Luther repeatedly defends the Elector against being the author of the indulgence controversy (cf. No. 4 of this appendix), denies the usefulness of dialectics in theology, and reports on a letter written to Trutfetter on this matter.
The original of this letter can be found in the Anhaltisches Gesammt-Archiv. Printed in Aurifaber, Vol. I, p. 72 d; in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, Vol. II, p. 617; in De Wette, Vol. I, p. 126 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, Vol. I, p. 160.
3) This refers to the Lxportutio viri eujusckum ckoetiskimi ack Principes, ne in deciinne pruestationsm oonksntiunt of the Würzburg canon Friedrich Fischer (about him compare St. Louis edition, vol. XI V, 258, note), who, recently returned from Italy, perhaps sat as Würzburg envoy in the Estates Committee and in sharp words revoked the approval of the demanded Turkish tithe. This writing then circulated in the somewhat modified form of a letter from Rome.
4) The time determination at the end of this letter: the S.Petro sacro has been resolved differently. Löscher and De Wette take the day of Petri and Pauli, the 29. Junius *); Burkhardt, p. 10, Petri Kettenfeier, den
*) with eraser is pressure error instead of: Jun.
His Spalatin Georg, Christ's servant and ducal secretary.
JEsus.
1st Hail! I am not afraid, dearest Spalatin, that they speak of me in the worst way, or gossip that our prince is the author of my theses; I only fear that an enmity might arise from this occasion between such great princes, if, for example, the prince of Brandenburg 1) would let something similar happen out of revenge, as one recently heard about the one who is called "the tavern" 2).
By the way, you ask how far I consider dialectics useful for a theologian. I truly do not see how dialectics should not rather be harmful to a true theologian. It may be that it is perhaps a useful game or exercise for the intellect of young people, but in the holy Scriptures, where only pure faith and enlightenment from above are necessary, every reason must be left outside, not unlike Abraham, when he wanted to sacrifice, left the servants behind with the donkeys. This is also sufficiently testified by Johann Reuchlin in the second book of his Kabbalah: 3) If any dialectic is necessary, then the natural, innate one is sufficient, by which man is able to compare what is believed with what is believed and thus to conclude the truth. I have often examined with friends what benefit might have accrued to us from such arduous studies of philosophy and dialectics, and, indeed, we have unanimously wondered, indeed, lamented the fate of our power of understanding: we have
August 1; Knaake Petri Stuhlfeier, den 22. Februar, which we assumed with the Erlangen correspondence, and De Wette had described as possible in a note. The latter is undoubtedly correct, as is evident from a comparison of our letter with a letter addressed to Spalatin by Carlstadt on February 5 (Erl. Briefw. I, 144). Cf. Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 8 f.
1) Elector Joachim I.
2) The Pirna monk at Mencke, II, 1498 says: Siegmund Schenck, also a free gentleman, led a loosely rapacious life at the Bohemian mountains at Betscha, Oelsnitz 2c., was captured at Eisenberg in Thuringia, and beheaded at Torgau on the Elbe.
3) The following is a citation from Reuchlin's De Arte Cabalistica Libri tres, published in March 1517 by Thomas Anselm in Hagenau.
found nothing of use, but a whole sea of harmfulness.
I have finally written to the Doctor of Eisenach 4) about the same matter, who (as it seems) is the prince of the dialecticians in our time, and have mainly stated what cannot be denied, namely, that dialectics cannot be of use to theology for its own sake, but does more harm, because theology uses the same grammatical words far differently than dialectics. How, therefore, I say, can dialectics be of use, since, when I go to theology, I must discard the word which had such [or other] meaning in dialectics, and take another meaning of it? And in order not to make mere words, I have added examples, namely: corpus (body, Leib) means in the tree of Porphyrius 5) a thing consisting of matter and form. But such a body (corpus) cannot be given to man, since in Scripture our body alone signifies matter, not also form, as in the passage [Matth. 10, 28.]: "Fear not them which kill the body, but may not kill the soul." Then I have stated that it is said inconsistently that an angel is neither rational nor unreasonable; likewise that it is of no use for Scripture that man is called endowed with senses, with reason, with body and with soul (sensitivum, rationalem, corporeum, animatum), and in short: I have said and still say that that whole bundle of the Porphyric tree is less than a fiction of old women or a dream of sick people, and that it was rightly called Porphyrius (that is a bloody one), namely because of the Christian souls that were to be killed by it. Then I have also destroyed the categories and some other things of philosophy and also of theology.
This displeased the man very much, and he claimed that my reasons were not insurmountable, nor should I myself be considered so. But it is those
4) Trutfetter in Erfurt.
5) The "Tree of Porphyrius" is a table of logical categories. See St. Louis edition, vol. VIII, 1387, note.
People are prisoners of Aristotle and Porphyry, and do not pay attention to what they say, but because they say it. Hence it comes that they also cannot understand one chapter of the Scriptures correctly, much less teach them.
If you therefore believe my judgment, then dialectics may be of use to you wherever it can, but in the holy Scriptures it will even do harm. I have held the teachings and rules of scholastic theology in high esteem and wanted to act the holy scriptures according to them with all diligence, and have had an abhorrence of the church fathers (God punish me if I lie), more than of the confusion of hell: there I have seen what use such studies were. But with you I will try the same once, when you are present, and teach you by experience what you are hearing now. Farewell and pray for me. Wittenberg, on the day dedicated to St. Peter, [February 22] 1518.
Brother Martin Eleutherius, Augustinian.
No. 11.
Wittenberg. In the first days of November 1517. 1)
Luther to Spalatin.
At Spalatin's request, Luther sends along a dialogue by Erasmus, which he does not wish to be distributed, however, because it jokes about ecclesiastical corruptions that should be deplored; he does not want anyone to believe that his theses were published at the instigation or with the approval of the Elector, and reminds them of the Elector's promise to give him a new dress.
This letter is handwritten in Ooä. len. a, k. 233. Printed jn Lnäclsus, snpplsru. epp. Imtd, p. 2; in Löscher's Ref.-Acta, vol. I, p. 837; in De Wette, vol. I, p. 76 (in November 1517) and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. I, p. 121 (before November 11, 1517).
1) That this letter, to which no date is attached, is to be set in the first days of November, results from the postscript, in which Luther expresses the wish: he would like to know to whom the Elector had given the order to deliver the promised dress to him. In a letter that has not been preserved, Spalatin must have informed him that Pfeffinger was the commissioner and advised him to contact the Elector himself. Luther did so soon thereafter and complained about Pfeffinger's dithering in a letter to the Elector (Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 2), which is also not dated, but must in any case be placed before November 11, because on that very day Luther thanked the Elector through Spalatin for the gift that had arrived in the meantime (Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 28).
To his in Christ dear and learned Georg Spalatin, ducal protector in the castle.
JEsus.
Hail! I had resolved, my dear Spalatin, never to communicate the Dialogue 2) to anyone. I have no other reason for this than because it is written so sweetly, so learnedly, even so wittily (that is, completely Erasmian) that it makes one laugh and joke about the infirmities and the misery of the Church of Christ, which every Christian should lament with the highest sigh. But because you demand it, see, there you have it, read it and use it, and then give it back to me.
I did not want our theses to come into the hands of our most illustrious prince or anyone at court until those who believed that they would be attacked in them had seen them, so that they would not think that I had published them either by order or with the prince's favor against the bishop of Magdeburg, which, as I now hear, is dreamed of by many of them. But now one can also unhesitatingly swear that they went out without the knowledge of Duke Frederick. Other things at another time, for now I am very overloaded with business. Farewell. From our monastery.
Brother Martin Eleutherius, Augustinian at Wittenberg.
You wrote that I was promised a dress by the prince. I would like to know to whom he has commissioned this matter.
No. 12.
Luther to Spalatin.
Negotiations with Matthew Adrian concerning his appointment as professor of the Hebrew language. Rumors about the ban Luther had to fear and that a doctor who could make himself invisible intended to kill Luther.
2) It seems likely to us that this is the dialogue of which Scheurl (Briefbuch, vol. II, p. 42) writes to Ulrich von Dinstedt, January 5, 1518: "Erasmus is believed to have written the conversation between St. Peter, Pope Julius, and the Schutzgeist, a very funny story."
The original of this letter is in the Anhaltisches Gesammt-Archiv. Printed in Aurifaber, Vol. I, p. 262; in De Wette, Vol. I, p.440 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, Vol.II, p.382.
To his dearest in the Lord, Georg Spalatin, Christ's servant, in the castle at Lochau.
JEsus.
1st Hail! We have agreed with Adrian, my dear Spalatin, that he should wait a little. He has promised to stay in Berlin for eight days and to expect letters from us. Now we have to make sure that we get an answer from W[erner] from Bacharach as soon as possible; 1) but he definitely wants a hundred guilders as salary. In this whole matter, we must take care above all that we do not sit in vain between two chairs, if we lose this one, and the other one perhaps goes elsewhere, either appointed by the Mainzer or on his own initiative. Many of our people have strongly urged me to keep Matthew for at least a year, also to prevent the disgrace, as they think, because of that eclipse (eclipsin), 2) which will perhaps take him out of hatred against us, as the rumor goes. But if you cannot write in such a short time what is to be done, then this must at least be written to him in Berlin, so that he will not be annoyed to postpone the matter further. I assume that he has decided to accept a Hebrew professorship either in Frankfurt 3) or in Leipzig, if it cannot be with us. Answer soon.
It is publicly said about my cause that the most terrible church punishment is in readiness against me, because the provost of the New Work in Halle 4) has warned me and,
1) In the original: ex V. Luttaraede. The V. is not to be resolved by Vito, as was done in the 6oä. The V is not to be dissolved by Vito, but by Vernero, and instead of LuttaraeMo, which Luther wrote by mistake, LaeMaraeMo is to be read, as already Seidemann correctly assumed in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 653, because Werner was from Bacharach.
2) Mockingly, Leipzig is called so. The accusative Inpsirn (from the nominative Aps) also occurs in Uneins <t6<lolatu8, similarly the expression used here eelipsin, eclipse, namely of truth.
3) Frankfurt on the Oder.
4) Nicolaus Demuth.
as they call it. Then some of my enemies also took pity on me and had friends from Halberstadt warn me that a certain doctor of medicine, who, when he has made himself invisible by magic, kills people as he pleases, has orders to kill Luther as well and will arrive on the next Sunday when the relics are shown. This is said to be quite certain. Farewell. On the day after Quasimodogeniti [April 16] 1520.