV, No. 234.
Commandments and the covenants. 1) Yes, I say even more: since the extremely salutary law of God, according to the testimony of Ezekiel and the apostle Paul, Rom. 7,11. f., is not good for man, but rather a cause of sin, but grace alone is a good for the Christian, how much less must indulgences, which can in no way be compared to grace, but also not to the goodness of any law, since they are nothing and a kind of deprivation of good works, be considered a good! not as if I thought they were harmful or corrupting, as we will say.
Since the excellent doctor says first of all that the church does not err in matters concerning faith, nor in those which are intended for the salvation of souls, he is right in this; but indulgences are not of this kind, as has been said.
But that Cyprian says that God does not allow the greater part of the clergy to err, let him see what he has said. It is certain that at the time of the Arian faithlessness the greater part of the most eloquent bishops and the most learned men erred in such a great article of faith, so much so that almost no Catholic bishop remained on his chair.
That he says that at the general Concilium and for three hundred years indulgences have been considered useful and godly for Christians, and that at the Concilium of Vienna the indulgences granted by Urban IV, I answer that I have never denied that indulgences are useful, but not for Christians, that is, for those who act with fervor, loving and seeking Christ according to their name. For to them the abatement of works is disliked, but the imposition of works is loved. Secondly, I say that in these matters no one's person must be considered, neither that of a council nor that of a pope, but what is said must be seen, especially since this error concerning indulgences is seen as in
1513 same Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XIX,
The first thing is that a man is not dangerous to a thing that is not necessary, but when all else is equal, that is, when he knows that he is not necessary and does not put his trust in it.
To the second of the general Concilium and Inuocens III, who ordered for the establishment of the hospitals that they should give mild contributions etc. for the forgiveness of sins, I say that I do not yet understand this word of the pope, since the forgiveness of sins seems to me to be something different from the indulgence, and if it were the same, I say as before.
Thirdly, with respect to the Concilium of Lyons, at which, as is said, the limitation of the power of the lower prelates in granting indulgences is also approved, I admit the whole. But what follows: if it were useless, it would not have been necessary to reduce the granting of the indulgence of a work to the lower prelates, to this I say that the indulgence has been called by me the indulgence of a work, according to that which I have been attacked by the Lord Doctor in my 42nd thesis in the explanation of it, 2. Thesis in the explanation of the same, 2) where I said thus: not that the indulgence is evil and harmful, but because the wrong abuse harms, in that they would not do such a work if the indulgence were not, for thus the indulgence itself becomes the purpose of such a work. And it is quite clear that people would rarely contribute if indulgences were not promised. Therefore, there is always the danger of at least one defective work.
Fourth, he cited the laudable Costnitz Concilium, which, among other errors, condemned the contempt of indulgences. I answer: I have never despised it, or taught that it ought to be despised, unless contempt be understood in this way, that we can do incomparably better things with the same cost with which indulgences are purchased, or than indulgences themselves are. Therefore the preference of the better is not a hasty contempt of the lesser, just as gold is not a contempt of wood or hay, though it is more excellent.
2) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 220 f. - Eck's attack happened through his 20th obelisk, idick. Col. 572.
1048 L. V. L. Ill, 165-167, section 3: Luther's and Eck's disputation. No. 377 W. XV, 1212-1241. 1049
Likewise to the fifth, where he cites Gerson, that the granting of indulgences is not to be disparaged, I add, "in its way," or, as he himself said, "if all else be equal." And I do not think that the Doctor is at all pleased with this statement that indulgences must be received in faith, hope, and love, since he has stated that even those who are beyond grace can have their indulgences fulfilled and remitted. I would allow that the action based on the indulgence is more fruitful than another which is not based on it, if everything else is equal, if only this "everything else equal" is applied correctly, just as I do not deny that a layman's Our Father can be better than all the canonical prayer hours of a priest.
Sixth, he states that St. Gregory gave indulgences nine hundred years ago, Paschasius six hundred years ago, although, as William Altisiodörensis relates, some contradicted St. Gregory. I answer: I do not yet have a credible history of the indulgences of Gregory. But, however this may be, it does not follow that the indulgence is anything other than an indulgence, that is, a remission of good works, which no one can call good for Christians, no matter how holy conciliarities or how holy men may have given or approved it. Therefore, may the Lord Doctor not act against me with the mere names of testimonies, but also with the truth of the matter itself.
Seventh, he says that indulgences are a defect in a good work because they are sufficient. I say that it is not sufficient, but an indulgence of satisfaction, and not to be considered a sufficient work. Therefore, by this reason, indulgences are compared very badly with works that are sufficient, as if for this reason our merits were diminished if indulgences were allowed to stand; rather, the opposite is more correct: merits are increased if indulgences are allowed to stand.
Eighth, he says that through the unanimity of the faithful, the Jubilee of Boniface VIII, of Clement VI, of Sixtus etc.
had been accepted. I answer: Who knows whether the unanimity of the faithful has accepted it. Nor is Boniface held in such high esteem that whatever he has done can immediately be regarded as something well done, especially in a matter that is not good nor necessary for salvation, since he has also committed other monstrosities that have set an evil example in necessary matters.
As for the ninth, that the Roman popes, with the consent of the most Christian kings and princes, have given indulgences for holy journeys, I say as before: It is no wonder that God despises this, and allows to be done and to be done what does not serve salvation, who watches over us in this, that he teaches what is useful, as the apostle to Titus Cap. 3:8, that is, his commandments and counsels.
Tenth, he concludes that the faith of the Church cannot cease, and Christ is with us, therefore the Church could not have erred for so long to the ruin of souls. I say: not the whole church has erred. Then, even if she erred in these trivial things (I am always talking about the Christians), there is no danger if the faith remains unharmed. To differ in opinions and to err in temporal things does not annul the Church of Christ.
Eleventh, he claims that one must accept the decrees of the Roman popes. I answer: Without a doubt, they must be accepted, but with good judgment, as dist. 19. c. Anastasius is written: because the Roman popes were men and had men around them, they could err. Then there is no decree that commands the purchase of indulgences, nor is there one to this day that clearly explains the value of indulgences.
Finally, with regard to the determination of the present pope that indulgences are useful and derived from the merits of Christ and the saints, I answer: He himself does not express it sufficiently, nor does he prove what he says with a single syllable. I have spoken more abundantly about this in my Augsburg Acts. 1)
No. 176,177. 200. 203. 204. 224. 225 and 226.
It does not follow, therefore, that the whole clergy in the church was nonsensical for such a long time, since in the meantime there were always people who disliked indulgences and who also, at least privately, contradicted them, as the well-known saying testifies: Indulgences are a divine fraud. 1)
Corner.
I have heard that the opinion of the venerable father is in many things milder and more lenient than the words of the theses seemed or other of his writings seemed to indicate to me, and it is not my purpose to defend the immodest proclamations of indulgences or the abuses, but to assert the truth and how much the indulgence granted with reason can be of use. And, to be brief, I give no discussion of the excuse of his thesis; but since he supposes that the indulgence is not commanded, not necessary, we admit that. But in all this, it seems to me, in my little judgment, that the difficulty of our disagreement is mainly that the venerable father says that indulgences are only a remission of good works. I do not remember to have found this interpretation in anyone who gives or allows indulgences, for then indulgences would in truth be harmful, dangerous and damning, since in such a way conciliaries and popes would remit these good works that man would either not deserve such great blessedness, which is contrary to the salvation of souls, or men, deceived by the remission of good works, would be sent to purgatory to suffer there the punishments which they have not paid here, which is indeed damning. Therefore, the unanimous opinion of all who either give or allow indulgences is that the indulgence is not a remission of good works, but the remission of the temporal punishment for the repented sin that is still owed and not paid, as Leo, the present pope, expressly declares in the aforementioned decree, which was done before him by Sixtus IV at the time of his Jubilee in an exceedingly definite manner. Therefore, I cannot reconcile that the venerable father says in his "Explanations" 2) that the indulgence is given only to lazy people, which he also asserts in his German Sermon 3) who do not fulfill the canonical penances.
1) Thus Luther gives in this volume No. 448 in 4>em 18th article (before? 167) the saying: Inäul^sutias 8UNt Pius ä666ptic "N68.
2) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 218.
3) "Sermon on Indulgences and Grace," St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 273,? 14.
and yet in the same "Explanation" says that the canonical penances are imposed on the lazy, because the otherwise zealous people repent throughout their lives. Therefore, the indulgence would be quite unfortunate if it were the remission of good works.
In refuting this, he answers the first: indulgences do not affect the salvation of souls, while it is indeed very important for the salvation of souls whether they promote or hinder salvation. Our faith is also interested in whether the pope, as the governor of Christ, can remit and extinguish the punishments due to sin by paying for them with the merits of Christ and the saints.
With regard to Cyprian, he reproached me with what also occurred to me when I read Cyprian, although I am not completely sure whether, as in Greece, so also in other areas of the church, the greater part of the clergy was corrupt.
Then he replied to the conciliar that indulgences are not good for Christians, that is, for those who follow Christ in faith and love. This certainly destroys the pronouncements of the Conciliar and the granting of indulgences, because they are granted only to the faithful of Christ and to those who have repented and confessed, according to the common form. Therefore, according to the general opinion, indulgences are not good for the wicked, because they do not obtain them, but for the good and those who are truly Christians.
I do not suppose that the venerable father here invokes Seneca's saying that one should not pay attention to who speaks, but to what is said, since, especially in matters concerning the faith, one must also pay attention to who says it, and a concilium that has been lawfully assembled must be heard by every Christian.
He says that it is not a dangerous error to err here in regard to indulgences; but it seems to me that the opposite is true, because it has been judged a dangerous error to disparage your holy order of mendicant monks from the beginning.
About the ordinance of Innocentius in the general Concilium, he says that he does not understand how that has validity, or whether the indulgence is the forgiveness of sins. I say as always: I will not admit that such a solemn and lawful Concilium could have erred, since it is not abandoned by the Holy Spirit, and the forgiveness of sins must be understood in terms of punishment, because the name "sin" is
1052 L.v.s. in, i69-i7i. Section 3: Luther and Eck's disputation. No. 377. w. xv, 1247-1249. 1052
is not always taken for the guilt, but also for the punishment due to the guilt, as in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12, 46.]: "that the sin might be forgiven them," which cannot be understood of a guilt to death, but of the punishment due to the guilt. And when it is said of indulgences that they are given in order that those who obtain them may be absolved from punishment and guilt, let no one think that indulgences absolve guilt, but that, since the pope grants them, they are absolved from guilt by means of the sacrament of penance by the commissaries appointed for this purpose, and thereafter obtain indulgences, that is, the remission of punishments.
Here Eck continued at two o'clock on July 11, 1519. 1)
But that he excuses himself for having said that indulgences are an affliction of a good work, because he also wants that, all else being equal, a good work with indulgences is better than without indulgences, but as it is wont to happen, because men thus buy indulgences, that they would not do those good works without the indulgence, - although a great deal could be said about these sayings, as in a parable, when neighbors come together more out of friendship against neighbors for the sacrifices and the offertories (offertoria) 2) than in regard to the dead: it seems to me, however, always without prejudice to a better opinion, that this is not the infirmity of a good work, first, because the holy Concilium intends by indulgences to arouse people to good works; secondly, because, though it may be that they do or give something of the kind in order to obtain indulgences, yet these works are not corrupted by this purpose, because this purpose of indulgences is not different from the last purpose, so that the remission of penalties is appropriately assigned to GOtte. Otherwise, if the subordination of the purposes were cut off, there would be very few or no good works.
About the fact that the contempt of indulgences was condemned by the Costnitz Concilium, the venerable father says that he did not despise them. I freely confess that if he had always used such moderation as he has declared today, perhaps one would agree with his statement, even in conscience, without any in
1) This caption is missing in Löscher.
2) Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XIX, 1053, § 40.
restriction, but his written German Sermon 3) offers the layman a different view. But that is none of my business.
With regard to Gerson, he answered in a permissive manner, but he thinks that Gerson is against me, since he considers indulgences to be useful when they are received in faith, hope and love, because otherwise I would have held that repentance can happen in a mortal sin. I say that even the most Christian chancellor holds that someone in a mortal sin can do enough in terms of penance, otherwise those who hear confessions would be acting extremely unwise if they impose a continuing penance. But whether someone in mortal sin obtains indulgence is not the point. The reason for the difference is clear, because only those who have repented and confessed tend to be granted indulgences. Therefore, it is not surprising if sinners are not able to obtain it, because the indulgence is valid only as much as it says. The venerable father added that the Our Father of a layman is worth as much as the canonical prayers of a priest; if all else is equal, I will not allow it.
About St. Gregory, he says that he has not yet seen an authenticated history. But the very constant rumor, as St. Augustine says in the book "Of the Trinity" of Alexandria, does not allow to deny this. However, he denies that the indulgence is sufficient, but it is only a remission of good works. I believe that we disagree on this main point, and that a large part of the dispute has its basis here. But before I reminded you that indulgence is not a remission of good works, as the venerable father believes, but a remission of the punishments due to sins. Therefore, a true Christian who receives the indulgence does not less but more good works than if he did not receive the indulgence. I understand it, however, that the indulgence is sufficient, as Pope Sixtus IV, Clement VI and the present pope have declared, not that he who has obtained the indulgence is sufficient, but because no evil remains unpunished and no sin unavenged (can. sicut primi, de peni. dist. prima), the governor of Christ, the steward of this treasure, where man does not pay for the punishment of sin, pays for it himself out of the abundant treasure ordered to him with the merit of Christ, and does enough for him.
3) A Sermon on Indulgences and Grace, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 270 ff.
Therefore I have admitted in the foregoing that indulgences do not in themselves cancel guilt, but punishment; and that such a cancellation of punishments is in indulgences, and not the cancellation of good works, is evident from the words of Isaiah ^Cap. 61, 1.]: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, therefore he hath anointed me. He hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, and to preach an indulgence 1) to the captives, and an opening to them that are shut up." Since Christ applies the same words to himself, he used the term remissionem [discharge] instead of the word indulgentias. Thus says Theophilus, as St. Thomas recounts to him: For before the souls of all were kept from hell, until he came who preached remission to the captives.
After that, the venerable father claims that the merits are increased if mdn keeps the indulgences pending. I do not see this, because, as I have said, those who do not buy the indulgence or leave it pending, sometimes wanting to consume this money in good banquets, do not increase their merits. I admit that someone could sometimes do a greater meritorious work with this money than if he bought indulgences. The case need not be applied to each individual. 2)
With regard to the celebration of the Jubilee, he does not want to admit that it was done with the agreement of the faithful, and the suspicious life of Boniface could also make his Jubilee suspicious. I say that the unity of the people is very great, and that at a Jubilee the faithful of Christ from the whole Christian world come together. How he could prove the unity of the believers in any other way, I do not see.
That I said that with the unanimity of the princes for the holy voyage and the crusades indulgences had been given by the pope, to this he replies that it matters little if they were mistaken here in this insignificant matter, as if it were nothing to deceive the believers in Christ, and that the unanimous unanimity of the Christian princes and kings should stoop to such a deceitful deception of the faithful!
Moreover, he says that there is no explicit and clear decree on indulgences. I counter him with the declaration of Sixtus and the now recently issued declaration of the oppo-
I) In the Vulgate: inänlMntiÄrn. Inünlssntiae -- indulgence.
2) Bet Löscher speeiücÄri, in the other editions: spseivoenri.
He says that the Roman Church, which the others are obliged to follow as their mother, has delivered that the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor in the office of the keys and JEsu Christ's governor on earth, by virtue of the keys, to whom it belongs to open, by removing the obstacles in his Christ-believers, namely, the guilt and punishment that one owes for the real sins, namely, the guilt through the mediation of the sacrament of penance, but the divine punishment, which, according to divine justice, one owes for real sins, by means of the indulgence of the Church, for important reasons, can grant indulgences from the abundance of the merits of Christ and the saints to these same believers in Christ, who are members through the bond of Christ's love, whether they are still alive or in purgatory, and have also been accustomed to distribute the treasure of the merits of Christ and the saints by granting indulgences by apostolic power, both for the living and for the dead etc. He then clearly states that indulgences are not a remission of good works, but a remission of punishments, which takes place through the payment with the merits of Christ.
And when I gave the reason that the church had not erred for so many years, he replied that not the whole church had erred, because in the meantime there had always been people who were suspicious of this trade, hence the common saying that indulgences are a pious fraud for the faithful. To this I say: If one wants to judge any matter, one must listen not to what anyone says, but to what pious, learned, honorable and the best people teach. For how many very proven and honest men have been in the whole Christian world in three hundred years, and of whom some have been placed in the register of the saints, who nevertheless have not disapproved of indulgences in such a way, 3) even though, as in all things, the abuse displeased them. Thomas is a saint, Bonaventure, Albertus the Carmelite, Bernhardinus and other great men, Hales (Ales), Gerson, Capistranus etc., who nevertheless did not reject the granting of indulgences. Therefore, there is nothing in the fact that Johann Wiklef and Ulrich Kalteisen in England, the Lord Johann von Wesel (^688a1ia), who, however, took this back at Mainz, did not ask the Bohemians to like the granting of the indulgence.
3) In Löscher: irnprokÄvsrunt, in the other editions: xrodaverunt. We have assumed the former.
1056 L. V. L. Ill, 173-175. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No.377. W. XV. 1251-1254. 1057
"Therefore, let us conclude that the indulgence given in a reasonable manner for the glory of God and increase of faith is not useless to the devout believers in Christ, not to the presumptuous, but to those who receive it with humility and thanksgiving, with abstinence and defense against abuses, that we thus rather want to thank God for such a great gift than to despise it in hope, always having in our hearts that the best indulgence is true repentance. But to speak of the matter in general, I would rather have wished, if the opinion presented today had been the mind of the venerable Father, that he had said this clearly and had not given the simple a cause to think otherwise, because there is no one among all the listeners who would have understood the meaning given today in the eleventh thesis: "To say that indulgences are a good for the Christian is to be nonsensical, for they are properly infirmities of a good work." But I am well satisfied with his interpretation, as far as I am concerned.
Martin.
Against my answers, the excellent doctor counters, first of all, that indulgences are not a remission of good works, and he has not seen anyone who claims this; it also follows from this that indulgences are truly dangerous, harmful, and damning; rather, according to the unanimous opinion of those who give and permit them, they are the remission of the punishments due for sins. I answer: I wonder very much what these words of the doctor mean, since by the punishments due for sins, all undoubtedly understand the difficulties of atonement, which is the third part of penance, to which certainly also belong the good works of almsgiving, prayers, fasting, vigils, and the like. With regard to this, there is an explicit text lib. 5. o. Cum ex eo, where the pope says that by improper indulgences the penitential satisfactions are invalidated. And all indulgences in general have this clause: We release from the imposed penances. But now, granted that they were penalties and not works, I say that it is worse that penalties should be remitted than works, since a life of suffering and punishment promotes or benefits more than a merely active life, as the apostle says in 2 Cor. 12:10: "When I am weak, then am I strong." For it is a purer work,
which is accomplished by God's action alone when we suffer, than that which is accomplished with our cooperation, according to the words of Deut. 32:39: "I can strike and I can heal, I can kill and I can make alive. Therefore, there are more inconsistencies in the opinion of the excellent doctor about indulgences than in my opinion, and I really do not know whether I am speaking quite right.
Secondly, he cannot make it up that I said that indulgences are given only to lazy people and that the canons are also given only to the lazy. I say: I do not remember that I said that the canons are given to the lazy. But if I have said it, then my opinion is that the brave and the ardent or penitent do more than the canons require.
Third, he argues that indulgences are necessary for salvation because it is useful to know whether they promote salvation or not. Although he does not exactly say that it is necessary for salvation, it is useful to know whether it promotes salvation or not. I answer: This, too, is not necessary to know, but whether he may be harmful to salvation. For it is not necessary to know things that are not necessary to salvation.
Likewise, that it was important whether the pope could remit through the merits of Christ. I do not know if this is the case.
Of the merits of Christ hereafter.
Then he says that my opinion destroys the pronouncements of the conciliar authorities and the granting of indulgences, which according to the common form grant [indulgences] to those who have repented and confessed. I answer: Therefore my opinion does not destroy the pronouncements of the conciliar, because those have repented and confessed who are lazy in making amends. The Scripture also calls these weak, and for their sake indulgences are not to be condemned.
He also rebukes me for using Seneca's saying, "not who, but what is said," because in matters concerning faith, one must also consider who says it. I answer: This does not serve here, because the matter of indulgences is not a matter of faith. Furthermore, in matters of faith it is exceedingly more of-.
It is necessary to pay attention not to who is speaking, but to what is being said. For one does not have to consider the persons, as the Lord clearly says Matth. 7,15. and 24,5.: "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing" etc., likewise: "Many will come under my name and say: I am Christ"; and Joh. 10,27.: "My sheep hear my voice". Accordingly, one must not believe the Pope at random, so that the rule of the apostle John [1. Ep. 4, 1.] may stand: "Beloved, test the spirits, whether they are of God."
Then he says that there is danger in error about indulgences, because the error of those who disparaged the orders of mendicant monks from the beginning was considered dangerous. Whatever may be the case with the disparagers, this does not prove that an error in indulgences is dangerous, and it is not immediately an error what the orders of mendicants or the priests of the churches have considered an error.
In the same way, I add to what he says that a concilium does not err because it is governed by the Holy Spirit: namely, in the things in which it is governed by the Holy Spirit, that is, in matters of faith. And that I finally say it once: I have not said that a concilium has erred in giving indulgences. But of that hereafter.
I pass over the fact that he understands the remission of sins as the remission of punishments, since sin is often taken for punishment, 2 Maccabees 12:46. I do not often find that sin is taken for punishment, unless, for instance, it is written of Christ that he himself bore our sins, of which I do not dare to say that it is simply taken for punishment. But these are external things.
Since he wants to refute that I said that the indulgence is an affliction of the work, he says that it is a subordination of the purposes in the works, therefore the indulgence does not spoil the work if one refers it to God. I answer: give an example to prove it! For I have said today that such people are seldom found, who
They give for free and only for the sake of God as much as they give for indulgences. Therefore you shall know them by their fruits. Yes, if they hear that they can do something better than buying indulgences, it is likely that they will not buy indulgences.
About the contempt of indulgences he says: if I had used such moderation, "one would have to agree with his explanation, but his German sermon [on indulgences and grace] indicates to the laity a different conception". I answer: the excellent Doctor will look at this sermon more carefully, and he will find that I have said in explicit words that indulgences are not to be despised, but to be left free; no one is to be deterred, just as no one is to be urged to do so, for it is a consolation for the lazy. Therefore, it is not my fault that they do not understand this explanation and even moderate opinion.
I pass over that of Gerson, where he says that it is something else to be sufficient in sins and to release indulgences in sins, because in it the form of granting is opposed, which only allows indulgences to those who have confessed and repented. Johann Gerson also agrees with him on this point. I say: I leave this as something that goes beyond the capacity of my understanding. For indeed I do not understand how a sinner can do enough in sins and also receive permission not to do enough, since more seems to be required for the performance of works than for their omission.
He says of Gregorius that even if one does not have an authenticated history, he does not allow the rumor to be denied. I say: no one should believe a rumor lightly, and I pass over it.
Finally I come back to that, that the indulgence should be sufficient, and not a remission of good works, but of punishments. Perhaps we are arguing about something that is ambiguous, for the Doctor calls it sufficient, since by the power of the indulgence one is permitted not to do enough, and this permission not to do enough is taken for a satisfaction. But I call "doing enough" that which fulfills the satisfaction, not refrains from it.
1060 L V. L. Ill, 177-179. section 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No.377. W. XV, 12SK-I258. 1061
He also quoted the saying Is. 61, 1. where Christ Luc. 4, 17. ff., reading from Isaiah, says: "The Spirit of the Lord is with me, because he hath anointed me to preach the remission to the captives", where Christ said "the remission". He added Theophilus, who interpreted that the souls were kept etc. until he came who preached salvation to the captives. That this saying does not serve the cause is shown by the words themselves and the context of the text, because Christ says there [v. 21.], "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your ears," then because he speaks of the right jubilee, that is, of the fullness of time, of the crown of the year of grace, and not of the remission of sins, but of the forgiveness of sins, of which all Scripture speaks, while the jubilee of Boniface began so long after.
Likewise, I pass over the fact that he denies that the merits are increased by keeping the indulgences pending, because this is not refuted by the fact that they sometimes want to consume this very money in banquets.
About the celebration of the Jubilee years he says that there is a great unity of the people, because the faithful in the whole world come together for indulgences, but with the exception of Italy and Rome, and he does not see how I can prove the unity of the faithful in any other way. I answer: I would prove that this is a consensus of the faithful, which, after the matter had been made known and the truth of indulgences had been explained, moved the faithful to flock together: but now those flock together who do not know what and why, since the greater part believe that they are doing something necessary and meritorious.
After that, the excellent Doctor, referring to the holy journeys and the crusades, says that it is not a minor matter that so many are deceived, especially the great ones. I answer: It is also not a matter of great concern, since St. Jerome also says of the blood of the prophet Zechariah, Matt. 23:35, "We condemn the blood of the prophet Zechariah.
If the people do not commit the error that comes from the godliness of faith, this error is also without harm to the soul, even without a gain in money, which they hand over to the leaders of the churches in honor of the holy church.
Since I have said that there is no decree on indulgences, he has held up to me the declaration of Sixtus and the recently issued one of Leo, in which the power of indulgences is explained. I say: This is another question. I have said that there is no decree requiring the purchase of indulgences, therefore they are not necessary.
At the end he says to the saying "Indulgences are a pious deception of the faithful", by which I wanted to say that not the whole church has erred: one should not listen to what each one says, but to what pious and righteous men teach, but now also some do not approve of indulgences, who have been placed in the register of the saints. I answer: Neither do I, of course. But I add that the Church, when she accepts opinions, does not therefore make truths out of opinions. Therefore I say to this declaration of Leo X, as I said in the [Augsburg] "Acta"): it is not proved by mere words, especially words of men, that indulgences are taken from the treasury of Christ and pay the penalties required by divine justice, though I do not condemn opinion. For, to say what I mean, since Christ's merits, whether they be taken as a help or in any way and under any name, are nevertheless Christ's merits, and suffer no change by use or application. But if they are Christ's merits, they are grace and truth, according to the words of Ps. 25:10: "The ways of the Lord are goodness and truth;" and John 1:17: "Grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ;" and there [v. 14]: "We have seen him full of grace and truth." Therefore, even if an angel from heaven teaches otherwise
1) In this volume No. 203, Col. 572 ff.
I will not believe that it is in the hands of any man to give grace and truth, that is, to distribute the merits of Christ. But I do not resist the pope, but refer to my explanation in the "Acta".
Corner.
Because, as I have said, a great part of the disagreement lies in whether indulgences are the remission of good works or of penalties, where I have said that the teachers of the Church and the Roman 1) popes who have hitherto written about indulgences take my side, but this the venerable father refutes in a perceptive and learned manner, because to remit the penalty would be to remit the burdens of satisfaction, among which are good works, contrary to the decree of Innocentius in the Canon Cum ex eo, of penance, that the satisfaction of penance should not be invalidated. I say that the burdens of penance are indeed remitted, but for this reason not the good works. For although prayer, fasting, etc. For although prayer, fasting, and other penances are atonements, they are still good works, even if we do not do enough with them. In addition, repentance is not only the work (labors) of good works, but also of repentance. Therefore, many do not want a confessor to be forced to take the penance upon himself, according to the common saying: "It is better that a confessor send a confessor to purgatory with a small penance than to hell with a large one. And it is no wonder that the pope has limited the plenary indulgence to the redemption of penances, if it is given everywhere by the prelates. So the piece of the bull says about the imposed penances, that is, which should be imposed according to the divine justice, as the teachers of the Church, who write about the indulgences, declare.
Furthermore, that he claims that it is worse to impose punishments than works, I do not accept, because the punishments are useful only in so far as man is instructed to do good, and thus the power becomes powerful in weakness. But* I refer this to the judges. And because it would be dangerous for souls to err in indulgences, as I have stated today, therefore the churches do not err when they want only the indolent who have repented to receive indulgences.
1) Instead of Romani in the Weimar edition, Romanos should probably be read. In the other editions: Rom.
Certainly to the Carthäuser one does not have to come.
In matters of faith, he says, one must pay special attention to what is said. I consider auctoritatem in theology to be the greatest thing, and that we are commanded to listen to those who sit on Moses' chair [Matth. 23,2. f.]. Therefore, we must be careful who speaks, so that, according to the commandment of the apostle [2 Cor. 10:5], we may take our reason captive to the obedience of faith. For this reason also the conciliar churches were kept, so that through their reputation the errors would be eradicated.
I'll pass over the one about the mendicant monks.
To the fact that he says that a concilium does not err in those things in which it is governed by the Holy Spirit, I say, following the opinion of the older Fathers, that it must always be assumed that a concilium is governed by the Holy Spirit, as long as the opposite is not established, namely that it has not been lawfully assembled.
But the venerable father still stands firm regarding the infirmity of the good work, that he who gives money because of indulgences would not otherwise give it, as if that were an infirmity in a good work! I would like to ask the venerable father: if he holds the anniversary of some prince or nobleman with his brothers with thirty masses, because good gifts are given, otherwise they would not hold the anniversary: whether that would be an infirmity of the good work? 2)
Those who have read the German Sermon [on indulgences and grace] may judge whether he did not despise indulgences.
Furthermore, the venerable father, having become my interpreter, says that indulgences have perhaps become sufficient in this way because someone is not required to do enough for the sake of it. This is not my opinion, but because man should do enough of his own sins, even those that are repented of, and through indulgences he does enough of others, because the pope gives him from the treasury of the church what he can pay with, so that, according to the common opinion of the fathers, even with indulgences sin does not remain unpunished, with the reservation that he could not do enough of his own if the merits of Christ were not added.
2) In the margin: Martin doubts. Eck: And so no flesh will be just, neither in the cap nor out of it.
1064 ". v. a. m, i8i-i83. Section 3: Luther and Eck's disputation. No. 377. w. xv, iMi-E 1065.
From the consensus of the faithful I believe that no one is so foolish as to believe that the indulgence in a jubilee year is a necessary thing; and if he believes that the journey to Rome is meritorious, he is not mistaken in this either. For it is certain that a work by which one obtains indulgences is meritorious, and yet indulgences themselves are not meritorious.
Furthermore, I do not do violence to the words of Sixtus and the present pope, because I follow the chair of Peter and his opinion, who sits on the same, as long as he should not (that be far!) have fallen into a heresy. I know that he does not prove, but decides, whom I consider as Christ's governor, whose faith does not cease in the moment of a decision.
But all this I order to the judgment of those to whom it is incumbent, and I am ready to let go of errors if any are proven to me.
Martin prompted [the Notares to add: Me too.
On the twelfth of July Eck opposed and Martin answered.
Of repentance.
Corner.
In your name, sweet Jesus.
Against the thesis of the venerable father and a part of his sermon on repentance 1) I intend to prove, in defense of the pious fathers, the preacher monks, that true repentance begins with the fear of punishment, and that someone can well prepare himself by deliberation, doubts etc.
First, because the Lord Jesus and his forerunner, Saint John, observed such a way of preaching. For Luc. 15, 11. ff. the prodigal son gives an example of a penitent, according to Augustine "on evangelical questions", according to Ambrose lib.2.de penit. 6.3., according to Chrysostom, Jerome and others. But Christ presents Him to us in such a way that He went into Himself and said [v. 17. f. Vulg.]: "How many peons in my Father's house have bread in abundance, but I perish here in hunger. I will turn myself out, and go to my father, and say unto him, Father, I have sinned in
1) Luther's 3rd thesis is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 718, the sermon on repentance ibiä. Vol. X, 1220.
the heavens and before you" etc. By describing here the way of a penitent, the Lord Christ first shows that the penitent is moved by the greatness of the rewards, namely "they have bread in abundance", and by the fear of the punishment, namely "I perish here in hunger". Encouraged by these stages, he began to be intent on true repentance, namely, "and will say, Father, I have sinned." And Basil interprets this in this way: There are three stages of repentance: the hope of reward, the fear of punishment, and the sincere love of paternal kindness, and so he who was an enemy first becomes a servant before he becomes a friend of God. This is how John started with fear [Matth. 3, 7.]: You generation or breed of vipers, who showed you that you will escape? etc.
So it happened also in the whole old testaments that the people were drawn by the fear of the punishments to the obedience to the commandments, as one finds this in the law books, histories and prophets everywhere. Let it be enough. To cite one passage, Ps. 89:31 ff: "But if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my statutes, if they profane my ordinances, and keep not my commandments, I will punish their sin with a rod, and their iniquity with plagues," and other things that agree with this.
Therefore, the preacher monks who followed the holy Scriptures have so far observed the good way of preparing repentance by considering the gravity of the sins, the eternal punishment etc.
In addition, there is the reason of Dionysius, because God governs things in such a way that He leads the lowest to the highest through the middle. Therefore, since the sinner is in the lowest, because he is not worthy of the bread he eats, and wants to ascend to the highest, the grace, he must do this through the middle, the fear. It would be a good thing for perfection if someone who has sunk into the mud of sin could raise himself up to the grasp of grace through the mere contemplation of God's love and through the love of righteousness; but who is he? and we want to praise him. Rather, St. Augustine praises the way of our time in preaching by expressly teaching that no one attains to love and true grace unless fear precedes it, not filial fear, but even servile fear. Augustine says in the 9th Tractate: 2) Therefore fear makes the
2) The Interpretation of the Epistle of John (Weim, ed.).
Beginning, because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom [Ps. 111, 10]. But when love has begun to make its dwelling place, the fear which prepared the place for it is cast out. For as much as the latter increases, the latter decreases, and as much as the former becomes more inward, fear is driven outward; the greater the love, the smaller the fear; the smaller the love, the greater the fear. But if there is no fear, there is no way for love to enter. (He gives a similitude:) Thus we see that through the bristle the thread is led in with which one sews; the bristle first goes in, but if it does not go out, the thread does not follow: thus fear first takes the heart, 1) because it went in for the sake that love led it in. He cites the word of the Psalm [Ps. 30:12.]: Thou hast turned my mourning into joy. And after that: The judgment is pronounced according to the Scriptures: for he who is without fear cannot be justified. Therefore it is necessary that fear come in first, through which love comes; fear is the medicine, love the health. From this it is quite clear that repentance serves as a medicine, and fear is the remedy according to Augustine, and love enters in no other way than through fear.
Therefore, it is well preached that repentance begins from fear, and I do not accept that the venerable father tells at the beginning of his explanations 2) that the voice of the venerable father Staupitz was sent down from heaven, as it were, that repentance begins from love and esteem [of God] (dilectione). For St. Ambrose, the good physician of souls, expressly contradicts this in his letter to Studius: "Where punishment is decreed, there must be repentance for sins; where forgiveness is given, there is grace. Repentance precedes, grace follows. Therefore repentance is not without grace, nor grace without repentance, for repentance must first condemn sin, so that grace may put it away. For the same thing Chrysostom testifies in the whole book "of the contrition of the heart" and in the 80th homily "of repentance" and in the 29th sermon. I also add Isidore in the 2nd book "Of the Supreme Good", Cap. 12: The contrition of the heart is the humility of mind, which begins with tears through the remembrance of sin and fear.
1) According to Augustine here would still be: but the fear does not remain there (Weim. Ausg.).
2) In his letter to the resolutiones, in this volume No. 132, Col. 414 ff.
before the judgment; and in the whole book "of the repentance of the heart". And in the "Mirror of Sins" Augustine does nothing else, indeed, he admonishes the sinner who wants to repent that he should remember three abysses, namely his sins, the punishments and the judgments of God. St. Bernard also teaches "on the high song" in the 16th Sermon and in many other places, Gregory in moralibus lib. 2. and 5. and likewise on the 29th chapter of Job, also in the 2nd book on Ezekiel, where he says in the 19th homily: It is written [Ps. 111, 10.]: "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord." There is no doubt that one ascends from fear to the Lord, but does not return from wisdom to fear. The prophet, therefore, speaking from heavenly things [descending] to the lowest, he 3) began from wisdom and descended to fear. But we, who strive from the earthly to the heavenly, count the same steps ascending, so that we may be able to go from fear to wisdom. He said the same thing in the first book of Ezekiel: there are two wings, fear and repentance, which are said to cover the body, that is, the sins.
From all this, I want to conclude with regard to the one piece of fear, that in our time and in earlier times, preachers have preached that repentance begins with fear, and that they strive to sow the fear of God in the people through their preaching, so that the seed of the devil is eradicated, according to the words of Origen in the 3rd book of Job: "The fear of punishment and judgments is good; if the devil has not cast it out, he cannot sow the seed of sins. The fear of punishment and judgments is good; if the devil has not cast it out, he cannot sow the seed of sins. It follows, then, that repentance does not begin with love and the desire for righteousness; although I confess that if it began in this way, it would be more praiseworthy and perfect than if it began with the fear of punishment. But our infirmity does not suffer that to which the Lord Jesus and the preachers condescend, preaching fear as a stage by which we attain the true love of righteousness.
Martin.
This is not a way to understand or interpret the divine Scriptures profitably, when sayings are picked out of various passages without taking into consideration
3) Here we have left magis untranslated because it did not seem to fit in the context.
1068 L. V. a. Ill, 18S s. Section 3: Luther and Eck's disputation. No. 377. W. XV, 1265-1267. 1069
It is a very common way (canon) to err in the holy scriptures. Therefore, if a theologian does not want to err, he must have the whole Scripture before his eyes, and compare what seems to be contrary to another with it, and, like the two cherubim, standing face to face, find the correspondence of the difference of both in the middle of the mercy seat; otherwise the face of each of the cherubim will turn his following eye far away from the mercy seat, that is, from the true understanding of Christ.
Therefore, the excellent Doctor has never seemed to me more distant from the Holy Scriptures than he does today, and all the more so since he confesses at the end that repentance, if it starts from the love of righteousness, is more praiseworthy and more perfect than if it starts with the fear of punishment, as if we do not have to make an effort to bring forth righteous fruits of repentance in a praiseworthy manner, as John says [Matth. 3, 8]. For this I do not at all suppose that he says our infirmity stands in the way, that we cannot begin repentance from love of righteousness. If we had to act according to our infirmities and interpret the Scriptures, we would never repent, but would grow angrier day by day. Therefore, before I answer his objections, I will first explain myself:
All good life must be established according to some law. Therefore, the law is the basis (principium) for repentance, for every good work. Therefore, in the case of a penitent, first of all the law must be revealed or given to the hand, against which he has done, and according to which he must do. But as soon as the law is made known or remembered, the increase of sin follows immediately, if grace is lacking. Therefore the will of Natnr hates the law, as the explicit testimonies of Paul to the Romans and the Galatians state. Rom. 5, 20. "The law came in next to it, so that sin might become more powerful." Gal. 3,19. [Vulg.]: "The law was given for the sake of transgressions". Therefore St. Augustine says
"Of the Spirit and the Letter," Cap. 3: For free will, before grace, can do nothing but sin, but not repent, as the Doctor says, "for that is Pelagian. Augustine follows: "And if we have begun to realize that we know what to do, yet, unless the Holy Spirit pours love into our hearts, we do not love, we do not undertake, we do not live well. 1) Augustine clearly says that the law of God cannot be loved except by the grace of the Holy Spirit. But if the law is not loved, its antithesis, sin, is not hated. Therefore, it is impossible to repent before the love of the law. This is what the apostle Rom. 4, 15. wants: "The law only causes wrath", that is, it shows sin, but does not give grace for sin to be hated. Therefore, the hatred of the law and the love of sin remain, no matter how much man is shaken by rebuke from without or inwardly by servile fear. For even though he abstains from the work of sin, he cannot abstain from the love of sin. This is also taught by Christ John 6:44, where he says: "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him." Therefore, I admit that the law, the remembrance of sins, the view of punishments can frighten the sinner, but never make him repentant.
I therefore answer the first objection of the prodigal son Luc. 15, 11. ff. that he began repentance with the remembrance of the greatness of the reward, since he says: "The day laborers have bread in abundance" etc. I. say that this prodigal son in truth began with the love of righteousness, because he struck within himself and first recognized the good, and from the recognized good he understood his evil. But this beating in himself he did not have out of his own
that which is to be done and towards which one must strive has not begun to be hidden, then, if there is not also desire and love for it, it will not be done, it will not be undertaken, it will not be lived well. But in order for it to be loved, the love of God is poured into our hearts, not through free will, which comes from us, but through the Holy Spirit, which is given to us.
n infirmity, or from fear of punishment, as the Lord Doctor says, that he considered the fear of punishment according to the greatness of the rewards, therefore it did not begin with punishment and fear, but he had it, since the father drew him inwardly and instilled in him love for his father's house, saying, "How many peons in my father's house!" For since he had lived in sins before, he neither recognized nor loved the good, nor hated sin, although sin could not be unconscious to him. Therefore, a different attitude was necessary, that is, the love of good.
Secondly, he cited John the Baptist, Luc. 3:7, as having begun with fear, saying, "Who then hath shewed you that ye shall escape the wrath to come?" etc. I answer, It is something else to preach repentance than to begin repentance; something else to preach a good work than to begin a good work. The preacher reminds, frightens, entices etc., but nothing follows unless grace moves the will.
The same I say to Ps. 89, 33: "I will punish their sin with the rod" etc. The sinner can be beaten, but if grace does not cooperate, nothing is accomplished, as it is said in Jer. 5:3: "You beat them, but they do not feel it," and Isa. 1:5, 6: "From the sole of his foot to the head there is nothing healthy in him; what else is there to beat in you?" For he has done nothing with the smiting.
And I am very surprised at the excellent doctor that he has forgotten the light of nature, of Aristotle, and that he presumes to place the beginning of any virtue in the urging of fear, while the latter, with so many extremely well-known words, endeavors in the third book of ethics to teach that a good work must be willing and must be done of free will. But the will is certainly love or the sister of love. Therefore, it is also said that a good work must be done by free will.
I add also this, that Christ never forced sinners to repentance by fear, but kindly attracted all those whom He called, as, Zacchaeus, Magdalene, the apostles, and all, as He also
in Jeremiah Cap. 31, 3. says: "I have always loved you, therefore I have drawn you to myself out of goodness. I say, therefore, that the fear of the Lord is necessary, but a childlike fear, because without love it is impossible to endure His smiting, in which the sinner is terrified, contrite and humiliated, according to the words of 1 Sam. 2:6: "The Lord leadeth into hell, and out again." I believe, however, that the opinion of even the excellent doctor and all scholastic teachers is with me and against his objections, since they all agree that repentance must be done in love if repentance is to be good and meritorious, which I certainly understand to mean that repentance is done on the impulse and command of love, so that repentance in such a way is willing, joyful and loving. Therefore, although John scolded and terrified the Jews, it does not follow that the penitent also begin from terror, or if they begin from terror, they are hypocrites rather than penitents, unless grace is added.
The Lord Doctor added the reason that God governs things in such a way that He leads the lowest through the middle to the highest. He applied this to fear, wanting sin to be the lowest, fear to be the middle, love to be the highest. I pass over this and do not accept it.
He also says it would be a perfection if man could raise himself up to the grasp of grace by the mere beholding of God and by the love of righteousness, "but who is he? and let us praise him." I answer: Neither by fear nor by love can man raise himself to the grasping of grace, but grace precedes him and moves him to the mere beholding of God and to the love of righteousness.
To Augustine, who is said to teach that fear precedes grace, and that when love enters, fear is driven out, I say: If it be rightly understood, I allow it, that is, that repentance is not yet begun when fear precedes love, but when love enters, repentance is begun, that is, love of righteousness and hatred of sin. But if love did not enter, fear would be
1072 2- V. a. Ill, 188-190. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck" No. 377. W. XV, 1279-1272. 1073
only cause greater sins. Therefore, the simile of the bristle and the thread is approved by me, if only it is not understood to mean that fear leads love in, which I take from the words of the doctor, that if the bristle does not go out, the thread does not follow, that is, if fear, which hinders true repentance, is not driven out by love going in, then atonement will never be rightly made, (penitetur,) that I say so.
Ambrose, who is quoted in the letter to Studius, that repentance precedes and grace and other things follow, likewise Isidore "of the highest good", likewise the three abysses of sins to be remembered, Bernard on the Song of Songs, Gregorius in moralibus, and other fathers who teach that one must ascend from fear to wisdom, and begin repentance with fear, I readily admit, but do not understand them against the apostle Paul, who teaches of the law and the fear of the law. I also say that when one has love, at the same time man is moved to the fear of God, and so repentance begins with fear in love. Otherwise, the saying stands firm [1 John 4:18] that fear has pain, does not work good, but hates the law.
Therefore, the excellent Doctor does not prove (non concludit) that repentance does not begin with the love of righteousness, however good the fear of punishment may be according to Origen 1); for it is not with the fear of punishment, but with the fear of God that one must repent, because the latter is a maidservant who will not remain in the house, but the latter is a child and heir. Therefore, I do not allow the word Proverbs 1:7, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord," to be understood as the fear of punishment, which before grace torments man without fruit, since it expressly says, "the fear of the Lord," not the fear of punishment. The fear of the punishment is rather the beginning of the un-.
1) Only the Wittenberg edition has the correct reading: ex OriZene. The Jena, Löscher and Erlangen editions have: ex Ori^ine; the Weimar edition: exoriMne; the old translator: "zuallererst". Compare the conclusion of Eck's previous speech.
Wisdom. Therefore, the excellent doctor should see to it that he does not throw servile fear and childish fear together in one desolate heap, lest he himself close off the understanding of the Scriptures and the Fathers.
Corner.
The venerable father is trying to wiggle out of the so clear testimonies of the holy scriptures and the holy fathers with apparent words, and in order to convince you of this, he has taken the liberty to say that I was far away from the understanding of the holy scriptures, looking for a side way through the cherubim looking at each other. But those to whom it is incumbent may judge which of us has a more correct opinion concerning the holy scriptures. But to remove his quite improper answers: he frequently mentions two things, which I have not thought of when preaching a sermon in the common way, and which none of the preachers, as far as I can remember, has denied, that this fear, too, if it prepares for true repentance, is worked beforehand by divine inspiration. For it is beyond doubt for a Christian against the false teaching of Pelagius that we have the beginning of our salvation through God's action. Therefore, it was not necessary to mention this, and because of it to blame the way of preaching. But in the one piece he seems to me to be deceived by an ambiguity, that he believes that this grace by which God advances in moving the hearts of men is love, while it is another gracious gift of God, and by this the opinion of St. Augustine in his book "Of the Spirit and the Letter" against the godless Pelagians is sufficiently explained. The other, that he says that fear is unfruitful unless grace is added, - who of the scholastics or the preachers has ever denied this, who all follow the opinion of the apostle Paul in the letter to the Corinthians [1 Cor. 13] about love?
Furthermore, when I said that repentance beginning from love is more praiseworthy, he assumed that we must do it according to the words of John [Matt. 3:8]: "Do righteous fruits of repentance," because if we had to act according to our infirmity, we would never repent. I say that we can also do righteous fruits of repentance, even if we start from fear and come to love. And I marvel that the Lord Father wants to make us angels, and to take away our infirmities.
He has forgotten that the prophet descended from wisdom to fear, since St. Gregory, in the second book of Ezekiel, expressly declared that we, climbing the same steps, descend from fear to love, just as many other things are attributed to our frailty. Since he wants to explain his opinion, he shows how the love of the law must precede repentance, because [Rom. 5, 20.] through the law sin became more powerful, and in the Epistle to the Galatians, Cap. 3,19., etc. I say: It is true, as St. Augustine testifies in the 22nd book against Fauftus, a sin is done or spoken against the law, therefore it would not be sin if the forbidding law were not there. But just as sin becomes powerful through the transgression of the law, so merit is increased through the observance of the law. Therefore these byways are not at all helpful to the matter, and that the answers given are contrary to the right understanding of the Scriptures, we shall show after lunch.
At two o'clock, Eck continued his unfinished speech.
We want to follow up on what we started today.
The venerable father answered to that of the prodigal son [Luc. 15,11. ff-1 that the love for righteousness had preceded, after the word: "he struck within himself", because he had his fatherly house in his memory. But this does not cancel out the objection that this beating in himself was done through the contemplation of punishment, since he had no one to fill him with tears. For as long as the money lasted, he did not beat within himself, but since he suffered hunger, he beat within himself. In addition, St. Augustine says that his words were those of a man who was intent on repentance, but did not yet do it. If he had been smitten with love for righteousness, he would have already begun repentance, against Augustine. Therefore, his answer does not invalidate my assertion and clearly contradicts Basil.
To John [Matth. 3, 7. f. Luc. 3, 7. f.] he answers that it is to start something else and to preach something else, and elsewhere he said that the preachers frighten but do not make repentant by the torment of the punishments. Again, a powerless answer. For since John preached in this way, he certainly intended a fruit of his preaching, and since he struck fear into them, this is a sign that repentance begins in this way.
And our preachers preach: how they may begin, God knows.
Further, that he attributes the beginning of repentance to grace, and our preachers and teachers have never denied that God precedes by His giving.
Moreover, he does not want to accept Aristotle in the theological schools, and yet he dares to oppose him to me. But I say that it is the constant opinion of the pagans that if one stops at the fear of punishment, there is no perfect virtue according to the words: 1) The wicked hate to sin for fear of punishment; the good hate to sin for love of virtue etc., and the work of virtue must not be forced but free. But it is another thing for free will to be induced, and another thing for free will to be compelled. I confess that Christ called the apostles, Zacchaeus, Magdalene with kind words, but that he sometimes calls in a harsher way gives us to understand the story of Paul, of whom Augustine says, 23. quaest. 4. can. quis: To whom Christ did violence, whom he compelled, 2) and in the Gospel of the calling to the Lord's Supper [Luc. 14, 23.] he says: "Compel them to come in." St. Gregory continues this in many words in the Homily. Therefore, I beg to remain silent, the venerable father, who claims only a kind calling.
Furthermore, he thinks that only a childlike fear is necessary for a penitent, which I am very surprised about, since he has admonished me today to the right understanding of the Scriptures, because he has not corrected himself first. For St. Augustine, too, in the passage on John cited today [1 John 4:18], speaks of the servile fear that drives out love, and of this, he says, the wise man speaks [Proverbs 1:7]: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," and so the gloss on the Psalm [Ps. 111:10: "The fear of the Lord" etc., understood it from the servile fear: the fear of judgment is the door to conversion to God; and it is the gloss of Cassiodorus. So the gloss says about the word of the apostle Rom.
1) Horace Lpist. Ud. I, XVI, 52. f. somewhat different (Weim. ed.).
2) For better understanding we give the quoted passage more complete: Ilbi est, quod isti olawars oon8U6V6runt ,1id6rum 68t orsaers vsl non ersders: oui vim Okristus intulit? nusm oo6Mt?' ,Lt>66 kudsnt kauiurn Vpostolum. Eck took the questions as relative clauses and drew them from Paul." (Weim. ed.)
1076 L. V. L. Ill, 1W-I94. Section 3: Luther and Eck's disputation. No. 377, W. XV, 1274-1277. 1077
8,15: "For you have not received a servant spirit, so that you should fear again", the servant fear is good and from God. Paul testifies that it is good, 1 Tim. 5:20: "Let them that sin be punished above all, that they also may fear others." Thus Augustine says about the Psalms and Lombardus cites him in 3, [Buche]: Servile fear is when man restrains himself from sin for fear of hell, by which he fears the presence of the judge and the punishments. And afterwards: This fear is good and useful, although insufficient, by which a habit of righteousness is gradually formed. Beda also interprets this as follows: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", namely the servant fear.
Therefore, he seeks another protection and gives another answer, because it does not agree with the holy fathers. If he does not want to stand by the sayings of the saints, he will have the passages of the holy scriptures against him. For while the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, yet love casteth out fear; but filial fear, according to David [Ps. 19:10.], abideth for ever and ever. Therefore it is another fear by which wisdom is begun, another which abides with the increased wisdom. Therefore, since the venerable father denies that fear introduces love, he expressly contradicts St. Augustine, who says all this in the passage cited, namely, that servile fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is in turn cast out by love. The opinion of Augustine is subscribed to by the sweetly speaking Bernard in the 52nd Sermon on the Song of Songs, which I do not mention for the sake of brevity. But I say even more: that love does not cast out fear as one thing that is incompatible with another, but gradually, with the increase of grace, the servile fear is diminished, and through the increased grace fear is completely taken away.
There is nothing wrong with the fact that the Lord Father today emphasized that "the fear of the Lord", not the fear of punishment, "is the beginning of wisdom", because both the fear of punishment and the fear of reverence are of the Lord and by the Lord. Only the means of fear are different, as Beda and others, whom Lombardus cites, testify, except Augustine, who is cited above, and it is sufficiently clear from the words of Christ, if we had nothing else, Matth. 10, 28: "Do not fear those who kill the body and do not kill the soul.
may kill, but rather fear him who may destroy body and soul into hell." For if servile fear were damnable, as the venerable Father says, why should Christ call us to it? And that Augustine and others understood it in this way, I leave to the judgment of those to whom it will be incumbent.
Moreover, he says that all scholastics agree that repentance is of no use if it is not done in love. This is true, of course, but according to Augustine, one cannot arrive at love in any other way than through fear. Fear is the medicine, love is the health. Therefore, if love is not added, all know very well that fear is insufficient; therefore they put it on the way, not at the goal.
He went to the reason taken from St. Dionysius, but the Father did not reveal that sin is the lowest and love is the highest, which is the middle, by which one can go from sin to love. And truly! he cannot specify any other than Basil, Beda, Augustine and Bernard, namely fear.
Then he assumes that grace precedes fear and love. If he speaks of the grace of divine inspiration, through which God precedes us by inspiration, then I freely admit it; but if he speaks of the grace of love, I do not accept it, because the beginning of what is rightly called wisdom in Scripture is the fear of the Lord, although this fear is unfruitful without love.
Furthermore, that he admits Ambrose, Gregory and other teachers, but not against the apostle of the fear of the law, I do not know what kind of fog he is protecting here. He clearly states whether these holy fathers, whom I have quoted, contradict the sayings of the apostle or not. If they contradict the words of the apostle, let him prove it, which, I believe, can never happen, since they were well versed in the Scriptures and full of the Holy Spirit, and understood the apostle Paul as well as we do; If they do not contradict Paul's sayings, he agrees with their opinion, and does not disapprove of preachers who teach the aforementioned way of repentance and penance, and does not take away from sinful people such servile fear, which is a useful and, as it were, necessary means. It does not help him that he thinks that if one has love, the mind will be moved to fear, because that would mean going the way of the crab, against
the opinion of St. Gregory, in the 2nd book in the 19th homily on Ezekiel. There is no doubt that one ascends from fear to wisdom, but does not return from wisdom to fear. Therefore, fear has pain, which is diminished and completely consumed by increased love.
For the sake of brevity, I will pass over other things contained in the same sermon 1) which should certainly be discussed if today were not intended to conclude this subject, such as the point about the confession of all individual sins in hope, as Chrysostom thinks about the 12th chapter of Matthew. The point that the scholastics put three parts of penance, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which Chrysostom first set forth in the 29th Sermon on Penance; the twofold way of confessing, the great and the other sins to the priest, with other points, all of which could be widely treated and examined. But now that the foundation has been laid, I at the same time leave the whole sermon and what I have stated for my part to the judgment of the judges to be chosen.
Martin:
I hoped that the excellent doctor would refute my answers, especially what I had quoted as a basis from St. Paul about the law, which only works wrath and increases sin before love. I am silent that it may prepare for grace; just as servile fear, the fruit of the law, works wrath and increases sin. But he has bravely leaped over these things, and has sung the same little song again, and seeks to impress this upon us, not as a sap, but as the marrow of Scripture. I will go through it one by one.
First, he says that it would not have been necessary to state that the beginning of our salvation is through God's action. There he also expresses the opinion that a preparatory fear is given. I answer: This is all quite erroneous because of the word of Paul [Rom. 8:3 ff.], who says that it is impossible for the law to be fulfilled, indeed for sins not to be increased, unless the Holy Spirit pours out love into our hearts. This
1) "Predigt von der Buße," Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1220 ff.
He would have had to refute such explicit testimonies and that of St. Augustine Cap. 3 "of the spirit and the letter": If one has begun to know how to live, this is not undertaken, it is not lived well if grace is not given. Therefore, let him take hold of his servile fear, which only works hatred against the law and against God and is wrongly called preparatory to grace.
He also invents an ambiguity of grace: another is love, another is the gift by which we are first moved. Away with it! This distinction does not serve the cause, it is a mockery in Paul's words. Paul's text is quite clear: if grace and love do not make us love the law, then the law always causes only wrath. But this gift, by which we are first moved, will not love the law, but the love of the Spirit.
Thirdly, he has admitted that fear without love is unfruitful, and that no one has denied this. I answer: Why then do they teach the unfruitful penances and resist me who teach the fruitful? I allow that this [unfruitful penance] is completely overthrown with so many writings of Augustine, and if Augustine did not do it with so many thunderbolts, Paul alone gives the irrefutable proof that any works are sins and damnable before love and do not prepare for grace. And with these sayings almost all his rejoinders can be answered. It is true that, as is his way, he adapts the sayings of the holy Scriptures to the "sayings" of the Fathers, yes, he draws them to his conception, which he has in the Fathers, while, on the contrary, the writings of the Fathers must be held to the sayings of the Scriptures and judged according to them.
Fourth, he does not suppose that I have assumed that we must do the more praiseworthy penance, but says that we can also do righteous fruits of penance if we start from fear. I interpret this according to St. Augustine: when we heap sin upon sin. For, as has often been said, everything that is done is
1080 2- v.". iii, is6-i98. Section 3: Luther and Eck's disputation. No. 377. w. xv, 1279-1282. 1081
becomes, before the will has been made healthy through grace, the fruit of an evil tree that cannot bear good fruit; therefore, one can never attain love through servile fear.
Fifthly, he relies on Gregory about Ezekiel, who descends from wisdom to fear, but we, so he [Gregory] teaches, ascend from fear to love. To this I answer thus: that St. Gregory does not have to exclude love, nor did he exclude repentance from incipient fear, as the Doctor understands it, just as not all servile fear is excluded from love, especially in this life, since the office of love is to cast out servile fear, and that throughout life, and to bring in filial fear.
Sixth. Regarding the sayings of Paul [Gal. 3, 19], that the law is given for the sake of transgressions and increases sin, he says that this does not serve the purpose and that I would have sought side paths by citing Augustine against Faustus in the 22nd book, sin is a speech or deed against the law of God. I do not know what the doctor wants. Here is not a disputation about what sin is, therefore this time is wasted with the superfluous words. It is about this subject (scopus), that according to the sayings of Paul, servile fear can be nothing but sin, and that it increases sin by the power of the law when grace is lacking. And so Paul's sayings are not byways, but thunderbolts that crush the opinion of the doctor to dust. Therefore, I do not make angels out of men by forgetting their frailty, but I teach that sinners should not be made gods by forgetting their frailty, according to which they can do nothing but evil before grace.
That he says that the beating of the prodigal son [Luc. 15,11. ff.] happened through the contemplation of punishment, I deny. As for the evidence that he had no one to fill him with drink, I say that if he had not been drawn inwardly and beaten within himself, he would rather have died,
than that he had returned, so that the saying may be established [John 6:44], "No one can come to me unless my Father draws him." What Augustine says, that his words were those of a man who was intent on repentance but did not yet do it, I hope will serve for me, since "being intent on repentance," especially for reasons of the heart, is certainly to begin repentance, therefore the "who does not yet do it" must be referred to the completion outwardly.
The same may be said of Basil.
In reference to John the Baptist's word [Matth. 3. Luc. 3], he says it is an invalid answer that I said it is something different to teach repentance than to begin. I answer: With permission, the excellent doctor does not seem to understand Paul, nor to know the power of the law. For the law teaches what is holy, just, and good, but grace alone begins it, does it, and completes it. Therefore, even if John had taught that fear was the beginning of repentance, it would not follow that repentance begins from fear, just as when I do any good work with terrors and threats, the good work does not begin from terrors and threats, but from love.
He is unwilling that I have held Aristotle against him in the theological schools, which I do not accept. I admit that he is too small to be valid in a theological school, since he was the seducer of the scholastic teachers. But I wanted to do enough with my thesis, "that those against their holy Aristotle are nonsensical" who begin repentance from fear and not from free will. For I pass over the distinction between forced and induced free will. For it is not true that the free will is ever compelled to do good, nor that it can be compelled; but when it is compelled, it is carried away to the opposite, and hates the compulsion against it. But by grace alone it is drawn, that is, made truly free, as Augustine says against Julian in the 2nd book and in many places.
Since I have said that Christ has the Apo-
He counters that Paul was called in a harder way, and that in the Gospel the servant was told to compel him to come in [Luc. 14:23]. First of all, I am very surprised that while we use Paul's example to defend grace, they slip away from us and say that this is a miraculous event and does not make any rule. Here, however, the excellent doctor introduces it as a rule, as if he did not consider it a miracle. But this I leave aside. I say that Paul could not have been converted inwardly from the heart if grace had not drawn him, as St. Augustine teaches against the letters of the Pelagians, that the grace of God makes willing and obedient ones out of the unwilling and reluctant. This is also answered in the Gospel [Luc. 14, 23], that the servant can compel by the word, but if the Lord does not hiss [as Isaiah (Cap. 7, 18) speaks], 1) nothing follows.
To that in Augustine, who understands the servant fear in the word of Solomon [Proverbs 1, 7]: "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom", and that in the gloss to the 111th Psalm, v. 10: "The fear of judgment is the door to conversion to God", I answer: if grace is present; otherwise the servant fear without grace (because Augustine does not exclude it either) works nothing but anger. For it is not necessary for Augustine to dispute with Paul, - as in truth he does not dispute against him, - who condemns everything that is apart from grace. The gloss on the word Rom. 8, 15: "Ye have not received a servant spirit, that ye should fear again," which says that servant fear is good, I would rather reject, since it expressly speaks against the text (for the apostle says [Vulg.]: "Ye have not received the spirit of bondage in fear," condemning it); or I say that the gloss does not interpret the text.
The word of the apostle to Timothy [1 Tim. 5, 20.]: "Punish them in the sight of all, that the rest also may fear", the Lord
1) These words are in the margin.
Doctor referred to the servile fear. I leave that aside; I take it from filial fear until he proves it otherwise. But that Augustine, as the Magister sSententiarum] tells us in the 3rd book, says: Servile fear is when a man, out of fear of hell, restrains himself from sin, by which he fears the presence of the judge, by which he fears the punishments etc.: then I say that he only restrains himself from outward sin, but inwardly he increases the hatred against justice, which threatens hell. And afterwards: Fear is good and useful, though insufficient, by which a habit of righteousness gradually arises, that is, in my opinion, the habit of despairing and hating God when grace is excluded; but it is true when grace is included.
Therefore, it is not necessary for me to give another answer, if the excellent doctor has not first proved that the holy fathers speak of servile fear to the exclusion of grace, or that love has nothing to do with the expulsion of servile fear. Therefore, what he has subsequently said about the casting out of fear, about the beginning of wisdom, and how love gradually casts out fear through the increase of grace, is sufficiently understood from what has gone before.
There is still the strongest testimony left, Matth. 10,28., which alone is sufficient, as he thinks: "Do not be afraid of them" etc., "rather be afraid of Him" etc., therefore the servile fear is not condemnable, to which Christ calls us. I answer, first of all, that if the Lord Doctor wills it, then the preceding is contradicted, where servile fear is called insufficient. Therefore, it is equally inconsistent to say that Christ has taught us something insufficient. But I say that there is not the servile fear of the Lord, because the filial fear also fears to offend God and to be separated from Him. And even if he spoke of the mere servile fear, it must not yet be understood with the exclusion of grace, but rather with the inclusion of it, since according to the testimony of the apostle and the Augu-
1084 L. V. a. Ill, 200-202. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377 W. XV, 1284-1287. 1085
stinus all law and doctrine is the letter that requires the spirit.
He also agreed that the scholastics say with truth that repentance is not good apart from love, but he did not refute it. So now their own testimony stands against them, unless he refutes that repentance in love is what begins to happen from love.
I like the word of Augustine that fear is the medicine, love is the health, namely fear in imperfect love, and perfect love.
He says that I have taken the reason, which is taken from Dionysius, from the lowest, middle and highest, transitions and have not made it clear what the middle is between the lowest sin and the highest love. I confess that I gladly passed over this, since I believed that the doctor himself was quite clear that this reason had nothing to do with the matter. For Dionysius speaks of the lowest, middle, and highest ranks (ordinibus); but I have no middle at all between sin and grace, just as Christ does not either, since he says [Matth. 12, 30.]: "He who is not with me is against me," and again [v. 33.): "Either plant a good tree, or plant a rotten tree." But I believe that the Lord Doctor also teaches the same, because among the scholastics grace and sin are directly opposed to each other.
The Doctor does not suppose that I have said that grace precedes love and fear, if I do not speak of the grace of the first suggestion. I answer: I hold with the Apostle and Augustine that if the Law is not loved (which is a matter of love and not of first suggestion), it is not lived well, therefore neither is God feared nor revered.
At the end he makes a cuckolded final speech against me: 1) either Ambrosius, Gregorius and others contradict the sayings of the apostle, or not; if so, I shall prove it; if not, I shall join their opinion. I answer and go in the middle-
1) oornutum sMoZismum. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XIX, 59L.
by: They do not contradict the sayings of the apostle, and I stand by their opinion, but not by Eck's opinion or rather error. For they do not exclude love from fear, be it servile or filial.
The doctor says that it is called going the way of the crab, that I said that when one has love, the mind is moved to fear. I am very angry about this scorpion or crab, since the pagan poet [Ovid] also said: Love is a thing full of anxious fear. As if we did not know that love is the source and head of all the movements of the heart. For this is why punishment and hell are feared in a servant-like manner, because life and air are loved in a childish and servant-like manner. To eradicate this fear and love, the love of God is poured out, with which we love another life and fear another death, that is, separation from God.
The doctor has gone over the points indicated in my sermon 2), and has also taken upon himself the refutation of the whole sermon. I say briefly: He has pen and paper, let him attack it confidently; one will see whether he will refute it or make a mockery of himself. I leave this to the judgment of those who will be appointed to do so.
Corner.
Because of the shortness of time I cannot answer what the venerable father has said, but I appeal to the judges that I have not skipped anything, nor has it been the opinion of preachers or teachers that the law is fulfilled without love, that also not some have taught an unfruitful repentance, but how to arrive at a fruitful one through servile fear, and that he has departed from his answer today with splendid verbiage, 3) since he had said that the wise man [Proverbs. 1, 7.) speaks of filial fear, but now allows that he speaks of servile fear, but not to the exclusion of grace, which neither the text nor the holy teachers suffer.
2) "Predigt von der Buße," Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1220 fs.
3) As an aside, Martin replied: I have not departed from it.
For by wisdom he understands love, and so the beginning would be before the beginning. Also, the whole of Augustine does not have to do with how servile fear with love is the beginning of love, but how servile fear first takes over the mind and first enters and thus leads love in, which is also the opinion of Gregory, who rejects going back in the manner of a crab, where the venerable father brings me a scorpion instead of Gregory: Love is a thing that is full of anxious fear. Therefore, all the holy teachers who have been cited today want servile fear to be the beginning of love, according to the view that has often been given, and which the preachers tend to give; for this I refer to the judges.
On the thirteenth of July, 1519, at two o'clock.
About the content of the fourth and fifth thesis. 1)
Corner.
Venerable Father, since the time allotted to us is too short, let us, while going to the root of the matter, touch upon a few things in passing, namely, that every priest must absolve from punishment and from guilt contrary to the common custom of the whole Church, and that you say in the German Sermon 2) and in the thesis that it cannot be proved from any Scripture that divine justice demands any chastisement or satisfaction from the sinner. And I base myself on the fact that in sacramental absolution the guilt is remitted immediately, but the eternal punishment due to sin is transformed into a temporal one. This is clear from the tradition of sacred Scripture and the custom of the holy fathers, and to be brief, it was expressly intended by Ambrose in Lucas, Jerome in the first book against Jovinianus, Augustine in the first question of the eight questions of Dulcitius, and Ambrose even appropriately testifies in Luc. 5 that the punishment of sin is paid by the atonement.
The Scriptures also show this, for Adam's sin, even since the guilt is remitted, is punished on the whole posterity; therefore, the punishment remains while the guilt passes.
1) These theses are found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 718.
2) "A Sermon on Indulgences and Grace," Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 271, § 6.
Augustine touches on this reason in the 124th treatise on Matthew, and the gloss 2 Sam. 12, 1. ff.; similarly it is said of David 2 Sam. 24, 10. when David had repented, and his heart beat, he said, I have sinned greatly that I have done this, but I pray that thou take away the iniquity of thy servant. But the sin is not taken away according to the guilt, because, as the prophet says [Ezek. 18, 20.], the soul itself, which has sinned, shall die of death; so it only remains that the sin is taken away according to the punishment. 3) Thus it is said by the prophet Nathan to David [2 Sam. 12, 13.]: God has taken away your sin, where the gloss says: God blots out the sin, but does not leave it unavenged. For either the penitent sinner punishes it on himself, or God strikes as an avenger together with man.
And now let us come to the holy fathers, from whom the custom and usage of the church is mainly taken from the apostles. For first of all, no sin goes unpunished, and punishment is that which sets the fault right (ordinativa). Augustine touches on these reasons and Gratianus cites them (sicut, primi de poenitentia dist 1.). For God would not suffer evil to happen unless, by setting it right through justice, he caused it to stand better in the world. Therefore, Augustine says in the book "On the Remedy of Repentance": It is not enough that one improves one's life and departs from evil deeds, if God is not also satisfied for those that have happened, through the pain of repentance, through the groaning of humility, through the sacrifice of a bruised heart, through the cooperation of almsgiving etc. For it is not said that you should abstain only from sins, but it is said [Sir. 21, 1.] also of past ones, "Ask the Lord that they may be forgiven you" etc.
But if the venerable Father, as in the "Explanations" and elsewhere, seeks to prove, at least in my opinion, that this satisfaction is done for the Church, but that God does not demand such a punishment, and that man should not take away those that God demands, I counter: First, that Augustine says in the Enchiridion Cap. 71 (he is speaking of the Lord's Prayer): This prayer completely wipes out the small and
3) The old translator remarks here: "This is a very dark passage." It seems to us that what is said here could be understood to some extent by the second following paragraph. But Eck is unclear, as Luther's answer also proves.
1088 L-v. a. Ill, 204-206. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No.377. W. XV, 4289-I2SI. 1089
It cancels the daily sins, but it also cancels the sins from which the believers' lives, which have been ungodly but have been changed for the better through repentance, depart. It is obvious that the prayer of the Lord cancels the venial and also the mortal sins, not according to the guilt, but according to the punishment, because the same [punishment] has been changed through repentance. This change in Augustine cannot be understood otherwise than from the change of the eternal punishment into a temporal one.
I do not mention those who have been there for four hundred years; among them are William of Paris, William Altisiodorensis, who affirm it with a full mouth. In addition, Cyprianus, in his letter to Fidus, says: "We have read your letter, dearest brother, in which you have informed us, with regard to a certain presbyter Victor, that before he had fully repented and made satisfaction to God, the Lord, against whom he had sinned, his colleague Therapius had sacrilegiously and rashly given him peace. Here St. Cyprianus does not say that Victor had not done enough for the church, but for God, the Lord.
The same Cyprian says to Pope Cornelius about the heretics: "They strive to accomplish their work through the devil's malice, so that the grace of God in His Church does not heal the wounded. They spoil the repentance of the wretched, so that the wrathful God is not satisfied. Obviously, the holy martyr scolded the heretics who thought that the penance imposed by the Church was not satisfaction against God.
Although the venerable father quite immodestly often reproaches me as if I do not treat the understanding of the holy scripture in an appropriate manner (the judges appointed today 1) may judge which of them has a more correct opinion of the faith and the meaning of the scripture), as far as I can see, all who treat the holy scripture agree with this opinion. For why should the Church impose such a heavy burden on penitents if the Lord and Head of the Church did not require it? I have touched on this reason in my notes 2), but it was not mine,' but that of Chrysostom, as Gratianus reports 26. quaest. 7. can. alligant: 3) The man to whom you have given a heavy
1) The agreement was not signed until July 14 (Weim. Ausg.).
2) These are the obelisks Ecks. Walch, St. Louis ed." Vol. XVIII, 536 ff.
3) Thus the Weimar edition; in the others: "oav. komo:"
If you impose a burden of penance, either he will reject the penance, or, not being able to bear it, he will be angry and sin even more. Then, even if we err in imposing a moderate penance, is it not better to give account for the sake of mercy than for the sake of cruelty? For where the householder is bountiful, the steward need not be meager. If God is kind, why does the priest want to be severe? This is for the confessors.
The same says in the 31st Homily on the Letter to the Hebrews: "Sin is diminished by confession. But it is not diminished as far as guilt is concerned, for it is ungodly, as Jerome says, to expect half a remission from God: therefore it is diminished as far as punishment is concerned.
I add to Gregory, 4. moralium cap. 49 After many things he says thus: But because God leaves no sin unscented (for either we pursue it with weeping, or He with judgment), it only remains that the mind always diligently seeks its correction.
This was also the opinion of St. Jerome. His words are transcribed in the Canon mensuram, de poenitentia dist. 1: The measure of time for doing penance, therefore, the canons do not precisely determine for each offense that they should say about each one in what way each one must be corrected, but rather determine that this is to be left to the discretion of the priest who discerns it, because with God both the measure of time and of pain do not apply.
Augustine also says in Canon NuIIus: No one receives the remission of the more severe punishment due him unless he has paid some punishment, though far less than is due him. For in this way, God distributes His abundant mercy, so that the discipline of justice may not be abandoned. Here, the excellent Doctor Carlstadt has cited Augustine in my defense, whose opinion it is not our intention to pursue further.
In addition, Isidore in the 2nd book "of the highest good", Cap. 13. Although there is a reconciliation of sins through the penance, this must not be done without fear, because the satisfaction of the penitent is only paid to the divine court, not to the human one. Therefore, repentance is not imposed because it is sufficient only for the church, but also because it is sufficient for God. For even with God the punishment is longer.
than guilt, as Augustine testifies in the 124th Tractate on John.
From all this, which is undoubtedly true, it is easy to see my rejection of the fifth thesis, where the venerable father says that every priest must absolve the penitent from punishment and guilt, and thus every village priest would be bishop, archbishop and pope in his parish. That this is obviously false, contrary to the custom of the whole Church, and not only of the flatterers, is proved first of all by what has been said, because by priestly absolution the guilt is cancelled, the punishment remains, although it is changed; secondly, because the Sacrament of Penance is judicial, as St. Augustine Cap. 2 "On the Medicine of Penance" describes the form of this judgment, and jurisdiction belongs to the making of a judgment, if he does not want to create an Anaxagorean chaos 1) and the greatest confusion in the Church of God. And since jurisdiction extends from two essential things that one has in this sacrament (for both the penitent sinner and the sins themselves belong to the essence of penance, and no one denies that jurisdiction was limited in the lower prelates to avoid disorder, with respect to the piece that concerns the sinner; Because a judgment that is not passed by the proper (suo) judge is void, therefore he who absolves one who is not subject to him judges nothing. In the same way, for the same reason, in regard to sins, the jurisdiction can also be limited to the abhorrence 2) of offenses. That he cannot absolve his priests in full (plenarie), even those who are under his orders, is evident from the fact that such great power, if it is not justified by a testimony (auctoritate), must not be attributed to him contrary to the consensus of the whole church, whose custom must serve as a rule for a Christian man. But in the foregoing it has been shown by the higher ecclesiastics Cyprian, Chrysostom and Augustine that the obligation (debitum) of the punishment remains after the guilt (culpam). Therefore, the reverend father must give way to the prestige of the holy fathers and obey the custom of the whole church, or he must explain by the testimony of the holy scriptures, the concilia, or the holy fathers why this should not be done.
1) Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 1823.
2) According to the answer given by Luther, it seems that here dstsstationsiL must be read instead of detsstatione.
Martin.
I allow the Doctor to have the last word, because he wants it that way. 3) But the excellent Doctor concludes against my thesis by wanting to prove that punishment is required by God, and first of all cites the scripture Genesis 3, where Adam's sin is punished even after the guilt of his offspring is forgiven, thus the punishment remains while the guilt passes. I want to have the Lord Doctor captivated by this example, and he may give no reply, unless he confirms it or renounces his opinion. If this punishment is required for sin, and must be held in the same way of any punishment, as he concludes, then I have what I have asserted (propositum), that the punishment cannot be remitted by the pope or any priest, because no one has yet remitted death, the innumerable kinds of punishments, diseases, and similar miseries, all of which have been imposed for the first sin, and so the Doctor's proof has proved my thesis against himself.
Secondly, that from David, after the sin was taken away, yet the punishment was not taken away, serves also for me, as I have also said in the same German sermon following; 4) for it was a punishment which God required, therefore no one could take it away. If the Herr Doctor has not understood me, let him read more carefully; for I have said and say that God does not require this punishment, which the pope or a man can remove; but which He Himself requires (namely He speaks directly), 5) man cannot remove.
Third, he cited the gloss: God blots out sin, but does not leave it unavenged. This does not argue against me, because he avenges either through man himself, by crushing him through repentance, or through the church, by chastising him, or through himself, in-
3) In passing: However, he added that he would like to give a reply (rsxliaars) if Doctor Eck would answer more than is fair.
4) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 271 f., § 7.
5) To these words the old translator remarks: "Is dark." But they refer to the citation Ps. 89,31-34. in the just mentioned passage of the sermon.
which he judges. And this last and the first kind of punishment is not at the will of any man, as the apostle says in 1 Cor. 11:31 ff: "If we judged ourselves, we would not be judged by the Lord. But if we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, lest we be condemned with the world." It is clear how God requires and does not require punishment.
Fourth, he brings in Augustine, whom Gratianus cited, that God would not allow evil to happen unless, by setting it right through justice, he caused it to be better. I am astonished at the Doctor for patching up these and similar testimonies, since no one denies them or holds the opposite, for I have always disputed only that they boast that by the power of the keys the punishments required by divine justice are abrogated. For I do not believe that this is true, nor will it be proved. For he said not unto Peter [Matt. 16:19], What I bind, that thou shalt loose; but, All that thou shalt loose, that shall be loosed."
Fifth, the "remedy of repentance": It is not enough that one's life is better if one does not also get enough of what has happened through the pain of repentance, through the groaning of humility, through the sacrifice of a shattered heart. I have always wanted all this in the highest way. Why then does one boast that these things are remitted through indulgences, when it is not enough that one mends one's life, and divine justice requires these satisfactions? Therefore, the Doctor boasts in vain that it is not said that you abstain only from sins, but: Ask the Lord for the past ones. And so it is evident that no scripture has yet been cited against me; but I could cite many stronger ones in my favor.
Then he cites Augustine in the Enchiridion: This prayer wholly blots out the small and daily sins; it also blots out those from which the life of the faithful, which has been ungodly led but has been changed for the better by repentance [, departs] etc. This is what I have said, that the sinner should be repentant after
I am convinced that I am held to the cross and the sufferings of life after my conversion, according to the interpretation of God. A human being cannot annul these, and this testimony again serves for me.
Those who have been for four hundred years, he does not lead, and I like it.
To Cyprianus in the letter to Fidus, where he condemns Therapins for having prematurely given peace to Victor before he had fully repented and made satisfaction to the Lord, he says: "Behold, he says that Victor did not give peace to the church, but to the Lord. I answer: "The Doctor should read and compare Cyprianus well, and he will find that even those whom they had given to peace were given to peace for this reason, even in an early way, so that they might more easily take upon themselves the cross and the martyr's sufferings, which he declares in many letters to be the punishments and scourges for the sins that God has laid upon them. Therefore, Victor has not yet done enough for God in this way, and yet he has done enough, because he has done enough for the Church, which God wants us to hear. For this is contained in the words of Christ, that the church should inflict punishment, since he says [Matt. 16:19.], "All that thou shalt bind." And in this way I could allow that God requires punishments which the Church can abrogate because He has made a covenant with her.
The other testimony is that of Cyprian to Cornelius, in which he again writes that the heretics hindered the sinners, so that they would not be enough for the angry God. Although Cyprianus does not speak of penitents there, but of heretics who, as if they were righteous and as if they had done well, excused themselves and defended themselves in their sins, I nevertheless reply to it as to the previous.
Then he added the reason why the church should want to impose a burden on the penitent, if the Lord does not require it? and a long testimony from the Canon alligant. What he states, I pass over everything and say that it is commanded to the church that it should chastise and judge sinners; if it does not do this, God will do it in such a way that he will not remit anything, according to the saying
of Paul, which is quoted above from your First Epistle to the Corinthians, Cap. 11, 31. f., and so it cannot be abrogated.
Similarly, in the 31st homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, he says: Sin is diminished by confession. From this word, the Doctor concludes in this way: it is not diminished as far as guilt is concerned, because it would be ungodly to expect half a remission from God, therefore it is diminished] as far as punishment is concerned. I allow the whole, in accordance with what has been said before.
Now the testimony of Gregorius 4. moralium: Either we pursue them with weeping, or He with judging: hardly anything else, which would be more suitable, could be quoted for me. Likewise also the word of Jerome in the Canon mensurum, of which, however, I doubt that it is that of Jerome. I allow the whole that the Canons do not establish it precisely, therefore I leave it to the discretion of the priest, and I add: much more to the good pleasure of God, who alone is an investigator of spirits and does not judge in ignorance nor with injustice.
I also like the testimony of Augustine c. nullus: In such a way is God's rich mercy distributed that the discipline of justice is not abandoned. This can apply to me and to the Lord Doctor. I pass over it.
Isidore, too, although not a weighty authority in these matters, nevertheless pleases me because he says that the satisfaction of the penitent is paid only to the divine court, not to the human court. Therefore, much less can be remitted by human judgment, since the key of force cannot be effective if there is not first the key of knowledge, who knows what and how much he is remitting.
That with God the punishment is longer than the guilt, according to Augustine, I admit, but without prejudice to the testimony of Paul, Rom. 7,18, who says: "I find in myself, that is in my flesh, nothing good", whose opinion is that the punishment and the sin end at the same time.
So much about the first thesis. 1)
1) This is the fourth of Luther's theses; the fifth follows immediately.
But against the other he says that it is quite obviously wrong and contrary to the custom of the whole church that every priest must absolve the penitent from punishment and from guilt. And this he proves, first, from what he has said, 2) that is, from nothing; second, by the reason that the sacrament of penance is something judicial, and jurisdiction belongs to the passing of a sentence. The jurisdiction, however, is limited to the lower prelates, in order to prevent disorder both in the sinners and in the sinners; secondly, for the abhorrence of offenses, otherwise any village priest would be bishop, archbishop and pope. I answer and say two things: first, that I do not know to this day whether the limitation of this jurisdiction has accomplished what is pretended, namely, the abhorrence of offenses and the taking away of disorder. That is certain, that it has come to be quite otherwise. For the grossest sins are laughed at even in the greatest courts, which could very well be punished in one's own parishes, if the manner had been maintained which the apostles had instituted, and the holy fathers kept, until after the Nicene Concilium. There it was established, and for a long time thereafter kept, that the ecclesiastical districts should not be mixed, and that each one should do penance in his own district. The excellent third letter of Cyprian to Cornelius, the Roman pope, is available on this subject, along with others: For since it is established by all of us, and it is equally fair and just, that every man's cause should be heard where the offense has been committed, and each individual shepherd is assigned a portion of the flock, which each one is to govern and lead, and he must give account to the Lord for his actions, so those whom we preside over must not run about nor break the firm concord of the bishops by their treacherous and deceitful iniquity, but act their things where they can have both accusers and witnesses for their offence etc. For he speaks of those who had sinned in Africa and had run to the Roman pope Cornelius.
2) 6x (Ziotls has given the old translator: "from sayings". Eck had said: sx iis, yua" äiota sunt.
1096 L. V. a. Ill, 211-213. sect. 3. disputation of Luther and Eck. No. 377, W. XV, 1298-1300. 1097
And such is the custom of the early church in binding and loosing sinners by day.
But since, as the apostle Apost. 20, 17. 28. shows, a bishop and a presbyter are the same thing, and according to Tit. 1, 5. every city should have its own bishop according to divine right, it would be a far more useful way to punish sins if every priest in his parish bound and loosed the penitent, which example the apostle 1 Cor. 5, 3. ff. where he and the Corinthians, present in spirit, handed over the fornicator to Satan and scolded him for not doing it themselves.
But with what right, or with what blessing for the church, this way prescribed by divine right, which has also been in force for such a long time, has been abolished, others may see. Of course, I cannot deny, because we see it before our eyes, that it is done this way, that it is kept this way, that both the sinner and the sins are reserved, and to one soul six or seven shepherds are put on the side, below and above. But whether it should be done this way or whether it is useful, I do not decide. I know that an inferior is obliged to obey the one who restricts and plagues him, though according to no divine right. But the superior, as my thesis says, sins very gravely, if he reserves secret sins without the most well-founded cause. Yes, I still doubt, and, as far as I can conceive, believe that no hidden sin should or could be reserved without sacrilege, and desire to hear the proof to the contrary. Secondly, I say that the church would not perish if the same village priest were bishop, archbishop, and pope, and they alone were bound together by firm concord, as Cyprian says, and as was the custom of the first church. Therefore, I do not care much that it is said that the article was also condemned at the Concilium of Costnitz because of these reservations. This I know, that the custom 1) was approved, and this reservation rejected in the first church and by the disposition of the apostles, and even now, as the quite miserable experience of the church teaches, it would be very useful and salutary to keep sins in check and the
1) "Wohl usus zu ergänzen" (Weim. Ausg.).
to remove the abominable confusion of all bishoprics that we see today. But for what cause it was changed in its time, I pass over; I find it changeable. I leave this to the discretion of the judges. The hour has passed.
On the fourteenth day of July, early at seven o'clock, Eck continued against the agreement.
Corner.
From the very beginning, the venerable father has boastfully disregarded what I have mentioned, as if what is most against him is least opposed to him. For in the German sermon 2) he wanted to say that there is no transformation of the eternal punishment into a temporal punishment and contradicts the common opinion, as if it could not be proved that God demands any satisfaction except the carrying of the cross, and in the Latin sermon 3) he praises the common saying above all the teaching that has been presented by the scholastic teachers about repentance: "Never do the highest penance," the best penance is a new life, according to his gloss. He himself and his champion added this reason [Ezek. 18:21. f.]: because when the wicked turns away from his iniquity etc. If He imputes it to a new punishment, how then is it said [his unrighteousness 5) is not remembered? and it is evident that his thesis clearly says that the priest sins who does not absolve from guilt and punishment. I have contradicted this error with the testimonies of the holy fathers, which he wanted to escape and to charm the listeners, as if he alone had the power to interpret the holy scriptures.
For this reason, I have well attracted Augustine against him: It is not enough that one should improve one's life and depart from evil deeds etc.
2) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 270 ff.
3) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 1224, § 7, add.
4) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 271, § 6. - The "champion" is Carlstadt.
5) Here the text is not in order. Instead of a sustitia 8ua in all editions, the Weimar and the old translator rightly assumed ab iusuKtiuia 8ua. The connection with the following is recognizable from what Eck says in his concluding speech: he has cited the passage in order to show that if the wicked had turned away from his unrighteousness, God still remembers it, not according to guilt, but according to punishment. Therefore, quoruocko äioitur non reeorOari must be taken as an interrogative sentence directed against Luther. The following then gives the proof that Luther really says so in his thesis.
It is quite clear that the teaching given in the sermon is false, because a new life is not the best penance, since, as Augustine says, it is not enough, and this teaching is also rejected by St. Ambrose in the 2nd book "On Penance", Cap. 5: The apostles taught penance according to Christ's command (magisterium); and afterwards: For he who repents must not only wash away his sin with tears, but also cover and cover his sins with better deeds. The words of the Holy Father are abundantly clear that by doing penance we must cover our sins with better deeds.
But since the testimonies were abundantly clear that God does not remit sin unpunished, he took refuge in a whimsical distinction of punishments, whereas he is wont to reject the scholastics for the use of distinctions, and said: the punishment with which God wants to punish sin cannot be taken away by a man or by the pope. This is the most false thing and something that destroys the power of the keys (anullativum); for after the transformation of the punishment has taken place in repentance, a man can certainly remove this punishment, according to the very apostle whom the venerable Father quoted, 1 Cor. 11, 31: "If we judged ourselves, we would not be judged by the Lord." Therefore, if we do enough for this punishment, God does not demand another one from us for the sin; otherwise, if God wanted to punish what we punished, then He would punish the same thing twice, which is against the prophet [Ezek. 18, 20].
Moreover, the words of Cyprian, Chrysostom, Gregory, and Jerome were clear that the punishment imposed by the priest for atonement is a punishment owed to GOtte, and so about Victor, because he had not yet fulfilled the imposed penance, it is said by Cyprian that he had not yet done enough to GOtte. Theodorus also testifies to this in his penitential book (penitentiali), which Beda follows almost from word to word, although perhaps these sources are not sufficient for him either, just as little as Isidorus.
Therefore, whatever he may say with his mouth that all testimonies serve him, he must necessarily disagree in his heart, since these testimonies overturn his teaching and his thesis. For if a priest sins by not absolving himself from punishment and guilt, then the bishops would also have sinned, since they did not absolve the Victor from punishment and guilt, and all the priests in
of the whole Christian world who do not absolve 1) except the indulgence.
And it does not help him that one must carry the cross and that God demands this punishment. For this carrying of the cross is nothing other than the Christian life, as the venerable father himself has explained in a learned way. But in addition to this, one must also do enough for the past and ask the Lord for the past.
My thesis contains nothing about the reservation of cases, but I believe that moderate reservations are useful, which is also experienced by the prelates in the monasteries. I freely confess that I share the wish of Gerson, who at the Concilium of Costnitz advocated the abolition of the excessive reservation of cases, and I especially dislike, as does the Father, such a reservation that has greed as its companion, that is, with which a fine is connected. He says that the Church will not perish if a priest is bishop and pope in his parish. It seems certain to me that if such a corruption of the extremely beautiful ecclesiastical order were to occur, it would also be the overthrow of the Church.
But I want to stay with the main thing that sin does not remain unpunished according to Augustine and Gregory. Therefore, repentance is rightly taught as the third part of repentance, and Augustine has completely proven in the Enchiridion that we do enough through the Lord's Prayer for what we have done ungodly. And, as the venerable Father quite rightly said yesterday, God has made a covenant with the Church; if the Church does not do it, God does. Therefore, I have this doctrine of the scholastics and the preachers, that either we must do enough, or God will require it. Now, if we do enough through our prayers or good works, why could this not also happen when the power of the keys is added, which God has given to His bride, the Church, not in vain? And since according to the opinion of Gregory can. decreto, 2. quaest. 6. the other bishops are called to participate in the care, the pope has the fullness of power, so by the indulgence given by him for the punishment due to sins, enough is done by the payment made from the treasury of the Church, as according to Sixtus the present pope has declared, commanding under the penalty of excommunication that one should teach, hold and preach in this way. Therefore, if the venerable father teaches, preaches or dis-
1) non is missing in all editions except Weimar's.
2) In the new Decretale of Nov. 9, 1518, in this! Volume No. 234.
1100 L.v.L.m,2isff. Section 3: Second Disp. between Eck and Carlstadt. No. 377. W. XV. IS0S-13V5. 1101
he is already banished. But I was pleased that yesterday, in addition to the key of force, he also mentioned the key of knowledge, even though, against the scholastic teachers, he denied in the 7th thesis of his "Explanations" 1) that there are several keys.
I wanted to add this so that future judges would see more clearly what our dispute would be on this point. For if the venerable father stands by the opinion of the teachers I have mentioned, he will not be opposed to the scholastics, the preachers, or me. Therefore, if he wants, he will also be able to state more clearly his opinion on the information for the lords judges.
Martin.
Yesterday I answered these postulations and inconsistencies of the doctor sufficiently, because he repeats the same and always plays the same string like a ridiculous fiddler.
Second, he has not touched the purpose (scopum) of the dispute. For this is not the question of whether God leaves sin unavenged, which I have amply proved, but whether the pope or the church remits the punishments that God demands. He has not proven anything about that; I leave that to the judgment of the judges and all listeners.
Thirdly, he has remained silent today of the holy scripture. Therefore I remain with his first proof of yesterday from I Moses in the 3rd Cap., where he proved that punishments are demanded by God, of which the Scripture shows there that they cannot be remitted. I am sorry that the Herr Doctor penetrates so deeply into the Scriptures as the wasting spider into the water; rather, he seems to flee from it as the devil from the cross. Therefore, with the permission of the venerable fathers, I prefer the prestige of the Scriptures, which I command the future judges to do.
Corner.
The impatient monk has added some buffoonery that goes against theological propriety, about which respectable men may judge; whether I have given the testimonies against him in the right way, the judges will decide.
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 127.
ter judge. But that this was our object is evident from the 4th thesis: 2) To say that God, by remitting guilt, also remits punishment etc. This was the stone we had to roll, and because he prefers the prestige of the holy Scriptures to the Fathers, as if he alone, as another oracle of Apollo, had the understanding of the holy Scriptures over the holy Fathers, and apparently cites the testimony which I cited for myself yesterday, I say two things: First, that I have quoted it in order to show that if the ungodly had turned away from his ungodliness, God nevertheless remembers it, not according to guilt, but according to punishment. This proves for the scholastics and the preachers. Secondly, since the venerable father turns this testimony against me, because these punishments imposed by God on Adam's sin could not be remitted by the pope and by a man, this is true, and I admit it, because these are punishments that not only affect the person, but also reach nature. And therefore it is not to be wondered at that these punishments cannot be remitted by a man. But this does not prove that the personal punishments due for sin cannot be remitted by the pope or a priest. But in this I appeal to the judges, and I am ready to change my mind if they can teach me otherwise.
This is finished on July 14 at eight o'clock in the presence of a large crowd of listeners.
To God alone be honor and glory. Anno 1519.
Second Disputation of Mr. D. Eck and Andreas Carlstadt.
Carlstadt started and added something so that one would know what was being particularly argued about.
On Thursday, July 14, Carlstadt began, and, as it were, concluded the previous, after Eck's and Martin's disputation had been finished at about 8 o'clock.
Before we enter into disputation for the second time, the theses 3) must be presented,
2) The 4th thesis of Eck, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 712.
3) These theses are found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 714 ff.
which the doctor read out right at the beginning of our dispute, so that the judges chosen today will know that the doctor has brought up strange and improper things and has not hit any thesis correctly (vulnerasse), and will only judge that my theses are firm and in accordance with the rules of faith. But they are these: Free will before grace, which is infused through the Holy Spirit, is only able to sin etc. This is the eleventh. The twelfth: Yes, our will, which is not governed by the divine will, approaches ungodliness the faster, the more eager it is to act. And the fourteenth: Since D. John does not see how a good work is entirely of God, and God's work etc., in which thesis the monster is not set, which the Doctor has nourished, 1) namely, not entirely, but only entirely.
The thirteenth thesis must still be disputed, which is this: that the Lord Doctor, according to his principle, which belongs to his disputators, can do what is in him, that is, take away the bar and that which hinders grace etc. But I will prove and defend that doing as much as is in one is just as much as sinning, doing evil, displeasing God, lying, boasting etc.
I wanted to remind our judges that this is why I read the testimonies of the saints from the books, so that they would see that if they were to pronounce against me, they would be judging against the church teachers.
Corner.
Eck thinks that the judges have also read the church teachers, but will have a different understanding from it than D. Carlstadt. For I have also quoted them. So it remains that the judges recognize who has understood them best.
Carlstadt.
The judges will recognize that D. Eck has understood the church teachers against himself. 2)
On the 14th at 2:3 a.m., Eck began to discuss the bolt.
Because we have come so far in the first disputation that the respectable Mr. D. Carl-
1) Compare Col. 891. According to this, the reading of the manuscript is correct: non totalitarian 6t tuutuinnaoäo totuiru
2) Instead of the second D. Leeiuna we have assumed Doktores Heelesiustieos according to the manuscript.
3) In manuscript: Quinta tioru xost xrundinin. Now, since the prniutiuin usually took place at 9 o'clock, so both times agree'.
stadt zugegeben hat, daß der freie Wille auch eine Thätigkeit bei einem guten Werke habe, obwohl er nur von GOtt und der Gnade bewegt worden sei, welche Meinung mit allen Schultheologen stimmt, wie bereits gezeigt und gehandelt worden ist, daher war es nothwendig, sie und mich selbst zu entschuldigen, sowohl in andern Thesen, die gar prahlerisch gesetzt worden find, als auch erstlich in der 13. These, da es heißt: D. Johann kann mit seinem Grundsatz, der seinen Disputatoren angehört, thun, so etc. This thesis, too, as it is set, is either false, or imposes a different opinion on the school teachers 4) than if in the statement, 5) "what there is, do as much as there is in it" would be contrary to Ezekiel and Ambrose.
Against this I conclude thus: The free will, as it can, when it does what is in it, sin, lie, etc. so it can, when it does as much as is in it, with the help of grace, do good, earn, avoid sin, according to the holy scriptures and the holy fathers. Therefore, if the schoolteachers say such things, the respectable doctor is putting something wrong on them or has not understood them well. I prove my subordination with the often cited testimony of Augustine: "The beginning of our blessedness is from giving in to God; that we now give room to the wholesome giving in is within our capacity. At least then one does as much as is in him, if he does what is in his power. Chrysostom agrees with this about the Epistle to the Hebrews Cap. 7: You see that we must first purify ourselves from ourselves, and then God purifies us. St. Chrysostom expressly wants us to first do as much as is in us, and then God cleanses us. He is of the same opinion in the 84th homily on Matthew: "Therefore, I ask and implore that you do not put everything to God in such a way that you think you must open your mouths and sleep; and again, that you do not think that your work is done when you are awake. For God does not want to make lazy or sluggish people out of us; therefore He desires something from us, to do what one can do in a good work. St. Bernard clearly testified to the same thing "about grace and free will," where he gives free will the right of attunement and calls it a meritorious means. It is said of someone that he does, as much as is in him, what is in him.
4) Where the word "schoolteacher" is found in this disputation, the school theologians or scholastics are to be understood.
5) Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 708 the 38th sentence of Eck.
is in his power. And attunement is in the power of free will itself.
And furthermore, so that all may miss how improperly the Doctor has drawn me to the matter of free will, so I have put in my note 1) against the venerable Father Martin that the will is the master of his doing. Therefore, he has taken occasion, and has fallen in the most inconsistent way (impertinentissime) on the matter of free will and the choice of grace.
But that I have rightly said, at least without deserving a reprimand, that the will is master, 2) I prove from Gregorius of Nyssa, de lib. arb., where he states that man does and works something, because otherwise he would consult with himself in vain, if he were not master over his doing. He concludes thus: What we can be exhorted to do is within our power; but we are exhorted to good works, therefore good works are within our power. So again it is seen that man can do good if he does as much as is in him, but without ever excluding the help of grace. And so he concludes in 6. 2. that we are masters over our actions. Thus St. Bernard says de lib. arbitr. sol. 11: Free will should strive to control the body as wisdom controls the world. It should rule over all the senses so powerfully that it does not let sin get the upper hand. So also St. Augustine says L. 1. c. 8. de lib. arbitr. that reason rules over the movements of the soul. Therefore, because I first said, according to the opinion of the saints, that the will is master over actions, and in my defense I declared that the will is the master of actions, reckoned against the lower effects, but reckoned as a servant, against the Christ who rules in them, he still accuses me of Pelagius' disloyalty, from which I have always been far removed, only to accuse me of malice.
But he makes the principle of the disputators here one contrary to Ezekiel, although I have expressly declared in Chrysopassus Centur 4. no. 3. that free will does not primarily or first (principaliter) remove the bar or obstacle to grace, but only prepares it (disposi- tive); and that this preparation is so much as leaving room for the salutary impulse or input.
1) In the 15th movement of Eck's Monomachy. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 693.
luntatsna.
If he had not read with a censorious mind, he would have found Cent. 3. no. 60. that doing good in itself is never without a divine preceding impulse, as he expressly explains there about Ezekiel, whom he portrays as repugnant to us. For it is clear that he agrees with us: Take away the heart of stone, and give us a heart of flesh; because, as I have said above, the good will is prepared by the Lord, and is made beforehand, and grace makes the will to work aright: but still the will is required to give place or consent. And that means to do as much as is in him. Therefore God says: Make for yourselves a new heart. Therefore, as Origen concludes in L. 3. s. 1. äs principiis, we must put effort and work into our lives and show diligence; and below: For otherwise, if he requires no doing, the commands will certainly seem to be in vain. In vain also would Paul rebuke some for falling away from the truth, and praise others for standing firm in the truth of faith.
Afterwards, in the 15th conclusion, D. Andrew rebukes our watchfulness and endeavor, as I deal much with the election of grace in the Chrysopassus, and yet deny that the passages of the election of grace belong to the works that are to be crowned one day.
It is a very true saying: It is easier to reprove than to improve. For although I know how ill-equipped I am, my mind has always been ready, as it still is, to be instructed and taught by teachers in order to dispel the fog of ignorance. But one can easily see how unlearned he rebuked my sentence, since in the 16th sentence I chastised the Lord Andrew, that therefore, because I would have called the will lord over the actions, he would have drawn it by the hair on the question of the election of grace. 3) So I also said in the 18th sentence: I do not undertake here to defend one of the two parties, because the trade of the election of grace is a foreign matter, which does not belong here at all. Because I had now said that the matter of the election of grace (namely, whether it also depends on us) is something that does not belong to the matter and to our disputation, he has made a fine point of it and wants to accuse me of having denied the testimonies of the election of grace as if they could not at all belong to the works to be crowned.
It is an equally false blasphemy in the 10. 4) sentence,
3) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 694.
4) In Löscher incorrect: kroxos. 16 Cf. St. Louis edition, Vol. X VIII, 690 f.
since he says: I would have read in Bernhard: Put away free will, then there is nothing that can be saved; he reads "what" for "whereby," and puts many things under me falsely, and shows sufficiently with what kind of mind he goes through the church teachers, but makes himself a suspicious falsifier before all lovers of them.
In truth, I sincerely pray to the Most High that he never strike my mind with such blindness as to falsify anything in the holy fathers; as I do not believe that this has yet been proven to me by anyone. And the Herr Doctor say what he will, so I have read so, as I still read what St. Bernard has so. The most careful editions have it so, which the Doctor may look up, so that he does not falsify, since he is still quite new and inexperienced in reading the Church Fathers, as he testifies in his preface to the booklet "On the Justification of the Godless". Therefore, out of brotherly love, we should rather help and exhort each other to the holy study of theology than offend and grieve each other with such mockery and scornful speeches, insults and pointed words. This is said in defense of the school teachers and my words!
Carlstadt.
In the name of Christ, Amen! Although many of the reasons given by the doctor can be refuted by the fact that the school teachers, who do so much for us, are in complete disagreement with the church teachers, we will nevertheless look at the doctor's speeches one after the other in brief.
In the first place, since he says: I would have granted free will an efficacy, I do not deny such; but in the way as in the foregoing, namely by grace, an alien one, and which comes from God.
As for the other, since he blames me for having put something wrong on the school teachers, I answer that this is wrongly blamed on me, and that the excellent Doctor in his 38th sentence of the second note 1) has clearly described what it is to do as much as is in us, whose words are thus: Since "to do what is in him" is, according to the most established theologians' opinion, as much as to take away the bar and hindrance of grace, I will not concede that he who does as much as is in him does what displeases God etc., from which words it clearly follows that the hindrance of grace is taken away by us; for otherwise he would have said that to do,
1) St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, '708.
What is by grace is as much as taking away the hindrance of grace. And no church teacher doubts this opinion, namely that grace takes away evil merits, evil will and obstacles to grace. However, according to these same church teachers, it does not mean that we do as much as is in us when we work by grace. For Augustine "of true innocence" says Cap. 150: This means to live according to ourselves and to do what we do evil. His words are: If a man lives according to himself, and not according to God, he is like the devil; therefore also an angel must not live according to an angel, but according to God, in order that he may exist in the truth. Behold! the text is clear that he who lives after himself is like the devil and a liar, which Augustine also says from the articles wrongly applied to him, Cap. 7, of whom there is so much in him. Thus he also says principiis. 1. 26.: Everything good that we have, we have from our Creator; but if that is in us which we ourselves have done, we shall be condemned thereby; but if that which God has done, we shall be crowned. From this it follows that God gives condemnation to the man who does what is in him, but the crown to him who does what is of God. And if this was the opinion of the Lord Doctor, he should have added what Augustine was not ashamed to add, then I would know the dear Lord's gratitude that he thus held with me and talked with me. The same Augustine de ver. inno- cent. cap. 322. says: "No one has anything of his own but sin and lies; but if man has anything of truth and righteousness, he has it from the source, which is Christ. But what we have from God, the Giver, is based on God's power and not on our ability. This Augustine clearly wrote "of the merits of sin" lib. 2. cap. 5.
But the school teachers say that "doing as much as is in one" precedes the infusion of grace. But if anyone has said that grace alone takes away the hindrance of grace, he is not to be punished, but accepted. And this is the answer to the third and fourth points.
Of Chrysostom I say that he must be read with care; indeed, if he thinks that the beginning of purification before grace is in us, one must keep it not with him, but with Augustine, who has become more approved by the heretics' examination. Yes, the excellent Doctor called Augustine the prince of the theologians.
To the sixth, of the attunement that Bernard attaches to free will, I say that the same Bernard writes expressly that such attunement is also from God, as is also the effort. And herewith I answer him also to the ninth, although Bernhardus' sayings are good, but do not rhyme with the present matter.
Seventhly, since the excellent Doctor accuses me of having drawn him to the matter of free will, since he has only set that the will is master over his actions, the answer is: I have nothing to do with his propositions, but if the gentleman finds himself complained of, he can write against it as soon as possible.
Eighth, that Gregory of Nyssa introduces man as doing and acting: I do not know whether his reputation is so great that I must be subject to it, whether he would be of a different opinion, because I know nothing about him. But I have said before that the free will does the deed, that is, acts, when it has previously received the divine deed or effect.
Tenthly, I say on Augustine of the free will that the same Augustine has clearly explained himself in the following books, namely "Of the merits of sins" lib. 2, where he speaks: that the free will, even if it has been renewed by grace, has no power over the members of the body, except that it does not surrender the members to the sin that is in man. So also in the book "Revocations".
Eleventh, because the excellent Doctor says that he wrote in his Chrysopassus, I do not know in which Centuria, that free will does not mainly or primarily take away the bar, but grace itself: so I request to be instructed by the Doctor what it is, to primarily take away or to take away the whole bar. I say that what is chiefly of grace is not to be ascribed to us, but to God, as appears from the sayings of Augustine lib. de ver. innocent, which have been quoted.
Twelfth, the Doctor said that the divine impulse comes before the disposition to grace. I fear that if this divine instinct is distinguished from the grace that makes the wicked righteous, the excellent doctor will defend the cloak in which the Pelagians wrap themselves, who come in sheep's clothing and are inwardly ravening wolves.
Thirteenth, that he says Ezekiel is not repugnant to him, pleases me well, if it is true what
he says. I wanted us to agree on the truth; but in his drawn conclusion he does not say that this is by grace, namely, to remove the obstacle of grace. If, therefore, he means this, he adds this little bell, and destroys or affirms his conclusion. I will gladly speak to the excellent Doctor as the Scripture speaks, which says: And I will, says God, take away the stony heart from your flesh. He does not say: You will take away; but: I will take away, Ezek. 36.
And do not let him draw Ezekiel from another place, where we are commanded: Make for yourselves a new heart. For when the Scriptures exhort us, remind us, command us, and command us, they show what we should ask, and what we should desire that he would give. Therefore we pray: Thy will be done; likewise: Do in us what you rightly require: Make us obey your reminders and commands.
Fourteenthly, I do not accept what is quoted from Origen, and answer as to Chrysostom. For Origen in the book Peri Archon seems to give our will much that Augustine denies.
Fifteenth, when the excellent Doctor says: I would have blamed his effort and diligence, because I would have denied that the testimonies, which belong to the works, belonged to the election of grace etc., I answer: This does not belong to our intention, which, according to the comparison made, is set in its bounds and limits.
To the saying, where he says: Reproving is easier than making better, I answer: it is a common plague, against which the excellent doctor also needs medicine and a remedy, and it would be desirable that he does not let it affect him. For he says that I have rebuked him in an unlearned way, which still depends on a judicial pronouncement.
For everything else, which has not yet been answered by what has just been said, I refer the reader to the protective speech 1) of the excellent doctor and to my own.
Finally, that he advances (obtrudes) my booklet "On the Justification of the Wicked" to me, I do not greatly respect. For he does not do it for the better, but perhaps only to spoil the time.
Corner.
I believe that the most proven school teachers do not disagree with the Holy [Church] Fathers.
1) Both Eck's and Carlstadt's writing can be found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 632 ff.
That he opposes the 38th proposition to me, he does not see what I have begun to argue about. For the will can do as much as is in it for evil; and this it has primarily from itself. And so Augustine speaks. But another is to do what is in him for good; and of this I have said in the sentence that both good and evil are in our power, Ecclesiastes 15. But evil is more in our power, because we cannot do good without God's help. That is why Augustine says cap. 150. de ver. inno- cent. not badly of life after us, but in a unified way, and not after God. Therefore one must take the understanding of the sayings according to the thing, of which is spoken. Therefore, since we have spoken of merits, he should understand the conclusion of doing as much as is in us for good, which we have taught from Augustine, on which the Lord Doctor has said nothing.
Here you can see his opinion about Chrysostom, and in what honor he holds not only the scholastics, but also the church fathers. Chrysostom, he says, must be read carefully; Nyssenus, he says, is not so great to him that he must bend his neck under him. Perhaps because he has a hard neck. Chrysostom does not contradict Augustine, who teaches the same thing de perf. just. There he asks for just the etc. Since he holds Augustine higher than Chrysostom because he was trained by the heretics, I oppose him to Jerome against Pelagius, who attributes to us the beginning of the good work, but to God the completion, and that in the very Scripture, since he refuted the Pelagians. What, then, can he say against Jerome, who crushes the heretics, who is much clearer than Chrysostom? And Bernhardus de grat. et lib. arb. talks about keeping the commandments in the same way as Chrysostom.
On St. Bernard he has also attracted him that such attunement is also from God. I confess it, but partly.
With regard to the sentence, he asked me to write against it. I am now discussing it for the purpose of putting an end to the defamatory letter, as can be seen from the defense and the letters written to the most illustrious prince and the university.
To Augustine de lib. arb. he says nothing right, but only so much that he [Augustine] had declared himself in the book of forgiveness of sins; since Augustine also after this book de peccator, meritis wrote the books of recantation, and did not recant the saying which I attracted; therefore he should have answered it.
After that he wants to be instructed what that is: to push away the bar in the first place. I have said that whoever does not know what is the principal and what is the incidental, what is the less principal and what is the directing, I do not know what else he can know. The most important thing in actions, which directs something else, either gives the efficacy, or enters in as a further acting cause. Therefore, grace primarily and powerfully does away with sin in the third degree taught by Augustine, but free will does away with it in the other degree, Augustine unanimously preparatory (dispositive).
That he praises me that I now keep it with the church, one sees from it that it has happened all the time in the Chrysopassus. But I should have added a gloss to it. If he had read our defense in theological love, he would have found the gloss with the text in the 23rd sentence 1) ad not. 2. For I freely confess that no meritorious good work 2) is ever done without the special assistance of divine grace and mercy.
That he fears that I would walk under Pelagius' dress, if the previous preparation should not be the grace that justifies it, he has not said anything about it. I therefore only excuse myself with the fact that I am a little sheep at the moment and do not know of any wolves.
However, I think that this is according to Augustine's meaning, that the beginning of salvation is the grace and the drive of grace, which justifies; only in the third degree, which Augustine has set, grace is given, which is the right love; so that the first grace is the preceding, the other the cooperating.
From Ezekiel I have always said, and the school teachers admit it, that all good works are attributed to God: What do you have that you have not received? but this does not cancel the participation of the free will that receives help from grace.
It is true of Origen that in the book äs prinsip. [or Peri Archon] he has put some erroneous things, therefore St. Jerome has sifted these books; but he has left the attracted passage untouched as catholic. Therefore, the respectable doctor sees that my opinion has always been that the free will has for itself only the capacity for evil, and can never of itself do anything good, if grace does not help it, awaken it, pull and drive it. Therefore, we are with regard to the dignity of grace,
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 698.
2) Instead of rneritorurü, read rneritoriurn.
against the nefarious Pelagians, have never been at odds with each other. And by this I want to have explained my opinion, and at the same time to have excused the school teachers in the matter of the bar.
Carlstadt.
On the first point, namely, what opinion the school teachers have, I refer the reader to the questions dealing with the effectiveness of free will and with imperfect and right repentance (de attritione et contritione).
On the other hand, and on the fourteenth, I like what was also the last speech of the doctor, that the free will of itself is not able to do anything good, if grace does not raise it, pull it and drive it. That is a beautiful and true statement. God be praised for it!
I also like the fact that the preceding inclination is also from justifying grace. However, I would like us to do away with this name and use instead a word that the Holy Spirit speaks to us in Scripture.
For the third, I also like the fact that doing as much as is in one, in and of itself, if one does not look to God, is nothing other than sinning.
To Jerome I say, as in the previous disputation, that he uses the apostle's passage Phil. 2: It is God who works in us both willing and doing. Willing, however, is the first and the beginning of good works, so that the church teachers say that God works in us without us.
To Bernhardus of the consent, because he says it is partly from God etc., I answer that he is wrongly attracted; he speaks rather that the whole consent is from God and entirely in the free will.
To the twelfth, that mainly to take away the bolt is as much as to give effectiveness to the free will. It is not such a great inconvenience to speak in this way, if it were only common in Scripture. Of other things you will interpret it for the best.
On Friday, July 15, early at 7 am.
The object (scopus): that the righteous sins in good works.
Carlstadt.
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ! The second thesis of the excellent Doctor, which is proud, ungodly, blasphemous and heretical, since he does not follow the revealed passages of the Scriptures and the
If the prayer of the church is repugnant to him, I want to attack him in order to destroy him, not with cunning or false presentation of testimonies, nor with deceitful insolence, or gossipy whispering, as the excellent doctor is wont to do.
Against his second thesis, 1) which begins thus: Although venial sins are daily, we deny that the righteous man always sins in a good work, even though he may well die etc. I oppose this with the passage from Ecclesiastes Cap. 7, where it says: There is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin. The text is clear that he who does good sins. But the thesis of the Doctor is contrary to this passage; therefore it is heretical. Therefore, the Doctor answers.
Corner.
In your name, sweet Jesus, amen! Against my entirely Christian proposition, the audacious Father, who has forgotten theological propriety and follows only his head, has cited a passage from Ecclesiastes 7, and says that my thesis is contrary to it.
I answer: my conclusion is so founded in truth that he who strives against it must necessarily be suspected of falsehood. And the quoted text is not at all contrary to my conclusion, if one takes it in the wrong sense. Therefore I confess that there is no man who does good, because such a man also sins, but then he does not always sin when he does a good work; which he will find nowhere, neither in the holy Scriptures nor in the holy Fathers. And that this is the opinion of Scripture, and that it has reason, for this I cite St. Jerome lib. I. contra Jovinian. sol. 14: Not that they sinned at all times, but only at times. Jerome proves it there with this, because man is subject to vices in this life. And the gloss between the lines cites as a passage consistent with this: For they have all sinned and lack the glory of God. Therefore the wise man thinks that the man who does something good also sins from time to time. And that this is the true and catholic understanding of Scripture, but not the one that D. Andreas, after his audacity, drew from it, for this I attribute to him Augustine, who steps on his neck, lib. 2. de peccator. remiss. cap. 20 From this it can be seen that, although there could have been one in this life who would have increased so much in virtue, and come to such fullness of righteousness, that he would have been able to live through-
1) St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 712.
If he had no sin, there could be no doubt that he had been a sinner before he was converted to this new life. Therefore, this is the unanimous opinion of the holy Scriptures and the first saints, that no one is so righteous who does good that he does not also sin or have sinned at times; for he wants to say and blaspheme quite ungodly that St. Lawrence was on the grate, and St. Andrew and St. Peter on the cross. Peter sinned on the cross, when the church sings the word of the Psalm of St. Lawrence, Ps. 17:3 [Vulg.]: 1) Thou hast purified me in the fire, and there is no unrighteousness found in me etc. Therefore let D. Therefore let D. Andrew cease from his insolent blasphemy, and seek the truth, as befits a righteous theologian, with honorable argument in words in such a way that he may find it.
Carlstadt.
Since the doctor confesses: it is not a man who does good that he does not sin, but then does not sin all the time when he does a good work: so I oppose him about the very scripture passage with Ambrose's words de poenit: that the scripture, which speaks generally, must not be limited by human wit, but must be understood generally. The above-mentioned text Ecclesiastes 7 speaks generally, without any limitation: There is no righteous man who does good and does not sin; it does not say: sometimes, 2) it does not say: afterwards, but par excellence: who does good and does not sin; therefore, it must also be understood in a general way by everyone who does good.
And it does not hinder what has been quoted from Augustine, for for Augustine's understanding I refer the judges to the preceding and following chapters in lib. 2. de peccatorum meritis, likewise also to cap. 6. de spiritu et litera; to the book de perfectione justi, it will be easy to see from this that the excellent doctor either attracts Augustine wrongly or does not understand him.
Whether Jerome was rightly attracted, I will look into it. This much I know that Jerome in the book "Against Pelagius" took this passage without restriction and added some others, from which it can be concluded that man sins when he does well. For he uses David's testimony Ps. 143, 2, where we read thus: And enter not into judgment with thy
1) In Löscher: ksal. 117.
2) Instead of quanquam, we have assumed "quanäoqn", in agreement with Eck's
Servant, for before you no living person is righteous; or as it reads according to the Hebrew, Let me not come into judgment; because the word xxxxx 3) according to some Hebrews is a verbum transitivum of the other or third order; that is, Make me not come into judgment, because before you no one will be justified etc. Behold! the text is clear that David, who has the testimony of holiness, nevertheless does not want to come into the divine judgment, because before him no living person will be justified. But if the Doctor's gloss were correct, it would follow that the righteous could and would go to the judgment of God without fear and trembling, namely when he does a good work and does not sin. But what an impudent speech this is, that the righteous want to go before God's judgment and be judged, is known to all who understand the Holy Scriptures.
Afterwards, what the doctor has concluded about Laurentius, Andrew and Peter, will then get its justification, when one will deal with the death of the saints. But this I add, what is the voice of the martyrs, as Augustine says Ps. 116,11: All men are liars. This voice the holy martyrs bring forward, if not with the mouth, nevertheless with the heart. Therefore Christ, when he was about to go to his death, said, "Lord, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not as I will, but as thou wilt." He took upon Himself this defect of the reluctant will of nature in the martyrs who die for Christ, and, as Augustine says, erased it, so that God does not impute this unwillingness to the holy martyrs, even though it is in them.
And is it not contrary to what is written in the Psalm: "There is no injustice found in me"; because the fire of tribulation and persecution wipes out sin. However, injustice can be taken for a gross crime, as Augustine says Ps. 119, 69 [Vulg.]. And if someone wanted to, he could reply to the psalmist's passage: that the righteous, even in good works, sin at the same time, and at the same time, and in the same deed, when they do good. This is clear from the words of Asaph, Ps. 80:5: "O Lord, God of hosts, how long are you angry with the prayer of your servant? Behold, the servant of the Lord, who is righteous, says that God is angry with his prayer. But since the prayer of the righteous, such a valid and holy work, which Christ has so often commanded, is nevertheless subject to God's wrath, who is to say that in other good works the Lord is not angry?
3) For quencher: dophot.
or some of them, are not sins for which the Lord is angry? And does not prevent that in Hebrew it says: How long wilt thou smoke? because it is an obscure way of speaking, and the smoke of God in Hebrew signifies wrath, as the Septuagint has given it. Likewise Cassianus, of the will to do good and evil, has cited this in a previous passage.
Corner.
Having heard my refutation, D. Andrew turns to the mendicimony, that is, to the general rule, as philosophers, when they cannot go further, turn to the first principal cause, and cites Ambrose de posnit. that the Scriptures, when they speak in a general way, are also to be understood in a general way. I answer: It is true, and I also take the words of the preacher in a general way, that he speaks of all the righteous; but that he wants to transfer what is said of the totality of the assumed cases to the totality of time, he does this as a sophist who does not have the understanding of Scripture and does not understand its way of speaking.
He directed the judges to the book de perfect. justi. and to the 2nd book de inerit, peccator. I will not live if either in these books or in all the works of Augustine it is ever found in one place that the just man always sins in every good work.
That he says that I have misquoted Augustine, he does me an injustice, because neither he nor anyone else can present me with a testimony in this disputation that I cannot show in the original writings themselves; and so he did not answer Augustine, but sent us into April.
Furthermore, since he wants to think about Jerome, he cites another passage of Jerome against Pelagius, who refers to other passages, also to David himself, although of a saint, but who is not allowed to go into judgment, according to Ps. 143, 2: "Do not go into judgment with your servant"; from this he says that it is to be concluded that the righteous sins in every good work. I say that Jerome never thought of this, nor is it found anywhere in him, that the righteous sins in every good work, but it is drawn from his words by dreams. And that this is true, I cite Jerome in the very same second book contra Pelag. where he says: He who is careful and cautious can avoid sin for a time.
A clear testimony that the righteous does not sin all the time, because he can avoid sin for a while. And since he introduces the Psalmist with splendid words, how he does not dare to go into judgment before God, the new interpreter of the Scriptures can see Jerome drawing on St. David lib. 2. contra Jovin, since he says: David, the chosen man after the heart of the Lord, who has done all his will, and who was allowed to say: Judge me, O God, because I walk in innocence; behold, David has desired judgment according to his innocence. Therefore, if I would insist on answering in the doctor's way, that is, by giving examples, the matter would already be done. But one must open the understanding of Scripture, which the Holy Spirit requires, and not get stuck on the outward bark of the words according to the letter after the Jewish manner under Christian skin, as he falsely interprets me in the first thesis 1). Accordingly, I say according to the holy fathers' opinion that these two passages of the psalmist are not disagreeable. For in one of them he asks to be called to judgment, according to a mild righteousness, of which the apostle 2 Tim. 4, 8. said: "Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give me at that day." And the same lenient righteousness is fitting for the householder Matt. 20:4: "Go ye also into my vineyard, and whatsoever shall be right, that will I give you." And to the Colossians 1:12: "He hath made us fit (worthy) for the inheritance of the saints in light." Behold, this is the gracious righteousness after which the righteous cry unto the Lord: Judge me, O Lord.
But there is another, strict justice, according to which David, although just, did not want to be called to judgment, because after the same no living person will be justified before him. And so Augustine 9th Confessionum cap. ult. says: Neither is the life of men praiseworthy, if it be examined by thee without mercy. But because you do not so much seek iniquity, we confidently hope that with you there will be a place for forgiveness. Therefore, what has been mentioned does not help the Lord Andrew at all, and he will not show me any church teacher or scholastic who has ever understood it in this way, unless it is a Wittenberg church teacher.
Further, with regard to the saints, he invokes the point as he speaks of the death and decease of the
1) St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 714.
But say that all the martyrs cry out to God: "All men are liars. But I do not remember that the martyrs ever said it in martyrdom. But this does not serve the purpose, one may also interpret "all men are liars" from vanity and transitoriness, as St. Jerome does when he explains this beautiful saying; or, what agrees more with St. Augustine, by lie understand sin. I say that all martyrs, all saints have been sinners. But how can one conclude: Therefore they have sinned in every good work?
To the Psalm [Ps. 17, 3. Vulg.]: "There is no injustice found in me", he said: injustice sometimes means great crimes.
From Christ, who prayed to his Father: Father, where it is possible etc., he has assumed that nature and will resist, but has also given us with it the sword to kill his assumption. For I suppose that it is wrong for the saints to sin before death because of such a show, or that because of such a show the love in them decreases, so that the punishment of the purgatory arises from it. And it is an insurmountable proof from this passage and deed of Christ that the righteous, who fears death and has not yet a right will to die, therefore does not sin. Love does not diminish in him because of this, and no shudder arises in him, which would be the punishment of the purgatory, as I could prove with more, but I pass over it.
Finally, at his discretion and with pompous words, he cites the clear text, Ps. 80:5: "O Lord God of hosts, how long wilt thou be angry at the prayer of thy servant?" I wanted D. I would like St. Andrew not to rely on his wisdom, according to the counsel of the wise, but to take the words of the Scriptures in the understanding that the Holy Spirit requires and that the holy fathers have taught, which not to believe, as Boethius says, is foolishness. Therefore, St. Jerome is obviously contrary to the mind of St. Andrew in that he wants God not to be angry when we ask for righteousness; but the man who prays fears from an evil conscience that God will also be angry at prayer. But if he wants an explanation more according to the letter, he takes Cassiodorus, who says that in the Psalm, as before, he asked for the promise of the Savior [Ps. 80, 3. 4.]: "Awaken thy power, and come, let thy face shine" etc. But he calls him angry because he forgives. He did not say that God was angry at the prayer of the Ge
right, because he sinned in good works, but because he delayed giving what he prayed for, and those who are angry tend to delay what they should give. Therefore, he said that God was angry at his prayer, and not according to the opinion that Andrew takes.
Carlstadt.
Because the excellent Mr. Schreier spoils my time with his digressions, so that I cannot get to more important and stronger passages, I do not want to refute his blasphemies because of the shortness of time, but only touch on and refute his useless stories in something.
First, since he says that I am following the useful rule etc., I answer that this is not the rule of Aristotle or of any philosopher, but of Ambrose. And I confess that it is a benefit for the persons who do good, which also the Doctor has admitted; but he says nothing of the benefit of the works, although the text speaks just as usefully of the persons as of the works. He skips over the works, and speaks only of persons.
Secondly. Since he says: I do not want to live, if my mind etc., I answer that he says this for the reason that he pulls the minds of the listeners, whether rightly or wrongly, from his side, and I point him to the previously mentioned passage.
Thirdly. Concerning Jerome, since he reproaches me for having first taken time to think things over, it would be nothing inconsistent if I were to act with good caution in such an important matter, which is so necessary for salvation. For we do not seek here to boast of a rich and capable memory or great wit, but to seek the truth.
Fourth. When he says about the Psalm [143, 2.] "Do not go into judgment": Jerome says that man can avoid sins for a while, then I refer again before the judges to the books of Jerome against Pelagius, because they will find what kind of sins Jerome is talking about, and how we are freed from sins or avoid misdeeds by grace, because grace and love cover the multitude of sins.
Fifth. When he cites Jerome contra Jovinianum and the testimony of the Psalm [Ps. 26, 1]: "Judge me, God, as I have walked in innocence," and blows noise, as it were, with this passage, I will first confirm such testimony to him, but not to his cause. And first of all, I am surprised that he has eaten up so many disputing laws, and yet he is not aware of them.
so that he forgets that he always gives examples (instantias) and yet does not refute what has been said. I will add Job's word to the first passage Cap. 13, 18: "When I am judged, I know that I will be found righteous", since Job explicitly says that he will be found righteous when he is judged. But I would that the Lord Doctor understood the innocence of David and the righteousness of Job, so he would soon interpret the testimony for me: "Judge me according to righteousness" etc. For Job's righteousness is judgment, of which he said shortly before [Job 13:15. f.], "Yet will I punish my ways before him, and yet he shall be my Savior." For no hypocrite comes before him. According to this righteousness, since Job judges, recognizes, and condemns his sin, he wants to be judged, and even if he is already judged, he will be found righteous. This is what David says, that truth grows from the earth, and righteousness looks from heaven. When truth, that is, confession of sins, arises in a man, then righteousness, which makes a man righteous, looks from heaven. Which the apostle says Cor. 11, 31], "If we judge ourselves, we shall not be judged of the Lord." And John in his canonical epistle [1 Jn. 1, 9.], "If we confess our sin, he is just to remit it to us." Therefore, when man judges his sins, the justifying and merciful God remits iniquity. So also David had the innocence that his sin was always before him, and that he confessed his sins to God. And according to this innocence he wants to be judged in his righteousness. But what righteousness does he mean? The Psalmist may answer us [Ps. 94, 14. f.]: "The Lord will not forsake His people until justice returns to judgment", that is, if the people of God from long ages (a diu) submit their righteousnesses to the right judgment, they will not be forsaken; yes, they confidently ask that the Lord judge them! So the testimony given by the Lord is for me, namely, that David asks to be judged according to his righteousness, according to the innocence of his deeds. On the other hand, since he says Ps. 119:26: "I tell you my ways, and you have saved me," etc., David's righteousnesses had sins for this very reason.
Sixth. Concerning the testimony 2 Tim. 4, 8: "The crown of righteousness is laid up for me" etc., and the similitude [Matth. 20, 4]: "Go ye also into the vineyard" etc., and the passage [Col. 1, 12]: "He hath made us proficient" etc., I answer that the Lord Doctor has given this
testimonies only to digress. For we do not ask how good works are rewarded, but this is what the matter is about, how sins are in good works? But if anyone nevertheless wants to see Augustine's meaning, let him read Augustine de grat. et lib. arb. cap.16., where he says that God crowns his gifts.
Seventh. If the Doctor invents a new justice, according to which he says that David does not want to be judged, then for the sake of brevity I refer the judges to the book de perfect. justit. where Augustine says enough about justice.
On Augustine's 9th Cofesssionurn, in the last chapter, where he says: Where thou without mercy investigatest sins; so this passage of Augustine is against him who adduces it, and a Goliath's sword, because it expressly says: There are sins in works, and therefore he confidently hopes in the mercy of God; as also Christ says [Luc. 5, 31. f.]: "The healthy have no need of the physician, but the sick; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Eighthly, he says: that I could not show a church teacher who had ever understood it as I do, unless I spent a Wittenberg scholastic. I would answer the doctor enough if I did not spare the Ingolstadt University. But that my understanding is proven, I refer to the passages cited, and add what Augustine wrote about Jacob's saying to Jerome.
Ninth. Since he says that he does not remember that the martyrs say: All men are liars; so I say: This is a sign that he has not read Augustine diligently.
Tenth. Since he says: I would have brought the sword myself, so that he would tear off my head, that I have passed off the opposition of nature and will for sin, he shows sufficiently that he does not understand where the sins in good works come from. They do not arise from grace, but from sin, which is in man, and is called the law of the members. According to this law, says Christ, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak; and Paul Rom. 7:23: "I see another law in my members, which opposeth the law of my mind, and taketh me captive in the law of sins, which law of sins is in my members." Because of this law, says Paul, he is led captive and torn to where he does not want to be; and further on....
V. 18 f.: "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. I may will, but I do not find the doing of good. For I do not do the good that I will." See, here Paul expressly says that he wants the good, that he wants to keep the commandments of God, to die for Christ, as Augustine explains; but he does not find the accomplishment, because there is a reluctance of the will, which is opposed to the good will. From this it is clear that the saints, even if they will well, still do evil, that is, they feel evil desires in nature, which will not cease as long as mortality still covers us; but when death will be swallowed up in victory, then the good will be without evil desire, then there will be willing and accomplishing. This accomplishment we do not find now, nor has any saint found it, except Christ and His Mother.
Eleventh. Since he answers to the passage [Ps. 80, 5]: "How long are you angry" etc., he has opposed Jerome, who says: that one is afraid of God because of an evil conscience. This passage is for us, because the conscience of guilt really presupposes guilt and wrongdoing, otherwise it would be a false conscience. But let the Lord Doctor and the chosen judges look up Augustine, since he wrote this verse: "over the prayer of thy servant" etc., then they will easily have the understanding of it.
By the way, I cannot be surprised enough at the Doctor's cunning, who has the main thing here. I wanted to know the cause and the difference, why, since prayer is such a blessed and holy good, which Christ has so perfectly commanded, is God nevertheless angry with the prayer of the righteous? Why do we deny sin and injustice in such works?
But that the Lord Doctor may see that I also follow the church in this, I put on the church prayer, because it says: In our righteousness we do not trust. So this mistrust arises from evil, from error. These are words of the church: since we do not rely on our justice. There is more missing.
On that very day at 2 o'clock Carlstadt resumed the disputation.
For according to Augustine against Julianus lib. 4. cap. 3, what is good cannot displease a good man. Therefore, if the works of a saint are without sin, it is reasonable to have confidence in them. But that this is false is evident.
from another prayer of the church, where she says: God, who sees that we have no confidence in any work etc. And elsewhere: that we sin without ceasing etc. Therefore the members of the holy church sin all the time, even if they do good, otherwise it would be wrong what is said here, that we sin without ceasing, and that we 'have no confidence in any of our works. This is what Isaiah Cap. 64, 6. said, "And all our righteousnesses like an unclean garment," where the text is clear that all our righteousnesses, that is, all the works of our righteousness are like the garment of an unclean woman. Therefore they have uncleanness. And he says significantly "all our righteousnesses," and excludes no righteousnesses from it. Cassianus explained this very beautifully about wanting good and doing evil. Job Cap. 9:30. f. also says this: "Though I wash myself with snow-water, and my hands shine like pure [springs], yet thou wilt dip me in dung." Augustine reads: Hast thou yet dunked me etc. As if he were saying: All works are dipped in filth. But what else can we understand by filth but sins? Therefore Job says very well in the 9th chapter, v. 20: "If I want to justify myself, my mouth will condemn me. If I will show myself innocent, it will prove me ungodly." Behold! the holy, righteous, and patient Job, to whom God has given a testimony of His holiness, says, "If I will justify myself, my mouth will condemn me." Hence he says below, v.28. [Vulg.], "I shrink from all my works, knowing that if I sinned, thou wouldst not spare mine." What has the righteous to fear in good works, if there be no sin in them? Therefore Paul says Gal. 5:17: "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, the Spirit against the flesh: for these are contrary one to another." Augustine in lid. hypogn. says: It is a constant and fierce war between the flesh and the spirit, as the wise man [Sir. 40, 1.] says: "A heavy yoke upon all the children of men from the day of their going forth until the day of their return to the mother of all." Here the text is clear that the spirit always fights against the flesh, and as often as the spirit works good, the flesh then resists, in such a way that under such struggle the spirit must inevitably become weak and thus defiled, as Augustine says against Julianus lib. 3. cap. 6. and from the words of the apostle serm. 3. a. c. d.. and serm. 10. shows. If therefore the righteous, in wanting to do good works, cannot come about as he should and wants to, as the apostle expressly says
says [Gal. 5,17]: "That you do not do what you want" etc., so the righteous must necessarily sin, if they do not do what they should and want. I ask the judges to judge according to what we have stated, and to look carefully at the intention of these attracted experts.
Corner.
1) In the reply, the respectable Doctor continued to defend his general rule, which is that of St. Ambrose, as I have known it for a long time. But he wanted to extend it, as well applied, to the generality of works. This extension, which is not approved by any holy teacher as far as the works are concerned, I do not allow, because the affirmations about the works are narrower, but the negations wider. Otherwise, the affirmative commandments would bind forever, which would be for the lazy peasants who like to celebrate the holidays . .
He apologized: it would be good for him to be prepared and armed. I did not reject this in a cautious man, but a good fighter also knows how to help himself immediately on the battlefield (in arena consilium accipit).
Because of Augustine he referred to the judges, but he did not bring forward a word of Augustine, that is why I pass it over.
Jerome, whom I dressed perfectly well, he refers to the judges, who would find it right.
Finally, since I had drawn two passages from David that seem to be in conflict with each other, he wants to show that the literal (grammaticus) mind is not enough to grasp the meaning of Scripture (I pass over his joke), and the respectable doctor puffs himself up enormously by explaining long and wide in an unseemly way what kind of righteousness David had, for the sake of which he had asked not to go into judgment before the Lord, but to judge himself and his sins himself. Thus he also spoke of the righteousness of Job and of the righteousness of David, and: my sin has always been before me, and: the truth comes up out of the earth.
I say: Although this explanation is true in itself, and that all schoolteachers and preachers from four hundred years ago have taught that if the sinful man in himself has righteousness 2) through repentance
1) In the manuscript it says: "Not without disgust and annoyance I repeat the things of D. Andreas and answer.
2) Instead of justitia, justitiam will be read.
and then God forgives the sins, yes, the school teachers and preachers have concluded with one mouth that repentance is a part of the avenging righteousness: I also say, secondly, that in such a statement of his there is even more contradiction to his conclusion, because he admits that David, when he judges himself, and so also others who judge themselves, are righteous, and therefore does not sin in this good work, because otherwise he would not yet be able to ask that God enter into judgment with him, because of the injustice involved in such his judgment.
Thirdly, because he thinks that what has been mentioned is for him, since in the whole explanation, where David asks in one passage that God judge him according to his righteousness, he still says, trembling before the strict righteousness: "Before you no living man will be righteous", he may extend his general rule here. But I do not want to hold out any longer.
Afterwards, since I had spoken of a double justice, which I also presented from the Holy Scriptures, I referred him to Augustine de perf. justit. because he does not want to accept the school teachers, while he clearly referred to it in 9 Confess. where he speaks of justice and mercy. And there Augustine is not at all at one with the highly respectable Doctor. Although Augustine admits that God does not look for our sins very closely, nowhere does he say that the righteous sin in a good work; although I freely confess that the righteous sometimes sins in a good and meritorious work, namely, that in one who devoutly says mass, or preaches, or gives alms, or bravely disputes, as the venerable doctor does, some conceit arises in the manner of a venial sin. And in this in particular I have never contradicted the doctor. For so says Gregorius lib. I. Moral. that our good works become impure by being stained with the least blemish. And Wilhelmus Parisiensis, that great bishop and beginner (inceptor), as the Chronicle of the Mendicant Hermits testifies, believes that Egyptian bugs and flies often fall into the ointment of prayer and the sacrifice of a contrite heart.
Furthermore, the respectable Doctor says: I would have fallen away from the sin of the good work to that, how the good works should be crowned. I say, with permission, that such was not my intention, but, since he mentioned righteousness, I have shown from the Scriptures that a twofold gift of good works is necessary.
The first chapter of Augustine de grat. et lib. arbitr. is not included here. Therefore, the 16th chapter of Augustine de grat. et lib. arbitr. does not belong here. Moreover, because I said I do not remember it in the legends of the martyrs, that they also cried out in their martyrdom: All men are liars, so he opposes me with Augustine, who is not a martyr but a confessor, who says that the martyrs say this. I say even more that every man must recognize the prophetic truth that all men are liars. If he does not want to believe the prophet, he will learn it once with his damage.
In the 80th Psalm [v. 5], he says, I bravely jumped over the right knot of his citation, because God was angry about prayer, which is so praised and commanded by Christ; thus much more about other good works. There was something special about the prayer because of the Savior's mission; it is also not true that God is angry in Himself, because He is free from these passions, but He only holds Himself as one who is angry. And that has been something special that he has been so long delayed.
Afterwards, since I have said that no church teacher or scholastic would have given this understanding that the righteous sin in all good works, except for the Wittenberg scholastics: I say that the Doctor has become unwilling about this, and has even added threats, which I, because they run contrary to the free conduct, refer to the gentlemen, and now declare myself to have meant by the scholastics in Wittenberg D. Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt and the father Martin Luther.
As for the law of the members, which he invoked and the apostle's help, I say that I easily believe everything that has been invoked from the apostle, and for the sake of brevity I pass over the various ways in which this chapter has been interpreted by Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Damascenus and Paulinus. However, I now adopt the latter opinion of Augustine, who has also at times been of the opinion of Pauline, and say that concupiscence, the law of the members, which was sin before baptism, is not sin after baptism, as Augustine lib. I. de nupt. et concupiscent,. and especially lib. 16. cap. 5. contra Julian. shows. In short, I say that lust, as the weakness and sickly condition, the law of the members, the law of the flesh, is neither a mortal sin, nor even a venial sin, and is not sin after baptism.
the original sin. And if also, as the indented gloss in said place, in its explanation, sin makes of every desire, that is, as Augustine lib. 6. contra Julian. 5. explains, because it arises from sin and is a punishment of sin, as he states to this: Every one is tempted by his desire, when he is provoked and enticed; afterwards, when the desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin: so in these words birth is certainly distinguished from parturition; for parturition is desire, parturition is sin. But lust does not give birth if it has not conceived Hai, and does not conceive if it has not provoked, that is, attained attunement to the commission of the evil of the will. And this is to answer what he said about the struggle that is between the flesh and the spirit, which we all experience. But it is not fitting to the matter. 1)
He then cites Job 9:20. ff. which does not presume to justify itself. I answer: Job speaks there of strict righteousness, and as a wise man, because no one knows whether he is worthy of love or hate, like Paul, who was not aware of anything, and yet says that he is not justified in it. Therefore the righteous do well to shun all their works. As Job and St. Gregory say, "It is the way of the pious soul to recognize guilt even where there is none. But he also takes this morsel (morsellum) with him, that Job Cap. 27, 6. says: "My heart does not bite me for the sake of my whole life." How did he justify himself here?
Furthermore, I thought that he would not omit the passage of Isaiah: that all our righteousness is like that of a sitting woman, or, as another text has it, an unclean woman. I could present him with the interpretation of Jerome, who, as the greatest interpreter of the Bible, says that the prophet speaks of the comparison of the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of the Gospel. However, I will only give the common one that it is true that when our righteousness is held against the divine righteousness, it becomes unrighteousness because it is imperfect, defective and mutilated, just as the created light, when held against the divine light, is darkness. And that this is true is evident from Luc. 18:19: "No one is good but the one God." Thus Augustine de perf. iust. concludes, and it agrees with Chrysostom and others. For all that is compared to the Creator is not good, nay, is as much as if it were not. Therefore, I take that,
1) Instead of xropositio, read proxostto.
What is said in one place about goodness, in the other place about justice.
Finally, let us conclude with his reproaching me with the little prayers of the church, that we should not have confidence in our good works; and in another collecte, that we should not rely on any of our works. I say with my lectures today that by these words not hope, but presumption is taken away; because when we have done everything, we shall still recognize that we are useless servants. So the church constantly recognizes that her children sin, which is why she prays for them. But from no collection or other scripture is it proven that the righteous always sin in every good work, even St. Lawrence on the grate.
For the rest, if I have said or done something unjustly, or out of rashness of tongue, or through ignorance, or through the presumption of human weakness, I ask the most illustrious princes, noble and highly respectable lords, the venerable and highly honored fathers, lords of nobility and scholastics, to forgive me such things, and I also ask the judges to believe that I have done nothing out of an evil mind. I am willing and ready to be instructed and corrected, if I have not reached the true understanding and sense of the Scriptures somewhere. To God alone be the glory l Amen.
Carlstadt.
First, I like the excellent doctor's protestation, because I also testify and ask the same.
But since time is short, and I cannot make my objections to all the particulars, I will only touch upon that by which, as it seems, my friend, the excellent Herr Doctor, has been drawn to my opinion, namely, the answer which he gave to Isaiah, "all our righteousness is," etc., since the excellent Herr Doctor said in his answer that all our righteousness, if it were held against God's righteousness, would be pure darkness and unrighteousness. This pleases me, and it follows that the righteous, when he does righteousness, always does unrighteousness when it is held against divine righteousness. Praise be to God!
But when he says that according to the church prayer hope is not taken away from good works, but presumption, I would easily agree with him if the church spoke thus: that we presume nothing on good works; but since she says: have no confidence in them, so
also seems to have taken the hope away from it.
Finally, I ask the doctor to tell me whether Paul was baptized or not when he wrote the letter to the Romans. If he had been baptized, he does not call lust sin after baptism, since he says: "Now it is not I who do this, but sin that dwells in me. So it is an apostolic testimony that the apostle calls the lust in his flesh sin after baptism. Therefore, no one is to be blamed if he follows and uses the apostolic way of speaking. As far as the other things are concerned, since the masters do not like it, I cannot object to anything else. So let that be the end of it!
Corner.
Ignoring two things, because this has always been undoubted by the school teachers, I recently say three things in response to what one wants to know from me about Paul: first, that Origen, Jerome and Isidore lib. 2. de summ. bon. want the apostle to speak of the habit of sinning that he had under the law, which drove him to evil. Secondly, that Origen considers it probable, and it is also testified by St. Paul to Severus, that the apostle did not speak for himself, but in the person of the weak, which was also Augustine's opinion for some time lib. 16. coiitr. Jul. cap. Thirdly, I say that it may be that sin is understood here as lust, but sin is taken there for the punishment of sin, as is clear from Augustine lib. 16. contra Julian. cap. 5, and we have said in the foregoing that sin sometimes means as much as the punishment of sin, as when we pray for the dead that they be freed from sin, as John Picus, Count of Mirandola, so learnedly argues in the second thesis of the Apology. Therefore the desire or lust for baptism is called sin, as someone's writing is sometimes called his hand. Therefore, if you consider desire to be sin in the manner now mentioned, I am quite satisfied; but if by sin you understand guilt and imputation, I strive tooth and nail against it.
However, I add this to the resolution: one should not always keep the way of speaking of the holy fathers, just as it has otherwise been extremely common to call Mary Christ's mother, but nevertheless the Concilium of its time decreed that she should no longer be called Christ-bearer, but God-bearer. I submit this again with all that has gone before-
my superiors, and I am ready to be proven wrong.
Carlstadt said: I also submit it so.
The disputation was finished Anno 1519, July 15, which was a Friday, about 2 o'clock. After its completion, M. Johann Lange of Lemberg gave thanks in a farewell speech. It ended with the song: HErr GOtt, dich loben wir etc., was concluded.
The sermon preached by Luther at the castle in Leipzig on St. Peter's Day, June 29, 1519, at the request of Duke Barnim of Pomerania.
It stands Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XI, 2306.
C. From the final speech given after the end of the disputation.
379: The final speech of M. Joh. Lange von Lemberg, the title of which is: Encomium theologicae disputationis; in which, at the same time, various historical circumstances of this famous disputation are presented.
putation can be told. July 15, 1519.
This speech of M. Johann Lange, from Löwenberg in Silesia, who was then rector magnificus of the University of Leipzig, was immediately printed in quarto. Later, Löscher included it in his Reformation Acta, Vol. Ill, p. 580. Löscher gives the above date, according to others, the speech should have been held only on July 16. Luther had already departed before it. (Köstlin, Mart. Luther (3), Vol. I, p. 268.)
Translated into German.
In praise of theological disputation.
1. It is not because I have finally ascended this place elevated above all seats, which is called the chair of learning, most illustrious princes, and other gentlemen who are to be highly honored according to rank, nobility, godliness and scholarship, that I should, for instance, after having diligently listened to such great defenders of truth on this learned battlefield, as a judge of such a learned battle, pass judgment, or in such an important matter, which the most astute minds would find too difficult or very troublesome for themselves, make a pronouncement; and, even if I could, you, according to your great wisdom, did not ask that about
The judges would not easily take on such a heavy burden. For not even the most learned judges would easily take so great a burden upon themselves. For, as Cicero says, all presumption and error in applauding and judging is disgraceful in all other things, but most of all in such things where it must be decided how much to attribute to religion, how much to divine things. For we must be careful that, if we measure everything according to our weak human understanding and our ways, religion does not suffer a disadvantage, or that we do not fall into the superstitions of old women.
2 But that is why I have climbed up to this chair to speak, that I would like to praise this learned fight of highly talented men, and to thank both its commanders and all noble and honest spectators of it, no matter what class they may be. And rightly so. For since the Greeks, since the Romans consecrated images in book halls to Epicurus, who strove to free the minds of men from perverse superstitious fear, carried his likeness in precious stones, paintings and drinking cups buried in rings, and set them up in their rooms, who has so eradicated the superstitions of the ancients, that he has planted against them nefariousness through the doctrine of the monads, has taken away the providence of the holy God, and, so that he would not give his God too much to do, has left everything to blind luck: How much cheaper is it not to reward with honor and thanks those who are so eager to save us from error that the holy truth comes to light and triumphs, and the service of the most high God, who graciously helps all with his providence, is increased, and the dark sayings of the prophets are explained by the bright truth? In addition, there is the ancient decree of the Roman Emperor C. Caligula, who, during a famous battle in the liberal arts and Greek and Latin eloquence, held at the altar of Lugdunum, ordered that the conquered should thank the victors with a eulogy describing the battle.
Since on this disputation field, with such a doubtful dispute, the truth has been so eloquently defended that one does not know exactly in many things who has actually won: so, in order to maintain the example of gratitude ordered by C. Caligula, my most noble Prince George, Duke of Saxony, my most gracious lord, and the heads of this famous high school, have instructed me to
that I should take the place of the conquered, i.e., first of all, duly praise the spiritual struggle held for the knowledge of truth, but afterwards, so that we would not leave a stain of ingratitude on us, I would like to pay tribute to the military leaders as well as spectators of the same, as honest men on all sides. Not as if I were such a one, who could flaunt before others with eloquence or delicately set words, but because under my [academic] office, which I administered in the past semester, at the most noble prince's behest and the entire university council, such great men have been given the freedom to debate in this learned arena, but to give you the opportunity to hear.
4 Therefore I will speak to you who give me such a favorable hearing, but I will use such moderation in praise that I will not appear to have spoken in someone's favor or to have praised something thoughtlessly.
5. Now as much as the body, the dark and muddy dungeon of the souls, and (as Plato says) Pluto's cave, is inferior to human minds and souls: so again the exercise of the spirits, which we call disputation, is much more glorious than all exercise of the body; For with this, if it is moderate, the health of the body is preserved intact and the limbs are strengthened, but by this the spirit is made strong, the sharpness of the mind is sharpened, the truth is revealed, and in the most excellent things science is attained, which in human things, as Plutarchus says, is alone an immortal and divine good peculiar to man, by which he surpasses the animals, which otherwise seem to surpass man in many other natural gifts. For the lion surpasses us in strength, the mole, although covered with a bad element of nature, in hearing, the vultures in smell, the eagles and lynxes in face. We, however, are only ahead of them in speech, which is the tool of disputation, and in erudition and sharpness of mind, whose hard whetstone and battlefield is disputation. Therefore, excellent men, it is no wonder that the great expectation of your battle has aroused such a desire and sensation among foreigners that even princes, dukes, abbots, counts, and doctors and masters of the laudable universities of Erfurt and Wittenberg have been summoned, and, despite all the danger and hardship of travel, have gone to this high school of disputation as a free place of good learning.
Arts, have gathered in droves. These have, although they have read the contents of this disputation in both parts protective writings, nevertheless not without reason believed that the oral fight of such sharp minds would have more emphasis. For, as Cicero says, it is certainly not the spirit in the books by which what is acted upon appears greater than when it is read. Pliny also agrees with this saying in these words: Much more is moved, as is commonly said, by the living voice. For although what one reads is still so perceptive, that which the pronunciation, the face, the bearing and position of the speaker at the same time forms in the mind penetrates more deeply. Hence Aeschines at the Rhodians, when he had read Demosthenes' speech for Thesiphon, and the others all became quite rigid and stiff at it, and cast down their eyes to the ground in amazement at the Attic daintiness of Demosthenes, said: Τί δε, εί αύτοΰ του ϋηρίου άχηχόειτε; that is,
What would you have said if you had heard the animal itself? And the unknown teacher of the nedic arts from Cadix also drew at home from the lovely milk fountain of Livian eloquence, but came, in spite of this, from far Cadix to Rome, that he might hear the very purest stream of Livius' eloquence flowing and rushing from his own mouth, as from the right spring vein, softly, but nevertheless richly and mildly. Thus also the spectators who came from foreign places, apart from your erudition, which they read in writings, have made the certain hope that they would hear and see much more presently.
6 In my opinion, they did not deceive themselves in their hope, nor did they spend their time badly in this disputation, since in it that truth was eagerly investigated, apart from the knowledge of which nothing is more salutary and honest for Christians for eternal salvation, but nothing is more difficult for the pagans to invent, of which therefore Democritus said that it lies hidden in the deepest cave of the pit. Since Carneades could not dig it out and despaired of finding it, he doubted all judgments of human senses, disputed everything on both sides, and said nothing with certainty. Socrates was so annoyed by his burdensome nature that he exclaimed: "I know so much that I know nothing. That is why this word became common in almost all societies of academics: What is above us is none of our business. But the old philosophers are not alone in cognition.
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. O a silly fool! whom philosophy has made completely blind. I would forgive him if his eyes had been so dark only in divine truth, for the same brilliance so blinds the eyes of the mind in this body, and its knowledge is so sacred that none of the pagans who have not had the grace of the Holy Spirit would have been able to taste its pure source only with the lips, as it were. Therefore Josephus and Theopompus report that some worldly scribes among the Greeks had wanted to stain the teachings of the Hebrew truth with the Greek flowers of speech, and to mix in Isocrates' ointment, but had become completely mad about it until they had abandoned this project. What shall I say of Theodotus, a very famous and high tragedian, who, having taken the histories of the Jews from the sacred Scriptures and mixed them with his fables, and twisted them to another mind, suddenly became blind, and spent most of his life in darkness. So who can deny that finding the truth is and was very difficult for the pagans? And everyone knows that the most important testimonies of the holy fathers, the most glorious passages of Scripture, which have been cited as witnesses and considered with the most severe judgment, have been used in this disputation for the recognition of the truth. And truly with every justification! For what is more sweet than the knowledge of truth? Nothing. What is more meaningful than its investigation? Nothing. What can be called or conceived more sacred than its understanding? Nothing, as far as I know. The prince among the theologians, St. Augustine, the knowledge of the supreme Creator, and Plato, the Attic Moses, both in Philebo and elsewhere, call it a divine sense poured into the members of a heavenly body, and soon, as it were, the highest good. This St. Augustine confesses more emphatically and clearly in his "Confessions" in these words: He who knows the truth knows the light of the Lord; he who knows this knows eternity; love knows it. O eternal truth and true love, and dear eternity, you are my God!
(7) This is the uncreated truth, the secret teachings of which have been thoroughly investigated and considered in this disputation with all the sharpness of the human mind. For, dear one, what is
this quarrel of spirits been other than a zealous endeavor for the truth, about which nothing more honorable can be to a free, sincere, and Christian man? And if the pursuit of lies is so shamefully respected among the pagans, cursed by all and punished in no small way, as among the Persians Artaxerxes had a lying soldier's tongue pulled out of his throat and pierced with three iron nails; and among the Indians people who have been caught in lies must renounce all high offices and lead their lives without any honor and prestige: so, on the other hand, the effort for truth is highly rewarded and honored among all peoples, that it is clearly seen that nothing is more conducive to the salvation of souls, and nothing is more pleasing to God, than the same, without which no one can or will live happily, as Plato testified in his laws. Therefore, the Christian Cicero, I mean Jerome, greatly admires the motto of Pythagoras: Next to God hold in honor the truth, which alone makes men closest to God.
8 Incidentally, this excellent exploration of truth was not a sophist bickering or scolding, which, as Jerome says against Lucifer. and Jovinarium, know how to muster nothing in dispute, do nothing but bicker, whose words consist in fists, and conclusions in heels [to strike out]; who, out of high conceit, argue persistently and grandiloquently about slander with feminine vituperation, and, as Plato reports in the Gorgias, part so disgracefully with scolding, cursing, and quarreling that the listeners regret time and effort, but this fight was quite modest and reasonable, after the manner of great theologians, in which one first examined in the most exact and meaningful way, First, whether the free will, which is inclined to evil in itself and by its own efficacy (which everyone admits), obtains the whole effect of a good work from the inexhaustible source of grace, JESUS CHRIST and his grace, alone, or whether, in order for it to come about, the consent or natural efficacy of the free will is still required; Of which twofold concurrence has been most highly argued from the sacred Scriptures and the testimonies of the holy fathers. Secondly, they have also fought under immense expectation of all about what power the divine right, which has flowed from the highest legislator's sense, grants to the pope; therein against the canonical laws, where they seem to be detrimental to the divine right, or at least to contradict it,
has been fought. They also did not grant indulgences unduly, but duly considered what sins they would take away or atone for. However, this would perhaps have had even more emphasis if the preacher of the same had stood so bravely on this learned battlefield when he had stayed away from it due to illness. How edifyingly did they not also deal with repentance and the redemption of sins: whether a Christian priest, whoever he might be, could absolve the souls of men from punishment and guilt? and what kind of bar restrains the efficacy of grace in us? Finally, whether one sins in any good work, because one hardly reaches the shadow of divine justice? has been drawn into the important and learned struggle. On these matters, on which the salvation of souls rests, one has not dealt seriously with the captious and ambiguous questions of the sophists, but with the holy scriptures and the testimonies of the holy fathers, on both sides. Where it required a fierce fight, the dispute was finally overshadowed and quieted by the shield of truth, and the peaceable olive branch was held between the swords, and the one who taught softly was yielded to with litter. This is the Socratic modesty in debate, with which Socrates, gifted in Plato's Gorgias, prefers to be punished rather than to punish others, and to reject mocking speeches with a smiling face and a wrinkled nose rather than to revile them again in anger, and to bear patiently the defiant attacks of youth rather than to lash out again, which, as he said, befits asses. For nature has planted this modesty in our hearts, in that, as Plato reports in the Timaeus, she calls the other part of the soul, where the emotions dwell and which has its seat in the breast, the ancient Greeks, from which the violent movements, quarrels and disputes spring, The ancient Greeks called it the breast, from which the violent movements, quarrels and disputes originate, and therefore separated it from the rational soul, which dwells in the head as in the castle, by a small space, that only the neck is between them, and subjected it to reason in such a way that the inclination to quarrel and anger would be conquered by the rule of reason. And what is the use of quarreling with an angry face and fierce courage, with disregard for truth, merely for victory, as it were for house and court? Since victory in such a battle is merely a little glory, but being overcome, that is, by error and ignorance, is not a victory.
1) He means Tetzel, who was ill at the time.
The fact that you will be saved is of much greater benefit.
(9) If you look at the place of this battle, it was quite well situated, namely at the far end of the city, completely secluded from all the tumult of the mob, which is hostile to the studies. In addition, you see the place excellently decorated and prepared, which nature has shaded with trees, but the strict Lord Caesar von Pflug with so many seats, with so many artfully embroidered curtains, on which true paintings and pictures are emblazoned, has made it so respectable by his care that it can be compared with the most magnificent show stages of the Roman aediles, M. Scaurus and Marcellus, if not in size, but in decoration.
(10) Since, by the way, all fights are generally made respectable by the bravery, courage and heartiness of the chief fighters, one may also mention the skill and virtues of the chief fencers with glory here. What was lacking in Eck that belongs to a brave defender of truth? How shrewdly he has acted from all objections! How learnedly he refuted many things! How cleverly he supported with his reasons what was refuted, and, as it were, pinned them to each other! One would think that he, like Carneades, could overturn everything and also prove it; he has poured out such a quantity of reasons, as it were, in passing, that Chrysippus would rather lack rows of conclusions heaped one upon the other (soritarum acervus) than the Eck would lack a quantity of proofs.
The time would be too short for me if I wanted to go through the course of his studies through all the stages of his age, since he had already read all the biblical books, except the prophets, as he had hardly emerged from childhood. He spent his youth under the most excellent teachers of both laws and true theology in such a way that he was finally appointed Doctor of Divinity and Decretology as a young man, with immense applause from the teachers. If one looks at his natural gifts of eloquence, he received by nature everything that L. Crassus demands in an orator, namely the astuteness of the dialecticians, the sayings of the worldly wise, almost the words of the poets, the memory of the legal scholars, the voice of the tragedians, whose bright sound has resounded his words in such a way in our ears that one could have believed that a Pericles aroused a rolling thunder by the stream of his speech, and the orator Trachallus wanted four advocates between four benches of the
He was only an orator according to his voice, however. What kind of memory he had can be seen from the fact that he was able to recite a large number of interjections almost from word to word with wonderful speed. Cyneas, Pyrrhus' envoy, is praised for being able to name the Roman councilors he had seen once when they appeared before Pyrrhus; Scävola, however, for being able to remember at the board game in which order each of them had moved the pieces in so many moves. But as much as words are more difficult to remember than things, so much richer is Eck in his memory treasure than those. Therefore, highly learned Eck, you have received special praise from those in Bologna that your adversary has not been able to overload your happy memory with a heap of reasons, although he has sought it with diligence.
But who would be so foolhardy as to prefer Johann Eck to the excellent doctor of both law and theology Andreas Carlstadt, or to place the latter above the former, before he understands everything that belongs to it from the bottom up? Carlstadt has done many things worth mentioning in this fight, in that he shoots the arrows of his reasons not so thickly, but all the more surely to the target. As his speech is not only clear and both spiced with wit and tempered by the wise seriousness of a Nestor, it is also completely removed from all make-up and verbosity, which is very annoying to hear. When one considers the variety of erudition in him, one must wonder that his age has sufficed for the learning of all of it. He is so experienced in both rights and so versed in both divine teachings that one must reasonably doubt what he has put the most effort into. This is also worthy of admiration, that since he has astutely kept the middle passages of the holy scriptures together with the front and back ones, he has thereby brought the ambiguous scriptural passages into harmony with each other.
13 But what a sin I would be committing if I were to ignore you, honest Martin! And with what honors shall I praise your erudition, your sharp mind, according to which you seem to understand more than you say, and your steadfastness in investigating the truth? which you, driven around by so many storms of ill-willed people, nevertheless did not want to give way to anyone who did not teach you better? The freedom of your speech is exceedingly sincere
and admirable that it is very well suited to the truth. Because this, because it is painted naked, does not want to be shaded with any covers. Therefore the pagans sacrificed to Saturn, the god of time, with bare head, because truth, as a daughter of time, as Sophocles speaks, does not want to be shrouded with any cover, but, as Menander says: Ερχεται τό άλη&ίς εις φως, Ενίοτε ου ζητουμενον, truth comes
sometimes of yourself, unsought, to the day. This has also made known to us, by common rumor, your righteous walk, since you represent a true Augustinian both by scholarship and by your way of life.
14. But, dear sirs, since I cannot praise the intellect, virtues and gifts of such excellent men with my speech, let me be permitted to do the same as the painter Timanthas, who wanted to paint the bloody sacrifice of Jphigenia, and had painted Calchas, the soothsayer of the Trojan war, saddened, Ulysses even more saddened, and Menelaum quite sad, who covered Agamemnon's head with a curtain, because he was not able to express the highest sorrow of the father with the brush. So, since I am not able to express the praise of your virtue with my speech, and time does not permit me to tell everything individually, I will wrap the other in silence, and leave it to the honest listeners to judge with quiet reflection, and to imitate the same.
15 Having accomplished the first part of my intention to some extent, I see that there is nothing left but to thank you, the highborn, noble and highly learned spectators of this battle, for your special kindness, according to the decree of our most noble prince, George, Duke of Saxony etc. and the superiors of the famous high school here. It is to be marveled at how this nobility looks so favorably upon the most noble prince; as he thinks so favorably of all favors, so must all other princes do the same. That is why the ancients engraved the image of a stork on the scepter of kings and princes, so that by such a symbol the princes would be reminded of both kindness and gratitude. For the storks warm, lift, and care for their old parents when they have grown weak and faint, and gratefully repay them for their sacrifice, hence also the Greeks άπό τοΰ πελάργου, that is, from the
Storch called the retribution antipelargosis. That is why Democritus did not call the animals mirrors of nature for nothing, which nature has made an example of gratitude to us.
eyes. Did not the captured lion also prove this to Androclus, a fugitive slave, who pulled a thorn out of the lion's paw and squeezed out the clotted blood in the wound by gently touching it with his fingers and made the wound dry, since he hid it in his cave for three years and kept it from hunting? When he finally escaped from his hiding place, the Romans captured him again. Since he was to be thrown to the wild beasts, the lion gratefully recognized him on the scene in Rome and gave him life, as it were. Thus, in truth, we would be worse than lions and wild beasts if we, who have been edified by your learning and have enjoyed your quarrels, did not thank you sincerely for them.
But from whom shall I begin more cheaply or more blessedly than from the most high and most gracious God, whom the Brahmins, the Pythagoreans and the Academicians implored at the very beginning of their disputation, and also gave Him due thanks at the end? So that we may not be worse in godliness than the pagans, we give thanks to the almighty God, as the most wise master of this world, who, like Moses, fought for us against Amalek at the altar of the cross with outstretched hands, and brought us to freedom from the servitude of the devil. The triumph of this disputation must bring praise, honor and glory to this greatest conqueror of all.
But with what thanks and graceful words shall I praise and extol the most noble Prince and Lord, Duke of Saxony, Margrave of Meissen, Landgrave of Thuringia, the most gracious and mild patron of this high school, as well as his most noble son, the image of his father's high nobility, Johann, Duke of Saxony, whose memory is worthy of eternity? And the Magnificus, Mr. Arnold Wostenfelder, Rector of the noble Leipzig University. Likewise two other illustrious princes, who, although young in years, are already old in early wisdom and heroes in reputation, namely Mr. Barnim of Stettin, most gracious Duke of Pomerania, the Cassubians and the Wendish, and Prince of Rügen? as no less Mr. George, Prince of Anhalt, Count of Ascania, and most gracious Lord in Bernburg? whose frequent attendance sufficiently shows how great love they have for study, by which alone, to say nothing of the other, they have not only gratitude, but the greatest honor.
Since, as Pliny reports, countless kings of old were held in high honor because of scholarship, who, even if they were to be praised, emphasized it more than wealth, because they thought that they could gain immortality and everything enough through it; and after a prince has been learned, he has also always ruled well. In former times the Roman senate unanimously spoke the words in praise of the emperor Tacitus: Who governs better than a learned prince? So may I also, with the gracious permission of such great princes, exclaim in thanksgiving: O blessed people of Saxony, Pomerania and Anhalt, over whom so great disciples, indeed, protectors of the liberal arts rule!
18) Hereupon we give our most just thanks to the most reverend in Christ Fathers and gracious Lords, the Abbot of the Gate, Pegau and Bosau 1), who have adorned this disputation with their highly respectable presence and have obviously proven their grace.
19. And I would be accused of ingratitude if I did not testify to your and my most humble sentiments against the strict and noble Lord Caesar von Pflug, Knight of the Golden River, and the excellent Doctor of Both Rights, Johann Kuchel, the most illustrious Prince's highly trusted and eloquent Privy Councillor; as well as the strict and noble Mr. Georg von Widebach, to whom we are especially indebted that, since they represented the absent most noble prince, they kept this scholarly fight in the best order, that, if disputes arose among the disputants, they ended them with their wise and fine advice in such a way that peace was easily restored among the parties. Plato says in the 4th discussion of his laws that the community would be happy if people like Nestor, the Trojan orator, were in the regiment. But since the men mentioned are people like Nestor in moderation of life, in prudence of old age, and emphatic eloquence, why should I not consider our lands happy if they continue to be governed by their counsel?
20 No one would be less justified in accusing us of ingratitude if we did not want to show our benevolent attitude towards the guests and strangers by expressing our gratitude. We therefore offer our best thanks, and hold ourselves highly bound to the excellent gentlemen of the laudable Erfurt and Wittenberg
1) In the text: ?o86imni6ii8i, but Löscher notes:
Legendum Bosaviensi. In another place (III, 591) he says that Bosau lies near Zeitz.
University, doctors, masters and students (scholasticis), as well as all others, whatever their rank and dignity, who are to be respected as strangers and guests, who have come here for the love of scholarship and truth, without shying away from the danger and discomfort of the way. As their arrival has been exceedingly pleasant to us, so we thank them also in the best way for it.
Finally, we owe no small debt of gratitude to the wise council in Leipzig for receiving our, indeed, his own guests so graciously and honestly, and for resisting all noise from so many armed men standing around us, thus ensuring that you, defenseless fighters, could fight with confidence, and that I, as it were in a Milonian court, surrounded by armed men, could speak to you safely.
But truly, your beautiful sight and the happy outcome of this dispute make it reasonable that the thanksgiving should also be followed by rejoicing and congratulations. For who is so uneducated that he does not have his heart's desire at such a learned battle and contest of the greatest scholars, and break out into exuberant merriment? Who is so iron and hard of wild pride and hopefulness that he does not take to heart the modesty of such great disputants, in which they have held to themselves as far as possible and have subdued their movements? Who is also so disfavored of other people's good fortune that he does not admire and revere in such great men the sharpness of mind, the strength of memory, and the immense erudition in the Scriptures and the honest conduct with cheerful eyes?
Therefore, all you musicians, wish these great men good luck, applaud them and play a joyful piece. And as you played sweetly in honor of the Holy Spirit at the beginning of the battle, so play again at the end to the praise of God, and thereby praise the Lord!
D. From the various historical descriptions of this disputation.
1. what Luther himself wrote and told about it.
380 Luther's citation to the Resolutiones super propositionibus suis Lipsiae disputatis to Spalatin, in which he tells him the whole business of the disputation at length, and shows, with
what kind of adversary he had to deal with, what had actually been argued about, and what outcome the disputation had achieved. August 15, 1519.
In the 18th volume of our edition, we have already included "Luther's explanations of his theses disputed in Leipzig" and mentioned this dedication to Spalatin in the first note, Col. 820. We do not consider it necessary to repeat the locations of our writing given there, and limit ourselves to mentioning that it has since been included in the Erlanger Briefwechsel, Vol. II, p. 102. We give here a new translation according to the Weimar edition, Vol. II, 391 ff.
Newly translated from the Latin.
Jesus.
To the pious and learned man, Mr. Georg Spalatia, of the most illustrious Prince Frederick of Saxony, Elector of the Empire and of the same Vicarius 2c, Librarian and Court Preacher, his dear friend Heil!
You desire, dear Spalatin, to know the history of this famous disputation, which we held in Leipzig, probably most of all because you have heard that our Eck and some people of Eck's party have long and surely been triumphant and singing songs of victory. I will certainly rejoice and give thanks if the victory is as true as their boast is great. For what is more to be desired by Christians, especially theologians, than that truth should triumph and error be put to shame? But again, when has it ever been heard from the beginning of the world that the glory is a true and lasting one, which praises itself and boasts before time? Are not the proverbs made on this: Singing songs of victory before the victory, much shouting and nothing behind it (Rumor ante salutam), then also the well-known word: Self-praise stinks, and sSprüchw. 27,2.]: "Let another praise you"? Then Christ says [John 8:54]: 1) "If I seek my own glory, my glory is nothing," and the author of Proverbs Solomon [Proverbs 20:21]: "The inheritance for which one first hastens will not be blessed in the end." For a righteous man is, as the
1) In the Weimar edition and in the Erlangen correspondence: "Joh. 8, 50."
Scripture sSprüchw. 18,17. Vulg.] says, not first a boaster, but an accuser of himself; but a Pharisee is first a boaster of himself, but at the same time an accuser of all others [Luc. 18,11.].
Of our Eck, however, I believe all the more easily that he has boasted of his victories, since I have known for a long time about the nature of this man, that he is a completely miserable slave of glory-seeking, and also because I have now learned even more that he tends to accuse more in the disputation than to disputate, and to spoil people's time in the manner of unlearned shouters with scurrilous words and vituperation. Therefore, it is not surprising if he seeks nothing but honor. But to me, who for two years now has had to suffer many such great braggers of victory and vain boasters and angry accusers, then also I do not know what punishments of hell (tartara) threatened me, it is quite a small thing to hear this their pretended boasting, since one must be more pityful than annoyed about them. For if their conscience could boast the same, do not doubt that they would neither boast outwardly nor be innocent. But to do you enough, I will briefly describe the matter itself according to the truth, and describe it in such a way that you can recognize that this disputation was a waste of time, not an investigation of the truth; then that Eck and Eck's followers are hypocritical in their boasting and feel something quite different in their conscience. For as much as Eck lay, almost no decisive point (scopus) has been touched. But if it has been touched, then it has been argued only with the best known and most hackneyed reasons of proof. For God knows that our Wittenbergers attacked this whole host of theses much more violently and vigorously for two years and tested them so that one could count their bones, while Eck barely touched them lightly on the top of the skin; only that he shouted more strongly in One Hour than we did in the whole two years, and seemed to want to overcome even himself as a shouter with immoderately hopeful and boastful gestures. For with these manners, which are admittedly quiet and calm, Eckish modesty has hitherto
peaceful theology, hidden in silence and secrecy in the deepest and quietest way. As God may have mercy on me, I am compelled to confess that we are defeated by shouting and gestures, that is, by the corner modesty; for that is what he himself calls it.
But before I tell the matter myself, I must make a preface and ask for forgiveness, if I involve some people equally, whom I would have liked to have passed over, if they had not mixed themselves in without cause, and had, as one says, behaved neutrally and impartially on both sides. Therefore, they may not attribute it to me, but to themselves, if they are also hit, since a similar search for honor and a long ingrained spitefulness has driven them to put into action not exactly good plots for Eck against us. Of course, I do not say of all of them. For there are very sincere and pious people at this famous university who hold above the right science and for that very reason are a thorn in the eyes of the people of the other coinage (fermenti) and a scourge in their side, to use the words of Joshua [Cap. 23, 13.]. But even the very wise council and the excellent citizens are so far removed from this malicious disposition that no one detests more than they this perverse manner, which is hostile to the good sciences. Most of all, however, the most illustrious Prince Duke George is to be praised, who in true princely grace and clemency omitted nothing that could have served the most beneficial fruit of this disputation, if it had been such that the pure truth had been sought, with honor set aside; He also deigned to glorify this cause exceedingly by his high presence, preventing all things, and exhorting that modest action should be taken, and in the endeavor to seek the truth. I therefore confess that I have nothing but all honor and all service to thank this dear university for, only I confess that the spitefulness of some (as human things are nowhere without fault) has displeased me very much.
Now this is either the tragedy
or the air play of this disputation, - rather, one could call it a satire. First of all, the contract was broken, according to which the agreement was made between Eck and us that disputation should be free, and that what was transcribed by the notaries should be handed over to the public judgment of the whole world, as one can read in the letters that were issued on both sides. 1) Rather, our corner wanted the matter to be handled without notaries with a mere and free shout; the people of his party also agreed with this. When they could not achieve this, another way of circumventing the contract was considered, namely, that what had been transcribed by the notaries should not be published until they had received their opinion on what had been handed over to the judges who had been named and jointly elected. A little word has been added, with which this breach of contract has been adorned as a very honorable title among the unintelligent, namely that one must have certain judges. If we refused these, they would already have something with which they could make us hated by the common people and boast that we did not want to suffer judges. Thus the most solid truth of Eck and his followers fears the light and the public, for they are well aware that they are no match for the judgment of the whole world and of all good people, according to which so much that the holy fathers have said, written and discussed before them has been accepted. Thus they acted, perhaps because they hoped that those would become judges of whom they knew that they were against us here and there in the universities and were on their side, or, what I suspect more, because my corner, who was well aware that he did not understand the Scriptures, sought in this way a hiding place for this, of which he was aware. For even though he is a man who is variously and abundantly learned in human sciences and scholastic opinions, I have nevertheless found him to be an altogether unfit disputator in the hei-
1) These are the documents No. 361 and 362 in this volume.
He may forgive me according to his modesty, because I speak the truth and will prove it in his time, if the all too credible testimonies of this ignorance, which he himself has put on paper, should not suffice. Not as if I only attribute to myself the understanding of the Holy Scriptures (for he is in the habit of accusing me of this when he has nothing else at hand to say), but because I consider that I have occupied myself with the Holy Scriptures so much and am practiced in them that I can speak out without danger about the understanding of a scholastic theologian who has hardly greeted the Holy Scriptures on the threshold.
The other attack was this: Our Carlstadt had brought books with him. Although it is the most honest and safest way to argue, to show the passages from the present books and to either approve or refute the statements, our corner rejected this with great noise. For it seemed that, relying on the insight and work of a certain compiler (compilatoris), he had patched together many testimonies of the holy fathers and increased them by the efforts of his party; there was now danger that, as he had been convicted of this on several occasions, so now he would always be convicted that he had put on the all-sayings of the fathers in an evil way. For since he had not seen the preceding and the following (for, as I have said, truth was not sought), he brought those [censures] to the point in such a way that nothing less could serve the point, only that it delighted him to excite laughter at times even among the audience. Therefore, according to Eck's will, they determined that the books should be left at home, and that only the power of memory and tongue should be used for free disputation, that is, as some very good men said, that this disputation was not held for the sake of truth, but for the praise of memory and tongue. However, that Adam also presented a very beautiful fig leaf here, which, of course, no one would have missed.
2) Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 1402; then in this writing the third last paragraph.
It is childish and ridiculous when a theologian disputes from books or slips of paper. And it is to be marveled at what an applause they earned by this artifice among the great crowd that judges about these things as about school exercises of children, as if Augustine had not also argued against the Manichaeans and Donatists with the use of books; but he sought truth, not honor.
I pass over that it was necessary to leave the last word to the corner, may he oppose or respond, so that in such a way unanswered grounds of evidence the more easily aroused the appearance of victory. Then, if a certain day had been set for the completion of some matter, he was at liberty not to observe it; we had to conscientiously bind ourselves to it and keep it. In short, we who had come to fight against errors and heresies were forced to deal with spite and vain honor. For as for me, since in so many sermons he made me the talk and laughing stock of the people, because his lips wanted it that way, I gladly pass over it, since I wish nothing so much as that my name be forgotten.
But even so they have achieved nothing. For they may want to or not, they are forced to testify themselves that Carlstadt's theses have come home unharmed, not even refuted in one syllable, of which Eck had planned to devour them raw. Yes, this excellent protector of the scholastic teachers, in order to prevent him from being regarded as defeated, turned into a proteus during the disputing and suddenly admitted, yes, asserted everything at the end, what he had fought against with great vehemence at the beginning. Then he preceded and boasted that he had drawn Carlstadt over to his opinion, even daring to say that the scholastic teachers had never taught and held otherwise. Since he realized that this was too impudently spoken for anyone who had read the scholastics to hear, he softened it in such a way that he called Scotus with his Scotists and Capreo with his scholastics.
lus with his Thomists, and older ones, Altisiodorensis, 1) Bonaventure, and I don't know what other sources.
I believe, however, that this was a great cross for the people of his ilk, although they feigned a miserable laugh when they realized (if they realized otherwise) that their leader, who had gone so bravely into battle, had left the flags and had become a runaway from the army and a defector. For that was enough for Carl-, stadt that in one and the same hour the three most famous sects of the scholastic teachers had been denied by Eck; if he had not denied them, he would have had to return to Ingolstadt as a Pelagian. For it is certain that the moderns (modernos, as they are called) agree with the Scotists and Thomists in this matter (that is, free will and grace), with the exception of some Gregory of Arimini, whom all condemn, who also correctly and forcefully states that they are worse than the Pelagians. For he alone among all the scholastics agrees with Carlstadt, that is, with Augustine and the apostle Paul, against all the newer scholastics. For although the Pelagians asserted that a good work could be done without grace, they did not say that heaven could be attained without grace. The same is certainly said by the scholastics, since they teach that a good work is done without grace, but not a meritorious one. Then, going beyond the Pelagians, they add that man has the natural right guidance of sound reason, to which the will can naturally submit, where the Pelagians said that man is supported by the law of God.
And you don't have to believe that this transformation is far from Eck's nature; he is very quick with it. For on this day he held it with Gregorius (as I said) and with Carlstadt; again on the other day, when he fought with me, he denied me the same Gregorius even in the same doctrine (materia) for the sake of
1) William of Auxerre.
for the sake of an article by Hus, who was condemned at the Costnitz Concilium. Thus, Eck is a truly whimsical disputator, the like of whom I have not seen, in whom there is no danger nor injustice in accepting for the scholastics the opinion of Gregory of Arimini, who disputes with Carlstadt against all scholastics, and in turn rejecting him for the very same scholastics in the same matter. Thus you have the victory of which Eck boasts, and his followers (fermentum) boast, that after denying almost all scholastic teachers whom they had taken upon themselves to protect, they agree with the church teachers.
But also we at Wittenberg knew that the scholastic teachers, if they would deny Aristotle with their darkness (that is, according to Eck, with the light of nature), can agree with the church teachers. But this way of denying and bringing into agreement by denial, which we do not know at Wittenberg, we learned at Leipzig, which we make common to you and to all who want it. First, that at the beginning of the disputation you bravely attack someone's statements and pray, even by public notes, that you will fight against the new doctrine for the truth of the faith and the honor of the holy church, so that one would think that the mountains are crying; then, during the discussion, you gradually and cunningly soften so that no one notices that you are defeated, constantly asserting the same and at the same time boasting that you have won. Then you must imagine with great confidence that none of those present has a memory or common sense, so that you can freely say that you have held this way from the beginning and that this is not a new but an old doctrine, and in the meantime you do not care if you have lost a whole army of teachers whom you had set yourself the task of defending. And this, of course, is the way and the outcome of the disputation between Carlstadt and Eck.
After that he fought with me about the primacy of the Roman pope, about purgatory, indulgences, penance, the power of any priest to absolve. What we have done in all these matters will be known as the
see in his time. For I must speak more sparingly about this, lest I become my herald.
In the meantime, I say that I myself almost do not know how far we have diverged with regard to repentance and purgatory. For that repentance begins with love for righteousness, he commended, but did not want it to be necessary, which I maintain to this day as absolutely necessary, since no good work can be done before grace (which is love), as he himself admitted. The cause of this disagreement seemed to me to be that he claimed with many testimonies that repentance also begins with servile fear, either not knowing or pretending not to know that servile fear is not completely removed in this life. Therefore, the infused grace that begins repentance also stirs the servile fear by working the filial fear at the same time, since the works of God are terrifying in that He kills when He wants to make alive. etc. But whether souls are certain of their blessedness and grace is increased in them, I have said that I do not know, according to my disputation in the "Explanations," 1) and he has not yet proved the opposite. Thus the matter is still undecided.
Regarding the indulgence we almost agree, which almost became a laughing matter, since he himself also preached publicly before the people that the same was not to be despised, but one should not trust in it. If he had been preached in this way by the indulgence-bearers, perhaps nowadays no one would know Martin's name, but the indulgence would have disintegrated into itself long ago, since the commissaries would have died of hunger if the people had known that one should not trust in it. Therefore, what I thought would be the main point of the disputation and the most dangerous matter, we have settled so easily that we have dealt with almost nothing more leisurely; indeed, there has never been a more unfortunate and miserable situation concerning the indulgence.
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 162 ff.
confessed. Therefore, my German sermon on indulgences 1) remained quite safe, together with what I wrote about this matter in the "Explanations" and against Silvester 2), although he could not leave it unchallenged either in his own way or at the behest of his group (fermenti), pretending that I was deceiving people with my words. And such a profound theologian did not realize that the new life and the cross, of which I had said that God required it of a sinner, included every kind of evil in the world, even death. And it is not to be wondered at, because he did not read the Scriptures nor their ways of speaking, but the light of nature, Aristotle, and only the teachers enlightened by this light. And yet, as an exceedingly presumptuous Moab, who presumed to be greater than he was capable of, he has presumed to blaspheme and go through everything I have ever said.
Therefore I wonder what those brothers will say and do now, who have blasphemed me here and there among the princes and everywhere as a heretic and I don't know with how many names for the sake of indulgences, then even large counter-disputation slips, which (as they say) have been prepared at great expense and by foreign labor, 3) published and deprived Christ's people of their goods, both in soul and body, by their impudent frauds, seeing that this matter has been so cold in this disputation, which they wanted to be hotter than hell. It is enough for me that the main part of this matter has fallen in the happy Leipzig, and that according to the judgment of all, the indulgence and its screamers have become ridiculous.
The primacy of the Roman Church has been the subject of much controversy. I have not denied the supreme place of the same according to honor, but also have not admitted the supreme power, at least not from divine right, have also not denied it, but rather have confessed it and have declared it to be true.
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 270: "A Sermon on Indulgences and Grace."
2) "Luther's Response to the Dialogue of Prierias," St. Louis ed. vol. XVIII, 344.
3) These are the two disputations of Tetzel, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, Col. 82 and 94, whose author was D. Conrad Wimpina at Frankfurt an der Oder. See there the introduction p. 12 f.
I do not want to deny that the Roman Church should have this supremacy in fact or by human right. For I seek nothing less than that anyone in any matter should depart from the supreme See of the holy [apostles] Peter and Paul, or withdraw from it the obedience due, only that I cannot admit that so many holy fathers, who are kings in heaven, who lived in the east and were not under the Roman See, have acted contrary to divine right. On the other hand, he made an effort to assert both according to divine right, since he gathered many testimonies of the fathers. But at last it was found that they were ambiguous and various, and at times seemed to incline to the other opinion, yet to me they testified more strongly and more abundantly, especially where they were heartily engaged in interpreting the gospel.
Since the word Matth. 16,18.: "You are Peter", likewise the word in John [Cap. 21, 17.]: "Feed my sheep", and v. 19.]: "Follow me", likewise [Luc.
22, 32.): "Strengthen your brothers", and some less than these testimonies serving the cause did not penetrate, he finally took recourse to the Concilium at Constance, in full confidence, because there the opposite would have been established, and my opinion would have been condemned under the articles of Hus and Wiklef. Here he stood still and tried with all his might, as spitefully as he was able, to arouse hatred against me, because he had nothing else with which he could have more sweetly flattered his Gelichter (fermento). For since he lacked divine right, he ran to human right in order to prove divine right through it. But even so, one could not ridicule what such a great theologian undertook.
Against this one Concilium I opposed him two older and more famous ones, the Nicene and the African, then that even the Concilium at Constance was not rightly understood by him and his wicked mob (which he served at that time); for the Nicene Concilium decided that the Roman bishop should take care of the churches situated around the city, just as the one at Alexandria took care of those in Egypt; then that the bishop at Alexandria should take care of the churches in Egypt.
that the bishops should not be ordained as now by pallia and power bought from Rome, but by the neighboring bishops, as is written in the 10th book of church history. Here, however, this eel said that this could be done, had been omitted by the Roman popes, by inventing (as he is wont to do) new glosses from his own head, as if both the Roman popes and the Nicene Concilium had not acted quite ungodly and heretical, when they either decreed or omitted what was contrary to divine right. For if it is a divine right that the Roman Pontiff should be able to do everything in all the churches, it is not in his power to forbear that the contrary be done even for one hour, nor in the power of a council to decree the contrary over the Roman Pontiff as his subordinate, or to decree anything different or otherwise, certainly no more than it is in his power to forbear or decree that fornication and adultery be permitted. Thus it happened that this wretched protector and patron of Roman power could not protect this primacy unless he blasphemed both the Most Holy Nicene Concilium and even the popes, claiming that they had dissolved divine law. For what is heretical and blasphemous if this Eckish modesty is not heresy and blasphemy? But so must he speak who speaks to please men.
Now, since the African Concilium, as stated in the 99th dist. cap. Primas, had forbidden that the Roman pope should not be called a general bishop, speaking in this way: But even the Roman bishop should not be called a general bishop, so here, of course, he abstained from blasphemy, and did not say that, contrary to divine law, another one was allowed or decreed, but invented a gloss that is certainly worthy of such a great theologian, which I would not state if I did not know that it was sufficient for the exceedingly ambitious disputator and would bring him the most complete (absolute) honor. He said: 1) Although the Roman pope cannot be called the general bishop, he is not the general bishop.
1) See in this volume Col. 917.
he must be called the bishop of the general church. I beg you, dear friend, hold back the laughter; let his gang laugh, for no one can laugh more duly at such an excellent gloss. I boast that I have not stayed in Leipzig in vain at such great expense, and have at least learned this: He is not the general bishop, but he is the bishop of the general church; he may not be the bishop of Mainz, but he is the bishop of the Mainz church.
This he has opposed to my two conciliarities. For he has dissolved the Nicene by the word "left behind", the African by the word "church"; so easy is it for our excellent magisters to dissolve the questions and also to do harm to the reputation of the concilia, by which they, it is to be wondered at how quickly, tend to make others heretics.
Now see whether I have answered better or worse to his some [Concilium]. It is certain that not all the articles condemned at Constance are heretical, as Eck impudently barked. I prove this clearly: first of all from the words of the Concilium itself, which read thus: some of them are obviously heretical, some erroneous, others blasphemous, others bold and seditious, others offensive to godly ears. Thus it is said. Is it not clear that these are the words of those whom we call heretical judges, who, as is well known, have gained dominion in this Concilium (for they use almost no other words than these: This sentence is heretical, this vexatious, this seditious, this insolent), or that certainly the Holy Spirit was very much present and watching while they played or slept, so that they were forced to testify quite carelessly with their own words that they condemned some who are neither heretical nor erroneous, and therefore catholic, Christian, and true? For if they had said without distinction that all are heretical and at the same time erroneous, at the same time bold and at the same time insolent, there would be neither a place nor an escape for the truth. But now they themselves distinguish the heretical from the erroneous, and from both the reckless and insolent. Therefore I will say: What is it to me?
if I speak boldly and insultingly, if I speak only truthfully and catholically? I corner you with your own sword: you call some heretical because it is certain that they violate the faith, some erroneous, perhaps because they violate the customs and ordinances of men. Now we triumph with respect to the rest that they violate neither the faith nor the ordinances about morals, and if they perhaps offend too much delicate little obeisances, which cannot stand the truth, it is enough that they are true and in accordance with the faith. It has always been so that the truth must be bold, biting, offensive and insulting. So I believe that this is one of the offensive ones, that the Roman pope is not by divine right the lord over all, according to authority. For what could be more frightening? what could be said nowadays and for many years that is more perverse? Thus also that is offensive in the ears of the Thomists, of which I have said above that it is of Gregory of Arimini, nay, of Paul and Augustine, namely, that every action of man is either good or evil. I did ask that it be admitted to me that not all articles were condemned by the Concilium, but that some quite Christian ones were inserted by some Thomist, such as: Every action of man is either good or evil, as every tree is either good or evil according to the Gospel, but he would not. But what is it to me that the Thomists are vexed by the truth? it is enough that this article is neither heretical nor erroneous. Or if it is heretical and condemned, what will Eck do, who disputes against the laudable Concilium at Constance for the same laudable Concilium, and admits to Carlstadt that it is true and catholic, and also the scholastic teachers would not have held otherwise, as I said above? O a terrible disgrace, which must be intolerable to Eck, the patron of the holy church, that the patron of the Bohemians and heretics (to thunder with his words) holds it with the Concilium against the Concilium, and he [Eck], in order to be a Christian with his teachers, becomes a heretic.
But, as I have said, it is the prerogative of Eckish modesty to disagree quite freely with himself and to hold contradictory things in one and the same thing, as he testifies that he did also at Vienna and perhaps also at Bologna. Therefore, it is clear that the Concilium at Constance does not argue against me, and that I am proven by it neither heretical nor erroneous, but rather catholic and true, so that in this way the agreement with the Nicene and the African and the one at Constance exists. But that Eck and the people of his ilk, then also the heretical judges, did not see this, seems to be the reason that all of them are much quicker at hand with the vituperation of the accusation of heresy than it befits such teachers of the people. And being stricken with this blindness, they read, as the holy Scriptures and the holy Fathers, so also everything else, that is, they are not concerned how well and how carefully, but to how great hatred and abuse of others they may read it. Therefore, they immediately claim that everything they hear that is not in their opinion is heretical, thereby exposing both their drowsiness in reading and their insolence in judging to the washing of all.
Then, if this agreement of the conciliums is not arbitrary, and the one at Constance is stubbornly held up to me against the two, then it will not be difficult for me to determine which of the two sides must have the precedence in reputation. For since a concilium can err, I will sooner confess that the one at Constance has erred than the Nicene and African, because these have proceeded and acted far more happily than that one, and they have been compared to the holy gospels long before the other concilia, especially the Nicene. The one at Constance has not yet attained this honor, and in this I will follow the last Roman Council, at which the one at Basel was rejected and also the one at Costnitz suffered no small loss of prestige, in that it decreed that the pope was above the Council, the opposite of which was established at Constance. And since the conciliar
mutually, meanwhile they make us quite safe and free to disagree with both. For since they disagree with themselves, for whom will they agree? And this, God willing, I will further elaborate when Eck will have publicly spoken.
But since, as I have said, in this disputation more time has been wasted than truth has been sought, I will give the explanations of my theses to the light, in the confidence that a better fruit of knowledge will come forth from it than if twenty times were disputed in this way. Therefore, if I seem to be wrong to someone, let him refute the error if he hates me, or teach me better if he loves me.
There you have, my dearest Spalatin, almost the whole story; for if I have not said some other things, I have not said them out of deference to the Leipzig University, which is very precious to me, lest I turn the bones of the king of Edom to ashes [Amos 2, 1.However, if I did not know that this was due to my sins, I would bear it quite unwillingly, that I am occupied with such unfruitful dealings of indulgences, primacy, privileges, and other things quite unnecessary for blessedness, by which I am reluctantly kept away from the best studies of our time. For as the most illustrious Prince Duke George, in chastising us both, has wisely said: Be it by divine or human right, the Roman pope is and remains pope [nevertheless]. Thus he spoke quite rightly and with this excellent modesty rebuked this useless disputation of ours quite severely.
But I am convinced that as soon as my corner and Eck's party see this, they will immediately cry out that I have not kept the contract and have not obeyed the agreement, in which the provision is made that the disputation should not be published before the pronouncement of the judges; as if they themselves had ever kept any contract with us. But I answer: that I consented that the disputation, which was recorded by the hand of the notaries, should not be published by us; but the other copies, as each one was left free to make the same
Who will prevent them from being published? But nevertheless, they may not be published either. My notarial copy will not be published, as the contract is so beautifully kept. But I did not promise that I would not write in addition, rather I testified publicly, since they limited our freedom with extremely unfair conditions, that they would not want to take it into their mind that I would remain silent: and so I will not remain silent.
But if I had promised such, I ask: Which of the two broke the contract first? Is it not Eck, who, as I hear, in a pompous and exceedingly unreasonable letter 1) even tried to influence (corrumpere) our most illustrious prince and patron (of whom he dreams that he is similar to his exceedingly obtuse pack), by telling, as much as he could, the most ridiculous things about me, as if I had denied the sayings of all the holy fathers together, arrogated to myself alone the understanding of Scripture, denied the Conciliar, defended the heretics: for with these lies that pure man and holy theologian has dared to tempt this so holy and venerable head, and to praise me so gloriously before the exceedingly pious prince. What do you think he writes and speaks to others (without violating the contract, of course), since he writes these things to our patron? Or what truth does he speak to my envious ones, who is not ashamed to lie in front of such a wise prince, who has such an extraordinary power of judgment?
Yes, I hear that he has made some annotations to certain articles 2) which are imposed on me by the restless brethren seeking their ruin, and that he has described me again before the mighty ones with wonderful love as a Manichaean, Hussite, Viklefite, and I do not know how manifold a heretic. Thus Eck's modesty is wont to hold a treaty; but it is easy for me to despise this nonsense of his, since I have heard almost the whole house-
1) In this volume No. 413.
2) Compare St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, Introduction, pp. 43 and 44.
rath of this man. And when these products of his come to my hands, I hope that I will be able to treat my corner duly and splendidly, whether he will finally understand in some way what it is to vow many things and keep nothing, and yet demand of others that it be kept, and by all this seek nothing but that he harm and trample truth underfoot.
Meanwhile, it is enough for me that this tormentor of consciences, the falsely called theology (theologistria), to which I owe everything that my conscience suffers, has fallen in this disputation. For I had previously learned that merit according to equity (congrui) is different from merit according to law (condigni), that man can do as much as is in him to obtain grace, that he can remove the bar, that he is able not to put the bar in front of grace, that he can fulfill the commandments of God according to the essence of the deed (quo ad substantiam facti), but not according to the intent of the governor, that free will has a capacity on both sides in things that contradict each other, that the will can love God above all things by purely natural forces, that one can by nature have the exercise of love, of friendship, and such monstrous things, which are generally put forward as the first principles of scholastic theology, and with which they have filled the books and everyone's ears. But now all these errors have fallen bravely under Eck's protection and triumphant banners, almost without any struggle, frightened by the mere sight of two theses of Carlstadt, 1) the first of which is that of Augustine: Free will without grace is only capable of sinning; the other is that of Ambrose: Free will without grace approaches godlessness the faster it is eager to act.
Almost the same signs of victory and spoils were carried away by the indulgence from this fight, of which I admitted, not in a milder sense (as they gossip), that it was useful, but useful only for the lazy and snoring. By the way, I have defended,
1) These are Carlstadt's 11th and 12th theses, Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 716 pp.
that it is nonsense for someone to say that he is good and useful for Christians. This, I say, is enough for me in the meantime that it took place at this disputation; I have told it for the sake that I might help the glorious boasting of Eck's heresy a little. If anyone among them should attack this, perhaps the Lord will grant that the other will come to light.
I believe you have seen Eck's apology against our Philip 2), which is quite worthy of Eck's manner, in which he imposes his status as a teacher of linguistics as a great fault on the man, who is also more learned in the holy scriptures than all people like Eck, and who is also not inexperienced in Eck's dirty theology. These excellent magistri nostri have such a correct judgment that they measure scholarship according to its dignities and empty titles. He has also tried to make him spiteful to me by attributing to me a good head and I do not know how great erudition. For, so that you also know this, that I too have gained some fame from this disputation, Eck ascribes erudition to me, and the Leipzigers ascribe it to me, to such a degree (as much as I have heard through rumor) that, if they had not supplied Eck with help, they confess that Eck would have been thrown down by me. And so the victory already begins to move from Eck to the Leipzigers. Again it is said that that boastful despiser had indeed considered the Leipzigers to be good people, but he had expected much more from them, and he alone had done everything. So you see that they sing a kind of new Jliad and Aeneid, and I at least am taken for a Hector and Turnus, so that they can make him Achilles and Aeneas, only that in this victory it is doubtful whether Eck accomplished this with his forces and troops, or with those of the Leipzigers. It is certain that he alone has always shouted, but they have always remained silent; don't you think that I owe them great thanks?
2) Excusatio Eckii ad ea quae falso sibi Philippus Melanchton, grammaticus Wittenbergensis, super theologica disputatione Lipsica adscripsit, in this volume No. 406.
But I return to Philip. There is so much missing that any Eck could make him hateful to me, that in my whole matter I respect nothing more than the judgment of Philip, whose unbiased judgment and reputation is worth more to me than that of many thousand dirty people like Eck. And I am not ashamed, although I am a master of liberal arts, of philosophy and of theology, and adorned with almost all the titles that Eck has, to depart from my mind when the opinion of this teacher of languages differs from mine, which I have often done and do daily, because of the divine gifts that God has poured into this earthen vessel (which is admittedly contemptible to Eck) with rich blessings. I do not praise Philip, he is a creature of God and nothing, but I honor in him the work of my God. Nor do I rebuke Eck, but these crude plots to sow discord and stir up hatred I hate and abhor with all my heart. Nowhere have I seen these more frequently or more maliciously than in Eck; with them he has also leavened almost the entire trade of our disputation. For almost alone in this one exceedingly wicked thing Eck is a mighty man, but in theology he is an ass on the lyre. 1)
But now I will proceed to the explanations. In the meantime, see to it that you recommend the corner to the most illustrious prince as he deserves to be recommended, although this service is not necessary for such a great prince. Farewell. Wittenberg 1519, on the day of the Assumption of Mary [August 15].
Luther's detailed report to Spalatin of the Leipzig disputation and complaint about the hostile behavior of the Leipzigers against the Wittenbergers. July 20, 1519.
Luther wrote this letter from Wittenberg to Spalatin, who was probably in Altenburg at the time, where he had returned with the Elector after the imperial election held in Frankfurt. The original is found in the Oofi. dotd. X. 122. toi. 13, but in very faded, partly indissoluble writing. Latin in Aurifaber, vol. I, toi. 180; in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 233; in De Wette, vol. I, p. 284 and in the Erlanger
1) Thus Luther gives o>-oc Xv/xrv in No. 443, K13 of this volume.
Briefwechsel, vol. II, p. 80. German in the Wittenberg edition569), vol. IX, p. 66; in the Jena edition (1564), vol. I, p. 144d; in the Altenburg edition, vol. I, p. 268; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XVII, p. 245 and in Walch. We have retranslated according to the Erlangen correspondence.
Newly translated from the Latin.
To the very pious man Georg Spalatin, court preacher and librarian of the Serene Prince, Elector of Saxony, his [dear friend] in Christ.
Hail! We are glad that the most noble prince and all of you have returned safely, dear Spalatin. Christ accept Pfeffinger's soul 2) in grace, Amen. We would have written about this famous disputation of ours long ago, but it was not certain how far and in what way it would be written. It is so with it that some Leipzigers, namely those who are neither sincere nor righteous, triumph with Eck, and this is, as they gossip, the general speech (fama); by the way, the matter itself will reveal everything.
First, when we arrived, immediately at the same hour, before we got off the wagon, a prohibition of the bishop of Merseburg was posted on the church doors, that there should be no disputing, and for this also the new declaration [of the pope] 3) was drawn and added [to the prohibition]. This was disregarded, and the one who had posted it was thrown into prison by the council (because he had done it without its knowledge).
Since they did not achieve anything by this trick, they turned to another one. Carlstadt was specially summoned, and they negotiated with many words (since Eck wanted it that way) that the disputation should only take place orally and not be written out by notaries. For he hoped that he could gain the upper hand by shouting and gesturing (as he indeed did). Carlstadt opposed this, because it had been agreed that way, and one had to stick to the
2) Degenhard Pfeffinger, who had gone to Frankfurt as a princely councilor, died on July 3 of the plague there.
3) "Pabst's Leo X New Decree" etc., Document No. 234.
He demanded, of course, that it be recorded by notaries. Finally, in order to obtain this, he was forced to admit at least this, that the disputation recorded by the notaries should not be published before they had heard the verdict of several [judges]. Here a new dispute arose about the judges to be chosen. Finally, they urged him to give his consent to this as well, that they wanted to agree on the judges after the disputation was finished, and they did not want to allow the disputation in any other way. And so they attacked us with a cuckolded final speech, that we would be disgraced on both sides, either that we had withdrawn from the disputation, or that the disputation would necessarily have to be subjected to unjust judges. So you see these crude tricks by which they deprived us of the agreed freedom. For we are certain that the universities and the Roman pope will either never, or against us, do what they alone desire.
The next day they summoned me especially and proposed the same to me. But I, since I feared the Roman pope and was also advised to do so by our people, rejected all these conditions; then they offered other universities, with the exception of the Roman pope. I requested that the agreed freedom be preserved; since they did not want it, I refused and rejected the disputation. Thereupon it was immediately on everyone's lips that I did not dare to accept the disputation and that it would be too unreasonable that I did not want to suffer any judges. All this was vilified and interpreted in the most spiteful and malicious way, so that even our best friends turned away, and now an eternal disgrace was in store for our university. Hereupon I joined the council of the friends and accepted the condition with unwillingness, but in such a way that my appeal would remain unharmed and my cause would not suffer any harm, even with the exclusion of the Roman court.
1) cornuto sMcmisnio. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XIX, 592.
The first discussion was with Carlstadt about free will, during the week. From the books he had brought with him, Carlstadt revealed Eck's (illius) reasons for proof and (truly) gave his answers in an excellent and very rich manner.
After that, since Carlstadt had also been given permission to oppose, Eck refused, unless he left the books at home while leading the evidence, since Andreas did this for the sake of showing him to his face that he was leading the sayings of Scripture and the Fathers in the right way, and was not treating them violently, as Eck had been convicted of having treated them. Here again a noise arose; at last it was decided in favor of Eck that the books should be left at home; but who does not see that if there had been dispute for the sake of truth, it would have been desirable that all the books had been brought in. In no other matter did the spite and ambition show themselves in a more impudent manner.
In the end, the deceitful man admitted everything that Carlstadt had proved, which he had nevertheless vehemently contested, and agreed with him completely in all things, boasting that he had drawn Carlstadt over to his opinion. For he rejected Scotus with the Scotists and Capreolus with the Thomists, saying that the other scholastics had held and taught the same as Carlstadt. Thus, both Scotus and Capreolus, that is, the two most famous parties of the Scotists and the Thoniists, fell.
The next week he argued with me, first of all very vehemently about the primacy of the Roman pope. His strength consisted in the words [Matth. 16,18.]: "You are Peter", and [Joh. 21, 17.]: "Feed my sheep", and [V. 19.]: "Follow me", and [Luc. 22,32.]: "Strengthen your brothers", with the addition of many testimonies of the fathers. What I answered, you will see next. After that, in the end, he relied entirely on the Concilium of Constance, relying on it to condemn the article of Hus, who had said that the papacy was of the emperor, as if it were of divine right. Then, since he was on his battlefield, as it were, he bravely pushed for
held the Bohemians against me and publicly accused me of being a heretic and patron of the heretical Bohemians. For he is a no less insolent than sacrilegious sophist. In a wonderful way these accusations tickled the Leipzigers, more than the disputation itself.
I have again opposed him to the Greeks of a thousand years and to the ancient Fathers, who would not have been under the power of the Roman Pontiff, although I do not deny him the primacy of honor. And finally, the prestige of the Concilium has also been disputed. I have publicly confessed that some articles were ungodly condemned, since they were those of Paul, Augustine, and even of Christ himself, taught in clear and plain words. Here, however, the viper swelled up, and made my misdeed great, and was almost nonsensical in flattering the Leipzigers. Finally, I proved from the words of the council itself that not all articles condemned there were heretical and erroneous, therefore he had achieved nothing with his proofs. And so this matter is still pending.
During the third week, we discussed penance, purgatory, indulgences, and the power of every priest to absolve. For he disputes with Carlstadt unwillingly, but sought only me. The indulgence indeed fell completely, and he agreed with me almost in everything, and the protection of the indulgence became laughter and mockery, while I had expected that this would be the epitome of the future disputation; yes, he also confessed it in public sermons, so that even the common people recognized that he considered the indulgence to be nothing.
It is also said that he confessed that if I had not disputed the authority of the pope, he would have agreed with me very easily in all things. Yes, to Carlstadt himself he said: If I were in agreement with Martin as I am with you, I would also go to him in his inn. Thus he is a fickle and deceitful man, ready to become anything. Yes, since he had admitted to Carlstadt that the scholastic teachers teach the same thing, he rejected to me the Gre
gorius Ariminensis, 1) who alone holds with us against all scholastics, and so it is not wrong with him to assert and deny one and the same thing at different times. And even the Leipzigers do not recognize this, so great is their narrowness. And so that the monstrosity would be even greater: one opinion he admitted in the disputation (in schola - at the university), another he preached in the church. When Carlstadt asked him why he was so unstable, he answered without shame that it was not necessary to teach the people what was being discussed.
After my disputation was finished, he disputated with Carlstadt on the last three days, again admitting and agreeing to everything: that "doing as much as is in him" is sinning, and that free will without grace can do nothing but sin, and that in every good work there is sin, and that "doing as much as is in him" is grace itself in him who prepares himself for grace. All this the scholastics deny. And so almost nothing in this disputation is acted upon, at least duly, except my thirteenth thesis. But meanwhile the latter has the applause, he triumphs and rules, but only until we have published ours. Because there has been bad disputation, I want to publish the explanations 2) anew.
The Leipzigers, in fact, neither greeted nor visited us and held us as their most hated enemies; they accompanied him, attached themselves to him, gave him guest meals, invited him, yes, gave him a skirt and added the Camelot 3) to it, rode with him for a walk, in short, everything they could think of, they undertook to offend us.
Moreover, they persuaded Caesar Plough and the Prince that this pleased them. The one thing they have shown us is that (as is the custom) they have rewarded us with a gift of wine.
1) Gregory of Rimini taught in Paris, became general of the Augustinian Hermits in 1357, and died in Vienna in 1358 (Erl. Briefw.).
2) Luther had already sent out the explanation of his thirteenth thesis before June 27, and the second edition, which he had increased, appeared after August 18. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 720 and the introduction there, p. 26 f.
3) soUarlUotturn, camelot, a stuff made of camellia or goat hair.
and to refrain from doing so might not have been safe for them. But all those who were favorable to us came to us secretly, as it were. But D. Aurbach 1) invited us, a man of very correct judgment, and the Ordinary Pistor the Younger; 2) Duke George himself invited us all three [Luther, Carlstadt and Eck] at the same time.
The same most noble duke summoned me alone and discussed my books at length, especially the "Our Father", 3) claiming that the Bohemians were missing out on many things because of me; then that I had confused many consciences with the "Our Father", since they complained that they would not be able to pray One Our Father in four days if they had to hear me, and many other things. But I was not so limited that I could not have distinguished between the flute and the blowing, 4) and I was sorry that the good and very godly prince was so open to foreign influence and obeyed it, since I saw and experienced that he spoke quite princely when he spoke his own.
The last monstrosity of spite was this: since on the day of Peter and Paul [June 29] I had been called by our Rector [Barnim], Duke of Pomerania, to preach the Gospel to His Grace in the castle chapel, 5) the rumor suddenly filled
1) Doctor Heinrich Stromer from Auerbach in the Upper Palatinate, born 1482, professor of medicine in Leipzig, personal physician to several princes, including George of Saxony and Elector Frederick; died Nov. 25, 1542 (Erl. Briefw.).
2) Doctor Simon kistoris (also kistorius, German probably "Becker") junior (his father, Saxon personal physician, had the same first name), born Oct. 28, 1489, famous jurist, then full professor of the faculty; he died Dec. 2, 1562 (Erl. Briefw.).
3) "Luthers Auslegung deutsch des Vater-Unsers für die einfältigen Laien," Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. VII, 752.
4) With the "flute" here Duke Georg is meant, who let himself be influenced by Emser, who "blows" the flute, and obeyed him, as Luther says immediately in the following. Seidemann in his "Leipziger Disputation," p. 67, notes: "Obviously by these remarks Emser's letter to D. Zack gains its right light." This letter is found in the St. Louis edition, vol, XVIII, 1202.
5) This is "a sermon, preached at Leipzig in the castle, on the day of Petri and Pauli, in the year 1519, at the time of the disputation, with excuse of some articles, so him of his Abgünstigen are zugemessen", Walch, St. Louis edition, Vol. XI, 2306.
The city was so excited about my sermon that people of both sexes came in large numbers, so that I was forced to preach in the disputation hall. Magistri nostri were deputized and appointed for this purpose, as well as the most unrepentant Laurians. It is the Gospel, however, which comprehends the subject matter of both disputations in the clearest possible way; therefore, I have been compelled to present to everyone the brief summary of the entire disputation, but not to the credit of the Leipzigers.
Thereupon Eck, instigated against me, preached four times 6) in different churches and publicly belittled and challenged everything that was mine. For this is what the bad theologians (theologistae) ordered him to do. On the other hand, I was not allowed to preach, even though it was desired by many. I was only to be accused and blamed, not also cleansed. For they had also acted in this way in the disputation, that Eck, even though he was the opponent, still had the last word, which I could not answer.
Yes, even Caesar Pflug, having heard that I had preached (for he was absent), said: "I wish Doctor Martinus had saved his sermon for Wittenberg!" Summa Summarum: I have known spitefulness at times, but none more disrespectful and insolent.
Thus you have the whole tragedy; the other will be told to you by Johann von Planitz nitzer) 7), for he himself was present and contributed not a little to the fact that the disputation did not fall through. And because Eck and the Leipzigers sought their honor through this disputation, not the truth, it is not a tragedy.
6) Eck says in his letter to Hoogstraten of July 24, 1519 (No. 395 in this volume) only of three sermons; two of them were held on July 2 and 3, and tomorrow, July 25, the third is to be held. Also in his letter to the Elector of November 8 (in this volume, no. 419, Z59), he says only of three sermons: "He also complains that I tore up a sermon, which he had delivered in Leipzig, in three sermons before all the people. I deny this" etc. - From these statements of Eck's, however, it does not yet follow with certainty what the Erlangen correspondence notes: "Luther was not properly reported in this." It is noticeable, however, that Luther already here (on July 20) reports four sermons. Eck in the sxpur^utio mentions only two sermons held in the Nicolaikirche.
7) Saxon councillor and captain in Grimma.
It is a wonder that it began badly and ended worse. For since harmony could have been hoped for among the Wittenbergers and Leipzigers, they have, I fear, brought it about by this spitefulness that discord and displeasure now seem to have arisen. For this is the fruit of human honor. And though I restrain my impetuosity, yet I cannot put away all displeasure, for I have flesh, and the spitefulness and malicious inequity was all too impudent in this thing so holy and divine. Fare well and command me to the most illustrious prince. Wednesday after Alexius [July 20, 1519.
Your
Martin Luther.
I found the venerable father Vicar Staupitz in Grimma.
Luther's report to Spalatin about Eck's expurgatio, which is directed against Luther's preface to the explanation of the 13th thesis.
Nov. 1, 1519.
See Appendix, nv. 46, § 2.
Luther's letter to Johann Eck about Eck's purification writing (expurgatione). Completed at the end of October; sent out in the first days of November 1519.
Most of what can serve as an introduction to this writing, as, the reason for Eck's writing, the Latin title of it etc., has already been given in the 18th volume of our edition, Introduction, p. 27 p f.. We therefore only add the following here. Indignant at Eck's falsehood and hypocrisy in the expu^ntio, Luther gave expression to his sentiment in our writing in the form of a letter, which he sent to Spalatin on November 7 with the words: "I send you Eck's nonsense with my short letter of reply." The title of the single edition is X<1 ckoünnneru Deeium Martini Htüeri Dpistoin super expurMtione üeeiana. Four leaves in quarto. At the end: VuittenperAae. [.nno, M.V.XIX. I, D. The printer is Johann Grünenberg. In Latin it is found in the Wittenberg edition (1550), torn. I, toi. 353 b; in the Jena one (1579), tönn I, 358 b; in the Erlanger, opp. vur. ur^., tönn IV, p. 47; in the Weimar one, vol. II, p. 700; in Löscher's Ref.Acta, vol. Ill, p. 805; in Aurifaber, vol. I, p. 198; and in De Wette, vol. I, p. 354. We have retranslated according to the Weimarschen, which reproduces the original print; in the Wittenberg, but even more so in the Jena, the text is now and then arbitrarily changed.
Newly translated from the Latin.
Jesus.
Martin Luther wishes Johann Eck salvation.
You can hardly believe from how great a burden you have freed my heart, dear Eck, and from what a heavy care you have delivered me by your cleansing writing, in such a way that if you have only ever been of use, you have now been of most use to me, and I believe, that I have written nothing that has been more to my liking than the letter from the Leipzig disputation, 1) which you pursue with great waterfalls of accusations and, as it were, a constant flood of invective, while meanwhile, like Noah's ark, it seems to me to float above everything. He has accomplished what I have wanted, he has found what I have sought; you too have done what I have expected.
Do you wonder where this great rejoicing comes from? Listen! Until now I have been tormented by an evil and restless conscience, which was caught in God's commandment, according to which I was not free to hold and say freely of you what was forced upon me by so many reasons and confirmed by the testimony of so many righteous people: so much was I opposed, especially before the people, to your exceedingly apparent reputation and your hypocrisy, in which you pretended everywhere to be a friend of Luther, a sincere and open lover of truth. But it is true; your purification writing (expurgatio) has, as it were, as a means, as it occurs in the comedies, 2) driven away and quieted all these disturbances, by which you clearly show everyone who you were and still are. For the little that you tie like an apron, with which you also impute modesty and love to yourself with an oath, is such that it represents a ridiculous bouquet compared to the noise and the storms of your accusations. For it is said that this animal's foolishness is so great that it believes it is completely covered when it stretches out its neck.
1) This is the reply to Luther's explanations of his theses disputed at Leipzig, in this volume No. 380, not (as Walch states in the caption to No. 382) the subsequent document.
2) ruockiurn eomiourn is also found in the interpretation of the first book of Moses, Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. II, 1640, § 45.
covered only with a dwarf: so also you, who are entirely accusation and impatience, present yourself by one or two words as a pattern of the most complete modesty and love. But this may go wherever it goes.
Let us come to that which I detest more, namely your hypocrisy, so that it does not appear as if I had completely despised you, and setting aside the other things which you are ripping apart in my letter, I am at present only taking up the piece in which you also trouble yourself the most, and in which almost the epitome of the whole matter consists, namely that I have said that Carlstadt's theses, especially the first two, which were treated in the first disputation, 1) were admitted by you, and I have concluded what follows from this. In the meantime, you bravely prepare that with which you refute the articles of John Hus, which I have asserted, and that the Nicene Concilium has served for me. But listen! Be mindful that you will not be on the scene in Leipzig,' and that nothing follows the praise of the Leipzigers or your praise in good consequence even outside Leipzig. Also you should know that Luther, now not your prisoner nor in the country of his enemies, stands on his battlefield, and, as I hope you do, ask Christ above all things, so that he alone, who is the truth, may be victorious when we fight and destroy our glory. Amen.
Therefore, notice what I ask:
Did you not presume to reject these two theses of Carlstadt 2)? "Free will before grace is only capable of something to sin." "Free will without grace approaches ungodliness all the more quickly, the more eager it is to act."
Am I not telling the truth here? But what did you, as an extremely zealous and open friend of truth, come to dispute other than the errors? Thus you boast about yourself. Therefore you considered these theses to be false and wanted them to be so. For
1) Carlstadt's 11th and 12th theses for the Leipzig Disputation.
2) Carlstadt's 11th and 12th theses. - In the original: odtuli8ti; in the Wittenberg: obtulit. We have opted for the former reading with the Weimar one.
If you thought they were true, why did you, the defender of truth, challenge them?
But in the middle of the disputation you admitted that they were true, saying freely that free will without grace could do nothing but evil. You added that even the scholastic teachers had never taught otherwise, and for this reason you denied that you defended Scotus and Capreolus. This I say, not fearing your Leipzigers, which you so often threaten me with in vain, for all these things are witnessed by the whole audience. Of course, when I heard this, I was pleased that you had returned to the right path so soon, and I already thought that the whole disputation was over, since almost everything depended on this main matter.
This is now the main thing we are dealing with now, therefore hear the cause of my letter. I judge that the disputator is defeated, who claims what he has contested before; so I have pronounced and still pronounce it that Eck is defeated, Carlstadt the victor. And this I wrote to the very noble man Pirckheymer in Nuremberg 3) that the victory would be on Carlstadt's side, and this word in the public disputation note, 4) that Carlstadt would not come as a fugitive soldier (as you had reviled him), but that he had long since been a conqueror of Eck's error. All of this is still true today, even if the judges should judge differently, which I do not hope.
From this I have deduced all that follows from this truth, though it seems to you very improper (at which I wonder), namely, that you have denied three distinguished parties 5) of the scholastic teachers, who have not denied free will before grace.
3) The Weimar edition notes: "Cf. Luther's letter to Wilibald Pirckheymer of July 5, 1519." The Erlangen Briefwechsel says: "We have not yet succeeded in finding this letter." - Eck mentions this letter in his sxpur^utio, in the 25th part, but gives the wrong date "5. I.UKU8ti," while immediately adding: "since I had hardly disputirt with him for two days", i.e. on July 5. This letter is also referred to in the first part of the oxxurAutio.
4) No. 363 in this volume, Col. 821.
5) namely the Scotists, the Thomists and the Modernists.
The same applies to the fact that I now think that Johann Hus' article (as I will show in his time) is entirely Christian and also yours. Likewise, that the article of John Hus (of whom I now hold many more articles than I held at Leipzig, 1) as I shall show in his time) is entirely Christian, and also yours, in which human actions are held to be either good or evil by direct distinction. For here it follows clearly: if before grace, free will can only sin; as it also follows that the sects of the scholastic teachers err in their action according to equity (de congruo). For the word stands firm: "Free will without grace can only do something sinful".
I have also quite rightly concluded that you would have returned to Ingolstadt as a Pelagian heretic if you had not conceded this opinion that it is in truth Pelagian to concede to free will before grace an action without sin, as the scholastics do. Not that they are therefore Pelagians, as you infer according to your usual dialectic, because they have not stubbornly erred, as you would have erred if you had remained a defender of error. Therefore, that Calendarium or Register of [scholastic] Teachers 2) is a reliable testimony of your exceedingly sharp dialectic, which always shouts further than it can see.
Moreover, I have concluded that the torturous bad theology (theologistriam carnificem) has fallen from the merit according to equity (sonZrui), from which "do as much as is in him", and other things that are enumerated there, because it had been admitted, that before grace there is only sin, but sin can never be congruent (congruum) with grace (for Belial is not congruent with Christ, nor darkness with light), nay, rather sin contends against grace. All this is true, I say, if Carlstadt is right, as Eck admitted.
1) In the meantime, Wenceslas Rozd'alowsky had sent him from Prague the "Tractate of the Church" that Hus had written. See No. 423.
2) In the 15th part of the 6xpurZg,tio, Eck has listed an exceedingly large number of them. LxpurAatio toi.
If you now, my dear Eck, have a different grammar, as you indeed always have a different dialectic, that conqueror, victor, truth, error, in short, the things and words must serve you as a new Mercurius at will, then you must be merciful to us and not resent if we use ours, since we allow you to use yours. So I have held so far and still hold.
But I know what you are thinking here. But in the meantime, my dear Eck, do not be dismayed: soon I will also come to your thoughts, after I have first sent this in advance, that the other matter of the activity of free will and some other things, with which you have wasted so much time, are too small to deserve a theological disputation, especially such and such a large one. It is enough that we have agreed on the main thing, that the good free will alone is indebted to God and to grace, without which it can do nothing but sin.
But since you deny what I have concluded and assert lies, I think two things: either that you have acted deceitfully in Leipzig and have been an exceedingly hateful hypocrite to the ruin of truth, or that you are dumber than any block. And here, perhaps, there will be a knot worth untying. I do not want to call you stupid, since I believe that you have enough sense that you can understand that sin and grace virtually fight against each other, like light and darkness. It only remains that by sin, evil, ungodliness you have not understood sin nor evil nor ungodliness, which the words say, but what you have invented, that is, "something not meritorious," namely, a new word, and that you have taken Augustine and Ambrose of Carlstadt 3) thus: "Free will before grace is only capable of something for sinning," that is, for not meriting; and, "Free will approaches ungodliness," that is, for not meriting, "the more zealously it is intent on action." If you do not
3) That is: They talk in the two theses Carlstadt mentioned.
so, I say, taking sin, evil, ungodliness, you will not escape what I have written in my letter.
Have I met your thoughts? How could I not meet them, since you yourself in this purification writing explain these words in such a way, under which you secretly wanted to be and let be understood something completely different at Leipzig, where you sought the truth as a sincere and open man? Hear, therefore, thou dearest protector of truth: Where hast thou ever read that sin, evil, ungodliness are taken for "not meritorious", except in thy Pelagian errors and falsifications of Scripture? On what scripture, on what reasonable ground do you base yourself? By what power will you be able to prevent a heretic, trusting in this right of meaning, from denying that "sin" is contained in Scripture, but claiming that it is all "not meritorious"? Dost thou not thus mock the words of the fathers, which thou also preferest to the Scriptures? Is this the marrow of which you boast that I do not see it in the sayings of the fathers? Have you so learned to dispute for the truth that you speak something else before men and understand something else in yourself? A truly open and sincere corner, as all know him, how he does not seek honor, how he honestly seeks the truth!
O cursed day in which I was born (that I speak with Jeremiah [Cap. 20,14.]), that I have to see such shameless hypocrisy among theologians! Therefore, it is not to be wondered at if you are so anxious to be praised as an open and sincere man. For since you are open in this way, whom do you leave who would be more in need of this praise? I ask that the Leipzigers praise the open Eck; all those you praise may praise you, even with stentorian voices, and even so they will not praise you enough, so great is the necessity.
Yes, even I and the Wittenbergers praise and say: In everything you write and say the truth: Luther's letter is completely wrong; he has done you wrong, yes, he himself recants it. What more do you want? Now it is quite true that the merit is established in equity that the article
You have not denied the sects of the scholastic teachers, that servile fear (that is, sin and ungodliness) is the beginning of repentance, which otherwise must be done in grace, because it is through sinning (that is, through "not deserving") and through ungodliness (that is, through a work that is not pleasant) that we begin to deserve and do pleasant things. You have conquered, you have triumphed! Glory above all glory be to Eck, who has obtained that free will before grace is not attributed a merit by the scholastic teachers; but he has obtained it exceedingly easily, because no one has ever denied this.
And you believed or wanted to be believed, sincere man, that Carlstadt and Luther were so coarse that they would ever have imposed this monstrosity on the scholastic teachers or would have disputed about it, that it would have been necessary that you would have had to argue about this with such a big noise in such an excellent place? Why don't you write from Ingolstadt in the same way, with turned words, that by Purgatory you understood the belief in the Holy Trinity, so that we could boast that you had fought for it, that God is triune and one, which no one has ever denied, just as also not Purgatory, for which you have most laboriously disputed? But I praise you as an exceedingly clever disputator, who have invented for yourself the most certain way of disputing, and in seeking Christ follow the exceedingly shameful (Elenchistam) Aristotle, the sincere the sincere, the open the open, that you argue with words alienated from their proper meaning (that is his highest and only virtue) against imaginary enemies (Chimeras) who cannot strike back, meanwhile openly agreeing with the words of those with whom you dispute. What is in it? You can sit at home and shower yourself with triumphs and crowns because of the ghosts you have invented and overcome.
Rather, it was disputed whether free will not only did not deserve before grace, but also sinned, and approached godlessness by being intent on action, as Carlstadt's words clearly say.
1178 L. v.". iv. S3 f. Cap. 5. non of the Leipzig Disputation. W. xv, i3W-i3ss. 1179
If you did not want to challenge them, why did you offer to do so? Why did you admit them if they were false? Why didn't you at least make a mockery of your words of "non-denial", since that childish Carlstadt was present, whom you, since he is absent, from Ingolstadt, you heroic and open-minded man, despised so much? Only now has your gloss come into being, through which you want to escape, which you concealed at Leipzig, so that you would not be caught, you sincere and open man, as often as you were asked to do so.
I burn exceedingly on both sides, namely it laments me your, and I am unwilling about your cursed hypocrisy. You desist from seeking the truth of theology. The trust (fides) in you is gone. Return to your impostor Aristotle, the most godless hypocrite among the philosophers, who never wanted to be respected for saying what he would have said. This one is your quite worthy teacher. O wretched man that it ever happened to me to have anything to do with you. "For the spirit of discipline fleeth deceitfulness," as Wisdom Cap. 1:5 [Vulg.] is written, and v. 1 it is said, "Seek him in simplicity of heart."
Why do you wonder that letters, rumors and all the monstrosities you accuse me of have followed this unfortunate disputation? It would be strange if something good followed this mockery of the Holy Spirit, the mockery of truth, the contempt of Christ. One thing I ask of you: that you henceforth (if it is possible) have nothing to do with Martin. I am more sorry for the books I have published against you than you may believe. The more I have taken you for an honest man, the more seriously I have been deceived and attacked.
For it is that you broke the agreement that it should be a free disputation, and did not want disputation to take place unless judges were appointed, and none other than scholastics of your ilk, whose cause you led, but secretly and with forged words, lest you disgrace yourself and them (if you had been open) in the most unfortunate way.
brought. It is that you refused that what was said should be recorded by notaries, or [wanted] that it should be recorded in such a way that the copies should neither be duplicated nor published, but suppressed until you could boast the judgment of your party, pretending that the judgment of the whole world does not please you, because the world is in trouble, as if you and your theologians were heaven, and one must believe that you are in a place before other people, where everything is well (in benigno). For in such a way you see through the core of the Scripture without hypocrisy. It is that you would not allow Carlstadt to have books or slips of paper, whom you should have urged and begged, if you had not pretended to investigate the truth, to have someone else read for him if he could not do it himself, even to give silent signs with his fingers. What does he do, what does he not suffer, who sincerely seeks the truth? Soon he is master, soon disciple, soon comrade, soon he becomes everything to everyone, so that the truth may come to light. Carlstadt presented himself to you as such, Luther presented himself to you as such. But you, who almost alone presume to love the truth, boast almost nothing else than that if this had been done, it would not have been a disputation, but I don't know what kind of childish thing, you would not have sought people like Thersites nor lesser people with whom you wanted to argue.
You, a theologian, dare to roll these words, brimming with the most abject honor, without shame into the midst of the praise of the honor you despise and the truth you love. If someone else had said this about you, you would have taken him for such a person, who tried to revile you as the worst hypocrite, as a nonsensical person, who would be worthy of you writing a cleansing pamphlet or something more annoying against him. Now you like
1) In the expurgatio, in the 31st part, Eck writes: "I ascribe erudition to Luther and have attributed it to him; I have also not wanted to argue with a Thersites or with a stupid little donkey, just as Alexander the Great disdained to argue in the Olympic games."
1180 L- V. L. IV, 54-56. sec. 3. L.'s reports on d. Disp. No. 383, W. XV, IM-I40I. 1181
to you, since you cackle this excellent praise with your own beak. Do you not believe, wretched man, that there are other people in the world than your Leipzigers, since one ass itches another (for not all itch you), who know what a sincere and open investigator of truth is, before whom this boasting of your sincerity is more stinking than any pestilential vapor? It is that you have suddenly turned the matter elsewhere, from free will to the activity of free will, - hui! how necessary a question to spoil the time.
Only now do I understand what the cause is that you have always detested the effort of writing, taking the most respectable hypocrisy as a pretext: you do not love the hurtful (aculeatum==stach light) way of writing. But you always challenge to a disputation, but to such a one, which, if it is written out, may not be published and submitted to the judgment of the whole world, unless it is judged by judges who please you and are extorted by force, of course ready, for this kind of disputation France, Italy, Germany, perhaps also the worlds of Democritus, if someone should reject this [world], [as a battlefield], namely because you know that in such disputations there is no place, neither for consideration nor for diligence, which you, an extremely sincere man, always consider suspicious, even harmful, in the investigation of truth, and that it is very easy to impute a foreign meaning to common words, which, since one may not compare the preceding and the following, then also the matter is suddenly turned to other things, can be very difficult to perceive, especially if it is intended to put on an appearance, so that no one should or could notice it, in that both the listeners and the judges are deceived by the boasting of universal truth. This danger for the truth and the annoyance of the most godless hypocrisy would not go very well in writing.
You have therefore the some way to seek the truth, namely the confusion of the hasty disputation. Who would have ever understood also that that is the truth love and
if you, new language teacher of words, did not teach like this with your party? so much are you entirely fiction and hypocrisy. Yes, in your entire purification writing there is almost nothing that you are not hypocritical, except in the angry accusation, although you also attach to this a little tail of feigned modesty. Before the disputation, men of good standing said to me: Beware, Martin; believe him who has experienced it. This man is nothing but pretense (fictio) and hypocrisy. I did not believe them, nor all my senses, although the letter of Erasmus 1) and the Apology of Udalricus Zasius also presented you to me as such: so constantly have I thought the best of you and would never have thought otherwise, if you had not publicly disgraced yourself before the world by this dunghill as the most hateful hypocrite.
Here belongs what you write in the disgusting and dirty letter 2) before other things to your highly famous Ingolstadters, although you (according to your quite obvious sincerity) bravely pretend that you did not boast of the victory, you had drawn Carlstadt over to your side to the activity of free will, and at the same time you are sorry that you had allowed him to make that excellent answer in the evening, by which, according to the judgment of all, he destroyed you, as you yourself confess. In one thing, you say, I was wrong; I made replies at night and gave him time to think. For you felt the mortal wound. What do you think would have happened if everything had been done with the same deliberation as it should have been? as the extremely praiseworthy prince, Duke George, had ordered, who wanted only the truth to be sought and everything that could be done to it to be done.
1) This is the letter of Erasmus to Eck of May 15, 1518, which appeared immediately after its appearance in the ^uctariurn sclcctururn aliquot cpistolarnin aä cruäitos 6t boruna acl MuM in Basel with Johann Frobenius and caused much sensation. - With the same came out in March 1519 also 2a8ii ^poloZctica äckensio contra <1. Dcciurn.
2) Eck's letter to the professors of law, Georg Hauer and Franz Burkhardt, from Leipzig, dated Misnias (Leipzig), July 1, 1519. Excerpted in Seckendorf, Hist. Uutb. I, x. 85b. In this volume, no. 396.
served best. You praise him, dear God, how sincerely! on your side, namely because you have been such executors of the will of the good prince.
What should you do sincerely for the truth, since you have not only made cunning plots with your own, so that the truth, which it was about, would not be sought with good consideration and carefully, but you also still boast in this wickedness, a mighty man in godlessness, and only lament that this your plot has failed to some extent? For this you also indicated by the public lamentation, since you almost wept that he had a copy of Notarius, while meanwhile you were praised by your Leipzigers that you, without caring about the copies, could also shout (I wanted to say disputing) well, nevertheless exceedingly victoriously. And how should you not have been able to do it, since you had taken the liberty to invent everything arbitrary? And yet you still impose yourself on us as an open and sincere corner, well known to all.
I pass over the other monstrosities with the rest in this letter, while I would like to describe you in a short epitome to the whole world what kind of man you are, if I were raging in vengeance (after your manner), since the other letter has also been published. But I spare the theological name, because it laments me your in truth. For the fact that you spout nothing but accusations against me throughout the whole purification letter, since you do it in the evil conscience of hypocrisy, hoping that in this way you will shut the mouth of the whole world and have them at your beck and call: 1) you should know that I am not moved by the accusations against me and by your and Leipzig's praise, but by your hypocrisies I am almost killed. This abomination Christ also bore with the utmost displeasure, while he otherwise received the public sinners and the publicans most meekly. And what would the sweetest truth have [more] 2)
1) Instead of additururu in the editions we have adopted aäiturura; rnLnuiu ackire aticui - to have someone for the best.
2) inaßis is only in the Jena edition.
hated than the enemies of truth who sell themselves under the title of truth?
Furthermore, why do you exalt the judges so high? Is it because you have deceived their judgment, so that your ungodliness may be found and make you detestable? We have your cleansing scripture, which we can hold up to the whole world, and show that this disputation at Leipzig was a mockery of truth and Eck's hypocrisy, which I will open up further when your water bubble, 3) which you are now giving birth to, has come to light. In the meantime, I will not answer the other things of this pile of your dung; it is also not necessary, since this one piece in a short epitome shows enough who you are on the whole.
And to come back to you, I say and assert publicly before you and the whole world, by repeating and saying again that Carlstadt's theses are true, likewise also my letter. And in order to impress it strongly upon you, so that you do not fast other things into the eye and leave the present matter (as you are wont to do), I will indicate the summa to you in large letters:
If you admit that Carlstadt's theses are true, that the free will not only does not deserve before grace, but also sins damnably (you hear, you hear, Eck, do not hypocrite!) and does not approach only what is not deserving, but ungodliness to death by being intent on action,
So you are defeated and my letter is true; if you deny it, or pretend to admit it, you are a Pelagian. You are a man, and Carlstadt childish; we do not doubt that you will show your heroic bravery, but you should know that we will not believe you now as we did before; we will pay attention to the hypocrite whom we believed before, since he boasted sincerity. But you see to it that you read the Calendarium or Martyrs' Register or little-.
3) Meant is the larger writing of Eck: ve kriiuatu ?etri ack versus I^u66erum lidri tres. InAosbadii 1520. folio. Erroneously, Löscher refers this to the papal bull to be obtained by Eck.
Meanwhile, at least, you diligently search the chronicle, from which you pile up many names on paper against us, but in such a way that you do not forget the dialectic, and do not make such a lame conclusion (as this one was).
But what you write of letters of the Bohemians, which, according to your sincerity, are fabricated or again hypocritical from your thoughts, and of my errors against the church, that pleases me, not because you speak the truth, but because your hopeless hypocrisy is so much abhorrent to me that even that pleases me, that you openly lie, judge, belittle. But it will be near the day that it will come to light whether you and yours have done more harm to the church of Christ through the prince of darkness, Aristotle, whom you yourselves (ipsum) do not understand, or whether I have done more harm. And to your conclusion, which is worthy of any stick-fool, that the Bohemians praise me, pray for me, is also answered to you in Emsers Bock 1).
Farewell, and may the Lord Jesus make your soul healthy for eternity. Amen.
Luther's report of this to Spalatin, along with the transmission of this answer.
See Appendix, No. 46, z 2.
385 Luther's declaration to Spalatin that he did not want to engage in any further correspondence with Eck after the disputation and, if possible, did not want to have anything more to do with him.
See Appendix, No. 48 in the Postscript.
2. all the friends of truth and Luther have described this disputation.
386: Nicolaus von Amsdorf, Licentiate and Canonicus at Wittenberg, letter to Spalatin about the disputation at Leipzig.
Aug. 1, 1519.
This writing is found in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 70; in the Jena edition (1564), vol. I, p. 149; in the Altenburg edition, vol. I, p. 275; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XVII, p. 248; and in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 238. We give the text according to the Jena edition.
1) Luther's addition to Emser's Bock. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1212.
1st Happiness and Hail! It would be almost long and rambling to recount the order and proceedings of the Leipzig Disputation, but much more rambling and annoying to describe it. For as often as I think of this disputation, I am moved and inflamed; not out of love, as I know God is to Doctor Martinus, but because I carry the truth and have no doubt that it is certain, unchanging and eternally constant, but hateful to all great men. Although before this time I also considered it to be falsehood, as Eck together with his bunch considers it to be today.
2 It is no wonder, because Eck is completely unlearned in the holy scriptures. And, what is probably even more, he does not know as much about sophistry as befits and is due to such an excellent disputator, for whom he wants to be held; therefore he also boasts and claims to be a father and patron of sophistry. For I, too, have somewhat touched upon it, and if I understand the matter rightly (for I have no reason or discernment at all), Eck speaks everything that he thinks and has in mind without reason, judgment, and discernment, although he can almost pronounce the words that he has learned by heart and in memory with great splendor and respectable gift; not to seek the truth, but for a splendid presentation and display of his memory, and to defend the teachers of his sects. As is the habit and usage of all sophists or school teachers, who defend all their opinions and delusions with great boasting and clamor, and yet know not what they intend or say. I speak of this as one who has experienced the truth.
But so that you may believe me that it is true, listen to a saying from the Holy Scriptures, which Eck, among other sayings, with the advice of the most clumsy and dishonest sophists at Leipzig, has brought up and used to confirm the papal indulgence. It is written in Isaiah, chapter 61, v. 1: "The Spirit of the Lord is with me, therefore the Lord has anointed me. He sent me to preach to the wretched, that I might heal the contrite heart, and to preach indulgence, that is, forgiveness of sin, to the captives.
4 Behold, my dear Spalatin, for the sake of the word "indulgence," the sophists at Leipzig drew on a black tablet with chalk the saying they had found in the book called Concordantiae majoris Bibliae, so that the following day he could use it to obtain the papal indulgence, which he had recently asked for in order to win.
The prophet did not speak of the forgiveness of sins through indulgences, but of the incarnation of our dear Lord and Savior. Behold the wretched and grossly incomprehensible 1) sophists! But I am not surprised, because they know nothing. But I am very surprised that Eck has come to the disputation with the mentioned sentence, has led it in such a remarkable assembly, and has given it to the notaries in the feathers.
5 But that is true, Eck surpasses Doctor Carlstadt by far with his memory and pronouncement; so that I was sorry that the matter had begun; not that Eck had won, prevailed and triumphed, but that if the deal had not been given in the plumes, ours would have gone away with very great shame. For Eck argues and makes his case in the manner of the Welsh with nine or ten arguments, by which not truth, but vain honor of memory and intellect is sought; which is the Sophists, that is, all school teachers, of whom St. Paul says [2 Tim. 2, 16. 23.They are turned to useless talk, yet they want to be teachers of the Scriptures, and do not understand what they say or say; for they deal in foolish and foolish questions, which give birth to war, strife and dissension, of which St. Paul says [1 Tim. 6:20] that one should refrain from such talk. On this, the corner, together with his own, yes, together with all the sophists, gives himself first to the whales, who, if they are inclined to a teacher, refrain from defending his doctrine and opinion to the death, even though the greatest falsity and untruth is found in it. This cannot be done better than with great clamor, and with a great deal of argument and rebuttal. For the listeners consider only the one to be the victor who shouts the most and keeps the last word. Because Eck has always had the last word and shouted the most, he is therefore honored and considered the victor even today by the people of Leipzig. Truly, I would not have answered him more than on one and the first argument, and if I had misplaced it together with his rebuttal and rejoinder, I would have proceeded further.
6. corners I can compare against D. Martin neither in doctrine nor art, neither in pronunciation nor memory, I wanted then stone or more filth and muck with the most beautiful and
1) Thus the Wittenbergers. Jenaer: "grobuerständigen".
purest gold. But in this alone Eck surpasses D. Martinum, that Eck cries out more than D. Martin. And so much of the disputators.
(7) But of the rulers of the dispensation I will say little, though I could say much, lest I argue against heaven. But recently and in sum: Everything that has been loved by the Lord has been rightly done and carried out as soon as possible; but what ours have asked and sought has been rejected as unreasonable and unseemly. Therefore we have been in the most inconvenient and dangerous place, and with and among the worst enemies than I think we have on earth. But enough of that. But I will tell you more about our coming together.
(8) I hear that King Carl in Hispania was elected Roman king, but that another was elected Roman king before him; but the first elected one refused and rejected the election, and I would like to know the truth. For all sorts of things are said by many. You are lazy and write nothing; write what is to be written. Fare well and be blessed in the Lord Christ JEsu, and be suspicious of me in the sight of God. Given at Wittenberg, on the first day of August, Anno Domini 1519.
Spalatin's Relation of the Disputation at Leipzig.
From Spalatin's "Yearbooks of Luther's Reformation," p. 30.
In the year after Christ's birth in 1519, Doctor Eck of Ingolstadt came to the conclusion that in Leyptzick, immediately under the reign of Charles the Fifth, 2) a dispute was held between him and Doctor Andreas Bodensteyn of Karlstadt. 2) a dispute between them and Doctor Andreas Bodensteyn of Karlstadt was held in the presence of the entire Vniuersitet, also Duke Georgen of Saxony; in which they caused Doctor Martinum to attack not only the indulgence, but also purgatory more harshly than had happened before. They also had the revised sentences printed along with their interpretation.
Since Duke George of Saxony, and only many secular princes, have gladly accepted many of the articles of this Christian religion, Doctor Martinus has taken the primacy of the bishop, and the bishop is not the supreme commanding bishop.
2) That is: election; the imperial election took place at Frankfurt.
of the whole of Christendom, in the same dispute has also attacked hard, caused among other things by the fact that Doctor Eck, and his group, against the understanding of the holy divine scripture, the rock, where Christ says Matthew on the sixteenth to Peter, you are Peter, and on this rock I want to build my kyrchen, or common, on Peter, and not on Christ; So Docter Eck and his like want to protect, preserve, and write the Babst, and his power against Christ himself, and his poor, clean little home, and make great, whole books, full of useful, antichristian talk and chatter. So that they not only, the longer they went on, corrupted many good-hearted people's consciences, but also corrupted the priesthood's business to the highest degree. That the Babst, and the whole Babstumb of such scribes and servants, could only well have dispensed with. And certainly their business, where such useless, unchristian, wicked writers, hearts, and books were not brought in, would not easily come to such waste.
388: Myconius' account of it.
Hertzog Jörg of Saxony was not yet bitter at this time, but he did not like the fact that one should drive so swiftly with the scholars without recognition and without being overcome: however, he was annoyed that the high school in Wittenberg was held in such high esteem, and that Leipzig was held in low esteem. Doctor Eck of Ingolstadt came with great arrogance to subdue the Wittenbergers, Carlstadt and Lutherum. The debate was ordered in Leipzig, at the castle, in the large court room. There came learned people from all countries, to hear and to see how the matter would turn out. It was in the summer, in the month of July, that it was good to walk and many people could come. From both sides there was a very sharp dispute. Eccius led many patres, glosses, interpretations, and canons, but Luther brought the Scriptures and ancient obscenities. There were notaries who wrote everything down. And in sum: the act 1) went out by the pressure, who has desire, may read it.
Eccius was everywhere in the coming in splendidly held: But, do he herüm zohe, and the things had not better aligned, he becomes of the Ge
1) That is, the Acts, Document No. 377.
The gospel was also well defended, especially in Erffurt, with writings and other means. From that day on, Eccius remained an enemy and persecutor until this hour: and he incited against the Gospel the dukes of Beyern, King Ferdinand, the bishops, of whom he is a common idol; and whom he only controlled.
389 Des Johann Aurifaber Historie von der zu Leipzig Anno 1519 gehaltenen Disputation, an Georg Spalatin geschrieben [angeblich] im Juli 1519.
From the first Eisleben part, p. 8 printed in the Altenburg edition, Vol. I, p. 293; in the Leipzig edition, Vol. XVII, p. 249 and in Löscher, Ref.-Acta, Vol. Ill, p. 273. The superscription to this document, which we have taken from Walch's old edition, is in any case wrong. For Aurifaber was born only one year after the Leipzig Disputation, in 1520. He died at Erfurt in 1576 at the age of 56. This writing is to be regarded only as an abstract from the Leipzig acts, written after 1555. Compare the last note to this writing.
When Martin Luther's teachings, writings and books had spread to all countries and he had many opponents who opposed him, Duke George of Saxony scheduled a disputation and discussion in the city of Leipzig in the month of July. There came D. Luther, with D. Andreas Carlstadt, and M. Philippus Melanchthon, whom Duke Friedrich. Elector of Saxony, had appointed to the high school in Wittenberg as professor of the Greek language, only one year before. However, D. Johann Eck also came there to discuss with D. Carlstadt.
2 On the fourth day of July the disputation was begun by D. Johann Eck. He had prepared a number of articles for discussion, the last of which was that all those who taught that the Roman Church before the time of Pope Sylvester was not the first, foremost and highest above all others, were hardly mistaken. For all and at all times the Pope, who sat in the chair and faith of St. Peter (who was the highest among all the other apostles), was recognized and considered to be a descendant of Peter and the governor of the Lord Christ here on earth.
Luther opposed this article with another one, which he found quite repugnant, namely, that those who claim that the Roman church is the supreme one over all churches have only as a makeshift and a cap
of some popes' decrees and statutes, which alone were written four hundred years ago; but it would be contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and to the glorious, excellent Council of Nicaea, as well as to all decrees and most credible histories, written a thousand years ago.
4 When D. Johann Eck began the reported disputation, and dealt with the Pope's primacy and supreme power in Rome for the first time, Luther replied that he would have preferred that this article, so otherwise much hated and not at all necessary, had been discontinued this time, in honor of the Pope. And it would hurt him that he would be driven to it by D. Ecken.
5 Against this, D. Eck said that D. Luther, and not he, had aroused such quarrels and unrest, because he had publicly disputed in the first interpretation of his articles that the Pope at Rome before the times of Pope Silvester was by no means above the others as far as sovereignty, dignity and order were concerned, and had freely confessed before Cardinal Cajetano that Pope Pelagius had interpreted and understood many sayings of the Holy Scriptures according to his liking. Since this is the case, one should not blame him, but Luther.
Thus the first dispute was about the monarchy and supreme power of the pope in Rome. Eck wanted this to be established and founded in God's Word, and called Luther, who did not believe this but held it against him, a Bohemian heretic, because Johann Hus, a hundred years ago, also contested this article of the Pope's sovereignty and authority, and was of the same opinion as Luther. Luther's opinion.
Luther answered for this blasphemy, pointing out that at the time of the apostles, the church of Christ was planted and spread far and wide in all lands, probably twenty years earlier, when the apostle Peter came to Rome and destroyed the same church. Therefore, the Roman church could not be the highest and most noble above all other churches.
After this, D. Eck also disputed Luther's other articles, which he had written on human free will, purgatory, papal indulgences, penance, remission of penance and guilt, and the power of priests. This disputation ended and was decided on the 14th day of July, and Luther 1) publicly published such disputation in print.
1) This information is incorrect. Compare the introductory note to Document 377.
as then in the first German Jenische Tomo the same to find. 2)
9 This disputation was not primarily scheduled by D. Luther, but by D. Carlstadt and D. Corners because of D. Carlstadt. But when Luther accompanied Carlstadt and came to Leipzig to listen, he was forced to debate with him by D. Ecken, who then brought him a safe conduct from Duke Georgen. In this disputation, D. Eck went too far and made erroneous, ungodly speeches, and caused D. Luthern to have the same discussion in Leipzig. Luther caused him to publish them in public print, and thus Luther's teachings became more and more widespread.
The letter of Petrus Mosellanus from the Leipzig Disputation to the famous Wilibald Pirkheimer, dated August 3, 1519.
This letter was first made known by Scultetus in anual. svanMl. rsnovat. ad ann. 1519, x". 28. from which Seckendorf, Hi8t. I^utk., iid. I, p. 90d, and Elias Frick has translated it in his German Seckendorf, p. 202. Because this writing is only of secondary importance, we have confined ourselves to an improvement of it according to Seckendorf.
Translated from the Latin by Elias Frick.
A rare and pleasant spectacle took place in Leipzig these days, namely a disputation of eminent theologians, of which you undoubtedly require a more detailed report. However, the faintness that still remains from the severe illness, from which I had to lie for a whole fortnight, does not allow me to describe the matter more precisely. Thus, the hardship I had to endure on the journey to Trier for the sake of my private affairs has taken away quite a bit of my spirits, which is why I only want to report the most important things recently.
On the 27th of June, 3) which day was determined for the beginning of this matter, by order and at the expense of my most noble prince, Duke George, a respectable service was held in the morning with splendid music in honor of the Holy Spirit, after the completion of which the foreign doctors, who were to debate, were led into the castle accompanied by a respectable procession of the entire university. For
2) These words prove that our writing must have been written after 1555, because in that year the first edition of the first volume of the Jena edition appeared.
3) In Seckendorf wrong: XVIII. Junii.
There, an excellent room had been turned into an auditorium, with beautiful wallpaper, cathedrals and pulpits. This place was guarded by a number of armed citizens in such a way that not every common man (for a large number of learned and unlearned people had gathered for this spectacle) was allowed to enter.
When they had come in and sat down, I entered the pulpit and, in the name of my most noble Duke, reminded the disputants of their office and delivered a long speech on the proper way to disputes in theological matters; however, this matter was perhaps treated more freely than would have been pleasant to all. The duke himself read the speech before it was delivered, and liked it very much. He was astonished that theologians were so foolish, even godless, that one had to give them such a reminder. I send it to you herewith, after I have let it go out in print by princely order; you may read and evaluate it on occasion. But I will proceed to the matter itself.
After I had finished the speech, the chant "Come, Holy Spirit" was sung three times with vocal and instrumental music, which the Duke had ordered on my advice. This was the end of the preparations, and because it was time to dine at noon, the serious beginning of the disputation was postponed until two o'clock. When this hour had come, both parts protested, after the manner of theologians, because of their sincerity in faith. Martinus added that he did not like to see Dominicans, who had caused this whole tragedy in the first place, there to debate, since otherwise they would have aroused hatred in all their sermons against Martin's errors.
First, Carlstadt and Eck were left together, a very unequal pair. For Carlstadt showed a theological modesty in his voice, face, gestures and gait, and did not argue to gain the honor of scholarship or victory, but to investigate the truth; therefore, he did not assert anything other than with the aid of books, nor did he want to assume anything from the opposite, because he would have found the mind of the person addressed to be correct from words that preceded and followed. By this diligence, he highly recommended himself to the scholars; the unscholars, however, considered this to be timidity and slowness. Eck, on the other hand, seemed to be insolent because of his shouting, defiant soldier's face, almost comedic gestures and proud gait. All of this gave an indication of the mind
is not very theological. You would have said, where you saw it, a Gorgias, not a theologian, disputire. So frivolous and impudent he often boasted himself. Thus he has given a great blow to his name with us. It is easy for him to assert what is false; on the other hand, he insolently denies what is certainly true, and in addition, with great boasting, to make the matter more odious.
(6) Eck dealt with Carlstadt about free will: Whether every good work comes from the grace of God; or whether free will also contributes something from its own strength? The first was put by Carlstadt; the other was defended by Eck. Then the question was raised: Whether the whole life of Christians is a constant repentance? From which it flowed that men in their good works have also subverted sin, against which Eck argued.
7 Martinus denied that the pope had his sovereignty by divine right, that is, that it could be proven from Scripture. Yes, according to Paul's teaching, every priest is equally a successor of the apostles, and has the power to forgive guilt and punishment in case of need. Against this, Eck drew on a large number of decrees and sayings from the fathers, since this should be proven by divine right. Finally, he came to the last key, namely the saying of Matth. 16: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. Martinus wanted the rock to be understood as the glorious creed, or the whole body of the church with Origen, or Christ himself with Augustine. Eck, however, with the new scribes the man Peter and his successors, which explanation he tried to strengthen with some passages torn out of Bernard and Jerome. Martinus refuted all this extraordinarily well, because in this way the church would be without a head as often as a pope departs with death, for it must without doubt be without a head as long as the papal chair remains vacant. Against this, nothing would help what is claimed by the cardinals who meanwhile represent the papal office. This is null and void for two reasons: first, because the cardinals have only arisen a few centuries ago, who are many heads, not one head; second, because what is divine right cannot be interrupted by any man's death, or even by the whole world's destruction.
8) The indulgence was also raised for discussion, but more in jest than in earnest.
9. there was such a dispute about purgatory that people were
He did not doubt the same, but acted as the souls in it were against God.
10 Three weeks were spent on such a dispute, from which, as far as I understand, more was expected than was gained. For nothing has been decided in it, nor have the parties reached agreement on any matter. The whole matter was recorded by notaries. The Erfurt and Paris judges were chosen to judge the dispute. However, as far as I can gather from some private discourses of the Erfurters, they are reluctant to accept the burden of such a great burden, as for other reasons, but especially because Eck has excluded the best and most learned theologians of this university, as suspicious, from the judging.
II It is generally thought that Eck will start badly in defense of the papal primacy. But, it may go as it will, I do not care. To me, this theatrical way of disputing does not seem at all similar to the gentle teaching of Christ, nor will anyone persuade me to believe that the Holy Spirit, who is a spirit of peace, is involved in such actions. The truth of Christian doctrine is more likely to be attained by devotional prayer than by disputation. You have herewith described the whole disputation, however industriously and in haste. What else may have happened, you have probably already heard through rumor. But you will see whom you believe. For the common legend reports something false as easily as true, and you know that there are many new things in war. Erfurt, 3 Aug. 1) 1519.
391: Petrus Mosellanus' other description of this disputation in a letter to Julius von Pflug, a nobleman from Meissen. Dec. 6, 1519.
This writing has D. Joh. Förster in 1609 at Wittenberg printed under the title Streun, lüpsieusis, then it is included in Schiller's 1)6 lidertntk 666l68inrum Osrninuine, x>. 840, then in the "innocent news" 1702, p. 104 and 154 and in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 242. According to the latter, we have revised the old translation.
Translated into German.
1) At Seckendorf: quiuto Xounn ^uAustnn, an impossible date, because there are only four days before the nones in August. Therefore we have kept the date set by Frick.
Peter Mosellanus to his beloved Julius his greeting!
I. The other day, as I had traveled from my city of Trier, where I had gone with the prince's permission for a certain matter, to your fatherland, and did not suspect anything bad, I encountered such a great change in all things that I cannot be surprised enough at the so unexpected change in human things. For as soon as I arrived in Erfurt on my return journey, good friends, of whom I have many and great ones there, told me about the civil or rather family wars of the Saxons among each other; likewise about the scholars' disputes in Leipzig and Wittenberg, which had gone out since my departure on the occasion of the famous disputation, and were continuing to increase without end; to which I myself also belonged. Finally, which was the greatest misfortune of all, they presented the plight of the rampant plague to me so terribly, and painted it before my eyes, as it were, that I almost froze over it with Aeneas in Virgil, my hair stood on end, and my tongue stuck to the roof of my mouth.
2 Although the good people not only admonished me, but also pleaded with me under very acceptable suggestions that I should at least stay with them through the winter, and not put my health, which would otherwise be very weak, in danger, I still preferred to go to the fire, and to see the devastation and nature of the fire more closely. Therefore, I stayed only two days to rest the horses and traveled to Naumburg to our Kyneck. As a good friend, he welcomed me warmly and gave me some news of my affairs, and also reported that you had returned from Italy. In the midst of the misfortune, I was so pleased that I almost forgot all my sorrow, just as the peasants tend to be happy when, after a long rain, the lovely sun finally lets its golden head shine out of the clouds again. But I had neither rest nor peace with this man, because the enemy (scil. plague) was already within the walls, and death could be seen everywhere. Therefore, early the next day, when I had arrived there, I left Leipzig to the left and traveled eagerly to Pegau in the certain hope of speaking to you. I found Marcus, your father's scribe, in the inn. I asked if you were at home or in Meissen? He said: In Meissen. Then I did not know what to do. For I had already decided to go to Meissen,
I stayed all the more because I wanted to see you after such a long time and enjoy your pleasant company. But all my household goods were still waiting for my return to Leipzig, since I would go to Meissen in vain without books, and at the same time the plague deterred me from Leipzig. Since I was so in doubt, it finally seemed most advisable to me for the sake of my health to go straight to Meissen to see you. However, it happened by chance that, since we were already ready to leave and the horses were saddled, there was gossip among the people: D. Alexander von Tzneymani, to whom I had ordered my things when I left, was with his brother in a house near Merseburg: the place is called Kötzlin. Then I asked diligently: how far is this place from your Pegau, and whether I could still get there by day? Since they said yes, I traveled across the fields, because there is no way there, and arrived there in the evening. There we spent almost three days with each other, while our dear and kind friend did us all the honor he could, and the servant in the city cleared out and packed the things, and then looked for carters who were to take it away. Since we are now making our arrangements in this way and not getting far, behold! in the meantime, our Julius has moved away from Meissen again and slipped away from us. Since I had now lost all hope of seeing each other and of amusing ourselves by friendly conversation, I wanted to dare something anew and leave this letter to you. Since I had already finished it, yours came to me quite unexpectedly. From this I have understood that my fate has hurt you in this as much as it has hurt me, although I would have been more interested in it than you, because I would have talked to you not only about common things, but also especially about certain of my own affairs, as my best friend. So I will do as you do, and what could not be done verbally, I will do in writing.
3) For as far as the matter of the theologian Martin is concerned, which has been made so hateful by the zeal of so many sophists here, and of which you would like to know the correct course of events, I am of the opinion that I do not like to entrust such things to a letter, even if it is sealed, nor do I consider it safe; but since I do not seem to deny anything to my Julius, I will faithfully and recently depict the whole tragedy as it happened, but with the proviso that no foreign spectator is present, because
otherwise my larva will fall right in the middle of the game.
4 At the beginning one knows quite well, without my telling, how hated Martin's whole enterprise had been by all, who either do not know the wickedness of the Roman fellows, or have enjoyed the vices of the same, or have spent their whole life with sophistical crickets. Although both sides have argued by propositions that were spread throughout Germany, in that Luther eradicates from theology the Aristotelian philosophy, which they alone hold, although they do not understand it: yet they seize it, as their treasure, with all their might, and seek to defend it by all means, with honesty or roguishness, which they consider permissible against the enemy in war. For not only have our Leipzigers opposed their propositions to those of Martin, but Eck, who is a theologian in Bavaria, and who wants to rise as high as if he had more than a familiar Socratic spirit (which could solve all his riddles), because such an innovation annoys him, has presented the bishop of Eichstädt with some remarks against Martinus. And since Martinus had learned this from his friends, he soon incited Carlstadt, the archidiaconus in Wittenberg, against him through his friends, and wanted to force the man to recant. He did answer several times, but in my opinion much too shallowly to bring about respect for his special erudition in an honest reader. For Eck is not so ready with the pen as with the tongue, and has a good capacity to prattle, but not to judge rightly. Since he could not make much headway in such a battle, he called for a public battle and disputation, because he thought he would do best there, as a horse in the open field. The Wittenbergers accepted the fight. So both were given permission to do so in our theological assembly or auditorium, for which July 27 had been appointed. Both arrived in good time. Eck alone with a few servants, whom he had also hired, recommended to our prince by Fugger's letter. Martin and Carlstadt brought with them a considerable crowd from their university, including the excellent Prince Barnim from Pomerania, a very modest prince who was very devoted to his studies and especially gracious to me. However, a large crowd came to see the exit, from all kinds of people, elders, counts, knights of the golden river, scholars and unscholars, that there was not a single auditorium.
This school, many of which are large enough, could hold all the listeners. But the prince took care of that. Because he had foreseen the matter, he had the large hall in the castle prepared for this purpose. And because he allowed the parties to debate against the will of the bishop in Merseburg, and because the others objected, he also took all precautions. He ordered the council to arrange for lodgings according to the status of each guest, and at the same time, to prevent the tumult, he ordered guards. So everything is going well, especially since your father, in the name of the prince, has taken care of everything, and even arranged everything himself.
When the appointed day appeared, early at six o'clock (according to our way of reckoning) in the St. Thomas Church, for the better progress of the project, a mass with all kinds of music was splendidly held. Afterwards, a magnificent procession rushed in droves to the castle. To prevent all the riffraff from entering, sufficient guards had been placed at the gate. But after all had entered and everyone had sat down in a proper place, I poor man, who was not yet completely free of fever and had been let in from behind, climbed up on the pulpit to speak in the name of the prince, at which everyone became quiet and attentive. At first, I confess, I was a little frightened by so many and so large a gathering, such a great waiting of all listeners, and such a great prince's person, whom I was to introduce. However, I delivered the speech, if not with great praise, then certainly in such a way that the prince himself was satisfied with all the kind-hearted people or listeners. When the speech was over, and everyone had had enough (for almost two hours [clepsydrae] had elapsed), some musi
In the middle of the morning, the choir, which had also been prepared by me for this purpose and had entered through the back entrance, played the song: Komm, Heiliger Geist etc. most lovingly, while all listeners reverently fell on their knees. Since this preparation of the morning had taken place, they left for the midday meal, and a herald proclaimed that they would like to rejoin after the meal. All came back with desire. Carlstadt and Eck, having asked for leniency each for himself, entered the battlefield. They argued about free will, namely how it behaved against the salutary work of a human being. For Carlstadt sought to substantiate: that what would be wholesome only in man's deeds or words,
everything would come from God, as the unified source of all good. Man's will would not add anything good by its attunement, but would only receive the influence of heavenly grace. In short: God is the smith, our free will the hammer, so that he forges our salvation. This opinion, which is not at all inconsistent (where I understand otherwise), was contradicted by Eck for three whole days, by giving partly to grace, partly to man's will a meritorious work (so he called it). Finally it came about that Eck admitted: the whole good work comes from God, but not in a complete way, and gave the speaker reason of the related things completely good night. Carlstadt not only laughed at this bad way of differentiation, but also refuted it afterwards in a long printed letter as a ludicrous little fiction. Whether others like this writing, I cannot say; but I liked it, as far as the matter itself is concerned.
6 Martin took over from Carlstadt and wanted to defend this: namely, that one proves only from decrees that the Roman Church and its bishop are above all others, but that the Scriptures and the reputation of the Nicene Conciliar dispute this. Eck made every effort to overturn this sentence and spent eight days on it, while he would have liked to make the man even more hated by advancing most of the articles of the Bohemian mob. But Martinus, who was well aware of such traps, sighed seriously and deeply that he was being dragged along so cunningly and completely out of order. He also rejected the advanced doctrines partly with great zeal, but partly accepted them as Christian, and everywhere drew the most important testimonies of Scripture or ancient conciliar conclusions for himself. In short, he took so much trouble in nothing as to reject the Bohemian mob's suspicion of him, since Eck, on the other hand, went out of his way to teach people this opinion of Martin, no matter how much Martinus argued against it. With these and other matters, about the state of the souls in purgatory, about penance, about fear, about indulgences, etc., almost ten days went by, and would not have come to an end if news had not come that Joachim, Margrave of Brandenburg, who was returning from Frankfurt from the Elector's Day, was near. For the same had to be arranged for at our prince's request.
1) In Löscher erroneously: XX.
The first thing to be done was to destroy the hostel at the castle in Leipzig. That is why they parted in such a way that both parties boasted of the victory. For Eck triumphs with all who, like donkeys listening to the lyre, do not understand the matter, or have always been above Peter Hispanus 1) since childhood, or are otherwise grudging to the Wittenbergers. Martin's and Carlstadt's victory is the less famous or known, the fewer the scholars and wise men are, and those who do not like to brag about their things.
Thus you have the trade, briefly and above told, since much is omitted which so mainly does not belong to the matter. But why don't you also applaud? Perhaps I have not presented the game properly, or you have not yet had enough and want to see more. So I want to fill you up with this meal to the point of surfeit, and describe the leaders of this battle with vivid colors.
Martin is of medium length, lean from worry and study, so that one could almost count the bones through the skin, still of manly and fresh age, and has a clear, penetrating voice. But he is full of erudition and excellent knowledge of the Scriptures, so that he can count everything on his fingers, as it were. He knows so much Greek and Hebrew that he can judge the interpretations. Nor is he lacking in things, for he has a large forest or stock of words and things. According to his life and manners, he is very polite and friendly, and has nothing sour or austere (stoicum) about him; indeed, he is able to be at ease at all times. In company he is merry, jocular, lively, and always joyful, always cheerful and cheerful face, whether the adversaries still threaten him so much that one can hardly think that the man without God would undertake such important things. But the one fault all blame on him is that he is a little too insolent and biting in punishing, more than is proper to one who is going a new way in theology (χαινοτο- μοΰνπ), surely, or to a divine scholar. This defect has probably all, who have been taught a little late, in themselves.
9. all this is the same in Carlstadt, only in a slightly lesser degree, except that he is even smaller in stature, and black-brown, burnt face, unpleasant and unpleasant voice, weaker in memory and quicker to anger.
1) Petrus Hispanus was the first textbook of logic at that time. Luther calls it a "children's dialectic", St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 1010, § 289, and the same Col, 1016, K 307 at the end: xuerilia.
10 Eck, on the other hand, is tall and long, of a strong and four-toned body, full and quite German voice, which is supported by a very strong chest, that he is not only suitable for a tragedian, but also for a herald, however, that it is more rough than clear; therefore, he has nothing less than the sweet sound of the Ciceronian mouth, which one praises so much in Fabius and Cicero. His whole face, eyes and sight are also such that one should rather make a butcher or Carian soldier, 2) than a theologian out of him. As for his wit and head, he has an excellent memory, and if an equal intellect were present, he would have been quite a masterpiece of nature. But he does not have a great ability to see things quickly or to judge them sharply, without which all other gifts are nothing. And this is the cause that, when he disputes, he cites such a heap of reasons, testimonies of Scripture, sayings of experts, one after the other, without any proper selection, and does not notice how most of it does not rhyme at all, how it, properly understood in its place, does not serve the cause, and how much is not genuine, or sophistical. For that is only his business, that he brings forward a heap of testimonies, and makes a dazzle to the listeners, who are mostly not so perceptive, and teaches them the opinion that he has won. In doing so, he is full of unbelievable impudence, but he can conceal it in the most mischievous way. For, when he sees that he is sometimes entangled in the ropes of the adversaries, he soon directs the disputation to something else. Sometimes, however, he even uses the opponent's opinion in words other than his own, and on the other hand, he pins his unrhymed opinion on his opponent in a cunning way, so that Socrates would not seem wiser than he is, except that the latter pretended to be ignorant and decided nothing but certainty, while the latter pretends to be peripatetic confidence in the knowledge of himself and practices the art of flattery. Behold! There you have a true Apelles, if not such an artist as he was, yet certainly one who does not lack effort and diligence.
11 Now I wanted to think about my own things, but since this is already more than a letter, and your dean is too distinguished to be burdened with too many writings, I will close when I have only added something about other things.
2) Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 24 u.
You will not believe how almost everyone, after we were transferred here, became much more lenient toward Martin, especially the letter carrier (dean); it does not even occur to him that he wanted to write against him. What should he write, the old man who has become childish again? Your Doctor Gainz has correct thoughts about this matter, D. Gabelenz, likewise Heinrich Monachus, D. Germestorff, Johann von Maltiz, a dear man, and quite equal to you. With the others I have not much to do, nor much to hope from them. The Bishop of Trier, however, to whom the Pope has entrusted Martin's cause, does not wish him ill, which I was able to hear from his conversation the other day, when I was invited by him to lunch in my fatherland. That is a wise and generous gentleman, that he does not ask much of those at Rome in this matter. Franz von Sickingen, the brave German hero, is urging Hoogstraten and his companions to compensate our Capnio (assassin) for the damage he has suffered for their sake, and to do so within a certain time, otherwise he threatens to do them and the Cologne country all harm. For Reuchlin's enemies have been condemned to the expense, as they say.
Ulrich Hutten establishes a school of three languages at Mainz at his prince's expense. You see how the whole of Germany has begun to focus on study in this way in just a few years. And this is mainly thanks to Prince Frederick. He is now sending Matthew Adrian, the most learned Hebrew of our time, who is a physician by profession, from Louvain to Wittenberg with a large salary. This school, against our thanks and will, is now coming to Leipzig's ruin beyond measure, so that I should be sorry for the Leipzigers, if hope of better times in the future were not to be drawn from you and your like young people.
14 My prince recently wanted to keep me in Trier, and those in Erfurt have also made efforts to keep me here. Mainz has also offered us a place. What you advise us, I do not know. But I am of the mind that I do not like to move back and forth like swallows. I must certainly travel to Italy to buy the doctorate there. I have planned to do this for about one or two years, but no more. However, I will write to you about this project at another convenient time.
The prince seems to me to be becoming more and more merciful, as does your father and the other great ones.
In particular, the venerable father, Abbot Martin of (Kloster-) Zell, is doing me a great deal of good in my exile, 1) from whose house, which he has in Meissen, I am writing this to you. Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, a very learned theologian in all three languages, has been chosen as preacher of the church in Mainz, which is a very lucrative priesthood there, hitherto possessed by the bad theologians. Theology everywhere will be restored to its former integrity, to which I have also decided to contribute something according to my ability, and therefore have begun to translate four books of theology of Gregory of Nazianzus into Latin, but do not know how happily. For these days Oecolampadius, a preacher of Augsburg, has also written that he intends to do the same. That is why he asks me to give him a detailed written report of what I am doing. For if he knows that I am willing to do the same, he will gladly refrain. But I think it would be better for me to avoid such a great man.
16 Erasmus now writes interpretations of Paul. Germany is now at peace from the war, but almost everything is down with the plague. We hardly have a corner where we can remain safe. I sincerely wish our Hess that he may be well, to whom I would have sent the Crocus books he requested long ago, if they could be had. As far as I know, they are not for sale anywhere. This Crocus of ours lives at his royal court, and calls me in letters to England, but I do not know whether one may trust.
17 I do not send you my Lappereien, which I have published, because I shy away from the nose of the Italians, although Beatus Rhenanus has written to me that they have been reissued in Basel, and would be brought to Italy by the bald bookman 2). Spiegel I wish all the best. Petrus Suavenius, a Pomeranian nobleman, my student, who loves you very much, because he is quite like you, recommends himself very well. I will remember you and your praiseworthy qualities here with all, especially the scholars. For there is probably no scholar in Germany who is famous in something with which I am not, praise God, somewhat acquainted. One respects me more than I find in myself, or this age and my unworthiness deserves.
1) Because he was transferred from Leipzig to Meissen because of the plague.
2) a calvo Bibliopola: perhaps from the bookkeeper Calvus?
Goodbye and write us back very much through the Dean. For I would live with you in Italy if I had known the least about your return and had put my affairs in order at home and here with the Prince. Farewell once again. You will send several keels (calumos) here when the opportunity arises. Meissen, December 6, 1519, in a hurry, as you see.
The Leipzig Colloquium, described by M. Sebastian Fröschel, who himself listened to it.
This report is taken from the preface of M. Sebastian Fröschel to the book published by him in 1566 at Wittenberg in quarto "Vom Königreich JEsu Christi und seinem ewigen Priesterthum" printed in Löschers Ref.-Acta, Vol. Ill, p. 276 and in the "unschuldigen Nachrichten" 1717, p. 13.
Doctor Eck, when he had now disputated in several universities, as in Vienna and elsewhere, and had commonly been superior and had become a knight; when now D. Martin Luther had also issued positiones against the pope's indulgences and pen Tetzel, a monk in Leipzig, an order of preachers, and had the same positiones publicly disputed and defended in the university in Wittenberg, and had them issued in print; when D. Eck in Ingolstadt had heard, experienced and read such things, he also approached D. M. Luther and offered him and those of Wittenberg the opportunity to have them printed. Luther, and offered him and those of Wittenberg to debate with them publicly in another famous university, and requested this in writing from the lords of the university in Leipzig, as from the theologians, and from the old collegiates and colonels, that they allow him to debate publicly with the Wittenbergers there in Leipzig. But they summarily refused to allow D. Eck to do so. Then Doctor Eck wrote to the Duke of Saxony and asked his F. G. to allow him to debate with the Wittenbergers in Leipzig. The Duke of Saxony wrote to the Duke of Saxony and asked his F. G. to allow him to debate with the Wittenbergers in Leipzig. Eck, should be allowed to debate with each other. Duke Georg himself came to Leipzig at the same time of the disputation, and also lent his castle in Leipzig for this purpose, and had the court room cleared out and made into a lectorium, and decorated most beautifully with cathedrals, which were two above each other, and with benches and tables, at which the notaries sat, and excipirated the arguments, and all of them were invited to speak.
and hang all benches and cathedrals with beautiful wallpaper; the Wittenbergers with St. Martin's, D. Eck with the knight St. George. For D. Eck thought he wanted to become a knight of the Wittenbergers, and thus be knighted for the sake of the Wittenbergers, as he was also honestly knighted by them, then and after the disputation.
Doctor Eck came to Leipzig at that time, before the feast of Corporis Christi, and at the feast in the procession (which was held there, and was quite splendid and magnificent) D. Eck went around in a chasuble - or casel, next to the theologians, and thus let himself be seen well before the disputation, as if he were unafraid of those from Wittenberg. On the Friday after Corporis Christi, those from Wittenberg arrived (as I myself saw), and drove to the Grimmisches Thor in the city of Leipzig, and their students ran along beside the wagons with spears and halberds, and thus accompanied their masters; and D. Carlstadts drove in front, then D. Martinus and Philippus blessed also in a wheeled cart, and all of them had no draped or covered cart. And as they entered the Grimm Gate, and came to the door of the churchyard of St. Paul's Church, D. Carlstadt's chariot broke, and he, the doctor, fell down into the mud. But Doctor Martinus and Mr. Philippus Melanchthon passed by, so that the people who saw this said: This one will succumb (meant D. Martin Luther blessed), and the other one will succumb, Doctor Carlstadt, as also happened, and has happened so far. Praise be to God! Also in the hostels, where the Wittenberg students lay, the host had to let one stand in front of the table with a halberd, who kept peace; thus the Wittenberg students came together with the Leipzigers with disputes. I saw all this myself in the house of Herbipolis, 1) the book printer, where I went to table and sat next to Mr. D. Metzler from Breslau, who had come from Italy shortly before, and stayed for a while in Leipzig, and also read Greek, that he did not celebrate, because he could not be idle. There was also a magister at the table, who lived in the house, and was called Magister Baumgärtner, was a preacher, who had moved around for a long time with the pope's indulgences with Tetzel, and had helped him with his preaching. And the same M. Baumgärtner was so vehement against the Wittenbergers that the host Herbipolis, a book printer, had to hold one of them.
1) This is Martin Landsberg in Ritterstraße.
with a halberd, so that peace was maintained at the table as long as the Wittenbergers were there at the inn and sat and ate at the table. Shortly after the disputation, the same M. Baumgärtner became so enraged with one of the nobility, on account of D. Martin Luther, that he gave up his spirit soon after; I also had to help him to the grave. On Saturday after Corporis Christi Bock Emser came: Dear Domine, from where do you come, you should be called Parcite, who would be the pious Emser. The same Bock Emser came to me and to other young magistrates, and asked us on behalf of the rector and the university that we should stand by D. Eck on Sunday, and go with him out of the castle, where they would act and conclude how and when the disputation should be started and held, and in what form. So it was decided there that Doctor Carlstadt should begin disputing with D. Eck first. In short, D. Carlstadt wanted to have the preference, which D. Martinus was well satisfied with. On Monday after Corporis Christi, when the disputation had begun, all the strangers from Wittenberg and Ingolstadt came to the large Collegium, to the large room; there, D. Simon Pifiori's oration was received. Simon Pifiori's Oratione Latina received the guests from the University of Leipzig. Afterwards, they went to the church of St. Thomas for mass, and the rector of Leipzig ordered that the magisters of Leipzig should take the Wittenberg magisters to the church, and to the first to the castle. So immediately Magister Vach blessed came to me, whom I took with me. And when we arrived at St. Thomas Church, they began to sing a Mass de Sancto Spiritu, and the Cantor Georgius Rhaw, our printer, then sang a Mass with twelve voices, which had never been heard before. After the mass one went out of the castle, there were ordered a quarter of the citizens, who were there in their armor with their best armor and their ensigns, and had to be every day twice on the castle, while the disputation lasted, to keep peace, in the morning at 7 o'clock until 9, after midday 2 o'clock until 5. And when one came on the castle, there Petrus Mosellanus stood up and held Orationem Latinam, afterwards one went to the Prandio to table. In the afternoon at 2 o'clock the disputation began, Georg Rhaw, the cantor, was called with his cantoribus and with the town pipers, who began to sing and to blow the Veni Sancte Spiritus; then they began the disputation, first D. Carlstadt with D. Eck. But what happened in the disputation
The disputation was dealt with on both sides, which is printed in Latin, the scholars may read it themselves. But I must say one thing, which I also heard myself, which happened in the disputation, in the presence of Duke George, who often came to the disputation and listened diligently, that suddenly D. Martin Luther blessed said these words to D. Eck, who complained to him harshly with the Johann cough: Dear Doctor, non omnes articuli Hussitici sunt haeretici [not all articles of Hus are heretical]. Then Duke George spoke in a loud voice, loudly, so that it could be heard over the whole auditorium: "This is what addiction does," and shook his head, putting both arms at his sides. I heard and saw this myself. For I sat immediately between his feet and Duke Barnim of Pomerania, who was Rector at Wittenberg at the same time, and went with the gentlemen over to Leipzig to the disputation, and did not miss any of them, and listened much more diligently than all Leipzig theologians and collegians, he was also much more learned in vera theologia, than all of them, who were always sitting beside D. Eck, and slept quite gently, so diligently did they listen, and so sweet did the disputation taste to them, that they also had to be awakened commonly when one stopped disputing, so that they did not miss their meal and supper, and did not lose their power and strength, but kept the same until [it] came to a concilio, so that they could use the same against the heretics. That is why they were made collegiate and exempted from reading, as was pretended at that time, and why they were held so great, high and valuable. But afterwards, after the disputation, and when the gospel came to light, and their art was brought to light, the common man learned what they had in their shield, and what their great art and holiness was. After the disputation had come to an end, the cantor of St. Thomas, Georg Rhaw, was appointed with the cantoribus and town pipers, and after the oration, which M. Johann Lange, Lembergensis, a Schlesinger, and resigned to the guests, the cantor began to sing the Te Deum laudamus, into which the town pipers blew in the best and most glorious way; this happened after noon, when the disputation had come to an end, everyone went home again, and the Wittenbergers went back to Wittenberg. But D. Eck stayed there longer, and met with the theologians and collegians and other people.
carelessly cheerful and in good spirits. So the theologians also arranged and held a disputation in their Lectorio Theologico for his benefit, in which one of them presided, and my and Domini Joachimi Camerarii praeceptor, M. Georg Helt, Forchheimensis, had to respond, whom D. Eck well vexed and tribulated, and accused him of smelling like Martin Luther, which was more to my dear preceptor's honor than to his shame. It also happened and occurred during the disputation, when D. Eck and Doctor Carlstadt first disputed with each other, during the eight days in which the feast of Corporis Christi was celebrated and held in the papacy, that D. Martin Luther came to the church of the Pauline Fathers and preacher monks without any danger before noon, when they still had their sacrament in the monstrances outside in the church on the altar of St. Dominici in their little huts, and the monks held mass on the other altars. As the monks of Paul had learned that D. Martin Luther was in their church, they immediately ran out of their choir, took the monstrances with their Sacrament, and hurriedly carried it into their choir into the sacrament house, and left it and kept it safe, so that their holy Sacrament would not be poisoned by the heretic D. Luther; and the other monks, who were holding mass on the other altars, took their utensils together and ran into the sacristy, as if the devil were chasing them in. This undoubtedly meant that our dear father D. Luther blessed should put an end to the papists, especially those in Leipzig, the feast of Corporis Christi and the fair with their masses, as also happened afterwards, as soon as the Christian prince Duke Henry took the city of Leipzig and the whole principality of Duke George.
Another worth reading description of this colloquium by the Electoral Saxon Chancellor v. Pfeifer.
From Pfeifer's oriKin. lüxsisus., x. 340.
Translated from Latin by M. A. Tittel.
1) The same desire (which Luther testified to) to get to the bottom of the hidden truth was also expressed to Duke George, who, when he heard that Johann Eck challenged the Wittenbergers with grandiloquent words, and that they did not refuse to fight, promised that he would
both wanted to assign a place for it. The bishop in Merseburg and the theologians who were in Leipzig at that time, Matthias Hanensis, Hirsberg, Königshof, Sueven, Düngersheim, Fraendienst and Lungenschneider, were not satisfied with the prince's decision and said that they were doing it at the pope's command. For this reason, the duke wrote to the bishop in Merseburg, and reported 1) that he was surprised that the bishop did not take any pleasure in the use that had been established for the sake of truth from ancient times and had been propagated by the forefathers, by virtue of which they had discoursed on the triune God, on the mysteries of religion and other main pieces of Christian doctrine, without anyone's disapproval, in both ways. It would be quite useful and necessary that the newly raised question be investigated and that the truth be brought out by teaching and listening, whether it is true that if only the money in the pelvis would sound, the souls of the deceased would immediately lead out of purgatory into heaven, by which deception the poor common people would be defrauded of money. He thought that the bishop was backing some bad people who were not much better than timid soldiers, who had their courage elsewhere than in arms, and who would leave before the quarrel. The custom of defending one's cause and refuting the opponents was old; if the theologians could not defend their doctrines as false, they would not deserve the wrath of the pope or the church if they adhered to a better and truer doctrine. But if they taught the truth, even if they could not defend their opinion, they would not harm either themselves or their cause if they were surpassed by the Sophists in ready disputation and appealed to [the] pope. This kind of doctrinal struggle, which has always been going on, would never have been abolished by the pope, who, in his opinion, had a desire and love for truth; no one would be offended who walked in the light, and it would not be repugnant or displeasing to the pope and his councilors if the ignorant were properly instructed in matters that concerned the common salvation of all. It would be very important for all of Christendom that, if something in the heavenly teachings has been falsified through error or ignorance on the part of the teachers, it should be made known to all Christians. But that his theologians did not want to argue, in this act-
1) Compare Document No. 370.
They would act contrary to their office and profession, since they would therefore occupy a higher seat on the chairs, and the highest position at solemn school meetings (or gasteries). If they could not or did not want to act according to their office and titles, then old women and children could be fed at much less cost and more benefit to the public, who would be useful to the public and much more obedient to the authorities than some theologians. For old women could spin wool and flax, for example, and thus help the human need, or if they could do nothing else, at least make the audience happy with good songs. The bishop should consider what use it is for a shepherd to have a dog that does not want to bark or attack the wolves. He also asked the bishop not to take on lazy theologians, but rather to seriously persuade such light-shy people that they should not refuse the theological battle, but rather do what their office and duty entails and confidently fight for the truth against the heretics; unless a special prohibition from the Roman pope prevented them from doing so. Surely, if they would only bravely defend the truth, neither the church nor the university could suffer any harm from them, who were so well-disposed against religion, and he, as a Christian prince, would not be suspected of the outcome of the disputation. If, however, neither the bishop's reputation nor the prince's godly and honest will could do anything with such theologians, such obstinacy would be proof from which both he and all intelligent people could assume that they were not theologians but seducers who neither knew nor wanted to bring their teachings to light nor to punish and refute the errors of the newcomers (or false teachers). If they do not continue, he will publicly declare and testify that he has or had no other will than that a godly and honest action be taken in such an important matter, and that the truth hidden in human quarrels be recognized. The same theologians, however, because of their ignorance and laziness, would not only not have been conducive to this discovery, but would even have been most obstructive in that it was not carried out. The bishop should consider what an honor this would bring to the entire clergy, what a glory it would bring to the teachers of theology, and what a beautiful reverberation it would have until their late descendants. Finally
he admonished that in such an important and high matter he would show himself to be a man and a bishop and prove himself in deed.
By this letter of Duke George the efforts of the theologians, who hindered and hated the disputation, were so driven away that afterwards nobody wanted to speak against it or to oppose the will of the prince. The prince therefore scheduled the disputation for July 5 and had a large and spacious auditorium with many desks and benches built in the castle of Pleißenburg.
First Johann Eck arrived in Leipzig with his followers, whom he had brought from Ingolstadt and Erfurt. Then came the Wittenbergers, who, as they were entering the Grimm Gate, broke a wheel on Carlstadt's wagon, so that its load was overturned in muck, as if it were a foreshadowing that it would one day be of little use to the church and break divine law.
4th Carlstadt was followed by the Duke of Pomerania, Barnim, as the then Magnisicentissimus of the Wittenberg school; but Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon followed him in a cart (vecti petorito). Around all their carts some students with hatchets [halberds, battle axes] walked as Leibtrabanten to the right and left. The Wittenbergers had hardly descended to their host when letters from the Bishop of Merseburg were posted on the doors of the churches, in which he forbade, in response to a letter from the Pope of Rome (which one is accustomed to call a Decretale) 1) that no disputation on religion should take place. The council had the person who posted such a document seized and thrown into prison for posting something in public secretly and without permission.
5 It had already been agreed between the parties that they would take scribes who would write down everything that the disputants said. Eck wanted to withdraw from this agreement and demanded that nothing of what was said in public be written down. But even though the Wittenbergers insisted that Eck stick to what had been mutually agreed upon earlier, they finally gave in to Eck's obstinacy, since they could not do anything and noticed that Eck was trying to have the meeting suspended again, and they were afraid that suspicion would fall on the Wittenbergers if this happened.
1) Document No. 234.
The first step is to prevent the sides of the plant from being damaged.
When this dispute was over, another question was soon raised by the people of Jngolstadt, about which there was a great dispute. Eck wanted the Pope or some universities to judge the disputes that were dealt with in disputes, but not settled in a certain and complete way. This made Luther very distressed and doubtful, because he could not stand the pope, as the defendant and guilty party, as a judge, and knew that all the universities would stand by him and swear to him. And since he therefore thought about it a little long, Eck said among the people: Luther had little confidence in his cause, and did not want to suffer a judge, but only to penetrate everywhere with his own head and opinion. This was heard, and many who at first seemed to be on Luther's side now became doubtful about it. But whether it was already known what the verdict of the Pope and the universities would be, Luther, in order to escape the evil rumor that had already gotten around, finally agreed that the universities would recognize it; but in such a way that, if he were condemned, he would still have the appeal to a common and free concilium of the church as a refuge.
Since this matter was also settled, and the Ingolstadters knew nothing else that would have a pretense or honorable pretext for rejecting the disputation, they finally met, as well as the Wittenberg theologians, in due time in a room of the large Collegii, where the most distinguished jurist, Simon Pistoris, in the name of the university, welcomed them with all honors and kindly received them. From there they went to the St. Thomas Church for prayers and from there to the lecture hall of the Pleißenburg Castle. The Duke of Saxony, Albrecht, had kept his princes, Frederick and George, in their still tender years, in Leipzig for the sake of their studies, and George had gained so much knowledge in the sciences that he could speak and write Latin: and some credible people assured that they had seen a piece of a Latin history in which he had described the wars waged by his father. Therefore, he already knew what the situation was at the Leipzig school and what kind of teachers were there, and he enjoyed the scholars' discussions, and was himself at the disputation at that time, to which Petrus Mosellanus opened the door, as it were, with a beautiful and learned speech, in which he faithfully recalled, and wisely and intelligently explained, what he had learned.
Godly advised that one should not argue with anger and displeasure, but should direct all speech and action more to the praise of Almighty God than to one's own glory and honor. For in the theological battlefield, to be down would be human, but to be victorious would not be human strength, and thus the conqueror could not ascribe anything to himself, nor would the conquered have cause to be sad, because the error into which he had fallen out of weakness of nature would be removed from the conquered, but the conqueror would not lead his own cause, but God's. The conqueror would have no cause to be sad, but God's cause, and thus communicates what he has received from Him to the other, so that the conqueror loses nothing more than what would otherwise harm him, and he thus becomes better through what the other communicates to him, so that a pious and truth-loving man would almost wish to be conquered in this rather than to be victorious. Thereupon he asked everyone most earnestly that in such an important matter they would think with proper reverence that not only the whole of Christendom would soon afterwards judge everything that had been said and done, but that God Himself and the holy angels and heavenly spirits would also see and hear everything. Finally, he decided and testified that he had not spoken and presented anything for himself or according to his own opinion, but according to the mind and will of the Prince.
After such a speech everyone went home. And after lunch, when everyone came together again in the auditorium, the singers first invoked the Holy Spirit and sang a song in proper rhyme. Then Eck and Carlstadt rode with each other on the free will of a Christian man. The latter knew the other's sly wit and slippery ways. So that he could hold up to a sly adversary the right reason for what he was saying and saying, he brought the authors' writings with him into the lecture hall, to whose passages and testimonies he referred. Eck was annoyed that he should see himself bound and held so that he could not twist the old authors' writings wherever he wanted and it seemed good to him, because then they seemed to contradict him in the whole speech, as it were coming back from the dead. Therefore, he complained to the judges (Agonothetis) that, contrary to previous usage in schools, the books were dragged into the auditorium by the disputants; he therefore asked that Carlstadt be told to leave out the books and to say from his head what he needed to say and to advance. Thereupon
the judges, who recognized Ecken's request as reasonable, also ordered that no books be brought into the auditorium. Which, when you look at it in the light, would be just as surprising as if a commander ordered a soldier, who wanted to fight bravely for house and court, to go into battle with his rifle outstretched and his hands empty.
The following week, Eck argued against Luther about the supreme authority of the Pope in Christendom and about his supremacy over all, and, according to his custom, he poured out more disgraceful speeches than reasons for proof. For he not only accused him of heresy, but also called him patron (or protector) of the unbelieving Bohemians, when Luther had said nothing more than that he had rejected some of the conclusions of the Costnitz Concilii as unjust.
10 After this, Christians were treated of their repentance, as well as of the atonement of sins among the dead. There are still certain memorials or registers of this disputation, which contain the meaning and words of the disputants, which two scribes wrote out, and one of them, Johann Agricola of Eisleben, Luther, and the other, Johann Poliander, Eck, chose for this purpose, so that each of them may diligently record and write down the words of the latter, who appointed him.
11. At that time, some historians also noticed this and wrote it out as something special, that although at that time many people, out of eagerness to hear such famous men discuss the most important things, traveled from far and foreign places, nevertheless, of three bishops and eleven abbots in the land of the dukes of Saxony, not a single one showed up at this so crowded and famous scene of the entire Meißnerland and the most learned people; either because they shied away from the pope's command, or because they were weaned on scholarship and concerned only with worldly and economic affairs, rarely learning anything, even more rarely teaching others, but least of all and almost never going into the company of scholars, And with nothing she put herself in reputation and honor among the gullible rabble, except that on high feasts of the year she stepped before the altar two or three times in her holy skirt or chasuble, glittering with gold and precious stones, and sang mass or murmured.
12 Although the bishops and prelates forget their office in this, Duke George was not displeased to sit down with the learned and famous men; and since he had diligently listened to the theologians for a few days, he was not displeased.
When he heard Luther's speech, some wicked people finally kept him away from the auditorium, no doubt fearing that the prince's mind, which loved truth so much, would notice the papal mischief and properly grasp the knowledge of true godliness. Afterwards, however, he invited Luthern, Carlstadt and Melanchthon to lunch with him, and had Luthern come to him again in particular; with whom he spoke in such a way that Luther said afterwards: "If Duke George acted according to his own mind, he would not do anything that was not appropriate for a prince, and was to be regretted that he did not follow his natural way, but rather what others told and advised him. 1)
The Prince of Anhalt, George, also always listened to the debaters, who studied in Leipzig at that time and subsequently did much useful service to the Church of God with writing and teaching; as his godly and learned writings still testify to this day.
Since such important things were dealt with, something ridiculous and bad happened, which my father, who also studied in Leipzig at that time and was at the disputation, told me when I was young; and because you can see from this what kind of mind Eck had, I will tell it here, as the wise Greeks of the monkey at Dodona described mischievousness in their histories. Duke George had a one-eyed court jester. He always stood at his side in the auditorium, and as there are always joking and funny people among the great ones at court, they made this jester believe: Luther argued with Eck about his (the jester's) marriage, Eck did not want him to be given a wife, Luther, however, spoke for him. The jester got angry about this, and as often as he came into the auditorium with the prince, Eck made a nasty face. Eck, seeing this, covered his right eye with his index finger and looked at the jester again with a scowl. The fool, noticing from this that his one-eyedness was being advanced, as was the truth, bitterly and shamefully attacked Ecken with a great clamor. The assembly laughed quite a bit about this, and thus a little fun was added to the heat of the disputation, thereby moderating and making the minds more or less cheerful in their zeal and attention.
15 The disputation had now lasted eighteen days, and nothing more had happened between the parties.
1) See Document No. 381 towards the end.
1216 L. V. a. Ill, 479 f. Section 3: The Friends' Reports on the Disp. No. 393 f. W. XV, 1441-1443. 1217
The result was that the indulgence stuff, as it is called, was hissed out and ridiculed. But since Eck subsequently spread a false rumor that he had won, and boasted much about himself in writings, Luther was forced to publicly print the discussion and disputation he had held with him, 1) and to show that he had not destroyed the weak arrows of the human statutes that Eck had shot against him by only using the sword of the Spirit, namely the divine word, not only with the sword of the spirit, namely the divine word, but also completely destroyed and ruined the false concluding speeches that the adversary had unleashed on him with sound reasons from holy scripture.
16 Eck himself seemed to admit this twelve years later, when at the Diet of Augsburg, when Laurentius Campegius, the papal councilor, denied him the priesthood he was seeking, he himself came to Philip Melanchthon and the theologians who were with him and complained about the insult Campegius had done to him, and finally asked: What would he gain if he left the papal boys and joined Luther? And when Melanchthon answered: if Luther's cause was right, why would he not also join it in vain and defend the truth? Eck fell silent at such words and remained silent for a while, until he finally lowered his testimony, which he had already given to the truth, and reduced it by saying: not everything that could be defended was true.
17 Although in Leipzig in 1519, the disputation may have been divided in such a way that, as each was governed by his love and favor or old delusion, he declared either Luther or Eck to be the victor, or made the victory doubtful, the subsequent experience has shown that many were drawn by such disputations from papal superstition abundantly to the teaching of truth. Not to mention that Johann Poliander, whom Eck had used as his scribe, left his previous error and turned to the love of true godliness in such a way that he finally even became a preacher of the truth freed from papal darkness in Prussia.
1) Here, "Luthers Erläuterungen über seine zu Leipzig disputirten Thesen", St. Louis edition, vol.
The auditorium in Leipzig became quite empty due to their departure; and apart from such a cause, the subsequent addition of two years has caused almost the entire school to disappear.
Melanchthon's report of this in a letter to Oecolampadius. Dat. Wittenberg, July 21, 1519.
siuea, .loanni OeeoIumMdio in8^riptu. After that it passed into the Latin Wittenberg edition (1550), tora. I, toi. 336; into the Jena (1579), tora. I, col. 3416; into the Erlangen, opp. var. tora. Ill, x. 479 and in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. ill, p. 215.
Translated into German.
Philipp Melanchthon wishes his friend N. Heil in Christo.
I do not think that much is at stake, nor do you particularly require me to express in many words how I feel toward you. For the good spirit of cordial love has so happily united our minds with each other that I hope our friendship can by no means be offended by the manifold changes in all human things, nor even be rooted deeper by mean and base flattery, I mean that kind of letters by which friendship is commonly entertained. The mind is equally inclined to both, that friendship is made outrageously great, either by disguised or useless flattery. And o that I could only be grateful to him for his good deed who has given me a friend who is not only sincere, but also faithful to Christianity. For there is probably no person who has done me more good from my youth than you, whose kindness has been so generous to me at all times, and was completely the play of the goddesses of mercy. My circumstances, however, did not allow me to repay like with like. And since you have something ahead in this play, I ask, let me also have something ahead. Aristotle demands that he who has done a good deed to someone should be loved by the other as much as the good deed deserves, or at least for the sake of the good deed. This is subtle, but not at all well said. For the purpose of our love is not your good deeds, but the Spirit of Christ, as the author of our friendship. What you did to me, as your friend, in the way of love, you did according to the general law of the
We owe it to you to show love. And we are therefore again bound not to withdraw our services from you if the occasion arises.
As far as the matter itself is concerned, since we have almost everything else in common in the study of science, I would not want to fail to make you aware of what has been said with far greater expectation than benefit at Leipzig about some seemingly ambiguous teachings of the theologians. For I am of the opinion that you are not a little interested, who, according to the dignity of the name of a theologian, are also a holy eulogist in the Swabian arena, namely in Augsburg, and take every care that the theological doctrines may be presented in a pure and simple manner. At first, this disputation was started for no other reason than that one might clearly see what a great difference there is between the old and Christ's theology, and between the new and Aristotelian. But what has been brought out, or on which side the matter has tilted, is not so easy for me to judge. All the more carefully I want to go through everything that is relevant to the matter, so that you may come to a more precise certainty about it. Undoubtedly, many things have come to your attention; therefore, I will relate everything credibly and explain the points of the disputation in the simplest way possible, so that you can see what was disputed by both sides.
3) And that I begin the matter from the beginning, Eck made notes 1) last year about the sentences on indulgences, which Luther posted for discussion; this writing is much too biting for me to be able to contribute anything from it. From these notes, Carlstadt has refuted some of them in his conclusions, which he has published. Eck took responsibility against Carlstadt in a protective letter, in which he wrote somewhat less harshly than before in the notes. Carlstadt published a booklet in opposition to this protective writing. They reviled each other for a long time and made long digressions. Finally, in order to pass over the other with silence, it became popular to hold a disputation. The day was set for it. Johann Eck came to Leipzig from Ingolstadt, Andreas Carlstadt from Wittenberg, and Martin Luther. The main points were brought into a few conclusions, so that it would be made clearer what was to be disputed. I
1) The "Obelisks", St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 536 ff. - Carlstadt's "Vertheidigungssätze" ibick. Col. 590. - Carlstadt's "Defense against Eck's Monomachy" ibid. Col. 632.
I believe that you know well enough what was agreed about the disputation, namely, that the deal should be drawn up in writing by notaries appointed for this purpose and that this document should go out in print so that everyone could judge it. First, Eck objected to those whom the most illustrious Prince George, Duke of Saxony, the great promoter of the fine sciences, had appointed as supervisors of the disputation, against his promise: as he thought, it was not proper for disputants to dietire their matters; the burning heat of those who argue with each other would be completely cooled by the slowness of writing; by a fierce attack, the minds would be fired up, but by hesitating, one would rather let one's courage sink. Whether this can come from theological simplicity, I do not know, since according to it nothing is to be taken into consideration so much as that one does not speak anything with vehemence, or out of carelessness, or in heat. And as I think that in the sciences, and especially in the work of godliness, there is nothing better and more salutary than the confidential and affectionate dispute of learned and righteous men, where one opinion is held against the other with a quiet and peace-loving, but by no means disruptive and obstinate mind, and one does not rejoice at all over the victory achieved: I believe that there is nothing so harmful against it as rabble-rousing quarrels, since even righteous people must be concerned about the victory. You know how much Nazianzenus, how much our Erasmus have written wisely about this. Now, however, one had become one about the notaries. For Carlstadt could not be talked into anything else. As soon as the dispute arose, Eck wanted to decree certain judges; Carlstadt was not opposed. Accordingly, Johann Eck and Carlstadt argued with each other on June 27.
4 Of free will it was asked: whether it is in our own will and ability to do a good work? that is, as they call it, whether we deserve grace according to equity (congruo) when we do as much as is in our power? For I adduce their own words. Since one should have acted on it, see where their quarrels have carried them away, what dangerous cliffs they have run into. They should have examined what our will is capable of in and of itself without grace. They turn the question differently, and argue, I believe, for four whole days about whether the will only receives a good work, and whether grace alone brings about this good work. In these unnecessary connections, they have led the matter, which, after all, depends on Carl's intention, to the point where it is not possible.
1220 L.V.L. Ill, 482-485, Sect. 3: Der Freunde Berichte üb d. Disp. No. 394, W. XV, 1446-1448. 1221
were far away from the city. Eck admitted that our will had no natural, but only an assumed ability, given to it by grace, to produce a good work, which he initially seemed to dispute. After he was asked by Carlstadt whether he admitted that the whole good work came from God, he answered that it was indeed the whole work of God, but not completely (totalitarian). Behold, however, how beautifully this cunning little finger is suited for the theological sovereignty. So now everyone is free to twist the words in this way. At the beginning, Eck admits that the will is set in motion by God; afterwards, he says that it is in our power to consent. Carlstadt strongly contrasted this opinion with several passages of Augustine and the saying of Paul: "It is God who works in us both willing and doing. And where I am not mistaken, Carlstadt's doctrine has remained unimpaired. Eck took some things from Bernhardus for his doctrine that did not belong to the matter. That is what Eck disputed with Carlstadt. I think we spent a whole week on it, of which I have recently noted the main points. I first learned from these men what it means what the ancients called sophistry (σοφιστεόειν).
It is extraordinary how impetuously, how pompously all this has been done; but all the less can one be surprised that it has been of little use. For the Spirit loves silence for His own sake, by which He takes hold of our hearts, and settles down with those who are not ambitious, but eager to know the truth. The dear bride of Christ does not stand in the streets, but leads the bridegroom in her mother's house. Yes, the rays of heavenly wisdom should not enlighten us, because we have been purified by the cross, to speak with Paul, and have died to the corruptible things of the world.
Afterwards, D. Martin Luther entered the battlefield. Until then, it was not known for sure whether he would dispute, because according to the right of his appeal, he could not easily set judges in the hateful matter. However, since one had become one with him on this, one began to deal with the prestige of the Roman pope and to argue: whether the prestige of a general bishop could be proven from divine law? Luther freely admits that there is a general bishop. Only against this he disputes: whether his authority can be proven according to divine right. About this point, because it is somewhat important, five days went by, if I am not mistaken. Eck dis
He was sharp and crude, and everything in him was designed to make Luther hated by the common people. His first argument was: the church could not be without a head, because it presented a civil body, therefore the pope was the head of the church according to divine right. To this Luther replied: he recognizes Christ as the head of the church, because the church is a spiritual kingdom, and does not want to know of any other head, as Col. 1 says. Eck added some passages from Jerome and Cyprian, which, how much they prove for the divine right, he may see for himself. Now, some passages of these same scribes were obviously in doubt, which he presented as irrefutable. He praised the testimony of Bernhard ad Eugenium as an insurmountable defense, while in the same book to Eugenius there are things that not a little strengthen Luther's opinion. By the way, who is so stupid that he should not recognize what one has to thank Bernhardus for in this trade? From the Gospel he cited the passage Matth. 16: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Luther claimed that this was a confession of faith: Peter presented the person of the whole church and Christ called himself the rock, which he proved by many speculations from the context of the whole speech. Also the words came up: "Feed my sheep", which were actually and personally spoken to Peter. Luther answered that the same authority had been given to all the apostles in the words: "Receive the Holy Spirit, by whom you remit sin," etc., because these words referred to the office given to them; Christ had wanted to teach them what it was to feed and how a shepherd must be constituted. Eck then referred to the reputation of the Costnitz Council, where it was said against the teaching of the Hussites that it was necessary for salvation that one accept that the Roman pope was a general bishop. There one also heard much boasting that a concilium could not err; to which Luther wisely replied that one had not condemned all the articles as heretical, and what was more of the matter, all of which would only be annoying to recount. The investigation of the reputation of the conciliar churches does not belong here either. It is obvious that no concilium can come up with new articles of faith. Luther was not well spoken of because he was seen as opposing the concilium, while the latter did nothing so eagerly as that only the concilium should retain its prestige. Then one threw
He accused the apostles of heresies, the Bohemian Rotten, and other such accusations. Eck admitted that all apostles had the same prestige and power, but it was not appropriate that they were all the same bishops, because there was a difference between the apostleship and the government. For the apostleship is nothing else but a sending forth to the obedience of faith, as Paul says to the Romans. But I do not see the difference between the apostleship and the government. To some it seemed to be unbearable to deviate from the papal decrees or from the words of a holy church teacher in the slightest, but Luther based his doctrine of the pope on the passage Gal. 2, which, according to my insight, suited it perfectly: "Of those (he speaks) who had the prestige of what they were then, I do not care. For God does not respect the reputation of men. But those who had prestige have taught me nothing else." In the meantime, Eck thinks that Christ chose the apostles, but Peter ordained the bishops. From this you may judge of the other for yourselves. To the constitution that occurs in the decrees that the Roman pope should not be called the general bishop, he answered: one may not call him the general bishop, but certainly the bishop of the general church.
(6) Then they began to talk about purgatory, in which question I think they lost sight of the purpose. For since one should have disputed what power the pope had with regard to purgatory, Eck sang another song: that purgatory existed was demonstrable, which is far too well known to have been necessary to raise the question so often in the schools. Eck proved his opinion with the common passage in the books of the Maccabees. Luther disputed it, and said that, according to Jerome's statement, the books of the Maccabees are not valid, to which Eck replied: one should give the books of the Maccabees the same right that is contrary to the Gospel; this is, of course, a statement worthy of a theologian! And he remained stiff and firm. He added the passage of Paul 1 Cor. 3: "He will be saved, but only by fire", about which, as you know, the commentators are of different opinions. He has also taken the words from Matt. 5: "Be ready for your adversary soon," etc., from the dungeon, and what follows: "until you pay the last farthing. How far this is fetched, and how the words are to be understood, you can easily judge. One does violence to them if one thinks that the dungeon is a
interpret the purgatory. I wish that the people of Christ would be taught better. For most interpretations of this kind lead the scripture far away from the basic text, so that one completely leaves its actual emphasis. From the Psalms he brought to the proof of the purgatory the words on the track: "We have passed through fire and water." And I do not know what he put on more with equal probity. Against the indulgence was not argued so vehemently. For Eck himself was only joking and playing with it. Finally, the doctrine of repentance was discussed, but I do not know whether Eck had hit the main point of the question with his final speeches; he approved of some punishments by means of satisfaction, which Luther conceded; but that divine justice requires a penitence for any punishment for any sin, which is within a man's power to impose, I could not see from his reasons. So these are the most important points that have occurred in this whole dispute. Everything else is far too ridiculous and too childish for me to hinder you in your more important occupations.
The remaining two days were given to Carlstadt. One was devoted to the bar of grace, as it is called, which Eck admitted was not taken away by nature but by grace. The other was debated: whether we sin in every good work, of which many wonderful scriptures were given by Eck and Carlstadt. Methinks Paul gave the greatest weight to Carlstadt's opinion in the seventh chapter to the Romans. I wanted to write more, but I am called away to other necessary business, although this is perhaps already too extensive. However, I wanted to tell you, as my very good friend, about the antics, and I myself saw that this matter was treated with greater expectation than benefit. What others think of such petty quarrels I do not know; to me they seem dangerous. Those of whom I have wished to promote godliness have only shown their intellect, great knowledge and various erudition in this arena. Incidentally, many of us have been immensely surprised by Ecken's splendid gifts of intellect. Carlstadt will undoubtedly already be known to you from his writings. He is an honest man, of rare erudition and unusually highly educated. I must admire Luther's lively mind, erudition and eloquence, whom I have known for a long time through intimate contact,
1224 L. V. L. Ill, 487.476 f. Section 3: The Enemies' Reports on the Disp. No. 394 f. W. XV, 1451-1453. 1225
and his sincere and thoroughly Christian spirit. Greet our mutual friends in my name. You know what the Greeks use to say: xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
[there is much news in the war]. Therefore, you must not trust the rumor about the course of this disputation, nor those who make use of gossip, in all things. Fare well. Wittenberg, July 21, 1519.
3. what news of this disputation has come to light on the papal side.
D. Eck's report of this in a letter to Jakob Hoogstraten (Hochstraten). Date Leipzig, July 24, 1519.
This letter is found in Latin in the Wittenberg edition (1550), tom. I, toi. 335; in the Jena (1579), toru. I, toi. 3405; in the Erlangen, opp. var. urA., tom. Ill, P- 474 and in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. ill, p. 222. The marginal glosses, of which Walch says in the superscription: "mit Luthers Randglossen", do not seem to us to have originated with Luther, but we have added them according to the Wittenberg edition. Wiedemann, "v. Johann Eck", p. 501, attributes the "läppischen Noten" to lVl. Tittel.
Translated into German-
Letter Johann Eck
sent from Leipzig to the famous and venerable father, Brother Jakob Hoogstraten, Magister noster in theology, in which he shows with which scriptures, proofs and reasons he defended the articles of the Roman Church against D. Martin Luther in the disputation held in Leipzig in 1519.
1. salvation in the Lord Jesus! It is known to you, venerable father, how I have so far opposed the sacrilegious people of Wittenberg, who despise all teachers from 400 years ago, even though they are still so holy and learned, and bring many false and erroneous things among the people. The most distinguished head of this scandal spreads such things in German printed matter, and thereby seduces and poisons the people. Recently we debated in Leipzig before a very large audience of the most learned people, who had gathered there from all places, where Praise God! their opinion was also brought very low among the people, but among the scholars it fell for the most part.
2 You should have heard the audacity of the people, how blind and ready they are to all wickedness.
are. Luther denies that Peter the Apostle was prince. He denies that the obedience of the church comes from divine right, but is only imposed by human consent or the emperor's permission. He denies that the church was built on Peter: "On this rock" etc. And when I put Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, Cyprian, Chry.sostomus, Leo and Bernhardus with Theophylus 1) to him about it, he denied all of them without shame and said: he wanted to resist 1000 alone; supported by nothing else than that Christ was the foundation of the church and no one could lay another foundation. a) I have refuted this from Revelation Cap. 21, 2) 14. of the twelve reasons. He claimed that the Greeks who were divided, even if they were not in the obedience of the pope, would still be blessed. Of the Bohemian articles he said: of the articles condemned in the Costnitz Concilium, some were quite fundamental Christian (christianissimos) and evangelical. By this sacrilegious error, he scared off and turned away many who had previously been devoted to him. Among other things, he said, when I reproached him (in opposition): if the Pope's supreme authority came only from human right and the consent of the faithful, where would he get the religious habit he wore? b) Where then would he get the authority to preach and to hear the confessions of the parishioners etc.? He answered that he did not want there to be a mendicant order. He said many other annoying and inconsistent things: that a concilium, because they were men, could err; that it was not proven from the holy Scriptures that there was a purgatory, as you will see when you read our disputation for yourselves, because it was written by completely reliable notaries.
But in many ways they overcame me. c) Firstly, because they brought many books with them, in which they were known, and even brought them with them to the place of the disputation, and to these they immediately took refuge, yes, they always read from books, to their great ridicule. Secondly, because they always had the disputation in writing, and afterwards compared it at home. I have never heard a single word [of what the notaries
1) Löscher: ^lieopli^Iuetus, in the other editions ^Usopliilus. Neither of them is mentioned in the notary's postscript.
a) It is based on a new ^Rede game.
2) Wittenberger, Erlanger and Löscher: "12"; Jenaer: "22".
b) An argument, which is suitable for Eck mnd die Brüderlein.
c) Eck was overcome for the sake of three causes.
until the disputation was over. Thirdly, there were several of them, for they themselves are two doctors, Mr. Lang, the Augustinervicarius, two licentiates of theology, one of them a grandson of Reuchlin, a very presumptuous person,d ) three doctors of law, many magisters, who helped both at home and in public, even in the middle of the disputation. I, however, stood alone, accompanied only by the good cause. e)
I have instructed your brothers in the order to have a copy of the disputation copied and to send it to you as soon as possible. Therefore, for the sake off ) whom I serve, I most earnestly request that 1) you defend the faithg ) which you have long since accepted. I do not ask that you get involved and make yourselves and your order hateful, but that you support me with your counsel and scholarship. For the Wittenbergers did not hurry with the disputation; indeed, they preferred to seek opportunities to disputate. h) For Luther at first did not want to suffer any university in the world as a judge; but the most Christian Lord George of Saxony did not want to allow any disputation about the faith, unless he let the masters of our faith judgei ). Luther, who was able and driven to do so by his own, was forced to do so. For if he could not argue and could not stand judges, they would all leave him; therefore, when I had left him free to choose from all universities, he chose Paris and Erfurt. Since I do not know the University of Paris,k ) but your Universityl ) is very friendly with it, I urge your fatherhood, for the sake of the Christian faith,m ) to write to their acquaintances, or, if it pleases, to the entire University, that if dear Prince George writes and sends the disputation and asks for a verdict, they will not refuse it, but will bravely attack it as a champion, because we have both consented to it as a judge. And I believe that the matter is so clear that it does not require a long investigation.
d) Eck was not presumptuous, but Reuchlin's grandson, that is, Philipp Melanchthon.
e) Eck was accompanied only by his good cause.
f) For the sake of Leo X, Roman pope.
1) Here we have assumed nt with Löscher, instead of et in the other editions.
g) Of the Roman See.
h) 8s Hna68i6rnnt, is an Attic daintiness.
i) The masters of our faith are sometimes called magistri nostri.
k) Eck indicates the reason why he wrote this letter.
l) To lions.
m) Eck defended the Roman pope.
do not need. Therefore, at the prince's request, they should judge immediately and conclude what is in accordance with our faith.
5 You see here recently, venerable father, what I would like to have from you in the matter of faith, and this shall also be written herewith at the same time to our teachers, Mr. Arnold de Tongris and D. Michael Swas. Michael Swas. For it is quite certain that the crowd of grammarians (or language art teachers) introduce these errors into the church. And if the pope had proceeded in the same way,n ) and not only, to our 2) both mockery, which the wretched language teacherso ) have caused. If they had listened to us, they would not now be driving over their heads with their murmuring, as they did earlier when they examined the Cabala. And the Wittenbergers, as it were, went off quite madly and almost without saying goodbye to the host. I am already on my ninth day here after the disputation,p , which lasted three weeks.
Luther had preached a completely erroneous Hussite sermon on St. Peter's Day in the absence of the prince in the disputation hall. On the day of the Visitation of the Virgin Mary and the following day, I preached against his errors with an audience as large and populous as I have ever had, and I completely aroused the people, so that they were terrified of Luther's errors. Tomorrow I will do the same, and then say good night to Leipzig. My business makes it impossible for me to write to Mr. Arnold, nor to you. If you like something to reply, order it through Mr. Michael Swas, who can send it safely to Ingolstadt through the Sveter or Waler. Your venerable devotion (pietus) live happily; and if I can serve you anything, believe that it is as good as done. From Leipzig, July 24, in the year of grace 1519.
A letter from D. Eck to two Ingolstadt professors of law, Georg Hauen and Franz Burckardt, dated July 1, 1519, in which he also described this disputation.
The largest part of this letter is found in Latin in Seckendorf's Hist. Tmtti., 115. I, p. 85 ds., beginning and
n) Accusation against the pope.
2) Instead of no8tra6in the other editions, we have adopted nostri with eraser.
o) sOrainniati8ta6 and brannnati66lli] is not uneven double set.
p) He comes back to the point from which he abgekvmmen.
End missing. Walch has in his Ueberschrift: "Anjetzo first from a credible Copey in its completeness German presented." We have used Seckendorf in the revision.
Georg Hauen and Franz Burckardt, both professors of law at Ingolstadt, his sincere brothers.
1. good health! Our friendship requires that I tell you how I am doing. Initially, the strong and hot beer got me sick. From Pfreimbt to Gera, I did not have a good drink. In Leipzig, beer was also constantly disgusting to me, so I abstained from it for six days and felt better. On the way, I encountered nothing adverse, except that it rained incessantly, which, however, was to my advantage. I met the Duke in Leipzig, where he arrived on the very day I arrived from Weissenfels. He received me graciously, and the day after St. John's he departed again. [Lotter and Bodenstein arrived with great state, with them two hundred Wittemberg students, four doctores, three licentiates, many magistri and very many Lutherans, v. Lange of Erfurt, their vicarius, the teacher of insolence Egranus, the preacher of Görlitz, the pastor of Annaberg, Bohemians and Picards sent from Prague, very many heretics, who pretend that Luther is an excellent teacher of truth, who does not follow Johann Hus.
On June 26, the disputation was discussed and an agreement was reached. I yielded willingly, which the Leipzigers would not have thought, although they are perfectly on my side, and demanded that Carlstadt should not yield, because he had united with me on one judge. The call went through the whole city, I will have to succumb to this. Our nation, although inclined to me, has not sought friendship with me out of concern to share in my disgrace. However, as an older doctor, I have been preferred to others everywhere: the duke had a beautiful stag honored to me, and a deer to Carlstadt.
On the 27th of June we met in the large college, where the Ordinary (D. Simon Pistoris) received us with a beautiful speech in the name of the university; afterwards we went with all the guests and the whole university to the church, where the Holy Spirit was invoked for help. Thereupon went
1) This is where Seckendorf starts.
They went to the castle, where the duke had a splendid room decorated with chairs and wallpaper. Petrus Mosellanus, professor of the Greek language, gave a beautiful speech in which he made the duke's will known, but at the same time, after his own fashion, except by princely command, he set out on the scholastics. There are also 76 armed men present every day from the beginning to the end of the disputation, and they always march to the castle with flying flags and sounding music, because there is a fear of a crowd of Wittenbergers and Bohemians. The council is very polite, I want to report.
4 In the afternoon at 2 o'clock the disputation began. I opposed Carlstadt on free will. Oh, how miserably he conducted the matter! I would rather that others reported such things. The man has no memory at all. He also confessed, since he had answered my objection in a slipshod manner, that I have a better memory. With everyone's amazement, I neatly and piecemeal repeated his answer, better than he had presented it himself, and immediately gave my reply to it; but he could not grasp anything; he had a large crowd sitting with him, and now read from this, now from another book, to his great chagrin. Therefore our people only began to get courage and to accompany me in heaps. I did it in one way: I made replies at night and gave him time to think it over until the next day at 8 o'clock. So he came in the morning and brought a notary with him, against the settlement, whom he had write everything down; the doctor had written everything on slips of paper, and read off one after the other, from word to word, to his great shame. I rejected what he had uselessly presented, but did not proceed to the right objections, because he had made his reading so long, to everyone's annoyance; and if I had continued in the opposition, the disputation would have been interrupted, and he would again have had time to consider and write something down; So I diligently postponed this until 2 o'clock in the afternoon, since I drove the wretched man, who could not retain the slightest thing, so far that he had to confess against his will that free will has its effect in good works. Whereupon I did not want to bring further proofs, because I had brought him to the right Christian doctrine. He replied that he had never denied this; but I immediately showed him six passages from his "defense" in which he pretends that free will is completely passive with respect to the good, which he also often says in his "defense".
Disputation; about which I referred to the Acta, written by the notaries.
The last June Carlstadt should oppose me from free will. For he chose this matter. But since he again read everything from his notes, like the boys, I did not want to admit this; he, on the other hand, would not let it go, because he had no memory, like me. I then said, "Why is he disputing?" But I left the matter in the hands of the gentlemen, who went out and held a council about it, called Carlstadt before them, and said, "This is not the way to disputing, he should therefore refrain from it; he could read the sayings of fathers and teachers from a piece of paper, but not the proofs and their execution," to which Carlstadt, after due council, answered, "He could not disputing in any other way, and asked that he be given leave. I was sent for; however, I left everything to the discretion of the gentlemen and declared that if they recognized that I could allow it, I would do so. They all said that it seemed unreasonable to them. I agreed that he would do it this time, but would refrain from it in the future. But he did not want to do this either. I therefore requested a testimony from the gentlemen; and so we left each other without having accomplished anything. Mr. Caesar Pflug recited the entire matter in German in the Duke's name, and told what they had decided against Carlstadt; however, he did not want to enter into this, so they gave him time to think it over until tomorrow. He then sent notaries and baccalaureates of theology to me to ask me to allow him to read the evidence from slips of paper; but I answered that I would stick to the statement of the gentlemen. Therefore, the Wittenbergers were in great consternation, and still are; yet he came today and was supposed to oppose, but brought forward three things alone, without the testimony of a teacher and without proof. He was very confused. I summarized the questions in the neatest way, answered them, corroborated them with testimonies of teachers and proved that the holy and excellent theologians, whom he contemptuously calls school teachers, are in agreement with Augustine, Jerome and Ambrose. Up to here from Carlstadt.
6 From the other beast, Lutter. 1) Upon his arrival, I heard that he did not want to dispute; I made every effort to get him to dispute. We met at the princely commissaries and the university;
1) On the edge of the letter he wrote: "I have done a good evil to Lütter, I will tell it orally.
I have placed everything in their will; they therefore wanted him to dispute under the same conditions under which Carlstadt had disputed. He had made many demands of his duke; but I said that I did not demand the prince to be a judge, although I did not refuse him either, therefore he should choose a university, and if Germany was too narrow for him, in Welschland, France or Spain. However, he did not want a judge at all and was therefore not admitted, because by virtue of the duke's order no one is to be admitted who does not want to suffer a judgment. I demanded that the commissioners and the university give me a testimony about this in his time. There are many Lutherans. D. Urbach, the doctor of the Archbishop of Mainz, the doctor of the Counts of Mansfeld, 2) and others have driven Luther because he would lose everyone's favor, even the Elector's favor, if he could not suffer a judge in the whole world. Therefore, he resorted to lies, by which he greatly angered the Commissars by saying that the whole university was suspicious of him. Finally, the matter came to the point that at the end of the disputation, he wanted to compare notes with me about a judge and dispute with me, but that he was free to let the disputation go to press in the meantime. I opposed this, because he wanted to print it without first obtaining a verdict, in order to seduce the simple; for he undoubtedly wanted to add letters and other things that would be in their praise, so that it would look as if they had won the victory; therefore, he also had to accept this. I do not yet know when the disputation will begin; but the Wittenbergers are all almost full of bile, rage and venom; they cause me much inconvenience. Many threats have been made by them to the council, but it has not yet learned anything definite, but last night it placed 34 armed men in the nearest houses, so that if they came and wanted to do something bad or cause trouble, they would receive their deserved reward. You see that they have become disgraced.
There is still hope for Luther, but all hope for Bodenstein is gone. Luther has not yet been allowed to preach in Leipzig, but the Lord of Pomerania (Duke Barnim), Rector of the Wittenberg University, at the instigation of the monk, demanded that he preach the Gospel to him in the castle, which he did. The whole sermon was
2) Seckendorf has in brackets: Perhaps [D. Johann] Rühel.
Bohemian (that is, heretical), held on the day of Peter [and Paul]. I will preach tomorrow and Sunday, at the request of citizens and doctors, and refute his sophistical errors. 1)
Otherwise, there is nothing new, except that the Electors, with the exclusion of the Frenchman, have unanimously fallen to Carl. On the Frenchman's initiative, the Duke of Lüneburg attempted in Saxony what the Würtemberg duke had begun in Swabia, and inflicted great damage on Duke Erich of Brunswick, who, after gathering an army of 3,000 servants from the great alliance in Swabia and 1,200 men from Duke George of Saxony, took almost all of the Duke of Lüneburg's land and burned out six towns. Of Margrave Joachim I will tell orally. There are horny Venus sisters everywhere, and people love a lot in this city.
9 I have often been told to stay in Meissen, but I will go back to Bavaria. Almost all the courtiers and most of the citizens were Lutherans; but now they are beginning to become wise. Dear Franz, see to it that what I have recommended to you is also done in this way. Where highly unjust judges do not come forward, there is no doubt of victory. Be well. On the day before the Visitation of the Virgin Mary (July 1) at 3 o'clock, since since 10 o'clock the insipid and unjust Carlstadt has been disputing against me. From the royal city of Leipzig in Meissen 1519.
Your most devoted
Corner.
D. Peter has been here three days, has also written the money half Zberga at the abbess; highly desires his daughter's welfare. Jr are equally more hopeless than he, that we came out sun kundt.
397 To Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, Doctor of Theology and preacher in Basel, of Johannes Cellarius of Gnostopolis (Kunstadt), professor of the Hebrew language at Leipzig, letter about the true and orderly course of the theological disputation in Leipzig. July 31, 1519.
The old edition available to us (without printer and place of printing) of this letter, which precedes Ecks' 6xpnrZntio, has this title: Lä chVolpüunZnrn
1) This is where Seckendorf stops.
I'adrieium 6apiLon6m HisoIoZiae voetorem 6t eontioliatorein Lasillen. loarr. Obllarii önostopolitani I.ip8iÄ6, ti6dral6Ä6 1IQAUÄ6 prok688ori8 äb V6ra 6t 60N8tÄIlti 86N6 tll6oIoZI6Ä6 äisputatiovis I^ip8I6Ä6 6pi8tolg,. 4. The letter occupies the first five pages. It is also found in Latin in Löscher, Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 225. - Kunstadt, the father city of Cellarius, is in Moravia, not in Bohemia, as the Erlanger Briefwechsel vol. I, p. 58 indicates.
Translated from Latin.
To Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, Professor of Sacred Scripture, Joh. Cellarius von Kunstadt wishes Heil!
If I let the slightest opportunity pass, dearest Wolfgang, above all to testify to my peculiar esteem for you, then I would be justly accused of the vice of ingratitude, which I have always highly detested, as the beginning and origin of all vices, so that I would not, if I fell into it, be justly esteemed worthy of the bonds of Hippocrates. I have thus wanted to testify what a heartfelt love and honor I have for you, not only because of special merits, but also because of the great love for virtue, scholarship and the scholars, which I have seen shine out in you many times in Latin, Greek and Hebrew sciences.
(2) But what is this occasion or inducement? you will say. Hear such recently. You know, my dear Wolfgang, how much and at what time and how a great dispute between D. Johann Eck of Ingolstadt, and D. Martin Luther and Andreas Bodenstein of Carlstadt, of Wittenberg, because of some (where I am right) outgoing theses: so that after the mere theses, which had been spread out in the whole world before, it finally came to attack and protective writings. But since it seemed to them that this would not be enough for a good outcome of the matter, if they did not also proceed to a public doctrinal battle, a public disputation was finally scheduled with the approval of both sides, and admitted to the laudable and flourishing Leipzig School by our most illustrious Prince George, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave in Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, the very mildest protector and upholder of the Leipzig University. And although there are beautiful buildings of the Muses, which we call Collegia, and spacious lecture halls in such a famous university of Your Serene Highness, he did not want such theological disputations to be held anywhere else than in his castle. But in what kind of order such disputations of truth
I think that I will be quite pleasant to you and at the same time show my goodwill toward you.
3 It is now the 26th of June in the afternoon at 2 o'clock, for early the arrived guests were received by the legal scholar and experienced man, D. Simon Pistoris, the Law Faculty Ordinary, after which they went together to St. Thomas Church to attend the service held to invoke the Holy Spirit. Afterwards, they went together to St. Thomas Church to attend the service, which was held to invoke the Holy Spirit, and from there to the castle and to the battlefield, where, by order of the most noble prince, the leaders of the dispute were read how modestly they should behave at the disputation, and then, as I said, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, the battle began.
4 First, D. Joh. Eck brought Carlstadt on the path that free will also effectively helps to do a good work together with grace, and that they therefore work together, not separately (mixtim non divisim), which he beautifully demonstrated from St. Bernard. Carlstadt, on the other hand, long resisted in his writings: that the free will only behaves in a suffering and receiving manner toward good works, of which it alone is capable. But when Eck had drawn testimonies from the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, he finally admitted with Eck that free will had an effect in good works, and they now agreed. You should have heard here, my dear Fabricius, with what a mind, and like another Demosthenes, Eck was able to grasp and repeat so completely everything that had been stated one after the other. Carlstadt, however, used to get the reasons and the answers from a piece of paper and from books. And since he also wanted to read out his entire case during the opposition, as he had considered and prepared it at home, Eck did not want to allow it any further, whether he wanted to allow it this time: At present, however, he must refrain from doing so, unless he had written out the words of a holy father or of the Holy Scriptures. Eck said: he wanted to discuss and not read. After the matter had been brought before the gentlemen, it was decided that this was no way to argue, to read the whole thing from pieces of paper, so Eck would not be satisfied with it. Carlstadt should also consider until tomorrow whether he wants to recite the reasons from his head or give up disputing? Therefore, Carlstadt came back in the morning, and according to the laws of the
The Church, however, equipped with many books, and even taught that the whole good work was from God, which Eck admitted that grace and free will worked separately, according to Bernard, with each other, not in a special or separate way, but that one therefore did not have to say that free will did not work. Although God does the whole work, it does not happen in a total way (totaliter), so that another cause's participation or contribution would be completely denied. Carlstadt strongly objected to this: that the holy fathers had not spoken in this way. Eck refuted this by saying that the disputation about names (or words) should be left to the stubborn; enough that it was clear from the Fathers that the good work was entirely from God, and yet free will also did it. This is what he briefly said: Entirely, but not in a total way.
Since the matter of free will had been concluded in this way, and it had been put to the judges to be chosen, Martin Luther met with Eck in the matter of the supreme sovereignty of the Roman Church, and brought to the fore: the Pope was not more than the others according to divine right, but rather only by human consent, and also St. Peter had not received the supreme sovereignty over the Church of God before other apostles, but it was enough in the One Head, namely 1) Christ. Peter had not received the supreme rule over the Church of God before other apostles, but it was enough for the One Head of the Church, namely 1) Christ. On the other hand, Eck proved with evident testimonies and reasons that there was one supreme ruler of the same supreme head, Christ, in the Church by divine right, and that God had built the Church on this rock, that is, Peter and his successors, according to the evident testimonies of Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Leo, Bernard and some popes, who testify to this in explicit words. But Martin paid little attention to their reputation, because he based himself on St. Paul's saying to the Galatians and other passages, of which Eck endeavored to prove that they were not repugnant to him. But the judges will have to decide whether he got there.
Eck also admitted that the apostles were equal in priesthood and apostolic office, after Leo and Cyprian; nevertheless, Peter was set as the head, so that the divisions would be prevented. But since Eck reproached Martin: that such Lutheran
1) In the original "s." - seHieet. The long 8 has been read out by Löscher in 4(68um^.
Martin replied that not all the articles condemned there were heretical, but that some of the articles of John Hus were quite Christian and evangelical; therefore he requested that Eck first prove that a concilium could not err. This has not been interpreted by many to the best of D. Martin, just as that he wanted to consider the Greeks, who were disobedient to the Roman church, nevertheless as pious and blessed; but this also belongs to the judges. But when Eck reproached: If the pope did not have the supreme authority by divine right, where would D. Martin get his religious habit? where would his brothers hear confessions? since the parishioners would certainly be against it etc., D. Martin answered, among other things, that he did not want there to be a mendicant order! But he insisted very much on Gregorius in registro, denying that he was a general bishop. Eck explained hereupon in what way he had denied what he had been true, citing Gregorius about C. decretum 2. qu. 7. and that therefore he had resisted the emperor and the patriarch in Constantinople, as reported by Platina, whom Luther had given much credit in historical truths. The judges, however, will pronounce who among the two had judged best.
(7) Then they began to talk about purgatory: where do the punishments of purgatory come from, whether from the Scriptures, whether because the souls of the departed are of imperfect love, or because they are sufficient for the sins committed here? D. Martin answered: one could not prove purgatory from the Scriptures, although he constantly taught and believed it. And since D. Eck had referred to the books of the Maccabees, he denied that they belonged to the canonical writings. Eck, on the other hand, showed that they belonged to the Canon of the Bible (namely with the testimony of Augustine and Jerome in the Preface [to the Bible]) in the Church. And since many holy teachers were attracted, who pretended in their interpretations that St. Paul spoke of Purgatory in the passage to the Corinthians: "He will be saved, but only through fire" etc., then D. Martin taught a different understanding; but whether he deviated from the opinion of the Fathers, let the judges see.
8 There was not so much dispute about indulgences. For that there were many abuses of the preachers of indulgences, both admitted, and Martin was more lenient than he otherwise wrote.
because he allowed that indulgences would be useful. However, he held on to the opinion that indulgences were a remission of good works. On the contrary, Eck said that it was a remission of the punishments due for sins. If he did not want to believe that indulgences would be enough, he would have been banned already after the last papal bull of Leo X.
(9) Then, concerning repentance and how it arises, D. Eck wanted to show from the Scriptures and the Fathers that repentance rightly begins with the fear of punishment. And to all that had been cited, Luther answered: first, that the childlike fear of wisdom was the beginning, but not the servile fear of punishment. But when D. Eck appealed to Augustine, Cassianus and others that it was also understood by servile fear, Martinus admitted that servile fear was the beginning of wisdom, but with grace. Eck resisted that grace would be before the beginning of grace, since wisdom in that passage, according to Augustine and Bernard, would be understood as love. Whether he rightly resisted this or not, the appointed judges will recognize.
Finally, Eck objected to the 4th and 5th thesis: If the guilt is remitted, the punishment is not yet over; and such punishment, which must be paid off by satisfaction, could be repaid by the pope through indulgences, and by the priest through the imposition of penance. And so such a person would do enough for the Church as well as for God, for the sin. But D. Martin opposed it. Therefore, the matter was left to the judges.
11 However, the masters had decreed that only the most difficult theses would be dealt with; hence it has come about that much matter has remained untouched.
12 Eck then went after Carlstadt again, and wanted to show him that the school teachers were not in disagreement with the church teachers, because of the removal of the bar [against grace], if one understood them correctly; and that if one does as much as is in one, one will be promoted in good by God and will be saved. He also apologized that, since he had said that the matter of the election of grace did not belong to the matter of which they dealt, Carlstadt had wanted to interpret this to him as if he had said that the passages about the election of grace did not belong to the works that should be crowned and rewarded; and that he had read quite well and rightly in Bernardus: Put away free will, and nothing can be blessed. But Carlstadt
would rightly be called a falsifier of the books, if he wanted to read in Bernhardus for: Nothing can become blessed, wanted to read: nothing thereby etc. (pro quod, quo). To which Carlstadt gave his answer; and it was subsequently put to the judges' verdict.
Finally, Carlstadt objected to Eck's second thesis and wanted to have that the righteous commits sin in every good work. Eck did not want to accept this, and argued that St. Lawrence should have sinned on the grate and St. Peter on the cross. And when Carlstadt brought up Augustine and Jerome, Eck sharply insisted: he should show the place, because this would not be found anywhere in them, but rather the opposite would be proven from Jerome against the Pelagians. Since now many things had been argued for and against the matter, it finally came down to the judges.
Now the matter of repentance was still left, which D. Carlstadt had also long since had recorded with the gentlemen, but because D. Martin was gone and he was also hurrying home, he no longer wanted to make objections to Eck. And so the whole disputation was again concluded, as it had been at the beginning, in a splendid way with a speech, which the learned Mr. Johann Lange of Lemberg delivered very eloquently.
You will, however, my highly learned Mr. Capito, demand to know who the chosen judges were; I will also report this. Eck and Carlstadt were also together before the disputation before the most illustrious Prince George, Duke of Saxony 2c, and the Rector and Concilium of the University. Eck said that he was ready to dispute and wanted to do everything that the gentlemen ordered, if only Carlstadt either agreed to the university's verdict or gave another judge. Carlstadt, however, who was just as ready to argue, asked that what was argued be recorded by faithful notaries or public scribes. Eck was immediately satisfied, if Carlstadt would only agree to a judge. So the gentlemen decided: no one should leave the place until they were one because of the judge. Father Martinus, however, did not want any university to be a judge, even though Eck had chosen him from almost all schools in Germany, Italy, France and England, except for two; on the other hand, he [Luther] suggested that everything that had been discussed should be printed and sent out, so that everyone who read it would be free to do so.
would like to judge. But the most illustrious councillors and the council of the university did not want to let him attend the disputation. So they left the same day and Martin did not want to disputate; afterwards, however, on the advice of his friends, he reappeared and accepted the disputation in Carlstadt's manner.
When the disputation was over, Eck gave the most illustrious prince's councilors under his foot: they would like to elect judges in the presence of Duke George (because the most illustrious prince had often been at the disputation). Therefore Martin suggested the high school in Paris and Erfurt, which Eck also accepted, if only Martin's hermit brothers in Erfurt were not present. Since the duke was away, Martin wanted the whole university to judge, it could be lawyers, physicians or philosophers, but the fathers of the holy Dominican and Franciscan order should not be present. However, it seemed unreasonable to the corner that physicians or people of other professions should judge the highest theological matters or reasons; nevertheless, with both satisfaction, the matter was placed in the will of the most illustrious prince.
17 This is what I wanted to write to you, my dear Capito, in a credible way. Of course, there will be enough who, out of sheer eagerness for victory, will bring all sorts of things to the people, so that it may have the appearance that they have won, even if it is contrary to the truth. But you will believe this report completely: for this is how everything happened properly and truly with the Leipzig theological disputation. I also assure you that I have not written anything to love or harm any part of it, but only how it happened; therefore I refer to our most noble Prince George, and to his most favorable and experienced councils, and to the whole University of Leipzig. When the disputation comes out, everything will turn out that way. Farewell, my most esteemed and learned friend, and greet D. Johann Oecolampadius, who is well experienced in all three languages, as well as Beatus Rhenanus, Bruno and all other good friends of mine. Leipzig, from our house, July 31, in the year 1519.
398: The discussions and answers of the Wittenberg doctors at the public disputation in Leipzig, which will not be able to do much against Eck's thunderbolts, and
of their hopeful arrival and their humble departure. Written by Joh. Rubens Longipolitanus. August 13, 1519.
pntntiono lüpsicn contrn kntnünn bxüviunu parnin protutnru, tninorcpro miv6ntn8 6t üninilitn" t>ornin raao88N8 p6r,loln Itn. I.on^ipoüi. aoinpurutn. 2^ sheets in quarto, with a borrede to Conrad von Thungen, Bishop of Würzburg, datirt den t3. August t5l9; thereafter our time determination. Reprinted in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 252. - Änf this writing Johann Montanas from Hesse replied under the pseudonym ^Anno ^Vittotmr^cmms, which is reprinted in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 786 ff.
Translated into German.
1) Two men, who are considered by many to be excellent and outstanding in soul and body, especially the impatient monk, named Martinus, appears, and with him Andreas Carlstadt, full of mockery and an excellent healer, who do not claim to be scholastics, but rather Wittenberg church teachers. For they presume to interpret the Holy Scriptures from their own minds, and in the theological struggle they also deny the Scholastics and the Fathers, who were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, as Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Aquinas, whom they are undoubtedly not worthy to dissolve, Scotus the astute teacher, Bonaventure the irrefutable, Capreolus the highly learned teacher, Albertus Magnus, who is not less than these, and many others, whom I will pass over for the sake of brevity. Although they have sharpened their dog's and viper's teeth venomously and disgracefully against the aforementioned scholastics, and Carlstadt has unashamedly called them shopkeepers in front of many teachers and excellent men, they have finally taken their great refuge in such teachers in the utmost and last need, as in a sanctuary of scholarship and science. But such godless riffraff is wont to leave a friend and patron in good fortune, but afterwards, when the need arises, to seek his help and protection. Thus the aforementioned two doctors, since they were first able to refute and repel Eck's hostile arrows and reasons by means of the holy church teachers, knew how to rebuke and reject the school teachers; but when they were unable to knock down Eck's Hercules- and Simson-like answers either by their own art or by means of the church teachers' writings, they sought to beat Eck's thunderbolts to the ground by means of the scholastics' erudition. So
the aforementioned doctors have not been able to shut the mouth of some man Eck, who appeared with an excellent and splendid modesty, with their intrigues, deceptions, and reasons shot like arrows. What can I say much? Eck's bravery and his great erudition always kept the last word in the dispute in a splendid and manly manner. For before that, the Wittenbergers cried out that they would get the victory. But due to Eck's triumph, they fell miserably and ridiculously into the pit that they secretly intended to prepare for our humble and gentle Eck. On this learned Eck, who is experienced and well-shod in all sciences, and who was as meek as a lamb, they went out of their house with great tumult and violence, with swords and spears, and turned their raised knives against him, as the poisonous Jews against the Savior, to clear him out of the way. I, when I saw Eck wandering alone, without any company and without a crowd, like a poor exiled man among fierce wolves, my eyes glazed over and I thought with amazement: Even Hercules cannot easily stand against two. Except that two things came to my mind for consolation: first, that all of Eck's theses defended the Christian faith, which our ancestors and parents from long ago have always held and confessed until our time. Secondly, that therefore the great and gracious God graciously assists those who honor Him and keep His commandments. Thirdly, that the excellent D. Eck has said quite nicely and merrily: Not all who wielded great swords could strike down and refute Eck's thunderbolts.
2 However, of the theses that Mart. Luther, everyone can easily see that they are unreasonably against the long and common custom of the holy fathers. For who does not believe that the pope is a head appointed by divine right? Who can imagine that a good work is so from God that man's diligence and effort do not contribute to it? Which wise man will also admit that every priest has the power and jurisdiction which the pope, the earthly God, has in his majesty? Who will say that man commits sin even in a good work, as Carlstadt dreams? Which of the teachers will also claim that repentance, which is most necessary for salvation, starts from love and not from fear of the Lord? Who has ever heard and believed that indulgences are a remission of good works, as the venerable Father Martinus certainly claimed?
wants? Finally, which Christian calls the Hussite and Bohemian articles fundamental Christianity, as the Wittenberg Doctor Martinus publicly asserted in the dispute? This and other such things are contained in the Wittenberg theses and proofs; however, I do not want to pass judgment on such opinions. Let those judge who are chosen and ordered to do so.
3) However, no one will like to stubbornly and maliciously oppose the common opinion and custom of the old fathers and our ancestors just mentioned. 1) After God's office [the mass] was held in the church of St. Thomas, a large crowd of people went to the castle of the most noble prince and duke George, where 2) all of them prayed in song for the grace of the Holy Spirit. The following day, the two Wittenberg doctors came to the theological battle with great pomp and accompaniment, and a large crowd of doctors, masters, baccalaureates and students, all of whom had a great desire for victory over Eck, marched behind the said doctors, and many of them led the said doctors and preceptors back to their dwellings. But as time went by and things went very differently and unhappily, all such trabants gradually looked around for the gate, like swallows that stay in the summer and in warm times, but then suddenly leave in the cold. For since the Wittenbergers themselves doubted that their doctors would gain the victory over the one man Eck, because of his herculean powers and strong scholarship, they made a miserable getaway one after the other, like the godless Jews when Jesus was talking to the Pharisees and scribes, who were accusing a poor and sorrowful woman of her sin before him: For he wrote in the dust the sins and iniquities which every one had committed, saying, He that is without sin and iniquity among you, let him cast the first stone at her. And when they saw and heard this, they went out secretly to the temple. In truth, hardly anyone among the great Wittenberg doctors remained steadfast in the theological struggle. That is why many have mockingly said: "Where is the great bunch of doctors, ma-.
1) This is probably what Rubeus wanted to say. The words, as they stand there, say the opposite: rekikwrs ae pertivaeitsr rslnetari nsmo iiaesitat.
2) in yuo will refer to raunere. The narration is confused. The mass in honor of the Holy Spirit was held in St. Thomas Church, after which the people went to the castle.
gister and Baccalaureen Martins and Carlstadts? where does he sleep or lie buried? Does no one help them any more to forge weapons and thunderbolts against Eck? Does no one continue to secretly blow into them something of science and learned ideas, to their praise and glory? Ah! what shall I say of the venerable father, whom the Wittenbergers worship and adore almost as a heavenly god? I confess that he was once great even with Rubeus; but now I confess also that his praise has entirely died out and passed away in my heart. For the venerable father, before the battle was over, since few knew about it, went diligently to the gates of the city; the next day Carlstadt sought his Martin. When Eck was thus abandoned by his opponents, he took the liberty of going to the other Leipzig disputations himself, so that he might hear the most distinguished and famous teachers in the theological faculty there. Eck was also not ashamed to go to the philosophical assembly.
4. so that I tell the thing a little more extensively, I want to report what the Wittenberg doctors have done. For, that they would like to catch D. Eck, who has so much science and so much knowledge, because they wrongly thought that they alone knew the Scriptures as masters, and that they alone had studied and seen the great books of the church teachers for that reason; therefore, perhaps, as all godly souls easily believe, they did not learn Aristotelian scholarship so thoroughly; and the Wittenberg doctors think that even the scholastics and the holy fathers did not understand the holy Scriptures so astutely, masterfully, wisely and thoroughly as they had and knew all the understanding of the Scriptures; or have probably thought that Eck, the intrepid man, did not read any other teachers at all as schoolteachers. Therefore, like cunning foxes, they wanted to reject all the writings of the school teachers from the scholarly struggle right at the beginning of the theological disputation. Eck, however, as befits a wise, great and excellent man, was able to conceal his intrepid and unconquerable scholarship for a time; therefore he spoke to them quite modestly and humbly: I am not bound to Scotus as to a woman (nec Scotum in uxorem duxi). They deny me the one who formerly earned me a thousand gold florins. We do not want to be easily repugnant to you in anything. I will gladly go with you to the battlefield, which, as you think, is brighter and lighter for you than it is for me. Eck also said in a very friendly way: "What have
What have the holy fathers, namely Thomas, Scotus, Bonaventure and the other fathers, whom divine grace has equipped, done, that they are unfortunately! just now completely excluded from the theological and divine disputation by the Wittenberg doctors? However, so that you see that I have read not only the school teachers, but also church teachers, I do not want to attract and bring forward some school teachers in your disputation, although no wise person, except you, denies that such great fathers are highly learned and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and blasphemously and mockingly pulls them through. This is what Eck once said in the heat: "I can honestly confess that the school teachers certainly have Carlstadt's opinion of free will. And Eck proved this from the school teachers in Carlstadt's conclusions about free will, even if he had denied them indisputably. Afterwards, Eck also once said, as he modestly taunted: "Highly learned Mr. D. Carlstadt, if there are any thunderbolts and astute reasons against the rejected teachers, then I am ready to take them up and refute them, and to protect and assert the holy fathers with all my might. Thus Eck stood fearlessly and heroically, like another Hector, yes, like a lion in the public pulpit for the protection of the faith of the church, and spared no enemy, and said: he had been diligently instructed in the holy fathers from his youth. And Eck has justifiably and well insulted Carlstadt for falsely and presumptuously pretending that Eck had read little or nothing in the books of the Holy Fathers. But Eck, a well-educated man, could conceal the depth of his sciences, and said to Carlstadt in jest: "My dear scornful doctor, I have from the earliest years gladly studied in the holy scriptures, and let myself be taught from them, also read such books enough, and not the school teachers alone, as Carlstadt blames me, but have also perused almost all the church teachers with lynx eyes, not with lucid or dripping eyes, like D. Carlstadt (which the two Wittenberg gods before Eck's arrival never believed). Yes, I have taken the greatest pains to read and understand the divine teachers to the end. And so that the two conceited, proud Wittenberg theologians would get to know Eck and see that he had brought his quiver full of thunderbolts, theological spears and arrows with him to the Leipzig scholarly battle, thereby wounding and hurting the Wittenbergers, to the shame and mockery of all listeners, he said once, with all
Rightly teasing the two Wittenberg doctors: "These two people thought that I had not come so deeply into reading and the knowledge of the church teachers. And indeed, no one doubts that if Eck's thunderbolts had been so well known and knowledgeable to them beforehand, they would certainly not have taken to hurling such ineffectual wedges and arrows at such a great man, and would have eagerly endeavored to repel his projectiles and attacks.
(5) Without boasting (as the writings of the notaries of his time will clearly show), the highly respectable Mr. Eck certainly drew from his incomparable memory, in front of all the scholars present, on the ten proven, competent church teachers, namely not only their names, but also their important, excellent, emphatic and salutary sayings and teachings, for the salvation and right faith of the human race. And yet the Wittenbergers insolently and recklessly blasphemed Eck and pretended that he had not cited any church teachers in the midst of the controversy. But what the Wittenbergers stumbled together from the books at home, they later recited from the books, just as boys recite their lessons to their fox-like teachers. That is why the excellent doctor said to the Wittenbergers with an undaunted voice: A disputant's special task is to grasp all the reasons and arrows in the church dispute without the aid of paper, and to answer and overturn the objections and scruples in the same way: for those who only show their ability in what is recorded in books, and read what they should have in their memory, must fear 1) that when the books burn, all their knowledge will go up in smoke. Carlstadt considered these few words well, and said to his responsibility, although quite läppisch: he would not give a disputator. Mr. D. Eck replied in a bright voice: "Among scholars, however, it is considered the work of a disputer to summarize what is objected to in a delicate, clear, orderly and perfect manner, and to resolve and reject the difficulties of the objections. I am surprised, said Eck, that Carlstadt does not want to be a disputator, since he does and administers everything that
1) What the old translator offers here may have been the opinion of Rubeus; we were not able to translate the Latin words either. They read: Hui NNNIHNS in lidrornrn oUenännt tacnltats rnsrnorias Kunäentsk inunuk oonkerere oonnnittenäa veninnt, ne ete.
A disputator does this, namely by making objections and also answering me with his reasons, which he considers insurmountable. Yes, he went with me to the battlefield for the sake of victory. And before Eck's arrival, Carlstadt and Martin boasted in vain, since (as Eck's enemies would have it) nothing was more certain and firm with them than the victory over Eck, the intrepid and unconquerable man. But one has to name everything (according to Aristotle 2. de anim.) from the end; but Aristotle is none of their business, whom they also reject without justification; therefore they themselves and their followers are mistaken, and they are rightly deceived in their presumption. Their books also obviously testify above with what they really deal, even if not with real wars and physical battles, but with philosophical and theological ones: so they may keep silent, and not protect themselves by saying that they do not want to be disputants. I have at least answered them to this day, and am still today ready and willing to answer the Wittenberg doctors bravely and courageously, and no bullet nor terror shall keep me from taking you on in the public learned battlefield, with all praiseworthy Simson-like and brave courage to obtain victory, by the assistance of the all-good and mighty God, for the salvation of all men, and for praise, honors, harmony and holy fruitfulness, with all the peace of the apostolic chair now left almost without umbrella and protection.
6. And so that it does not appear to the reader as if I were presenting something false about the aforementioned church scholars whom Eck attracted in his godliness, I will soon name them individually; who not only those who were on Eck's side, because Eck defended the old and common faith of our parents and their opinion with power, and said that one must always believe and hope that what our forefathers all faithfully held in firm faith was right, since no wise man yet considers them to be condemned, and therefore we, who confess their faith and religion, will not condemn them either, have heard, but have also heard the shameful enemies of Eck and those who were on Martin's and Carlstadt's side, as good and praiseworthy, to whom all truth of the Holy Scriptures will not have been miserably hidden until the Wittenberg doctors' appearance, nor will have been eradicated from the souls of so many other learned teachers, that it would only have been given and instilled anew by heaven to two Wittenbergers, but not to the previous Holy Fathers, of whom one sings
and says that they live holy forever with the blessed and elect without all fear of punishment.
I can freely confess that the Wittenberg doctors not only heard Eck's words above, but also did not seek to thoroughly consider the actual opinion of Eck's words. And since the Wittenbergers truly could not catch Eck's skill and prudence from the holy fathers' writings, they have sought to entrap Eck in their hams by the words put forward by Eck himself: for words, as they say, catch souls as the bull is caught by the horns. How cunningly and carefully they watched for all the words that Eck dropped! like the Jews who wanted to catch JEsum in his words. For when the kind Jesus had said before Pilate, Thou hadst no power, except it were given thee by my Father which is in heaven; but when the Jews heard these things of dear JEsu, and were enraged and mad at them, they said, He maketh himself the Son of God thereby, take him out of the way. So they also rose up against Eck, an evangelical, zealous lover and defender of theological truth, with great clamor, since Eck had publicly called Martin a heretic and patron of Hussite error. For Martin had called some Hussite errors quite Christian, but Hus was burned as a heretic because of them; therefore he called him so in front of all worthy men in a large assembly. And then the Wittenbergers rose up with great noise and clamor against the meek and humble defender of the evangelical truth; although God does not forsake him forever; and said with gnashing teeth: Behold, he publicly calls our excellent teacher Martin a heretic. And the Wittenberg lawyers cried out: He must protest! The venerable Father Martin, enraged and incited by the Wittenbergers, called out to the sworn notaries: "Write that Eck does not hesitate to call me a heretic and a Hussite in an unreasonable and shameful way. But Eck's modesty and humility said quite kindly without any fear: "I cannot protest much, because I am not a legal expert today, but you gentlemen notaries write and record this: Eck wants to show it through his [Luther's] words and writings. I think that the most venerable Father Martin sometimes did not argue out of right consideration, but merely with his mouth against Eck's thunderbolts. For he [Eck] has already brought many a wretched person to the point that they do not do much thoughtful or right things.
have been able to talk. It annoys many who speak when some words escape them that they did not think of, because they sometimes regret it bitterly and miserably afterwards. And so, when the venerable father Martinus ordered some things to be written to the notaries, which he had read or brought forward, Eck, with his nimble and fresh memory, so that heaven would favor him, knew how to recite everything again the next day, and thus sought to enforce Martinus in his reasons and counter-answer, whereupon Martinus always liked to withdraw and deny his words, so that he often firmly maintained that he had not spoken that. Eck, however, referred himself and Martinus to the public scribes, where Martin's words were clearly found. After that, Eck, according to his native tongue or German, mockingly said against Martin: "Der Haß leidt ym Pfeffer", so that the most illustrious Duke of Leipzig, who was present, heard it.
(8) But that I report once the names of the teachers who have been drawn in the theological disputation, it was especially St. Jerome first, then Augustine, Ambrose, Bernard, Cyprian, Solomon, Chrysostom, David, Lyra, Paul, and the four evangelists; and the others, Scotus, although he is holy, Thomas, Aegidius of Rome, Bonaventure, Albertus, Capreolus, Petr. Nigri, Aristotle, and many other excellent men, who have in no way opposed the church scribes, and have been buried in Eck's head as it were abundantly and frequently, and have made their home there: all of these, who have just been mentioned, the two Wittenberg doctors, as if they were damned, and did not understand the Wittenberg theses with proper insight for a long time, or did not think right of them, shamefully did not want to allow them to be valid in the public disputation of the theological faculty. As if Eck (who cites them, although he does not use it) and them did not understand the Scriptures as well as the Wittenbergers: 1) since Eck understood all the same things and many more and more pointed things in the most exact way, which everyone who heard Eck speak and argue could see. In the first place, Eck was much more able to speak from his head quickly and much faster and to draw his reasons and counter-answers much more comprehensibly from the writings and testimonies of the church teachers than the Wittenberg doctors were able to do by their
1) The old translator has given the preceding (not according to the Latin as it is found in Löscher) in this way; we leave it at that, because our original is really untranslatable here.
The author, who often read from the books, not from memory but from notes, raised his objections against Eck's insurmountable power. He could easily have overcome them splendidly in one day and given the disputation a speedy and happy outcome. I wonder not a little, but quite a lot, why two such great lights in Wittenberg, against the unchanged honor of the holy fathers, have held them in such low esteem and rejected them. The venerable Father Martin, who, as I confess, is very learned and of quite high science, is nevertheless miserably deceived; but by what kind of spirit is hidden from my little understanding. Which wise man is not of the opinion that those who refute the scholastic teachers and act disrespectfully are like sows carrying a bag, which they [the scholastic teachers] certainly do not understand properly, or if they do know something about it, it certainly does not bear much fruit with them, because they only dare to speak above and nothing certain about them; since the highest pleasure of a right disputator is to act accurately not only theological, but also the writings of the school teachers in the assembly of many scholars. For a learned and thorough disputator is not afraid of anyone, but goes after every opponent like Hercules or Samson, bravely and courageously, like a roaring lion; for because he has heart enough, he also gives courage to every scholar who wants to step publicly on the battlefield and calls him to appear. But those who know nothing of the beautiful gift of philosophy do not fight cheerfully, but despondently with the adversary. Those who have gifts of body and joy, but do not bring much learning and science with them, do not appear clever and learned either. Woe to those who reject the school teachers and the holy, divine philosophy, and do not teach it to their apprentices faithfully and diligently in their first childhood! For certainly philosophy forges and carves the weapons and arrows, so that one resists the other on the learned battlefield of truth in an erudite manner and keeps the antagonism; and in theology, of course, there is bad debate if Pallas is not on one's side, since all human sciences serve divine theology like handmaidens, and one always holds out a hand to the other. He seems to me not yet to be feared by one who foolishly and impudently banishes philosophy from his mind and
2) In Löscher: indocts.
He who knows neither dialectics nor the art of nature, neither morals nor metaphysics, and is not versed in all parts and depths of philosophy. Hence it is that those who appear without philosophy generally give bald, lame, foolish and ridiculous answers when they are asked to resolve the objections and reasons; for they often confess that the reasons are too difficult and insurmountable for them when they say: I have not laid myself upon them.
What a beautiful and noble resolution of reasons is this, which is best suited for a fool above all fools, if you disputator do not want to answer and refute everything in the disputation, but crawl behind the oven at home and bake pears, since you do not like to go back to your study room with shame, disgrace and heartache? Ah! my highly respectable bishop, to whom I ascribe this, if Eck had not allowed the church teachers in the disputation battle to be valid for the Wittenberg doctors (for their conclusions could be proven and presented by school teachers; others may say what they want, but I am certain of this and have no doubt at all): then he would have found in the Wittenbergers full of joy and rejoicing what they thought to obtain so long and in vain before his arrival at Eck. But Eck's erudition is infinite, which the Wittenbergers did not seek in him. They may, if it pleases them, challenge Eck's intrepidity once again in writings to a theological or philosophical battle. The heroic Eck, as I have perceived, does not shy away from any adversary, because he is insurmountable, as Carlstadt attributed this to Eck in praise in mocking speech, when he answered him: I am also unafraid. Be it as it may, the Wittenbergers have brought little or nothing home to their university from the victory, except scratching behind the ears, although Carlstadt threatened our friendly Eck almost fatally, contrary to the free escort, and poured out the fury, barking in German language so against him: That shall get you, as the grass gets the dog! Only firmly believe that Eck is not a child nor a new soldier in the writings and depths of the church teachers, but even an old and tempted soldier, who does not shy away from any of his enemies, nor does he fall asleep or slumber before them; in his presence Eck did not fall asleep either.
10 Moreover, the Wittenberg doctors came to the disputation with only one shield, and thus not well suited for dispute.
equipped. But Eck, well guarded with two shields and equipped for future knighthood, flew here with a right heroic courage on the day before the Corpus Christi feast in 1519. Eck's first shield was a profound and sublime knowledge and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures; the other was a thorough and wholesome teaching and science of school teachers. What shall I say much? Eck, the traveler, the serious man, who fears no adversary, stood upright in the public auditorium like a brave lion, with proper and modest gestures and posture of body, hands, eyes and head, before a large and not mean crowd of the most learned, excellent and noble men, finely and well equipped, and eloquence had, as it were, found a seat on his lips. He confidently said to those who boasted that they would present to the corner insurmountably strong and irresolvable reasons and objections: Come on, advance bravely, and send your projectiles and reasons against me: though they seem insurmountable to you, yet they will not be to me. Make haste and come again with more ecclesiastical thunderbolts, I will wait for them confidently; and that is why I have come so far by dangerous ways. Only believe that your reasons and arrows do me no harm; I will accept them all and answer them without timidity. And I do not wait for a single one; no, there may be as many of them as you like. Do not judge so childishly against me only two, four, seven or ten, but the multitude of reasons. I am not afraid of it; therefore only argue against me confidently; run against me hastily, and as many as they are, I am ready and willing to answer everything.
Then Carlstadt, eager for victory, said: "Tomorrow, Doctor, I will present an indissoluble and insurmountable reason to your glory. But so far, Rubeus has really not seen or heard one that Eck has not theologically and from church scholars refuted and nullified. To this the highly learned Mr. D. Eck immediately said: Dear! just present your reasons right away (but it may have been, as I assume, only words at Carlstadt). Eck's excellent memory could happily recite from his head, without books and without faltering, what his opponents had read out, sometimes for more than an hour. One particularly admired this man's way of punishing his opponents: "Take," he said, "you doctors, from me a model of disputing, for I have also often been where excellent philosophers have been.
sophen and scholars have debated together, but they have not, like you, argued with the opening of books, but, being provided with much science and well equipped, have persistently resisted me. Even boys in schools are not allowed to read from the books or to conclude; this is forbidden to them by their teachers. However, said Eck, if you have such a poor and miserable memory, then give a child what you have read together at home, so that it reads this to the notaries. Then I will answer what I have read, without any shame or fear. But certainly the highly important and excellent work is now proceeding quite childishly, since the duties of the disputants, said Eck, have been well and clearly presented, namely, to present the reasons well in the opposition, and to dress without books; then to formulate the objections and counter-arguments properly, delicately, clearly, neatly and astutely, and then to solve and refute the knots of doubt and difficulties; finally, however, also to reinforce the answers with the testimonies or rational reasons given, and to add a reply, if it can be done. For they falsely accuse Eck, the most patient of men, of not correctly citing the witnesses. For Eck has given them the lie and said: If ever a passage is found not to be correct and true, then I will pay a hundred gold florins for one. And whether I speak true, may the present excellent doctors recognize.
12. I am surprised beyond measure that the excellent Wittenberg doctors had such a ready and quick memory against Eck that they tried to poke and prod him again and again with many immodest words that are not appropriate for godly and right theologians, I believe, in order to bring him into armor and zeal, from which there follows hastiness and anger, as it is said by the philosophers, and as Aristotle in his books EIenchorum forges the weapons against the one who attacks again and again, that he tries to bring him to anger by irritation, which deprives the mind of its deliberateness, so that he no longer knows what he is talking about. But Eck, as a man whom no movement at all sets on heat, has always been seen with equanimity, as befits a wise man. But they had no memory at all that they could have refuted Eck's reason or answer by heart just once: for they copied all of Eck's objections and answers with great effort and exertion, and thus Eck's reasons and answers were immediately written down.
They have tried never to argue from the head, but with the help of the paper. They did not want to attack their heads. They may have thought they had a child before them, while they found a Hercules. How? if the paper had been secretly stolen from the doctors? I answer: Then it would have been over for them; or it would have happened to them as it did to the good Father, who once went confidently and joyfully to the disputation place, but relied more on a piece of paper than on his memory. But since someone had secretly taken his paper, on which the reasons were written, and it was his turn to make conclusions, he searched to the right and left, above and below, but found no conclusion or reason for himself, so that he said above the search: "The first Mr. Baccalaureus say a word here, and after him the other! Although he did not oppose the responders, he nevertheless said on his way out: You gentlemen Baccalaurei have done well, because there are no reasons, I want to go swimming in the meantime; and thus carried off the praise of the crow by Horace. Carlstadt misrepresented a testimony that he could not prove at all. Eck, whom Carlstadt wanted to accuse of falsely citing passages, punished him severely about it, saying: "If such testimony is found among the scholastics or church scholars, then I will have the stomach torn out. But give me Cyprianus! because, according to your pretensions, I am supposed to have dressed him wrongly. They gave him the book. He found the passage, pointed to it with his hand, and said, "Tell Philip to open his dark eyes, that he may see Cyprian's passage clearly.
13 Since the Wittenbergers saw and recognized that Eck was so learned and versed in the church doctrines, they put forward some wrong resolutions or explanations, and badly refuted the reasons, although he had given them, may it be out of favor or not, time enough to make themselves right and to consider in order to overturn his reasons. On the other hand, Eck did not take any time at all to reflect, because he considered it childish to look for time and to think up excuses, as the Wittenbergers did when they took time to prepare answers against Eck's objections. For when the venerable father once seemed to make it too long for Eck to read, so that he would have time to think up reasons against Eck for the following day, he said: Venerable father,
1) Instead of HUEützualn read HnamHULm (Walch).
I pray, let your reasons come out now, that I may not have the night to refute your arrows, that tomorrow I may hear fresh and new [reasons].
14 Although the Wittenberg doctors came to Eck for the sake of disputing, they seemed to exercise more the office of readers than that of disputers, so that many excellent men have said to me that these doctors were not disputants, but readers, like the schoolmasters. That is why the highly learned Mr. D. Eck once left the disputation because of the reading of these doctors, because he thought that it was not appropriate to always read from books in such an important matter; the listeners left at the same time as Eck, since Carlstadt was reading for the notaries on the high chair. Finally, the master and doctor walked behind the students and listeners in a wrong way, and not the listeners [behind him]. Moreover, all masters and doctors left.
15 But Eck alone has always remained constant and firm, like Mary in Christ's suffering, unchanging. For although the excellent and learned theologians at Leipzig, also the philosophers supported by the medical faculty, likewise the extremely experienced jurists, have sent their sentences to all of them individually as brothers, so that the foreign guests might hear what great and much skill there is in all aspects of philosophy in the Leipzig masters: yet none of the splendid and excellent men at Leipzig has wanted to dare to fight. Rubeus excuses the Wittenbergers, since none of them is interested in philosophy, which is why I think they cannot debate; but what kind of philosophical sect they belong to, and in what kind of art they teach and instruct their own, and thus earn their pay, I do not know to this day, since both the masters and the students want to exterminate and exterminate all philosophers boldly and freely, to their harm and destruction. In truth, I have heard with my ears that some masters, baccalaureates and students of Wittenberg, with whom I have quarreled almost to the point of tearing my hair out, have scolded Aristotle, the light of nature, a seducer of youth with great insolence, defiance and conceit, since some of the above-mentioned persons, since I have asked them something little and bad, have known nothing of science to answer, because they had not entered deeply into such mysteries. To them I said in anger: Just tell me, to what kind of
What good is wasted in the study of your parents, and under what masters and leaders of learning and art are your minds applied? They answered: They laid on the dainty arts and languages. But they shamefully did not know that the dear philosophy was secretly hidden in the bottom of the poets and in their core sayings and writings. For they did not know that a poet is a man who is composed and built of everything that is called science; and so it seemed to me that the good people set about high and splendid books of [great] authors without first having a ground in some science. Would to God that they did not, without benefit and honor, fall miserably from the heights to the ground.
16 The following miserable, bald and insipid answers have always been put forward by the Wittenbergers when they could not answer anything right and proper to Eck's objections and reasons, which I and many others have written out word for word: the first: I answer with the word: I deny. The other: You have missed the point. The third: This is none of my business. The fourth: Your reason is for me. The fifth: I pass over the reason, because it is useless. The sixth: The Lord John attracts an invalid warrant here. The seventh: Your rights against me are ludicrous. The eighth, since they said scornfully and with laughter: This serves nothing at all. The ninth: No letter serves to refute our opinion. The tenth: The Concilium could have erred, because they were men. The eleventh: I believe more in my witness than in all your testimonies. The twelfth: We don't know the attracted unknown and obscure warrantor at all. The thirteenth: I leave the reason to the judges. To this Eck said with a reference: So my reasons shall disprove the judges and not you? this is a good answer, but it is not valid with me. The fourteenth: Tomorrow I will give insurmountable reasons, and answer. The fifteenth: Your reason is a false Aristotelian conclusion. It is a good answer among ignorant people who let bald remedies count, but it has nothing to mean. The sixteenth: The erudite Doctor seeks to divert me from the matter at hand to something else. The seventeenth: The testimonies he attracts are dragged by the hair. The eighteenth: I do not know what the Herr Doctor means when he says, what is to be laughed at, "in a wholesome way". 1) It is quite a
1) Namely, that God does the whole, but not entirely.
prickly strange monster. Alas! poor doctor, why do you so often mock such a learned man, so experienced in many sciences? since all those who know the language know that "the whole thing" and "in a complete way" are not the same. Doctor Eck at least clearly explained to Carlstadt in the disputation what "mainly", what less "mainly", what "completely" means, like a teacher punishing a pupil in school: Who does not know that, what else should he know? Since Carlstadt, with his awkwardness, did not understand the words, 1) why then did he not ask Philipp Melanchthon about it without hesitation? I am also very surprised about Philippus, since he has blown so much into the Doctors that he has not also explained the "gänzlich" and "hauptsächlich" to them. But I will hold Philip excused. He has thought approximately: Such a man, like Carlstadt, would have explored such bad and childish things in philosophy for a long time. I cannot, truly! wonder enough that Carlstadt does not know what "mainly" and "entirely" and "less mainly" mean in school teachers, and that he calls these words spiky strange monsters, since he has publicly boasted that he wants to argue with Eck in Scotus about cloth for a pair of pants. But since Eck also showed that he knew more important, higher and more perceptive things in the school doctrines, he also told Carlstadt for reprimand: And I also want to argue bravely with you about a splendidly decorated hood (pro undulata veste). But Eck, who is experienced in all depths of science, has always tried to penetrate the above-mentioned bad answers and refutations, because of which even boys, if they had given them in the schools, would have been beaten, much more thoroughly, more learned and truer. Or the Wittenbergers may have brought forward the above-mentioned answers against Eck, so that they might incite the mob against Eck, the meek man, or so that they would not seem to be shamefully silent before Eck out of ignorance. Be that as it may, I do not like such ways of answering, they may please whom they please, although they were highly valued by the Wittenbergers.
17. I want to answer a secret question (that one wants to raise) and give a report,
verkorum iZiisvis sus tsnuerat. We have assumed with the old translator: 6uru (üarol. iUoruiv verUorura seuteutism iMsvis sus non donnerst.
what such high and excellent men have done on feast days, so that it would not be seen by the common people how they sagged in the body. The venerable father, that I may say what he did well, did not dare to go to the temple of God and the saints because his conscience made him disobedient 2) to the pope, but Carlstadt, as I assume, perhaps wanted to forge indelible and insurmountable arrows against Eck at home, or to make Eck's spears and reasons blunt. Eck, however, as it were, taught the Scriptures shrewdly in a disputating manner, and presented the divine word clearly and happily before the common people.
By the way, Eck may have studied little or nothing with the Wittenberg disputants during the theological battle, since he testified quite nicely before a large public assembly of many people what he had said against the Wittenbergers: that although they had always considered Eck to be overcome long before, they had finally dragged a whole load of books with them. Eck, on the other hand, rode around on the lovely, flowery terrain with the council's servants, and yet afterwards appeared on the battlefield sufficiently and over-armed and ready. I think he realized that the Wittenbergers did not have such great thunderbolts and deep reasons in their heads that he would need the erudition of the Sibyls, or of an Apollo, or the help of Oedipus, but he could quite well give the bravest and most thorough answers to the objections or answers of the Wittenberg doctors from his own strength, which he brought with him from his study to the Leipzig battle in his vivid and most happy memory.
(19) I am truly not surprised enough that Philip Melanchthon did not want to understand what the common saying says: The chariot must pull the ox; and: He brings water to the frogs; since Eck once gave him one, saying: The Spirit blows where he wills (and another time he also gave him a reprimand in German: Philippe, tell me also once something), that Philippe had not given him these mean and hackneyed ways to answer also under the foot; the first: It is well true according to you, but not according to me; to the other: Your reasons are right before the midday meal, but not after it. With the help of such answers, they would have undoubtedly
2) Instead of in otreäientis, read inoiredielltis.
soon and without effort easily dissolve and refute all the reasons put forward against them, even though the good Philip childishly forgot them out of fright and shock at Eck's voice. For Carlstadt himself, in public before so many learned people, let himself be heard rather rudely, Eck to his shame and disgrace, against theological modesty: Eck roars with an ox's voice. Eck, however, did not pay attention to such invectives, but kept silent; for both Wittenberg doctors, in such an important and divine matter, brought up such coarse antics, which are not appropriate for a shepherd; and he said in German: "Ich kündt also wol Schendwort geben als ein ander, wenns wohl stünd", but I stick to Eck's modesty. However, I do not think that Eck can be accused of having an ox voice, as Carlstadt rudely said of Eck; rather, Carlstadt, such a great man (about which scholars may judge), is resented for not knowing that St. Lucas, the evangelical drommete, is compared to a bark, or even Thomas Aquinas, whom Carlstadt disrespectfully despises. Albertus, with his roar and salutary erudition, has preached to almost the whole world, whom Eck will undoubtedly equal in his time, according to everyone's confession, so that the Drommete will not perish. It will happen that Eck will still enlighten the whole wide world with his roar and with his holy, high and salutary teachings, for the benefit of many people and the salvation of immortal souls. All this was said by the excellent and famous doctors at that time in public.
Rubeus has copied it exactly from word to word. Therefore, I do not now present my words in pen or in this writing, but only those of the three doctors, and ask them to forgive me and not to look askance when I take the liberty of telling their words and story here. Either their words have been good and honorable, or shameful and unjust; if honest, they and Rubeus are praised, for the meaner the good, the better it is; but where dishonorable, they are resented, but not Rubeus, for one does not avoid evil unless one knows it. So much with respect!
Luther's complaints in a letter to Lang about the so-called "new booklet of the laudable disputation, held publicly before princes and lords, before the highly respected and the unrespected, in the valuable, highly prized city of Leipzig," which Joh. Rubeus had written in German rhymes.
See Appendix, No. 49, § 3.
400. Luther's thoughts about it to Spalatin opened.
See Appendix, No. 37, 8 5.
The same report to Spalatin that v. Eck had these rhymes reprinted at Augsburg at his expense.
See Appendix, No. 51, §1.