Of what took place at this disputation in Leipzig. *)
A. How the Acta of the Leipzig Disputation were sent to the theological faculties of Paris, Erfurt, Cologne and Leuven, in order to obtain their opinions about it.
402: How D. Eck has Hoogstraten request the Parisians to take over and accelerate the evaluation.
See the 395th Document.
Luther's letter to Lang, from which it is clear that the theologians at Erfurt did not want to pass judgment on the religious dispute, and Luther says that they acted very wisely if they did not get involved.
See Annex, No. 35, § 1.
404 Another letter of Luther to Lang, of the content: he had heard that the people at Erfurt had a
*) In the 23rd volume of Walch's old edition there is an addition on p. 33 ff. which is supposed to belong to this columne: "Intimation of the highly famous University of Erfurt in Martinum Luther, by Wolfgang Rufen ver-.
He assured them that if this were the case, he would expose their inequity and ignorance to all the world.
See Appendix, No. 49, § 1. 2.
B. Of Melanchthon's and Eck's dispute that arose over this and the writings exchanged with each other on it.
Melanchthon's letter to Oecolampadius from the Leipzig Disputation.
See Document No. 394.
406 Eck's protective writing against what Phil. Melanchthon, the Wittenberg language teacher, falsely attributed to him because of the Leipzig disputation. July 25, 1519.
^okii, nd sä yuae 1ul86 sidi kkilippus Nelaneüto" xrnMntieus VuittenderMn DtieoloMÄ disputntione lüpsion ndsoripsit. The first of the four editions was published by Martin Landsberg in Leipzig. Reprinted in the Latin Wittenberg edition (1550), tom. I, col. 338; in the Jena (1579), tom. I, col. 343 d and in Löscher, Ref.-Acta, vol. ill, p. 591.
Translated into German.
Johann Eck to the gentle reader his greeting!
1. since I had disputated at the laudable Leipzig University with the father Martin Luther and Andreas Carlstadt about important theological matters, and it had been decided by the most illustrious prince, Duke George of Saxony etc., and the Leipzig University Council had decided that our disputation would not go to print before the judges to be chosen had judged which of us had spoken in accordance with or against the Christian faith: nevertheless, the Wittenberg language teacher Philippus, who even understands his Greek and Latin, took the trouble to issue a letter 1) attacking me and using many names to defend not my, but the faith's cause.
1) Meant is Melanchthon's letter to Oekolampad, Document No. 394, against which this writing is directed.
and to usurp the office which we have entrusted to the University of Paris. To this I must reply, not for memet's sake, but for the sake of the simple, so that they are not seduced by sweet words or plunged into error. But I will go through his little letter with short remarks. You will like it, dear reader, and spend a little time to consider them.
2. 1) Philip writes: I would have asserted before the most illustrious prince's appointed commissioners that it was the right of the disputants that nothing be written out. He attributes this to me falsely. For I have never mentioned such things to the commissioners; I have always said that I would like the notaries to write everything down. In private conversations, I confess, I have said that the disputant's mind would be dulled by the delay in writing, and the sharpness of the intellect would not be as tense as the zeal or heat of a disputation required. The commissaries of the most noble prince and the whole council of the university will testify to this.
3. 2) From free will, he says, it was brought up: whether we deserve grace according to equity (de congruo)? Since this was the question, he accuses me of having drawn him to a completely different matter than Carlstadt's intention, namely, whether grace alone works the good work? But anyone who reads my seventh thesis can see how impudently he does this: He is mistaken who says that man's free will is not master of his actions, because he is only active in evil, but suffering in good. And no thesis has anything to do with merit in equity. In the end, however, we have disputed a little how it is with a man who does as much as is in him. The bold little man, however, has not shied away from judging Mr. Erasmus in the edition of the New Testament, and therefore also presumes to judge here, and says: Carlstadt's opinion has remained firm and unrebutted. This much I know that Carlstadt finally conceded: the will has an efficacy for good works. But I pass no judgment, for I am a party and not a judge. And yet the bold little man may say: I have stated improper things from Bernhardus. If the
This document, however, does not belong to the Leipzig Disputation, but to Eck's bull, and would have to be inserted in vol. 15, 1897 (according to the old edition). But the writing is insignificant, contains only the assurance that Luther did not teach heretically, but godly, and calls for tearing down and destroying Eck's bull wherever it should be posted. We will not print it.
When the disputation comes out, it will be seen whether the language teacher was telling the truth.
4. 3) Since I had said that the good work is entirely from God, but not in a total way (totaliter), the teacher of the language laughs at this, as if at a little fiddle, which is not at all appropriate for the theological majesty, since I have explained myself clearly in the disputation. He does not know that the essence of God is seen completely by the blessed, but not in a complete, full way, because the blessed cannot grasp it completely. The essence of the main species (quidditas generis) is completely in one subspecies (specis), but not in a complete way, because it is also in another. Thus the soul is also wholly in the hand, but not so that it is not also in the foot. Thus the good work is wholly of God, but not so that it is not also of free will, because they work at the same time, not alternately; together, not separately. Bernhardus says this explicitly in a way that rhymes very well with the matter.
5. 4) He reproaches me that I have spoken many rude things against Luther, and in short, that I have done everything to make Luther hated by the people. All honest listeners know that this is wrong. And my reason against Luther, from the head of the church, he attracts mutilated.
6. 5) He charges me that passages from Jerome and Cyprian have been attracted by me as genuine, which are nevertheless doubted. Look at me the blamer! Jerome I have cited lib. I. contra Jovinianum, col. 18, Cyprianus epistola ad Pupianum, lib. 4. epistolarum. Let the diligent reader read them and judge whether I have brought forward a doubtful passage from Peter's supreme majesty. With other passages of the same voice, yes, by Luther's writing, I have proved that Cyprianus believes in this passage that the church is founded on Peter. But this belongs for the judges.
7. 6) He speaks even maliciously: I would have raised St. Bernard's testimony to Eugene, whose reputation he secretly belittles. I think more of the one and only St. Bernard than of Philip and all his followers. If St. Bernard has said something in this book in favor of Luther's opinion, he may ascribe to himself why he has not attracted it. It is certain that Bernhardus is against Luther's opinion in everything.
8. 7) From the passage of Matthew: "You are Peter, and on this rock" etc., he quite rightly argues that D. Luther's opinion was presented with many probable reasons. But the
he conceals that I have drawn from Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Leo and others that this rock is Peter. But this belongs to the judges. But it is strange that he attributes something false not only to me, but also to Luther: for he would have answered that Christ, when he said to Peter, "Feed my lambs," afterwards gave the same authority to the apostles, when he said, "Receive the Holy Spirit," etc., for Luther, according to his great learning, would not have committed such a shameful error. But so it goes when the cobbler does not stick to his last, and [judges about other things. Here I must compensate D. Luther that he did not make such a mistake.
9. 8) He rebukes: that I have attributed to D. Luther the heresies of the Bohemian mob and other such crimes. But he conceals that I had to do this for the Christian faith, since he [Luther] claimed that some articles of the heretic John Hus, which were condemned at the Costnitz Concilium, were quite Christian and evangelical. How wisely this was done by him, as Philip says, the judges may recognize.
10. 9) He implies to me: I would have said that the apostles were equal in the apostleship, but not equal bishops. But this is the language teacher's dream, and not a statement of Eck. I have said: they would have been equal in the apostleship, priesthood and bishopric, but not in the power (commissione) and administration of the regiment. This is what St. Leo, Jerome and Cyprian wanted. Therefore I despise the language teacher's miserable conclusion.
11. 10) He says: I believe that Christ chose them to be apostles, but Peter ordained them to be bishops. This he has presented a little more foolishly (crudius) than I have expressed it. My opinion has been this: I do not remember to have read where the apostles were ordained bishops, the common opinion is that they were ordained priests at the last supper; therefore I could attribute the ordination of the apostles as bishops to Peter, as the supreme ruler of the church (Hierarcham), because many things happened that are not written.
12. 11) From the general bishop he brings my refutation mutilated, because the words of the decree are those of St. Gregory, who opposed the emperor for the sake of this matter, as Platina writes. Let the judges judge this.
13. 12) The teacher of the language again reproaches me for not having met the purpose of the question about purgatory, namely, about the Pope's power over purgatory, but for having started another little song. Here, I say, the little man of speech makes excellent antics, because the purpose of the question was the sixth thesis, namely, that the souls in Purgatory would not be enough for the punishments of sins. That was my point at the time. In the twelfth thesis, however, is the question that the teacher of the language thinks of. But I confess, since I had this thesis in mind, D. Luther said: it is not proven from the Scriptures that there is a purgatory, although he knew that there is a purgatory. I then took the trouble to prove purgatory from the Scriptures.
14. 13) He says mockingly: the speech is suitable for a theologian, namely that the book of the Maccabees is as valid as the gospel. But also here the teacher of the language attributes something wrong to me. For I have stated that the books of the Maccabees were suitable for controversy, because St. Augustine in the 18th chapter of his book de civitate Dei says that the Gospel is as valid as the books of the Maccabees. Buche de civitate Dei, and Jerome in the Preface [to the Bibles and in the Decrees say that this book was not in the Canon with the Hebrews, but the Church included it in the Canon; just as we do not know now, since several Evangelia have been written, which are of undoubted credibility, except by the approval of the Church, which approves four Evangelia and rejects the others. So also the book of the Maccabees must be the undoubted truth for a Christian, because of the approval of the church. Augustine's words are well known: I did not believe the Gospel etc.
15. 14) The teacher of the language considers it most wrong that I said that Matth. 5 can be understood as purgatory under dungeon, and wishes that the rabble would be better taught than by such kind of interpretations. But tell me once, you teacher of the dusty school, whether you consider it wrong to explain the Scriptures as St. Ambrose did, who explains a similar passage in Lucas in the same way. Do you thus mock St. Ambrose, and wish Christians a better interpreter than he? If you kept yourself within your limits and in your profession, you would still mean something, but now you disgrace yourself completely.
16. 15) But if he blasphemes, "I have not met the purpose of repentance. Behold the sincere and uninvited judge! He himself has not met anything that we have discussed about repentance. We have been discussing whether the atonement is of the
Love of God or fear; according to the third thesis. But when we came to the fourth and fifth theses, we dealt with the remission of punishment according to the remission of guilt. But whether I have rightly asserted what is ours, or D. Martinus has better defended what is his, that will be judged by the highly learned judges of the University in Paris, without regard to what the language teacher thinks.
17. 16) He writes: that the indulgence has been a loud game and amusement for me. This is also wrong. For I have shown quite seriously that indulgences 1) are useful, which Luther also admitted. I have also shown that it is not a defect of the good work. Finally, I have tried to prove that through indulgences there is a remission of the punishment due for sin, where Luther vehemently contradicted me and said: Indulgence would be a remission of good works. But in this I refer to the writings of the notaries of the university. However, we both agreed that the abuses of those who proclaim indulgences should be censured.
18 I wanted to make this known to you, dearest reader, both for my own sake and for the sake of the common cause of Christianity, so that if you were not at the disputation (as Philip warns very strongly that one should not believe the common rumor or those who like to spread rumors), you should not believe him either, who has attributed things to me without hesitation that I have not even thought of. And although Philip is not the kind of man that a theologian would want to get into a theological fight with him, I have, that I do not want to concede by silence what he interprets to me, hereby want to oppose him badly, because Augustine also had no hesitation to write against the language teacher Cresconius.
19 But you, dear reader, believe those who were present at the disputation and are not influenced by passion or even by friendship and favor, like Philip. Our justification, however, you may interpret for the best. God is my witness that in this matter I seek the truth of the Christian faith and the glory of God. Farewell and greetings. Leipzig, July 25, in the year of grace 1519.
1) Löscher offers posnitontlas instead of inäuIZeLtias here.
407 Philipp Melanchthon's defense against Johann Eck, professor of theology. Perhaps still in July 1519.
This writing came out, as Löscher says, "presumably before the month of Julius was completely over, at Wittenberg" under the title: Dokonsio kdilippi Akelantlionis contra ^otiannoin IHrinin, Dtioolo^iao ?rok688or6N2. Walch says it was first published in Leipzig in 4. It is included in the Latin Wittenberg edition (1550), torn. I, toi. 339d; in the Jena one (1579), torn. I, toi. 345, and in Löscher's Ref.Acta, vol. Ill, p. 596. Only Löscher gave the name Oecolampadius; in the old editions it is iV instead. It seems that Löscher had an original edition at his disposal.
Translated from Latin.
Philip Melanchthon sends his greetings to the gentle reader!
1. Recently, a letter from me to Oecolampadius came into the public domain, in which I outlined, more than described, a few pieces of the Leipzig disputation to the righteous and honest man, my hearty good friend; For at that time, I did not have more time to spare for other necessary tasks, and most of the things in this battle were of such a nature that one could not well go on about them without hating them; and some things did not seem to me to be worth so much that I wanted to bother a friend with them, who has far better things to worry about. And in this I have been especially careful not to offend anyone, since in my whole life I desire and seek nothing more than that pious, righteous people may be favorable to me. And just as it is not Christian to repay one who has done evil in kind, so I consider it something quite inhuman to offend one who has done us no harm; in that respect, I hope no one will lay some blame, nay, not even the suspicion of such blame, on me. So also the well-known virtue and erudition of those who have disputed has been able to remind me of my duty and to move me not to rudely puncture anyone; for I am not so silly that I do not see how badly I might fare for it. In short, Oecolampadius is held too high by me to want to abuse his name to blaspheme anyone. Therefore, I have written everything that is written in that letter of mine, so help me God, in simplicity and with historical fidelity, and thought nothing less than that anyone who should read it would ever be annoyed by it.
2 Eck alone is evil to speak of, who has not been attacked at all, so much so that D. Carlstadt and D. Martin Luther would rather be angry with me if they wanted to interpret what is ours in an evil way. Martin Luther would have to be angry with me if they wanted to interpret ours badly, who are just as concerned as Eck with what I said about the whole way of disputing, indeed, about most of the things that were included in the disputation as something untheological. And I do not hope that Eck has such an impudent brow as to deny that many things occurred at this disputation which were more suitable for the [crude] lapiths in Lucian than for theologians. I confess that I have told a little more about Eck [in the letter], namely that he played the first role in all things in this whole game, since he argued as one, with a more than Herculean courage against two. And that is why I have also noted in more detail that which was either quite clever and subtle, or has something about it that seemed to me, I don't know how, to deviate too far from the theological majesty.
3 For what should I remark on mean things? I prefer to remember some important things that have been written down to some extent under the dispute. I did not want to blame Eck at all, but rather I liked some of his subtleties. Some of them I may have carried through a little freely; but I was driven to this more by a holy concern and zeal for the holy Scriptures, to which I owe such a debt, than by any hostility; for Eck has sometimes interpreted them somewhat more boldly than equity requires. For there is nothing wrong with his citing great authorities whose opinion can be followed with certainty. For we shall also show hereafter how honestly he has often used them; and one need not immediately consider everything good that Ambrose or Jerome have said in some way. I am of such a mind against the holy Scriptures that I consider nothing more shameful than to pull and tear them apart in the manner of human fables, yes, like Penelope's ball of twine, soon unwinding it, soon unwinding it again, according to each one's will; but that I do not even think how ungodly it is to twist the Scriptures according to human will or inclination, and to defile the holy of holies with unclean hands, yes, sacrifices to idols. Eck himself knows what we have to thank in the respect of the miserable question theology (quaestionum theologiae), which concedes so much to human appetites, although he wants to be its protector and defender. This, then, dear reader, has been the whole intention and design of my letter. And if I should have said something in it by mistake or by chance
I hope that it can be forgiven, but it certainly cannot be interpreted in a bad way; For I am fully aware that I have written nothing out of malice or hatred, and regret very much that I am drawn into this game, and must be a spectacle on the battlefield, to speak with Paul, on which, however well I do it, the reputation of the adversary presses me down, and even if everything runs smoothly, nevertheless one blasphemy always grows out of another, and, according to the well-known Greek proverb, one quarrel always stirs up another. That is why I initially wanted to let Eck's blasphemies pass with a deaf ear, that is, as a blunt arrow, especially since they are of such a nature that, if one holds them against my letter, one immediately sees what could be answered to them, and also the public book of the whole trade gives us sufficient protection. However, since some good friends have advised otherwise, I will clear myself only with a few things from the accusation of falsification, which no godly person should pass over with silence, as they think. In the meantime, I will behave so moderately in the matter that it cannot be said that I have been too rude and immodest to Eck. For Christ is certainly more to me than such an unworthy accusation.
4. 1) I am said to have acted quite unreasonably, according to Eck's pretence, in making known some parts of the disputation, because the parties had agreed that the disputation should not end until the judges had spoken in the main matter.
First, you see that it is none of my business what the parties decided, for I have never had anything to do with Eck, and have sat as an idle spectator of the Leipzig battle among other common people. Secondly, it has been denied that the disputation is not printed; however, I have only written out a few sayings from it and let them go out, so that one might see more about what was disputed than so that one might recognize who was right or what judgment should be made about the matter. Dear, am I then judging from victory when I say that Eck and Carlstadt did not deal with human justice, or with merit according to equity (congrui), but with whether the will merely receives the good work? I merely report what is argued about without saying who won.
(6) But if he says, I take the office of a judge for myself, my letter, in which this is written, acquits me sufficiently. For he who has
It is not so easy for me to judge whether I have achieved victory.
7. 2) That Eck did not want that the scribes should be denied to write it down, of this are distinguished and honest men witnesses, who partly insisted on it before the commissions, partly saw that those who were on the spot were rather biased. And even if I admit that such a thing had not been sought before the commissions, it is obvious that he had no desire to have it written down. And why did they not want to admit that the whole world would judge about it, but I do not know what to assign to individual persons, if he did not want to have acted in the dark with the cause of faith, as he calls it?
8. 3) Carlstadt intended to assert his eleventh thesis: that free will, before grace, is good for nothing but sinning. Eck disputed this. One can see that it deals with human powers, and thus with human justice, or merit according to equity. And I do not dispute now whether a special help comes to it or not; for the teachers of the questions [the scholastics have different opinions about this, too. At least the schools unanimously do not allow that such special help is the grace of Christ. And this was what the audience eagerly expected. Since he refers the reader to his thesis, no one would be so stupid as to think that Carlstadt took it upon himself to defend Eck's thesis. From such an intention, the matter has gradually been drawn to whether the will only receives? since among Carlstadt's theses there is one that asserts, as it were, in passing, that the good work is entirely from God, which Eck also admits, if only the work is not entirely or solely from God. I am assured, however, that Carlstadt never had in mind to play the matter into such narrowness (symplegadas). I believe that this is why he came to say, and rightly so, that the whole good work is from God, because the nefarious school of Eck does not distinguish the works of grace and nature in any other way than only in respect of reason, respectu rationisgen entirely of one kind or type, which nature either works without grace, or the will and grace with each other. Now here the barbarian Heraclitus, Scotus, should have been either defended or excused, of whom you remember what Christian things he teaches in his patched-together witness (rhapsodiis) of this.
(9) What he has added about the Lord Erasmus, the prince of godly arts, you see, dear reader, is only to make me hated by the dear man and by all righteous people. Eck may have a good year, and pass through us, and rejoice over the little ones; Christ will give us strength and courage for such blasphemies. I can see for myself how much all students have to thank Erasmus, as well as I in particular, to whom he has done so many good deeds in general and in particular. After I have begun to recognize them, but I have begun to do so by Christ's grace and assistance, I also know how grateful my heart has been to him. 1) The other I have to attribute to the school, as the forge of an evil mind.
10. 4) The subtle answer of the whole and in a complete way did not please me badly. For it is fine, and all the more pleasant, because it is new, and suits Eck's profession, in which today is the judgment of words and things. That he now teaches us what difference there is between such things, such an effort of a friend is quite pleasant to me; although we, too, have already learned Porphyrius, and now hate to see that one wants to direct us again to such cricket-like antics (nugalia theoremata). But what was it necessary to assert the power of free will with such new and completely fictitious interpretations (glossematis), since even among the highest school teachers, namely the occamists, this doctrine is completely in vogue, that some activities of the will are merely received.
11. 5) Luther honors and claims a general pope's authority. But he has only argued from divine right, which Eck proves from him from the saying of Matthew: "You are Peter, and on this rock" etc., and thinks that because the holy fathers have declared this passage of Peter's supreme sovereignty, with the universities and conciliarities, the authority of the general pope would be amply proven from this. But with what modesty and honesty Luther refuted such a thing, the matter itself will give once. Only see what Eck, when he so strongly praises the reputation of the holy fathers and places all hope of his victory on it, is doing with it. First, I do not want to take anything away from anyone's reputation; I admire so many lights of the church, so famous advocates of Christian doctrine. Secondly, I believe that it is not in vain that the holy fathers
1) The following sentence is only with extinguisher.
I may also say this, that the holy fathers have sometimes explained the Scriptures according to such an understanding, which some lively emotion or movement has given them, which may well be good and not unseemly, but which we poor people nevertheless do not see as agreeing at all with the letter, because our weak mental power leads us elsewhere. For it is a secret food of the mind, and a manna, which I believe Paul calls the spiritual mind, which can be perceived rather than described in words. But who does not see.
2) Instead of pueril - elapsnm we have assumed elapknrn, referred from viw kententiae-.
That the ancients misused the Scriptures most freely? Much has been done according to the times, much according to the disputes of the heretics; one could cite innumerable examples of this kind. Sometimes it also happens, especially in the moderns, that the interpretation itself disputes with its origin.
I do not want to say much about the school teachers, to whom the Scriptures are often something quite different from something simple; indeed, they make, so to speak, a proteus out of the fact that it must give them sometimes an allegorical, 1) sometimes a tropological, sometimes an anagogical, sometimes a literal, sometimes a grammatical, sometimes a historical sense.
(13) I come again to the ancients, of whom I have hitherto said that they misuse the Scriptures; but now I say that they also often err. Dear, how often Jerome, how often Augustine, how often Ambrose stumbled! For they are not so unknown to me that I should not dare to say this freely; indeed, they are perhaps somewhat better known to me than Aristotle is to Eck. How often they disagree among themselves! How often do they recant their errors! In short, the one Scripture of the divine Spirit is pure and true throughout, which is called canonical. What great sin is it, then, if Luther occasionally departs from some doubtful interpretations of the ancients? And why should he not do so? In the interpretation of the passage Matth. 16: "You are Peter, and on this rock" etc., Luther follows Origen, who is as good as many others, and that in a place where Origen is just above interpreting; Augustine in the homily, namely in the explanation of the Gospel; Ambrose in the 6th book about Lucas, the others I pass over. Let it be that Eck also confirms his opinion with some testimonies of the Fathers, namely Jerome and Cyprian, on which he particularly defies; for Bernard and Leo will not have much to say about this; so one can see that the other opinion of the Fathers also has testimonies on its side. What is it then? Do they argue with themselves? What is the miracle? It follows so much that it is not proved from the holy fathers that the place of Matthew belongs to a general bishop. For I believe the fathers, because I believe the Scriptures, to which I do not give force by their various opinions. Therefore, Luther has a firm and certain understanding from the right context of Scripture and the order of the matter.
1) Compare Table Talks, Cap. 52, § 5, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1341.
The best commentators, who explain this whole passage, are of great help to him. Now you see on whose side the strongest group of the Fathers stands. On Luther's side are those who explain the whole passage; on Eck's side are those who misuse the passage of Matthew in a completely different, alien matter, so that, if one wants to see it quite obviously, they often doubt and deny their own things again. Jerome improves his opinion and thus moderates it: But thou sayest, The church is founded on Peter, though the same is done in another place to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and on them all the firmness of the church is built in like manner. Nevertheless, one among twelve is chosen, so that the cause of division may be removed. So you see how Jerome's opinion is softened and moderated here. Eck may thus tell us: How the church 2) strength is built on all alike, and yet one is chosen only for the sake of division. And how many other passages from the same can be set against this one of Jerome. Cyprian's passage to Pupianus clearly belongs here: there must be One whom the people obey, not the people of the whole world, but in all districts. Whoever wants to read the letter correctly will, if I am not mistaken, not judge differently.
14. 6) It is not written in our letter: After Christ said to Peter: "Feed my sheep" etc., then the apostles were given the same authority etc., but so: After the same authority had been given, that is, after the same authority had been given in the words, "Take ye" etc., thereupon it was said to Peter, "Feed my sheep" etc. Now if Eck had consulted even the language teachers, as he calls them, he would not have forged our letter. You see, my Eck, that I stick to my last. And there will be no danger that you will make us hated by our Luther here, since you can judge our affairs so well yourselves.
15. 7) That the books of the Maccabees are as valid as the Gospel, he has obviously said, and he cannot deny it, although I do not know why he pretends, and it is not hidden to anyone how rightly this is spoken, who has only looked at Jerome, who says thus: "As the church, then, has 3) Judith, Toby, and the other, and has not yet been able to understand it.
2) Only Löscher has here correctly: ecclesiae; Wittenberger and Jenaer: ecclesias.
3) Only the Jenaer reads here correctly: qnidero, the other editions: qniäarn.
and the Maccabees reads books, but does not count them among the canonical Scriptures, it also reads the two books, namely Wisdom and Jesus Sirach, for the edification of the people, but not to reinforce the teachings of the church with them. So there is a difference between the books of the church, which accepts some books differently; that therefore it does not follow: This is among the books of ours, therefore it is also a writing of the Holy Spirit.
16. 8) That we blame Ambrosium immeasurably is the fault of Eck, and it would be worthwhile here that I treat him somewhat harshly, for I have spoken of Matthew's passage, but he explains that of Lucas. Now it is certainly another adversary in Lucas from whom we should disengage ourselves; another in Matthew with whom we should seek to compare ourselves, against whom I have spoken somewhat more harshly, because of those who consider it something soon to be reconciled, and, as they call it, permissible, not to show a compliant mind to the enemy; in short, against those who have brewed the commandments and evangelical counsels for us into one another in such a way that an honest heathen often stands far higher than a Christian. Although the passage in Matthew also seems to me to hold something more in itself, because in the Greek it says: άντίδιχος [adversary, enemy]. After that, Ambrose explains the dungeon in Matthew by extreme darkness, which is undoubtedly a description of hell. Finally, he wants, which seems to be in favor of the corner, that by the image of the penny the payment of the debt is understood, and, as the text says: "until you pay the last penny", does not say that once the last penny is paid off: so also Ambrose, who says that by the image of the penny the payment of the debt is meant, does not add that such payment is made to the dead, yes, rather he obviously contradicts this, if one wants to draw it to the payment of the punishment to the dead. I will be able to deal with the passage sooner, when I will explain what is necessary according to the frequent figure of speech of the Hebrew and Greek language in the word "until". So you see that I do not dislike Ambrosius, although I do not consider it a sin to disagree with him when he lets go of his right mind. Furthermore, he also has all sorts of thoughts in the same chapter in Lucas about the heller, since in Greek only xxxxxx xxxxxxx stands, which is a part of the
Heller's amounts. Yes, what he says about the devil does not please Jerome himself. That he now says: I will become completely dark here has good reasons. For I am quite happy to be hidden under the shadow of Eck's name.
17. 9) We have only answered a few things above. There is still more in Eck's booklet, which will probably not be necessary to refute, because the list of notaries will show it sufficiently. For I would have preferred to pass this over in silence, too, if it could have been done. Of course, I have not given him an unfriendly word. Therefore, I ask him not to argue with invective, but with the matter. For we owe this to love, which I, as surely as I want to have a gracious God, wish to have unharmed and unoffended from the bottom of my heart.
18 But that he considers us too clumsy to deal with the high questions of the theologians, I put up with. If only he would allow the common Christian people to talk about some godly questions from time to time, and we, who are not completely unfamiliar with theological studies, may occasionally refresh our minds with such holy morsels. How much better it would be to encourage the little ones, among whom we are also, with benevolence and favor to the holy science; yes, if they also fail a little out of ignorance, to overlook such things for them, than to scare them off with such pompous speeches! Fare well, dear reader, and take this defense to the best. For Eck himself will be witness that I could have carried out this matter more hostilely in some places, where I would have wanted to follow my desire and courage. Farewell again! From the famous Saxon city of Wittenberg, Anno 1519.
468: Oecolampadius, to whom Philipp Melanchthon had addressed the above-mentioned letter, soon after published a paper under the title: Canonicorum indoctorum Lutheranorum ad Jo. Eccium responsio, or Answer of those whom Doctor Eck called the unlearned Lutheran canons in semem Sendbrief to the Bishop of Meissen. December 1519.
This writing appeared, as Löscher and Wiedemann, "D. Johann Eck," p. 140, indicate, in December 1519. It is printed in the Latin Wittenberg edition (1550), toin. I, toi. 368k; in the Jena (1579), tom. I, toi. 361k; in Adam Petri's knoukrationurn pars nna, roonko lniio 1520, p. 359; in the Erlanger, opp. var. ar^., tom. I V, p. 59 and in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, 935. about October Eck had the liosponsio pro ll. limsor, contra maiosanam Kntkori vonationom, ad lok. do sckioMitL, licci. Dlisu. lipiscoxnm (St. Louis edition, vol. XVIIl, 910) print.
1276 V-". IV, 61-63, Sect. 4: What has been done in response to this dispensation. No. 408 W. XV, 1513-1516. 1277
In it, he used the name "Lutheran", which was first used by the Minorites in Jüterbock, and he also pretended that no one of the clergy agreed with Luther, except some unlearned Canonici in the lower monasteries, whom he had enchanted. Already in 1520 this writing was translated into German. Cf. St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 929, note, likewise the introduction there, p. 29.
Translated from Latin.
Contents of the following missive.
The unlearned canons answer Eck how far and for what reasons they are Lutherans, because in his letter to the bishop of Meissen he called them unlearned Lutheran canons and propagators of his errors.
Answer of the unlearned Lutheran canons to Johann Eck.
The unlearned canons send their greetings to the most glorious, most learned observer, Magister noster, Master Johann Eck, theologian.
If you had not reproached Luther with anything else about the ignorance that you impose on us, excellent Eck, to whom we are more favorable than to the truth, according to your wisdom, truly, we would have been deterred by your wondrous and proud master's degree and would have been content with our quiet rest, which luck those have before others who are uneducated. For just as God gives you a miserable, laborious life (yes, you inflict all this evil on yourselves through the intemperate desire for science and through arrogance), so he does not begrudge us the quiet and peaceful life. Therefore, because almost always at no time has our pen been hostile to one of those who keep quiet and withdrawn under its roof; therefore it would not be put on standby against you either. For would that not be a great folly? Would it not be nonsense that we unlearned, as you call us, should contend with you, the son of Apollo, the timid with the most sacrificed, and the unknown with the most famous?
2. we are not so careless, not so hasty, not so unintelligent, not so stony-minded that we would freely put ourselves in danger, which we should defend ourselves against with all diligence, especially since we have known for a long time that at no time, whether you speak or write, perhaps even when you are dead, do you lack words.
(3) Therefore, until now, as you have sought praise and glory with great diligence, we have cultivated tranquility, not so unwisely as despondingly. But now,
because your famous modesty, which has also become a proverb, calls Martin Luther, who is dear to us because of his holy life and is the most diligent and free representative of Christian theology, secretly and publicly a Manichaean, a Viking, a Hussite, and with innumerable other names, and cannot stand that he is considered a Christian; and because you, so that your honor may also increase from us, in your epistle to the reverend bishop of the church at Meissen, according to your great deaf and so very theological simplicity, denigrate us against this most gracious prince, and make us, as much as is in you, suspicious of the whole world, and call us Lutherans and propagators of his errors, that is, as you think, the very worst chief heretic's helper, protector, friends and patrons: therefore, willingly or unwillingly, we are urged to give you, as a patron and champion of the Christian church, and a cleanser and purifier of the children of Levi [Mal. 3, 3.] to give some account of our life, whether we would like to cleanse ourselves from this stain. For, as you yourself teach, the accusation of heresy is far too malicious to be patiently endured by Christian modesty.
4 But we could (for this can also the unlearned, who sometimes also with their thorns wildly behaved), according to the example of your severity,* also leave the modesty and be completely nonsensical, if your kind and nature were not completely known to us. You again seek people on whom you may rub off your scabies, you again seek people whom you may scandalize (αΐχίζης == maltreat with blows), so that you ever leave no one unnoticed, so that you ever spare no one, so that you ever provoke everyone to displeasure, so that you, like Ishmael, as one, may fight everyone. You let yourself think that it is too little that you war with the learned, if you do not also challenge the unlearned. And just as if the war with the teachers or masters had been accomplished, you rage against both the students and the patrons, so that nothing remains that is not destroyed by the force of your arm. Afterwards, when you have either subdued us or not, let the printers take care, let the presses take care, let everything that is near take care, so that it does not fight with you in an unequal battle, because you are still senseless through the fresh defeat.
(5) But we consider it worth much more trouble to save our innocence and honor than to respond to your reproach.
Words. Therefore, first of all, so that we do not quarrel with each other in a feminine way, because you cannot deny that so many specimens convict you, including your own, which you have incorporated into your epistle: tell us, however, in what way such insults, yes, invectives, may be either concealed or even softened, so that finally and irrevocably all displeasure may be lifted. Truly, we have no way to excuse you, but very many causes take our side. For what you call a Lutheran, namely a man tainted with poisonous and heretical delusion, you have sufficiently and to excess instilled into the ears of the whole world, albeit in vain, for a long time now. And even if you had kept silent most diligently: is it not true that among right Christians names of parties are hated in themselves, even the names that are otherwise praiseworthy because of the holy fathers' memory?
6 Nevertheless, you consider this to be nothing, and you also call us propagators of errors, which you shout out as exceedingly pernicious much more forcefully than you prove. Moreover, so that it would ever be known that you were not repentant of what you said, you wrote in the margin, instead of an asterisk: "the unlearned Lutheran canons," 1) and perhaps you feared that an industrious reader might walk by and not notice the word. Therefore, you thought it necessary to remind him to stand still, to consider such a word diligently, to imprint it faithfully in his memory, to look forward, to thank and applaud you, and to be angry with us.
(7) Here, my good man, you see that everything here serves noticeably more to move people's minds against us than to make them inclined toward us, and that so much that you fully deserve to receive retribution for it. But that is inappropriate for our purpose. Therefore you should read, if otherwise your glory (magnificentia) has no weight, what has made us inclined to the man of God, and how far we are Lutherans. You must not have the suspicion that it comes from selfish friendship, we have not dealt with each other so much. Here is no hope of gain. He is a mendicant monk, he lives on alms. But we were seized by the desire for the renewal of things, 2) not by the one that
1) In the margin of Eck's writing is written: Oanoniei Inckoeti ImcZerani. See Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 929.
2) Löscher correct: eepit; Wittenberger and Jenaer: "O6pit.
is a disturber of peace and unity, but a reconciler. For nothing is more perverse and corrupt than the customs of this iron age, which he endeavors to heal by his art, proclaiming peace, preaching obedience, praising humility, and doing nothing more unpleasant than to be driven, with you and your like, to lose the good hours with quarreling.
He continues to show the contempt of worldly things, the honor of heavenly things, and the goal of the Christian life. He rejects ambition, abhors the avarice of the clergy, and scolds simony and the deceit of Roman robbery, and other corruptions. Who would not wish and desire, if he were even nonsensical or completely forbidden, that such great destruction would be done away with? What Christian man would not want the kingdom of the Lord Christ, which transforms, renews and improves all things? Who is there who abhors the mockery of our inexperience, and does not wish that the unfruitful, unholy, corrupt teachings be done away with, and the more fruitful, blessed, and holy studies of science be restored? And would God have us see that just as the good arts flourish again, so also good morals arise again, which is Luther's endeavor. But you persecute the teacher of respectability and, as far as science is concerned, you patch up new bundles to spoil the splendid facilities of young people, just as if we had not been overwhelmed with useless things before.
(9) Moreover, this desire to renew things is done with too little danger to be excused with many words. But if one ever wants to condemn this in us, then we will perhaps not be unlearned because of it. In addition, there is the main reason: Luther is a godly sorcerer who makes us and our peers, the unlearned, dependent on him through love potions. Otherwise no reason can grasp that such coarse-headed people, other than enchanted, should have an inclination to the sciences. It must be a wondrous potion that he who prepares it makes drunk those who are as far away from him as another world. But we earth children want to speak more clearly, and must [as they say] call a punt a punt, and a saw a saw. The tender truth and unaltered virtue, which can also move God and men to love one another, these are the very things that make us dependent on Luther.
1280 L. V. a. IV, 65-67. sect. 4. what has been done on this disp. No. 408 W. XV, I518-I52I. 1281
But now we let ourselves think, as if we saw how Eck's modesty opposes it, how he throws his hands, eyes and head around, how he testifies with hands and feet that nothing has ever been spoken that is more unlike the truth. But one must leave the man his way, which no one but death will take away from him. We want to show our intentions with more certain proofs than with mere assertions. For a long time, many of us did not know whether Luther was black or white; indeed, Luther's name was completely unknown to us. But a few years ago, some of his little sermons for the people, which we thought were written suddenly and in a hurry, came into our hands, in which he interprets the Ten Commandments of Moses and takes the veil from his eyes.
(11) Therefore, both by his scholarship and by his clear clarity, he has brought about that we unlearned, above the custom of schoolteachers, should think more highly of the Lord Christ and more holily of the gospel, and with the abandonment of hope should ascribe little, even nothing, to ourselves, but rather ascribe much, even all things, to God, the Lord Christ.
So he first gained favor with us. Afterwards, when the rumor came and showed us the man's blameless life, it confirmed the opinion we had of him. My good Eck, what should we do? should we be grudging? should we despise him? should we be ungrateful? How were you going to deal with such students?
(13) However, some preachers, who were not well aware of their office, have in many places attached more than is right to the papal graces called indulgences, and have deceived many people, who put their trust in such comforts that they would attain salvation even by rejecting the cross of true repentance. What kind of fraud, what kind of deceitfulness, what kind of deception is practiced under the pretense of holiness by the mendacious sellers of lies, although we keep silent, is not hidden from anyone today. All theologians were silent, the bishops looked through their fingers, yes, they approved of it, no preacher preached against it. Therefore, as if from a God-fearing silence, the insolent injustice increased in prestige from day to day. And the evil had got so out of hand that now no longer in the jubilee or golden year, or even every fifty years, but every year, not once, but again and again, not out of honest and urgent, but quite minor, injustices were committed.
and fictitious causes, many indulgence seekers did not wander about without seducing souls.
At that time, as we know, when Luther had considered this unjust action, he first began to discuss these things in school in Wittenberg with good misgivings, after several theses had been presented. These were immediately spread with miraculous speed through the German lands, and were also accepted with special favor by all the most learned, whom you either do not know or despise, because many of them were well aware of the frauds, although none of them wanted to be the first to put themselves at risk, as is customary. Then you, Eck, raised your comb against it, as one of the foremost warriors, and wanted to confuse heaven, the earth, and all things, so that only the indulgence would remain in its dignities. We pass over many things. Since the disputation has come about, it is said that nothing colder has ever been done, and that the indulgence has even been laid down, so completely that if it should again come to life, one must either devise a new one, with which one again leads the old one out of hell, or else honor the deceased indulgence's image. Should it not be due to your modesty, excellent Magister noster, to say the highest thanks to Luther, who has made you, if not in other things, at least in this matter more learned.
(15) But therefore we do not concede to you that errors should have been sown through us; for if Luther's writings and doctrine (Lutherana) had not already been sown, how would they have reached us, who are of the unlearned common people, and almost live in another world? Is this not the business of the printers, who, as soon as they become aware of something new, which is according to the truth and pleasant, so that they may gain from it, wrest it from the people more than they seek it from them with request; yes, they steal it more than they wrest it. But who cares that your wars may not be hidden? Is it not true that you hardly ask the printers with some conditions? and you do not give them your things, but impose them? Hardly any of the things you have written are printed again, unless perhaps so that you are the more reviled. But you know that Luther's writings and doctrine are now often printed, even in various printing houses, and yet you think that we, the unlearned canonists, have tried to avoid so much trouble, while your
However, these things are despised by not 1) a few scholars and rejected by many unscholars. Do you think that the truth can be hidden under a bushel? Do you think that the thing that is from God can be eradicated?
But that is where the origin of this trouble comes from. You call it error; we have not yet been persuaded of it by sophistical sophistry. For we unlearned hold only to the books that are canonical and accepted by the approval of all; we pay no heed if something else is raised that is contrary to it. We regard as great that which comes closest to Scripture. We also do not want to hear an angel or an apostle, even if he came from heaven and spoke against the gospels. But the interpretation of the Gospel Scriptures, however unlearned we are, we would much rather learn from the old teachers, who were not so far from the times of the holy apostles, than from you and your like teachers. We also prefer to believe the chronicles and histories than human and certain tyrannical statutes.
Does Papias of Hierapolis, a disciple of St. John, seem to you to have unwisely and unlearnedly written his preface to the books of the interpretation of the sermon of the Lord, that he did not want to follow the delusion of many, but to have the apostles as his masters, as St. Jerome and Eusebius write of him? But he listened to the living apostles; we, forced by necessity, are content with the writings of the holy apostles and those who have the spirit of the apostles. Hereby it is evident enough whether you or Luther walk closest to the Gospels, which of you relies on the most trustworthy 2) sources, which of you is most faithful to the fathers' sayings and most learned, which of you strives for the most honest goal. We seek the springs of living water; will you lead us to the foul marshes and murky waters? We seek the Lord Christ; show us where the Lord Christ is born.
Either follow us, and we will show you the way, or go ahead of us, and we will follow you. But you, much more cunning than Herod was, would endure us if we followed you, and would call us sometimes Viklefites, sometimes Manichaeans, and, sitting under the idols of your sophistry, would not agree to be our companion. Where are you drawn to by your raging
1) Wittenberger nos instead of von.
2) Wittenberg rsosxtoribns instead of rseextloridus.
Who could suffer your presumption, who could suffer your hopefulness? Those who read and love your books and doctrine should be learned, but those who read and love the fine books of your rival are unlearned and heretics, even though they are closer to the gospel and the church teachers.
(19) We shall read thy books, lest we be called unlearned; and our eyes shall be put out, lest we be accounted blind. You have recently found out what kind of Lutherans we are: as far as Luther is a friend of the gospel and of Christian freedom, we are part of him; if you will also be like that, there will be nothing to prevent us from being dependent on you as well. Therefore, your modesty should not have offended us with insults. For we are not to suffer slander because in pure faith we are not disparaging to the most Christian theologian. And Luther's cause is not worse because it is considered the most Christian even by the unlearned. We confess our ignorance, and perhaps acknowledge it with no less honor than you everywhere trumpet your own praise. We are unlearned, we do not know how to keep our backs to those who are excessively eager for shameful gain. And in this the pope also keeps it with us. For when you, like a hired servant of the merchants, humbly begged him in petitions that he would recognize the very unfair contract (contractum) of their company as fair and right, it was denied you; for your little feet were above the pope's understanding, while you were ready with your fine tongue and hand not only to force and twist the whole scripture at once, but also to corrupt it, lest you ever come back with dishonor.
(20) We are unlearned, for we do not see in what way the perfect can follow the poor Christ, when they may swear oaths concerning temporal things. But how? Of course Erasmus, who is a shining star in our time, must, according to your judgment, be mistaken in the same matter as we are. We are unlearned, because we cannot tell the manifold ceremonies of the first church, but again many of the most learned join us. We are unlearned because we do not penetrate the innermost secrets of the divine majesty. But the great apostle Paul is also not ashamed that he does not know what you collect in your book Chrysopassus.
3) In the Jena the words: nsrnnli 8(üts, tainetsi,. because not understood, are omitted.
1284 V- a. IV, 69 f. Section 4: What has been done in response to this disp. No. 408 ff. W. XV, I524-1S26. 1285
We are unlearned, but nevertheless we could report many such pieces that would bring you more dishonor than us. For in sum, there is none of your journeys so blessed, of which you recount many childishly, I will not say gloriously, that have not brought you and your fatherland more dishonor than glory. No booklet, no matter how small, has gone out from you that would not either contain the grossest barbarism [in Latin] or would not be full of great errors. Therefore, most clever corner, you would not be acting unwise if you stayed at home for a while and received the praise, which you cannot obtain with talk, with silence. For how unhappy it is for you when you enter into dispute with learned people can be judged from the fact that even the unlearned are no longer afraid of you. You should also not venture to hope that you will gain victory over us; we, the unlearned, are many, and although we do not all know how to argue with sophistical projectiles, there are still quite a few scholars who can hurl strong spears, which you will not be able to defend yourself against, so that you will completely commit yourself to true theology and to Christ, the almighty God, setting aside the insults and worldly arts. Farewell. Anno 1519.
Luther's report to Spalatin about how Oecolampadius had written to Melanchthon that he had done the previous writing, and how Eck had complained that this writing had hurt him the most.
See Appendix, No. 52, § 2.
410 Georg Spalatin's Collectanea von Eck.
From Kapp's Nachlese nützlicher Reformation-Urkunden, Theil II, p. 428. This writing is a piece of the satyr: Doeins cksäolatns (the planed Eck), which appeared in its first edition either with Frobenius in Basel or in Strasbourg with Ansheim. A second edition, printed in German letters, appeared at Erfurt in quarto, 4 sheets, and has the date: Feb. 20, 1520. (Wiedemann, "v. Johann Eck," p. 141.) From this Werthlosen Posse, Wiedemann brings almost seven pages, pp. 141-148.
Translated from Latin by M. A. Tittel.
From Eck's modesty.
As the perfect master of the life of men, and the some Apollo of Christianity.
Eck, the right master of the art of blasphemy.
That he may not let the poisonous writings go out on the said Riz, our most powerful king's medicum, and either wipe out a wicked man's scab or atone for such disgrace.
The comedy of the smeared corner was held on February 21, 1520.
Eck, whom you always call Keck, and rightly so, Doctor of the Holy Scriptures and of Canon Law, although unworthy, offers his greetings to the learned and respectable men, the theological faculty doctors and magistris nostris in Leipzig.
If you, esteemed gentlemen (scientifici), are well, it is dear to me. But I have neither the time to write nor you to read about the distress and danger I am in. Only this I want to say, that I am almost as badly off as someone who is in the worst situation.
Since I have fallen into such distress for your sake, from which salvation or health itself could hardly save me, even if it wanted to, I beg and implore you most earnestly to send a proven medic to a friend who is in a foreign country and with whom things have come to a standstill, so that he may restore me to health, not only for myself but also for you, and especially for the Roman See, which now calls me, as it were, a champion of the Roman Church. If this happens, I will have to thank you not only for my health, that I still enjoy life, but also for the apostolic gifts I hope for, and for the cardinalate itself. Farewell, you brave comrades-in-arms and zealous Lutheran enemies, and do not postpone helping your friend.
Cito, cito, cito.
C. How Eck blackened Luther in the worst way with the bishop of Brandenburg, so that he was quite violently brought up against Luther.
411 Luther's report to Spalatin on how the bishop not only believed Eck's lies without investigation, but even spread them further.
See Appendix, No. 54, § 3.
412 Luther's report of this to Staupitz, in which he states how the bishop had spoken that he would not lay his head gently until he had thrown Luther into the fire, like the stick which he, speaking this, had thrown into the fire.
See Annex, No. 36, § 7.
D. How Eck sued Luthern in writing before the Elector Frederick of Saxony.
413 Eck's letter to the Elector Frederick of Saxony from the disputation in Leipzig, July 22, 1519.
This letter together with the reply of the Elector is found in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 68d; in the Jena edition (1564), vol. I, M.146(b); in the Altenburg, vol. I, p. 273 (in the wrong place, namely before the disputation); in the Leipzig, vol. X VII, p. 250 and in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 604. In all these editions with the wrong date "July 23" (in the Witt.: "July 32i"). Correct only in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. II, p. 90; but there the proof of the Wittenberg and Jena editions is missing. We have followed the text of the Wittenberg, since that of the Erlangen correspondence seems to us to be very erroneous.
I. Most Sublime, Highborn Elector! To E. C. F. G. my subservient services, together with my poor prayer to God, are diligently prepared. Most gracious Lord, that I have engaged in disputation against E. C. F. G. Doctores at Wittenberg, I humbly request that you do not hold this against me, or accept it in disfavor; for I have not begun this to the detriment of E. C. F. G. University, as I am highly inclined to serve it, so that E. C. F. G. is famous before other princes in the realm, quod et literas et literatos foveat. But only for the benefit of the truth of the holy faith, D. Carlstadt has caused me terribly, and has also let Conclusiones go out in public with many contemptuous and disgraceful words against me; although he is not skilled to scold the people in such a way. But for the sake of D. Martinus, with whom I have a pity that his beautiful ingenium has come into such singularitates and has gone into such matters, I have been caused by his manifold writing out of many matters, thereby, according to my little understanding, causing much insanity and annoyance.
The author may accept that he denies and negates the opinion and interpretation of the holy fathers, Augustini, Ambrosii, Hieronymi, Gregorii, Leonis, Cypriani, Chrysostomi and Bernhardt. This is a bad thing among Christians, that one misses to know from his understanding the meaning of the holy scripture, because the holy fathers with each other.
2. is also difficult to hear that he says, even in the disputation, many articles Johann Hus and the Bohemians, condemned by the holy and laudable Concilium at Constance, are christinnissirni and evangelici. What joy the heretics received from it is good to signify. That he wants. St. Peter did not have primaturn over other apostles of Christ, with many other bits and pieces, E. C. F. G. as a Christian prince may well accept, whether such and such many other points in Christianity may be allowed. According to my little mind, I cannot see that.
Therefore I want to resist such things, if I can, for the sake of truth alone. For neither V. Martin, nor anyone else can say that I have ever received heller and heller worth from the most holy father, the pope, or from the great heads; but, although a poor pawn, at my expense, E. C. F. G. Doctoribus moved in, and am still required, where D. Martin thought that he had not yet disputated enough, I will move with him to Cologne, Leuven or Paris. For I was quite mistaken, if they reproached me with the University of Leipzig, they would also let me know there; which they have refused and rejected, even since I have set it up with the University for the High Reigning Prince. By all this, most gracious Lord, I do not want to disparage D. Martinum, nor do I write to his detriment, but only to apologize to E. C. F. G., where otherwise she would be presented with my displeasure, because the truth is in her; and so that I also give occasion to E. C. F. G. to consider what you owe to Christ, the Christian faith, country and people. For I would have liked to apologize to E. C. F. G. recently and promised, for this reason, to visit E. C. F. G. six times. C. F. G.'s court in Augsburg, but I do not know why I never came before E. C. F. G..
4 And although E. C. F. G. Doctores have left with some urges to write a lot, I have disputed that there would be no need to write. Our convention is also too quiet.
1288 Erl.Briefw. II, 93-97, para. 4: What has been done in response to this disp. No. 413 f. W. XV, IS28-IS3I. 1289
until the sentence is given by the ordained universities. Therefore I have left them a free choice of all universities that are in reputation in the whole of Christendom, of which they may justly make do. Well, they write, is not almost repugnant to me; I would like, however, that they would do this with a bravery, as the matter requires, not so frivolously, luxuriantly and with disgraceful words. As I then fully believe, E. C.F. G.deß bear no favor. What is written by a theologian should read in such a way that only a man who reads it may understand that a theologian has written such, in the opinion of seeking the truth, not a buffoon, 1) who alone presumes to revile the people. However, after I willingly accepted the two universities offered to me by Doctor Martina, he first wants to drag in the legists, physicians and artists; it is easy to assume that he wanted to settle his erroneous opinion with the crowd, not with those who understand the matter. Since he writes against Sylvester, he considers him, although an old, famous theologian, not skilled enough that he could understand or judge such theology, since he, Martinus, deals with it; and now he wants to judge the legists, physicians and artists learned enough about it.
5 Let not C. F. G. accept this long letter of mine in disgrace; for I alone do it for my excuse. If God, E. C. F. G. should fully recognize my mind in this case, there is no doubt that such a thing would be graciously acceptable to me. For I would not like to be noticed in such or such a frivolity, to give a carriage in print, 2) as E. C. F. G. D. Carlstadt has done, and quite mockingly spurned me with a printed name in it. I could also make a carriage, but I did not want to put a horse in it; but that is no art. I command myself most humbly to E. C. F. G. as my most gracious lord; and if some matter is brought before E. C. F. G. by me, I am most humbly requested that E. C. F. G. give me to understand this, then I will put it down and answer for it by writing or personally in all obedience to E. C. F. G.. However, if I do, speak or write something else out of ignorance or lack of understanding,
1) A meanly scolding scoundrel. Cf. "Holhipler," St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 2395.
2) See documents No. 355-358.
3) "from me", that is: about me.
I will gladly let myself be guided away from this at all times and refrain from my presumption. For to serve E. C. F. G. would be a special, great, high joy for me. Date Leipzig, July 22, Anno 1519.
E. C. F. G.
subservient chaplain.
Also, most gracious Lord, it seems to me that since I have disputed against D. Martin de potestate Papae, I have intended all of his "foundations". For it is not a new song that he holds; many other people have also held it before. But from such mere suspicion he has drawn an opinion, as if some E. C. F. G. subjects should have answered and handled Doctor Martinu's booklet, newly printed; and namely they have let themselves be noted against He Caesar Pflug, as if D. Peter Burckhard; I say it is fiction, and one does injustice to D. Peter and others; for Doctor Peter has never said a word to me about it, so I have never seen it to this day, because as much as I think he reads from it to his liking; although I can calculate with one like it what is in it. It would be quite praiseworthy for E. C. F. G. if you would burn them in a heap. Order me E. C. F. G. Date ut supra.
Johann Eck, Doctor.
414: Prince Frederick of Saxony's short answer to D. Eck, July 24, 1519.
See the previous number.
Our greetings first, esteemed and worthy dear special. When you now wrote to us in matters concerning some doctors of our university in Wittenberg, and concerning the next disputation held in Leipzig, we read its contents. Since you have not written anything to us about this matter before, and the doctors of Wittenberg have not reported the disputation to us, we want this letter of yours to reach the same doctors and hear their answer and instruction. And if we find from this that something further needs to be sent to you, it shall also remain undisclosed to you. We do not want to save you from this, because we are inclined to be merciful to you. Date Altenburg, on Sunday after St. Mary Magdalene's Day [July 24], Anno Domini 1519.
E. Of Carlstadt's and Luther's joint responsibility sent in on the basis of the Elector's order and Eck's communicated accusation, and what Eck replied against it.
415: D. Carlstadt's provisional letter of responsibility sent to the Elector of Saxony from D. Eck's indictment. Wittenberg, the
July 31, 1519.
This letter is found in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 695; in the Jena edition (1564), vol. I, p. 1485; in the Altenbürger, vol. I, p. 275; in the Leipziger, vol. X VII, p. 252; in the Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. II, p. 99 and in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 609.
Most Serene, Highborn Prince and Lord! To your F. G. may my prayers and submissive services be ready beforehand with all obedience. Most gracious Prince and Lord! The respectable D. Eck has let E. C. F. G. handle his handwriting and complaint, in which, among other things, he highly disparages me to E. C. F-G., as if I should speak too clumsily to him, with his avoidance; and it is no different that I consider my pettiness, and my disgusting mind that I have no desire to dispute with such a boaster and screamer. Accordingly, I have indicated the cause, printed in many places above. But that his letter suggests that I should be inferior to him, please let E. C. F. G. know that he has not taken anything from me, but has at times publicly, at times covertly come to me, and has had to deliver my sentence in the disputation, although D. Eck teaches differently in his sermons than in the school. Most gracious C. F. and Lord, I have read him my Solutiones from the books which he has advanced to me and citied against me, and I hope honestly to my mind; also I have told D. I have also publicly told D. Ecken that he has not read and heard his books well, as I prove by reading them. This hurts him and some others, for which reason he despises and scorns me.
I also cannot deny E. C. F. G. that the much-mentioned D. Eck alleges heretical books and uses them against me in matters that highly concern the Christian faith, as he himself indicates in his letter of complaint, and finally, at the last, he brought forward an authority hieronymi, as this, quod justus non semper peccat, dum bene facit. Then I said I would see about it. 1) When he heard that, what a shout
1) Compare Col. 1114 ff.
and rattling was heard from him! But I held firm and indicated that in such a brave matter should be acted with all deliberation, and no levity should be exercised. But D. Eck lost his books, where the authority was not written in the upset book. I searched for it further than I needed to, and did not find it, and therefore had much talk; and on the day of my departure, I sent my Magister Notarium 2) and two witnesses to him, and requested through them that he should show me his authority, or give me his books, for which I wanted to scold him a falsarium, which I could do in the right, if it was found that he willingly alleges falsely. But the good doctor shows me nothing yet. I did not want to salvage all this in a hurry, not to leave E. C. F. G. without an answer when I was ready to leave, and I am glad that E. C. F. G. came home healthy. May the merciful God grant E. C. F. G. a long life, with health and victory. Date Wittenberg, Sunday after Anna [July 31], Anno 1519.
E. C. F. G.
undersigned Capellan Andreas Carolstad.
Most gracious Prince and Lord, the venerable Lord and Father Martinus and I want to answer E. C. F. G. recently and all together. We ask that E. C. F. G. now graciously forgive us for not having been able to talk to each other at such a time.
416 Both Wittenberg theologians, D. Andreas Carlstadt and Martin Luther, detailed letter of responsibility to the Elector Frederick of Saxony, because of D. Eck's accusation. Aug. 18, 1519.
This manuscript was first published without any indication of time or place under the title: "Doctor Martin ludders Underricht an Kurfürsten von Sachffen. disputation zu Leypßig belangent: vnnd D. Eckius briue. of the same." 6^ quarto sheets. Edited by Michel von Eck, Eck's cousin. In the editions: in the Wittenberg (1569), vol. IX, p. 71; in the Jena (1564), vol. I, p. 150; in the Altenburg, vol. I, p. 277; in the Leipzig, vol. XVII, p. 277; in the Erlangen, vol. 53, p. 10; in De Wette> vol. I, p. 307 and in Löscher's Ref.Acta, vol. Ill, p. 612. Löscher's statement that this writing translated into Latin can be found in the Jena edition, tönn. I, toi. 358, is erroneous; the text No. 383 is found there.
2) This "Magister Notarius" is M. Johann Agricola of Eisleben; compare St. Louis Edition, Vol. XX, Introduction, p. 42. The Erlangen correspondence erroneously has a comma between Magister and Notarium.
1292 Erl. 53.10-1S. Section 4: What has been done in response to this dispensation. No. 416 W. XV, 1533-1535. 1293
To the Most Serene, Highborn Prince and Lord, Lord Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Archmarshall of the Holy Roman Empire, Elector, Imperial Majesty in Saxony Lands Vicario, Landgrave in Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, our most gracious Lord and Patron.
Jesus.
Most Serene, Highborn Prince, Most Gracious Lord! To Your Electoral Grace, our obedient servants are ready with our prayers to God beforehand. Most gracious Prince and Lord! We have received E. C. F. G.'s writing, together with D. Johann Eck's letter, and understood its contents, how the same D. Eck does not intend to disparage us against E. C. F. G., and yet with his sophistical tricks works towards it, as he has done to E. C. F. G., by his usual loose talk. by his usually loose talk to testify to us only in view of his letter and quick judgment about the country; we are not surprised that he considers E. C. F. G. such a person and may write such a letter to such a prince. For we know and experience that D. Eck is and remains D. Eck, he does what he wants.
2 But E. C. F. G. did not want, first of all, to forgive us that we did not report it at the time of the disputation. For it is an unfunny thing, which is driven by pure hatred and envy, respected by us; therefore we did not want to be the first, that one should not say, as here D. Eck fears without need, that we had sought someone's unhappiness with our glimpses.
3) However, since we have been caused by D. Eck's letter, we ask that E. C. F. G. would graciously listen to the reason, although we do not like to do such long useless chatter in front of E. C. F. G.. But let the matter speak for itself, whether D. Eck, according to his fame and legacy, is the one who is inclined to serve or disgrace E. C. F. G. University.
4 First, D. Eck complains that I have let Andreas Carlstadius issue several Conclusiones against him, with barbed and contemptuous words, since he does not consider me skilled enough to scold people. I say: D. Eck may regard me as he pleases; but it would almost have been fitting for him to have added to his complaint also
would have, as he did before, us and E. C. F. G. Universities to shame and disgrace, D. Martinum so that [it] would have been too much for a wicked woman: scolded him by his poisoned Obeliscos a Bo- hemum, haereticum, seditiosum, virulentum, procacem, novum Prophetam, and only judged according to all his lust, of which I did not do the twentieth part to him for the salvation of our honor, and acted too much moderately against such mischief.
5. for I also consider D. Ecken much less skillful, who should not only revile such a man, but all of us, before E. C. F. G. University to shame, blaspheme, and without any reason and cause so sacrilegiously. And so D. Ecken der Kitzel so fast rühret, so sind die gleichen Obelisci noch vorhanden, 1) wollen sie wohl an Tag bringen, die wir bisher, seiner Ehre verschonet, verhalten haben, so je so großer Undank we verdientet, dass wir ihn nicht mit gleichem Maß bezahlt haben.
If it is necessary, let us also, as he has done, collect a note full of his nasty, pointed, annoying words and comments, so that the disputation will be a real hindrance to the truth.
7 Secondly, he lets my chariot go to waste and thinks he can make one, but not with a horse, but perhaps with a donkey. I have neither named nor painted anyone in the pictures of the chariot, but have shown the common errors of the theologians, that we were promised in the country and everywhere, and yet no one was allowed to give his reason or to challenge us. I will let him make a wagon and put a donkey in it, as he wishes; perhaps we will find a driver for it.
8. that he has mercy on me, Martini Luther, praise God; but would like to hear the singularitates, of which he punishes me so mercifully, although with him nothing is to be done to me in articles concerning faith, except perhaps repentance; the other is opinio de indulgentiis, purgatorio, potestate Papae, in which I confess that after his-
1) The "Obelisks" were never published in print. Only in 1545 they were published in the first volume of the Latin Wittenberg edition together with Luther's Asterisks. Cf. St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 536.
no little mind (as he himself says true) has caused much error and annoyance, not to the common people, but to the pharisaeis and scribis, to whom also Christ and all the apostles caused annoyance; of which, of course, I still do not want to moderate myself today, I then experience the great mind of D. Eck. Eck, how he will defend me.
9 He blames me and does not blush, I should deny all the holy fathers Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, Leo, Chrysostom etc. and so on, and attribute my understanding to the Scriptures alone. Thus a Doctor of the Holy Scriptures should speak before such a prince with force and with his mouth full.
May here E. C. F. G. notice with what service D. Eck is inclined to us, who may write such a piece cheerfully from us. If he had said that I had denied some fathers, there would have remained an appearance; but all of them denied, his clear conscience knows that [it] is not true.
11) But that C. F. G. knows the reason: "I have probably introduced a doctor next to the text of the Bible, against another, the doctor Eck bare, naked, without a Bible, and will not desist from doing so for the rest of my life. And that means that Doctor Eck has denied all the Holy Fathers and is considered evil in the New Eckian Christianity.
For more information, I will indicate one of them. The saying of Pauli Apostoli Gal. 2,6: Deus personam hominis non accipit, I have led with St. Hieronymi's interpretation against the primacy of the Pope; thus, that the person of Peter (that is, the greatness and everything that he would like to be externally) is not respected before God. For the Scripture says that in the sight of God, lord, servant, great, small, poor, rich, highest, lowest, etc. are equal; and everything that is outwardly seen in man is called person. But if persona and primacy were jus divinum, God would not despise them, but would have commanded them; so Paul would lie when he says: Deus personam hominis non accipit.
13 On the other hand, D. Eck says with St. Ambrose that the person of Peter is the poor fishermen of St. Peter; but the text of Paul concurs with St. Jerome, not with Ambrose, because St. Paul wanted to resist the Galatians, they
should not be mistaken about St. Peter's and the other apostles' high standing, as they presented the false apostles, no doubt not the lowly fishermen's standing, but the high apostles' standing and first and foremost St. Peter's title was preached to them, as the text (before which Eck allzeit grauet) clearly brings with it.
Item: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram etc. [Matth. 16,18. [Matth. 16,18.] I have understood with St. Augustine and the whole scripture through petram Christum, when Paul says: Petra autem erat Christus, 1 Cor. 10,4. D. Eck wanted to have Petrum with many other teachers. Thus, Eck did almost the entire disputation, always fleeing from the text of Scripture, only looking for how he could find naked sayings of a teacher. And that means denying all fathers. I would like to say that he has denied and fled the entire holy scripture.
(15) About all this he did not want to pay attention to what other teachers, or how a teacher in another place wrote and held against himself, just as if I should consider D. Corners for a god, what he would bring forward, badly blindly receive.
16 St. Augustine taught me, and is referred to dist. 9 in Decretis, that all teachers, no matter how holy or learned, should be tried beforehand and judged according to the text of the Scriptures, as Christ, Paul, and John have also commanded us. D. Eck knows something better, and despises such a commandment, teaching us that we should judge the Scriptures according to the teachers' opinion, and that it should be enough if one or two teachers say something, leaving the others with text and Scripture. And is his some babble which he exalts: Let no one interpret the Scriptures according to his own reason, but follow the teaching of the fathers.
17 Thus I said that if I had a clear text, I would stick to it, even if the teacher's interpretation were against it, as St. Augustine often did and teaches. For, as the jurists also say, one should believe more a man who has Scripture for himself than the pope and the whole Concilio without Scripture. From this the dear friends, D. Eck and the Leipzigers, conclude a round judgment, saying, I have denied all teachers. What should one do with such deceitful hearts?
1296 Erl. 63.14-1S. Section 4: What has been done on this disp. No. 416 W. XV. I538-1S40. 1297
and tongues do good? According to the way he has accused me of the Concilium Constantiense, that he blames me, I have denied it; to this I want to answer him honestly in his time, and to expose his false heart in day. Now be enough to report to E. C. F. G. that D. Eck has undertaken to prove primatum Papae jure divino, and has taken his some strongest reason before him the Concilium Constantiense, placed himself, or perhaps does not know, that Concilium est jus humanum, and may not jus divinum ιηαφεη ex non jure divino. Against this I have set the whole orientalsm Ecclesiam, a thousand and four hundred years long, which has never been under the pope.
If now primatus would be de jure divino, then in the 1400 years too many Christians would be condemned, also almost the most holy fathers and great teachers of Christianity, as Basil, Nazianzenus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and the St. Jerome tells, lib. de illustribus viris. For they have ruled without the Roman See's command and authority.
19 On this my D. Eck publicly scolded unashamedly that the Graeci were all rebelles, schismatici and haeretici; that I have never heard of the sacrilegious, wanton blasphemy of the holy churches orientali; yet even in the law books Graeca et orientalis Ecclesia is famous, also never rebuked. It is true that in orientali Ecclesia were heretics, Ariani, Macedonii etc. But they have been in ossiäsntali also, as Manichaei, Pelagiani. But for the sake of Judas, one should not blaspheme Christ and the apostles.
20 Secondly, I have brought forward the most Christian and greatest Concilium Nicenum, and also Africanum. For if the primacy is ^U8 äivinum, then the same Concilium Nicenum and all the popes are all heretics and condemned, because they have statued there and had it statued that the Roman bishop should only have regard to the French churches, and Alexandrinus to the Egyptian churches; in addition, the bishops were not ordained from Roma, but by the next two or three bishops. As St. Cyprian writes, and all of Africa and Gallia lived and followed the same lukewarm time; which is all against the jus primatu8 and current custom.
although the Roman See has confirmed the same Concilium many times and still, and holds it equal to the Gospel. Now there is no man so blind (be silent a theologian), who does not know that jus divinum no one has power to walk; which nevertheless has happened here, when all bishops are to be confirmed jure divino by Rome.
Thus D. Eck has made heretics of me and blasphemed the whole Ecclesiam orientalem, Africanam, Gallicam, and the most holy Concilium Nicänum, where the whole of Christendom has held and still holds, as they have acted against jus divinum, so that he imposes his Constantiense Concilium (which he himself neither understands nor wants to understand) on me to give us Wittenbergers a defeat, to please his Leipzigers.
22 And that E. C. F. G. notices how D. Eck, out of sheer courage, does not want to understand the Constantiense Concilium, but only wants to revile and blaspheme E. C. F. G. University, I give E. C. F. G. to know:
First, that the same Concilium does not censure all articles of John Hus haereticos, but some erroneos, some tsmsrario8, some offensivos, and it is still undiscussed which are haeretici or not. Then D. Eck with his Leipzigers should have looked at the letters rightly and considered how difficult it is (as I often told him in the disputation) so many Christians in Orient and Africa through so long a time, for the sake of the primacy, scold and condemn heretics. This did not help; my dear Doctor Eck, as if he alone were more than the Pope, Concilium, and all of Christendom, and he was commanded to master the same determinationes of his liking, he freely made all the articles haereticos, and the Leipzigers, who should have resisted this, let it please them; which, God willing, should not please them at all. Demi which articles are not haeretici nor erronei, they must be Christian and true, they be temerarii, offensivi, seditiosi, as they like. For even the holy gospel is at all times offensive to the great Hansen and molliculis auribus, scandalosum, even, as Apostolus says [2 Cor. 2,16.], odor mortis et verbum offensionis. And does God know where the condemnation comes from, that a saying.
1298 Erl. 53, ia-18. cap. 5. of the Leipzig Disputation. W. XV, IS1V-IS43. 1299
24 Secondly, it is found that several times are condemned articuli contrarii, namely: Deus facit malum, Deus non facit malum, which are both christianissimi, yes, invented in the text of Scripture. The first Is. 45, 7. and Amos 3, 6., the other 1 Mos. 1, 31. Although I would have preferred to spare the word of Scripture, and among other words, condemn the heretics' error. And I do not believe that a council has the power and authority to condemn clear sayings of Scripture for the sake of heretics' abuse. For in this way one would ultimately have to condemn the whole Bible, from which alone all heresies come, so that some fools call the Bible the heretics' book.
25 So one has acted to Costnitz also Contraria. To the first condemned the article: Primatus non est jure divino, and yet determinirt, the Concilium is over the pope. This would be heretical and erroneous if the pope had jure divino primatum. For then the Concilium would be supreme on earth, and would have a primacy over the pope's primacy, as the right vicar of Christ, in plenitudine potestatis omnium.
26 Therefore it follows that the Roman church is not above other churches, but all churches are equal. And I believe this to be true, because St. Peter, Apost. 8, 14, subject to the church at Jerusalem, was sent with St. John to Samaria. Peter and all of them would have hardly sinned against this, if Peter had been jure divino supreme, and had allowed himself to be sent as an untern. So, if Primatus was jure divino of the pope, then the Concilio had no right to take over itself, and to depose the pope as a subject, to rule and act as it pleases. For jus divinum can neither be governed nor changed. And if the pope is over all Christians, and the Roman church over all churches, he is certainly also over the concilium, which is nothing else than all churches.
27 In Rome, in the Concilium against the Costnitz Concilium, it was determined that the pope was over the Concilium, and that the
The Concilium of Basel has been abrogated, and so the Concilia go against each other, and, if we build on them, we do not know in the end where the pope, the Concilium, the church, Christ, or we remain. All this must then have been done by the Holy Spirit, and be jus divinum, that we must be heretics at one time according to one article, and Christians at another time, as they think good. So they put it in our mouths that we must say, willingly or unwillingly, that the Concilium has erred.
28 Now I will not put my finger between the contrarietatem of the determination and erroneous trades of the Conciliorum, nor undertake to concord them, or to explain or discuss articles, of which D. Eck subjected himself to. It is enough for me that Concilia do not make jus divinum, and D. Eck may not raise a consistent argument against me, out of such jure humano, in addition fickle, partisan dealings and determination Conciliorum; nor may he say (without force and lies) that all articles are heretical or erroneous, but much Christian and true.
29. so I have said, and will well receive it before v. corners, whether God wills that some articles are christianissimi, as, the: Primatus Romanae Ecclesiae non est jure divino. First of all, because a much greater, much holier, much more certain Concilium Nicenum, with the whole of Christendom, all the world, and also the Roman See's opinion, has been differently established, approved, and so far more than a thousand years barred and confirmed, considered by the Roman See to be equal to the Gospel. All Christians of the Orient have lived up to this, and the D. Eck is to leave me blasphemed and unheretical, and not to say that they have acted contrary to jus divinum. I have held this point against him many times in Leipzig; but the little nut has always been too hard for him, and his nasty solution has not helped him, so that he thinks that Romani pontifices have imposed this; jus divinum can neither be hanged nor beheaded.
30 Secondly, because not all articles are heretical, nor have they yet been discussed, nor have they been explained, nor have they been acted against in the Concilio itself; from which trade the understanding is to be taken more than from the letter.
31. so the article is also Christian: Divi-
1300 Erl. 53.18-so. Section 4: What has been done in response to this disp. No. 416 W. XV, IS43-IS46. 1301
nitas et humanitas sunt unus Christus. And there is nothing in it that the logicians have invented. Item, which is also true: Omnis actus hominis est bonus aut malus, and concordirt mit Christo Matth. 12, 33.: Aut facite arborem bonam, et fructum ejus bonum; aut facite arborem malam, et fructum ejus malum, and the like many others. Let John Hus or the Concilium have a mind of their own, the articles as they stand are true.
God never wanted a devout Christian man to understand a saying of Scripture correctly and form it in his mind, and then reject it for the sake of some erroneous minds, regardless of his right mind. About this one should deny pope and concilia, for the salvation of the holy scripture. For where this article is heretically scolded, the Gospel, Paul and Augustine must perish.
Before I do this, I will use my Christian liberty and say thus: A concilium may err (as all teachers of Scripture and law write), and has erred several times, as the histories show, and the present Roman indicates against the Costnitz and Basel. So in the articles the Costnitz also errs; or prove that it has not erred, especially if one should believe more a layman who has Scripture than the pope and concilio without Scripture.
34 Also in this way, D. Carlstadt and D. Eck held and concorded in this disputation that liberum arbitrium ante gratiam nihil valet, nisi ad peccandum. If this is true, then this article is also true: Omnis actus etc.. For he says that all works apart from grace are evil; so those in grace must be good, so there remains no remedy. So D. Eck must also go against the concilium. But if he redeems himself, he must also let us do so, or he must also be a Hussite and speak all his blasphemous words about himself.
Although the Concilium is not against me, or it is not clear whether it is against me, Doctor Eck did not want to leave this to the judges, but became a judge himself, and put me to all shame, proclaimed a heretic and heretic-patron and had it written. So me and all of us, before E. C. F. G. Uni.
The people of the University, publicly deprived of our Christian honor, by such an intolerable insult, have sacrilegiously broken the royal promised and ascribed escort; and those who should have resisted such mischief, sat quietly, and put up with it, as if they had advised and helped them.
Yes, they have strengthened, justified and protected him publicly before everyone. For since I called upon Mr. Caesar Pflug, as the princely administrator, he and the Doctoribus, after the end of the disputation (that ever Doctor Eck had our disgrace and E. C. F. G. University), and gave me this as an answer: D. Eck speaks, what he said, he wants to prove. So I had to have the slap as if a dog had bitten me. I also wanted to forget my moderation, to have accused Doctor Eck of being a sevenfold heretic and blasphemer of the Most Holy Nicene Concilii and of the whole of Christendom, as he is then also true, and must still hold it against me, even if I will now also judge in my escort; but we were publicly defied with the escort, we had to hold that, Doctor Eck might do, let, as he wished.
37 However, because we have come to this and D. Eck causes us, we want to tell E. C. F. G. more about how we are held to Leipzig; E. C. F. graciously will not bear any disgrace.
Since I had responded to D. Eck for three days, and the fourth day was mine to oppose, D. Eck also took the same day, only to spoil the time with useless words, and we were commanded to end the matter on the same day. So I was left with a whole hour of the same day by D. Eck's grace and favor; I did not want to have that either. And if Mr. Hans von Plaunitz, E. C. F. G. Captain at Grimm, had not been there, I would have been Hans back there; as the same E. C. F. G. may well report.
39 He had to have the first and last word, so that to more appearances his retained arguments would remain unanswered at the last, and [he] would be like a victori.
40 If a day was determined and precessed on a matter, D. Eck might well change it, because that is how the masters wanted it.
41 Also that he does not argue for the sake of truth, but only to our disgrace, he shows by the fact that he took all my books and what I ever wrote, picked up, and would have liked to disgrace it all in front of everyone and znnicht made, whether it was not ad propositum. He searched for nns in such an ugly way.
He also could not help not wanting to leave the poor monkhood unchastised.
I did a little sermon before our rector, my gracious lord, Duke Bernimo, but three holy days were not enough for D. Eck to tear me away with my sermon and to revile me before the people. In the meantime I kept silence. For that is how one should keep a monk.
44 From my book Cypriano, which he had falsely allegorized to me, and was supposed to point out to me, and in two days still might not find, he did me the honor of saying that I had figned in margine: Hic fallitur sanctus vir, which after all comes to nothing at all, it had to come out, and with disgrace in the feathers.
Although these and similar pieces are much too childish, E. C. G. notice from them what lies behind D. Eck and the Leipzigers, who deal with such little points so childishly in the brave cause. We respect that if D. Eck and the Leipzigers had known about the murder and all the disgrace of nns, the disputation would have had to remain, and everyone would have heard and read this. For some also start to write that I carry a devil with me in my can; all these are signs of a despondent cause and desperate trade, which has to strengthen itself with shouting and such wicked little friends.
We would not have brought this to E. C. F. G.'s attention if D. Eck had not desired to report and apologize with his hateful writing. Not that we want to denigrate D. Eck against E. C. F. G.; even if we do not need revenge, we want to atone for it in another way, he is not yet over; but that we do not have to suffer that E. C. F. G. blasphemers and taunters want to adorn themselves first and foremost for willing servants.
He also gives his wisdom a noticeable particle that he believes the heretics are pleased with my opinion. Shall I first and foremost, for the sake of D. Ecken's suspicion and belief, keep my
If you want to change your opinion or let go of the truth for the sake of the heretics' joy, then I have truly come across a delicious master in D. Eck. Almost all of D. Eck's arguments were full of sharpness and subtlety, and have pleased the Leipzigers.
(48) That I do not give St. Peter the primacy over the apostles, and that he opposes this and more, God help him, he may well do so, especially since he considers himself the sole patron of the wretched, abandoned Christendom. Let us see, by God's grace, how we can protect ourselves from the resistance that has so far been so gracious to us. Although we are justly surprised at what the free hero encounters, that he fears the light so horribly, and does not like to write, and has had so much trouble that the disputation is suppressed and does not come out before the people.
I gave St. Peter Primatum honoris, non potestatis, because he had no authority to make, send, govern, or ordain the apostles.
50 I do not dispute D. Eck's juridical and dense Distinction de apostolatu et administratione, because it shows that Doct. Eck does not yet know what apostolatus means in Scripture, who nevertheless presumes to fence jure divino.
I do not want his disputation, but give it the right name, that is, criminatio unb perditio temporis, so that I know how to act on it. There are now barely two points in the whole disputation, and yet with loose, dnrchübeten 1) arguments, which I was ashamed in front of learned people. Shouting, talking, a lot of chattering, and getting nowhere, these are D. Eck's disputation.
We have not suggested Leipzig to him; because his great, highly famous memory has forgotten their letter that Leipzig is accepted by him, by us. We would have preferred Erfurt or another city; now we have understood why Leipzig appealed to him. What broke him in Wittenberg, under E. C. F. G. Geleit?
We also wanted nothing better than that E. C. F. G., who submits himself to Doctor Eck
1) "practicing through" - tritis, trivial.
1304 Erl. 53, 23-25, para. 4: What has been done in response to this disp. No. 416 W. XV, I548-I55I. 1305
We do not doubt that it is not recognized according to the shouting and the arguments, as those at Leipzig are doing now without any command. There is no doubt in our minds that it is not recognized by the shouting and the talking, as those at Leipzig are doing now without any command.
What good shall they recognize in Leipzig, if they now, blinded by envy and hatred, give D. Eck won; if it is nevertheless in broad daylight, and they may not deny that Doctor Carlstadt's positions have come home unharmed by D. Eck's grace, although D. Eck has written against them a great, pompous title, contra novam doctrinam, as if he wanted to devour them raw. In addition, he must confess that he has admitted Liberum arbitrium, and all of Doctor Carlstadt's positiones, and has joined Carlstadt; Scotum, Capreolum, thus denying the Thomistic, Scotistic, Modernistic sects, otherwise he would have come a Pelagianus to Ingolstadt. And so the great bubble of the title, Contra novam doctrinam, has been holed and torn, and now holds it with Doctor Carlstadt in all points, so that he has also confessed it himself. So Doctor Carlstadt has won, but D. Eck has the cry. This is how the scholars of Leipzig judge, whom D. Eck desires to be judges.
It is true and necessary for the sake of the truth that we are minded to write against D. Ecken. Eck boasts with his pomp of having won that which he himself holds, and is one with Carlstadt, and by such false boasting makes a delusion that he holds it differently than Doctor Carlstadt, and with such his damned honor takes away the honor of the tender truth, which looks good to no pious man. Therefore, he must give us the carnival larvae and let us see who he is, if God wills.
It is not true that our convention is to stand still until the sentence has passed, but D. Eck says this about himself, as he says almost all other things. Even if this were so, D. Eck would have kept his writing, judging, praising, and judging much more cheaply, and would not have attacked us before princes with writings and words.
falsely recited. So he says that one should stand still, and yet he acts as if it were not true; for he lacks the beautiful memoria, juxta proverbium: Mendacem memorem esse oportet.
It is agreed that the disputation, written by the notaries, will not be printed before the sentence, to which D. Eck and the Leipzigers forced us, against his own writing, seal, promises, and first pact, that we would speak a free disputation in the pen and give it to the light of day before all the world. Now, however, they have used their coarse stubbornness to make a clamor, to pass a bare judgment, and to exert judges to their liking, so that the matter would be suppressed everywhere, and with the judgment thereafter all printings were put down.
58 He is still not satisfied with this, now wants to have only the theologians as judges, refuses the legists, physicians, artists. So much does the Eckische and Leipzigische truth fear that it alone crept into the corner of the theologians, whom it knows to be against us; and adorns itself with the kitten, as if the theologians were the only ones who understood the matter, the others incomprehensible. Why, then, did he earlier want to call E. C. F. G. and the high lordly prince, E. C. F. G. cousin, Duke Georgen, to judge, if he does not like anyone but his theologians. Perhaps he was not serious! But I want the whole university, not only the theologians. For D. Reuchlin's matter has amused me, how learned the theologians are, and how they judge. If the legists, physicians, artists and lay princes had done so, 1) the truth would have been given to the theologians like a sheep to the wolves; that is what D. Eck is looking for here, too.
He also says too much that he has accepted two universities of my liking. I could not come to the favor; I had to let Freiburg and Basel, which I like, go, refused by him.
At the end, he gives fables about the honorable, pious man, D. Peter Burkhard, as if I should have suspected him of having taken my little book to him, and of having read it without my knowledge.
1) The opinion of this sentence is: If the legists, physicians, artists and lay princes had not been there, the truth would be etc. Compare St. Louis edition, vol. V, 251. 668; vol. VIII, 1035, 812; 1052, 8 54 etc.
and scornfully scorned unheard (as he himself writes); for perhaps he still intends to put his dreams to us for rule.
Doctor Peter is a pious man, I have not criticized him for this or that. If D. Eck has dreamed something, he makes a prophecy out of it, so he loves it. I am not idle to answer all his fantasies.
62 However, I like his decision, since he says: E. C. F. G. would be quite praiseworthy, whom: she burns all my books in a heap. Haec Eccius. Such a letter should have such a seal; that is a respectable theological piece, not to see a book, and yet to judge to fire. But it is not necessary that Sus teach Minervam.
63 We hereby humbly request that E. C. F. G. would let us be in her command, and not to pardon our much chatter and long letters. And E. C. F. G. should believe that we have told the truth, and we want to bring it to light in the best possible way with Latin writing.
64 God spare E. C. F. G. for the salvation of his people long blessed, Amen. Given at Wittenberg, on the 18th day of August, 1519.
E. C. F. G.
servants and capellan
D. Martin Luther.
D. Andreas Carlstadius.
417 Carlstadt's and Luther's accompanying letter to the Elector of Saxony. August 18, 1519.
The original of this letter is in the Ood. crdurt. 379 Lidl. Ootti; printed in Cyprian's "Nützliche Urkunden," vol. I, p. 406; in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. III, p. 624; in De Wette, vol. I, p. 321; in the Erlangen edition, vol. 53, p. 26 and in the supplement to the Leipzig edition, p. 28.
To the most illustrious, highborn Prince and Lord, Lord Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Archmarshall of the Holy Roman Empire, Elector, Imperial Majesty in the Saxon Vicariate, Landgrave in Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, our most gracious Lord and Patron.
Jesus.
Most Serene, Highborn Prince, Most Gracious Lord. To your princely graces, our servants are ready with our prayers to God beforehand. Most gracious Prince and Lord! After E. C. F. G. requested from us an answer to D. Johannis Eck's writing, we have begun to take every possible pains to issue a transfiguration by public pressure against his erroneous opinions and untruthfully presented pieces of our proposition, in which we shall provide D. Eck and everyone with sufficient reason and instruction. However, we hereby send E. C. F. G. a German written reply to his letter given to E. C. F. G., specifically directed as to whether E. C. F. G. might like to send the same to D. Eck, which we would like to see, since we suspect that he will take this as a serious reason to flutter out, as he is wont to do, and thus the matter would be given the ground. However, we place all this at the pleasure of E. C. F. G.. We publicly feel that from D. Eck's various writings and works that come to us from Nuremberg, Augsburg and everywhere else, that he intended to blaspheme and revile the Wittenbergers with lies and deceptions to the worst of his ability. He surrendered. Now God help the truth. We tell this to E. C. F. G. so that she will not think that we are perhaps doing too much to him. Hereby we humbly command E. C. F. G.. God spare E. C. F. G. long blessed, Amen. At Wittenberg on the day of Agapiti [Aug. 18] 1519.
E. C. F. G.
The underserved chaplain and servant D. Andreas Carlstadt. D. Martinus Luther.
418 Luther's private responsibility against Eck in a letter to Spalatin, in which he particularly responds to the point that Eck had falsely claimed in his defamatory letter that Carlstadt and Luther had suggested Leipzig or Erfurt to him as the site of the disputation, since Wittenberg had been suggested to him first, which, however, was not up to him.
See Appendix, No. 53, U§1.2.
419 D. Johann Eck's response to Carlstadt's and Luther's letter to the Elector of Saxony. Date Ingolstadt, November 8, 1519.
This letter is found in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 75d; in the Jena edition (1564), vol. I, p. 155 d; in the Altenburg edition, vol. I, p. 282; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XVII, p. 259 and in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, 626.
Most Serene, Highborn Prince! My submissive, obedient services, along with my poor prayer, are ready beforehand for Your Electoral Grace. Most gracious Lord! I have received E. C. F. G.'s letter, together with the responsibility of E. C. F. G.'s doctors, in all humility, as is due, and have also read the same. And while waiting for the decision of Paris, my opinion would have been to remain silent. Again, I have considered that Doctor Martinus Luther interprets the untruth to the holy Concilio, and to this end, I consider it necessary to discover the same to E. C. F. G., asking in all humility most humbly that he not receive it in disgrace, nor have any displeasure.
(2) First, I let it remain that they say that the dispute was driven by envy and hatred. May God be my witness that this is not so on my part. But I proposed the disputation to them for the sake of explaining the truth, and so that the matter would finally be decided by those who heard us disputing, so that the disgraceful writings would be avoided and abolished. And therefore, since they did not want to come to Paris or Cologne, I accepted Leipzig at their request and followed them to their province, since I did not know any doctor or master. But if E. C. F. G. Doctores have disputed out of envy and hatred, God knows that.
3) First, Doctor Andre Rodolphi 1) of Carlstadt apologizes that he has let his disgraceful Conclusiones go out against me, that I have previously touched Doctor Martin Luther in obeliscis meis. I confess, most gracious lord, that I have made annotationes at the request of my most gracious lord of Eistet, on 18 Conclusiones Martini; but have not let them go out, nor have I provided that they should come further. How they were answered to him is hidden from me; but this much I say that I do not have a copy of them, because only how
1) Compare St. Louis Edition, Vol. XX, Introduction, p. 1.
Martinus wrote them with his hand. I do not die from their suspicions, but I ask that I let the theologians of the noble universities of Paris, Bononia, Leuven, Cologne, Vienna, and Leipzig know whether I have done the Annotationes correctly or not, and whether they are right or wrong, and follow the same judgment, that they do so, and have the choice of which they like.
4 On the other hand, he apologizes for his paltry carriage, half of the painting. I did not complain about the painting, because I think he is sitting on the lower wagon himself, but that he attacks me with expressed words and scolds me: if I put donkeys in wagons, he would drive the donkeys, I let it be; if he can, he is probably lying in Welsh land.
5 Doctor Martinus thinks that the pieces do not meet the faith, of purgatory, indulgences, papal authority, it is opinion. I do not mean that one would have burned Johann Hus propter opiniones, dig up Wiklef, condemn Marsilium de Padua, Johannem de Jandavo, Pauperes Lugdunenses for heretics. But that Luther may deny before his sovereign without shame, as if he had not denied the holy Doctores, I show myself on the Notarien Schrift, and so D. Bodenstein has secretly taken away a copy to Leipzig, against the princely councils and the university's command. In the same, E. C. F. G. can clarify: Quod si etiam Augustinus et omnes Patres Petrum intellexerint per petram, resistam ego eis unus [that is]: If already St. Augustine and all the Fathers had understood Petrum through the rock, I united will resist them. I had allegorized the Fathers: Chrysostomum, Ambrosium, Hieronymum, Gregorium, Leonem, Cyprianum, Bernhardum.
6 Now judge E. C. F. G. whether I have written correctly, I will put the point to E. G. to recognize. Therefore, it is a flowery and colored excuse that he does not introduce one doctor against the other, about the words of Paul Gal. 2, 6. Those of Paris will well judge who has introduced the Bible, the holy scripture, and understood it more correctly; but E. C. F. G. according to his highly renowned understanding and reason, knowing richly in everything, can well judge what blindness is there. God does not look at the person of man; therefore St. Peter has not been mighty above other apostles. I say: God
2) tügt - taugte, put by us instead of: "adds" in the editions, which we cannot make sense of. The reading we have assumed is also found in Löscher, Ref.-Acta, Vol. II, p.106.
do not look at the person of man; therefore Moses was not placed in authority over the children of Israel. So your doctor understands the holy scripture beautifully secundum novam grammaticam. It also does injustice to St. Jerome that he understands it against the primacy and supremacy of Peter, who expressly says that Peter was made head of the apostles by Christ, ut schismatis tolleretur occasio.
Furthermore, Luther shows how he understood the words: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram etc. with Augustino through the rock Christ; no one has denied this to him, for it is true. But that I also understood Peter through the rock, so that Christ is the rock and the Lord, on whom the church is built, and yet Peter is also a rock, on whom the church is built, as a vicar. And I have not become fugitive from the text, as Doctor Martin maliciously accuses me of; for I have taken the word of Christ, Matth. 16, 18.
8. and that my understanding is just, I have proved from the fact that the understanding of the text has had the holy fathers, and the Christian church, as Cyprian, Origen, Augustine, Hilarius, Chrysostom, Beda, Leo, Ambrose, Gregory, Cyril, Ignatius, Maximus, Concilium octavum generale, and the greatest Concilium Chalcedonense. These are not little sayings: I want to believe the saints more, where they understand the holy scripture so unanimously, than a young doctor. I do not refer to the young ones who have written in 400 years; for I know well that Luther despises and rejects them according to common hope.
9 And from the following words, E. C. F. G. can deduce what art D. Luther has in the holy doctors, that he says: One has written and held against himself. This is a small honor for the holy doctors. But I say that he does them an injustice in our case. For the two are not repugnant: Christ is the Rock; Peter is the Rock; as the saints, Ambrose, Leo, clearly indicate. I have never done dishonor to any holy doctor in the disputation, that I would have rejected one, like Doctor Luther and Carlstadt: and yet they wrote themselves Ecclesiasticos, and called me sophistam scholasticum.
(10) And because every Christian knows that the Scriptures are praised and honored above all others, I have written: Let no man interpret the Scriptures according to his own reason, but follow the doctrine of the fathers. Thus Doctor Luther brings it forth, and calls it my own verbiage, and will direct himself to it, if he has a clear text, so let him
He would stay with it, although the teacher's interpretation would be against it. Notice E. C. F. G., what insolence is there in the cowl. This has seduced all heretics, their obstinacy, that they do not want to follow others, and think they understand it better than the holy teachers. If the text is clear, they want to stick to it. If the text is clear, how did the divine teachers not understand it? How would it be if someone thought he had a clear text and was mistaken, like the heretic Arius?
I rather believe the dear saints than my coarse mind. And my useful doctrine he calls a babble, and yet it is not mine, but St. Clementis dist. 37. c. perlatum: It happens to us how some, dwelling with you, resist sound doctrines, and teach not according to the old fathers' interpretation, but according to their understanding.
(12) That Augustine wrote against the doctors of his time, when the Holy Scriptures were not yet explained as they are now, is good to think that he might well have done so. Now E. C. F. G., like D. Luther, has unreasonably and falsely attacked me, as if the Leipzigers and I had thought of him as having thrown back all the holy doctors, which is evident from the notarial Scriptures, and I wanted to prove this with 200 people.
Luther further wrote that I wanted to prove the authority of St. Peter, that he was a prince of the apostles set by Christ, with divine right. This I confess. But that he pretends that I have had some reason to believe the Concilium of Constance, which is only a human law, not divine, I say that D. Luther is telling the truth. For I have based the authority of Peter on the holy Gospels; as the scripture of the notaries clearly shows; I am highly disconcerted how he may present such a thing before E. C. F. G., and I know that it is not so.
14 Thus, only in the third disputation do we come to the Hussian articles and to the concilium. And that he says that the Concilium is not able to make one according to divine law, is therefore true; but if a holy Concilium, properly assembled, decides to be something of divine law, we are to believe it.
15 But that further D. Luther E. C. F. G. indicates, he has set against me, the whole church towards the end of the sun 1400 years, which had never been under the pope, would be damned, with so many great teachers of Christianity, as Athanasius, Chrysostom etc. What to say of such great error and falsehood, a prince before-
to carry? I speak, and E. C. F. G. should always believe that the Oriental churches in Asia, Egypt and Greece, because they were pious, have always recognized the Pope and the See of Rome as the highest in Christendom, and have also been obedient to him. And that it is true, St. Athanasius with three other saints, when he was deposed by the heretics, appealed to Pope Marco in Rome, is almost 1200 years.
16 After that, Pope Julius summoned the bishops from the Orient to Rome, and when they disobeyed, he passed a sentence against them, and reinstated St. Athanasius in Alexandria over the sea. And brother Luther is allowed to denounce St. Athanasius that he was not under the pope!
The Pope also restored St. Chrysostom, who had been expelled from Constantinople, and Theophilus, who had expelled him, wrote to the Pope, as if he were to confirm him; but the Pope Innocentius recognized that Theophilus had judged wrongly, and had expelled St. Chrysostom (who also declared his innocence to the Pope) unfairly. Doctor Luther is still allowed to pretend the insanity of E. C. F. G.. St. Chrysostom had not been under the pope.
18 I do not want to dispute now, but only to reject Luther's false pretensions. For that the churches have been under the pope at Rome, even though they have had special patriarchs, I would like to show through the dear holy martyrs and popes, St. Victor, Fabian, Zepherin, Eusebii, and others, who have shown their supremacy over them. Therefore, do not give credence to Luther in this case.
19 But it is astonishing that D. Luther is not ashamed to present the untruth. Luther is not ashamed before his sovereign to present the untruth that the Greeks and other churches were heretics and unruly, when they are highly praised in Scripture. On this I say that he does me wrong, and in this he shows that there is nothing good in him to inflict such disgrace on me. And I refer to the writings of the notaries who wrote out our words, that I said that it is well known that the Greeks and Orientals were Christian and pious people; but at that time they were under the pope, as St. Gregory himself sent pallium to the bishop in Greece. But since they fell from the obedience of the pope, they were heretics and breakers of Christian unity, so that the Constantinopolitan emperor and patriarch in
the Concilium came to Florence, and again did obedience to the Roman Church.
20 Therefore, Luther should not conceive such a false thing against me with untruth; for the pious Greeks have recognized the pope, as Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to the holy pope Leo the First, Ignatius to the pope Nicolaum, and both were again legally appointed.
And about the foregoing, I would like to indicate at length how the pious Greeks have always recognized the Pope and obeyed him, as through the holy popes Iginium, Leonem, Innoc entium, Gelasium, Pelagium, all of whom were before St. Gregory, through Concilia etc. But I do not want to burden E. C. F. G.. It is true that in the disputation I accused Luther of wanting to mix the dear holy Greeks with the heretical Greeks and to defend them with them; he should separate the obedient ones from the pope and the pious ones from the disobedient heretics. For this I speak freely: He who separates himself from the Roman church is a disruptor of Christian unity and a servant of the devil.
When Luther further indicated that the holy Concilium Nicenum, at the time of the
Luther wrote that he had decreed that the Roman Pontiff alone should be in charge of the Roman Church, and the one in Alexandria of the Egyptian Church, and that the bishops should not be confirmed by Rome, but that two or three, the closest bishops, should ordain him.
(23) Most gracious Lord, I do not know what to say, whether it is malice or ignorance. For first, I know that D. Luther never saw the Concilium; he also alleges it incorrectly in German and Latin; nor does it contain a word about the French churches. But this is in the sixth canon of the Concilii, that he of Alexandria has power over Egypt, Lybia, and the five cities according to ancient custom; for the same custom is also held by the bishop of Rome. The Concilium wants that, as a pope of Rome would have power over the bishops in his patriarchate, so also the one of Alexandria over the bishops in his patriarchate. But it does not say that the patriarch of Alexandria is not under the pope. For St. Athanasius was patriarch of Alexandria, and yet he recognized the popes Marcum, Julium, Felicem as his superiors, as is reported before, and yet he was in such a council.
24. and that brother Luther has his poisonous tongue
I want to tell E. C. F. G. one more thing in all humility, that this holy council, held at Nicaea, which among others has always been considered the holiest and the highest, and held equal to the Gospel, as D. Luther indicates. From this it is clearly indicated that the pope is above all bishops. For there is a law made that any bishop who would be accused by his primate of abdication should appeal to Rome. And by virtue of the statute, St. Athanasius appealed to Rome.
(25) Again, Luther erroneously and unjustly judges the holy Concilio by saying that one should not confirm the bishops from Rome, which is never reported with a word. And with ordaining, Luther says that two or three bishops may ordain one; this is an error that cannot be excused or defended. For two cannot elect one bishop. But he speaks of it like a blind man of the colors, has never seen the Concilium, and does not understand it either. But the 4th canon of the Concilii says that a bishop should be ordained by all the bishops in the province; but if they do not all want to come from a distance because of the way or other need, then three should ordain him, as happens today by day. For it is different to confirm a bishop and to ordain a bishop; and he who does not know this does not know what a bishop is.
(26) My brother Luther also introduces another falsehood, as if I had ever said that all the bishops of Rome should be confirmed by divine right; in this he does me an injustice, and spares the truth. By the grace of God, I know very well how things have been in Christendom in the past, because Luther. Why should I speak such things? For I know that every patriarch has confirmed his bishop, and that sometimes the bishops primas sedis, that is, the primates, have done so; as the pope through Greece ordered the bishop Thessalonicensi, who instead of the pope confirms the bishops through Greece, which belongs to Rome and not to Constantinople or Antioch. Although now, unfortunately, Christianity has come to a patriarchate, as Bahanis predicted many hundreds of years ago, to be in the future. Therefore, D. Luther attributes to me what I have never thought or said.
27 It is even more unpleasant that he spares the truth after that and, according to his evil habit, accuses me as if I wanted to make heretics of the churches at the beginning, in Africa, France, and the holy Concilium Nicenum. However, it is clear from the things mentioned above that he has
truth, and does not know or understand what he is saying.
But if D. Luther quite freely and out of a heretical spirit (as is to be assumed) said in the disputation at Leipzig that some articles of Hus, condemned in the holy Concilio at Constance (which was assembled from all Christendom), and Hus their holder and compiler burned, were the most Christian and evangelical, he now wants to apologize and color himself against E. C. F. G. according to his custom; he says yes, some articles are condemned as heretical and some as insane. C. F. G. and color them according to his custom; says, yes, that some articles are condemned as heretical, some as insane, and some as sacrilegious, which offend Christian hearts. Therefore, he supposes to receive some damned articles as Christian and true.
29 But the wickedness may not be hidden, most gracious Lord. The holy Concilium does not separate the articles of John Hus in such a way, as D. Luther indicates, but calls them in general all in such a way that they are heretical and insane. He also does not understand why the holy Concilium names the articles in such a diverse way, which I will now leave for the sake of brevity, because one should soon see it in print.
30 And what an outrage it is that the Articles have been condemned by the Concilium, of which there has been none for so long, with so many persons and unanimity of all Christendom, since three popes have surrendered their justice to the Concilium, or have been deprived of it; since French, German, French, Hispanic, Angelic, etc. all come into one obedience, and by the nations, not by the pope's trustees, as D. Luther proclaims, the Articles have been condemned. If he first wants to make them the most Christian and evangelical, I put this to E. C. F. G. for consideration, and will therefore leave it at that, whether the Holy Spirit is watching over Luther or not. I will therefore leave it at that, whether the Holy Spirit watches over Luther or over the holy Concilio.
But that Luther indicates: Yes, repugnant things are often decided in concilia; I say: In the points concerning faith, D. Luther will never make this true, where concilia are properly assembled in the whole community. For a concilium of a province may err; so may a concilium generale of a patriarchate err; but a common concilium universale, that may not err, and not even now concilium generale. Therefore I do not accept that he brings from the article, but he shows me in which concilio. For in truth he has never seen a few Concilii Canones in their origin; so I have 42 Concilia, in none of which the two articles stand. Therefore, I think he is doing with it, as I have often experienced him now, and is inventing it.
The same sacrilege is in that he says that the Concilium at Constance has decided repugnant things, and Brother Luther wants to revile the whole Concilium, and so many learned people, that they would have been repugnant to themselves. But of this I will say later.
33 Whether it would be so, that the two would be conciliaritsr, properly decided in the Concilio, as D. Luther indicates, yet he does them wrong, that they would be contrary to themselves. For the two are not against each other, that the pope retains the primacy and supremacy over all special persons of all Christendom, and yet the common assembly of Christendom, as a concilium is, is over the pope. This was the reason given by the Patriarch of Antioch in his booklet against the pope Eugenium. Therefore, Luther himself errs and deceives himself with such sophistical arguments and dissolute causes.
34 If D. Luther begins to argue before E. C. F. G. with his stupid and lazy arguments, I ask you, most gracious Lord, not to be displeased that I recently reject them, because they come from a wrong mind. First, he says that Peter was subject to the church at Jerusalem with St. John, because he was sent in Samariam [Apost. 8:14], and he who sends one is superior than he who is sent. This has been a dilapidated reason of the heretics Arianorum, by which they wanted to prove that God the Father would be more in divine essence than the Son, if God the Father had sent into the world. Therefore it is an insanity that he who sends one is always more than he who is sent.
35 Also, the Concilium does not want to depose a pope, because by divine right he would be the supreme one in the church. I say, D. Luther truly does not understand all this. But recently to decide that, I confess that an undoubted pope, unless he becomes a heretic, may not be deposed from the church. And even if the whole of Christendom were to raise one against the pope, to whom they all wanted to be obedient, he would still be guilty, for the blessedness of his soul, of being under the pope. There is no need to talk further about it.
But in order that brother Luther might hide his evil, false opinion against the holy Conciliarities, he brings up one thing that we have not discussed, whether the Concilium is about the pope; as if the two Conciliarities at Constance and now at Rome had decided disgusting things. I say, most gracious sir, that I do not want to discuss this now, which is not addressed in a few words.
but to reject the venomous argument of D. Luther against the holy Concilia, I say that D. Luther will never again argue that a Concilium is a general Concilium. Luther will never argue, if he knows more truly what a concilium is, that I have a great doubt that the Constance Concilium universale, a general concilium, decided to be a concilium over the pope. It is true that the part that was under the obedience of John the 23rd decided that; but that was not a complete concilium, because they were still under the obedience of the other two popes Gregory the 12th and Benedictus the 13th, therefore there was no concilium at that time. They may have doubted whether this was a true concilium or not, as it could be told by its length. That is why Luther speaks quite blasphemously of the concilium, that they have erred, now setting this, now that, and have made Christians err, which no devout Christian should speak. Therefore, from all that has gone before, it is easily noted how D. Luther maliciously rejects as not wanting to take a consistent argument from the holy Conciliis. For a Christian should not speak of the holy Conciliar that they are fickle and determine partisan trades; for thus God would have left the Christian faith in doubt.
If something were to occur from the Holy Scripture that D. Luther understood it that way, and I otherwise, everyone would think that the text was for him. Luther would understand it this way, and I would understand it the other way, everyone would think that the text is for him, then Luther does not want to turn back to papal decision; then the Concilium would be unstable and erroneous; and therefore we must remain in doubt. This is not to be said of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he would have left them helpless in the matters of faith. In this way all heretics would make do with the accusation that the Conciliar and the Popes had erred.
38 Most gracious Lord, how can E. C. F. G. allow that D. Luther still persists in his erroneous, false, heretical opinion that some articles of Hus, condemned by the holy Concilio at Constance, are Christian and true, which he wants to maintain against me. As far as my person is concerned, I would not care much that he wants to preserve them against the holy Concilium, but listen to what E. C. F. G.'s neighbors, the Bohemian heretics, say; for from time immemorial they say that their master was burned for Christian and true articles.
Luther recounts several articles and brings up the Concilium Nicenum, of which it is sufficiently said how he introduces it falsely; he has never seen it. The Concilium is also completely against him. E. C. F. G. see
but how lavishly brother Luther pretends to be when he says: "I did not like to bite the little nut. I put this on E. C. F. G.'s knowledge, whether I have not shown rightly with the truth, how the Concilium of Nicaea is not with him, but against him.
40 He also used such falsehoods with the Concilio in Africa, which he also alleges for himself, although such allegations are nowhere in the Concilio. For he has seen none, as I have said; but thus he has been deceived. For c. primae sedis 99. distinct. is a rule of the same Concilii, and since it is short, he has also meant the following words, which are Gratiani, they are rules of the Concilii. But how to understand the words Gratiani, Pelagii, St. Gregory, I show in my booklet of the Superiority of St. Peter.
If D. Luther says that the article is Christian: Humanity and Godhead are One Christ, I say that the article is condemned and belongs in the fire. But I believe that, as St. Athanasius speaks in the Christian faith, that one prays in the prime time, 1) or that D. Luther reads, God and man are One Christ.
(42) Furthermore, he shows the article to be Christian, that every work of man is virtuous or blasphemous; I say against it that the article is condemned and belongs in the fire. And it does not help that he wants to strengthen the obstinate, who believed too much in themselves and considered the Concilia to be erroneous. I certainly believe that the holy Scriptures are in the first place with us. But if brother Luther says, one should understand it thus, and that is the right sense of the text; the pope and a holy Concilium say, No, the brother's mind is wrong, so one should understand it: then I believe the holy Concilio, and let the brother go. For otherwise all heresy would be renewed; for they have all founded themselves on the holy Scriptures, and have supposed that their understanding is right, and that the popes and Concilia are in error, as Doctor Luther now thinks. Therefore they have remained obdurate.
(43) Therefore it is not Christian liberty for one to boldly cry out of foolishness, "Let the concilia err. For I say against it: Whoever says that a common holy concilium, properly assembled, errs, is to me like a heathen and an open sinner. But that the false concilia have erred, as Ariminense, Ephesinum, etc., it is because they are not properly assembled.
1) In the old prints: "Prim. time"; the first of the "seven tides" or Korns onrLooions.
The following is a summary of the events that have been collected; as long as it would take to write what would have been lacking, which I omit for the sake of brevity. With the Concilio of Constance and that of Rome has been reported.
44 If D. Luther has deliberately misrepresented my words about free will, I will leave it at that; for soon after he will come back with it; then I will show E. C. F. G. how D. Luther has spared the truth in the article, as is also his custom. For I remain with the holy Concilio, as I know well to maintain against Doctor Luther, not only with mere words, but also inherit me for the laudable universities, Paris, Louvain, Cologne, Bononia. And whoever lies below, let him pay the costs to the other, according to the knowledge of the same universities.
45 D. Luther complains most highly that I have called him a heretic and heretic patron in Leipzig and thus deprived him of Christian honor. Luther highly complains that I scolded and shouted him out as a heretic and heretic-patron in Leipzig, and thus deprived him of Christian honor. Also accuse those of Leipzig, as if they had strengthened me in this, that on his complaint such things were not forbidden to me, and left him the slaps. I ask E. C. F. G. to graciously hear how D. Luther is not ashamed of any shot, and as I now report to E. C. F. G., I will draw on the writing of the sworn notaries, and the gentlemen of Leipzig, will also gladly give me in E. C. F. G.'s name. C. F. G. punishment, where they will not find all things as I say.
It has the form: Luther wanted, as also here in the letter, that the Greeks had never been under the Roman church for 1400 years. I say that he wanted to protect the heretics and breakers of Christian unity with the appearance of the pious Greeks and saints, if he took the years all together, and thus mixed the evil and the good, which he should separate, since there is no comparison of the light and the devil. Then D. Luther interfered with my speech and said: I am speaking impudently and lying about him, and testified to that.
After that, I accused him of saying against the holy Concilium at Constance that some Hussite articles were most Christian and evangelical. Then Doctor Luther spoke out again and protested that it was not true that he had spoken against the Concilium. To the third, I pointed out to D. Luther that the damned heretics would like to establish themselves and take such speech to help them, which would be useful to them, and thus say against the Christians: If the Concilium at Constance erred in the articles, then the authority and faith of the Concilii will also waver with us,
in other articles. But Doctor Luther testified that it was a lie. In response to such immodesty, I modestly said nothing else, because I wanted to prove and make true what he had said and what the notaries had written out.
48 Most gracious sir, note E. C. F. G., who broke the escort, who was more lewd, also how such a Luckmann 1) is Doctor Luther, who protests that it is not true that he spoke against the Concilium at Constance, when he now in his writing much and often goes about keeping that in which he erred. I also caught him on such a pale horse in Leipzig. For when we were before the gentlemen, my gracious Lord Duke Georgen etc. and the university council, I referred to all the universities in Christendom (two excluded), that they should recognize which one was right in his disputation, so that when the disputation took place, one would know who was right; not as now, that each party says it is right, and becomes much more evil after the disputation than before.
I have also offered (although the matter, concerning the faith, belongs to the papal see at Rome), I do not want to force him to do so, but to appeal to the universities, as I have reported. This is what the councils did for a long time with D. Luther, who did not want to grant some universities, wanted to have a free disputation, which they did not want to allow him by princely order. From this alone it appears that he cannot have almost a good thing, because he does not want to suffer any judges.
50 Thus he left, that he did not want to dispute, and refused me the disputation; after that he poured out, the councilors did not want to let him dispute, he wanted to let the pope judge about the disputation. 2) The pope did not want to let the councilors judge about the disputation. Thus he wanted to denigrate the honorable councilors and make himself beautiful. May E. C. F. G. well consider how this is not honest, nor is it proper for a pious man. I refrain from doing so, and I refer this to the noble councils of my gracious lord Duke George, the high lord prince, and to the university, also to the strict, highly respected lord of Plawnitz, knight and doctor 2c, E. C. F. G. captain.
51 When I offered myself before the Lords,
1) "Luckmann" will probably be as much as Lugmann, Lügenmann. The same expression returns in § 80 of this writing.
2) Inserted by us.
they gave further information, which Doctor Luther would have behaved according to his own nature, if I had offered to take from the writings of the notaries, who would have written out all things, and would have entered the disputation, so they wanted to let them know about it, who would then judge the whole disputation; that D. Luther complained unreasonably to my understanding. Luther complains unreasonably, to my mind.
52 And so Doctor Luther writes that he would have accused me of being a sevenfold heretic, and a blasphemer of the Most Holy Nicene Conciliar, and of all Christianity, as I truly am. Only when D. Luther would have done this to me in the disputation, I would have answered for it to him in such a way that I would not have had to refer it to him. But that he now writes out of a poisonous, envious heart that I am such a one, I add: It is certainly true that those who are poisoned with heresy easily revile other pious people by calling them heretics; and therefore Luther speaks no truth to this, and does me an injustice. He has also never had or seen the holy Concilium Nicenum right, which he also falsified. And that he now often comes forth with it, why did he not bring it forth in Leipzig?
I have relied on the noble, highborn prince and lord, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia etc., who, as befits a noble Christian prince, has permitted the disputation, has ordered it, and has not incurred a little expense in it; he has often been at the disputation himself. I also rely on his noble councils, on Rector and Doctores of the famous university, on an honorable wise council of a noble city. But how E. C. F. G. Volk held the escort is well known in Leipzig, as they once grasped the swords when we were disputing. Item, how they shouted at me at night time in front of the house, so that an honorable council had to keep my hostel for me.
But that E. C. F. G. recognizes my innocence, and Doctor Luther's seductive, insane, heretical teaching, I inform you that a disputation note has recently come to me from Wittenberg, printed; among other things, this is also a position: It is not heresy not to believe in the sign of baptism, in Latin characterem, and in the transformation of the bread in the sacrament. Notice, E. C. F. G., how the holy sacrament of the tender Corpus Christi of Jesus Christ is touched, that it cannot be safe from them, and want to bring forth the old error, that without the sign of baptism it is heresy.
Heresy one may say that the bread still remains in the sacrament and is not transformed. Then E. C. F. G. may well consider, according to high reason, what insanity and heresy will arise there, if one does not look into the matter differently.
55 If, furthermore, Doctor Luther comes to the disputation and shows how his time for disputing has been cut short, I will inform E. C. F. G. with all humility that Brother Luther is telling the truth. For he and D. Bodenstein have first asked the most noble Prince Duke Georgen etc. to break off the disputation; because their university would be missed by their absence, also to present everyone with heavy costs. When my gracious lord ordered the judges to do so, D. Luther decided not to argue against me in any conclusion, because in the 13th he dropped all the others, and also took Doctor Andre alone. But I took seven against Luther and two against Andre, which I led out, although Andre left one behind; and I would rather have taken more, if I had been allowed to, because I would rather have six weeks than three.
56 Doctor Luther also says that he has had enough for one or two hours. But that he complains how I have taken his hour from him, know, most gracious lord, that Doctor Luther is again keeping up his pretense and telling you the truth. We had half decided on my part, and the day was free for him to oppose, as had been said; then he first began to dispute my previous decision, and introduced something new, which had not been on the track before, therefore I had to answer for the same. And I must not complain about the time, because I made him so tired that he no longer wanted to stand on the chair. You can see from the notary's handwriting who had the last word. So I have kept completely to the way the noble councils have managed with me, and have not left the contract; therefore I will come to the princely and university councils.
That I had all his little books in my hands, and what the matter gave him and D. Bodenstein, as he had written here and there before. Bodenstein, as he had written here and there before, I do not refer to myself, but attribute to my diligence and prudence. Thus he falsely ascribes hatred to me, if I used it, which I had good reason and right to do against him.
58 Furthermore, D. Luther, I have scolded him the poor monastic state. That is the truth, most gracious lord, since he wrestled with Rome and the pope to such an extent that he alone could not have been
I felt that the habit was pressing him hard, and I said to him, "Where did he and his brothers get the robe they were wearing, who had confirmed their rule, who had given them authority to preach and hear confession, when the parish priests and bishops had not consented to it? Then my brother Luther says, I have reviled the monastic state. But he conceals that he said to me: He did not want there to be a mendicant monk. Then E. C. F. G. recognize who has reviled the monastic state more. And when you establish and build monasteries, he wanted none of them to be mendicants. I give this to the dear fathers of all Christendom to consider.
59 He also complains that I tore up his sermon, which he preached in Leipzig, in three sermons before all the people; I confess this, because I thought his sermon was false and seductive, therefore I wanted to point the pious people to a right path. But whether D. Luther thinks that I have done too much to him, or that I have done him wrong, I ask to be brought before a noble university in Leipzig, who have heard this, or before my gracious Bishop of Merseburg, Ordinary in Leipzig.
60 Further, he indicates how I have disgraced him by having the notaries put into the pen what he would have written in his book; to this I say, most gracious lord, but Luther pretends to be untruthful.
61'. That I have alleged Cyprianum, or that this has not been serviceable to my undertaking; for this I say, where D. Luther indicates that I have alleged Cyprianum, and is not thus found in the book, I will pay D. Luther the expenses and costs incurred at Leipzig in the disputation. Luther the expenses and costs, suffered at Leipzig in the disputation. And that E. C. F. G. will make a credible note of this, I do this in all obedience to know that I allege Cyprianum at two ends at that time, and think that D. Luther was mistaken about the first; therefore I put a sign for this in his book, because he had truly not read him well.
62 And in the disputation he wanted to have the other place where Cyprianus said that the Christian church was to be built on Petro, I show him from hour in the fourth book of his epistle, where the holy martyr Cyprianus says with expressed words: Peter, superquem aedificanda fuerat Ecclesia; where Luther had written: Behold, the holy man has been deceived, has also meant that Christ has built his church on St. Peter. This has ever been entirely subservient to my cause, and let E. C. F. G. Cyprianum besich-.
If it is not so, then think no more of me; but if it is as I have indicated in the disputation, and still, then think no more of the monk.
63. from which E. C. F. G. well, what lies behind D. Corners, as D. Luther writes, and whether that is childishly acted, and puts a lot on the Leipzigers. I know nothing of the pious gentlemen, because everything good. I have never known any of the good gentlemen before; so none of them, whom I have seen, has never written me a letter before.
64 Whether D. Luther carried a devil in a box or in a robe, I do not know, nor has anyone in Leipzig ever heard from me that I have accused him of this; but that is true, he carried something on a finger with a little thread and a silver ring, and there was much talk about it. Whether D. Luther meant me as a blasphemer and tattletale to E. C. F. G., he would be doing me an injustice, as in others. For to serve you, as a highly praised and famous prince of the German nation, would be especially desirable to me, and completely desirable, if I could do so.
That the heretics rejoice in his teaching, as it is certain that they have publicly pleaded for him, even some heretics have been secretly in the disputation. Now he rejects my argument, which I will put to the knowledge of E. C. F. G., whether it is not good: the heretics in Bohemia rejoice in Luther's teaching and put it on the Christians; on the other hand, the pious Christians in Bohemia are displeased with his teaching, and they are sorry for it and completely disgusted by it. Who would not notice now that it follows that his teaching is suspicious of heresy?
Of St. Peter, most gracious sir, I say, yes, he is a prince of the whole church and of the apostles; and that D. Luther thinks he can resist me, I do not mean. Luther thinks he resists me, I do not mean that, and the verdict of Paris will decide who resisted the other. But there he saves the truth, that he says: I fear the light, and have had great trouble that the disputation would not come to the people. E. C. F. G. has heard above that I am looking for the light, and wanted the disputation to come before the people, therefore left him a free choice of all universities etc. He is well aware of the light, but for a long time he did not want to give in that the disputation would be recognized. I have dedicated myself that the disputation should not be printed, unless it is first recognized; otherwise, there will be more fools than jokers, more evil than good; therefore, I wanted to have a verdict on it beforehand.
67 That he distinguishes, as he gives St. Peter a primacy, and he will not allow me to distinguish. And his distinction is false, against St. Cyprian and Jerome. As I indicated to him in the disputation, and yet he thanked me highly, and so soon forgot it. Your doctors would be better off disputing Memori. Well, I am now making a booklet about him, namely about Peter's supremacy, in which I want to suppress this false, seductive, Lutheran doctrine, with the grace of God. He must be inside in this and other that I like to write, although with the vituperative writings, as D. Luther does, I have never been comfortable.
68 That he scolds me as if it had been a scolding, not a disputation, I let myself rely on the knowledge of the princely councils, and on the university, also on the writing of the notaries, who has taken the liberty to scold and disgrace him. I know well that he does not like to dispute, he fears that his vanity will come to light.
Furthermore, D. Luther writes that they have not suggested Leipzig to me, because my highly famous Memoria has forgotten my letter. Do E. C. F. G. know that D. Luther, according to his habit, but[mals] saves the truth. So he is not ashamed that I am surprised. My memory has not forgotten it (God the Lord grant me the long).
70) That D. Luther proposed the two universities of Erfurt and Leipzig to me at Augsburg with the Carmelites, and I ordered him to talk to D. Bodenstein; that he then wrote to me that D. Bodenstein had agreed, and if I had to go further, they wanted to leave me the choice; as I mean, I still have the letter in my hands, and my gracious Lord of Bavaria's councilors, and our university have read the same letter, with whom I discussed which one I wanted to accept; for I was not known in any place. And in the end I chose Leipzig, so that I could follow them far enough away. As the letters sent to my gracious Lord Duke George etc. and the University of Leipzig also show.
If it does not turn out that way, most gracious lord, I have the honor to pay Luther all the costs he suffered in the disputation at Leipzig; but if it does turn out that I am allowed to punish him for a lie, then I will tell him the truth.
(72) Since he, Luther, shows how the laity are now more learned in the Holy Scriptures than doctors of the same, anyone with an understanding can calculate what blind and unrhymed speech this is.
73] D. Luther also scolds the Leipzigers. Luther scolds those of Leipzig, saying that they have won me over, that they are blinded by envy and hatred, even though D. Bodenstein's Conclusiones have come home intact, and I must confess all of D. Carlstadt's positions, and have stood by him, otherwise I would have come home a Pelagian heretic, and have denied Thomistic, Scotistic, Modernist sects, and I now stand with D. Carlstadt on all points. So D. Carlstadt won, but D. Eck got the shouting etc. Most gracious sir, who can sufficiently consider the malice and his falsehood? I have answered this false point sufficiently in Latin, as I am sending it to E.C.F.G. herewith.
Doctor Luther writes that, or Carlstadt, that they praise themselves, they have won. There is nothing to it; for the verdict has not yet been given, and yet they confess the truth, I have the cry, I have won. The common cry is seldom empty. But that they say that V. Carlstadt's positiones have come home unharmed; now they have almost bled in Leipzig; are they now whole? Let them judge beforehand.
He further indicates that I have admitted all of D. Carlstadt's positions; he spares the truth, as the notary's writing indicates, and I further indicate in Latin. Thus he also does not tell what we have mainly disputed. For that has been the dispute, E. C. F. G. Doctores have long disputed and written that free will adds nothing to a good work, it is entirely from God, and free will alone receives it, habeat se pure passive et receptive tantum capax. So that D. Luther writes in one place that a pious man does more good works when he sleeps than when he wakes; the Manichaeans considered this a heresy. For why do the monks have to get up at matins? And I presented so much that finally D. Carlstadt had to admit to me that free will also worked something in the good work, and would not only give completely from God; I was satisfied. And so, when D. Carlstadt fell from his and D. Luther's opinion (which probably disgraced some Wittenbergers), I let it be, and was satisfied.
76. then E. C. F. G., as they falsely pretend, so D. Carlstadt had to come to my side, after many disputes, so they pretend with untruth, I gave in to them. They also blasphemously write that I would have come home Pelagian if I had not denied them; I say that they have invented such things, and with the truth it will never be found; show me on the writing of the notaries that I have denied nothing. And pierce there with his venomous tongue, as if
if all Thomists, Scotists and Modernists were heretics, now 200 years ago; where were the fathers of his order, Egidius of Rome, Alphonsus, Thomas of Strasbourg, Gerardus of Senis, Jacobus of Appamis, Augustine of Anchon, Simon of Cassia, Hugolinus and others? Have they all been heretics, except for brother Luther? So, all preachers, all barefooted; for in Latin he alone excludes Gregory of Arimino. There E. C.F. G. sees what poisonous sacrilege is in the cowl.
Furthermore, they apologize, they want to write. Most gracious sir, I know well that they flee disputing; as, then, when Augustine speaks, is the heretic's way. By writing they mean to flourish the cause, and to revile the people, which pleases many a fool. Well then, write to me, I will pay you by the board, as I have now answered his poisoned hipsterish writing three times, to the epistle to Spalatinum, to the jad 1) against the pious honest man, Licentiate Hieronymus Emser, and to the articles, which the pious Barefooters have complained against some Lutherans, the Bishop of Brandenburg. I do not want to forget the halter on the barn [bear?]; if they want to make use of such pieces, see who gives the other the carnival larva. But if Doctor Luther does me an injustice, and saves the truth, that he says, because of honor I boast against D. Carlstadt, then I hold it, as he first said about it; it is also in the notary's writing, how much it has beaten.
78 For the sake of the convention that took place in Leipzig, that one should stand still and not leave anything out against each other, D. Luther wants to go to the disputation alone. In my opinion, he will go to the disputation alone, although I have heard otherwise; but writing letters alone has never been reported. And Doctor Luther shows me what he has recently done himself, before my letter, in a letter to Mr. Willibald Pirkheimer at Nuremberg, in which he boasts greatly and gives him credit, and in it reviles me after his damned manner. There he sees to it with his Memoria that mendax is memor.
1) Gejad - Hunt. - Eck's answer to Luther's letter to Spalatin (Document No. 380) is his sxpui-Autio; the second writing mentioned by him is his "Antwort für Emser wider Luthers tolle Jagd" (St. Louiser Ausgabe, Bd. XVIII, 910); the third one will be the one he let go out in the matter of the Minorites at Jüterbock against "Luthers Vertheidigung wider das böswillige Urtheil des Johann Eck". Compare St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 4Lb.
Further, Doctor Luther writes that I, along with the Leipzigers, have forced him by force, against my own writing, seals, promises and first pact. Most gracious prince and lord, I say that such things were conceived with falsehood, and no pious person has ever accused me of it. For I have never thought otherwise than that those of Leipzig should judge, as my letters clearly state, so I wrote to my gracious lord, Duke Georgen etc., the university and the faculty, also through my and from their notes. He will also never see the day that he shows me my letter, in which I have promised him something that is contrary to such a convention. So he does not have my seal on any letter either. It is certainly my opinion that the disputation should be opened to the whole world; but only after the verdict, as D. Carlstadt himself states in his epistle on the verdict well considered by Leipzig, and after that, when we have come there, he does not want to do it. Since E. C. F. G. recognizes who would not comply with his letter, I may well have E. G. as a judge.
80 It is equally false and fictitious that D. Luther writes. Luther writes that such a promise was made solely for the sake of fame, and so that we would raise judges at our own pleasure. I have shown before how they have been given the choice of all famous universities in German, French, France, Spain, England, two alone excluded. How can Luckmann say that we want to have judges of our liking, if I have not chosen any?
Brother Luther complains that I did not want to let the physicians, legists and artists judge at the universities, only the theologians and the canonists. It is a wonder that D. Luther also did not desire shoemakers and tailors, or that he would have brought it to a covenant day. So the matter is created, most gracious Lord, D. Luther would like to break out his insanity with the crowd, who would not understand the matter. But I have put it to the knowledge of the princely councils and the university, where they consider it reasonable that the physicians, legists etc. should also judge, then I hate it to happen; but where they recognize this to be unreasonable, then they reject Luther from his unreasonable proceeding. But Luther did not want that to come to their judgment.
Caesar Pflug suggested my gracious lord, Duke Georgen, E. C. F. G. Cousin, whom we both accepted, and he also recognized that they should not be present, and that is how it is. Brother Luther speaks,
The angular truth fears the light. Is that feared, if I want to appear in so many universities in all Christendom? And if D. Luther confesses, as he said even more explicitly in Leipzig, that the theologians everywhere are against him, how would it be possible that he would be right, because he wants to be more learned than all the theologians in the world out of stubborn hope, and thus deceive himself and other people.
It lifts and moves on me D. Luther, I want to suffer only the theologians and canonists as judges; why did I want to suffer the sovereign prince Duke Georgen earlier? Most gracious sir, I still insist that the pious Christian prince would have had costs and much trouble with the disputation, together with his judges; I indicated before all, when I was asked, that the choice was with D. Luther. Luther, but if it were up to me, I would want my gracious Lord Duke George to decide on our disputation according to the advice of the scholars, and I would not give him any measure or form as to whom he should advise or send; H. F. G. would certainly know what was needed for the matter, much more than I would indicate. Therefore, there is no help for Luther, as I presumably know that my Lord Duke George etc. will judge according to the advice of the theologians. That he still wants to have the whole university, by his cause and the high lordly prince's decision, his will can have no progress.
For the sake of two universities, he indicates that he had to let Basel go; this is one that I did not want to have; he also never reported it in the election. He does me an injustice with Freiburg, as is his custom. I have indicated how there are no more than three Doctores Theologiä, one is D. Luther's order, which I could not stand; with the other two I like it well. But I tell him beforehand that I am Doctor Freiburgensis, and that one Doctor, Johann Brisgoicus, was my promoter and preceptor. Luther now wanted to admit that [he] did not want to seek a plea for the sake of the sentence of the things, and that such would now be written out; therefore D. Luther fell on Paris.
Finally, when I excused D. Peter Burkhard against E. C. F. G., D. Luther made a fable out of it, and it had been a dream to me, so that I could clearly show how the people of Wittenberg had let this get to Mr. Caesar Pflug. The pious gentleman told me this himself; I give him more credence than twenty Lutherans. There are letters in the city in which D. Peter complains how he is suspected because of the booklet; thus
I have also read a letter in which someone from Wittenberg complains how he is suspected of having given me the booklet. Now go D. Luther goes there, and out of his presumption he says that I dreamed it.
Lastly, D. Luther does not like that I wrote that it would be quite praiseworthy, E. C. F. G., if they burned D. Luther's little books in a heap. Luther's books in a heap. He thinks it is not a respectable theological piece, not to see a book, and yet to condemn it to the fire. Most gracious prince and lord, I am still of the opinion more than before; for the little book is full of blasphemy, heresy, insanity, and quite seductive. But that he says: it is not honorable, if I have not seen it, I say: although I have not read it at that time, but I have seen the apples from the tree; as he read the argument from the booklet on the chair, I heard well what was in it, was enough for me to judge. As I complained about it on the first day of our disputation, as such is written out by the notaries.
Hereby, most gracious Lord and Elector, E. C. F. G. has true rejection of what D. Luther has invented against E. C. F. G., and I will make all this true and reject it, if E. C. F. G. desires it; and I still ask in all humility that you be at it, and not spare the expense, so that by scholars and by assembly Synodi provincialis D. Luther's teaching may be justified. Luther's doctrine be justified, so that if his doctrine is erroneous and contrary to the Christian faith, as I fully believe it to be, that it then be dismissed, so that the common man in Saxony is not deceived; for that would be a difficult thing for E. C. F. G. to answer for against God, and would obscure E. C. F. G.'s noble and widely renowned honor. Such errors looked licentious, but are evil to be rooted out, if they are a little.
But if it were found that Luther's teaching and doctrine were acceptable and not contrary to the holy faith, it would be strengthened. Luther's teaching and doctrine were acceptable, and not contrary to the holy faith, then the same would be promoted accordingly, and I and others would withdraw the spit. For God be my witness, and my soul's blessedness my pledge, that I am against Luther, for the sake of truth and Christian faith, and it is high time that this be done before the vermin get the upper hand. Please in all obedience, E. C. F. G. will not receive such letters from me in disgrace. For it would be a special pleasure for me to serve her; and E. C. F. G. long life, happy regiment from God, I will not forget. Also, I almost had to hurry, and hardly talked to the messenger,
that he has waited half a day for my sake, therefore E. C. F. G. can well respect the haste etc. Date Ingolstadt, on the 8th of November, gratias 1519.
E. C. F. G.
subservient obedient chaplain
D. Eck.
That E. C. F. G. knowingly understands that D. Luther saves the truth, 1) in that he writes, they have not suggested Leipzig to me, so I send hiemit Copei D. Luther's letter.
According to the following copy of Docüment No. 359, Eck added:
Go now D. Luther, and concordire his letter to E. C. F. G. with the letter from his new theology or grammar.
F. On the condemnation of Luther's writings by the theologians at Cologne and Louvain.
420. action of the University of Leuven against Luther. 1520.
This writing, a description of the proceedings of the University of Louvain against Luther, appeared in quarto in 1520 under the title: ^.cta Lcaclcmia" i-ovanonsis contra I,utüoruw (compare St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, inset, p. 30). It is printed in the Latin Wittenberg edition (1551), tow. II, toi. 34d and in the Jena (1579), tow. I, toi. 464.
Translated into German.
Hail to the gentle reader!
What is happening now, I will gladly report, because it is important for everyone to know. Hieronymus Aleander has arrived these days, a very great man in his thoughts, not only because of the languages he understands excellently, since the Hebrew is his mother tongue and the Greek grew up with him, but he has learned Latin through the many years of 2) professorship, but he also appears wonderful because of the antiquity of his race, for he was born a Jew, and this people boasts of the fact that he is a Jew.
1) Not Luther, but Eck conceals the truth, namely that Luther had suggested Wittenberg as the place of disputation. Cf. appendix, no. 53.
2) Wittenberger: diutiua, Jenaer: divina; we have assumed the former. The latter would mean: through the spiritual state.
intemperately because of the ancient Abraham from whom it originated. But whether he was baptized is not known. This much is certain, that he is not a Pharisee, because he does not believe in the resurrection of the dead; for he does not live differently, as if he would perish completely with his body, and leaves all his evil desires in check. He is angry to the point of insanity, and rages at every opportunity. He is excessive in his presumption, of insatiable avarice, shameful and insatiable pleasure. He is an arch-slave of vain fame, though he is so paltry that he cannot gain fame by any competent writing, and too bad to do anything in a good cause.
But this is to know that his hypocritical apostasy to Christianity succeeded very well. For he has thus had the opportunity to praise his Moses and to belittle Christ's honor, which has begun to arise again in this century, when superstition and harmful human statutes have fallen. That is why he came the other day with papal letters, so that, as much as there is in him, he may spoil all that is good. Fare well.
This is what I wanted to announce to the readers.
Action of the University of Leuven against Luther. 1520.
Now the tyranny of the foolish and foolish people rages to the highest! Aleander publicly burned several books in the marketplace of Louvain by the common executioner and promoter on the very day that the king left Louvain, so that I can well say that it was done in the presence of the king. They wanted to do the same in Antwerp, but in vain. Hoogstraten has been reinstated in the office of inquisitor and threatens all who do not worship that animal. The theologians in Louvain threatened Dorpius publicly that they would expel him from the synagogue of theologians if he did not recant the speech he had recently published in which he praised the science of languages.
The matter happened as everything tends to happen with theologians. The university has been summoned under oath to the rector's house, in which the university did not even have room. For the Rector Rosemundanus is ill, who now shows who he was before.
When the university was gathered to hear what the apostolic nuncios had to say, only two little bearded and feminine servants appeared to read the terrible bull that had been issued in Louvain.
with a copy, and say: Hold it against each other. 1) So they read the bull; sat there for two hours and the university judged only this much: the bull is now considered to be read.
The next day the theologians proceeded by deputies as if the whole university had done so, since Aleander had neither shown his authority, nor had the bull been examined by those who had to do it, nor had it been approved by all, as it should have been in such an important matter. Several books were burned in the marketplace, but everyone laughed about it.
On the day of Dionisii [Oct. 9], Edmundanus made a speech before the people that was worthy of him, that is, a mad and foolish one. He said more against Erasmus, who was present, than against Luther himself, with impudent lies. He said: Luther would have fallen into the terrible errors, because he would have been a lover of the innovation; while Luther took everything his own from Augustine, from Bernhardus, from Gerson, from the Cardinal of Cusa. He said: Erasmus would have fiercely supported Luther, although he never mixed in his cause, but only disapproved of the way in which they attacked him; by shouting against him among the unlearned, whom they did not want to or could not refute. And the like much, in that he went through the languages and the New Testament in a hidden way 2) at which almost all laughed.
The next Sunday he repeated the same and showed the bull to the people. Behold (he said) the seal! as if with it the bull was approved, if one showed its seal from afar. He also said, among other things, while taunting Erasmus: They will also be put to the stake if they do not stop; as if the bull was not enough. There was also an order from the Rector, which added many things that were not included in the bull: namely, that one should not sell books that were written to the disgrace of the university and honest men. This they opposed to the speech of Dorpius and Mosellanus.
7 The jurists have grumbled against it, who are now completely at odds with the theologians. Very few theologians appeared at a jurist's hearing. At his subsequent promotion to licentiate, no one but Dorpius and Erasmus appeared. For the theologians had
1) In the Wittmberger: contörrs instead of: contsrts.
The government banned the promotion of licentiates that very day, but they immediately appealed against it and showed that they could not defend themselves against it. However, they did not want to revoke their ban. In this, however, they conspired that no theologian should be present, except Dorpius, who had not been told about it. And they decided never to invite Erasmus to the solemn acts (acta). O a heavy revenge!
Who can admire the foolishness of the people enough? They have so foolishly and imprudently started such a terrible thing that could disrupt the whole world. It is known that in Rome the matter was handled without order, since the Cardinal of the Holy Cross and many others were very much against it. The bull that was hatched at Cologne and Louvain was printed before it was promulgated, and what was printed does not correspond at all to the bull that Aleander brought with him. The scholars who have read the bull affirm that there are many things in the bull that give rise to the suspicion that it was fabricated. The writing is entirely after the manner of the [monastic] brothers, and not at all after the Roman manner. There are many gross blunders in it; no one believes it to be correct but the theologians; it has never been examined; it also does not distinguish the errors of which it thinks.
9 Now see 1) also the executors of this excellent trade. The first was Cardinal Cajetan, about whom nothing is more proud and godless; and he is a preacher [monk]. He was followed by Carl von Miltitz, and by Marinus; 2) finally, he who is not ashamed of anything, the magniloquent Hieronymus Aleander, whom the common rumor, the face, the language and the faith clearly show to be a Jew, and whom the Jews also recognize for their own. It must always happen that Christians have to suffer from Jews. Thus a Jew incited Pope Julius to the ruin of the world. This is how Pfefferkorn at Cologne set Christendom into turmoil. Aleander, Judas' relative, surpasses his ancestors and should betray the cause of the Gospel by two or three pennies. He has already been found in Padua and Paris so in his life that he himself, who burns other people's books, is worthy of the fire. For he cannot be called a heretic who believes nothing at all. One has through one or the other the order from the ignorant or at least badly reported king.
1) Wittenberger: fide instead of: vide.
2) Marinus and Aleander came to Germany as papal nuncios at the same time as Eck.
3) to execute the bull, which was done, for example, by the arch-shalk Rimaclus.
Now let us also consider the origin of the matter. The thing has arisen first from the hatred against the languages and beautiful sciences against Reuchlin. It was all driven by the mad Hoogstraten and the at the same time mad and foolish Edmundanus. In addition, Latomus, the not unlearned but perverse Frenchman, has come; also the mendicant orders have joined in, all of them worried that they might be called to hunger or manual labor if the kingdom of the pope fell, through whom they now reign in idleness. It is not a theologian who by himself condemns all the articles mentioned in the bull, but, as Octavius, Lepidus, and Antony, when they wished to suppress the common liberty, joined their troops together, and so compared themselves that each of them should allow some to be killed to whom he was otherwise favorable: so also these have caused one another to condemn something, if only the one would also cause to be condemned something which he did not like to see, or found obstructive to his things. For the people of Louvain do not condemn what Luther hates most, namely, that the Pope's supreme authority is not divine right. And Turnhaut, since he set out to refute Luther's conclusions, testified that he wanted to leave this untouched. They thus sufficiently indicate that they hold with Luther in this, and yet have had it condemned in the bull. And there are some in Louvain who have opposed that some things should be condemned. Behold, there are but two universities, which have even conspired together, yet are not one.
(11) Since they also confess that in Thomas, Scotus, Peter Lombard, Augustine, and the rest there are all errors, the very ones they condemn in Luther, and yet are not offended by them, they sufficiently indicate that they do what they do out of hatred for Luther and not out of zeal for the faith, which the arch hypocrites, who love only themselves and want to rule alone, cannot have. No one has fraternally reminded, instructed or refuted Luther, who nevertheless wanted to be consecrated. Finally, they began to argue against Luther in the schools, but in such a way that the baccalaureates were not allowed to talk to a theologian who presented a reason that they could not refute. For they became very angry and held a concilium to expel him.
3) Instead of imxeraturn in the editions will probably read inaxetratuna.
1336 L- V. a. IV, 172. sect. 4. what has been done on this disp. No. 420 f. W. XV, 1587-1589. 1337
Turnhaut and Latomus began to refute him in their lectures, but hardly finished two pieces, only that with the fools there would be a pretext, and in the meantime they did what we see now.
If it comes to the point that the theologians are free to say without reason and cause: this is wrong, this is heretical, this is offensive, then one can find something in all books to blaspheme in this way, and everyone who resents Hoogstraten will have to be held up to the fire. And the beautiful sciences and honest people will be handed over and betrayed to the will of an unlearned, foolish and malicious man. In his grandiose prefaces he promises the beautiful conclusions of reason, by which he wants to force us, we want or do not want, to obey. And soon after that he brings forward the executioner with his bundles of rods, he himself the executioner in the robe!
Everything that has been written against Luther so far is obviously mad and foolish. All of them hypocritical to the pope in the most shameful way. Among these, the first was Cardinal Cajetan, then Silvester Prierias, the third Thomas Todiscus, the fourth Augustine, a Minorite. For those of Leo will not (if I am not mistaken) expose their lumpinesses to the light. Christ did not refuse to instruct the poorest rabble; but these will not instruct an honest and learned man. If all the bishops keep quiet about it, as some are doing now, it will finally come to the point that the mendicants will get the rule and go over their heads, and also exercise tyranny over them through the pope.
(14) Would anyone say, "But what will become of it? To resist the pope is a difficult thing. First of all, it is best to believe that all this happened without the knowledge, or at least without a sufficient report, of the pope. Question Aleander properly, and he will be found to be a wicked Jew! If one examines the bull rightly, one will find it fraudulent! Even if it came from the pope, one should not have proceeded immediately until the pope had been better informed; otherwise it is to be feared that great noise will arise from it in Christendom.
Luther can soon be removed from the book halls, but not so easily from the hearts of the people, if his indissoluble reasons are not refuted and the pope does not present the opposite with testimonies of the Scriptures. The world has been deceived long enough; it wants to
have now henceforth right knowledge. And there are enough people who can be drawn by truth, but cannot be frightened with dazzle. Truth cannot be suppressed, although Luther is suppressed. 1)
421 The doctrinal condemnation of Luther's books by some magistri nostri at Louvain and Cologne with Luther's response to it.
In October 1518, a collection of Luther's writings had been published by Johann Frobenius in Bafel, which seemed to the theological faculty in Louvain to be "annoying and harmful to the church of Christ" already at first sight. For this reason, the faculty immediately prohibited the sale of this book at the University of Louvain in 1518, but saw itself compelled to take further steps because, despite this prohibition, the book was read all the more eagerly and Luther's followers increased. In February 1519, a second, increased edition of the book was published. They sent it through a baccalaureate to the theological faculty in Cologne for review, and only a few days later, on August 30, 1519, the faculty passed its verdict of condemnation. The Löweners took a little more time. Allegedly "in order not to rely on their own wisdom," they turned to the bishop of Liège, to whose jurisdiction they belonged, but in fact to find out the position of the bishop, who was suspected of leaning toward Luther (compare the 166th document). To the three magistrates who were sent to him, he gave the assurance "on his priestly word" that he had not seen Luther's writings, let alone read them, and advised the faculty to turn to the Bishop of Tortosa, Cardinal Adrian, for an expert opinion before publishing their verdict. The latter had formerly been a member of this faculty, and later became Pope, the successor of Leo X. Now, on November 7, 1519, the Faculty decreed a verdict of condemnation identical to that of Cologne, also to the effect that the books were to be burned, but that the author was to be ordered to recant. This was sent to Cardinal Adrian for review, who gave a favorable reply on December 4. These three documents appeared in quarto under the title: Lpistola Uini. Oni. oarck. OortiEn. ack kacmUateni tkooloZiao Qovanion86ln. Oinsclorn kaoultati8 ckootrinali8 eonckoinnatio, Hna oonckoinnatur cloetrina Martini QutUori, ckootoris tkeoloAiao univer8itati8 Mittende rM. Conckoinnatio kaoultati8 tkooloZio Colonien, ackvor8U8 oinscloin Martini cloatrinam with the imprint: DX6U8UIN Qovanii apncl DUeockoriouni Martinnrn Ho8ten8ern. ^n. MI)XX. Men8. kedruarii. Luther sent this writing to Spalatin on March 19, 1520, and at the same time told him that he was busy with the answer to it; on March 25, he wrote to Seligmann that the printing would be finished the next day, and on March 27 his writing was sent. Before it, the aforementioned writings of the opponents were printed. The first edition has the title: Conckoninatio 6oatrinaii8 likrorn Martini Imttiori, per ^nosckarn MaZistro8
1) This is followed in the Wittenberg edition by a mocking poem on Aleander.
nostros I^onania, L Colonia, kaota. Responsio l-uttieriuna ad eando oondeinnntione. VnittonbeiM6, apud Neloliioioin l-ottlieruw luniorena, Ximo N.V.XX. 16 leaves in quarto. At the end: Vuitten1"6rZU6, Xnno doinini iVlillosirno (^niiiMntesiino ViMsimo. The Weimar edition also gives the same titles of five reprints. In all the Latin collective editions of Luther's works, the opposing writings precede Luther's reply in the order given above, namely in the Wittenberg (155i), toru. II, toi. 36d; in the Jena one (1579), torn. I, toi. 465 b; in the Erlanger, opp. vur. ur^., t<W9. IV, x". 176; in the Weimar, vol. VI, p. 174 and in Adam Petri's D. Llurtioi Qutberi iuoubrutionuro purs unu. 1520 M6H86 duiio, p. 363 (reprinted: 361). Only the opposing writings, Latin in chronological order, has Löscher, Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 848. Walch, too, has arranged these same writings chronologically before Luther's reply; we have retained this. Only Luther's answer has been newly translated according to the Weimar edition, the other pieces have been improved according to it.
Translated into German.
a. The condemnation of the teachings of Brother Martin Luther by the theological faculty of Cologne. August 30, 1610.
To all and everyone who will see or hear our present letter, we, the Dean and the Faculty of Sacred Theology of the University of Cologne, send our heartfelt greetings.
(2) Although all believers in all places are bound to help in the common defense of the faith, not only with their goods, but also with the loss of their own lives, those are especially bound to do so before others, who are appointed by the church as public teachers and are considered masters of sacred theology, all of whom (as the Scripture says [Hohel. 3,8.]) should wear their sword on their hip, because of the fear in the night, namely the errors and heresies, which often grow up in the church at times when the people are asleep, in that the devil sows all weeds through evil and false Catholic people. Because a few days ago the venerable and highly learned gentlemen, dean and faculty of the sacred theology at the high lordly university of Louvain, our confreres, out of zeal for the faith, sent us through their own messenger, a baccalaureate of theology, a book printed under the name of a brother, Martin Luther, and demanded that we, out of love, go through and examine the very same book, which they had heard was offensive to the ears of many believers in Christ, and would bring new, unusual, unheard-of, and harmful doctrines and errors of faith to the readers, and, if it deserved such, condemn it by our judgment as teachers: then we have justly, so sacredly
The request and demand of our confreres, to read the aforementioned book, which contains four hundred and eighty-eight pages, 1) according to the number printed on it, has been entrusted to some of our magisters.
(3) And because we have found it clear after its examination that, as far as the matters and things treated by the brother Martin Luther, which he (as they say) published, are concerned, it contains many errors in faith and life, and doctrines that are not at all in agreement with the holy teachers, and in particular
4. disparaging man's works that are holy and worthy of eternal life, and adding guilt to them as if they did not happen without sin,
5. to pervert the holy scriptures and the sayings of the holy fathers and turn them to a harmful mind,
6. destroy the sacrament of penance with harmful teachings and introduce annoying errors of repentance,
7. of the confession against the general church old doctrine wrong council introduce,
8. to abolish all satisfaction that is due for mortal sins that have been remitted, in that God (as he says) also remits the deserved punishment to the one to whom he remits the mortal guilt,
9. to stubbornly reject the treasure of indulgences, which not only the decrees of the Fathers from ancient times, but also the holy Conciliarities, have approved, for impious and unjust reasons, by propositions that are completely ungodly and blasphemous against the saints and their merits,
10. about the punishments of purgatory and the state of the souls after this life.The author of this book has spread abominable errors for vain motives, namely, that in purgatory no soul suffers anything for mortal sins, but only for venial sins; that the souls in purgatory love God in a sinful and unjust way, and sin without ceasing, and seek their own more than the fulfillment of the divine will, which (as he says) is contrary to love; that the dead are almost as well able as the living to deserve eternal life,
(11) Likewise, against the prerogative and sovereignty of the Roman Church over the other churches on earth, erroneous propositions that were condemned as heretical long ago have been reinstated.
1) The Weimar edition notes: Only the collection of Luther's Latin writings published by Johann Frobenius in Basel in February 1519 can be meant, although the faculties were mistaken about the number of pages.
1340 V.a. IV,I84f. I78f. Section 4: What has been done in response to this disp. No. 421 W. XV, 1591-1593. 1341
The pope, who is a disgrace to the faithful of Christ, publicly disrespects the Holy Apostolic See and is angry with it in the eyes of the world; disgracefully belittles the authority of the pope, since he can only issue canonical or arbitrary punishments, but none due to sin according to divine justice, by the power given to him by God, because (as he says) to issue such punishments would be as much as to change divine law, to annul God's commandment, and to be a wicked adversary of God,
12. and much more, which is just as annoying, even more harmful and corrupting:
Therefore, last Tuesday, the thirtieth of August, after all and sundry had been duly called together, we unanimously judged and doctrinally discerned in our public assembly, after use, in the monastery of the preaching brethren, after previously held mature counsel and deliberation:
14. that the said book, which is full of such great aversions, errors, and heresies condemned already in ancient times as harmful to the unity of the faithful, is rightfully to be taken away, its use to be forbidden, it to be forbidden and suppressed, yes, to be publicly burned with fire by those who have a right to look at it, and its author is to be reasonably urged to a public recantation. For the authentication and further confirmation of which we have added this judgment by our sworn notary to the said book, and have ordered it to be marked with the seal of our faculty (as well as this letter of ours), and to be attached to it. Given and done Cologne, in the year of Christian salvation 1519, the thirtieth of August 1), by me Henrich von Vorda from Cologne, sworn public notary and above-mentioned University of Cologne sworn Bedell.
b. The doctrinal condemnation of Martin Luther's teachings by the theological faculty of Louvain. November 7, 1519.
To all and everyone who will see and hear our present letter, we, the Dean and the Faculty of Sacred Theology at the University of Louvain, send our heartfelt greetings!
2. although all Christians call themselves by Christ, by whom they have sworn,
1) Walch has here the 29th of August, likewise in his introduction to the 18th volume, p. 69. But it should be the "thirtieth of August". According to this, our information recorded by Walch, Vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 29 b, is to be corrected.
If they are bound to defend the faith and the holy doctrine, it is certain that those who are even more bound to do so as professors of holy theology are even more obliged to do so. For these are to be mighty in deed and in word, that they may punish the gainsayers by the holy doctrine, and stand as a wall against it for the house of Israel. Therefore, in order to fulfill this duty to the best of our ability, we took care that in the past year 2) a certain book by Brother Martin Luther, a doctor (as they say) of the University of Wittenberg, which at first sight seemed annoying to us and harmful to the church of Christ, as much as it is to us, would not be sold publicly at our university. But since experience has shown that this would not be enough, but that the book and its author have many patrons and defenders, who say that the teaching of this book is quite Christian, by whose advice and reputation many of the simple accept this book all the more eagerly, and are turned away from the integrity that is in Christ, it has seemed necessary to us to use our judgment.
3. We have therefore found, after careful and diligent examination, that the said book, which contains ninety-five theses with their explanations and the answers against Silvester Prierias, Master of the Holy Palace, likewise a sermon on penance, one on excommunication, one on indulgences, one on the preparation for the Lord's Supper, 3) besides a great disparagement of philosophy and of all teachers who have been around for 400 years, also contains many false, annoying, heretical and heresy-smelling sentences, such as the following:
4. that a good work, however well done, is only a venial sin. 4)
(5) Likewise, when he says that in all good works the saints do less than they ought, and that no saint in this life is without sin
2) According to the words "in the previous year", the edition of Luther's writings published by Frobenius in October 1518 is to be understood in any case, although they used the edition of February 1519 when writing the verdict of condemnation, because in that edition the sermo de prusparutione Hä eueNaristiani mentioned here is missing.
3) The pratzoeptorium is to be understood as Luther's writing: "Die zehn Gebote, dem Volk zu Wittenberg gepredigt", Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. Ill, 1132 ff. from which several of the condemned sentences are taken.
4) Cf. St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1227. vol. Ill, 1187. - We have taken these references from the Weimar edition. For the sake of brevity, we have not added "St. Louis edition" each time in the following.
1342 L.v.a. IV, 179-181. cap. 5. of the Leipzig Disputation. W. XV, IS93-IS9S. 1343
He concludes that the merits of the saints are nothing, nor do they help anything, but they help us who have been idle: so he wants to make it clear that there are no merits of the saints that can be shared with us, indeed, the saints themselves need the pardoning grace.
(6) Not content with simply saying this, he added these words: "And that I may be bold for once, I testify that not only do I not doubt what I have said, but I am also ready to suffer fire and death for it, and to declare all those heretics who teach otherwise. 1)
7 Likewise: The indulgence is nothing else than a remission of the punishment imposed at the discretion of the priest or the penitential canones; of which (canones) he himself also admits that, if they were not used (per non usum), they would thereby be abolished. 2)
8 Likewise, he spreads errors about the sacrament of penance, such as that man cannot even have the desire to seek forgiveness without God's grace, which first remits guilt. 3)
9) Likewise, that it is a heretical opinion, according to which one says that the sacraments of the new law give the justifying grace to those who do not put a bar; 4) he also explains this elsewhere about baptism.
(10) Concerning repentance, he gives this advice: If you want to confess, consider first of all what you would do if there were no commandment of confession, and whether you would then confess, repent, or do penance. If you do not find yourself doing this, know that you are not repenting out of love of righteousness, but only out of habit and fear of the commandment. 5)
(11) Likewise, since Christ's word is held to be true [Matt. 16:19], "All things thou shalt loose," etc., faith is more required in sacramental absolution than repentance, and [faith] alone is enough, so be it with repentance. So much, he says, have you than you believe, and adds, I put the case, though it is not possible that he who has confessed has no repentance, or that the priest absolves not in earnest, but in jest.
1) Cf. vol. XVIII, 232 ff. Vol. Ill, 1342, Vol. XVIII, 260.
2) Cf. vol. XVIII, 170 p.
3) Cf. vol. XVIII, 119.
4) Cf. vol. XVIII, 127. vol. X, 1230.
5) Cf. vol. X, 1224.
If he believes that he is counted out, he is truly counted out. And further on he says: Therefore the confessor is to be asked more whether he believes that he is absolved, than whether he has true repentance. 6) Likewise, he says the same of the one who wants to go to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in the sermon on the preparation for the Lord's Supper.
12) He also rejects the way of inquiring the conscience against C. quem poenit. and the Canon of the General Council in C. omnis utriusque sexus, de poenit. et re. 7)
13. confession: it is not necessary to confess all mortal sins, because it is impossible for you to know all mortal sins; but no one is required to do impossible things. Whereby he adds that they alone confessed the public mortal sins in the first church, according to the words of Paul [Gal. 5:19 ff.], "Revealed are the works of the flesh."
14 And of sloth he says: I do not know whether it is a vice that must be confessed; I do not think so, because it is a spiritual defect that must be revealed to God alone, who alone can help you. Similarly, elsewhere he says: "Although it is not necessary to confess to the priest, if you have not excused your brother, who has been accused, implicated with false testimony, and oppressed by hypocrisy or slander, thinking that it would be enough if you had not done such things yourself. But before God you will certainly be guilty of such ungodly silence that you did not use your tongue, which was given to you for your brother's need. 8)
But of satisfaction he says that God does not require punishment when the guilt is forgiven, that the priest can take it away or reduce it, because such a punishment, which is due according to divine justice, does not exist, or if there is one, man cannot take it away, which (he says) would be as much as changing divine right. 9)
16. speaking of the commandments of god, he says: god binds man to the impossible, and because the divine commandment holds us to have no tinder of sin, we always sin because we have such tinder and cannot get rid of it in this life.
6) Cf. vol. X, 1229 f. Vol. XII, 1346; Vol. XVIII, 125 f.
7) Cf. vol. XII, 1346 ff.
8) Cf. vol. XII, 1226 f. Vol. Ill, 1352. 1340.
9) Cf. vol. XVIII, 112 f. and the following letter of Cardinal Adrian, ? 5.
(17) Likewise, that all the children of Adam are idols. And further on: If we kept this commandment, there would be no hope, that is, no root of sin, no beginning of sin, and consequently no sins, but peace, beloved. To which he adds, "Which is not to be hoped for in this life, therefore we must always remain sinners and transgressors of this commandment, and are blessed only through this sacrifice, that we recognize and do not deny such transgression. 1)
18 Likewise, he says that the moral virtues and sciences that are in human knowledge are sins and errors in sinners, because they necessarily come from an evil heart that grace has not yet healed. 2)
(19) And many other things he adds here and there, which are equally or even more inconsistent and erroneous. Likewise, he adds various suspicious and dangerous propositions about purgatory, such as that the souls in purgatory find it without interruption, that they have a shudder before the punishment and seek rest. 3) And in order to confirm his erroneous propositions, he drags the sayings of the Scriptures to his wrong sense; in the same way, he falsifies and twists the sayings of both the old and the new teachers.
(20) Therefore we hold that this book and all its writings, in which these and similar things are written, are to be condemned. Therefore, we also doctrinally condemn such book and writings as harmful to the congregation of believers, contrary to true and wholesome doctrine, and deem them to be put away and burned with fire, and the author to be ordered to recant and abjure them. In witness whereof we have caused the present letter to be executed and sealed by the notary public named below, and with the attached seal of our theological faculty to be preserved. Thus done in Louvain of the Liège district, in the collegiate church of St. Peter in Louvain, in the lower collegiate town there, in the year of Christ 1519, in the seventh indiction, November 7, between nine and ten o'clock in the morning. Of the Pabbacy of our most holy in Christ Father and Lord, Lord Leo, by divine providence the tenth Pabst [of that name], in the seventh year.
By order of the Lords, the Dean and the other Magistri nostri of the said Faculty, Johann von Hove, Notarius.
1) Cf. vol. XVIII, 348. vol. Ill, 1341 f.IS58f.ai90.
2) Cf. vol. Ill, 1186 f.
3) Cf. vol. XVIII, 158.
c. The letter of Adrian, Cardinal of Tortosa, to the theological faculty of Louvain, in which he approves of their proceedings. The
December 4, 1519.
To the respectable and worthy Magistris nostris, the Dean and the Faculty of Theology in
. Lions, as friends and brothers, wishes 4) their friend and confrere Adrian, Cardinal of Tortosa, Hail!
Worthy and respectable Magistri nostri, beloved friends! I received your letter of November 7 on the 26th of the same month, in which you clearly show what love you bear for Christ and what zeal you have for his most holy faith. I have seen the errors which the masters of sacred theology have noted from various writings and little books of Luther and which you have sent to me, which in truth seem to me to contain such gross and palpable heresies that hardly an apprentice of theology, who has only just begun to study it, could have done so and stumbled; and in this he proves himself especially to be a heretic, that he pretends to be ready for fire and death for it: he is ready to suffer fire and death for it, and that he may declare all who believe the contradiction to be heretics.
I will pass over the causes by which all the articles might be shown to contain heresy, so as not to make many words in such an obvious matter.
I am very surprised that such a man, who so obviously and stubbornly errs in faith and spreads his heresies everywhere, is not only allowed to err with impunity, but also to draw others into the most harmful errors with impunity.
4. You certainly do commendably and well that you counter the poisonous teachings of man (as much as there is in you) by opposing them with the antidote of a doctrinal condemnation, so that his errors do not also ensnare you, or you will not become guilty before God of the souls that are lost through his wrong doctrine, as would happen if you did not expose such doctrine to falsity and ruin through your judgment and through revelation of the truth to the world, according to the word of our Savior [Luc. 11:23], "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth."
4) U.?. V. can be resolved either by Lxoptat klurirnum Vaterv, or by Lt katribus VouSrauclis.
5) Wittenberger: "16."
(5) But above all you must take care that in your condemnation, when you make it known, you do not let any word be put differently than the author himself has written it; as in the article of satisfaction 1) instead of: immutare or mutare [change the divine right] has been put.is: imitare jus divinum [imitate divine right], (as I believe) by error of the writer, as if 2) man also could not by divine power annul a liability which has sprung from divine and natural right:: 3) then vows, oaths, and other things could never be dispensed with, for any cause whatsoever that would make the assumed obligation dissolvable. This is obviously wrong and against all church statutes.
I am not writing anything else now, because of very big business. God grant that I may soon be able to talk more extensively orally with your dignity about these and other things! In the meantime, however, I will not fail to assist the faith that is in danger, in the things that can happen and be decreed by me in these evil times. May God make your reverends well at all times, and may they commend me to the Lord in their prayers. From Pavia, December 4, 1519.
d. Martin Luther's answer to the articles which the Magistri nostri of Louvain and Cologne have published in the Explanations and Theses on Indulgences.
and their assertion stripped and condemned as heretical. The
March 26, 1520.
To the respectable Mr. Christoph Blank, 4) of both rights Licentiate, to his in Christ [beloved friend] Hail!
I send you, most respectable friend, the doctrinal destroyers of Luther's teaching, namely the Löwen and Cologne theologians. If I were to say that I am not moved by their unfortunate actions, I would be staining my conscience with a great lie. For that which these same two universities reproach Reuchlin with before others,
1) In § 15 of the previous writing, Col. 1343.
2) quin 8i for qun8i.
3) About this passage, Luther wrote to Spalatin on March 26, 1520: He writes in an exceedingly ungodly manner that divine and natural law are in the power of a man who uses divine authority. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 685.
4) In the Jena I'raneo instead of Llaneo.
I have attributed this to chance or to a certain temporal fate of men, or at most to the human condition, according to which it is necessary, as is said in Proverbs, that all once commit a folly, by which they have brought themselves great disgrace, exposed the whole theological name to the greatest ridicule, and caused all universities irreparable damage to their credibility, reputation and esteem. But since I see that they, not only not amused by this evil, but have even become angrier (be it in order to restore their honor, or to excite a still greater mourning), undertake to condemn even the express sayings of the holy Scriptures, even their own, I can assume nothing else than that the wrath of God has finally come upon them, as the apostle [1 Thess. 2, 16.] says of the Jews. Moved by this fear, I am compelled to lament these people, who are as it were desperate and lost, because of the danger to the entire Christian people, who must have these unfortunate magistrates as leaders of their lives everywhere.
It is said that the gospel of Christ must not be preached among the Turks. But if these doctrinal condemnations should stand their insolence and such presumptuous pomposity, what tyranny of the Turks could be compared with this? For, I pray you, what cause do they bring for this condemnation of mine, since I have fortified mine with so many scriptures? Or what does this condemnation contain but this water bubble of the most hopeful insolence: we are the highly respectable magistri nostri and theologians of the high university; all that we say is gospel, all that we condemn is heresy? If this is the way to condemn, to set, to teach, why do we not, after the Gospel and all the Scriptures are destroyed, go to Louvain or Cologne to hear what the magistri nostri either race in fever, or let them give us a new Alcoran after the example of the Turk instead of both Testaments? For who can even imagine what use the Holy Scriptures are if it is necessary to believe the Magistris nostris without them? Thereby I am moved to the highest
1348 V. a. IV, 186-188, Sect. 4: What has been done on this disp. No. 421 W. XV, 1600-1602. 1349
to believe that the Antichrist either already reigns or will reign soon, since these people begin to exalt themselves above the Word of God, while no heretic has ever presumed such foolishness, 'nor even until this time has the devil dared to do anything in the Church without the Word of God, which nowadays both the popes and the magistri nostri presume to do with such great tyranny (but under the name of the holy church, soon the Roman, soon the Catholic, soon the representative, 1) soon the doctrinal), so that they immediately condemn with a thousand heretic names the one who should deny that they have acted rightly, yes, out of God's power, and condemn him to both fire, the temporal and the eternal. But even so, nowhere can people be seen who stand up and hold the Lord (as Isaiah says [Cap. 64, 7]) and mitigate these terrible abominations of divine wrath with bloody tears.
I, who had directed the impetuosity of my spirit against Eck and Eck's followers, am so broken and changed by this miserable and cursed condemnation that I would rather weep than write anything. Now I no longer boast of the profit of the persecution. I thought it was human iniquity, which is God's wrath, and a wrath so great that not only bessert greatness and quantity is not recognized, but also as grace and mercy (alas, the wretched Adam children of this time) is most persistently and forcibly praised and glorified through the death and destruction of many. O, a worthy reward for our ingratitude!
But I want to have said this as if this condemnation was in fact that of the theologians of Louvain and Cologne, then also the letter of the Cardinal of Tortosa, whatever it may be about this man. For my nose senses some deception and, as they speak, a strong suspicion that this Cardinal is a pretended one (personatum), not as if I wanted to attribute something to a Cardinal's hat that is far from a human being,
1) The "representative" church is understood to mean the Collegium of Cardinals. Compare Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 361.
that is, the truth of God, but that the manner of speech used suggests something other than a cardinal. I also do not yet know sufficiently whether it is to be believed that there are theologians somewhere who should be so completely nonsensical that they take no account, neither of what is proper, nor of things, nor of words; then condemn with naked words everything that they like, especially since I have been informed by letters that have been addressed to me from there, 2) that this condemnation has not been made with the consent of all of the faculty of Louvain.
However the matter may be, it must be answered, and first of all the magistris nostris, whether real or pretended, must be deprived of the impudence in speaking judgments, and it must be shown how great, strong reasoning is necessary, so that one can believe those who have rarely judged well, but have frequently and almost always made evil pronouncements, so that they may cease to think that their condemnations have been in the essential substance (in materia naturali), which have rather been in the accidental (in contingenti) and still more frequently in the remote (in remota), so that I too may make use of something of them [in the way of speaking]. Yes, since according to the rule of law he who is once evil is presumed to be always evil, any magistris nostris will nowhere, never, and in no matter be to be believed, whose judgment has been known for many years to have been not only inconstant and precipitate, but also erroneous, heretical, sacrilegious, and blind, whom no one should believe but he of whom God in His wrath commands to be heard through powerful errors. To prove this matter, examples must be given.
Was not William Occam, without doubt the most distinguished and astute of the scholastic teachers, rejected, condemned, banished, expelled from all synagogues, especially those in Paris, and declared quite worthless to be read, by the judgment of so-.
2) This refers to a letter of Dorpius mentioned in Luther's letters to Spalatin of March 26, 1520. Walch, alte Aus, vol. XXI, 684.
of the popes as well as of very many theologians? But what a fickleness is this, that they let the damned rule in Paris and in the best schools today! Or why do the doctrinal reprobates not condemn him to the fire? Why do they like the falsehood they once disliked? Or do the magistri nostri presume that they are not made by the eternal truth, but that they make the truth according to the time, as the Romans once arrogated to themselves the arbitrariness as to which gods should be worshipped?
Then, how many articles has the school of Paris condemned, which it has recanted anew and defended as quite true! Or who does not know how the articles of Paris have become a proverb, since the English say: they do not go over the sea; the Italians: not even over the mountains; the Germans: not even over the Rhine, as it is said of the reputation of St. Thomas that it does not go out of the monastery fence of the preaching monks and is not quite safe even in it? Who should not laugh, therefore, that these articles of condemnation of the Louvain and the Cologne, who have so often erred hitherto, dare to go naked and unarmed even across the Elbe?
With how great a noise have the propositions of John Picus, Count of Mirandola, been condemned, only so that the highly respectable Magistri nostri received that their errors were right! But who is there nowadays who does not admire them, except for some old sophists who gnaw away in their corner in raging silence, whom nevertheless, after the truth has been recognized, no matter how obstinate they are, no doctrinal reprobate considers to be heretics, sacrilegious and erroneous people? And yet they do not fear that, after this example, they will again run up against the same truth.
Laurentius Valla, either (in my opinion) a remaining spark or a new tinder of the first church, - which of the theologians and the popes would not have liked that he would be destroyed? This man is also blasphemed as completely unlearned by those who would not have been worthy to give him a night harness in one respect only.
while meanwhile their books like the Chrysopassus 1) or the glassy or rather icy nullities, compared to the books of this man, are a complete disgust. But now Laurentius is such a man and becomes more so every day, whose equal neither Italy nor the whole Church has had in many centuries, not only in every kind of doctrinal subject (disciplinarum) (which no highly respectable Magister noster has yet accomplished), but also in constancy and unfeigned! zeal for the Christian faith. What did the condemnation not only of the doctrinal condemners, but also the proven condemnation of the proven people (autenticorum autentica) achieve here, but that it made a mockery of itself and glorified this man more?
After these Johann Reuchlin, on whom (by God's providence) the theologians of five universities have been caught, what they hold, what they have in mind, what the doctrinal bastards seek. And it is not hidden that the people of Louvain and Cologne, moved by the awareness of this disgrace, which they received from Reuchlin, seek the restoration of their honor through this new story (fabula) to Luther, since they were proven perpetrators of that, not only doctrinal, by burning his books; Now that the matter is quite badly arranged, they are somewhat broken, since they have remained neither doctrinal nor proven, and pose with fictitious humility as if they were only doctrinal, hoping that they will also come out of it as proven. But by their crude cunning and their unhappily restored honor, they make it so that henceforth I will more easily join a godly and simple-minded layman, who condemns or approves, than all such magistris nostris of Louvain and Cologne as a whole, even if they were assembled into a unity by a general sign of war, personally, absolutely and essentially presupposed, expanded, limited, named, interpreted and explained.
Far be it from me to respect their condemnation even in the slightest, since they are
1) The Chrysopassus is a book by Eck, which first appeared in 1514. Luther's verdict on it is found in St. Louis, Vol. XVIII, 695.
have not only once been invented as such obstinate and public enemies of the truth and burners of harmless books. Yes, it has come about that, after the light of truth has been absorbed by God's mercy, and the Jews have been cast out and the pagans accepted, the large number of citizens, the craftsmen, and indeed the further they are from the studies of these magisters, judge all the more correctly and more certainly of Christian things than the theologians, the doctrinal reprobates, and the Lord has again separated that what was not a people should be a people, and Israel should not be Israel, the theologians should not be theologians, the popes should not be popes, and he lets those blow themselves out with the quite trivial name, but lets these rejoice in the whole fullness of the thing. And so we see it happening before our eyes, yes, we can grasp it with our hands, and yet the highly respectable Magistri nostri do not yet fear God, the people with iron neck and iron forehead, the wretched and mournful people.
I pass over the one of Wesel, 1) Faber Stapulensis, and that ram hanging with the horns in the thorn bush, the Erasmus, 2) and many others besides these. For what has ever come forth of excellent spiritual gifts and learning that these lazy drones have not immediately attacked? as it is written, "His food is sweet," likewise of the same Behemoth, Job 41:9, 25: "His eyes are like the eyelids of the dawn, he despises all that is high," and that in Proverbs, Envy touches the high.
Now see, whoever will, through the histories and tell, if he can, that ever even one of these magisters was overcome by the weapons of God and the salutary teaching with which Paul commanded to destroy the fortresses and heights that had been
1) VuesalikM (not Vnsssslurn, which the Erlanger offers). "Luther means Johann Ruchrath of Wesel, not Johann Wessel of Groningen" (Weim. Ausg.). - Only the Basel edition has the correct reading apart from the Weimar one.
2) At that time, he had to endure various hostilities and objections from the Löwen theologians. Compare St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 29b.
against the knowledge of God. If they, I say. I will allow them to infer the general from a particular piece with reverse dialectics, to make summer out of a warm day, and conclude: We have won once by the Scriptures, therefore we never err, even if they begin with the Concilium at Constance, at whose time the reputation of the heretical judges and the magistrates was most tyrannical. They have never acted on the basis of reason or testimony [from Scripture], but according to the sense of their head and their opinions, or at most with decrees decreed by men, so that it is obvious to all that these unfortunate men are not suddenly carried away by their judgment, but by mere audacity, nor are they angered by falsehood, but are inflamed by novelty, of which they afterwards, when the rage has gradually subsided, also acknowledge that it was true.
The way they overcame John Hus and Jerome of Prague at the Costnitz Concilium is sufficiently known and admitted, not to mention the letter of Florentine Poggius, and also the extremely strong rumor, which neither all popes nor all universities can dampen, since even the Magistri nostri privately talk to each other about it.
I think that these examples show superfluously how great fear is necessary for the condemning magistrates and how anxiously they should strive; that the terrible and wonderful judgments of God are not far from their face, as it is written about the ungodly, especially since they see that they have so often run to the most shameful and have suppressed the truth, so that they are not finally taken for apostles of the Antichrist after their iniquity and their ungodliness. But I am very surprised that the theologians of Louvain and Cologne, who are always the first to enter the battle line of iniquity before the theologians of all universities, are not put to shame by these examples and consider all other people to be such senseless lumps that they do not think of the fact that their ignorance and iniquity are the apostles of the Antichrist.
The people of the city are so disgracefully stinking everywhere that no other university, no matter how small it may be, has less reputation and respect. But (as I have said) this is God's wrath, which has struck them with blindness and nonsense, as it has hardened and made thick the heart of Pharaoh.
But let us assume, my dear Christoph, that all the judgments of the highly respectable magisters have so far been sound, correct and confirmed with God's word, and let us meanwhile put out of sight the great confidence and audacity or impudence with which they have so far acted more like robbers than that they have been proven by scholarship and dignified conduct. But let us come to my cause. If they had found me in error, they could have dealt with me in two ways, either according to love or according to Christian law.
It would have been in accordance with love if they had advised the people in this way when they published their note: "Dear brothers, do not be offended by Luther's writings; many things he said in a disputatious manner, some things he perhaps said too subtly for everyone's understanding to grasp. Even the holy scripture has its dangerous parts, how much more the scripture of a man. This rule of love, I say, even of natural right, they would no doubt have me keep against them in a similar case; this I would also do, if, as is their custom, I took care not to attack both the doctrine and the name of anyone. For I have never called anyone by name as often as I have attacked doctrines. In doing so, they would have done neither harm to me nor to the truth, but would have benefited everyone in the best possible way, and would have brought honor and love to God and man.
But who should not now hate these masters of the nations, who teach others, but do not teach themselves and make the saying in the gospel true [Luc. 4,23.]: "Physician, help thyself!" in that they, more morbid than capable of judgment, suddenly fall into the violation of love and natural right and, as the gospel says [Matth. 7,3.],
take heed to the mote that is in mine eye, and are not aware of the beam thereof; and [Matt. 23:24] they swallow cameos, but they feed gnats? But who has ever written or spoken so purely that it has not given room to the deceitfulness of the envious to twist? If they bring such a raging with them when reading the holy scripture, which syllable in the same will not be heretical? Is this what the magistri nostri learn in so many years, with so many costs, with so many worries in Louvain and Cologne, that they become astute slanderers in the books of others and, if there is no opportunity for slander, violent distortionists? What do you think I would be able to do with their dialectics, philosophy, theology, i.e. the larvae of human conceits, if I wanted to use only the tenth part of the same kind? Or which angry whore would not surpass the highly respectable Magistri nostri also in this art?
See, therefore, how their dialectics, philosophy, and theology are stagnant with errors, nay, are a kind of swamp of errors, how cheap, how amiable interpreters they are against each other, in such a degree that they would rather honor the sayings of the exceedingly godless Aristotle, the renounced public enemy of truth, as much as they are contrary to Christ, are always honored by an interpretation that is willing to serve, would rather expose Christ to shame and all his altars than not cover this pagan, the executioner of souls, and his disgrace entirely in purple and gold. And they treat me, a Christian brother, who was dragged into the public by my imprudence and foreign violence, in such a way that they not only do not clothe me where I am naked, but rather deal with me in such a way that, even where I am very well equipped and fortified, they uncover me and expose my shame by their exceedingly fine doctrines.
So much of love.
Now the way of right would have been that, according to Christ's command [Matth. 18, 15.], they would have reminded the sinning brother beforehand, even if I had let persistence be seen, since there are twelve hours of the day, in private letters-.
1356 V- a- IV, 193-195, Sect. 4: What has been done on this disp. No. 421 W. XV, 1609-1612. 1357
as they did against Reuchlin, so that I would either explain myself, or improve myself, or give up my stubbornness. This they would undoubtedly have wanted me to do against them; then, in obedience to the commandments of the gospel, if I had not heard them, they could have done what follows.
But now, without sparing God and men, they dare to boast that they are driven by zeal for the faith against me, as if it were possible that one could believe that the Holy Spirit is with his despisers. This they should rather have feared, lest at last he should suffer this zeal of disobedience and sin to be imputed to him by the blasphemers. But we are a strange and new kind of theologians, who do not take care of what is God's until God has been angered in all His commandments, and yet we promise ourselves I do not know how many golden crowns in heaven for these merits, and boast with a full mouth to men about our zeal for the faith. When we say mass or want to read or do something, we confess our sins and reconcile God; when we want to defend the truth of God, where a reconciled and merciful God is most needed, we irritate God, even mock Him.
Therefore, it is not surprising if those exceedingly wretched magisters seem to want to heal me like the one who, when he wanted to pull the brother out of the mud, only sank him deeper and suffocated him. Our time is worthy of this, that, as Micah says [Cap. 7, 2], one brother chases another to death, and he thinks he is doing God a service by doing so [Jn. 16, 2], who, after first despising the commandments of God, sacrifices the poor man to his net [Hab. 1, 16]. Against these so atrocious crimes there is no zeal in the lions and colognes, here is no Cardinal of Tortosa, no Rome, nowhere a doctrinal condemnor, but here the sinner is praised in his lusts and the ungodly is blessed. But let go, the judgment of the wrath of God drives them so.
But we also want to credit the magistris nostris with this injustice and inequity.
The most holy Lord, the Pope Leo, what has he sinned against the Löwener and Kölner Verdammer, that these snorting magistrates snatched the book, which is dedicated to his name, 1) laid at his feet, and which awaits his judgment, from his hands and subject it to their foolish zeal? Do they want to accuse his holiness with a secret sting of sloth, ignorance, negligence, yes, of impiety against God and the Church? Or are the Louvain and Cologne the sole and first of the mortals in the whole world? But I am by far the most noble, that I am surprised that this venial sin is free to the highly respectable Magistris nostris. How should they hold the pope, a man, in honor, who trample all the commandments of God underfoot and rage against their neighbor? It is enough if they honor God and the pope, a man, according to words and appearances, and desecrate everything divine and human under the pretense of zeal, in praise of God and in honor of the holy apostolic see and in defense of holy theology and philosophy.
But this is enough of the guilt of the impudence. Now let us look at the ignorance (wisdom I wanted to say).
The first main thing is that in my books there is a great disparagement of philosophy. Do you see here the source of the zeal? Namely this, so that the profit of the faculty would not dry up; no doubt either the whole book or much of it would have been spared if I had not touched this ulcer. But I answer the highly respectable Magistris nostris that not Luther, but the Louvainers and Cologneers are the disparagers of philosophy. Do you expect me to prove what I have said? This is not necessary; for as these theologians only say everything and condemn everything and prove nothing, so it is probable that they will not suffer a proof of the adversary, since they will want to measure everything by the same yardstick. For it is enough that one argues here after the manner of women only with words of contradiction: Yes! No!
1) Luther's Explanations of the Disputation on the Power of Indulgences, Vol. XVIII, 100. The dedication letter to Pope Leo in this volume Document No. 127.
It is! It is not! It is so! It is not so! In such a way! Not like this! You are mistaken! I am not mistaken! so that we do not violate the statutes and the custom of the magistrates. But by special favor and permission of the eminent lords decans and magistri nostri, which has been requested and obtained before, I briefly prove what I have said. I consider that they are the degraders of philosophy, harming both the young and the old and the whole church, since they call philosophy what is not philosophy, and under the name of philosophy they capture and corrupt the best minds of young people with their dreams and errors. But since they teach nothing except Aristotle (in whom there is almost nothing of philosophy), and then never understand him, and since they try their conjectures instead of correct interpretations, and yet boast of being philosophers,-what more atrocious thing can they do against philosophy? If they should deny this, I would say to them that they should interpret the preface to physics (which none of them has yet understood) or to what follows it, or to metaphysics, according to the true meaning of Aristotle, as a testimony to their philosophy.
But I fear that they would gather the faculty anew and again condemn Luther with mere doctrinal, reliable (authenticis) words and say: Luther has disparaged the Magistri nostri by denying that they are philosophers and understand the prefaces to the books of Aristotle. For after they have learned this art of saying nothing but, "We condemn," and are not bound to give a reason, the more I would prove, the more I would offer them to condemn.
But you may firmly believe, esteemed Magistri nostri, that Luther is familiar with your philosophy and theology, with which he, not exactly with the worst head or with the greatest diligence, has occupied himself for more than twelve years and has well acquainted himself with it among your fellow fighters: you will not persuade me that philosophy is that babble of matter, of movement, of the infinite, of space, of the
Emptiness, of the time, which we learn almost alone in Aristotle, such things, which improve neither the mind nor the attitude nor the common life of men, but are only good for sowing and maintaining strife. No matter how much they might be able to do something, they are still confused by so many opinions that the more certain a man thinks to do something, the more uncertain he is made and follows will-o'-the-wisps, and finally regrets too late that he has had to do with a Proteus. These storms you, Magistri nostri, call philosophy. It would have been enough that the Christian youth, who are, as it were, servants in barbarian Egypt, learned this so that they could talk with their tyrants, not approve of it until they were freed: so I care to instruct the young people.
I have known for a long time, my dear Christoph, that you ridicule these excellent doctrinal bunglers, and murmur this joke of yours: With such doctors I would also dare to fight. For this is how you use to salt these titled water bubbles that presume everything. But setting aside this salt, of which they are worthy, rather bear with me sorrow for those who under these tyrants are forced to give away the best spiritual gifts. For there is no one of all who should not condemn and ridicule that they have condemned mine without giving any reason. By this frivolous and sacrilegious condemnation, they have given my little books no little promotion, especially among those who are not entirely stones and blocks.
But I suspect that they, out of very wise counsel, did not want to prove anything or give the reason for anything, because, bearing in mind what the people of Cologne had done against the jurist Reuchlin and how powerfully he had destroyed their completely unrhymed stuff, they feared that they would also run against a bull, They feared that they would also run against a bull with horns and claws that would rage much more terribly, since they knew that I was a theologian and, not inexperienced in their arts, had so fortified mine that they despaired that it could be overturned with luck and yet did not want to suffer that it would remain unharmed.
And it is, of course, since, by working with
1360 L. V. a. IV, 197 f. Section 4: What has been done in response to this disp. No. 421 W. XV, 1614-1616. 1361
1) boast with more than peripatetic hope that they are the sixty men from the strong in Israel, who stand around the bed of Solomon, each of whom has his sword on his hip for fear in the night [Hohel. 3, 7. f.].It is their primary duty to protect the faith and eradicate error with the holy Scriptures. But afterwards, as they prepare for the work, and the Zuschaners eagerly look around to see where the sword shines or the holy Scriptures flash, they hear nothing but this. Verbum of the first conjugation: Damnamus doctrinaliter [we condemn doctrinally], namely the crepitum of a rotten idol; and thus Solomon's proverb is fulfilled: "He who speaks much and does not keep, he is like clouds and wind without rain. Who is such a Thor that he should not laugh at these childish inconsistencies of the magisters? I would like to be instructed by these highly respectable magistris nostris whether the sword at the hip and the holy scripture at Lion and Cologne, in the wrong order of things, are the same as the verb "we condemn" and the adverb "doctrinally".
I therefore confront you, you highly respectable Magistri nostri of Louvain and Cologne: Execute what you promise, protect the faith by the holy scripture, drive out fear in the night with the sword at your hip! Why do you promise what you do not keep? Why do you boast what you do not perform? Do you make this distinction, that promising belongs to the public condemnation note, but keeping to the secret corner of the assembled faculty, and that you triumphantly publicly challenge fear in the night, but after it has been challenged and has set in, you womanishly seek a dark corner? Or do you like it that the word of Horace 2) is held against you:
Nec sic incipias, ut scriptor cyclicus olim: ,,Fortunam Priami cantabo et nobile bellum." Quid feret hic tanto dignum promissor hiatu ?
1) This goes against the condemnation of the theologians at Cologne.
2) Horatii ars xostiea, v. 136 8y<z.
[Nor begin as a cyclic poet once did, "I will sing of the fortunes of Priam, and of the famous war." What right will this prompter, who takes his mouth so full, accomplish]. Namely, you thought to bring forth smoke from lightning, not light from smoke, and it is after the example of Moab [Isa. 16, 6/ your presumption is greater than your valor, in that you, as Isaiah fCap. 33, 11. Vnlg/ you conceive with fire and give birth to straw.
Now if you should ask what Solomon's bed was, what the strong in Israel, what the fear in the night, what the hip, what standing about the bed, they will so skillfully expound this, and treat the word of God, that you would rather they were no less dumb to discuss it than they are to prove theirs. For with the same erudition, fidelity, and skill with which they have adapted this passage of Scripture to their presumption, they would undoubtedly have refuted what is mine and proved what is theirs, which they knew very well, and therefore they did not dare to do so, however much impudence they were driven by. This is the meaning of what the wise man says [Wis 17:11]: "A frightened conscience is always afraid of the worst."
These are the Magistri nostri. Eck urged at Leipzig that these people should be chosen as judges in holy matters, otherwise he would not dispute. I knew their ignorance and sacrilege very well and hesitated not without cause. And what should he not overcome, what should he not obtain from such learned, such clever people of this ilk, who have "we condemn" in their mouths and nothing else, instead of "we prove".
But now we will come to the rest in order and only briefly indicate it, so that it will not be necessary to write explanations again until they have refuted mine. In the meantime, we do not want to regard their condemnation any differently than if a drunken woman had reviled us. Even if, while I am alive, they should be subdued by force and crowd, which is the only way they do against me, after the death of both of them, it cannot be prevented that the rumor spreads that it is
1362 L.?. a. iv, 1S8-2W. Cap. 5. of the Leipzig disputation. W. xv. ikis-ieio. 1363
They have done violence to me, and I have never been convicted. In the meantime, the foundation of my doctrine is quite firm and has this seal [2 Tim. 2:19]: "The Lord knows His own" and what is His. If it is of God, it cannot be dampened; if it is of men, it cannot be preserved [Apost. 5, 38. f.]. Yes, I rejoice in this very special way, that while I live, both my works and my words are condemned by those who are led by force, not by reasons. For as long as they do not win by reasons, and fight by force, they rather increase the confidence of the conscience than frighten it, and prove mine to me more strongly by this force than I have ever proved it by reasons. Therefore, whoever wants to hate me or love me, my Christ lives, and I will also live as long as the unlearned and ignorant violence fights with me. Fine is the word of Chrysostom, that the Pharisees arm themselves with the multitude, confessing that they are destitute of the truth, and again: Wickedness is sometimes put to shame by the reason of truth, but never ameliorated.
To the same piece 1) belongs that the disparagement of all teachers from four hundred years ago is contained in my books. Here the magistri nostri, after having been philosophers, have gradually advanced and become jurists, and gain strength for their doctrines by the lapse of time from the length of time, not by testimonies and reasons. Also I say: If to contradict someone's doctrine is as much as to belittle him, then the Magistri nostri are lions and Cologne belittlers, not of the teachers who have been for four hundred years, but of Christ and of the Holy Spirit who has been from eternity, whose doctrine they condemn and blaspheme, not unlike the Manichaean Faustus the God of the Old Testament.
First, they condemn as heresy these four propositions: A good work, though well done, is a venial sin. The saints do less than they should in any good work. No saint has lived without sin in this life. The saints need the
1) Col. 1341, § 3.
pardoning mercy of God in good works. 2) And so Isaiah is condemned as a heretic, who says [Isa. 64, 5. f. Vulg.], "Behold, thou art angry, and we have sinned; therein have we ever abode, and we shall be saved. And we are all become unclean, and all our righteousness is as the garment of an unclean woman." But the opinion of the magistri nostri is thus proved: We are magistri nostri; so we will, so we command, instead of a reason shall be our will. But here the Cologners, as more astute people, indulge their lions, and come ahead by refuting all my reasons, past, present and future, at once and briefly in such a way, 3) that I pervert the holy scriptures and the sayings of the holy fathers and twist them to a harmful sense. So the magistri nostri must refute heresies magisterially, and to the Scripture and the attracted fathers throw up the trunk and say with a curbed nose in reliable manner (authentice) and doctrinally: You pervert the Scripture; we alone understand it rightly. And if you should ask how they prove it, with a wave of the hand they imperiously impose silence upon you and say: It is enough; we have spoken our mind!
Therefore, may they now burn or drown my books, I repeat what I have said, and say again: in this opinion I am so bold that I will suffer fire, death and everything, even the raging of these wild beasts, under God's assistance, and will consider anyone who stubbornly teaches the opposite to be a heretic, even if the Magistri nostri of the synagogues at Louvain and Cologne should all hold otherwise down to the last man, of whom I also confess by this writing that I consider them heretics and enemies of God's mercy.
However, I have never denied that we are helped by the merits and prayers of the saints, however imperfect they may be, which wretched people deceitfully try to pin on me as a brand. But that they can help us through
2) Col. 1341 f.,§§4.5.
3) Col. 1339, § 5.
1364 2- V- L. IV, 200-202, Sect. 4: What has been done in response to this disp. No. 421 W. XV, 161S-I621. 1365
The Magistri nostri will only prove to those who will say that the power of faith, hope and love, which is the communion of saints, which can be given by any priest and brother through the ministry of the word, can be given and communicated by human will: The Magistri nostri have said so, and have brought it to pass in a time of four hundred years.
In the second piece, since they want to rejuvenate the wretched and already corpse-like indulgence and bring it back to the strength of the former fraud, they declare me a heretic, because I said that by the indulgence only those punishments are remitted which are imposed by the will of a man and the canons.
Here, with the permission of the venerable gentlemen Magistri nostri, the warning of the Cardinal of Tortosa has not been heeded, who has precautionarily reminded that they should conscientiously indicate mine from word to word, fearing perhaps what would happen that they would make a mockery of themselves if they were convicted that they had condemned other things than I had written. The book 1) exists; they also cannot deny that I have disputed and investigated this matter; that I have not dared to establish and assert anything even in the German sermon, as I also do not assert today, although not any magistri nostri together, may they be taken individually or collectively, on both sides, will be able to neither prove nor disprove, unless from the statute of limitations and the use, rather the abuse of the indulgence merchants or those who send them out. Therefore it is necessary that "heresy" in this place means the same to the Magistris nostris as disputing, first, about a completely uncertain matter, second, about a useless and unnecessary matter, whereas "catholic," if you should also doubt whether faith is necessary in the matter of the sacrament, and repentance begins from the love of God. And it is not to be wondered at, because if they are
1) The Explanations of the Disputation on the Power of Indulgences, St. Louis ed. vol. XVIII, 100; the "German Sermon" on Indulgences and Grace idib. Col. 270.
had disparaged philosophy, as I have done, and not rather made it equal to Christ and preferred it, as much as is in use, how could they have invented such an astute and new meaning of heresy? Who should not justly suspect this philosophy, for which, if you have learned to speak according to grammar, and wish to speak grammatically, you must invent a grammar unknown to you and to all?
But the excellent gentlemen of Cologne say, 2) that the indulgence is confirmed by the Conciliar, therefore it is heretical that I have spoken against the Conciliar, namely, so they speak from the erstell of unessential things, 3) since they, as they learn their dialectics for rhetoric, so they consider the question "whether something is" and the question "what it is" to be one and the same. For how could I doubt or deny whether the indulgence is, that I should hold it in this piece against the Conciliar, since I have written so much about the indulgence? Or what corner is there in the whole world that does not complain that it is deceived by the indulgence? So much is lacking that any man should not know or deny that indulgences exist, much less that a man could thereby become a heretic! But this has been asked, but not yet found, what indulgences are or are worth. Here the highly respectable magistri nostri should have opened their eyes to philosophy and not done such ridiculous and childishly inconsistent things with the question "whether it is" instead of the question "what it is. Nowhere does one find anything about what indulgences are, neither in the concilia, nor in the synagogues, nor in the conciliabulis, except that in the last hundred years it has been begun to extend them to purgatory and to heaven and hell, by impudent knaves and seducers of souls, among whom nevertheless the zeal of the magistri nostri has not found a heretic, an irreligious man, if he has not found one. Among them, the zeal of the Magistri nostri has not found a heretic, a fool, even if he deceived and debauched the whole world with the most harmful error. But I must be a heretic, although an error in the indulgence is harmless.
2) Col. 1339,? 9.
3) ex i. posteriorum, that is, on the basis of a council. The Basel edition has the marginal gloss: Hueretieus ex xrirno xokterioruiu.
There would be no danger to salvation if there were no indulgences anywhere: so prudent and righteous is the zeal of the Magistri nostri that they have eaten cumin and anise, but have left judgment, faith and mercy behind. But I think it should be credited to the Cologne people because they lacked a Cardinal of Tortosa who would have warned them not to condemn what no one had said, otherwise they would become a laughingstock to me and to everyone.
And what shall I poor man do? Christ, the meekness and kindness himself, saw Marc. 3, 5. looked at the Pharisees around with anger and was grieved over their hardened hearts, and Paul Apost. 16, 18. suffered after the same example because of the soothsaying spirit of the maiden, and Cap. 17, 16. when he was in Athens, his spirit was enraged in him because he saw the city so idolatrous. What shall I, the most wretched sinner, do, since I see in the masters of the nations of Christ such gross blindness that they understand neither Christ nor Aristotle nor their own opinions, and cannot treat them otherwise than to suck, entangle and disgrace themselves?
I beg you, you rough ...1) (it almost escaped me), refrain from judging or treating Luther's things; you are not up to this matter, neither in Aristotle nor in the holy scriptures. Take up your [with you] related things, and a matter that is appropriate to your powers. You have shown enough in Neuchlin and Peter of Ravenna and others how you know nothing at all and sacrilegiously presume everything. He who is weak, let him eat herbs [Rom. 14, 2]. Do not deceive yourselves: your judgment and condemnation has long since ceased to be respected and believed.
Testimonies of the same blindness and nonsense are those which follow: 2) Likewise, he spreads errors about the Sacrament of Penance, as that man is without God's grace,
1) Luther suppresses an expression here. The gap is only indicated in the Weimar edition. According to Luther's words in his letter to Spalatin of March 19, 1520: "I send you the donkeys of Louvain and Cologne", "donkey" will have to be added here.
2) Col. 1342, 8. 9.
who first remits the guilt, cannot even have the desire to seek forgiveness. Likewise, it is a heretical opinion to say that the sacraments of the new law give the justifying grace to those who do not put a bar.
Of these two errors Luther still claims that they are not errors, and does not care about the Louvain Scotists and the Cologne Thomists, that is, Pelagians, who dream from their own heads by raging against the grace of Christ, and confidently expects both the refutation and the proof of both [faculties]. But he also sets them at war with themselves. For even they themselves are not united in this matter, except so far as Pilate and Herod and the Pharisees were united against the Lord and his anointed.
It follows: 3) Regarding repentance, he gives this advice: If you want to confess, consider before all things what you would do if there were no commandment of confession, and whether you would want to confess even then; and what follows.
Here Luther confesses that he has spoken the truth, even according to the testimony of the highly respectable magistri nostri, who constantly claim that everything is sin that is not done out of love. Unless the Magistris nostris are free to condemn and approve the same thing at a different time and place just because they are Magistri nostri, which I, a heretic, have not yet been free to do. For I hold that the magisterial distinction of moving grace and love, which they have invented out of their brains, is like a play, since it is certain that justice (that is, the law of God) will not be loved nor desired unless love precedes it.
It follows: 4) He also rejects the way to inquire the conscience, against C. Quem poenitet, and the Canon of the General Council, Omnis utriusque sexus, de poe. et re.
Here the Magistri nostri do their promise well enough. The sword on the hip and the holy scripture, with which these sixty strong men in Israel are girded, will be used after
3) Col. 1342, A 10.
4) Col. 1343, A 12.
1368 V- IV- 203-205. sect. 4. what has been done on this disp. No. 421 W. XV, 1623-1626. 1369
understood these words to be c. Quem poenitet and c. Omnis utriusque eexus, namely again according to a new grammar, to speak doctrinally. Does not this mole hear then the pattering of a brazen little stone?
The Canon Omnis utriusque sexu contains that each one should make confession of all his sins. Here the highly respectable Magistri nostri understand by "all sins" the examination of the conscience, that is, the torture of consciences, by which they have hitherto burdened many souls with sins, as the apostle foretold 2 Tim. 4, 3 [1 Tim. 4, 1. ff]. This view is similar to the one according to which some scoff at this very chapter: All of both sexes, that is, only those of both sexes, namely the hermaphrodites, must confess all their sins. This is a quite deserved mockery of this canon, if they had wanted it to be understood as the Louvians understand it. For who can know all his sins, let alone confess them, since it is written [Ps. 19:13], "Who can know how often he sinneth?" And Jer. 17:9: "The heart is a stouthearted and desponding thing; who can search it?" and again the same says [Cap. 10:23], "It is in no man's power how he shall direct his course." I can hardly restrain myself here, lest I bring out against the quite unlearned insolent foreheads of the sophists; but I will spare them for the fear of God, and freely confess this: if this Canon required confession of all sins par excellence, it would be to be condemned as ungodly and exceedingly harmful. For these books have come from the way of confession, where sins are divided into mothers, daughters, sisters, granddaughters and grandchildren, and innumerable other kinds, out of no other concern than that no sin should be omitted in confession, which is quite impossible. For if the strictness of the Canon is to hold, even a forgotten and unrecognized sin is excluded, because it says: He shall make confession of all his sins. But of this more extensively in the "manner of confession". 1)
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XIX, 786.
But I have not rejected (in order to convict the respectable Magistri nostri of lying) the examination of conscience, nor will they be able to prove that this has ever been done by me, but the fearful torture, by which, whether by the death-bringing decree of this canon, or by its interpretation, the wretched Christians are urged to the impossible, in that they are to ascribe nothing to the promising mercy of God, unless they have made the confession of all sins, that is, that they are never to have peace and trust more in their unhappy confession than in God's mercy. And here I would have wished my lions that they had had another Cardinal of Toptosa as a warner. For they passed by this one with their usual insolence, reminding in vain that they should denounce all that is mine from word to word.
Now, if I wanted to pursue the other things that these quite unfortunate people have put forward, both the dreams that have been put upon me and the things of mine that they have misunderstood, I would become more expansive than they deserve and than a godly reader could bear.
I say only one thing, that I could not be persuaded even by many very wise people (Nestoribus) that those at Louvain and Cologne are such coarse theologians that, although they have raced quite extraordinarily in Neuchlin's cause, they have nevertheless made it less so than with their nonsense in this cause of mine.
Therefore I despise the other and estimate it according to the pattern of these things, so that it does not seem as if I am moved by the air to pursue them when I go through everything in detail. I want to sound the retreat and praise you, dearest Christoph, both the Löwen and the Cologne theologians in no other respect than in this, that they presume and say many things which they will never be able to prove or disprove. You can easily recognize what kind of people these are, since there is no common cave or tavern, no matter how drunk people may be in it, in which you could not find such judges and assessors.
that God makes His wrath known to us through this work, in which He has made these children and women princes over us, as Isaiah Cap. 3, 4, in that our sins and our ingratitude, which is finally also intolerable to God, deserve this.
It would not have been necessary for them to say in bare words that mine displeased them and seemed to them to be erroneous; I knew that this would happen and for this very reason suffered that it would be printed. I also did not seek that they refer me to their experts, as if they were unknown to me, but that they might show by testimony of the Scriptures or by acceptable reasons that theirs is true and mine is false. For what is this petitio principii 1) (which is also forbidden by their Aristotle), that I am answered precisely with what I dispute. It is not the question what they have learned, heard, read, ever held, but with what supports they can fasten it. Otherwise, why should I also resist my Secte, namely that of Occam or the Moderns, which I have taken up and held entirely, if I had wanted to be dampened by words or force? But this is enough. Meanwhile, be well, my dear friend in Christ.
The Hussites in Bohemia and other lovers of the truth corresponded with Luther around this time. The prizes of the former are congratulatory letters because of his disputation.
422: Johann Poduschka, pastor of the main church of B. Virginis ante latam curiam in Prague, wrote a letter of congratulation, consolation and encouragement to Luther, assuring him of his and the Hussites' prayers. July 16, 1519.
The names of the two Hussite letter writers are variously given: Poduska, Paduscka, Paduschka; Rozd'alowskh, Rosäiatovinus, Rosdalowsky; we have followed Köstlin in his spelling. This and the following letter are found in the Jena edition (1579),
1) Compare St. Louis Edition, Vol. VIII, 1130, § 85.
tona. I, toi. 366 scp; in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 649 ff; in the Erlanger, opp. var. tom. IV, 78 8<itz. and in the Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. II, p. 75 ff. What else might serve as an introduction here is found in the introduction to the 18th volume of the St. Louis edition, p. 386 f.
Translated from Latin.
(1) Although I, dear Martin, most precious brother in the Lord, am unknown to you until now and absent in body, you are known to me, although I have never seen you. For since many and various of your writings come into our hands, from which we can fully recognize you, who and what you are: it happens that we have to admire in you almost only this, that you, among so many enemies of the evangelical truth, nevertheless do not shy away from preaching the doctrine of Christ and the apostles freely and publicly, and do not pay attention to all shame, blasphemy and evil talk of many people, to whom everything that does not look like them must be called heresy, people who have broken senses and are incapable of all good work, who do not understand (as the apostle says [1 Tim. 6,5. Tit. 1, 16. 1 Tim. 1, 7.]), neither what they say, nor what they put. I therefore wish you, dear brother Martin, and your Christian godliness happiness from the bottom of my heart, that you alone in Germany have not been both found and invented, who finally teaches purely what is to be taught, that is, the law of Christ and the pure theology of the ancient fathers in its purity, which is absolutely without all taint of man's statutes, which unfortunately has been very much despised today, and that you also admonish from what Christ's spirit does not approve of, nor perhaps recognize. This is no wonder, since Christ cannot be divided in Himself, nor can He want what He wanted and advised at the time of His preaching.
(2) Therefore I exhort, urge and encourage you, who are already running, by the mercy of Christ, not to neglect the grace of the Lord that is in you for your salvation [1 Tim. 4:14]. God has made you the guardians of His people [Ezek. 3, 17]; what is necessary for this salvation, do not hide, but bring it more and more to light, as you are doing. You know Christ's voice [Matth. 5, 15.]: No one lights a light and hides it under a vessel, or puts it under a bed, but on the lampstand, so that those who come in may see the light. Pursue the enemies of God and the adversaries of the freedom of Christ, as you began, and seize them, of whom it is full everywhere, so much,
1372 Eri.Briefw.il, 7K-7S. Sect. 4: What has been done on this disp. No. 422 f. W. XV, 1628-1630. 1373
that already now perhaps Christ's words will be fulfilled, and that very much [Matth. 24, 24.]: "False Christs and false prophets will arise, and do signs and wonders to deceive, where it would be possible, even the elect," and the word of Peter [2. Ep. 2,1. ff.]: "There will be false teachers among you, who will introduce pernicious sects, and many will follow their destruction, and will handle you by avarice with fabricated words." And I do not know whether in Bohemia they are as mean as among you, whose curses and blasphemies you have long since lain upon your heads. O! how truth is now hated, how Christ is so hated everywhere! You, my brother, because you preach Christ and not men, are called heretics not only by your own, but also by some of ours. 1) But, beloved, bear this reproach gladly with Christ, and in the meantime remember what he says in Matthew [Cap. 10:25], "Did they call the father of the house Beelzebub, as rather his household?" Likewise what Lucas Cap. 23, 31. tells us that he said near his end, "If this be done in the green wood, what shall become of the dry?" [Matth. 10, 24. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord." What greater praise can the servant have than to suffer shame and strokes for the Lord's sake? Therefore, my dear brother Martin, be strong in the Lord, and be a mighty hunter of false apostles. Christ, the prince and master of truth, chases the buyers and sellers out of the temple as an example, so that we follow his footsteps. You will not lack help from above. There are many faithful and God-loving people in Bohemia who will help you day and night with their prayers. Only do not let yourselves be lacking. I only ask you to be careful that when you save Christ from the Antichrist, you do not get caught by him. He has a thousand ways to harm, and lies in wait to shoot the upright in secret [Ps. 64:5]. Christ keep you unharmed, my Martin, for whose law you do not shun men and assume great danger. But be of good cheer, the truth will set you free. Farewell and accept these knives graciously as a small gift, as a pledge of sincere love and goodwill among us. Farewell again, and the grace of Christ be with you always. Prague, Saturday after the Apostles' Meeting [July 16], 1519.
1) Soon after, the Utraquist Consistory in Prague complained to King Louis about the Lutheran preachers that the nobility had (Erl. Briefw.).
423: Wenceslaus Rosdalowsky, 2) the head of the Emperor Charles College at Prague, writes to Luther, in which he also congratulates him on the disputation held with Eck, and at the same time sends along a book by Johann Hus.
July 17, 1519.
For the location of this letter etc. see the previous number.
Translated from Latin.
(1) Since I, my dear Martin Luther, have been thoroughly occupied with your writings 3) and have considered with good friends who you are, what you do and what you start, yes, what the Spirit of God is working through you in the church, behold, a certain organ maker (or organ player, organarius) Jacob, 4) who is very well disposed toward you, has come and told everything that has happened publicly between you and Eck and some other of your enemies at this time. I cannot say, my dear father, how pleasant, how sweet the narration was, and how it pleased me when I heard that you had obtained a glorious victory over the war trumpets of your adversaries, and especially over Eck's more scholastic and Aristotelian than Christ's theology. You and the most illustrious Prince Frederick have been highly praised in this narrative. You, because you prove yourself worthy of admiration, but he, because he honors the virtues of which the greatest proofs are seen in you every day, so that it annoys the enemies, but quite heartily delights your friends and patrons. Is this not more precious than gold? I therefore wish you, venerable father, happiness, and thank God in Heaven that He not only keeps you safe under so much danger and among so many wicked enemies, but also makes you gloriously victorious over the enemies in such a righteous struggle.
By the way, Jacob just said that you would very much like to have the books of John Hus, the apostle of Bohemia, so that you may recognize and judge what kind of man he was and how great, not according to the rumor of the common rabble, nor from the ill-consulted Costnitz Concilium, but from the true image of the mind, namely his writings. I therefore gladly send you, venerable father, from the bottom of my heart a booklet which he wrote about the church.
2) In the Erlanger, correspondence the name is written: "Rozd'alowsky".
3) lucudraiioni6u8. This will probably be the lucubrationes published by Frobenius in Basel in February 1519.
4) Nothing else is known about this Jacob.
I am all the more confident about this now, because I have read several sentences that you have published and recently defended in Leipzig against old and new errors, which are also approved in this booklet: a small and bad gift at first sight (as they say), but perhaps not entirely unpleasant, especially if it can meet your wishes and desires, and then because this booklet was probably the only one for whose sake he, while still alive, had to suffer all the shame, hatred, cursing and blasphemy of all prelates, in short, as a heretic at last, oh, how unjust! was burned at the Costnitz Concilium, the otherwise innocent man and excellent preacher of the divine word. But enough of that. For I will gladly send you the entire course of his case one day, if it is necessary and you request it, along with many other things. Only this I add with good deliberation: What Joh. Hus was in Bohemia, you, Martin, are now in Saxony. What is therefore necessary for you? Watch and be strong in the Lord, then beware of men; do not despair even if they call you a heretic, if they call you an exile. Then remember what Christ suffered, what the apostles suffered, what all who want to live godly in Christ suffer today. Now be well, my dear Martin, and love me, though I am unknown to you; for, be assured, we love you. Prague, in the great college of Emperor Carl, July 17, 1519.
424 Luther's report to Staupitz of the above two letters, as well as of some other letters received by the court from France, in which Erasmus' thoughts about Luther and Eck are communicated.
See Appendix, No. 36, §§ 4. 6.
425 Letter from Joh. Frobenius, printer in Basel, to Luther, in which he informs him of the strong outflow of his writings to France, Spain, Italy, Brabant and England, and at the same time encloses the favorable verdict of the Cardinal of Sion in the Walliser Land about him and the then still future Leipzig disputation with Eck. February 14, 1519.
This letter is found in the Jena edition (1579), tom. I, toi. 367 k; in the Miscelianoa GroniQAonsia, tom. Ill, p. 60; in the Erlanger, opp. var. arZ., tona IV, p. 82 and in the Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. I, p. 420.
Translated into German.
Johann Frobenius wishes Martin Luther Heil!
Blasius Salmonius, a bookseller in Leipzig, presented me at the last fair in Frankfurt 1) with some of your books, which I immediately reprinted because they were approved by all scholars. We have sent six hundred copies to France and Spain. And now they are sold in Paris, also read and approved by the theologians of the Sorbonne, as our friends have assured us. Some scholars there have also said that they have long wished that those who treat the Holy Scriptures would make use of such freedom.
2 The bookseller in Pavia, Calvus, a very learned and scientific man, has had a good number of such books brought to Italy and wants to distribute them in all cities. For he does not seek profit from them, but rather to help the resurgence of godliness and to promote it as much as possible. He has promised to send out from all learned men in Italy short praises which they have made in your honor; so much is he favorable to you and to the cause of Christ, which you take up with such great steadfastness, so manly and honestly.
You may wonder about our edition of your (Augsburg) actions, because it partly coincides with the Wittenberg one, but partly deviates from it. But hear what the cause of this is. One of my good friends sent me your answer from Augsburg given to the Cardinal (Cajetän). This had to be printed, because Calvus, when he returned from Nuremberg, had brought only a single sheet of the Wittenberg edition, namely the first one, which I printed immediately as it was, and appended the rest, which had been sent to me from Augsburg. Now that I have received a copy of the Wittenberg edition through Blasius, I will, as soon as possible, add what is missing in mine. For, as I understand, it has pleased the scholars what you have appended at the end of the compulsion of the decrees. 2)
I have also sent your books to Brabant and England. From the replica of the Silvester I have only three hundred copies
1) In September 1518. Already in October, Frobenius' collection of Lutheran writings was published in Basel.
2) This is Document No. 226 in this volume.
1376 Erl. Briefw. II, 348 f. Section 4: What has been done in response to this disp. No. 425 ff. W. XV, 1632-1634. 1377
printed. The scholars think that it would do you no harm. Here, everyone, depending on how good he is, also thinks highly of you. In particular, our bishop 1) is very fond of you, as is his auxiliary bishop, the bishop of Tripoli. 2) When I offered your work to the Cardinal of Sion, he immediately said: Luther, you are indeed Luther. The other day, someone sent him Eck's sentences and added that he would soon bring news of the victory that Eck would win over the new teachings at Leipzig. To this the Cardinal replied: Eck may argue as much as he wants, Luther writes the truth.
All but ten of my copies have been sold, and I have never experienced a happier sale for any book. The New Testament, which Erasmus has very carefully overlooked and increased with strong additions, I intend to complete with the help of God within ten days. Farewell, venerable father. Basel, 14 February 1519.
426: Letter from Joh. Botzheim (Abstemius), Doctor and Canonicus at Costnitz, March 3, 1520, to D. Matt. Luther, in which he testifies how he is so pleased with his writings that he is quite happy to live at such a time when the thick darkness has been dispelled and the light of pure divine truth has risen brightly again.
From Kcrpp's small Nachlese nützlicher Reformationurkunden, vol. II, p. 420, in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. II, p. 348.
Translated into German.
To the excellent man, Mr. Martin Luther, the Holy Scripture Doctor and exceedingly vigilant Reformer, his warmly beloved master and patron.
Hail! With short words, the friendship is satisfied, if you can not write more expansive, as it is everything, even what is not even beautiful,
1) Christoph von Uttenheim, resigned 1526, died 1527 (Erl. Briefw.).
2) Telamonius Limpurger, bishop in partibus of Tripoli, who assisted the bishop as auxiliary bishop since 1502 and later formally converted to the Reformation (Erl. Briefw.). - The Cardinal of Sion is Matthaeus Schinner, Bishop of Sion, Cardinal priest, later a staunch opponent of the Reformation.
laid out for the best. Accordingly, I will write briefly what I have in mind. For after you have made friends of the whole world, or at least of the greater part of it, I mean true and righteous Christians, you will also be my friend, whether you want to or not. Your writings please me in such a way that I rejoice over nothing so much as over my kind fate, to which I have to thank that I live at such a time, in which not only the human, but also the theological sciences regain their former splendor. There is no science in the world that has not begun to cast off the defect of gross ignorance in these years. But divine learning, which was supposed to be completely pure before others, was in the thickest darkness. But now you lay your hands on the holy theology, your remedies are the most powerful of all, they heal not only the sciences, but also the souls, which until now have been all too depressed by scholastic opinions. I pray to God that He may make your endeavors happy, and that Christ, who (I have no doubt) inspired them, may promote them. Farewell, from Constance, March 3, in the year etc. 1520.
Your most devoted
Johann Botzhem Abstemius, 3)
Doctor and canon of Constance.
Urban Regius sends you his greetings, highly learned Martin, whom you should consider all the more faithful a friend, because he was moved to love you not out of rashness, but with good deliberation.
I wish the very learned Philipp Melanchthon well.
427 Caspar Hedio's letter to D. Luther, June 23, 1520, in which he commemorates Luther's teachings and writings with special praise.
From Kapp's Nachlese, vol. II, p. 4x3, in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. II, p. 422.
Translated into German.
3) The name Abstemius was given to him by his friends because he did not drink wine, did not hunt, did not gamble etc. In 1524 he was summoned to Rome because of his reformatory attitudes, but he did not appear. In 1525, as it seems, as a result of the Peasants' War, he changed his mind and became a strict papist again (Erl. Briefw.).
To Martin Luther, the true Christian and righteous theologian, his highly honored teacher, Caspar Hedio wishes Heil!
I see that your teaching is from God, beloved man! It cannot be dampened, it becomes stronger day by day; it wins many souls for Christ every day; it leads away from vices and towards true godliness. But what do I call your teaching, which is not Luther's, but Christ's! For I see nothing that you do not treat thoroughly and concisely from Scripture, nothing that does not have its strong and insurmountable foundation in the Word of God. If antiquity was right in saying that a God is he who is useful to men, you may rightly be called a God for us, because you have rendered such an immense service to the whole of Christendom. All honest people who read your writings diligently and grasp them faithfully wish you all the best. Your German books are of great use, because through them the common people, who are very obedient and observant, come to the right judgment, they learn to see the deceit, they wish to be admonished, they recognize the good deed, which is the duty of gratitude. So you must not let up, O helpers, but strive with all your strength to restore to us the easy and gentle yoke of Christ. You should be our leader, we want to be constant warriors, if otherwise we can do something with our services.
I have been able to benefit from this, either in public sermons, which I now preside over, 1) and explain the Gospel of Matthew, or in private conversations with the citizens of Basel, or finally through letters to good friends. The arrival of the excellent Mr. Egranu 2) has been very dear and pleasant to us all. He has told us much about you, dear God, to what great comfort and delight of mind! that I feel as if I see Luther present before me with great desire, and that he is speaking to me in a friendly manner. And, oh, that I would one day have the happiness that I wish to have! At present I do not want to be too burdensome, because you will hear about the studies, about the academy and about the Magistris nostris (M. N.), the theologians, through your Theseus 3).
I want to assure you of one thing, that Hedio will always remain yours. Beloved brother, I wish that it may always be well with you in Jesus Christ, and that you may remember us from time to time. Your letter, however short it may be, will be a treasure. Basel, 1520, June 23.
1) Hedio preached at St. Theodor, where he was vicar, and at St. Martin m Basel on St. Matthew (Erl. Briefw.).
2) Johann Sylvius Egranus, actually Johann Wildenauer from Ezer.
3) Probably Melanchthon, to whom Hedio also seems to have written (Erl. Briefw.).