The three preceding volumes in Walch's old edition, namely the 15th, 16th and 17th, contain the documents belonging to the history of the Reformation in two sections: in the first, those that concern the actual Reformation, or what happened with the papists; in the second, those that belong to the disputes with the sacramentarians and reformers. Now follow, in the 18th, 19th and 20th volumes, the controversial writings themselves, also in two divisions, which correspond with the earlier ones. These writings are not ordered by time, but by subject. The first section contains those writings that were exchanged with the persons with whom Luther had to enter into a dispute; the second section contains those writings that do not refer to disputing persons, but only to doctrine. The latter are arranged according to the various matters they concern.
In order to avoid a new arrangement, which would have caused great difficulties and would not have turned out any better than Walch's, we have retained the old order. Only in individual pieces we were urged by the results of recent research to make a change. For example, we have prefixed the chapter containing the controversial writings exchanged with Tetzel.
which concerns Silvester Prierias, because the dispute with Prierias, as Walch (Introduction p. 19) assumes, was not the earlier one, but the one with Tetzel. We have also combined the first two chapters of the old edition into one, because in both chapters it is the same persons against whom Luther is arguing. Also the arrangement of individual pieces had to be changed here and there. The "Discussion of Two Propositions in the Heidelberg Disputation" (Walch, old edition, vol. XVIII, 18 f.) and "The Explanation of the Sixth Thesis" of the same disputation (Walch, old edition, vol. XVIII, 29-40, listed as "The Other Question") necessarily had to be assigned to the "Heidelberg Disputation. On the other hand, "Die dritte Quästion" (Walch, old edition, Vol. XVIII, 40-56), which, as Walch did not know, contains "the disputation of N. Bartholomäus Bernhardt from Feldkirch on man's ability and will without grace," had to be separated from the connection in which it had previously stood in all editions except the Weimar one, and placed in first place as the earliest writing. No. 46 of the old edition, "Eck's 13 Theses against Luther and Carlstadt," had to be placed before "Carlstadt's Theses against Eck," as it was earlier in time; likewise, "The Proof of the Barefoot Monks at Weimar" had to precede "Luther's Letters to Wolfgang Stein," because the latter, with reference to the "Luther's Theses against Luther," had to be placed before "Luther's Letters to Wolfgang Stein.
is written on it. Such occurrences are accounted for everywhere in the appropriate place.
We have not considered it necessary to designate those pieces with a consecutive number, to which Walch has only referred in this volume, but only those that are really included here. Thus, although the old edition has thirteen chapters with 91 numbers, but our edition only twelve chapters with 68 numbers, everything is included in our edition that was in the old. Omitted from this new edition is only No. 64 of the old edition, "Simon Hessens, päbstlichen Protonotarii, Ursachen, warum Luthers Bücher verdammt worden" ("Simon Hesse's, Papal Protonotarii, Reasons why Luther's books have been condemned"), partly because this writing has nothing to do with Luther's dispute against Latomus, partly because it did not seem to us to deserve a place in Luther's works, which is to be looked up in the following introduction sub VIII. Newly added to this volume, however, is No. 28, Luther's answer to Dungersheim's fifth letter, which is offered here for the first time in German translation.
I. Luther's Controversial Writings Against the Semi-Pelagian School Theologians,
the advocates of free will and followers of Aristotle, in part even before the Reformation.
This main section consists, apart from the letters of Luther (No. 2, 4 and 5 in this volume), essentially of three writings, namely: a. Question about man's ability and will without grace (No. 1); b. Disputation against scholastic theology, held by Franz Günther (No. 3), and c. The Heidelberg Disputation with its subsections (No. 7). The fragment of one of Luther's lectures (No. 6) does not really belong here; the necessary has been said about it in the first notes No. 1. Therefore, we consider here only the three all-given writings.
a. Question about man's ability and will without grace,
disputirt von N. Bartholomäus Bernhardt aus Feldkirch, im September 1516.- The theses, as we see from Luther's letter to Joh. Lang in October 1516 (Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 552), were not posed by Luther himself, but by N. Bernhardt, after he had heard from Luther's mouth the frightening heresies of the papist theologians. Also with regard to the explanations of the theses, we have to assume, according to the cited letter, that they were not written by Luther himself, but by Bernhardt. This much is certain, however, that both the theses and their execution can be traced back to Luther. Luther himself took an active part in the defense of the theses.
"If one reads through this entire writing with attention" (so says Walch in his introduction to this volume, p. 14, § 4), "one will see that Luther already at that time attacked the papacy at its heart and to a certain extent made a beginning of the Reformation, or at least gave a clear prelude to it. This he did precisely by attacking with much emphasis the most noble teachings of the Roman Church, of the natural ability to convert and to live piously, of the merit of good works and of trust in them. It is easy to consider that this must have caused a great stir at the time and did not remain without opposition." Even in Wittenberg, where Luther's views were known, they caused general astonishment. One contradicted ibm, also in Wittenberg, especially the followers of the scholastic direction (among them still Carlstadt, Stehelin rc.); then one feared also for the reputation of the university. Amsdorf sent them to Erfurt, omitting the caption that contained the place and persons of the disputation, to see what impression they would make in the scholarly circles there. The opposition there was much greater than in Wittenberg, as Luther's friend Johann Lang, who was the Augustinian prior there and a teacher at the university there, had told him.
The occasion for this disputation itself was, as Luther mentions in the letter cited, the following: Luther had the semipelagia-
He attacked the scholastic errors of free will, sin, etc. not only on the chair in his lectures, but also publicly in the pulpit in his sermons. Here belong, for example, the "Sermon on one's own wisdom and will" on St. Stephen's Day 1514 (St. Louis edition, vol. XII, 1682); the "Sermon on trusting in one's own merit" on the 10th Sunday after Trinity 1516 (St. Louis edition, Vol. X, 1284); the "Sermon on the Chief Sins of Those Who Boast of Their Meritorious Works and Imagined Holiness" on the 11th Sunday after Trinity in 1516 (Vol. X, 1288), and others. He had thereby incurred the displeasure and opposition of the scholastic theologians. Therefore, Bartholomäus Bernhardt, a student of Luther and teacher at the University of Wittenberg, put forward these theses to defend Luther's teaching and to "shut up those yappers". Through this disputation Bernhardt acquired the dignity of a Sententiarius. 1) He later became professor of theology at Wittenberg, in 1518 Rector of the University there, and in December 1518 was appointed pastor and provost in Kemberg. However, he did not take up this position until the spring of 1519.
The disputation consists of three main theses, each of which in turn results in three consequential theses, and was exceptionally held under Luther's chairmanship (instead of Carlstadt's, who would have been entitled to it as dean of the theological faculty), probably in September 1516.
b. Disputation against scholastic theology, held by Franz Günther from Nordhausen. - In the later Middle Ages, Aristotle dominated the whole of theology, and his reputation was in constant ascendancy until Luther's time. "Aristotle had (so says Walch, Einl. p. 12, tz 2) attained such high esteem that he was worshipped like a god, his teachings blindly followed.
1) This dignity was the next higher after that of the Baccalaureus. A Baccalaureus "pro dikliis) had to read about the Bible; the higher-ranking Sententiarius about the sentences of Peter Lombardus. From this one can see that among the scholastic theologians the holy scripture was respected less than their own scholastic stuff (cf. St. Louis edition, vol. X, B39, Z 144).
and considered what God said in His words to be nothing. Luther recognized this philosophical abomination and therefore, for conscience' sake, could not remain silent about it. He well saw how especially Aristotle's moral doctrine could by no means stand with true Christianity, and he made a correct judgment when he said (in our disputation, thesis 41): "Almost the whole moral doctrine of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. Should the. Gospel to prevail, Aristotle had to be put out of the way. Therefore, on August 21, 1517, it was decided to hold a disputation against the philosophy of Aristotle, which was taught by the scholastic theologians. Luther immediately sent the theses to Erfurt through Otto Beckmann to his friend Johann Lang (see No. 4) in order to find out what the position in Erfurt would be, and he also offered to come and discuss it publicly. No use was made of this offer, but the old men, grayed in scholasticism, spoke very unfavorably of Luther: he was too presumptuous, too lofty in his assertions, too easily condemned the opinions of others. 2) In Wittenberg, however, the theses were generally applauded, and when Franz Günther of Nordhausen defended them on Sept. 4, 1517, in order to attain the dignity of a baccalaureate, he received the same "uno consensu dominorum.
c. Disputation, held in Heidelberg, against scholastic theology and philosophy. - Staupitz had called the General Chapter of the Augustinians to Heidelberg on April 25 (Jubilate) 1518. Luther was also required to attend. At the public disputation to be held on this occasion, Luther had submitted 40 theses against scholastic theology and philosophy, namely 28 theological and 12 philosophical. These were defended under his chairmanship by a young monk, Leonhard Beyer. The hatred and enmity of his scholastic opponents against him had become so great that he was
2) Luther's letter to Joh. Lang, Nov. 11, 1517. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 484.
He was generally discouraged from going to the chapter in Heidelberg because they feared for his life. (Cf. Luther's letter to Joh. Lang in Erfurt of March 21, 1518, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 3). Nevertheless, Luther left Wittenberg on foot on April 9 and arrived in Heidelberg on about April 21.
The disputation was held on April 26, but not in the university auditorium, which the professors would not allow, but in the Augustinian monastery, about which the university had no say. Walch in his introduction, p. 15, says: "There was a large attendance of students, citizens and courtiers. The interjections were made not only by learned monks, but also by the public teachers of theology, so that they remained quite within bounds, without the last and youngest becoming somewhat violent and saying: if the peasants should hear and understand what Luther was saying with the responder, they would stone such, at which the listeners laughed, as this Luther himself tells us. (In the letter to Spalatin, May 18, 1518, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, annex, no. 7). God showed him many mercies in this, so that he could not present and defend the truth without blessing. The then court preacher of Count Palatine Frederick, Martin Bucer, had mostly transcribed what had been presented and subsequently informed Beatus Rhenanus of it in a letter, in which he praised Luther for having shown great amenity and long-suffering in disputing, for not having followed either Scotus' or Paul's disputing rules, and for having astonished everyone with his short answers taken from Scripture. Count Palatine Wolfgang also commemorated this disputation very praiseworthily and wrote to Elector Frederick of Saxony: "Luther has kept himself so skillfully with his disputations that he has not made a small praise to your university. He also received great praise from many learned people. In addition to Bucer, the audience included Johann Brenz, Erh. Schnepf, Theobald Billicanus and others, who stayed in Heidelberg at that time for the sake of their studies and later became respected and great scholars of God. They
admired Luther's skill, and after the disputation was over, they discussed with him some points which they had not sufficiently grasped, and received further instruction from him."
The content of the theological theses is directed against the errors of the Roman Church concerning free will, grace, faith, justification and good works; the 12 philosophical theses, however, are directed against Aristotle and his philosophy.
II Luther's dispute with Tetzel. 1)
Johann Tetzel (or Tezel, Detzel, Thizell, etc.) was born in Leipzig, according to some in 1454, according to others in 1459. His father was the goldsmith Hans Dietze. In the register of Leipzig he registered himself in 1482 as Johannes Tezelius de Lipsia. He had a sister living in Pirna, which is often mentioned as his birthplace. On September 14, 1487, he was awarded a doctorate in philosophy, and in 1489 he was initiated into the Dominican monastery in Leipzig, that is, he was accepted into the order. There he not only had his permanent residence for a long time, but also until his death the place from which he left and to which he returned. We know almost nothing about his studies; only that Wimpina had a great influence on him. He is said to have had a good mind, popular eloquence, a good memory and a friendly demeanor, and to have been able to gain great favor with the common man. He did not use his beautiful gifts in the service of God, but to serve the pope, to which his pandering for indulgences sufficiently testifies. Tetzel died during the Leipzig disputation, as a contemporary (Sebastian Fröschel) relates, "on the day when Luther began to disputate against the pope", on August 7, 1519, and was buried on August 12 in Leipzig. The main cause of his death is said to have been that he had been heart-broken by the fact that in
1) In this presentation we have used the monograph of Dr. Ferd. Körner: "Tezel, der Ablaßprediger" (1880). used.
Luther was accused of embezzlement by the Fugger witnesses, accused of immorality before all eyes, threatened with papal wrath, while he had previously been highly respected as a preacher of indulgences, influential as subcommisfar general of the Cardinal of Mainz, endowed with great powers as an inquisitor and feared by all. Therefore, shortly before his end, Luther wrote him a letter of consolation. 1)
Although the Franciscan Order disdained to have a hand in the business of indulgences, the most respected ecclesiastical prince in Germany, Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Magdeburg and Administrator of the Bishopric of Halberstadt, 2) did not hesitate, by means of a considerable sum of money (10,000 ducats), to induce the pope to transfer the indulgence business to him for eight years, on condition that he, as indulgence commissioner, should receive half of what was raised by the indulgence trade, allegedly for the building of St. Peter's Church in Rome. Peter's Church in Rome, would be raised. For the pallium of the archbishopric of Mainz 3) Albrecht had to pay the pope twenty thousand ducats, i.e. a total of thirty thousand ducats, with the addition of the aforementioned ten thousand ducats, which he had promised to pay to the Roman chamber on August 1, 1514, "with the express provision that these shall in no way be deducted from the half due to His Holiness. 4) For the payment of this sum
1) Cf. Luther, Preface to the First Volume of the Collection of His Latin Works. Jena edition (1579), second page of the penultimate leaf.
2) On August 30, 1513, he was elected Archbishop of Magdeburg, and on September 9 of the same year he was postulated Administrator of the Bishopric of Halberstadt. The pallium for both bishoprics was granted to him in Rome on December 7, 1513. Cf. Körner "Tetzel,
3) After the death of Archbishop Uriel, which occurred on February 9, 1514, Albrecht let the cathedral chapter know that he would pay for the pallium from his own funds if he were appointed to the vacated see. Thereupon he was appointed, solemnly received in Mainz on November 8, and, after the pallium had arrived on December 2, enthroned on the 22nd of the same month. Cf. Körner, p. 44.
4) Cf. the Supplication of the Archbishop of Mainz to the Pope in Körner, p. 47.
Albrecht borrowed twenty-one thousand ducats from the Fuggers in Augsburg. In order to secure the Fuggers with regard to their loan, in the first months of 1517, the archbishop and his co-commissioner, the Guardian of the Franciscans in Mainz, issued the following decree to the sub-commissioners: "According to strict papal orders, the indulgence box should only be opened in the presence of the procurator of the Fuggers, and half of the income for the pope, the other half for the archbishop, should be handed over to him for the repayment of his debt. Three notarial instruments are to be recorded about it, one for the Fuggers, one for the Archbishop, one for the Guardian." 5) Soon thereafter, Leo X appointed two more supercommissars for the indulgences, namely Arcimboldi of Milan in December 1514, mostly for the northern countries, and the Franciscan general Forli for Italy and Switzerland. Albrecht was assigned other specific intervening lands for his part. He, as commissar-in-chief, appointed Tetzel as his subcommissar; Tetzel was appointed inquisitor of the heretic court by Cajetan in 1509. However, in the letter of indulgence issued at Crichow on May 19, 1515 (Löscher's Reformation Acts, Vol. I, 391), Tetzel describes himself as the "most holy priest of God through the provision of the most holy Father in Christ, Pope Leo X., the highest priest of God, his vicar on the whole earth, as well as of the Holy Roman See," and the Guardian of the Friars Minor of St. Francis as his co-commissioner and colleague; both are probably to be regarded as a boast, which he used, as it is in his nature, to give himself a higher reputation.
In the last years of the 15th century Tetzel had been ordained priest and now began his spiritual activity, but not preaching in the service of actual pastoral care, but preaching in the service of indulgences, which particularly appealed to him and in which he achieved great fame. In this he soon showed a restless striving, a skill and a high degree of popular devotion.
5) Ibidem, p. 98.
He was so eloquent that he distinguished himself before many preachers of indulgences and his collections often yielded a rich harvest. As early as 1502, Naymund Peraldus took him into his service as a grace preacher, when he preached indulgences in Germany and northern Europe for the war against Turks and Tartars, and since 1504 he preached indulgences for the Teutonic Order, first with Baumhauer. Then we meet him in the years 1505 and 1506 in his hometown Leipzig as Subcommissarius of the Jubilee against the Russians in Liefland, together with Hermann Ronnenberger; further in Freiberg, Dresden, Pirna, Leipzig and Zwickau in 1507. In this stay in Zwickau falls the story that Tetzel transformed the Roman satirist Juvenal into a saint, and held a feast in his honor to collect money for a feast. 1) In all these places, as usual, he was honorably caught up. Likewise in Annaberg, where we meet him in 1508. Then he went to Upper Lusatia and preached the Epiphany in Bautzen and in St. Peter's Church in Görlitz, especially supported by the Franciscans there. About this stay in Görlitz we have the interesting and valuable testimony of a contemporary of Tetzel, M. Johann Hass, syndicus and from 1536 to 1544 mayor of Görlitz, who had also heard him preach. In his "Görlitz Annals" from 1509 to 1542, it says: "In 1509, a Roman grace was established here, by the German Lords in Liefland, to resist the unbelievers, and was led by Johannes Tetzel, a monk of the Order of Preachers. He was a strong man in body, eloquent in speech and very bold, quite learned and of ambiguous character in life. He said: He would be more than the mother of God for forgiveness and retention of sin; as soon as the penny was thrown into the basin and rang, as soon as the soul, for which it was laid, led to heaven; he would be a heretic master; all who
1) Cf. Tentzel, "Historischer Bericht von Anfang und Fortgang der Reformation," p. 108 ff; Herzog, Zwickauer Chronik II, 169. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 443, no. 92. - Because of the magnificent catching up, cf. Walch, ibid. col. 441, no. 90.
against his sermon and the indulgence, he wanted to have their heads cut off, and so, expelled bloody into hell, let the heretics burn, so that the smoke should rise over the walls. And of the thurstigen sd. i. bold] and undoubtedly unchristian words and opinions exceedingly much, as those say who have heard him more than I." Whoever intercedes for his father, for him and for the deceased, no longer needs to remember him in intercession, he is certainly blessed. Many, especially the "young matrons", would have thrown in or solved letters of mercy for a quarter of a Rhenish florin, later still "baß feyler" [i.e., more reasonable]. "But this custom he is said to have had, so the people now deposited, he went to the basin and shabe] his pocket full of gold, put." We know for certain that Tetzel was in Annaberg a second time in July and September 1509, still under the chief commissar for Liefland, Arcimbold, and collecting for the. Order of the Teutonic Knights. Because on July 26 the Annenmarkt was held, which took place for the first time in this year, Tetzel received the order to exhibit the Red Cross the day before, in order to market something substantial for his purpose under the company of the incitement to devotion, which he also completely succeeded in, because "at the inauguration of the Annenmarkt he made a great stir and brilliant business. 2) There, as Myconius reports as an ear witness, he had preached, "if one quickly put in and redeemed grace and indulgences, then all the mountains around St. Annaberg would become vain solid silver". 3) At the end of 1509, he crossed the Rhine upstream, possibly even from Cologne to Switzerland, reported to his superior in Constance, and passed through Swabia to Strasbourg in Alsace in January 1510. After his return, we meet Tetzel for the third time in Annaberg, where he proclaimed indulgences from March to July 1510 and sold butter letters for the benefit of the Peteuskirche construction. His stay lasted until after the second Annenmarkt, that is, until after July 26.
2) Manitius, Einführung der Reformation in Annaberg. 1840. S. 47.
3) Cf. Tentzel, Historical Report, p. 126.
In 1510, the following event took place: Frederick Mecum 1) had heard from Tetzel's mouth around Pentecost 1510: "He would soon take down his red cross, close the open door of heaven, and probably never would Roman grace return to Germany like this, and eternal life and the forgiveness of sins could be obtained for so little. Therefore, everyone should hurry to save his soul: now is the pleasant time, now is the day of salvation!" He had also read on the church doors that, according to the will of the Holy Father, the letters of indulgence should from now on be given to all at a reduced price, to the poor for God's sake for free. Concerned for his soul and thirsting for mercy, the eighteen-year-old youth goes to Tetzel's apartment, finds no access to the high commissioner himself, but presents his request in Latin to the priests and confessors in the antechamber, to obtain the indulgence of his sins for free (gratis) for the sake of his great poverty. The priests return the message that no one can be given indulgences or benefit from them unless he gives a helping hand, that is, pays. Repeated representations to Tetzel were of no avail, just as the priests' insistence that Myconius pay only one penny, only six pennies, which they wanted to give him as a gift, did nothing for the pious student, who only asked for God's free grace. The result of this process was that, after long consultations with his teacher and compatriot Andreas Staffelstein and hard struggles with himself, the man, who was worried about his salvation, first sought peace and quiet in the Franciscan monastery in Annaberg on July 14, 1510, until he finally found it in God's words through the Lutheran teachings. - From all this, it is clear that Tetzel, as well as his superiors whom he served, did not belong to the
1) Friedrich Mecum or Myconius, born at Lichtenfels am Main on December 26, 1491, from 1504 to 1510 student of the Latin school at Annaberg, then Franciscan, 1524 first Protestant preacher in Gotha; died there as General Superintendent on April 7, 1546. He had heard Tetzel so often and devoutly that he could recite whole sermons of Tetzel, even imitating voice and gestures. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 447, no. 98.
The only thing that the Pope and Cardinal Albrecht cared about was the plight of the souls and the salvation of Christ's lambs, but, like them, they were only looking for monetary gain.
Very little is known with certainty about Tetzel's life from August 1510 until the end of 1514. There is some evidence that he lived in Nuremberg and Ulm around 1512, but here under Conrad Kraft's strong resistance, and from there went to Innsbruck, where he was convicted of adultery and sentenced by Emperor Maximilian I. to be put to death by sackcloth. He is said to have been set free by the Elector Frederick the Wise, who was present at the time, and then sent to Leipzig for life imprisonment, but to have been set free again after intercession after a few years. This fact is completely certain, 2) only the determination of the time has its difficulty.
Around Christmas 1514 we see Tetzel, doing his old business, again in Zwickau. There, under Arcimbold, he proclaimed the indulgence for St. Peter's Church in Rome, no longer for the Teutonic Order in Liefland, with good and abundant success. At the end of the proclamation, as his contemporary M. Joh. Petrejus, in the preface to the Roman booklet of indulgences, lit. d 3. 4, tells, 3) he preached, in order to give the local priests something to talk about, about a soul whimpering at night in the churchyard and pleading for salvation. Whoever would not be diligent in sacrifice to redeem the poor soul from its torment must be an adulterer or adulteress.
In 1515, we do not know of any significant activity of Tetzel in the indulgence trade; from this year, we only know of the indulgence letter issued in Crichow, near Weißenfels, already mentioned. His service for Arcimbold still existed in name, but was in the process of expiring, that for
2) Cf. Luther's writing "Wider Hans Wurst". Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1703, § 96 ; Tentzel, Historischer Bericht, p. 106; KseksrulorI, Hist. Imtü., lüd. I, 866t. 7, § 7, Xctüitio u; Matthesius, St. Louiser Ausg., p. 15.
3) Cf. Tentzel, Historischer Bericht, p. 108; Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 442, no. 91.
Albrecht was in the beginning, but because the agreement with the pope was not yet completely arranged, since he had not yet obtained the free right of disposal regarding his half, he could not yet eagerly pursue the trade in indulgences. The same was true in 1516, from which we have only one letter of indulgence, dated Wurzen, April 24, 1516, and a letter of indulgence or more correctly a letter of communication, issued by the prior of the Dominican monastery in Leipzig, which Tetzel also signed. In this year Staupitz was together with Link and Luther for the visitation of the Augustinian monastery in Grimma. There Staupitz received a letter from his relatives in Müglenz near Würzen with the report of Tetzel's doings in Wurzen, whereupon Luther exclaimed full of indignation: "Now I will make a hole for the timpani, if God wills it. 1)
When in 1517 Archbishop Albrecht started his sale of indulgences with greater vigor, Tetzel also began to proceed with renewed zeal. He did not suspect that he would bring about the end of the sale of indulgences and, according to God's counsel, break the way for the right divine teaching about sin, forgiveness of sin and grace, about satisfaction, redemption and reconciliation through Christ.
Early in 1517, Tetzel set out from Leipzig and appeared for the fourth time in the abundant Annaberg around Lätare 1517 and was busy there the following week with the indulgence trade, which was the reason for the founding of the Lätare market there. Towards the middle of the year, he went to Magdeburg and Halle, partly to stop all other indulgences for eight years in favor of the indulgences transferred to him, and partly to pursue his St. Peter's Church indulgences in both cities. Arriving in Magdeburg in the first half of June, he exploited the rich city and its surroundings, took, as the Magdeburg chronicler Rathmann reports, a lot of money away with him, and a Franciscan, who already at that time dared to pursue his nonsensical
1) Grimmaische Chronik von Crell bei Lorenz, Historische Beschreibung von Grimma, p. 1317 f. (Körner p. 67.)
He threatened to contradict his claims with fire and sword as an inquisitor. 2) Thereupon he moved to Halle and preached his indulgence in St. Martin's Chapel. Probably in July and August he "did his trade, although not without grumbling of the nobility and many citizens in Naumburg and Zeitz and the surrounding area". 3)
After Elector Joachim of Brandenburg had permitted the sale of indulgences in his lands by decree of September 16, 1517, Tetzel immediately appeared in the Mark. On October 5, 1517, he appeared in Berlin as the general subcommissar of Archbishop Albrecht, subsequently confirmed by him in a decree of December 13, 1517, and of the Franciscan guardian in Mainz, the provincial of the Minorites, Alexander Molitor. Before the month of October was over, he preached in Zerbst and Jüterbock, where the first clash between him and Luther began. Many people from Wittenberg had also bought letters of indulgence in Jüterbock and Zerbst and went to Luther for confession. They confessed adultery, fornication, usury and other sins against the seventh commandment, but would not refrain from such sins; and because they would neither repent nor amend, Luther would not absolve them. When the confessors invoked the indulgence bought by Tetzel, Luther would not turn to it, but held out to them the saying (Luc. 13:5), "If you do not amend your ways, you will all perish." Then they went back to Tetzel in Jüterbock and complained to him that the Augustinian monk did not want to give anything for the letters of indulgence. Tetzel was very angry about this, raged, scolded and maledicted horribly on the preaching chair and threatened the heretic masters. And to frighten even more, he had a fire lit in the marketplace several times a week to indicate that he had orders from the pope to burn the heretics who opposed the Most Holy One, the pope, and his Most Holy Indulgence. 4)
2) Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 445, no. 95.
3) Müller, Reformation History of Zeitz, p. 10 (Körner p. 73).
4) Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 471, no. 107.
The pope and his commissars of indulgences, high and low, were not concerned with the salvation of souls, but only with the monetary gain that accrued to them from the sale of indulgences. Therefore, while even according to the teachings of the Roman Church, only those who had confessed in true contrition were forgiven their sins in the sacrament of penance through the absolution of the priest, and only temporal punishments and pardons lay upon the absolver, which were imposed by the priest, and these could be remitted through the clemency of the church: These sellers of indulgences kept silent to the people about the difference between the guilt of sin and the punishment of sin, and preached to them in the most shameless manner that through indulgences they could virtually acquire beatitude for themselves and their dead, and only in the rarest of cases was the sale of indulgence slips inquired about whether the purchaser had really confessed in true repentance. And who could know? 1) Among the scholars of the theological schools, however, there was a dispute as to whether the pope, by virtue of the power vested in him in Peter (via zurisdictionis), grants indulgences even in purgatory, or only intercessionally (per suffragium), that is, by virtue of the petition made in the name of the church that the Lord grant indulgences to the departed.
Without requiring a repentant attitude, the extraordinary indulgence proclaimed by Tetzel for the construction of St. Peter's Church in Rome granted the right to choose one's own confessor, who could absolve one's transgressions, the absolution of which was otherwise reserved for bishops and popes. Likewise, without prior confession being required, one was assured participation in all the spiritual goods of the Church, its prayers, masses, etc., only on the basis of a monetary payment, thus, since the sacrifice of the Mass was a repetition of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, even in the merits of Christ. Finally, these gifts could also be given to the poor souls in Purgatory. 2)
1) Kolde, "Martin Luther," p. 131.
2) Cf. Kolde, I. c. S. 133.
Against this Luther began to testify modestly, first in his sermon on the 10th Sunday after Trinity 1516 3): "For who seeks the salvation of souls through it [indulgences] and not rather the money in their bags? This is quite clear from the way it is administered. For nowhere do the commissaries and their servants preach anything but that they extol the indulgence and incite the people to give. There you cannot hear anyone teaching the people what indulgences are, when they give, when they no longer give, but how much they should give, and they leave the people in such ignorance in uncertainty, so that they think they will be blessed immediately if only they have obtained this indulgence. For grace is not given, at least in itself, by which anyone can become righteous or justified, but only a remission of the penance and the satisfaction imposed. If this is remitted, it does not follow that he who dies in this way immediately flies to heaven. But the foolish people, and that is to say the greater part of them, who are thus deceived, believe that through the plenary indulgence all sin is so taken away that they immediately fly to heaven, and they continue to sin with impunity, and their conscience becomes all the more evil" (aggravat so vinculis conscientiae).
Another testimony of Luther against indulgences, which has been preserved for us, is found in his sermon on the day before the consecration of the church on October 31, 1516 4): "But [this vice of self-righteousness] is especially prevalent in our time, where the people are led to this vice by seducers, liars (fabulatores) 2c, since they should rather be dissuaded from it. Such people are those who preach indulgences, of whom I will say a few things for the sake of example, and because many have desired it. For I have already spoken more about this, especially since this pretense of indulgences is at the door, so that I may be excused, but you may be excused from the danger of a
3) Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 917 ff. (There is the wrong year 1518.) Weim. Ausg., vol. I, 65.
4) Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 929 ff. (with the year 1517); Weim. Ausg., vol. I, 94.
false sense". Then he testifies that the intention of the pope is right and true, and that the words of those who trumpet indulgences in this way may also be true in a certain sense, but that some things are not spoken according to the truth or are not understood correctly. Therefore, in order to counter false notions of indulgences, he uses the example of Zacchaeus to explain the essence of right repentance, which proves to be that one would much rather take the punishment upon oneself than avoid it. He closes the sermon with the words: "Therefore see how dangerous is the preaching of indulgences, which takes away grace and teaches to flee from satisfaction and punishment, so that it is to be feared that it is the [powerful] effect of error, which the apostle preached before [1 Thess. 2, 11]. For how is it possible (qua facilitate) that true repentance and such an easy and plentiful indulgence can be preached at the same time and at once, since true repentance demands a strict fulfillment and this [indulgence] slackens too much? Or shall we make the excuse that the same is to be understood only of the repentance of the perfect, and so it is not necessary to bring men to perfect [repentance]? But why then do the harlots and publicans begin with this repentance? Rather, all are to be exhorted to this [true repentance]."
We still have an excellent testimony of Luther against indulgences at the end of the sermon on St. Matthew's Day, February 24, 1517: 1) "Also just the abundant granting of indulgences promotes servile righteousness to a high degree, because by the same nothing is effected but that the people learn to fear, flee and detest the punishment of sins, but not also the sins. Therefore, there is no fruit of indulgences at all, but a great certainty and carelessness (licentia) in sinning, in such a way that, if the punishment of sins were not feared, no one would even wish to have this indulgence in vain, whereas
1) Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XII, 1762, and again Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 944.
Rather, the people should be exhorted to love the punishment and take up the cross. And God would have me be lenient in saying that indulgences perhaps rightly have their name for this reason, because induIgere is as much as to permit, and indulgence is impunity, a permission to sin and a freedom to nullify the cross of Christ. Or if indulgences were to be allowed, they should be given only to the weak in faith, so that those who strive to attain meekness and humility would not be offended, as the Lord says here. For he says here that it is not through indulgences, but through meekness and humility that the rest of souls is found. But meekness only takes place in punishment and in the cross, from which that indulgence frees us and teaches us to abhor it, and causes us to become meek and humble in no matter, that is, never to obtain [true] indulgence, nor to come to Christ. Oh about the dangers of our time! O over the sleeping priests! O more than Egyptian darkness! How safe we are in all our very worst evils!"
While Luther was thus testifying more and more clearly against the indulgence, Tetzel began to do his mischief more and more in the immediate vicinity of Wittenberg. But let us leave it to Luther himself to report on this: "When many people from Wittenberg ran after the indulgences to Jüterbock and Zerbst 2c, and I (as truly as my Lord Christ has redeemed me) knew nothing about what the indulgences were, as no one did not know: I began to preach that one could do something better that would be more certain, neither to cancel the indulgences. I had also preached such a sermon here from the castle, against indulgences, and earned Duke Frederick's bad grace with it, because he also loved his monastery very much. 3) Now that I come to the right cause of the Lutheran noise, I let,
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XVII. 1704 ff. § 97-106. The truthfulness of this report could not be denied even by Luther's fiercest opponents, e.g. Maimburg. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 457, no. 102 ; Kseksndork, Ilist. Dutlu, I4N. I, x". 12, seot. 6.
3) Duke Frederick had a great interest in indulgences because the All Saints Church in Wittenberg was endowed with an indulgence for a hundred years. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 474, no. 111.
I let everything go as it went. However, I am faced with how Tetzel would have preached horrible, terrible articles, which I will name several this time, namely:
"He would have such grace and authority from the Pope, if one had weakened and impregnated the Blessed Virgin Mary, God's Mother, he could forgive it, where he puts into the box what is due.
"Item, the red indulgence cross with the Pope's coat of arms, erected in the churches, would be as powerful as the cross of Christ. If St. Peter were here now, he would not have greater grace or power, neither would he.
"Item, he did not want to booty [exchange] in heaven with St. Peter: for he would have saved more souls with indulgences, neither St. Peter with his preaching.
"Item, if one puts money into the box for a soul in purgatory, as soon as the penny falls to the ground and clinks, lead the soul out to heaven.
"Item, the grace of indulgence would be the very grace by which man is reconciled to God.
"Item, it would not be necessary to have repentance nor sorrow or penance for sin, if one bought (I should say, redeemed) indulgences or letters of indulgence, and also sold future sin. And he did a great deal of this, and was all about money.
"But at that time I did not know to whom such money should go: there went out a booklet 1), quite splendid under the bishop of Magdeburg's coat of arms, in which such articles some were commanded to preach to the quaestors. Then it came about that Bishop Albrecht had hired this Tetzel, because he was a great clamant, ... and sent this great bag thresher into the countries; he also grazed on it, that it began to fall with heaps into the boxes, to jump, to ring. But he did not forget himself. Nevertheless, the pope had kept his hand in the order that half of it should fall to the building of St. Peter's Church in Rome. So the journeymen went up with joy and great hope to strike the bags.
1) Des Erzbischofs zu Mainz und Magdeburg summarische Instruction für die Untercommifsarien. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 370, No. 72.
and to thresh. Such, I say, I did not know at that time.
"Then I wrote a letter2 ) with the Propositionibus [the 95 Theses] to the bishop of Magdeburg, admonishing and asking him to put a stop to Tetzel, and to prevent such an unskillful thing from being preached, so that an unpleasantness would arise from it; this was due to him as an archbishop. I can still post the same letter, but I did not receive an answer. Similarly, I also wrote to the bishop of Brandenburg as an ordinarius, to whom I had a very gracious bishop in a hurry. He replied that I was attacking the power of the church and would make trouble for myself; he advised me to let it go. I can well imagine that they both thought that the Pope would be much too powerful for me, such a miserable beggar.
Nevertheless, although the most powerful church leader in Germany, even the Pope in Rome, were the instigators and main promoters of the indulgence faith, on October 31, 1517, the day before All Saints' Day, Luther posted his 95 Theses on the Declaration of the Power of Indulgences (No. 8 in this volume) on the door of the castle church in Wittenberg. There was no opposition to these theses. The number of theses was originally not a continuous one, but they were divided into four groups; the first three comprised 25 theses each, the fourth 20. They were originally written in Latin, but were soon translated into German by Justus Jonas. Although Luther was still deeply involved in papist doctrine at the time, as he himself admits in the preface to his Disputations or Propositions against Indulgences, the Papacy, and the Sophists' Doctrine etc. 3), the theses already contain beautiful testimonies of evangelical truth, especially of right repentance, justification and forgiveness of sins. However, he still acknowledges the sovereignty of the pope, leaves purgatory unchanged, denies the great power that indulgences have in the Roman church, and also denies that the pope is the only one who has the power to grant indulgences.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 479, no. 114.
3) Jen. Ausg., 2. Auflage, Bd. I, fol. 4; Walch, alte Ausg., Bd. XI V, 470. The year 1516 there is of course wrong, because the collection of disputations belongs to a later time.
He even said: "Whoever speaks against the truth of the papal indulgence is a curse and a reprobate. Only gradually, by the grace of God, did he come to know the full truth.
The protestation, which usually follows the theses in the editions, does not belong to it. The necessary information about it has already been given in the note on p. 80.
Luther's theses, as he himself says,1 ) "almost ran through all of Germany in two weeks: for all the world complained about indulgences, especially about Tetzel's article. And because all bishops and doctors kept silent, and no one wanted to tie the cat's bells (for the heretics, the order of preachers, had chased all the world into fear with fire, and Tetzel himself had also driven in some priests who had revolted against his impudent preaching), Luther was praised as a doctor, that someone had once come who would intervene. The fame was not dear to me, because (as I said) I did not know myself what the indulgence was, and the song wanted to become too high for my voice.
However, the theses did not remain without manifold opposition. "Everyone," Luther continues, "wanted to knight me; they wrote and shouted against me as much as a pen could stir. But I hoped that the pope would protect me, for I had so guarded and armed my disputation with scripture and papal decrees that I was sure the pope would condemn Tetzel and bless me; I also wrote him the resolution2 ) with a humble scripture, and such my book pleased many cardinals and bishops very well. For at that time I was better papal, neither Mainz and Heinz themselves have ever been, nor may they ever be, and the papal filths clearly stood there, that the quaestors could not release the souls from purgatory with indulgences. But while I was waiting for the blessing from Rome, thunder and lightning came upon me; I had to be the sheep that gave water to the wolf.
1) Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1706, § 107.
2) i.e. the "Explanations on the Disputation on the Power of Indulgences". The letter to Pope Leo X is found in Walch, old edition, vol.
had clouded; Tetzel went out free, I had to let myself be eaten."
Above all, Tetzel did not remain silent, but wanted to become a knight of Luther, but at the same time he also wanted to obtain for himself the dignities of a licentiate and a doctor of theology at Frankfurt on the Oder. Because he himself did not possess the necessary scholarship, he had Conrad Wimpina (3 ) in Frankfurt prepare theses that went out under his name.
Tetzel's first disputation (No. 9 in this volume) contains 106 counter-theses against Luther's theses. It was held in Frankfurt on the Oder, not in December 1517, as was previously assumed, but on January 21, 1518. That Tetzel disputed the first set of theses on this day is clear from the testimony of Abraham Scultetus in annalbus evangel. renov. ann. Christ. 1517 p. 24, where he says: "At Frankfurt on the Oder, Tetzel opposes Luther's theses, which were written by Doctor Conrad Wimpina, in which he compares the pope to Peter, and the cross erected by the pope to the cross of Christ. Three hundred monks were present at this disputation." This refers, without any doubt, to the 105th and 106th Thefe of the first disputation. About the time of this disputation pro licentiatu the fact that so many monks were present gives us complete certainty. For Wolfgang Jobst in the description of the city of Frankfurt on the Oder,
3) That not Tetzel, but Wimpina was the author of the theses issued under Tetzel's name is attested so often and by such important authorities that it is beyond all doubt. Already Luther in his letter to Johann Lang, March 21, 1518 (Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 3, § 4), says: "Wimpina is named by all as the author of the same, and I consider it certain that it is so." In the Latin Jena edition of 1564, edited by Amsdorf, is written ?orn. I, toi. 5 in the margin: "The author of the two following disputations, which some erroneously attribute to Johann Tetzel; is I). Conrad Wimpina have been." Likewise there toi. 7 b the second disputation is signed: ^uators D. Oouruclo Virapinu. Likewise in the annals of the University of Greifswalde from that time; by Chyträus, von Wesfenberg, Hermes, Kahnis, Holzhausen, Köstlin it is unanimously testified that Wimpina wrote the theses to the scientifically too poorly educated Tetzel and also acknowledged them as his work. Wimpina included the first disputation in his unaospUalaeosis as his own work.
Cap. 5, p. 17, reports that in 1518, the holy evening before Agnes' Day (Agnes is January 21), a convent of 300 monks was held in Frankfurt on the Oder for the disputation; the following day the disputation took place. During the disputation, a young student, Johann Knipstrow, later superintendent general in Western Pomerania and professor of theology at Greifswalde, raised objections and attacked Tetzel and his president so sharply that they were unable to do anything against him, but had to leave him the honor of victory according to the judgment of all reasonable and impartial men. This not only caused him great envy, but also gave rise to such persecution that he was brought to Pyritz in prison and put into a monastery. 1)
The second disputation (No. 10 in this volume) contains 50 theses on the power of the pope. Almost without exception, it has been wrongly postponed to January 21, 1518 (the day of the first disputation); perhaps it was never held. Only at the end of his "presentation" against Luther's sermon on indulgences and grace (Col. 294 in this volume) does he announce that he will cause "some other doctrine and position" to go out, which he intends to dispute in the high school at Frankfurt. In any case, this will refer to the second series of theses. The exact determination of the time for the issue of Tetzel's second series of theses has a significant difficulty. For we find in Kolde page 376 the statement: "Since Carlstadt already knows the 47th and 48th thesis of the second series on May 14 (Olearii scrinium antiqu., p. 27), it must already have been issued at the beginning of May." However, we were urged by a twofold testimony of Luther to assign the "presentation" of Tetzel, which, as just mentioned, seems to precede the issuance of the second series of theses, to the end of the month of May, about which what has been said about No. 13 can be seen further down in this introduction. This time determination is undoubtedly correct; uncertainty, on the other hand, occurs only with respect to the issue of the second series of theses. In order to also take into account the time specification of Olearius, we want to
1) Cf. Löscher's Reformation Acta, vol. II, 8 f.
We can assume that Tetzel already started to hand out the already existing copies of the second series of theses at the beginning of May, when he was still busy with the publication of the "Vorlegung", in which he indicates the departure of the "other doctrine and position". We are not inclined, with Körner (p. 111), to interpret Tetzel's words (Col. 294 in this volume): "Thus I, Brother Johann Tetzel, of the Order of Preachers, am caused to let some other doctrines and positions go forth, which I also intend to dispute in the laudable school at Frankfurt an der Oder and to keep Christian by means of divine help", as referring to another [namely, a third] disputation by Tetzel, which was intended by Tetzel but did not take place. Therefore, we assume that the public going out of the second disputation took place in the course of May 1518. Even the words of Tetzel: "I will cause to go out", can quite well be understood by what already takes place as a present.
From the conclusion of Luther's "Freedom of Sermon" 2c (in this volume Col. 310) we see that the second series of theses, which is undoubtedly mentioned there, had not yet been discussed in June.
Both of Tetzel's disputations are written in Latin and translated by us into German. In the first disputation, the teachings on indulgences and penance, which Luther had attacked and said that they even taught against the opinion of the pope, were presented in the harshest form as good ecclesiastical. Only occasionally are brief justifications added; in most of the theses, however, Luther's propositions are briefly described as error, sacrilege, and blasphemy, without any refutation. In the second disputation, the authority of the pope is raised above all charges; it extends over the general church, the concilia, and all Christians; in the church, one must be guided solely by the teachings of the pope, and he alone has the power to interpret the holy scriptures as he pleases; all statutes in matters of faith that the apostolic see has decided are to be counted among the Christian and true articles, whether or not they are already contained in the Canon of the Holy Scriptures.
The Bible would not have been found. Luther had no part in the fact that Tetzel's theses were burned in the marketplace by the students of Wittenberg; indeed, he did not even know about it, as he wrote to Johann Laug on March 21, 1518, and to Jodocus in Erfurt on May 9, 1518.
It was not Tetzel's opposition that prompted Luther to write explanations and proofs for his theses, but since he had posted them for public disputation, he must have been ready to defend them already at that time, on October 31, 1517, and therefore had already drafted something like this. When his theses became more and more widespread and were often not understood and misinterpreted, he decided to publish the "Explanations of the Disputation on the Power of Indulgences" (no. 11 in this volume). 11 in this volume) and turned for permission to do so to his Ordinary, the Bishop Hieronymus Scultetus of Brandenburg, who was responsible for the supervision of the University of Wittenberg, in a letter at the beginning of February (February 6 or 13; not May 221) ) 1518. On March 5, as he writes to Scheurl under this date,2 ) he still had no answer. Since Luther had meanwhile let his sermon on indulgences and grace go out, the bishop feared that the explanations would soon follow without his consent; therefore, in March 1518 (not already "in November or at the latest Deceyrber" 1517, as Köstlin, Vol. I, 177, assumes), he sent the abbot of the monastery at Lehnin to Luther3 ) and asked him to postpone the publication of the explanations for a while. Luther promised to do so, but was soon released from his promise before Easter 1518,4 ).
On May 15, Luther had returned from his trip to Heidelberg, and probably immediately afterwards he put the finishing touches to his
1) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 498.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 589.
3) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 1. This letter is to be placed at the end of March 1518, cf. Erl. Briefw.
4) Without date. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 585. In De Wette I, 75, with the wrong date: in November 1517, instead of shortly before Easter 1518. Cf. Weim. Edition I, 523.
Explanations. On May 30, he sent them in handwriting to Staupitz, with a note to the latter5 ) and to Pope Leo X,2 ) for forwarding to the latter. They must have arrived in Rome in the second half of June, and Prierias already knew about them when writing his dialogue. On June 4, the writing is already under the press; on July 10, only six sheets were ready; on August 21, it could be sent. 6) Instead of finding a protector in the pope, as Luther had foreseen, Rome rather thought of poison and assassination to get rid of the hated witness of divine truth, and his summons there to answer for himself is to be seen as a direct consequence of this writing. His friends, on the other hand, were wonderfully strengthened in their faith by this writing, as we can gather from Spalatin's letter to Luther of September 5, 1518, where he says: "For the declaration of your theses on indulgences, I give you eternal thanks." 7)
That Luther's "Sermon on Indulgences and Grace" (No. 12 in this volume) is not to be set at the same time as the 95 Theses, thus also cannot have been held on October 31, 1517,8 ) of which we are completely convinced by what Kolde has contributed in his "Martin Luther" p. 375 f.. From the year 1517 there is no print available, as the Weimar edition Vol. I, 242 testifies, although there were many questions about it in the learned world; there is also none, since this sermon appeared only in the year 1518, namely in the time between March 5 and early April. On March 5, Luther wrote to Scheurl: "If the Lord should give me the [necessary] leisure, then I wish to publish a German booklet 'von der Kraft des Ablasses, 9) in order to explain those quite indefinite [95] theses.
5) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 507 and 492.
6) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 528.
7) Burkhardt, D. M. Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 12.
8) According to this, the relevant sentence in our note on Col. 270 of this volume is to be corrected, namely: that the sermon cannot have been delivered already on October 31, 1517, and that it first appeared in print in March 1518, not in February, as Köstlin assumes, as will be shown shortly.
9) De Wette I, 95 erroneously refers to Luther's "freedom of the sermon" etc. Edition, Vol. I, 238 thinks that our sermon is hardly meant.
suppress." In Tetzel's second set of theses, which was issued at the beginning of May (cf. Kolde, "Luther," p. 376), reference is made to this sermon in the 50th thesis. There is no doubt in the sermon a great advance over the theses. What Luther still whispers into the ear of his friend in February, he preaches publicly in the Sermon. On February 15 he writes to Spalatin1 ): "Secondly, about the power of indulgences, what they are capable of: this matter is still in doubt, and my disputation wavers back and forth under slander. But I will tell you two things, first to you alone and to our friends, until the matter is published: It seems to me that in indulgences nowadays there is only a mockery of souls, and that it is of no use at all except to those who are sleepy and lazy in the way of Christ." But in the sermon he says in the 14th article, "Indulgences are allowed for the sake of imperfect and slothful Christians," and at the end of the 16th article, "Let the slothful and sleepy Christians loose indulgences." We find confirmation of the time we have given in Tetzel's refutation, which says that Luther's sermon on indulgences and grace went out in the last fasts. The Lent began in 1518 with February 17; Easter fell on April 4; therefore, according to this testimony, we also have to look for the writing and publication of the sermon between March 5 and April 4. 2) The main reason for placing our sermon already in the year 1517 was the wrong dating of Luther's letter to Spalatin, which is to be placed in the last days of March 1518, but
1) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, annex, no. 4.
2) Accordingly, the treatise which Archbishop Albrecht, as he writes to his councilors on December 13, 1517, received at the same time as the Conclusions (the 95 theses), "concerning the sacred Negotium Indulgentiarum", cannot be our sermon, but another, for example the Sermo de Indulgentiis, of October 31, 1516, which we have already mentioned above. (Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 929). It may be the same sermon that Tetzel publicly burned at the time of the first disputation at Frankfurt, along with the theses, according to Melanchthon's testimony, in Luther's life, in his works, Wittb. Ausg., vol. XII, fot. 476. (Cf. Körner, p. 112.) In Latin it is: propositiones Lutheri et concionem de indulgentiis. In the Weimar edition, Vol. I, 94, however, it has the superscription: Sermo de indulgentiis.
has been provided with the date "November 1517" until the latest time. 3) Already in the year 1771 the following writing appeared in Neustadt an der Oder: Walther, Beweis, dass Luthers Sermon von Ablaß und Gnade nicht 1517, sondern 1518 ausgegangen. Also Kapp, in the collection of some writings belonging to the papal indulgence, p. 304 ff, expressed his doubt about the correctness of the year 1517 already in 1721. 4) The Weimar edition, Vol. I, 239, assumes that the sermon was delivered on October 31, 1517, and that the last section was added only in 1518, under the impression of the slander and heresy that Luther experienced from his opponents since the beginning of 1518. The Wittenberg edition, vol. 7, fol. 1, also places the sermon in the year 1518; likewise the Latin Jenaer, Tom. I, fol. 11b.
Tetzel sought to refute this sermon on indulgences and grace in his own writing under the title: "Submission, made by Brother Johann Tetzel" 2c (No. 13 in this volume.) Luther reports on this in his letter of June 4, 1518 to Spalatin5 ): "Johannes Tetzel has also published a German booklet against my German Sermon, which is an excellent witness and herald of his ignorance, to which I will add light, so that everyone will know what it is like, not how he would like to view his booklet." From this it is clear, which is also generally assumed, that Tetzel's refutation came out toward the end of May 1518. This is confirmed by another letter of the same date to Johann Lang6 ): "Against my German Sermon, that Tetzel has published his antics, against which I, too, am again preparing my barrel; God grant that no little jar may come of it." In this writing, Tetzel defends indulgences and attaches to them such force that not only the punishment imposed by the Church, but also the punishment required by divine justice, can be achieved.
3) Thus Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. I; De Wette I, 70. The correct date in Köstlin I, 787; Kolde p. 375; Weim. Ausg. I, 523.
4) Cf. Löscher's Reformation Acta, vol. II, p. 10.
5) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 593.
6) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 595.
would be annulled. The practice of good works is not hindered by indulgences, but rather promoted, because the works become more meritorious than others through the grace of Christ, which is obtained through indulgences.
From the words we have just quoted from the letter to Lang, it seems that Luther had already started his refutation of Tetzel's "presentation" on the day mentioned0. Still in the same month the same appeared under the title "Freedom [i.e., salvation] of the Sermon on Papal Indulgences and Grace" 2c (No. 14 in this volume.) In this writing he upholds everything that he had asserted both in the theses and in the sermon on indulgences and grace, proves that the pope cannot remit the penance that God demands of us humans, and maintains the opinion that indulgences cannot redeem souls from purgatory. Finally, Luther also defends his Elector against the venomous attacks that Tetzel had allowed himself in his second disputation in the 47th and 48th thesis, as if he were protecting the heretics and their false teachings, and thereby clearly indicates that he is not afraid of Tetzel's threats.
III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias.
The second opponent of Luther was a high official of the Pope in Rome, the Dominican Silvester Mazolini of Prierio, 2) Magister of the Holy Apostolic Palace, to whom it was incumbent ex officio to exercise censorship over all books published anywhere and the doctrine contained therein; at the same time, as he himself states, he was the supreme heresy judge over the city of Rome and over the whole world. He called himself Prierias from his birthplace
1) On June 4, 1518. At the beginning of July, the same appeared already in the second edition. Cf. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 203.
2) This is what he calls himself in the superscription of the first book of his Drruta, arAurüsnta ste.vs juriäieu st irrskruMdili vsritats rornauas soelssias voutiüois: psr sxirninna saorarum littsrarum prorsssorsm, kratrsm KUvsstrum Llsxolimnü krisriatsm vrciipis prasäieatoruiL vitas rsZutaris, rrmKistrum saeri xalatii axostslioi.
Prierio near Montferrat in Italy, where he is said to have been born in 1460. At the age of fifteen he entered the Dominican Order in Genoa and from his youth diligently studied Aristotelian philosophy and Thomistic theology, as whose supporter and representative he appears in his writings against Luther. He was considered one of the best preachers and professors and was therefore called by the Council of Venice to the Academy of Padua to read there about theology, and from there he went to Rome in 1511 as a professor of theology. Under Leo X, who ascended the papal chair in 1513, Prierias was appointed maxister sacri palatii, and remained in this dignity until the end of his life (probably 1523). Some also say (Erl. Briefw. 1,164) that he became general of the Dominicans.
Prierias has published quite a number of writings. Philosophical ones are, for example: Sphaera. Jo. de Sacrobosoo, De secundis intontionibus, Malleus Scotistarum; on theological among others: Aurea rosa (or, as Löscher has the title, rosa Silvestrina), a Latin postilion on the Sunday and feast day gospels of the whole year, which was to consist of roses of the explanations of all ancient teachers, Summa Summarum and especially his Conflatum ex angelico dootore sancto Thoma, ex
editione et cum commentariis, in four volumes. Rome 1519.
Luther's 95 Theses did not reach Rome until the end of December 1517 (Erl. Briefw. I, 353), but did not receive much attention there, for we read in Seckendorf (Hist. Luth, lib. I, p. 40, § 31, Additio) that when Silvester Prierias had shown to Pope Leo X some heretical articles on indulgences published by Luther through print, Leo had replied to those present: "Brother Martin is a very good head, and these are monastic disputes." Soon, however, the matter began to be taken more seriously, and already on February 3, 1518, Leo gave the order to Gabriel Venetus, promagister of the Augustinian Hermits, who at that time administered the office of a general of the order, to appease Luther
3) Colomesius reports this in his Particularities p. 321 f. from the Lanäslli Ni8torÜ8 trnZiels from the preface to the 25th amendment of the third part.
and to smother the flame that had just been kindled. 1) But before we hear that he had done something in relation to Luther, Prierias had already published his first writing against Luther for the protection of the papal chair, namely his Dialogue (No. 15 in this volume), in which he went through almost all of Luther's theses on his standard of faith, St. Thomas. The full title of this writing is: Reverendi patris fratris Silvestri Prieriatis, ordinis praedicatorum, et sacrae Theologiae Professoris celeberrimi, sacrique Palatii Apostolici Magistri, in prae- sumptuosas Martini Lutheri Conclusiones de potestate Papae Dialogus. This writing he finished in three days, as he says in his letter to the pope. It appeared in the second half of June 1518. 2) In it, Luther is treated by Prierias quite contemptuously and from above; he calls him a heretic, an arch-heretic, a villain, a devil, an ignorant man, a blasphemer, a son of a dog, and threatens him several times very understandably with the stake and that he should be forced to renounce his heresy. He exalts the power of the pope and the Roman church above all measure:
1) The letter is found in Peter Bembus, lid. XVI, No. 18.
2) Misled by the wrong dating of three different letters of Luther to Spalatin, all previous editions, with the exception of the Weimar edition, have moved the writings of Prierias to the wrong time, and also confused the different writings of the same with each other. These letters are dated January 7 and 14, 1519 (Erl. Briefw. I, 345. 349) and early June 1520 (De Wette I, 452), but were all dated 1518. The first two referred to the dialogue, while they deal with the replica; the third, however, which speaks of the epitome, was understood to refer to the replica. Therefore, Seckendorf, who cites the third letter as being from December 15, 1518 (nist. Imtü., lid. I, 866t. 15, § 30), mixes the replica and the epitome with each other, while the Erlangen edition (opx. var. ar^. I, 343) even mixes the dialogue with the epitome. Although Walch has incorrect dates for all of Prierias' writings, he has been able to distinguish between them, since he recognized that the third letter belongs to the year 1520 (Cinl. zum XVIII. Bd., p. 24 f., note 6.) and has arranged it accordingly in the XXI. volume, Col. 723. The first letter is in Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 586, the second: vol. XV, appendix, no. V, both with wrong year. Also in De Wette I, 83 ff. is the same error; likewise in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, vol. II, p. 12, but this vol. Ill, p. 900 assumes approximately correctly that the epitome may have appeared at the beginning of the year 1520.
The church remits the punishment imposed by God; the testimony of the Roman church and the pope are greater than that of Scripture; the pope, as secular king, can impose monetary taxes; the Roman church and the pope are not guilty of giving reasons and can restrain with secular arms those who hold opinions different from theirs; the pope is the highest authority in spiritual and secular matters. The Roman church and the pope are not obliged to give reasons, and can restrain with the secular arm those who hold opinions different from theirs; the pope is the supreme authority in spiritual and secular matters; the Roman church and the pope, if he is pope, cannot fail in their pronouncements; He who does not hold to the teaching of the Roman church and of the pope as the infallible rule of faith, from which the holy Scriptures themselves take their credit, is a heretic; he who says that the Roman church cannot justly do what it really does, except by preaching and dispensing indulgences, is a heretic. Yes, in refuting Luther's 27th thesis, he says: "The preacher who maintains that a soul imprisoned in purgatory will be led out at the moment when the perfect indulgence has been granted, that is, when the gold florin has been thrown into the basin, is not preaching humanity, but the pure and catholic truth. But thou teachest the opposite; if thou persist in it, see well, according to what has been said before, what thou deservest by censuring an act and doctrine of the holy Roman Church." This refers to what Luther says in the Table Talks, 3) Cap. 54, § 20: "How Silvester Prierias, the master of the holy palace, wanted to frighten me with this flash of lightning when he said: Whoever doubts a word or work of the Roman church is a heretic. At that time I was still weak. I did not want to attack the pope. I honored such reasons." The word: "You are a heretic" in the mouth of the highest heretic judge in the whole world was, however, a frightening flash. Nevertheless, Luther was neither intimidated nor deterred by it, trusting in God, whose cause it was, to freely testify to the truth.
Luther received the dialogue in early August 1518, if not earlier (Weim. Ausg. I, 645).
3) Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 1363.
He spent two days on the answer. The title of Luther's answer to the dialogue (No. 16 in this volume) is: Ad Dialogum Silvestri Prieratis, Magistri Palatii, de potestate Papae Responsio F. Martini Luther Augustinensis, Wittenbergae. On August 8, 1) Luther wrote to Spalatin that he was working on the refutation of the Dialogue; on August 21: the Dialogue and his answer to it would be printed at Leipzig (by Melchior Lotther) at the same time, and on the last of August he sent his answer to the Dialogue to Spalatin. Already on September 16, Luther wrote to Joh. Lang that all copies of the first edition of the Dialogue had been sold, because the Dominicans, the friars of Prieria, were buying them up to suppress them, but Lotther was printing others.
Although the time that Luther spent on the refutation was only very short, 2) in his answer the wrong opinions of his opponent are quite thoroughly laid down, which was not at all difficult, since Prierias' dialogue, as Walch notes, not without divine providence turned out so badly that even the author's own co-religionists were quite badly satisfied with it. For Sforza Pallavicini (historia concilii Tridentini, lid. I, cap. 6, § 3, p. 9) says: Prierias badly refuted Luther by opposing him nothing but the papal prestige, and Paul Sarpi (hist. conc. Trid., lib. I, p. 9 sq.) makes the same remark. Yes, the pope himself rebuked Silvester, 3) that he had written so childishly, and gave him a good wiper (rabuffo), because instead of three days he should rather have spent three months on the reply. Erasmus also wrote to Cardinal Campegius (lib. XIV epistol, p. 449): What Silvester wrote against Luther, I do not hear from anyone, even from those who rejected Luther's
1) In the letter of August 8, it is also reported that this lovely man (Prierias), who was his opponent, was also appointed to him by the pope as a judge, as can be seen from the citation (which Luther received on August 7, Lrl. vsr. arA. II, 359). The other judge was the bishop of Ascoli and auditor of the apostolic chamber, Hieronymus Ghinucci.
2) Two days. Cf. De Wette, vol. 1,135.
3) Scheurl, Briefbuch, Vol. II, p. 71, Bries Christoph Scheurls an Luther vom 20. December 1518.
enemies are, approve. 4) In his answer, Luther rejects outright what Prierias had said about the omniscience of the Roman Church and the sovereignty of the pope: a pope and a concilium could err; if everything that a pope decides and does should be valid, then abominable and monstrous things would have to be counted against praiseworthy deeds; one must be guided only by what is said and prescribed in the divine and canonical books.
The reply of Prierias to Luther's answer, his replica (No. 17 in this volume), was probably already written at the beginning of November 1518, 5) as the Weimar edition, Vol. II, p. 48, concludes from the words: "But how sharply you have proven your things by the attracted Clementine, you shall see next" (Replica § 16), in which it finds an allusion to the new Decretal of Leo X of November 9, 1518. Luther received this writing probably still in the last days of the year 1518 through Wenceslaus Link, as we can conclude from Christoph Scheurl's letter to him, dated January 1, 1519, 6) and sent it from Leipzig to Spalatin on January 7, 1519, when he rested there on his return journey from the first conversation with Miltitz at Altenburg. In mid-January 1519
4) Erasmus writes in 1527 to a Spanish theologian, a doctor of the Sorbonne (Seckendorf, Hist. Imtü., lib. I, 866t. 15, § 31, ndditio) in the 71st letter of the 19th book: "Silvester Prierias has answered schern Luther's so skillfully that even the pope has imposed silence on him." Now, however, Prierias had his dialogue followed by the replica as early as November 1518, and at the end of 1519 by his Epitome, which was followed after July 21, 1520, by the main work (of which the Epitome is the third book), Lrrntn st ar^umEnta Martini Imt6ri8 6t6., or the three books d6 snridioa 6t irr6trnAudiIi V6ritat6 rornanÄ6 666I68M6 romanic;n6 xontiÜ6i8. This book was first sold in Germany in 1521 during the Diet of Worms. (Cf. the second note to No. 18 in this volume.) Therefore, the order of the pope to Prierias not to write further about this religious controversy could not have been given soon after the dialogue or the replica, but only after the complete failure of the main work of Prierias (about 1521). The pope himself honored it with his protective inscription (on the back of the title) and allowed the papal coat of arms to be placed on the title.
5) De Wette, vol. I, 454, note 2, thinks that the replica was published only in 1519. Burkhardt, p. II, however, places it in the first half of September 1518.
6) Scheurl, Briefbuch, vol. II, p. 81.
Luther reprinted the replica, only with a small mocking preface by Luther on the title. The title of this writing is: Replica F. Silvestri Prieriatis, sacri Palatii apostolici Magistri, ad F. Mar- tinum Luther Ordinis Eremitarum. This writing is so weak that one did not want to believe that Silvester had written it, but thought that it was one of the sort of the obscurantists who played Silvester; therefore the Wittenbergers judged that Luther should not answer it. The tone that Silvester strikes against Luther in this writing is very different from the one he had used in his dialogue. Whereas in the Dialogue he had thundered down on Luther as the supreme judge of heresy, in the Replica he assumes the mien of a paternally benevolent friend. He gives himself the appearance of having brought Luthern back on the right path by saying right at the beginning of the writing: "Because at the first superficial perusal I perceived with the greatest joy that your spirit rejects the pope and that the thesis which I had called heretical is revoked, my heart has been so open towards you and is so taken in by sweet love that now nothing else was able to disturb me." At the end of the scripture, however, he says: "If you continue on the path you have taken, I believe that you will also hear Christ speaking in me, and perhaps you will have no more faithful friend than Silvester, of whom you are now so afraid." He describes the repeated threat of burning at the stake as a joke he had allowed himself. In the entire reply, he seeks to justify himself only against what he considers to be Luther's personal attacks; what Luther has brought up against the content of his diallogue, he wants to reject later. It is still remarkable that, because Luther had called him a right Thomist and Aristotelian, this becomes an opportunity for him to call Thomas "the light of the world". And to say of Aristotle "that the whole of nature admires him and that his truth is brighter than the sun; in his writings no falsehood has yet been found. Luther speaks his verdict on the
Replica from a letter to Christoph Scheurl of January 13, 1519: "To the antics of Silvester, if they originate otherwise from Silvester, it seems to us quite unworthy to answer, for they are childish and effeminate and nothing but lamentations of his pain."
Now a longer pause occurred. Rumors began to circulate that Prierias was silent, but Brother Cyprian of Paris would write against Luther by the pope's order, as Luther reported to Spalatin on October 13, 1519. At the end of the year 1519 (Panzer, Annalen, VIII, 224) Prierias' Epitome (No. 18 in this volume) appeared in Perugia, a short epitome and at the same time the third book of the great work, which Prierias had meanwhile written and was still writing against Luther. Until now, the erroneous opinion has been widespread that Prierias never finished the larger work, of which the Epitome is a draft and short summary. This larger work actually appeared after July 21, 1520, and was sold in Germany during the Diet of Worms, April 1521 (Tischreden, Cap. 80, § 13). Luther had received it shortly before April 1, 1521, through Wenceslaus Link, as we can see from the epilogue to his writing against Catharinus (No. 61 in this volume; De Wette, Vol. I, 585). There he writes: "To the Silvester, however, which you have sent me in the meantime, I answer nothing else than what I answered earlier to his reply. For apart from the title, on which he boasts that Martin Luther's errors and grounds of proof are discussed and destroyed (trita) 2c, he accomplishes nothing." (Cf. our note on § 313 of Paper No. 61.) It is quite unmistakable that Luther attracts the title of "Errata et argumenta . . . trita." Namely, the title of this book published in Rome is: Errata et argumenta Martini Luteris recitata, detecta, repulsa et copiosissime trita: per Fratrem Silvestrum Prieriatem, Magistrum sacri Palatii. Below the papal coat of arms. Without indication of place and time. It contains three books de juridica et irrefragabili veritate romanae ecclesiae romanique pontificis, the third of which is our epitome from-
makes. 268 folio leaves, in quarto. After that the epitome on ten unfolded leaves, signed AA to AA 5. Before fol. 1 six unfolded leaves, on which first (on the back of the title) is a papal prohibition of reprinting, under threat of punishment of ban and 2000 ducats, dated July 21, 1520. This writing of the pope also gives the work of Prierias the testimony that it is written "according to the faith" (canonice). Then follows a letter to Pope Leo of June 10, 1519, and finally a letter to the reader, followed by a list of 17 printing errors. At the end of the whole work we find the indication: Romae per Antonium Bladis de Asula impressus die. 27. Martii. Millesimo quingentesimo vigesimo, sedente Leone. X. Pont. Max. Anno ejus Octavo. The 15th and 16th chapters of the second book are, as Prierias says at the beginning of the 15th chapter, Lol. 221, were added only after he had already put the finishing touches to the work, indeed, after it had already been given to the printers in progress, because only then had he received Luther's explanation of the 13th thesis against Eck and some other small works of his, "in which," says Prierias, "he raises a very great clamor against the supremacy of the pope with great impudence." To this great work Luther, as he had said, gave the same answer as to the replica, namely, no answer. The title of the Epitome alone is: De juridica et irrefragabili veritate romanae ecclesiae romanique pontificis, liber tertius: index quidem longissimus, sed brevissimum epithoma. So also for the main work the epitome is printed first and in such a way that it could be sold as a separate quintern even on its own. Luther received this epitome about the beginning of June 1520 and immediately sent it to Spalatin (De Wette I, 452. Walch XXI, 723) with the words: "I send you Silvester's epitome, which he himself calls epitoma, the man who understands no Greek and is a cook in Latin" (lati- nocoquus). 1) In the epitome, which
1) This is an allusion to the witty, deliberate misprint that the Basel authorities allowed themselves in their collections of Luther's works of October 1518 and March 1520 with the title of the dialogue, i.e.
contains all the chapter headings and the main points of the larger work, the most frightening heresies are presented, especially about the power of the pope: An undoubted pope cannot be legally deposed, even if he leads whole peoples in droves to the devil with him; the decisions of the pope are to be obeyed under the penalty of eternal and temporal death; the pope is an infallible judge of truth; a council without the pope can err, not with the pope; the Scriptures draw their power from the pope. Because this scripture was also of such poor quality, Luther did not consider it necessary to oppose it with a proper answer (just as he did not later with the main work), but considered that it contained its refutation in itself, in which every reasonable and honest person must agree with him. He therefore provided the writing only with a preface and postscript and short notes added in the margin and had it printed in Wittenberg in June 1520. On June 13, he wrote to Spalatin that it was under press, and on June 25, that it would be ready tomorrow. In the preface he wrote: "This booklet is filled from head to toe with so many and great blasphemies that one would think it was published in the middle of hell by the devil himself. If in Rome, with the knowledge of the Pope and the Cardinals (which I hope is not the case), they think and teach in this way, then I declare with this writing that the true Antichrist sits in the temple of God and reigns in that Babel clothed in purple in Rome, and that the Roman court is the school of Satan. Prierias makes us a god out of every, even a godless pope, and states that the power of the Holy Scripture, that is, the power of the Word of God, which is God Himself, depends on the reputation of this man, even if he were godless. . . The glory of the Roman Church has fallen so low that it not only produces this heretical, blasphemous, diabolical, infernal poison in itself, but it also produces the same poison in itself.
lich: MaMrl, i.e. cook of the sacred palace, instead of sdri. Cf. Luther's letter to Staupitz of February 20, 1519, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 31 and the letter of the same date to Wmbald Pirkheimer, De Wette, vol. VI, 13.
but also spreads it throughout the world. Away now with all those who boast that the Roman Church has never been tainted with any heresy! This certain Silvester goes incomparably far beyond Arius, Manichaeus, Pelagius and all other heretics."
Just as exaggerated as Prierias, the Dominican Johannes Annius or, as he is also called, Nannis or Nannius, had already spoken of the sovereignty of the pope in a work published in Genoa in 1480. He is said to have been born in Viterbo around 1432, became a teacher of theology, was held in great esteem by the popes Sixtus IV and Alexander VI, so that he also received the dignity of a magister of the papal palace, but held this position only for a few years, for he died on November 13, 1502. For his time he was a very learned man, understood Latin, Greek and also the Oriental languages. He is best known for having published works under the name of old writers, thus belonging to the group of learned frauds 1), which is admitted even by most Dominicans. Nevertheless, they try to justify this. The title of the above mentioned work is: De futuris Christianorum triumphis in Tureas et Saracenos ad Sixtum papam IV. et reges, principes et senatus christianos. Quarto. It has three parts. The first two contain an interpretation of the Revelation of John. In them it is prophesied that the Turkish empire will soon fall and that the Latin Church will obtain a glorious victory over it, and that the papacy will be exalted beyond all measure. Christ, the Lamb, he says, and his governor, the pope, are, according to divine right, the king over all kings or a temporal ruler over this world, and therefore the emperor Constantine is obliged to be the king of the world.
1) Cf. Altamura in Bibliotheeu Domini"., p. 223; Jakob Quetif and Jak. Echard in Keriptor. ordin. pndiout,, Dom. II, p. 4; Niceron in Msrnoiros x>onr 86I-vir L I'Nistoiro des Nonnnos illust. dank in röpubli^no des lettros. Dorn. XI, x>. I and Dorn. XX, p. I; Peter Bayle in the critical and historical dictionary, Th. Ill, p. 458; Paul Colomesius in innig, ob llispuniu oriontul., p. 9; Bure. Gotth. Struv, Dissertatio de doetis irnpostor., § 18 ff. and Nie. Here. Gundling in the Historie der Gelahrten, Th. II, x>. 2103.
Being to cede the city of Rome to Pope Silvester. Luther took this treatise on the papal monarchy out of the work and had it printed in the Epitome, provided with a very sharp, but quite excellent and clearly convincing epilogue against the lying and usurped power of the pope (No. 19 in this volume). According to Walch's procedures, we have omitted the treatise itself and have limited ourselves to reproducing Luther's epilogue in a new translation.
IV. Luther's dispute with Dungersheim.
Among Luther's opponents was Hieronymus Dungersheim. He was born in 1465 at Ochsenfurt in Würzburg, therefore he is also called D. Ochsenfurt or, as he himself writes, Ochsenfart. At the beginning of the 16th century, he accompanied Cardinal Raymund Peraldus, Bishop of Gurck, as a preacher of indulgences on his journey through Saxony, became a preacher at St. Mary's Church in Zwickau in 1501 and stood there until 1504. His successor was Sylvius Egranus, who had a dispute with Dungersheim in 1518 about the three men of St. Anne and the three Marys conceived with them. 2) In 1504 he visited the universities of Bologna, Siena, Rome and Cologne and in 1506 he returned to Leipzig, where he remained as professor of theology until his death (March 2, 1540). He was also Collegiate of the great Prince's College and CanonicuS at Zeitz. The collection of his writings, in which he also included Luther's letters to him, appeared in 1531, in quarto, at Leipzig, in both Latin and German. We have given the title of the Latin edition in Cap. IV. (Col. 463 in this volume) at Dungersheims Streite, that of the German is: Etliche Büchlein 1). Hieronymi Dungersheim von Ochsenfart against Luther. The first part of this is the letter between him and Luther.
2) Cf. Tischreden. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1346, Cap. 53, § 3, and Walch, Old Edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 42.
(No. 20 to 28 in this volume). Furthermore, it also contains the dialogue which Dungersheim had published as his first writing against Luther, as an answer to Luther's fifth and last letter. He announced to Luther in his sixth letter that he would have this dialogue printed, to which he received no reply. The title is: Dialogus ad Martinum Lutherani pro responsione ad im- pertinentem quandam ipsius epistolam supra positam, veluti collocutoris vice intermixtam, datus per Hieronymum supradictum. In addition, the content of the collection concerns what Luther had said about the 1st letter to the Corinthians of both forms of Holy Communion in the interpretation of the 7th Cap. and what he wrote of the sin against the Holy Spirit etc. The aforementioned fifth letter of Luther is translated by us from Seidemann's Luther Letters and is included here for the first time in the collection of Luther's writings.
The correspondence between Dungersheim and Luther was started by the former, probably to get out of Luther in favor of Eck (since the Leipzig disputation was imminent) what his main reasons were regarding the supremacy of the Roman pope. In his letter to Spalatin 1) of January 14, 1520, Luther describes him as a scheming man, inclined to circulate false rumors: "Who had also fabricated that Eck was killed in order to spy on us; a man who cannot keep peace nor leave others in peace; ready to do harm everywhere, quite a wretched man, but yet powerless." Dungersheim's letters are long and rambling, without probative value, because he bases himself on the pseudo-isidoric Decretals, decisions of the Conciliar (real and false) and sayings of the Church Fathers (also real and false), Luther's answers, on the other hand, are short and concise, based not on human but on divine testimonies. Although Luther did not hold back at all in freely expressing his opinion about the supremacy of the pope, especially in the second answer, the-
1) Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, appendix, no. 4.
Luther said that the same was not out of divine but only out of human right, so he observed such caution that Dungersheim did not get out of him what he wanted. Luther rather pointed out that at the upcoming disputation all this would come up and Dungersheim would get the answer he was looking for.
Since in Dungersheim's collection, from which these letters are taken, neither year nor date is added, only the year 1519 is certain with regard to the time determination; the dates are only, albeit very probable, conjectures. In our edition, each of the letters is preceded by a short summary of its contents; therefore, it is not necessary to go into further detail here.
At the time when the fourth chapter of this volume, Luther's dispute with Dungersheim, was printed, the second volume of the Erlangen "Briefwechsel" was not yet in our hands. Therefore, we add the following here. Letters No. 26 and 27 (Col. 528 ff. in this volume) can be found in the Erlanger "Briefwechsel", Vol. II, p. 133 ff. with the time determination given by us. The fifth letter of Dungersheim can be found there, vol. II, pp. 141-154, in which the passage Phil. 2, 6. is treated once again in a comprehensive manner. Dungersheim seeks to refute individual statements in Luther's last letter and especially to prove the supremacy of the pope. This letter is moved there to the middle of September. Luther's answer to this fifth letter (No. 28, Col. 530 in this volume) is found in the Erlangen "Briefwechsel", Vol. II, p. 162, and is also assigned to the month of September. We have inserted the time "middle of September 1519" after Seidemann, "Lutherbriefe", p. 7. Finally, the Erlangen "Briefwechsel" also brings the sixth letter of Dungersheim to Luther (September or October 1519), vol. II, p. 166 f. and p. 168-180 the dialogue, by which Dungersheim wants to refute Luther's last letter. Even if these latter writings of Dungersheim had been in our hands earlier, we would not have considered it worth the effort to translate them and include them in our edition,
because we are convinced that for the readers of Walch's edition the counter-writings against Luther added by Walch himself are completely sufficient. Therefore, we have limited ourselves to adding Luther's last letter, with which he answers Dungersheim's fifth letter, and through which he, for his part, puts an end to the dispute with Dungersheim. This is, as said, in our edition for the first time in German translation.
V. Luther's dispute with Eck.
One of the most important opponents with whom Luther had to fight for the truth was D. Johann Eck. His real name was Maier, but he was called Eck after his birthplace, the village of Eck an der Günz in the Bavarian district of Ottobeuren, where he was born on November 13, 1486. 1) Twelve years old, he entered the University of Heidelberg in 1498 and one year later the University of Tübingen, where he received the degree of magister artium in January 1501. In October 1501 he went to Cologne, where he attended theological lectures; from there, because of the plague, he went to Freiburg in Breisgau in June 1502, where he continued his theological studies and also studied law. He had already practiced dispute resolution in Cologne and continued this in Freiburg. On October 15, 1505, he became a baccalaureate of theology; in 1508 he was ordained a priest in Strasbourg. In 1509 he became a licentiate and in 1510 a doctor of theology at Ingolstadt, where he began his theological lectures in November 1510. In 1515 he lectured in Bologna, and in 1516 in Vienna. At this time Eck was already highly regarded as one of the most excellent theologians, and in 1517 he became pro-chancellor of the University of Ingolstadt. He also became a canon in the Eichstädt high chapter and an inquisitor in Bavaria and Franconia. In April 1517, at the instigation of the Nuremberg jurist Scheurl, Eck 2) began a friendly correspondence with the following
1) Wiedemann, D. Johann Eck. Regensburg 1865. p. 3.
2) Cf. Christoph Scheurls Briefbuch, von Soden und Kuaake, vol. II, p. 12, Burkhard, D. M. Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 5.
with Luther. But after Luther had published his 95 theses, this learned and skilful, but exceedingly vain man felt urged, already at the beginning of the year 1518, to break off the lovely blossoming relationship of friendship without warning and from behind, by sending out his "obelisks" 3) against Luther in January or February 1518, in which he fought Luther's 31 theses. 4) As he himself states, he had written these "notes on 18 theses of Luther" (so Eck reckons) at the request of Bishop Gabriel von Eyb of Eichstädt. These obelisks were not printed in the beginning, but were distributed in copies in many ways. Luther received a copy of them through the mediation of D. Wenceslaus Link in Nuremberg. In this writing, which is full of invective, Luther is called a heretic, a Bohemian, a despiser of the pope, and the like; Llither countered it as early as March 1518 with his "Asterisks" (No. 29 in this volume), which initially did not go out in print, but only in manuscript. Only several years after Eck's death, which occurred on February 10, 1543 in Ingolstadt, were both Eck's obelisks and Luther's asterisms printed in the first Latin volume of the Wittenberg edition of Luther's works (1545). Eck soon realized that he had gone too far in his writing and would have liked to reverse his letter. He therefore addressed a letter of apology to Carlstadt (5) in order to obtain that he would not allow anything to go to press against him, which, as he had heard, was to happen. But he was too late with this, because Carlstadt had already published his writing against Eck, as he reported to him in his answer 6), in which he also duly chastises the falsehood with which Eck had acted against Luther.
A picture of Eck is presented to us by Petrus Mosellanus in a letter, which
3) These are contained in No. 29 of this volume, therefore not specially printed in this volume.
4) Cf. Luther's letter to Joh. Sylvius Egranus, preacher in Zwickau, March 24, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 42.
5) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 957.
6) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 958.
1)' Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1423, 810. Löscher, Ref.-Acta, vol, III, 248.
2) In Latin Carem militern, a Carian soldier. The coast of Caria was a headquarters of pirates.
The author, however, is not a man, but a man who has a peripatetic confidence of knowledge and who expresses the parasitic craft. Only that the latter pretended to be ignorant and decided nothing, but this one claims to have a peripatetic confidence of knowledge, and expresses the parasitic craft. Behold, here you have the faithful image of Apelles, because even if not an artist, as the latter was, yet one who does not lack effort and diligence."
After Eck's first attack on the Theses on Indulgences, Luther fought the real main feud with Eck in Leipzig. A series of disputes exchanged between Luther and Eck follows the Leipzig disputation. And the most important point of contention is the question of the supremacy of the pope.
A part of the treatises that belong here precedes the Leipzig Disputation. As far as it is useful for their understanding, we want to remember the preliminary negotiations and preparations for the Leipzig Disputation. Walch brings the relevant documents in part in the 15th volume.
First, it was Carlstadt who, as already mentioned, took up the dispute with Eck anew. Put in armor by Eck's obelisks, he published 405 defense propositions for the Holy Scriptures and for the Wittenbergers (No. 30 in this volume) at the beginning of May 1518, which were to form the basis of a series of disputations to be held under his chairmanship. The first 100 theses refer to the authority of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. The following three sections, which (with the addition of Luther's three theses) contain 112 theses, defend Luther's first, second, and twentieth (or fifth) thesis on indulgences against Eck's obelisk. Theses 213-262 deal with free will; 263-287 with the damnation of undone children; 288-324 with predestination and free will; 325-379 are directed against individual pieces of Tetzel's two disputations. The last 26 theses deal again with free will. The title of the original is: D. Andreae Carolstatini doctoris et archi- diaconi Wittenbergensis CCCLXX et apolo- geticae conclusiones pro sacris litteris et Wit-.
tenbergönsiduL ete. In reality, there were 379 theses, with an appendix of 26 sentences, making a total of 405. Luther was away at the time, in Heidelberg, and knew nothing of this action of his colleague.
Eck, who would have liked to avoid another clash with the Wittenbergers, as the aforementioned letter to Carlstadt of May 28 proves, nevertheless felt compelled by Carlstadt's attack to reply. His counter-theses appeared on August 14, 1518, under the inscription: am 14. Sluguft 1518 unter ber 2Iuffd)rift: Defensio Joannis Eckii contra amarulentas D. Andreae Boden- etein Carolstatini invectiones. In this writing he proposed a disputation and designated as arbitration court the apostolic see or the universities of Rome, Paris, Cologne. In his theses he discussed the concepts of repentance, sin, freedom.
Carlstadt answered this in his defense against Eck's monomachy (No. 31 in this volume), which is titled: Defensio Andreae Carolostadii adversus eximii D. Joannis Eckii monomachiam. Here, too, he emphatically emphasized the scriptural doctrine of the complete lack of freedom of the human will. At the same time, he offered to submit his writing to the judgment of the Roman See, the universities of Rome, Paris, Cologne, yes, to the judgment of all who had studied the older church fathers up to St. Bernard, but declared the Holy Scriptures to be the final authority. He was also prepared to dispute with Eck "on condition that the arguments and answers of both sides be dictated to reliable notaries". On September 14, this writing was completed, but it did not reach the public until October.
Around this time, in October 1518, Eck visited Luther, who had to answer to Cajetan, in his hostel in Augsburg and discussed with him the prospect of a disputation. Luther rejected the places mentioned by Eck, such as Cologne and even more distant universities, and for his part suggested Erfurt or Leipzig, to which the former also agreed.
Carlstadt then agreed to this agreement and left Eck the choice between Erfurt and Leipzig. Eck decided
for Leipzig. In December, both the Wittenbergers and Eck turned to the theological faculty in Leipzig and requested permission for a disputation. This led to lengthy negotiations between the theological faculty and the chancellor of the University of Leipzig, Bishop Adolf of Merseburg, both of whom were reluctant to allow the dispute to be fought out in their own city, and Duke George of Saxony, who expected only honor for his state university from such a disputation between learned men.
Before anything had been decided about the time and place of the disputation, Eck published a disputation note in 1518, on December 29, with 12 theses, which he wanted to defend against Carlstadt in Leipzig, together with a letter to Matthäus Lang, coadjutor in Salzburg. Eleven theses referred to indulgences and the questions connected with indulgences. The 12th thesis brought a new matter, namely a defense of papal supremacy against a remark by Luther in the explanation of the 22nd thesis on indulgences, "that the Roman Church at the time of St. Gregory was not yet set above other churches, at least not above the Greek.
In anticipation of the disputation, Luther had not suspected such a public attack by Eck. On January 7, 1519, he informed Eck of the Leipzigers' negative response. It was not until the end of January 1519 that Eck's latest writing came into his hands. Above all, he was surprised that Eck, instead of attacking Carlstadt, was attacking him.
He writes about this to Sylv. Egranus at Zwickau, 1) February 2, 1519: "Our Eck, requested by me in Augsburg that he meet with our Carlstadt in Leipzig to settle the dispute, has finally complied. But listen to this man's game: he takes my theses and bites them most furiously, and he leaves the one he is dealing with lying there; you would think he wanted to put on a carnival play. I am therefore forced to engage in battle with man for the sake of my indulgences. He is the most unfortunate creature of the world.
1) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 30.
Vanity. He is holding out the prospect of a quarrel after Easter. There are people who claim that it is instigated by the Dominicans. But let the will of the Lord be done!"
To John Lang 1) Luther wrote, February 3: "Our corner fights new battles against me, and I will have to do with the grace of Christ what I have thought of for a long time, namely to come out in a serious writing against the Roman serpents (lernas). For until now I have only played and joked about the Roman cause, although it pains them exceedingly, as if it were most bitterly serious."
In a letter from Luther to Spalatin 2) dated February 7, it says: "By the way, our corner, this vain creature, has published a note that he wants to dispute against Carlstadt after Easter in Leipzig. And now, in silly dishonesty, in order to satisfy the envy he has long felt against me, he falls upon me and my writings; he names a completely different contender than the one against whom he actually sets out.
And in a letter to Scheurl 3) of February 20: "Our Eck, who until now knew how to hide his rage against me, has finally dropped the mask. Just see what kind of person he is. But God Himself in the midst of the gods knows what He wants to make of this tragedy. Neither Eck will do himself, nor I, any service in this. It seems to me that God's counsel is going out here. I have often said that up to now I have only been playing; now, at last, against the pope and the Roman arrogance, we must get serious."
As soon as Luther read Eck's theses, he in turn drew up 12 counter-theses and published them together with a letter to Carlstadt. On February 7, he sent a copy of the first printing to Spalatin. He no longer considered himself bound by the agreement he had made with Miltitz in January to let his cause rest if his opponent remained silent, because his opponent was making a new noise.
It now followed blow after blow. On March 14, 1519, Eck ordered a second disputation.
1) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 43.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 620.
3) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 622.
note with the title: Disputatio et excusatio Domini Johannis Eccii adversus criminationes F. Martini Lutter ordinis Eremitarum. This writing has two parts. The first part is a letter to two prelates, Abbot Caspar of Wessobrunn and Provost Johann of Posting, in Walch's old edition, Vol. XV, 969. The second part is the disputation note, which we include in this volume under the title: Eck's thirteen theses against Luther and Carlstadt (No. 32). In the letter, he explains why his attack is directed more at Luther than at Carlstadt, since Carlstadt is only Luther's champion, and now, in contrast to Carlstadt, he adds another thesis about free will. This henceforth takes the seventh place, and that weighty last thesis of the supremacy of the pope is now considered the thirteenth.
Carlstadt replied in 17 theses, which he published on April 26 under the title Conclusiones Carolostadii ooutra D. louuuom Loeum Dipsino 27. lluuii tuouäas. They are included in this volume (No. 33) under the title: Carlstadt Thesen wider Eck für die Disputation zu Leipzig. Eck had set June 27 as the starting date for the disputation.
Luther responded in May with 13 counter-theses, titled: Disputatio et excusatio F. Martini Luther adversus criminationes D. Johannis Eccii. We bring them (No. 34) under the title: Luthers dreizehn Thesen wider Eck. On May 16, he sent them to his friend Lang (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 34). The preface to these theses, full of biting ridicule, is Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 974.
Even before the disputation began, around mid-June 1519, the "more serious writing" against the Roman Hydra that had been promised in the letter to Lang of February 3 appeared. On June 6, Luther wrote about this to Johann Lang 4): "I now give out my reasons of proof about the so spiteful -13th thesis, for the sake of envy, which aims at my not being admitted to responsibility in Leipzig." The title of this
4) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 45.
The text is: Resolutio Lutheriana super propo- |-sitione sua decima tertia de potestate papae. The second edition, which appeared after August 18, 1519, adds to it: per autorsm locupletata. We bring it (in No. 35) under the title: Luthers Erläuterung über seine dreizehnte Thesis von der Gewalt des Pabstes (vermehrt durch den Verfasser). What is introduced in the old Walch edition, Vol. XVIII, 930, No. 50 under the title "Luthers Vorrede zur völligen Ausgabe seiner Resolutionen" (Luther's preface to the complete edition of his resolutions) is the preface to the "Erläuterung der 13. These". Because this writing appeared before the Leipzig Disputation, we have prefixed it to Luther's explanations of all theses, which were published later. With holy zeal and great earnestness and perspicacity he refutes here the opposing assertion that the pope, according to divine right, has supremacy over the whole church, from Scripture and from testimonies of the first church. At the same time we find here a clear, genuinely evangelical argument about the nature of the church and the ecclesiastical office. That the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to the church as a whole is already clearly taught.
The serious will of Duke George had finally ensured that the Leipzig disputation would take place. On June 27, the disputation was to begin according to his order. Several days before, both parties were present. Luther appeared accompanied by Carlstadt. In the escort letter, which Duke George had issued to Carlstadt on June 10, were also included "those whom he would bring with him". On June 26, Eck and Carlstadt agreed on the terms of the disputation. Carlstadt insisted that the negotiations be transcribed by notaries and agreed that these transcripts should be submitted to theological arbitrators and only then be made public. Only on July 4 Luther also signed these conditions, but with the addition that the acts would not be sent to the Roman Curia, and with the maintenance of his appeal to a general concilium. On July 14, they finally agreed on the University of Erfurt as arbitration court.
From June 27 to July 3, Eck and Carlstadt debated with each other about the free will of man. From July 4 to 14 the main battle took place between Luther and Eck. The main point of contention was the supremacy of the pope. Purgatory, indulgences, penance, absolution were discussed more in passing. The course of the disputation is described by Walch in the 15th volume under the documents belonging to the history of the Reformation. Therefore, we refrain from a more detailed description of it here.
Because Eck then claimed victory with bombastic words, Luther decided to publish a new document, the Explanations of his Theses Discussed in Leipzig (No. 36 in this volume), with a letter to Georg Spalatin of August 15, 1519, which is found in the 15th volume of Walch's old edition, Col. 1356 ff. In it, he first gives an overview of the proceedings of the Leipzig negotiations and highlights Eck's mischievous way of fighting. Then he lets follow a detailed, thorough defense of those 13 sentences and thus brings the truths defended at Leipzig from a firm, appropriate expression.
The answer to this was a "Reinigungsschrift" addressed to Caspar Schatzgeyer, Guardian of the Franciscan monastery at Nuremberg: Expurgatio loan. Eckii Theologi Ingolstadici adversus criminationes F. Martini Lutter Vuittenbergen. ordinis heremitarum. The letter is dated September 2, 1519. In the old edition, which we have, a letter from Johannes Cellarius, professor of Hebrew in Leipzig, to Wolfgang Fabricius Capito in Basel, about the course of the Leipzig disputation, is sent in advance. The date of this letter is July 31, 1519, Our edition does not name the printer or the place of printing. Wiedemanu in his writing "Eck" brings p. 505 the title of the same and says p. 506: "This writing is of great rarity. Already Löscher could not obtain a copy." Therefore Löscher (Ref.-Acta III, 804) also says erroneously.
1) "In the edition available to us: Gaspari LaltLZsir. Wiedemann writes it "Schatzger".
the writing was addressed to the University of Ingolstadt. Here, Eck contradicts Luther's letter of his "Explanations" to Spalatin in 31 points, and denies in particular that he had admitted to Carlstadt that free will, before grace makes it alive, only works for sins. Luther, however, maintains this assertion in an open missive to Eck, aä ckod. Lecium opwtolk super expurgatione LeemuL, from early November, upright?).
The correspondence between various persons of both parts following the Leipzig disputation has been assigned by Walch to the 15th volume.
Finally, it should be mentioned that also Silvester Prierias in his writing Lrrmu et arzumenta. Nailini Imtoris etc. in the last chapter, Silvester Prierias also tried his hand at Luther's 13th thesis. Although this argument also vividly illustrates the mendacious argumentation of the papal theologians, especially in favor of the Roman primacy, we must, for the sake of space, refrain from including it in the present correspondence.
Luther's enemies claimed that he had changed much in his teaching and seemed to become proud because Luther had not published anything against them for a long time, since he was overloaded with business. Therefore, during the Diet of Augsburg, when he was staying at the fortress of Coburg, he wrote against the papists, to which he gave the title: A Recantation from Purgatory. To all our descendants, Martinus Luther. (No. 37 in this volume.) In a letter to Wenceslaus Link at Nuremberg, dated July 20, 1530, he writes that he wanted to give his opponents, who "out of boredom and because they had nothing to do" raged and cried out against him, cause to rage and cry. Their lies about Purgatory are now in the press in Wittenberg. The title of the writing is meant ironically. In it, he shows that the doctrine of Purgatory has no basis in the Holy Scriptures, but that the great god Mammon, who makes of the Holy Scriptures what he wills, invented this doctrine, and in order to
1) Walch, old edition, vol. X V, 1388.
For the sake of money it would be received, because that is also the God of the right vigils [masses for souls]; without money no vigil is held. At the end of the scripture Luther says: "For you should see that if Mammon were my God, that I could give enough of twelve thousand drachmas [2 Marc. 12, 43. ff.), I would convert all sophists and heretics in one day, and abolish not only purgatory, but the whole papacy, before a moon passes. Therefore, my doctrine lacks nothing except the divinity of the great god Mammon; if I had that, it would not be heresy nor error, but the dear pure truth. But now it is erroneous and heretical. Why? Because it is poor. Poverty is my error and heresy." This writing was very sensitive to the papal clergy assembled at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg.
Against this writing, Eck wrote a "refutation" in German language, in order to maintain the purgatory from the holy scripture and to knight Luther again. An excerpt from it we share in No. 38 of this volume, where in the note to the headline the exact title has been given and the description of the original edition. The letter is addressed to the Cärdinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, and bears the date: September 2, 1530. The writing itself has two parts. In the first part, he seeks to prove that Luther is in contradiction with himself "and that his aygne geschrifft makes him a lugner," and therefore lists the passages from Luther's first writings in which he asserted and admitted Purgatory. In the second part, he endeavors to refute what Luther said in his writing with regard to the scriptural passages with which the papists want to prove Purgatory. Eck had already written four books on Purgatory against Luther, which were published under the title: I)o pur^atorio eontr" Imäckorum in the second part of his works, p. 42.
In this volume, Eck once again confronts us as a fighter against Luther, but not on his own behalf, but as a defender of the cause that Luther had taken hard with him.
Hieronymus Emser, in his "Answer for Hieronymus Emser" (No. 39 in this volume). The full Latin title of this writing has already been given in the note to the superscription of No. 39. We have left the text under this section, where Walch had placed it, but in order to avoid repetitions, we will discuss it further only in the introduction to Emser's writings. An allusion to the Canonicus Bernhard Adelmann contained by Eck in this writing became the occasion for the counter-writing written by Oekolampad: Eunoniei inäaeü ImtbsrsniZ) about which the necessary has already been said in the last note to No. 39. Wiedemann "Eck" says p. 140: "Eck considered Adelmann to be the actual author and it would soon have come to blows between the two in Augsburg. This writing attacked Eck in the lifeblood, and he himself confessed that no refutation had hurt him so in the innermost part of his soul as this one." Wiedemann, a Catholic theologian, wisely does not state what the content of this writing was, what in it could have touched Eck in his heart blood. This writing is written in a moderate tone and contains a simple testimony that they, the unlearned canonists, prefer to follow Luther rather than Eck, because Luther has raised the Holy Scriptures again and was the first to attack and put down indulgences, teaches the Lord Christ in his sermons, and leads an innocent and good life, whereby the opinion they have received from Luther is affirmed and confirmed. Eck, on the other hand, calls the divine teaching presented by Luther, who has the spirit of the apostles, error and heresy, and fights tooth and nail against the revealed truth. "There you have recently," it says, "of what shape we are Lutheran or Martinic: insofar as D. Martinus is a friend of the Gospel and of Christian liberty, we are of his part; if you are also thus done and sent, we are also dependent on you." This may have particularly annoyed the vain Eck, however, that he was reproached for having to impose his writings on the printers, while he was not the only one who had to do so.
1) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1513.
Luther's books, because they contain the truth, they steal more than they steal; Eck's writings are seldom printed for the second time. Luther's writings, on the other hand, were printed several times and in various printing houses. Towards the end it says: "No booklet has gone out from you so small that would not either have the grossest barbarity and indecency in Latin in it, or else that would not be full of errors." Wiedemann finishes this serious, evangelical testimony of Christ to salvation with the few words we have mentioned, while he immediately follows it with the worthless farce, Eccius aeolutus, in an excerpt that takes up more than six full pages.
VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne, Louvain and Paris.
After the disputation in Leipzig, contrary to Eck's expectations, the respect and affection for Luther increased. Therefore, Eck made every effort to incite both the Roman court and the theological faculties against Luther and to persuade them to condemn his teachings. He succeeded first among the theologians of Cologne, especially through Hoogstraten, a sworn enemy of Lutheran doctrine. In February 1519, Johann Frobenius in Basel published a volume containing a collection of Luther's writings, along with a preface in which Luther is highly praised. The theologians at Louvain sent this book to those at Cologne, with the request that they would place their doubts about it. On August 29, 2) 1519, the Cologne theologians pronounced their verdict of condemnation on it. They called Luther's errors: that he disparaged the meritorious works of men, perverted the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers, destroyed the Sacrament of Penance with harmful teachings, introduced perverse counsel from confession, abolished all pardon, and reduced the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church by heretical teachings.
2) Thus Walch in the introduction to the 18th volume, p. 69; in contrast, in the 15th volume, where the verdammungsuriheil is communicated, August 30, 1519; but the signature "st again from August 29.
half, this book, as harmful to the community of believers, is to be taken away, its use forbidden", it is to be forbidden and publicly burned with fire, but Luther is to be urged to a public retraction. 1)
A similar verdict of condemnation 2) was passed by the theologians of Louvain on November 7, 1519, and sent to Bishop Adrian of Tortosa, who had formerly been professor of theology in Louvain, then informator to Emperor Carl V and minister in Spain, and finally became pope. The latter answered on December 4, 1519, in a letter, 3) in which he praised the zeal of the theologians of Louvain and expressed his astonishment that Luther had been allowed to spread his errors everywhere. Luther responded to the two condemnatory verdicts in March 1520 by writing 4): Oomlvmnatio clootrinulw librorum Nurtiui Imtb. per guosckam maZi8trc>8 no8trv8 4wvuiücu8c8 ot OuloVI6N868 kaota. U68P0N8IO IwOwriank uck oumiom oomlvmnuuonow. It is addressed to the O. Christoph Blank. The timing is given to us by Luther's letter to Spalatin 5) of March 19, 1520, in which it says: "I send you the Löwen and Cologne asses, to whom I already answer in print (por tvpus)." A description of the proceedings of the University of Louvain, which came out in 1520 under the title: ireuckvmiao I,ovuuien8i8 contra Imtberum, is found in the 15th volume, Col. 1582.
At the disputation in Leipzig, Luther had united with Eck to the effect that the universities of Erfurt and Paris should fill the judgment on the disputation. Because the latter, on March 17, 1517, had not shied away from a writing: Appellutio univer8itat!8 knri8ien8i8, of the decrees of the pope and treaties with the king to a future council, so Luther had the good confidence in her that she would not let herself be held back from testifying to the truth for fear of the pope.
1) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, ff.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, I'>U2 ff. 3) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, I5U6 ff. 4) Walch, old edition, M. XV, t5W ff. 5) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 682.
In this, however, his hopes were deceived. Although the Parisians, like the University of Erfurt, did not pass judgment on the disputation, they did extract a number of sentences from several of Luther's writings, especially from the "Babylonian Captivity," and on April 15, 1521, described them as erroneous and heretical. They published their verdict under the title: votcrminatio rbeoloZicao t'acultatw karwionsio 8upcr ckoetrina Imtberana, hnctoniw per eam vwa. Luther himself translated this writing into German and provided it with a preface and an epilogue, under the title: Ein Urtheil der Theologen zu Paris über die Lehre D. Luthers. Ein Gegen Urtheil D. Luthers (No. 40 in this volume), after he had received it in July 1521 at the Wartburg. Even before that, Melanchthon, in Luther's absence, had had it printed in Latin, accompanied by a "Schutzrede Philipp Melanchthon wider dasselbe Urtheil der Pariser Theologen für D. Martin Luther" (No. 41 in this volume), which Luther himself also translated from Latin and added to his edition. 6) In this protective pamphlet, Melanchthon reproaches them for how stubbornly they clung to their useless pagan art of school theology and claimed that it was necessary for Christianity. They did not call Luther a heretic because he taught against the Holy Scriptures, but because he deviated from the high schools, the Fathers and the Councils; but they would not admit that Luther was against the Fathers and the Councils. For in the main point about free will and grace, with which Luther has the most to do, Augustine agrees with him and all those who adhere to it. There is also no old concilium that would have condemned Luther's teaching. But in recent times there have been several papal councils in which not Christ's but the Antichrist's doctrine was confirmed.
6) In a letter to Nie. plerbellius of November 1, 1521 (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 71), Vuther writes: "Pbilipp asked for me a Vertheidigungsfchrift against the Parisians, which I translated; this sUebersetzungf has also appeared."
The Sorbonne is not the Christian church which must listen to Luther, because it does not teach God's word, but its own dreams and foolish, nasty articles. Their articles, which are naked and without Scripture and without rational reason, do not accuse Luther, but condemn him. Luther, however, desires to be instructed from the holy Scriptures. From this they should state the reason and cause of their judgment.
This protective speech by Melanchthon is followed by a "joke about the verdict of damnation passed by the stupid and godless Sorbonne" (No. 42 in this volume). The Latin title is already given in the note to the title. This writing, which belongs to the year 1521, is a satire against the Parisian theologians, in which both their proceedings against Luther and their scholastic mode of expression are ridiculed. Whether Luther himself or someone else was the author is unknown. The writing is written in the name of the Parisian theologians, as a defense against Melanchthon's protective speech, in three books. In the first, a number of sentences are drawn from Melanchthon's writing and described as angry, disrespectful, scornful, foolish, mocking, false, insulting, erroneous, sacrilegious, godless, unchristian etc. In the second book, it is explained why the Sorbonne wrote what it wanted, without giving the reason, namely that the holy apostles would have done the same, Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 15. In the third book, the rules of the Sorbonne are given, according to which the holy scripture is to be understood. They come to the following: The holy scripture is dark, and one should not believe it, if it is quoted plainly, without interpretation. But the explanation should be taken from the Sorbonne, which alone is clear, must be believed and accepted.
In addition to the writings that have already been named in this volume Col. 932, two others belong to this chapter that are included in the appendix of the 19th volume, No. 20 and 21, namely Luther's Preface on Melanchthon's Responsibility, 1543, and Luther's Disputation against 32 Articles of the Theologians at Louvain, 1545.
VII Luther's dispute with Alveld.
Among the first opponents of Luther was also Augustin from Alfeld, therefore usually called Alveld, 1) Franciscan (Minorite, gray monk, barefoot), Lector of the Holy Scriptures in the monastery at Leipzig. Nothing else is known of his circumstances. He wrote many books against Luther, especially for the defense and preservation of the Roman See, therefore Luther called him a Romanist. His writings are rich in invective and blasphemy, but poor in content, for he understood little or nothing; everything that might be worth mentioning in his writings he took from Eck's or Emser's books. For this reason, even his own brothers forbade him to write books, as we can see from his letter to Carl von Miltitz 2). It says there: "I do not want it to be hidden from you that my fathers undertake to command me" that I should not write any more in the matter of faith. If you can, and because you can, provide me with the grace of the apostolic chair, so that I may freely do what I can in this matter; but in such a way that my fathers cannot suspect that this plot originates from me, but rather that your care has taken this into consideration entirely of its own accord." On May 8, 1520, Alveld sent this letter to Miltitz 3) together with his first book against Luther. Already on May 5, 1520, Luther wrote about it to Spalatin. It has the title: 8upvr spo8tolio" 8vcke, an vickolieet ckivino sitjuro, neone, nnguo pontikex, gui paps, ckiei oooprus e8t, juro ckivino in es, vrae8ickoat, von pnrum Inullnncknm ex 8aero dibliorum onnono ckeelaratinnem. Luther himself did not want to deal with the answer to this writing, but entrusted 4) the same to his friar and famulus Joh. Lonicer, 5) to whom he gave some recordings of his work.
1) Cf. Kolde, Martin Luther, p. 250.
2) Cyprian, Nützliche Urkunden zur Reformationgeschichte, vol. 2, INI.
3) Cf. Seidemann, "Miltitz," p. 23.
4) Cf. Luther's letters to Spalatin of May 8 and 13, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 03 and vol. XXI, 602.
5) On Lonicer, see Walch, old edition, vol. VII, preface, p. 16, note.
The author prepared a set of notes for Alveld, which he was to use as a basis for his work. Luther's verdict on Alveld's writing is as follows: "I have never seen, heard, or read a book that is so tasteless and foolish in all its syllables: in short, I lack the expressions with which it could be judged. The title of Loniker's reply is: Contra Homanistum k. ^.uZustinum ^Ivsläisnssm, kranciscanum lüpsicum, canonis biblici Publicum lictorsm ot tortorem. Wittenberg, 1520, addressed to Caspar Güttel. On May 13, Luther had given Lonicer his notes (De Wette, vol. I, 448), and on June 1 it was ready in print. (De Wette, Vol. I, 451.) The conclusion of this writing reads thus: "Fools should be made to listen to the Kolde. For if Alveld were such a man, who could comprehend something, both for the sake of his intellect and his erudition, Luther himself, my highly admired teacher, according to the importance of the matter, would have written against him. 1) But since he is busy with better things, he did not want to expound (pbilosoplwri) his knowledge in vain before an ass, who understands it only if one also shouts ya." Another of Alveld's writings: I-ibsIIum, guo ostsnäsre conatur, ckivino zurs Institutum boc esse, ut totius ecclesins caput romanus sit pontiksx, manufactured D. Johann Doltzsche 3) from Feldkirchen, Domherr (canonicus) zu Wittenberg, by his counter writing: Conkutatio inepti et impii libclli b'. ^uZustini illvslä, kVanciscani I-ipsici, pro O. Nartino I-utb. Wittenberg, 1520. Against this, a Franciscan at Magdeburg, Johann Fritzhans, 3) took Alveld's side.
1) Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of May 3, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 692.
Ibidem, p. 99, 2nd column: IloltsoOinm is a Drucksebler instead of Holtsckinm. Walch in the old edition, p. 73 of the introduction, asked Johann Veltkirchen for another person taken as Job. Doltzsche, lind therefore knows nickt to explain how Elias Frick in Seckendorfs Historie des Lutherthums, p. 584, comes to attach this writing to Johann Dolsche.
3) Ueber Fritzkians vergleiche Seckendorf, Hist. Dutk., Ud. I, p 240, 8oet. 55, K 139; and p 24", Xcick. 2.
In a small writing: Lpistola exbortatori" kratris äobannis kritrbans aä kratrem ^. uxustiuum Mveläiauum, kranciscanum, ne terreatur ot eonturbetur conkutatione kratris ckob. Veltlcirckon, guia se ipso inäiAna, guuw sit oontumeliosk. But Fritzhans did not remain long among the ranks of Luther's opponents. In 1523 he was expelled by his friars and came to Wittenberg as a follower of Luther's teachings.
Alveld was tireless in producing and publishing new books against Luther. On August 3, 1520, Luther wrote to Johann Voigt in Magdeburg: "The Leipzig donkey writes many books against me." 4) Therefore Luther also calls him 5) the "book writer at Leipzig, who would also be worthy of a cardinal's hat with his corners", and 6) him together with another, perhaps Rubens 7): "the two paper molesters at Leipzig". In July 1520 he published his Tractatus äs comwunious sub utragus spscie, guantum aä laicos. 8) About this writing Luther writes to Spalatin July 22, 1520 9): "The donkey at Leipzig has let a new roar be heard against me, which is full of invective, from the Communion under both forms, and will also write against my German writing from the Pabst." Furthermore, Alveld published: JInIaZma Optimum, contra inlirmitatsm äuorum virorum, kratris stob. Iwnicsri, tbcoior?8tas, st kratris Martini I-utbsri. Later (perhaps in January 152310) ) Luther mentioned this writing in a letter to Joh. Brismann: "Thus one writes swords, another syrup, another plaster" (Malagmata). He also published writings in German: "Ein Sermon von der sacramentlichen Beicht, ob dieselbe den sterblichen Menschen zu der Seligkeit gäntzlich von Nöthen, oder nicht noth".
4) Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 710, where an ugly misprint has remained: "der Wittenb. Esel". Likewise vol. XV, appendix, no. 64.
5) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XII, 1440, §3.
6) Walch, old edition, vol. V, 456, 868.
7) Cf. Eol. 1208, am. 2. Auck elsewhere Luther puts this worthy pair together. See Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 781,85.
8) Cf. Seidemann. "Miltitz," p. 28.
9) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 727, 8 3.
10) Cf. De Wette, vol. II, 287; Walch, old ed. Vol. XIX, 673.
1521; "Ein gar fruchtbar und nutzbarlich Büchlein von dem päbstlichen Stuhle und von St. Peter." Likewise: ^ssortio in oantivum: salvo reZill," Leipzig 1527, an explanation of the song with which one pays idolatrous reverence to the Virgin Mary in the Papacy, and many other books. 1)
All of Alveld's writings are miserable, meager, simple works of art, which is why Luther answered him with only one writing to his many books, and Walch has only included Alveld's small letter to Luther (No. 43 in this volume), in which he announces the feud to Luther. Alveld is said to have given rise to the vehement and mocking writing that some, around the year 1520, used in Luther's affairs from both sides, for despite his very weak evidence, Alveld acted with immoderate self-confidence and showered Luther with an abundance of the choicest rudeness. 2)
Luther's writing against Alveld has the title: Vom Pabstthum zu Rom, wider den hochberühmten Romanisten zu Leipzig. (No. 44 in this volume.) It will have gone out at the end of June 1520, because on May 31, 1520, Luther writes to Spalatin 3): "I have finished the German writing against Alveld's ass; it is already growing under the press," and on June 25 he writes to the same 4): "Tomorrow Silvester (the epitome of Prierias with Luther's preface and epilogue) and the German Romanist [in print] will be ready." About this writing Luther writes to Spalatin 5) (beginning of June, 1520): "I will attack (inveimr) Alveld's donkey in such a way that I am not unaware of the Roman pope, and I will not give anything to either of them. For the material requires this with necessity. Finally, the secrets of the
1) These are listed in von der Hardt's ^nto skrnpll. I.uOit-r., toi". Il, r>. 41 and 60; Cyprian, Nützliche Urkunden zur Resorm.-Gesch., Th. 2, p. 157; D. Hofmann, Reform.-Historie der Stadt und Universität Leipzig, 8.147; Innocent News 1718, p. 930, and 1'udrioiun oontikol. 4,utkeran., p. 726.
2) Kolde, "Martin Luther," p. 251.
3) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 695.
4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 7W.
5) Walch, old edition, "d. XXI, 724. De Wette, "d. 1,451.
Antichrist will be revealed. For in this way they force themselves out and do not want to be hidden any longer. In this scripture Luther proves quite splendidly that the supremacy of the pope does not come from divine but from human order. If the pope and the Romans were to confirm all bishops and priests free of charge, without money, and provide all churches with good preachers, and if they were to insist that this came to them from divine order, they themselves would insist that it was not divine order. Now, however, since Mainz alone, for example, has had to buy the episcopal mantle eight times from Rome, each time for thirty thousand florins, not to mention other innumerable bishoprics, prelatures and fiefdoms, it must be divine order that no bishop should be without Roman authority. The Christian Church is the assembly of all believers in Christ on earth, therefore it does not make anyone a heretic if he is not under the pope, but "not believing rightly" makes heretics. In Christianity, even on earth, there is no head other than Christ, who also has no governor on earth. Therefore the Christian Church is not bound to Rome, but, as far as the world is, is gathered together in One Faith, spiritually and not bodily. The gospel, baptism and the Lord's Supper are the signs by which one can outwardly notice where the church is. The rock on which the church is built is not Peter nor his authority (which he does not have), but Christ and faith alone, which the gates of hell are not able to overcome. "Pasture" does not mean to sit on top, to rule and to have power, but before Christ commands Peter to pasture, he asks him three times if he loves him. Only the one who loves Christ, who is obedient to him, will also feed Christ's sheep with the Gospel. Although the pope has come to such supremacy without divine counsel, yes, out of God's wrathful counsel, to the plague of the world, Luther does not want us to resist the pope, but to bear such authority with all patience, as if the Turk were over us. But Luther stipulates two things: People are not to set new articles of faith as if those
Luther wants to receive everything that the pope sets, does, and does in such a way that he first judges it according to the Holy Scriptures.
For the characterization of Alveld, Walch has also included the sentences of Alveld, which were discussed in Weimar in 1522 on the day of Fabian and Sebastian (January 20) (No. 45 in this volume). There are seven of them, which should serve to defend the monastic life and to glorify the Order of the Barefoot. Johann Lang at Erfurt countered these with as many sentences against Alveld's Weimar disputation, which we have reported in No. 46. By these, Alveld's theses are completely set down with evangelical truth.
VIII. Luther's dispute with Latomus.
The first writing, which Walch has included in his edition in this section, is the translation of the letter: Limou ÜV88U8, Laoro-sanetas 8oä>8 u.p08toIiLae protonotarius, pontilieis kamiliarw, all Uartinum Imtd. äoot. tdooloZum, 1521. German by Walch under the title: Simon Hessens, päbstlichen Protonotarii, Ursachen, warum Luthers Bücher verdammt worden, 1521. 1) This writing is a satyrical justification of the verdict of condemnation, which the pope had passed on the articles, which Luther for his part upheld in the writing 2): "Grund und Ursach aller Artikel, so durch die römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt worden" [Reason and cause of all articles that have been unlawfully condemned by the Roman bull], 1520. It is a mistake that one has thought that Latomus wrote this writing against Luther, and that it was written in earnest. This has already been noted by Walch in his introduction to this volume, p. 77, § 2. Simon Heffus is a fictitious name adopted by the satyr. This writing has nothing to do with Luther's dispute against Latomus. The only place where it is connected with the matter
1) In the old edition, Col. 1301, the writing is dated December 23, 1520. - In the introduction, p. 77, the title of the German edition is differently "verbrannt" instead of "verdammt".
2) Walch, alte AuSg., vol. XV, 1752.
of Latomus could be brought together is in the penultimate paragraph: "So you, my Luther, have heard the causes from your Hesse, why those at Cologne and Louvain burned your books because of your aforementioned articles." Of the collective editions, only the Latin Wittenberger, ltom. II, t'vl. 131. That we are dealing with a satyr is irrefutably shown by the words at the end: "For as I sat in the tavern among a bunch of drunks, nothing better occurred to me." In order that the reader may judge for himself, we will put here some of what is brought up to justify the Pope against the articles cited by Luther. All articles of "Grund und Ursach" etc. are presented in order; however, we only want to give a short summary of the refutation of the first eight articles.
1. it would destroy the income of the apostolic see, because some sacraments, such as ordination and marriage, are very profitable.
2. 3. 4. are justly condemned, because they are against Eck, the brave defender of the papal chair and the sharp-sighted maker of the terrible bull. For some articles had to be condemned for the sake of the Roman court, but others for Eck's sake, because without him the bull would not have come into being.
(5) Not only the penance of the scholastics, but also the least part of it, the pardon, had been a rich and profitable realm; the consciences of the simple-minded had to be tormented with the torture of pardon, so that they would obey all the decrees and laws of the pope the sooner.
6 The Pope might not have condemned this article, but Eck, who had traveled such a long way, should have been at his will.
This article is highly detrimental to the Pope's income, and is therefore cursed by the Roman court.
8 The Roman court would prefer that nothing be known except the spiritual rights and commandments of the popes, and had lived quite quietly for many hundred years. From this tranquility
Luther had disturbed him by causing people to ponder the innumerable crickets and complaints of scholastic theology, so that now a layman almost wants to know more about matters of faith than those who wear the bishop's hat and show by the costume (the two points on the bishop's hat) that they understand both Testaments.
The foregoing will suffice to form an opinion about this writing. We have not considered it necessary to reprint it.
Jacob Latomus was a native of Cambron in the county of Hainaut (Flanders in Belgium). Because French is spoken there, Luther calls him a Frenchman in the Table Talks 1). He stayed in Paris and later went to Leuven, where he was appointed Doctor of Theology and Canon of St. Peter's Abbey. In the complete edition of his works he is simply called Professor of Theology at Louvain. He died in Louvain on May 29, 1544. 2) His end was a frightening one, for he despaired of the grace of God 3) until his death. In the previously mentioned passage from the Table Talks, Luther gives Latomus the testimony that he was excellent among all his opponents, and Bavarus 4) reports that Luther preferred him to all his opponents, and called all others only croaking frogs in comparison with him.
The works of Latomus were published in Louvain on July 29, 1550 in a folio volume of 214 leaves, edited by his brother's son, who was also named Jakob Latomus. This edition is in our hands. The writings included in this collection are not everywhere the same as the first editions of the same, but, as the younger Latomus notes in the preface, often improved by his grandfather himself. He says: "Here you will find much that has been changed for the better by himself, which in the former
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, p4S. Tischreden, cap. 28, tz 20. - In the Hall manuscript (LindsM I, p. ISOi Latomus is called a Spaniard, because at that time the Netherlands belonged to Spain.
2) Bretschneider's Corpus Lekormatorum, V, 432.
3) Seckendorf Hist. Cutk., Uk. Ill, p. 653, soot. 37, 1136.
4) Dow. I LlS., x. 438.
edition has been read either almost mutilated, or not quite adequately, or not clearly enough expressed." The collection contains 16 writings. 5) Only those for which we have given the time are provided with dates in the letters, for all others the time is missing. They are the following: 1. Contra articulos quosdam Martini Lutheri a Theologis Lovan. damnatos, den lezten December 1520. 2. Responsio ad libellum a Luthero emissum pro articulis a Theologis Lovaniensibus damnatis. 3. De primatu pontificis adversus Lutherum, den 25. März 1525. 4. De variis quaestionum generibus, quibus certat Ecclesia intus et foris.-De Ecclesia. 5. de ratione obligandi humanae legis. 6. de confessione secreta, ben 6. silui 1525. 7. ad Helleboron Joannis Oecolainpadii responsio. 8. de fide et operibus, ben 6. 3uni 1530. 9. de Monachorum institutis, votis et horum obligationibus. 10. de trium linguarum et studii theologici ratione dialogus, 1519. 11. pro dialogo de tribus linguis apologia. 12. adversus librum D. Erasini de sarcienda ecclesiae concordia. 13. confutationum adversus Gui- lielmum Tindalum libri tres, ben 12. suni 1542. 14. de matrimonio. 15. de quibusdam articulis in ecclesia controversis (namely: de precibus pro defunctis;6 ) de cultu imaginum; de reliquiis sanctorum; de festis; de missa). 16 Disputatio quodlibetica, tribus quaestionibus absoluta.
We are concerned here only with the first writing in which Latomus seeks to justify the procedure of the Löwen theologians, which Walch cites under the following title: ^rticulorum dootriuus F. Martini Lutheri, per tbeoloAOS Dovuuieuses dumnutorum ratio ex suoris litteris, et veteribus traotutoribus, Antwerp 1521, in quarto. In the collection it does not have this title, as can be seen from the above table of contents (oatuloAus). In the text, however, it is found without a title in the form of a letter to Rudolph von Monckedam, licentiate of theology and vice pastor at Gouda (in Holland), dated the last of December 1520. It comprises 53 folio leaves. This is the only writing of the Lato
5) The index of the book lists 17, but the fourth writing is to be regarded as an introduction to the fifth and forms a whole with it.
6) Walch gives this as a special writing.
Luther replied to it very reluctantly, as he wrote to Melanchthon on May 26, 1521 1) because he was busy with quiet studies, but nevertheless thought it necessary to reply to him himself, even though he was disgusted to even read such a lengthy and poorly written text. His refutation is entitled: ksrioms UtowianLv pro ineolläiuriis I^ovanionoio 8ebols.o 8oplu8tis reääitrre Imtbormna conkutatio. We bring this writing of Luther (No. 47 in this volume) under the title: Luther's Refutation of Latomus' Reasoning for the Murderous Sophists of the School of Louvain. The place and time of writing is given at the end of the letter to Justus Jonas, namely: at the Wartburg, on June 8, 1521. As Latomus was outstanding among Luther's opponents, for he alone sought, as Mathesius 2) says, to refute Luther's doctrine with Scripture, which none of the Roman writers had done before: so also Luther's writing against Latomus is probably the most outstanding of all his controversial writings. In the place cited Mathesius writes: "In this learned book he deals with the letter and spirit, law and gospel, Mosis and JEsu Christ's office, what is sin and grace, and how we are justified and blessed before God through faith in Christ alone, so diligently that, as much as I understand of Christianity, after his other interpretation of the epistle to the Galatians and of the Lord Philippi's epistle to the Romans and his I-ooie oommunibuo, I have read nothing more void and thorough." Seckendorf 3) also gives an extremely accurate judgment: "'It is impossible for God's law to be fulfilled if divine grace does not come to the rescue; and: 'every good work is sin' if God's mercy does not forgive. 4) Yes, we can appeal to the judgment of anyone who is not completely obtuse, or in the highest degree malicious, who has read the refutation, whether or not Luther, though he was not then influenced by any
1) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 79.
2) Mathesius, Luther's Life, St. Louis Edition, E.48f.
3) Hist. I,utk., tik. I, p. 164, soct. 45, ? 101.
4) The "before" is abbreviated.
Luther, who has been taught by other books than the holy Scriptures, as he reports, has interpreted these two sentences so learnedly, so thoroughly, yes, so divinely (äivine), and has shut the mouths of all opponents so completely that nothing can be raised against it without obvious godlessness or the most wretched sophistry. Truly, this booklet of Luther's shines among the others that were written at that time, like the moon among the lesser stars, and I would like to say that if he had written nothing else in his entire life, he would be equal to the greatest teachers of the church already for the sake of this one. In it he interprets the most important sayings of the prophets and apostles so learnedly, but destroys the interpretations (>108888) of the sophists most strikingly, so that the right sense of the Holy Spirit must become absolutely known to the hearts of those who read godly and attentively."
Very briefly we must also mention a small error, which became the occasion for the papists to call Luther an Arian and to accuse him of having tried to make St. Jerome an Arian as well. For Luther had said from an error of memory 5) that Jerome had desired that the word o>o be abolished, while he had used this speech in reference to the word ü^ras,? On the basis of the following words, the papists have now raised the accusation of Arianism against Luther: "Now if my soul hated the expression, and I did not want to use it, I would not therefore be a heretic. For who would compel me to use [this word], if I only hold the thing which was established by Scripture at the Concilium?" It needs no proof for the sincere reader that either only a man of disturbed senses, or a malicious one, could build on this the accusation of Arianism. Incidentally, this passage contested by the papists has absolutely no influence on the doctrines defended by Luther against Latomus, because Luther only refers to this as the "Arianism".
5) Luther had only the Bible at hand at the Wartburg, but not the writings of the Fathers, as he says himself towards the end of Wider Latomus.
The word "sin" was used by the apostle Paul as an example to prove that the sophists had no right to introduce other weakening expressions without and against God's word.
IX. Luther's dispute with Emser.
Eck found a zealous defender and ally in his fight with Luther in Hieronymus Emser. The Leipzig disputation was also the occasion for him to put the Pope's supremacy in its place.
We first acquaint ourselves with the person and the life and work of this overzealous friend of the Pabst and enemy of the Reformation in general.
Hieronymus Einser was born in Ulm on March 26, 1477. In contrast to another Hieronymus Einser, who was born in Ulm, he often called himself "den Elderen". He came from a noble family, which had both on top of the helmet and below in the shield the front of a buck in the coat of arms. In his youth, Emser attended school in Tübingen, where he learned the rudiments of the Greek language from Dionysius Reuchlin, a brother of the famous Johann Reuchlin. According to Erasmus' testimony, he made great progress in the Latin language and poetry. About in the twentieth. In the twentieth year of his life, he turned to Basel and devoted himself to the study of law. However, he was probably also occupied with theology, since he began to study the Hebrew language in 1499. Some insulting verses on the Swiss, which he sent to a fellow student, almost led to his imprisonment. Christoph von Ukenheim, later bishop of Basel, took his side.
Around 1500, Emser became secretary and chaplain to the famous Cardinal Raymund von Gurck, with whom he traveled through Germany and Italy for two years. After a short stay in Strasbourg, he settled in Erfurt, where he became a master and began to teach the Humaniora. According to his pretence, Luther should have been his listener here.
when he explained Sergiuo, a comedy by Johann Reuchlin. From 1504 on, Emser continued his studies and lectures in Leipzig and earned the degree of Baccalaureus of Theology there in 1505. From then on, however, his main subject was canon law. Gottfried Arnold in his Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie, p. 531, J. C. Funke in his Reformationshistorie, p. 81, Seckendorf in his Historie des Lutherthums, p. 221, give him as a professor in Leipzig. But there is no evidence for this claim. From 1505 on, he held the position of secretary and orator to Duke George of Saxony for several years. In 1510 he sent him to Bohemia and Rome to promote the canonization of Benno of Meissen. He attributed his recovery from a serious illness to this very saint. From then on, he lived as a private man, partly in Meissen, partly in Dresden, from several fat prebends. Since 1518, he had the title of presbyter.
In a letter to Spalatin of January 14, 1519, the latter comments on his first meeting with Luther in Dresden in 1518: "Together with our Johann Lang 1) and our prior in Dresden [Melchior Mirisch], I was almost more coerced than invited by Hieronymus Emser to a small evening drink. I thought I was among friends here, but soon realized that I had been ambushed. There was a little Leipzig magister there, 2) a wretched Thomist, who miraculously let himself think that he knew everything. He, who was full of hatred against me, first received me kindly, but then, when a disputation had arisen, he started at me violently and with shouts. In the meantime, without my knowing it, a mendicant brother of the Dominicans (praedicutorum) was standing outside, listening to everything and bragging (as I heard later) that he had been very indignant and could hardly hold himself not to drive off and spit in my face and defile me with "all"" names of abuse. So much it had
1) Joh. Lang, prior of the Augustinians at Erfurt, was present as district vicar at the Augustinian Convention in Dresden assembled there.
2) It was called Weißestadt; cf. Bindseil, Ooltoyuia, 1,152.
I tormented the man that I refuted that little magister's Thomas. This is the same man who boasts everywhere to this day that I was so overcome that I could no longer have answered either a Latin or a German word. Because (as it happens) we were also arguing in German in the middle of it, he confidently said, I don't understand a word of Latin. Incidentally, our disputation revolved around the antics of Aristotle and Thomas. I showed that neither Thomas nor all Thomists together had understood even one chapter in Aristotle. At the end, when he boasted mightily, I asked him to explain to me with all the powers of Thomistic learning what it means to fulfill the commandments of God; I said that there was no Thomist who could do this. Then the riffraff, aware of his ignorance, exclaimed: First give food (for that is what the schoolmasters' school fees are called); for what else could he answer, who knew nothing else? Laughing at this lame answer, we parted. Later, the prior of Dresden wrote to me how they had bragged and insulted me, even at the court of the prince [Duke George], as an ignorant, arrogant and, I don't know, what other kind of person..... Hieronymus Emser then apologized profusely, and when he came to me the other day in Leipzig, he swore that he had not intended to ambush me. I answered him, however, that I had despised such futile rage, as I still do today. If they are so learned, there are types and paper; they may issue something and show the glory of their splendid erudition."
In 1519, Emser attended the Leipzig Disputation. Seb. Fröschel in the preface to his book von dem Königreich JEsu Christi, Witt. 1566, reports on this: "On Saturday after Corporis Dlnisti, Bock Emser came, Dear Domino, from whence come you. You shall be called k-rroits, who the pious Emser wer. The same Bock Emser came to me and to other young -UaZimrw more, and asked us because of the Uvetoris and the University, that we wanted to stand on the Sunday with the Dr. Ecken, and with him
go to the castle." In a special conversation with him Luther let fall the much disputed remark: "The game was not started in God's name, it will also not end in God's name." This is where the hot scriptural battle begins, which Emser and Luther had with each other.
Of Emser's later life and fate, there is nothing more important to add. He died in Dresden on November 8, 1527. Of his other writings, which he published in abundance, only "Das heilige Leben und Legende des seligen Vaters Bennonis, weiland Bischof zu Meißen. 1517" and his translation of the New Testament, which he worked on from 1523 and in which he both fought and copied Luther.
Emser owes his fame solely to his opponent Luther. In theology, especially in the Scriptures, he was as blind as a heathen. In erudition, skill and agility he was no match for his champion Eck, only equal to him in courage, cunning and deceit. In other respects, too, his character is not flawless. He does not reject Luther's reproach that he lives in concubinage with a Bohemian woman, but declares in his following writing A venatione Duterians, er". 1519, that it is not wrong to find pleasure in a beautiful woman, whether Bohemian or Saxon. In his short self-biography, which he gives in this same writing, he admits that he had often allowed himself to be seduced by common human vices. However, according to God's wonderful counsel, this miserable, ignorant, vain man had to serve to draw the bright light of Luther's teachings out of the Papal darkness.
In 1519, on July 16 and 17, two preachers from Prague, from the party of the Utraquists, who administered Holy Communion in both forms and were otherwise attached to the truth known from John Hus, namely John Poduschka, presbyter at the Cathedral Church of the Blessed Virgin, and Wenceslaus Rossdalovicky. Provost of the College of St. Charles, by letter to
Luther, wished him luck for what he was negotiating in Leipzig. They wished him luck, urged him to remain steadfast, and assured him of their prayers and intercessions. Luther received these letters only on October 3, 1519. Cf. his letter to Spalatin of October 3, 1519. De Wette I, 341. However, the content of these letters had already become known before. In general, however, the partisanship of the Bohemians for Luther, especially the rumor that the Bohemians had implored victory from God for Luther during the Leipzig Disputation, prompted Jerome Emser to write a letter about the Disputation at Leipzig, insofar as the Bohemians were occasionally remembered therein (No. 48 in this volume) (Vv disputations Iüp8ioensi, guantum uck Loemog obiter ckeüexu est Lpistola 8ier6n^mi Lmser) of August 13, 1519. He addressed it to Johann Zack, administrator of the Catholic Church at Prague and provost at Leitmeritz, and gives himself the appearance of having published this letter, partly to strengthen and encourage the Catholic party in Bohemia, partly to convince the other Bohemians who had separated themselves from the Roman Church that they were invoking Luther in vain, since the latter had refused to be the advocate of the Bohemians at the Leipzig disputation. Luther had also asserted the supremacy of the pope over the Bohemians, albeit according to human law, in which latter point he was only right insofar as the election of the pope was based on human law. Especially with the reference to the divine right of the Old Testament high priest, Emser then goes on to justify the divine dignity of the pope.
In his reply "M. Luthers Zusatz zu Einsers Bock" (No. 49 in this volume) i-Vä ^oZooerotem Lmssrianum N. Imtiwri aäämo), end of September 1519, Luther rightly complains about Emser's spitefulness and
1) Even two years later in his writing "An den Stier zu Wittenberg" Emser claims that it was not a mere pretense, but an honest, sincere intention to act. "But already the circumstance", says Kolde, "Martin Luther", p. 210, "that he gave the otherwise insignificant and little motivirten Bries into the pressure, lied the "treacherous" intention of the author to recognize."
Lying. It is only cunning and falsehood that Emser defends Luther against the Bohemians and protects his orthodoxy. Luther assures that it pleases him if the Bohemians like his teachings. In his defense of the well-known 13th thesis, he particularly highlights the difference between the Old Testament and New Testament priesthood.
Now the so brave (korti88imus) Eck stepped back into the breach. On October 28, 1519, he completed his "Reply for Hieronymus Emser against Luther's mad hunt" in the form of a letter to the Bishop of Meissen, Johann von Schleynitz, which we have already reported in No. 39 of this volume under the dispute with Eck. This writing contains essentially only invective against Luther, a sophistical distortion of his words, and is in this respect characteristic of the way of fighting of the papal theologian. With regard to the main point of contention, Eck refers to his future writing "Von der Oberhoheit Petri."
Emser himself countered Luther in a new writing, "Emser's assertion of his buck of the Lutheran hunt (X venmiono ImtsrikML ^e^oovrotis L88vrtio. Lmser.), in the second half of November 1519. Luther rightly judged this in a letter to Spalatin of November 19, 1519: "Emser finally rages and pours out all his fury. But nothing to the matter." Luther left both of Eck's and Emser's writings unanswered.
The dispute between Emser and Luther entered a new stage two years later, after Luther had published his epoch-making Reformation treatise "An den deutschen Adel, von des christlichen Standes Besserung. Emser, a man addicted to writing and fame, wanted to share in the glory of dampening the Reformation that had begun. Thus, in 1521, he set about editing a larger writing, "Wider das unchristliche Buch Martini Lutheri, Augustiners, an den deutschen Adel ausgegangen, Widerlegung Hieronymi Emsers." This eighteen-sheet work is, as we see at the end, "Completed at Leipzig on the day of Fabiani and Sebastiani Martyrum (20th Ja-.
nuar 1521) and printed by Martinum Herbipolensem (Landsberg)." It has the motto: "Hüt dich, der Bock stößt dich" ("Beware, the goat pushes you"), which was the reason for Luther to address his answer "to the goat in Leipzig". Already on January 14, 1521, Luther had news that Emser was occupied with this writing, because on this day he writes to Staupitz: "Emser writes in Leipzig against me in German, at the instigation of Duke George, who rages against me"; and on January 21 he writes to Spalatin: "Emser writes in Leipzig against me with great courage; I despise Murner"; likewise on the same day to Wenceslaus Link: "Emser writes against me, I will confront the beast, for he acts on the orders of his furious Duke George." (Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, nos. 58 and 66.) Here he attacks Luther with a threefold weapon, the sword of the Holy Scriptures, the long spear of the long-standing custom and old conventions of the Christian church, the sword of the interpretation of the holy fathers and teachers. He acknowledges the ruin of the church. He writes: "True it is, and all too rude in the day, that wickedness, dishonor, and vice, in these latter times of ours, have so cruelly prevailed among the clergy and the worldly, the noble and the ignoble, rulers and subjects, man and woman, young and old, that all human trades and dealings have become so utterly translated, mischievous, false, and unfaithful. the fear of God and brotherly love and faithfulness so utterly extinguished, and the world so utterly perverted, that it has never been so bad with any people, Jews, Gentiles, Turks or Tatars in the church, that even where things are not changed by a new serious reformation, the last day must come by necessity." Nevertheless, he subsequently defends all the abuses of the Roman Church that Luther had castigated and, above all, the divine authority and supremacy of the Roman See.
When Luther (probably towards the end of January 1521) received the first sheet 1) of this writing and
1) Emser's writing weaves only came into Luther's hands towards the middle of February, because on February 17, 1521, he wrote to Spalatin: "Emser has finally spat out his poison for the benefit of his Duke George. I feel compelled to reply to the man, if only to protect his
he declared in a short letter "An den Bock zu Leipzig" 1521 (No. 50 in this volume), which will be published at the end of January, that he knows how to answer and will also speak for the love of truth, even if it is difficult to deal with such an insolent blasphemer and liar. In his answer "To the Bull at Wittenberg" (one sheet, quarto), Emser defended his truthfulness with weak reasons. Although this writing, as well as the following smaller writings, appeared without indication of time and place, two statements made in it give us some clue to determine the time. On page A 2 it says: "But your pompous spirit, which feeds you my quatrains before they come out of the pen, cannot suffer" etc. Page A 3: "On the other hand, because from this quatern (which has come to you through treason, before I then give my book to day)... you may well decrease" etc. Both sayings indicate that at the time Luther received the first Quaker, Einser's book "Wider das unchristliche Buch Martini Lutheri, Augustiners, an den deutschen Adel" etc. was under the press. We assume that this took place between January 20, the day Einser completed it, and February 17, when Luther, as he told Spalatin on that day, had a finished copy in his hands. At the end of the last-mentioned writing, as already mentioned above, it does not say: "Printed and completed on January 20", but: "Completed on January 20 and printed by" etc. Therefore, perhaps Emser's writing "An den Stier zu Wittenberg" is to be shredded in February, but much more Luther's answer to it, although the same Emser's "Wider das unchristliche Buch" etc. also still precedes as future, as we can assume from these words: "If your first Sextern in the beginning so grossly narrt, was
ner quite impudent lies. For Murner I can after nicbt, and how could I answer all ^) ?" - Murner's writing "an den grosnnachügsten und durchlauchtigsten Adel teutscher Nation" was already in Luther's hands on January 14, 1521. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, Anbang, no. 20. s
2) Cf. De Wette 1, !>16 f. In the introduction of De Wetter, the name "Eck" is inadvertently written twice instead of "Emser".
will the twenty that follow do? What you write will be a fool's work and blasphemy. In his rebuttal "Auf des Bocks zu Leipzig Antwort" (No. 51 in this volume), Luther demonstrated his embarrassment, especially with an example of Emser: He knew quite well that he, Luther, had had the Leipzig disputation in mind when he made that statement in Leipzig about the game that had not begun in God's name and would not end in God's name. Against his better knowledge and conscience, Emser related this judgment to Luther's work, as if Luther had admitted that he had not begun his cause in God's name. Luther defies this shameful slander with the assurance that his teaching is of God, and that he will answer for it against Eck, Emser, Pabst and all his liars and deceivers, even if strife, rebellion and tumult should be awakened by God's word. "Emsers Duplik auf des Stieres zu Wittenberg wüthende Replik" (three sheets, quarto) concluded this intermediate trade. Also this writing of Emser's is probably still to be assigned to the month of February.
Luther's actual rebuttal followed in March 1521, in the rebuttal: "Antwort auf das überchristliche, übergeistliche und überkünstliche Buch des Bocks Emsers zu Leipzig, nebst ein Anhang an Murner, desselben Gesellen." (No. 52 in this volume). (No. 52 in this volume.) This writing will be meant, since Luther writes to Spalatin on March 6, 1521: "An answer against Emser is in progress"; and on March 29, when sending it to Johann Lang: "You see that I have worked on my ass Emser." And this is now again a classic, Reformation writing. In contrast to the Roman papacy and priesthood, he describes and praises the spiritual priesthood of all believers, and in this context shows the difference between Scripture and custom, between Scripture and the glosses of the fathers, between letter and spirit, law and gospel.
Emser's response to this writing is entitled: "Hieronymi Emsers Quadruplica auf Luthers jüngst gethane Antwurt, seyn refor-
mation." Leipzk 1521. quarto. Seven sheets. This writing must have appeared at the beginning of July 1521, for on July 13 Luther wrote to Melanchthon (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 75): "I will not answer Einser; let someone answer who seems to you to be puffing, such as Amsdorf; but perhaps he is too good to be sullied with such muck." But since no one could be found willing to write against Einsern, Luther finally set out himself, probably not until October 1521, to answer this writing of Emser. Since Emser in this writing mainly dealt with refuting Luther's opinion that according to 1 Petr. 2, 9. all Christians were spiritual and priests, Luther defended this in the small writing: Widerspruch seines Irrthums, erzwungen durch den allerhochgelehrtesten Priester GOttes, Herrn Hieronymum Emser, Vicarium zu Meißen (No. 53 in this volume), which put an end to Luther's dispute with Emser. On November 13, 1521, Emser had completed his rebuttal to this writing in Dresden and had it printed in Leipzig under the title: "Bedingung auff Luters orsten Widerspruch. In it, he attacks Luther's Reformation by saying that it was undertaken with dishonest intentions and praises the blind faith of the charcoal burners, p. D 1b: "The common people do not need great scripture. - They believe what the holy Christian church believes, as the charcoal burner did, so they exist dead and alive." (Waldau, Hier. Einsers Leben und Schriften, p. 48.)
Emser also directed his attack against other writings of Luther, e.g.: "Wider den falsch genannten geistlichen Stand des Pabsts und der Bischöfe" (Walch, old ed., vol. XIX, 836); "Wider den neuen Abgott und alten Teufel, der zu Meißen erhalten soll" (Walch, old ed., vol. XV, 2772); "Von dem Greuel der Stillmeffe" (Walch, old ed., (Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 1459); however, it is not necessary to go into further detail here, partly because Luther no longer answered Emsern, and partly because the relevant writings of Luther are assigned to other volumes in our edition.
X. Luther's dispute with the Minorites at Jüterbock.
In order to describe the course of this dispute 1), we go back, as does the Weimar edition, to the two letters which the Lector of the Franciscans in Jüterbock, Bernhard Tappen, addressed to the episcopal vicar, Jakob Gropper, on May 4, 1519, and the following day to the Bishop of Brandenburg, Hieronymus Scultetus. These two letters appeared in print shortly after they were written, under the title:' ^rüouli per kratrcs ^linoro" sie obsorvantia propositi rcvoroiulissimo äomino cpiscopo Lian(louburZvn. contra Imterano". 2) Ucvvrenllo clowino llncol,n Oroppcr revcronäissimi clowini preoulis eeelosiac Lranäcnsiurgon. vicario. benv werito. atguo "empor cliZno in Obristo "empor "ibi oolenllo crater Lerubarllus Dappon orsiinis Llinorum. 6 leaves in quarto, last leaf blank. As the occasion for these letters is given, in the letter to Gropper, this: On April 29, 1519, the Guardian of the Franciscan monastery and Bernhard Tappen brought complaints before the episcopal vicar about certain articles which a new preacher there, Magister Thomas, 3) was supposed to have brought forward in his sermons. Since the vicar did not want to deal with this matter in the absence of the bishop, he requested that this deal be drawn up in writing so that he could present it to the bishop. This was done, and on this occasion other complaints were added to the two documents.
During the last Lent, the Guardian of the Franciscan Monastery summoned M. Franz Günther, preacher at St. Nicolai Church in Jüterbock (the same one who defended the propositions against scholastic theology on September 4, 1517), because it was rumored that he had preached: one needs
1) Because this has been done (except in the Weim. edition) so far in a quite incorrect way by koscher, Walch, De Wette, Wiedemann and in the Erlangen edition, we have allowed ourselves a little more detail here, since the two writings are "Tappen" in our countries. Both koscher and Walch assure that the letter to the bishop is no longer available.
2) Here we meet for the first time the designation "Lutheran" for the followers of Luther. (Weim. Ausg.)
3) Müntzer. Weiln. Vol. II, 821.
not to confess, not to fast, not to invoke the saints, and that the Bohemians were better Christians than we. As witnesses to this trial, Günther had taken with him the prior of the Augustinians at Wittenberg (Conrad Held) and another Augustinian (socium ejusdem), who was also Magister and Lector of Theology. With regard to the articles mentioned, Günther denied that he had preached them. In free conversation about various subjects, however, the Wittenberg lecturer expressed as his conviction that he thought nothing of the general conciliarities, that the pope was not the governor of Christ, nor Peter the prince of the apostles, that the canons were ordered for the sake of the avarice of the pope and the bishops. There were no reserved cases, no evangelical counsels, but everything in the Gospel was commanded. The auricular confession is not of divine right. God demands from every Christian the highest perfection and the observation of the whole Gospel. The Canons taught lasciviousness, avarice and arrogance. Man has no free will and many of the canons are against the Holy Scriptures. It is more to believe a simple peasant who has scripture than the pope or a council that has no scripture. Good works were not necessary; God had commanded man to do the impossible; Christ had earned nothing for himself, but only for us. After heated disputation about these articles, they parted.
Not long after, it was reported to the Franciscans that Günther had said in the presence of the Abbot of Zinna: He had given them a good run for their money, and if they did not humble themselves before him, he would write against them and cite them before the University of Wittenberg. Thereupon he was summoned again and also denied this completely. On this occasion, he was also questioned about the above-mentioned articles. He confessed to seven 4) of them.
Again after a short time, Günther was sued by the provost of the nunnery at St. Mary's before the bishop, because of one of the
4) Namely to the articles 13. 6. 8. 10. II. 5. 7. in Luther's defense of Wider Eck. (No. 85 in this volume.)
He received a sharp reprimand for this. He received a sharp reprimand for this. Therefore he did not preach any more, but let the ole. Thomas (Müntzer), who had recently been expelled from the city of Brunswick, to preach in his place. The latter attacked the Guardian from the pulpit in St. Mary's Church on the first Easter day (April 24). On the second Easter morning Brother Bernhard paid him back in the pulpit, to which M. Thomas replied in the evening service. For the evening service on Easter Tuesday, Brother Bernhard was present as a listener at Oel. Thomas and took up the articles, because of which, as we have seen above, complaints were made to the episcopal vicar. This sermon was also directed against the Father Guardian, who had preached on the morning of the same day about obedience to the Roman Church and the writings of proven teachers, namely Bonaventure and Thomas. Tappen reports, ole. Thomas had said the following: The pope is obliged to hold a council every five years, 1) but now only three have been held in four hundred years; a council can also be held against the will of the pope; the pope is the head of the church because the other bishops allow this; the canonization of Bonaventure and Thomas is invalid because it could only be done by one man, the pope, and not by a general council; the doctrine of the "aforementioned" teachers and other scholastics, they say, is admitted by the Church; even harlots and whoremongers are admitted in states; all bishops are required to visit their subjects annually and examine them on the faith; if this were done, there would be no bats of summons, letters of threat and banishment; these are diabolical writings. In the past, holy fathers were appointed bishops, but now they are tyrants who feast on themselves and do not carry out their office. The bishops are flatterers and seducers of the erring people, call good evil and evil good, understand neither Greek nor Hebrew, "only questen and stink". The
1) According to the letter to the bishop, >l. Thomas preached this also already on April 19 l keria wrtia "nde octsvas xases) in the St. Nicolai church.
The Gospel has been lying under the bank for more than four hundred years, and a great many still have to put their necks on it so that it will be brought out again.
Luther would not have taken care of this whole matter if Dappen had not written to the bishop of Brandenburg: that because of the teachings and sermons of Luther and other preachers of his sect, one of whom was M. Franz Günther, the most pernicious errors arose, which were dangerous for peace and Christian unity, through which a schism-like schism (guasi seisnmtiLLm seisLUram) had arisen in Jüterbock. Therefore, on May 15, 1519, Luther addressed a letter to the Franciscans at Jüterbock (No. 54 in this volume), in which he defends the doctrine put forward in the sentences recognized by Günther, warns the Franciscans to interfere in doctrinal matters, and threatens them that he will publish their articles in print and bring their ignorance to light by added refutation, if they do not recant and give him back his good name. It was not necessary to have these articles specially printed, because in the complete edition they are only compiled from Luther's writing (No. 55).
For a while, this matter rested; it had probably been pushed into the background by the Leipzig disputation. But when the Bishop of Brandenburg, who had received Dappen's letters in the meantime, passed through Leipzig on his way back from Frankfurt with his Elector Joachim I, he presented them 2) to Eck, who was staying there, for review. In the same frivolous manner with which he had previously passed his obelisks, he also proceeded here. In about two hours 3) he had drawn out sixteen sentences and accompanied them with his annotations in the sense of the Fransciscans. Already on August 15, 1519, Luther had news of this, for on that day he wrote to Spalatin 4): "I hear that he (Eck) has made some annotations...
2) A printed copy of the same, as Eck says in his response under Article 2.
3) Eck himself states this in his reply to Luther's next Schrist.
4) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1373, 8 37.
I have made certain articles which have been imposed on me by the restless brethren who seek their destruction, and that he has again described me before the mighty with wonderful love as a Manichaean, Hussite, Viklefite, and I do not know how diverse a heretic." And on August 18 to the same 1): "Eck has handed over to the Bishop of Brandenburg articles, which are morden by him with interpretations, which the brethren at Jüterbock have gathered against me in a lying manner." The bishop himself saw to their dissemination. This caused Luther to write the scripture, which we have added to this volume under No. 55 2): Martin Luther's defense against the malicious judgment of Johann Eck about some articles imposed on him by some brothers. Attached to these are 24 heretical articles drawn from Eck's and the brothers' writings. Of this writing Köstlin says: "Calmly and clearly, though with many a sharp turn against Eck, he sets forth in it what he really teaches, and substantiates it." From its title we see that Luther turned the tables on the obelisk writer and his comrades by calling 24 propositions of Eck and the Franciscans heretical. Already on September 3, 1519, he wrote to Johann Lang, 3) that Melchior Lotther in Leipzig (the Wittenberg presses were too busy) was printing this defense for him. At the same time as the letter to Franz Günther of September 30 (No. 56 in this volume), Luther sent several finished copies. In the same letter he reports, just as in an earlier letter to Spalatin, 4) September 22, that the Provincial of the Franciscans had sent deputies to him with the request not to let this writing appear; he had agreed and had therefore written to Lotther himself. However, it seems that either he waited too long or that the Franciscans could not satisfy Lotther; the document appeared.
1) Walch, old edition, Dd. XXI, 5.
2) The Latin title is already given in the note to the caption of No. 55.
3) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No.35.
4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 640 f.
From the latter letter we also see that the Franciscans at Jüterbock were to be transferred for punishment because of their actions against Luther. Whether this had happened, we do not know.
Against Luther's "Vertheidigung" Eck wrote, as he states at the end of the Schrist itself, "in One Day" (it is also after that, says the Weimar edition) his answer: ^cl eriwinutrioem Nartini l-uäers DittenbeiAen. oÜensionem super )uckieio.jiwtissiws kueto: acl urlieulos guosänm por wiuoritss cio observnntis, KevorernliWnuo Lpiseopo LranckenbuiFen. oblatos Lelciunu, responsio. (juia buotmms adu8U8 vst Uar. I-uclerus moclestin Lelciuim ew. 14 leaves in quarto, last page blank. Walch did not know this writing, therefore in the introduction to the 18th volume, p. 100, he pronounces: "as far as one knows, neither Eck nor the Minorites at Jüterbock have responded to this writing of Luther". Both the writing itself and the dedication of it to the jurist, Chancellor Johann Eck, is dated October 19, 1519, from Ingolstadt. At the beginning, he praises the Franciscans "as people of good repute in the whole Christian world because of their godliness and piety"; in his self-justification, however, he mostly puts off the readers to his future work v "r priwatu kotri, and in the discussion of the errors blamed on him by Luther, his main attack consists of the numerous insults he attaches to Luther. The latter did not dignify the writing with a reply.
At the beginning of October 1519, the Franciscans had a convention in Wittenberg, 5) in which they "disputed" about the wound marks of St. Francis and about the glory of their order. The reason for this, as Luther writes in a letter to Staupitz of October 3, 1519 6), was the rumor that Luther had preached against those stigmata. A Franciscan educated at Wittenberg, Baccalaureus Jakob from Zwickau, stood victoriously against the
5) Thus Walch, old edition, vol. XVIII, introduction p. 100; also Scidcmann: De Wette V I, 662 s. D. Franciscans, while De Wette, Vol. I, 340, lets this assembly be in "Jüterbock".
6) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 36, § 9 to 11.
The two main fighters of St. Franciscus, namely an Erfurtian who had become a magister at the same time as Johann Lang, and Peter from Borna (Fronrinus). Luther did not concern himself further with this.
The Franciscans in Weimar also "attacked the pestilent teacher and his poisoned young men", because at the general assembly (the General Chapter) of the Franciscans in Carpi (near Modena) in Italy at Pentecost (May 19) 1521, they had received the order from the pope to "counteract the rotten Lutheran teaching in a salutary way". They attacked it in such a way that on August 15, 1521, they appealed to the secular arm for its assistance in the writing we have reported under No. 57: "Der Barfüßer zu Weimar Schrift an Chursachsen wider Luther" and asked that "they be given the power to strive, stand and fence against it. The Elector of Saxony's answer to the Franciscans at Weimar (No. 58 in this volume) was drafted by Melanchthon on Frederick the Wise's orders. It is extremely finely written. The "Capitel der Holtzschuchparfüsser zu Waymar" is told that the Elector is always willing to do what is good for the welfare and peace of the church. He will severely punish anyone who disturbs the church; he warns them to restrain their zeal, and promises to assist to the best of his ability those who defend the gospel of Christ in a godly manner.
At the beginning of December of the following year 1522, the Franciscans in Weimar again appeared on the battlefield against Luther's disciple, M. Wolfgang Stein, court preacher of Duke Johann of Saxony, in Weimar. The latter had rejected as an unchristian error the teaching that Holy Communion is a sacrifice. Against this attack on their faith, the Franciscans again seem to have appealed to their authorities for cover, for we see from their letter to Duke John that he summoned both parties before him to settle their matter verbally. However, this measure did not achieve the desired goal, and the duke ordered both parties to present their reasons to him in writing.
lay. The Franciscans did this in the writing we reported in No. 59: Der Barfüßermönche zu Weimar Beweisung, dass das Sacrament ein Opfer sei. Stein sent this writing to Luther with the request to help him refute it. Luther complied with him in the letter to M. Wolfgang Stein (No. 60 in this volume) of December 11, 1522, in which he responds to the silliness that the Minorites put forward in the previous writing. It is obvious that in this letter Luther follows the previous writing step by step, so that it must be the earlier one. That is why we have placed it before the letter. About the then by Wolfg. Stein in a letter of December 20, 1522 1), says that it is not necessary to have it printed, and advises him to let the croaking frogs bark and blaspheme after he has given them an account; he will not silence them "because they are wordbags and completely mouthy.
XI. Luther's dispute with Ambrosius Catharinus.
This opponent of Luther was called Lancellotus Politus before he entered the monastery. 2) He was born in 1487 at Siena in Tuscany, studied jurisprudence, attained the doctorate at the age of sixteen, and then attended the most important academies in Italy and France. After his return, he became a professor of law in Siena and as such, as Cochläus reports, attained great fame in Italy. When he later went to Rome, Pope Leo X included him among the Consistorial Advocates. In 1517 he entered the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) in Florence (eonZroFo-tionis Laneti Uarei äo
1) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI. 817.
2) Thus the name is given in the book of Cochlaeus: I>o sx rsonn,4 itoiNrinu ^lurtini Outlicri ju<licnum Irutris ^indrosii CnOmrini I'oliti, Katrin 8<>nonsis, clixnituto I^pimoin, oruNitiono prnm-i'Nontissjini. iicrnmuis suininnsn-rc con-mlcrunNnni, o trilius ojus nporilnis <:<nnpcn<Iic) cxccrsNum. at the end: Xpnct 8. viotnroin prop<) itlnxnntnnn oxon<I<>bnt Franciscus Lcännn vio M. AluNii 1518. page ä. 4d.
I'Ivrentin) and received the monastic name Ambrosius Catharinus. In his new state he threw himself with all zeal into theology and placed himself in great esteem at the Roman court. He attended the Council of Trent, became Bishop of Minori, and died on November 8, 1553, as Archbishop of Conza in Naples. As he says in his LxpurZntio käversun "Polonium Dominici n 8oto p. 10, he wrote in 1520 his first writing against Luther, which appeared at the end of the year 1520 1) and in 1521 (as Cochläus says) in second edition in Florence under the title: ^.ck Eurolmu Llnx. Impviatorom ot Uwpuuinruw regem kratris bro8Ü Latdarini, vräimZ pr^ellivatorum, upologio. pro veritato Eatdolicao ot /Xpostolicae llckoi L6 äootriiwu: aäversus impia uo vulcko pvZtikera Nartini Outberi äogmaka. This writing has five books. On February 15, 1521 it arrived in Worms 2) (according to a note of Aleander on the original) and was handed over to the Emperor, to whom it had been sent by the pope, through the mediation of the papal legate Aleander. About March 7, sent by Wenceslaus Link, it came into Luther's hands; for on that day he writes to him 3): "Dear God! What a great mishmash of this quite tasteless Thomist Catharinus. I will answer him with little." In the same way he speaks out against Spalatin 4) on the same day: "Finally Ambrosius Catharinus has come from Nuremberg. Dear God! What a tasteless and foolish Thomist! so that he almost kills us at times by laughter, at times by disgust. I will answer him briefly and excite the bile of the welch beast." The Emperor's confessor, Glapio, did not like that Catharinus had written against Luther, 5) and he expressed his fears to Chancellor Brück that nothing good would come out if it came into Doctor Luther's hands. This proved true
1) Thus Walch in the introduction to the 18th volume; also Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 428.
2) Cf. Brieger, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Reformation, vol. 1, p. 6 !
3) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 60. 4) Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, Ro. 61.
5) Förstermann, neues Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Reformation, vol. 1, l. 51 b.
himself. "Immediately," says Kolde, 6) "Luther set to work and wrote with a quick hand an extensive rebuttal, equally powerful by the abundance of ridicule with which he showered the arrogant scholastic, as by the determination with which he tried to expose the unchristianity of the Pabst. The Latin title is already given in the note to the superscription of No. 61 in this volume, where we bring the excellent translation, which Paul Speratus made in 1524, from the Latin original already published on April 1, 1521, under the following title: Martin Luther's Answer to the Book of the Excellent Magister noster, Ll. Ambrosius Catharinus, defender of the exceedingly biting Silvester Prierias with the interpretation of the face of Daniel 8 about the Antichrist. Luther dedicated this writing to Wenceslaus Link, as he says, as punishment for sending him this wretched Thomistic work and not rather throwing it into the water or burning it with fire. Then Luther turns to Catharinus and tells him that he is much too late with the things and questions he deals with. Catharinus accuses him of contradictions in his doctrine of indulgences, of the concilia, and in his dealings with the Louvain. With regard to this, Luther himself confessed that he had not taught correctly about indulgences, about the pope, about the Roman church, about concilia, about universities and the canons, which is why he recanted everything in later books, e.g. in his "Babylonian Captivity" and "Reason and Cause of All Articles" etc. Now it is no longer a question of "whether the pope is something? Also the second question: "What is the pope?" was already finally concluded by the answer: "He is the Antichrist. Now it was only necessary to bring this answer properly into course and pregnancy, and with that one hoped to be finished shortly. 7) So that Catharinus has not written in vain, then
6) "Martin Luther," p. 319.
7) Luther himself, in the epilogue to this writing to Wenceslaus Link, calls it "the other and better part" of the Babylonian prison.
Luther wants to deal with this second question again. First, Luther shows that the rock (Matth. 16, 16.) on which the church is built is neither the pope nor the Roman church, nor even Peter, but Christ alone; therefore, the church is spiritual and invisible in its essence. What makes this writing, as well as the one against Alveld "on the papacy at Rome", especially important 1) is the refutation of the objection of the Papists
(§ 54 ff. in the present Scripture): "If the church is entirely spiritual, no one could know where to find anything of it in the world. Therefore we indicate the pope, so that one knows to find the church in a certain place." Luther answers: "The church is not bound to a certain place or person, although it cannot be without a place and person. The visible sign by which the church is recognized, around which all Christians gather, is the service, the Lord's Supper, and most often the Gospel. These three are the Christians' landmarks; where these are in swing, there is a church, there is the unity of the spirit, which we are commanded by God to keep. But where there is no gospel, as with the Papists and Thomists, there is no church, even if they baptize and go to the table of God. The gospel is the only, most certain and noblest sign of the church, much more certain than baptism and the Lord's Supper, for it is by the gospel alone that the church is conceived, formed, nourished, born, led, fed, clothed, adorned, strengthened, armed and preserved: in short, the whole life and being of the church is in the word of God. To preach the Gospel means to teach the faith with a living voice, but not to have and exercise a power of dominion. The pope who preaches the gospel is a successor of Peter; the one who does not is Judas, a betrayer of Christ. But, Luther continues, I do not deny that there is a papist church, nor do I say that the power of the papist church is nothing, for of no one, except of Christ, is there so great and manifold a testimony in the sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as of the pope, his rule, and his authority.
1) Köstlin, Vol. I, p. 429, draws attention to this.
and violence. Therefore, Luther wants to prove this in the strongest possible way from the holy scripture to please Catharine and the pope. Then Luther interprets the passages in which it is prophesied and taught that the Pope is the Antichrist, especially Daniel Cap. 8. 2 Thess. 2, 3. ff. 2 Tim. 4, 3. ff. 2 Petr. 2, 1. ff. and the letter Jude. Finally, Luther turns back to Wenceslaus Link and says that he was very pleased to show the papists that what the holy scripture says about their prince and head is not denied by him, because by this he fulfilled his promise, which he gave in the "Babylonian Captivity", that a second part of his recantation should follow. He believes that he has fulfilled this perfectly through this interpretation of Daniel. - Catharinus wrote several more writings against Luther, but Luther did not answer him anymore. (De Wette II, 190.)
XII. Luther's dispute with Erasmus.
Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam was actually called Gerhard Gerhardsson, 2) but according to the custom of the scholars of that time, he changed his Dutch name into the Latin Desiderius and added the synonymous Greek name Erasmus. He was born in Rotterdam on October 28, 1467, and received his first education in the schools of Utrecht and Deventer. In the latter place the brothers of the common life were his teachers. When he became parentless at the age of fourteen, his relatives urged him to become a monk. After resisting them for five years, he finally entered the Dutch monastery of Stein in 1486. In 1491 he was freed from the monastery by the bishop of Cambray, ordained a priest the following year, and lived in the community of his protector until 1496. Thereafter, he spent time in various places in France, especially in Paris, in the Netherlands, England and Italy, where he studied and had contact with outstanding men.
2) Cf. Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, 7th ed.
From 1509 to 1516 he taught the Greek language at Oxford, whereupon he went to Basel, where he became friends with the learned printer Frobenius, who published his books. For years he wandered from one place to another until he settled in Basel in 1521, where he died on June 12, 1536. He had a great aversion to taking over the administration of an office and refused even the dignity of cardinal. However, he received rich gifts and graces. Of his external appearance it is said 1): "A small blond man, with blue half-closed eyes, full of subtlety of observation, whimsy around the mouth, of somewhat timid attitude; every breath seemed to throw him on."
At the time when Luther began to work, this man was already held in very high esteem because of the merits he had acquired for the promotion of classical studies. His voice also carried great weight in the theological field, because he freely pointed out the evils of the entire Christian life. 2) Luther also recognized both in Erasmus and praised his efforts for science, and that he took the priests and monks to task for their ignorance, but rebuked him, even before the beginning of the Reformation, in a letter to Spalatin from October 19, 1516 (No. 3 in the appendix of this volume), that in the explanation of the apostle Paul, he understood by his own righteousness, or righteousness from works, only the observation of the ceremonial and exemplary laws, and claimed that the apostle did not speak clearly of original sin. In contrast, Luther testifies: The righteousness of works is rather in the works of the ten commandments. But even these, done without faith in Christ, only make people outwardly righteous before men. We do not become truly righteous by acting righteously, but when we are righteous and the person is justified by faith.
1) Ranke, Teutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, Vol. I, 209.
2) His writings were very well received and sold like hot cakes, so that sometimes several editions were necessary in one year. The collection of his writings was published in Basel in 1540 by B. Rhenanus in 9 folio volumes, and 1703-1706 by I. Clericus at Lcyden in 10 folio volumes.
If we are pleased with the grace of Christ, we act justly. Likewise, in a letter to Johann Lang of March 1, 1517 (No. 4 in the appendix of this volume), he expresses the fear that Erasmus would not properly promote Christ and the grace of God, because he does not believe the same, but keeps this judgment about Erasmus completely secret, so that it does not have the appearance of strengthening his enviers. Also in a letter to Spalatin of January 10, 1518 (No. 5 in the appendix of this volume), Luther states that there is much in the writings of Erasmus that does not rhyme with the knowledge of Christ. Erasmus wanted only Jerome to be considered a great church teacher and did not allow Augustine to be compared with him. In the treatment of languages, however, Erasmus was extremely learned and astute. Luther, however, does not want to spread this judgment (as he already wrote in the previous letter to Johann Lang), lest Luther's speeches give the enemies of the fine sciences the opportunity to blaspheme them and strengthen their hatred against Erasmus.
From this one can see that Luther saw through Erasmus and made a completely correct judgment about him. Erasmus, on the other hand, did not think that there was a deeper contrast between him and Luther, and wrote to Zwingli, 3) it seemed to him that he had taught almost everything that Luther taught, only not with such sharpness and with avoidance of some dark and strange-seeming things. Yes, it became a general speech, which Erasmus repeatedly states: "Either Luther conforms to Erasmus, or Erasmus to Luther" ("ut Imtlwrus erssmi-
aut Lrasmnb lutlierirat). Erasmus confesses that the Church needed Luther and that he considered him an honest man sent by God to improve the fundamentally corrupt morals of the people, 4) and that Luther reminded many things that could no longer be tolerated. 5) Furthermore
3) In Huttinz-er in Nist. eccl. secul. X VI, pLrt. II, p. 31.
cinoni.
5) Lpistol. XXIII, 6.
We are told 1) that Erasmus, before any relations were established between him and Luther, had Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (in his letters to Luther of September 4, 1518) give him all kinds of advice on how Luther could successfully oppose the papacy. However, Luther and the cause of the Reformation were indebted to Erasmus because he was the first to republish the Testament of Repentance in Greek, accompanied by a Latin translation in which he boldly improved the Vulgate. 2) There is no doubt that Luther used this edition when he made his translation.
Luther's friends, namely the aforementioned Capito, Carlstadt and Melanchthon, who had already exchanged letters with Erasmus, urged him to write to Erasmus, which would be of great benefit to the cause of the Gospel, because he was the most respected scholar of that time. Luther complied with them and addressed a letter to Erasmus on March 28, 1519 3) (No. 62 in this volume). With the words of highest appreciation he expresses in the same that he and the whole world is indebted to him for his excellent achievements in the field of the beautiful sciences to great thanks, and asks to recognize him as a little brother in Christ. Although it cannot be denied that this letter, according to our present view, is written in somewhat exuberant words, it cannot be overlooked that "it nevertheless fell far short of the language which Erasmus was accustomed to hear and loved to hear from his admirers". 4) It can, as it seems to us, also not alienate anyone that Luther in this first letter, through which he had a friendly
1) Tentzel, Historical Report, vol. 1, p. 210.
2) The first edition appeared in Basel in 1516 in folio. Improved editions in 1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535.
3) According to Walch, Erasmus was in Brabant at the time.
4) Köstlin, Vol. I, 285. Cf. Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, Vol. Ill, 24, Note 1: He preferred to speak of nothing but his fame, and before every step he took, he anxiously calculated the probable consequences of the same for his reputation.
The first time he wanted to establish a relationship with Erasmus, he did not immediately come out with everything he had on his mind against Erasmus because of his unsatisfactory position on the Gospel, and which he had until then only confided to his two most trusted friends, Spalatin and Lang, under the seal of the deepest secrecy. 5) It would not have been wise to tell "the whole truth" immediately, because the possibility was not excluded that Erasmus would be seized by the spirit of Christ and change his position. 6) Erasmus wrote a friendly reply from Louvain on May 30, 1519 (No. 63 in this volume). In this letter he informs that he suffers from the suspicion that Luther's writings were written with his assistance and that he is the standard-bearer of the Lutheran party; He complains about the hostility and repulsiveness he has to endure from the theologians of Louvain, indicates that in England highly placed people, including the bishop of Liège, have a good opinion of Luther's writings and are favorable to him, and says that he does not take sides in order to be able to benefit the beautiful sciences all the more. Furthermore, he gives Luther the good advice to proceed impetuously, to spare the pope and the kings, to beware of anger, hatred, and greed for honor, and adds: "I do not remind you that you should do this, but that you should constantly do what you do. Finally, he confesses that he has read Luther's explanations of the Psalms a little, and that he likes them -very much. It is easy to see from this that Erasmus had little interest in the main thing, the knowledge of truth and the Gospel. For the sake of this, he did not want to make enemies of anyone, especially the pope and the princes, and did not want to take up a fight for the sake of Christ.
5) Against Kolde, Luthers Stellung zu Concil und Kirche, p. 59.
6) For example, on November 5, 1520, Spalatin <CY> prian, Nützliche Urkunden, Vol. I, 499) writes: "Dazumal was Erasmus Roterodamus Wohl an Doctor Martinus Lehre", that is, he was very favorable to it.
The people of the world are not only the people of the world, but also the people of the world of the future.
Between these two letters, Erasmus wrote a letter from Antwerp to the Elector Frederick of Saxony dated April 14, 1519 (No. 64 in this volume) and the Elector's reply to this letter (No. 65 in this volume) dated May 14, 1519. In the letter, Erasmus asks the Elector to graciously accept the dedication of his newly published biographies of the Roman emperors by Suetonius and other historians. On this occasion, he praises the prince as an excellent promoter of the fine sciences and encourages him to continue in this, especially by supporting talented young men and asserting his prestige as protection against the enemies of the sciences, about whom he complains bitterly. He asks the Elector not to allow Luther, a man of complete moral purity, free even from the suspicion of greed and ambition, to be exposed to the bloodthirsty attacks of his opponents. He does not want to pass judgment on Luther's writings, because he has not yet read them, except in parts; but his books are eagerly read by the best people there. Here we see again that Erasmus was quite indifferent to the cause of the Gospel. He was not concerned with pure doctrine, but "a life worthy of Christ," he says, "is the main thing. He was only interested in the preservation and progress of the cause of the Gospel insofar as he had to fear that the sciences would also be harmed by its impairment, since the enemies of the Gospel and the sciences were the same people. The Elector in his reply accepts the dedication, expresses his joy that Luther's writings are eagerly read by the best people, and that Luther's cause is not condemned by the scholars, and assures that he will not allow Luther to be handed over to the malice of his enemies, not only for the sake of the integrity of Luther's person, but also for the sake of the cause.
In the same year, Erasmus had to thank the Archbishop of Mainz, Albrecht, for a golden ciselirte cup sent to him by Hütten. In his letter of thanks of November 1, 1519, he also took occasion to speak about Luther and his cause. 1) He testified that he had nothing to do with Luther's cause. Luther was completely unknown to him and he had not yet found time to read his books, but only looked at them here and there. If there was something good in it, he had no part in it; if this was not the case, he could not be blamed for it. So much he perceives that just the best people do not take offense at his writings, because they turn a blind eye to many things. He was sorry that Luther's books had been published, and he had resisted their publication with all his strength, 2) because he had feared that it would cause a riot. He mentions that Luther had written him a very Christian letter, to which he had replied occasionally, but in a polite manner, so that he might achieve more through the exhortations he had given in it. He told him that some people there were favorably disposed toward him, so that Luther would be more willing to submit to their judgment; this, however, was misinterpreted to him, Erasmus, as if he favored Luther. He does not dare to judge Luther's spirit; he is neither Luther's accuser, nor his patron, nor to be accused on his account, and it could not be offensive to anyone if he were to weigh him as a good man, for even his enemies admit that, if only he (Erasmus) did not interfere in the matter. It was his opinion that it was Christian to be favorable to Luther at least in the way that
1) This letter, because it was considered, and rightly so, to be an extremely important testimony to prove the necessity of the Reformation, is preprinted in the Basel collection of Lutberscher writings, which appeared in the month of Inlt 1520 by Adam Petri. The following excerpt is given. The letter comprises folio pages in compressed print.
2) This will refer to the collections of Luther's writings (October ISIS, February IMS and August 1519) organized by his publisher Johann Frobenius at Basel.
If Luther is innocent, one does not want him to be oppressed by the mobs of the wicked; but if he errs, Erasmus wants him to be righted, but not brought to ruin; he wishes that such a heart (peotus illuä), in which one sees certain excellent sparks of evangelical doctrine shining, should not be oppressed, but brought to rights and directed to the preaching of the glory of Christ. Luther was neither reminded nor instructed by theologians he knew, and yet they proclaimed his books heretical before the people without reading them and condemned some of them without understanding them. Luther was condemned as heretical what was recognized as orthodox and godly in the books of Bernard and Augustine. Against this Erasmus had testified and admonished the theologians not to condemn publicly what they had neither read nor understood, not to make such a noise about it etc. From this friendly reminder, they would have suspected that Luther's books were largely those of Erasmus and made into lions, while he had no part in them, and would have made a great fuss about it. The deep theologians seemed to thirst only for human blood, as if they were executioners, and sought only to have Luther caught and killed. But if they wanted to show themselves as great theologians, they should convert the Jews and others who are far from Christ to Christ and improve the public life (publioos moreg) of the Christians, which is even more corrupt than that of the Turks. But it is quite unreasonable to want to hand over a man to punishment who has put up such things for disputation, about which there has always been disputation in all theological schools, who has submitted himself to the judgment of the Roman See and that of the universities. It is not surprising that a righteous man would not want to entrust himself to the hands of certain people who would like to exterminate him. Above all, one must turn one's attention to the source of this evil. "The world is burdened," Erasmus continues, "with human impositions, burdened with scholastic opinions.
They are the mendicants of the Roman See, but they have grown to such power and quantity that they have become frightening even to the Roman Pontiff and even to the kings. When the pope works in their favor, he is more important to them than God, but in the things that serve against their advantage, he is no more important to them than a dream image. I do not condemn all of them, but most of them are of the kind that, out of their greed for profit and domination, they deliberately ensnare people's consciences. They had already started to preach their news and after that even more impudent doctrine". They talked about indulgences in such a way that even people without understanding could not bear it. Through these and many other such things, the power of the evangelical doctrine gradually disappeared, and it was imminent that, as everything became worse and worse, even the last spark of Christian godliness would have to be extinguished, so that the extinguished love could not be rekindled. The whole religion sank to more than Jewish ceremonialism. This is what good men lament and bemoan, what even theologians who are not monks confess, and what certain monks confess in their private conversations. This, I believe, moved the spirit of Luther, that he first dared to oppose the intolerable insolence of certain people. For how could I expect anything else from one who neither seeks positions of honor nor desires money? I am not disputing the articles that they reproach Luther with at present, but only the manner and the occasion. Luther dared to express his doubts about indulgences, but others had previously made all too outrageous claims about them. He dared to speak quite moderately about the power of the Roman pope, but those before had written about it too immoderately, among them mainly three preacher-monks, Alvarus, 1) Sil-
1) In Latin ^luarnn. Should "Alveld" perhaps be meant? His first writing against Luther did not come out until 1520, but he had previously published writings of a similar nature. This would be contradicted by the fact that Alveld did not belong to the Dominican Order, but to the Franciscan Order.
vester and the Cardinal Sti. Sixti [Cajetan]. He dared to despise the sayings of Thomas, but the preaching monks almost prefer them to those of the Gospel. He has dared to express some misgivings in matters of confession, but the monks have without ceasing entangled the consciences of men with the same. He dared to partially neglect the scholastic doctrines, but they put too much emphasis on them and nevertheless disagree among themselves about them. Finally, where they change something from time to time, they cut down the old and introduce something new instead. This has tormented godly minds, since they heard that in the schools there is almost no talk of the evangelical doctrine, that those holy scribes who were accepted by the church ages ago are considered obsolete, yes, that in the holy sermons one hears only the least about Christ, but almost everything about the power of the pope and the opinions of the newer ones. Everything they speak (totnm orntioaem), therefore, publicly show greed, ambition and empty pretense. It is, as I believe. To blame, if, for example, Luther also did not write very restrained." Repeatedly, Erasmus warns that he is far from Luther's cause, that he does not have the erudition to defend the writings of another. What he says does not concern the cause of Luther, but only the manner and the danger that also threatens him from the enemies of Luther, who are at the same time the enemies of the fine sciences. Towards the end he says: "I have always taken care that I do not write anything offensive, nothing seditious, nothing contrary to the teachings of Christ, and knowingly I have never become a teacher of error or an author of noise.
As anxiously and fearfully as Erasmus rejects that he has nothing to do with Luther's cause, nor does he want to have anything to do with it, and therefore does not want to pass judgment on it, so that he does not spoil it with anyone or even get into danger, this letter nevertheless offers us a powerful testimony, both for the person of Luther, as well as for the integrity, justice, truth and necessity of his cause. Luther is also
According to the judgment of his enemies, he was an irreproachable, good, righteous man who had not attacked the cause for the sake of honor or money. In him shine excellent sparks of Christian doctrine. He had been induced to oppose the insolence of certain people, then also the human statutes imposed on the whole world, scholastic opinions and the tyranny of the mendicant monks who, out of self-interest, made the pope more than a god, entangled the consciences, spoke intolerably of indulgences. In the high schools there was no talk of evangelical doctrine, the old proven writers of the church were regarded by them as outdated, in the sermons very little was about Christ, almost everything was about the power of the pope and the opinions of the newer ones. If this had continued, the last shred of Christian doctrine and Christian godliness would soon have been extinguished. The whole religion would have sunk into more than Jewish ceremonialism. At the same time, the life of the Christians was publicly such that there could be nothing more shameful, even among the Turks. - What a picture the most respected Roman theologian presents here before our eyes! Should one think it possible that in our days Roman insolence could have risen again so high that it dares to pronounce 1): The last fifty years before the Reformation had been the real heyday of the German people, which had been shattered by the revolutionary Luther?
Luther was rightly very pleased about this letter, as he expresses himself in a letter to Johann Lang 2) from 2tt. January 1520, he was very pleased, and wrote that Erasmus in the same excellently protected him, but in such a way that he gave the appearance, as if he did not take him in Schlitz, in his usual skillful way. At that time, the letter, which had become known to Luthern and others through the indiscretion of Ulrich von Hütten, who had been entrusted with its delivery, 3) was not yet available.
1) Cf. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 2.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 668, ? 3.
3) Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 286. To Erasmus' great chagrin, this letter would be printed in 1520 by a man from Erfurt for the "readers eager for his judgment on Luther. Id. S. 327.
not yet printed. However, this letter had a broad effect in Luther's favor and was received in this sense by all who wished to have a testimony of Erasmus for Luther's cause.
We cannot avoid remembering here a personal meeting of Erasmus with the Elector Frederick of Saxony, about which Spalatin reported in his ^nrmlibus ^alberi. 1) The Elector had been present at the coronation of Emperor Carl V at Aachen and had come with him to Cologne. There he had Erasmus come to him "at his request and insistence" 2) to his inn in the place of the three kings. The Elector would have liked Erasmus to speak "his Dutch German" with him, but Erasmus stuck to his Latin, to which the Elector had Spalatin give him an answer. When he was asked what he thought of Luther's teachings, sermons and writings, Erasmus smacked his lips and said, "Luther sinned in two pieces, namely, that he grabbed the crown of the pope and the belly of the monks." Later, two years before his end, Spalatin says, the Elector thought about it and remarked that "if someone read Erasmus' writings and books for a long time, he would not know where to wait. For there is nothing certain on which no conscience could build either in life or in death. After the conversation, Erasmus went with Spalatin to his inn and wrote down for him several axiomata (short sentences), in which he derived the trade with Luther from hatred of science and tyrannical presumption, declared the men through whom it was carried out to be suspicious personalities, and gave Luther the right to offer himself for a public disputation and submission to unsuspicious judges. 3)
1) The notes of Spalatin, who was present at the conversation of the Elector with Erasmus, are found in Cyprian's "Nützliche Urkunden zur Erläuterung der ersten Reformationsgeschichte", Vol. I, p. 497 ff.
2) These words show that Erasmus had sought the audience, not that the Elector had had Erasmus demanded, as Seckendorf, Oi "t. Initk., lib. I, p. 125, § 81 (6) and after him Köstlin, vol. 1, p. 398.
3) Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 398.
"Shortly thereafter," Spalatin continues, "Roterodamus wrote to me with a great request that I send him back his handwriting. For Jerome Aleander, as papal legate, could otherwise bring him to complaint. So fearful 4) was Roterodamus to confess the Christian truth."
Given the complete difference between Luther and Erasmus, both in their personal dispositions and in their position toward the Gospel, it was not to be expected that the friendship between them would be a lasting one, which soon became apparent. Already in a letter addressed to Spalatin on July 6, 1520, Erasmus expressed the wish that 5) Luther would proceed with more moderation, and later he often made such statements, in which Capito, preacher at Basel, who was a close friend of Erasmus, also agreed. We can see this from the letter which Luther addressed to Capito 6) on January 17, 1522, in which he says, among other things: "Our love is ready to die for you, but if the faith is touched, the apple of our eye is touched. You can have the love, that you regard it to all mockery or all honor, but we want the faith and the word to be worshipped by you and to be considered as the holy of holies. With our love take all things for yourselves, but before our faith be ye always in fear." In a letter to Spalatin 7) of September 9, 1521, Luther rejects the advice of Erasmus and Capito that he should exercise moderation and peaceableness, which had probably come to him through Spalatin, and expresses the fear that he will have to deal with one or the other of the two, because Erasmus in all his writings had not the cross but peace in mind, and was far from the right knowledge of faith. It
4) Erasmus was extremely fearful and concerned about his life and health. He drank only certain wines, which were supposed to be beneficial to health, and was "murder enemy" of fish, because he considered them unhealthy (cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, IW9; Appendix No. II, No. 1544). In order to avoid contagious epidemics, he spared no sacrifice and trembled even as a young man at the name of death.
5) Cf. Te Weile, Vol. II, p. 49.
6) Walch, old edition, vol. XIX, 662.
7) Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 76.
It did not take long for this fear of Luther's to prove well-founded. On May 15, 1522, Luther wrote to Spalatin 1): "Erasmus has finally come out from the bottom of his heart in his collection of letters as an enemy of Luther and his teaching, but with pretense and cunning words he lies that he is a friend. By doing so, he will do tremendous damage to his reputation and name. Eck is better than he, since he openly confesses to be an enemy."
A few days later, May 28, 1522, Luther wrote to Caspar Börner, professor of fine arts at Leipzig (in this volume, appendix, no. 6), probably with the intention that this letter should become known to Erasmus. In this letter, he states that Erasmus knows less about the election of grace than the schools of the sophists. Luther had no reason to fear that Erasmus would overcome him in this piece, nor in the whole epitome of Christian doctrine, because truth was more powerful than eloquence. He would not challenge Erasmus, nor would he soon beat him again, but it did not seem advisable for Erasmus to try the power of his eloquence on him, as it might go badly for him. If Erasmus should get involved in the game, Luther would lie down against him in the spirit of the Lord Christ and would consider his reputation, his name and his favor to be nothing. This letter appeared in the same year, but without Luther's knowledge and will, 2) in Leipzig in print under the title: 3uäioium D. Mart. Imtderi äo Lrn8mo Roterollamo. Lpi8toln aä amioum, also in German, together with the already mentioned letter of Luther to Wolfgang FabriciuS Capito of January 17, 1522. In the editions, another letter of Luther from Erasmus is attached to this letter, which Luther had written out to his son Johannes in 1533 (in this volume attached to No. 6 of the appendix). In a letter to Oekolampad 3) from June 20, 1523
1) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 781.
2) Cf. Luther's Bnef to kauSmann of October I, 1523, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 860.
3) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1381. This letter also became known to Erasmus. Köstlin, vol. I, 690.
Luther said: Erasmus had introduced the languages, but could not treat the Holy Scriptures, therefore his wish was that Erasmus abstain from that, which he was not up to. He had done enough by showing the evil, but he was not able to show the good. Luther noticed the stings of Erasmus everywhere, although he pretended not to be his enemy; therefore Luther also pretended not to notice, although he saw through him more thoroughly than Erasmus believed.
In the meantime, Ulrich von Hütten had vehemently attacked Erasmus, who had disavowed him, 4) in a writing, Lxpo8tui "tio aäversus Lrusmum, to which the latter replied in a very bitter rebuttal, Lpongis. aäversus Lüttem expostulationem. In a letter of October 1, 1523, addressed to Hausmann, Luther reproves this and wishes that neither Hutten's challenge nor Erasmus's vituperative and blasphemous answer had come out, by which he had done great harm to his name and reputation. Luther was also very annoyed that his letters to Börner and Capito, which he had written secretly about Erasmus, had been published, although he did not need to be ashamed of a word in them if he had to defend himself publicly. If Erasmus wrote against him, it would do him no harm, and Luther would not trust him to protect him, for Luther had someone on his side who was able to defend the cause, even if the whole world should rage against him alone. This is what Erasmus calls his persistence in asserting himself. He was far from the understanding of Christian things, which Luther had not yet believed, but had only suspected from time to time. Therefore, Luther does not want to budge if his life is attacked; but if the matter is touched, he will defend it.
Thus, everything came to a head in a public dispute between the two. Erasmus had learned what Luther thought of him. In a new edition of his Epistle to the Galatians, Luther deleted all of the passages in which he had previously
4) Köstlin, Vol. I, 690.
5) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 860.
Erasmus's interpretation with praise. 1) The popes Leo and Hadrian had tried in vain to persuade Erasmus to attack Luther; even a proposed bishopric had not been able to persuade him. Only the persistent request of the King of England, Henry VIII, from whom he enjoyed much favor and honor, even an annual pension, caused him to resign as an open opponent of Luther. It became rumored that Erasmus really wanted to start a fight with Luther. To avert this where possible, Luther wrote to Erasmus, 2) in April 1524 (No. 66 in this volume): He did not address this letter to Erasmus because he had behaved too alienly against the Lutherans, so that his relationship with the papists would not be impaired, and, in order to gain their favor, had sharply bitten and pulled through Luther and his own. Since Erasmus lacked courage, he was not expected to confront the papist monsters freely and confidently, and he was not expected to do anything that exceeded the measure of his strength. God had given him the glorious gift of languages, with which he should serve, since he lacked the heart for the cause of the Gospel, which he could otherwise have done much good with his sharp mind and his eloquence. Luther wrote to him because it was feared that he, prompted by his opponents, would attack the evangelical teachings by publishing books, and that Luther would then be forced to resist him. If Erasmus could neither confess nor dare to assert Luther's cause, he should leave it untouched and wait for his own. It had come to the point that there was already little danger to fear, even though Erasmus was fighting Luther's cause with all his might. Then Luther expresses the heartfelt request that Erasmus be a spectator at the tragedy, but not speak to the enemies and make common cause with them. Above all
1) Köstlin, Vol. I, 690.
2) We have taken the time determination from De Wette, Vol. H, 498. DeS Erasmus' answer is dated May 8, 1524 (BurHardt p. 70; Köstlin, vol. t, 690), not May 5, as De Wette states.
Erasmus should not publish any writings against Luther, then Luther would not publish anything against him either.
Luther's warning and request came too late, for Erasmus had already become too deeply involved with the opponents of the gospel and could not turn back. He had long since been working on his treatise against Luther and had even presented a sample of it to the King of England, Henry VIII, in 1523. 3) With a heavy heart he finished his work and in a letter to the king he expressed his fear that after the publication of his writing he would have to be prepared for stoning in Germany. In his reply to Luther of May 8, 1524, he therefore made the statement that their conception of working for the gospel was different, and that he found some things in Luther's behavior objectionable and dangerous to science and religion. Perhaps the gospel would be better served by an Erasmus who wrote against Luther than by the writing of certain foolish followers for him, for whose sake it was not permissible to remain a mere spectator of the tragedy.
The writing with which Erasmus came out against Luther is his Diatribe or Treatise on Free Will (No. 67 in this volume), which appeared in September 1524 in Basel with Johann Frobenius and already became known in Wittenberg in the same month. 4) It is directed against the 36th article of Luther's writing: ^sserrio vmnium artivulorum ^lurtini Imtberi per Lullum I-eonis X. novissimam ckumnutorum. 1520. 5) This article, according to Luther's own translation, reads: "Free will, according to the fall Adä or according to the sin done, is an eitcl name; and if it thut its own (guoä in 86 e8t - so much in it is), it sins mortally." To the choice of just this subject the vain Erasmus may have been prompted by what Luther says in the Latin edition at the end of this article 6): This article, which is the best
g) Köstlin, vol. 1, 691.
4) Köstlin, Vol. I, 694.
5) Cf. the note to Z 14 of the diatribe in this volume.
6) Lrl, opp. vur. srx., vol. V, p. 234 sq.
of all and the epitome of our doctrine, "has been almost suppressed and eradicated by all scholastic teachers for more than three hundred years. For none have written for grace, all have written against grace, so that there is no matter of which it would be as necessary to treat it as this. I, too, have often wished to deal with it, setting aside those worthless papist antics and quarrels that do not concern the Church and only serve to destroy it, but by the length of time and by the power of habit (muZnituckino U8U8) the effect of Satan has become so ingrained, and by this error has so dulled the minds of men, that I do not see any people who are able to understand it, much less that they should argue with us. The Holy Scriptures are full of these things, but they are so devastated by our Nebuchadnezzar that not even the outward appearance and the knowledge of the sciences are left, and we need an Ezra who will find new science and restore the Bible to us, which I hope will happen now that the Hebrew and Greek languages are flourishing throughout the world. Amen." Erasmus may well have thought himself to be this Ezra. But his writing shows most clearly how correct Luther's judgment of him had been, that his ability did not go beyond the limits of the fine sciences, and that he had no right knowledge of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, that he also lacked the heart for the cause of the Gospel.
Already the title of this writing reflects the character of Erasmus. 1) He calls it Diatribe, which he translates by collatio, that is, a conversation, a talk, a treatise; he does not dare to expose a doctrine, a firm assertion. In the preface he immediately says that he is not a friend of firm assertions and considers it foolish to make use of them, not only in the doctrine of free will, which would be best not discussed at all, but also in all other Christian doctrines. He would prefer to
1) Cf. Luther's statement about this in his reply, dol. 1752.
The sceptics' opinion, if it were a matter of the indisputable prestige of the Scriptures and the decisions of the Church. From this one can see how little enthusiasm Erasmus had for his subject, how much he lacked firm faith in the Word, and even how weak was his attachment to the Roman Church, whose faithful son he wanted to be and prove himself to be through this writing. He completely lacked the courage to be a witness. That is why his writing turned out weak beyond all expectations. He does not want to assert anything but firmly and certainly, and for this reason he does not teach anything firmly and certainly, but wavers in his statements from one side to the other, in that he sometimes asserts what he denies, sometimes denies what he asserts. On the one hand, he says that it is unchristian, forward and superfluous to want to know whether our will is effective in matters concerning eternal blessedness; whether it is only suffering in the face of the grace that is active; on the other hand, he says that it is Christian godliness: it is Christian godliness that one exerts oneself with all one's strength, and without the mercy of God the will is not able to do anything, but without giving even the slightest information about what our will does and is able to do and what the mercy of God does, even though, as Luther says in his counter-writing 2), "the question of free will is a main part of the epitome of the whole Christian doctrine, on which the knowledge of ourselves, as well as the knowledge and glory of God, depends, and by which it stands and falls; the other main part, however: "that one may know whether God foreknows something in such a way that it may or may not happen, and whether we do everything out of necessity. "This is the only and highest consolation of Christians in all adversities, to know that God does not lie, but unchangeably does everything; that no one can resist His will, no one can change it or hinder it.
In the beginning of his exposition Erasmus promises to conduct the matter only with canonical writings, but he wants the same to be understood according to the interpretation of the fathers, concilia and popes, because it is not to be believed.
2) Col. 1689 and 1696.
that God had let His Church err for so many centuries in the piece of which Luther claimed it was the main piece of the Protestant doctrine. Luther gratefully accepts the promise of Erasmus, but mostly "ah, that he declares the Holy Scriptures to be dark, because one should first get the light from the Fathers and the Roman See in order to illuminate the Scriptures, which are the light itself, and that those make nothing but darkness who deny that the Scriptures are quite bright and clear.
The explanation of free will which Erasmus gives is this: "Free will is the faculty of the human will according to which man is able either to turn to what leads to eternal bliss or to turn away from it." This definition, as Luther notes in his rebuttal, is quite unclear, nor is it stated in a single word what the "turning", "turning away", and that "which leads to eternal blessedness" are. That which leads to eternal blessedness can be nothing other than God's word and work, which is immeasurably above the power of man, and yet, according to Erasmus, man can turn to it without God's grace and without the action of the Holy Spirit. With such a definition also a Pelagian could declare himself very satisfied; but it is again in contradiction with what Erasmus had said before, that the human will is not able to do anything at all without grace.
In order to prove free will, the Diatribe cites a large number of passages of Scripture, but most of them are of the kind that they contain a command or an injunction to men, concluding that it would be inconsistent to say that God should command men to do something, or injunction them to do something, which they are not capable of doing or keeping, so men could do it. If this conclusion is valid, it would naturally follow: God has commanded that we fear and love Him above all things, so we can do it. Through his scriptural proofs, Erasmus ran himself deeper and deeper into the crudest Pelagianism, so that he
no longer only an effort and endeavor, but the whole power to do everything. 1) The diatribe also makes no distinction between the preached and the hidden God, that is, between the word of God and God Himself, where He has not limited Himself by His word, but has preserved Himself free over all; it does not distinguish between the incarnate God, who offers all that is necessary for blessedness, and the God hidden in His majesty, about whose secret will one should neither inquire nor dispute. Even such sayings that most clearly and strongly testify against free will, Erasmus uses to prove free will, e.g., "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" and "He hath given them power to become the children of God"; for in the former saying Christ testifies that they cannot will what is good, in the latter we are taught that we become the children of God through the power given to us by God, not through free will. On the other hand, Erasmus seeks to invalidate the passages which Luther had cited against free will by pretending that there is a figurative way of speaking in them; but without providing any other proof that there must be figurative speech in these clear, distinct sayings than that these passages would be inconsistent and annoying to reason if they were taken without a picture. "By the same token," says Luther, 2) "you could deny all the articles of faith and say that it is the most absurd thing in the world that God should be man, the Son of a virgin, crucified, seated at the right hand of the Father. It is inconsistent (I say) to believe such things." It is not to be wondered at that Erasmus, who does not want to give his reason captive under the word of God in all humility, but strives to maintain free will in the face of the most decisive sayings of Holy Scripture, such as Rom. 9, 17, continually moves in contradictions. Luther shows this in his answer 3): "Soon the diatribe says that it is
1) Dgl. Luther's answer, Col. 1791, 1795 and 1802. 2) In his answer, Col. 1831.
3) Col. 1844.
a necessity of the consequence, but not of what follows; sometimes it is an ordered or revealed will that can be resisted, sometimes it is a will that God has reserved for His good pleasure, which cannot be resisted. Soon the passages drawn from St. Paul do not serve as proofs, do not speak of the blessedness of men; soon God's foreknowledge brings necessity with it, soon no necessity; soon grace precedes the will so that it wills, accompanies it on its way, gives a happy outcome, soon it does everything as the main cause, soon it works through secondary causes and keeps itself quiet. By these and similar games with words, it accomplishes nothing except that it brings time, and in the meantime takes the matter out of our sight and draws it elsewhere."
Just where the diatribe has brought the matter into the fiercest struggle and stands before the main point of the whole discussion, she pretends not to see it, seeks to escape the difficulty with a few phrases, and, where she should have proved the most, almost always breaks off the speech with such words: "That is enough of that"; "Now I do not want to examine that"; "It is not my intention here"; "Those would say so" and the like, so that one cannot know whether she is speaking for free will or not, and confronts us with an insoluble contradiction just where she should have solved the question, and leaves it to others to settle the matter.
In contrast, Luther asserts that 1) the Holy Apostle Paul decisively declared that divine foreknowledge imposes a necessity upon us, not a necessity of compulsion, but a necessity according to which what God has foreknown must infallibly come to pass, so that, for example, it must infallibly happen at the time foretold by God that Judas betrayed Christ. "Nor is it a difficult question," says Luther, "indeed, nothing is easier even for common sense than that this conclusion is certain, firm, and true: If God
1) Col. 1817.
foreknowledge, then this necessarily comes true if this is assumed from Scripture as a prerequisite that God neither errs nor lacks. I confess that it is a difficult, even an impossible question, if you want to hold both at the same time, both the foreknowledge of God and the freedom of man." The wicked are annoyed by the very clear words of Scripture, which indicate that God's will is fulfilled by necessity on our side, that nothing of freedom or free will is left to them, but everything is based on God's will. Paul, however, "restrains them by commanding them to be silent and to worship the glory of the power and will of God, against whom we have no right; but he has full right against us to do what he wills, and let no injustice be done to us, since he owes us nothing, has received nothing from us, has promised nothing except as much as he wills and pleases him. Reason, too, must confess that this would be a ridiculous God, or more correctly, an idol who foresaw future things in an uncertain way or was mistaken about events. He would be equally ridiculous if he could not and did not do everything and if anything happened without him. If the foreknowledge and the omnipotence of God are admitted, then it follows with contradictory implication that we are not made by ourselves, nor do we live, nor do we do anything, but by his omnipotence. If free will is established contrary to this, God would have to be mistaken in foreknowledge and err in action, which is impossible. Therefore, God's omnipotence and foreknowledge fundamentally annul the doctrine of free will. The Sophists, says Luther, 2) also felt the insurmountable power of this ground of proof, therefore they invented the little fiction of the necessity of the consequence and the necessity of what follows, with which Erasmus also wants to help himself; but in vain. Whoever admits the necessity of the consequence, for example: God knows beforehand that "Judah" will be the betrayer, therefore it will certainly and infallibly happen, can be satisfied with the mere fantasy of the necessity of the consequence.
2) Col. 1855.
The two pieces cannot rhyme: Judas "cannot want to betray" and "it is necessary that Judas wants to betray. For the two pieces cannot rhyme: Judas cannot "want to betray" and "it is necessary that Judas wants to betray.
Towards the end, Erasmus gives the advice in his Diatribe that a very little should be granted to free will. Luther, on the other hand, declares 1) that such a middle position cannot be tolerated, nor would it eliminate the difficulties and inconveniences that one wants to escape by it, unless one, like the Pelagians, wants to ascribe everything to free will. Therefore, one must deny free will and ascribe everything to God, then the Scriptures will not argue with themselves, and the inconvenient things, if not abolished, can be borne.
Erasmus also saved his strongest argument for the end of his writing, namely, that those who say that there is absolutely no free will, but that everything happens through an absolute necessity, that God works everything in everyone, not only good, but also evil, obviously accuse God of cruelty and injustice, thus making Him the cause of evil, also ungodly attributing gross errors (vitium) and imperfection to Him, whereby He would cease to be God. This argument, however, does not apply to Luther, because, as we have already seen, he rejects the necessity of compulsion and holds only to the necessity according to which that which God has foreknown and predestined must infallibly come to pass. With respect to this, Luther has already answered 2) in the most appropriate manner: Since God works, moves and does everything in everyone (1 Cor. 12:6) and since it is part of His omnipotence that without Him nothing happens nor is effective (Eph. 1:19), He also necessarily moves and works in the devil and in the ungodly. But he works in them in such a way as they are themselves and what he finds them, that is, since they are turned away from God and are evil and driven.
I) Col. IML
2) Col. INI ff.
by the movement of divine omnipotence, they only do what is repugnant to God and evil. By working in evil and through evil, God allows evil to happen, but God cannot act in an evil way, even though He causes evil through evil, because He Himself, as the Good, cannot act in an evil way. But he uses evil tools, which cannot escape the impulse and the movement of his power. The fault lies in the tools. The corruption or turning away of the person of the wicked from God makes that he cannot be moved and driven in a good way. God cannot make His omnipotence stand for the sake of turning away the wicked, but the wicked cannot change his turning away. Thus it happens that he constantly and inevitably sins and errs until he is corrected by the Spirit of God. When it is said of God that he hardens or works evil in us (for to harden is to do evil), let no one think as if he were creating evil in us anew, or that man, who, as the opponents invent, is good or not evil in himself, but whoever wants to understand this in any way, that God works evil in us, that is, through us, must think in such a way that this happens not through the fault of God, but through our own fault. For since we are evil by nature, but God is good, and since He drives us by His effect according to the nature of His omnipotence, He can do nothing else than that He, who is good Himself, does evil through the evil instrument, even though according to His wisdom He uses this evil for His glory and for our salvation".
Such a writing as the Diatribe, in which nothing definite is taught, in which Erasmus wanted to attribute only a little to the free will, but in the execution attaches everything, so that man by his own strength, without needing a redeemer and the divine grace, is able to attain eternal bliss, naturally had to arouse the disgust of Luther. He wrote to Nicolaus Hausmann on November I, 1524 (Appendix, No. 7 in this volume): "It is impossible to describe what disgust I have for the booklet on free will, and yet I have hardly read more than two sheets of it.
read. It seems difficult to me to answer such an unlearned book of such a learned man." Nevertheless, Luther decided, as he also wrote to Hausmann on December 12, 1524 (Appendix, No. 8): "to reply to Erasmus, not for his own sake, but for the sake of those who abuse his reputation for their glory against Christ. The execution of this plan, however, was delayed for quite some time, precisely because of Luther's aversion to the diatribe, for it was not until September 28, 1525, that Luther wrote to Spalatin (Appendix, No. 9) and on September 27, 1525, to Hausmann (Appendix, No. 10): "I am now occupied with Erasmus and free will alone and will take pains that I do not allow him to have said anything right, as indeed he has said nothing with reason. Ask the Lord for his help on my behalf, so that his work may proceed swiftly for his glory. Amen."
Luther's answer to Erasmus of Rotterdam that free will is nothing (No. 68 in this volume) appeared in the first edition at Wittenberg by Hans Luft in December 1525 under the title: De servo Arbitrio Uar. Imtbori aä D. Erasmum kowroäEum and has later experienced many. A number of them are mentioned in the first note to No. 68. The first German translation of it was published by Justus Jonas under the German title given above, which we have retained, on November 17, 1526. We have found it necessary to make a new translation.
Just as Erasmus had been quite moderate in his writing, even if here and there with sharp jabs, against Luther, so Luther's answer was written with all moderation and reverence, but he rebuked, where it was necessary, with frankness and seriousness. Luther took great care with spelling and expression in Latin, so Erasmus had the unfounded suspicion that Luther had been helped by Melanchthon and others.
With regard to the choice of the subject that Erasmus had chosen, Luther speaks appreciatively and praisingly: "I
I praise and extol this about you very much, that you alone have attacked the matter itself before all, that is, the brief epitome of the matter, and have not tired me with distant things about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences and similar things, which are rather posies than things with which almost all have hounded me until now, although in vain. But you have recognized the main point and put the knife to the throat, for which I thank you from the bottom of my heart." But Luther also does not hold back with the rebuke that Erasmus says nothing in this great matter that has not already been said, and that he ascribes more to free will and says less about it than the sophists have done so far. The reasons he puts forward are null and void, and therefore it is actually unnecessary to answer them, especially since they are already completely overthrown and destroyed by Melanchthon's insurmountable booklet, 1-ooi eommupos. That Luther nevertheless answers is due to the urging of faithful brothers in Christ, who have countered him that everyone expects this, that the great reputation of Erasmus is not to be despised, and that the truth of Christian doctrine is in danger in the hearts of many. Luther even expresses the hope that the testimony of the Holy Spirit will come with this book through Luther to Erasmus and make him a very dear brother in Christ. Following on from this, at the end of the book he asks very warmly and urgently that Erasmus fulfill what he had promised: he would yield to the one who teaches him better.
With regard to the fact that Erasmus says that he has no pleasure in firm assertions, Luther counters that a Christian must have pleasure in firm assertions or he cannot be a Christian. For we are not dealing here with useless or "unnecessary" things, but with a main part of Christian doctrine. Whoever thinks that it is not necessary to know about free will, and that it has nothing to do with Christ, has a godless opinion. Through the false doctrine of free will, Christ's work of redemption is made obscure, GLT is deprived of its honor, and the gospel is annulled. In matters concerning eternal blessedness, the
Christians must not be skeptics, but firm assertors, otherwise the whole religion and godliness would suddenly be denied, or it would be claimed that the whole religion is nothing. In His holy word, God demands certainty of faith, confession, that is, the most certain and firm assertion even to the point of death. The Holy Spirit is not a skeptic and has not written in our hearts doubtful things or opinions, but firm assertions that are more certain and firm than even life and all experience. The words of Erasmus, however, when he says that he gladly submits his reason to the decisions of the church, whether he understands it or not, read as if there were nothing wrong with what is believed by anyone anywhere, if only world peace remains, and as if it were free to speak to anyone because of the danger to life, good reputation, fortune and reputation. The knowledge of what free will is capable of, what it suffers, how it relates to the grace of God, is absolutely necessary for a Christian. He who does not know this is worse than a heathen, for then it must also be unknown and uncertain what God is able to do and does in man. But he who does not know God's works and power does not know God Himself, cannot worship Him, praise Him, give thanks to Him, and cannot serve Him. Therefore, when Erasmus refers to Rom. 11:33, "O what depth of riches," etc. for the reason that one should not inquire about free will, he cites this saying falsely. For this saying speaks of God, in whom there are indeed many hidden things that we cannot investigate, but not of the word of God, that in it there are some hidden things that we are not to investigate. All things contained in the Holy Scriptures are clearly revealed, although many passages in them are obscure and hidden, not because of the majesty of the things, but because we do not know the words and the art of speaking. But this does not prevent the knowledge of all things in the Scriptures, which are all placed in the brightest light. Although in some places the words are dark, in other places of the Scriptures one and the same thing is always presented in the clearest way. In the Scriptures
Even the most hidden secrets of the highest majesty are no longer in seclusion, but are freely open to the public in the daytime, for Christ has opened our minds so that we can understand the Scriptures, and there is no longer a secret that is still hidden in the Holy Scriptures, which are exceedingly bright and clear: without the Holy Spirit, of course, neither the whole Scriptures nor any part of them can be understood.
In the Diatribe, Erasmus gives no explanation of any question concerning free will; he does not say what it is, what it does, how it behaves, what its parts are, what is opposed to it, what is related to it, what is similar, etc., but only that it is, and that on such grounds of proof that Luther must testify to him that 1) "he had never seen a more paltry book on free will, except for the daintiness of the writing.
To the speech of Erasmus: It is unchristian, impertinent and sacrilegious to say that God knows in advance in such a way that it happens with necessity, Luther replies: "Do you believe that God knows something in advance without wanting it", or wants something that he does not know? But if he knows beforehand what he wills, his will is eternal and unchangeable (because his nature is so); if he wills what he knows beforehand, his knowledge is eternal and unchangeable (because his nature is so). From this follows irrefutably: everything that we do and everything that happens, although it seems to us to happen changeably and accidentally, happens in truth necessarily and unchangeably, if one looks at God's will. For the will of God is powerful and cannot be hindered, since it is the essential power of God Himself, and also wise, so that it cannot be deceived; but since the will is not hindered, neither can His work be hindered, so that it happens in the place, at the time, in the measure according to which He Himself foresees and wills it." "Therefore the Christian faith is completely extinguished, the promises of God and the whole Gospel fall away completely, if
1) Col. 1690.
2) Col. 1691 f.
and we believe that we do not need to know the necessary foreknowledge of God and the necessity of what must be put into effect. For this is the only and highest comfort of Christians in all adversities, to know that God does not lie, but unchangeably does everything, that no one can resist His will, no one can change or hinder it." While Erasmus wanted to deter presumption with his words, Luther says, he teaches the highest presumption, godlessness and corruption. Therefore, his booklet in this piece is so godless, blasphemous and God-robbing that it has no equal anywhere.
Concerning the advice that Erasmus further gives: that there are some things that are of such a nature that, even if they were true and one could know them, it would not be advisable to reveal them to the ears of all kinds of people, Luther says 1) that everything that is either taught or proven in the holy Scriptures is salutary. If Erasmus counted the matter of free will among those things that should not be taught publicly, he should have followed his own advice and left the Diatribe pending. If Erasmus does not include free will, then he brings up strange things that do not belong to the matter as a useless chatterer (or, as Luther euphemistically says, as a verbose speaker). Luther has already proven that it is necessary to learn the doctrine of free will. God wants the truth to be proclaimed everywhere, at all times, in every way, according to Phil. 1, 18, "that only Christ be proclaimed.
Luther argues against Erasmus' judgment that there can be nothing more useless than to spread this strange thing (pkrrackoxon) in the world: What we do is not done by our free will, but by mere necessity, and that all kinds of godlessness, impenitence and obduracy must follow from this teaching 2): Erasmus here completely loses sight of fear and reverence for God, since he dares to say: there can be nothing more useless than this.
1) Col. 1698.
2) Col. 1712 f.
than this word of God. God allows these things to be spoken publicly throughout the world by the apostle Paul in free speech, regardless of the fact that, according to the judgment of Erasmus, godless people fall into despair, hatred and blasphemy. Is it permissible to "interpret, accept or reject God's words as one pleases, depending on whether one sees that the godless people are excited or moved by them"? Previously Erasmus warned against investigating the teachings of Scripture, with misapplication of Rom. 9:20, but at this point, where one has come not to the teachings of Scripture, but to the mysteries of the divine majesty that are to be reverently honored, namely, why God works in this way, he breaks the bars and rushes in. "Why," says Luther, "do you yourself not abstain from the investigation of those things and deter others, since God willed that they should be hidden from us and did not express them in Scripture? Here it would have befitted you to put your finger on your mouth, to stand still in awe before what should be hidden, to worship the hidden counsel of the Majesty, and to exclaim with Paul: Yea, dear man, who art thou then that thou wouldest be right with God?" The godly are content with the answer 3): "God willed that it be taught publicly, but one must not ask about the cause, but simply worship and give glory to God, that because He alone is just and wise, He does no wrong to anyone, nor can He do anything foolish or sacrilegious, even if it might appear to us to be quite different." There are, however, two main reasons why this must be preached, namely: First, because God can only give His grace to the humble who lament their sin and despair of themselves, man must be brought to the conviction that his blessedness depends entirely on God's good pleasure, counsel, will and works, completely without his powers, endeavors, will and works. Whoever thinks that he is still able to do something with regard to his blessedness, even if it is only a very small thing, remains trusting in himself and relies on his own strength.
3) Col. 1714.
himself on his works. Such a one remains proud in secret and an opponent of God's grace. The humble, however, come to know the promise of grace, call upon God for it and receive it. Second, so that the faith of the godly may be exercised. Faith has to do with things that are not seen, that are hidden. So that faith may take place, it is necessary that everything that is believed be hidden. But it cannot be hidden more deeply than when it is just opposite to how it appears to us, how we feel it and have experienced it. Thus, when God makes alive, He does it by killing, when He justifies, He does it by making guilty, when He leads to heaven, He does it by leading to hell. He hides his eternal goodness and mercy under eternal wrath, his justice under unreasonableness. 1) "This is the highest level of faith," says Luther at the end of his reply to Erasmus' preface, "to believe that he is kind, who makes so few blessed and condemns so many, to believe that he is just, who by his will necessarily condemns us, so that it appears, as Erasmus portrays it, as if he delights in the torments of men and is more worthy of hate than of love. Therefore, if I could in any way understand how God is merciful and just, who shows such anger and inequity, then faith would not be necessary. But now, since this cannot be comprehended, one should have occasion to exercise faith when such things are preached and proclaimed, as when God kills, faith is exercised in life in death."
Finally, Luther rejects as unfounded the accusation that the doctrine that what is done by us is not accomplished by free will but by necessity is a harmful doctrine. "If it is proven that our blessedness, quite independent of our powers and counsel, depends solely on God's work, it clearly follows that if God with His work in us is not
1) L-l. 1716.
There is that everything we do is evil, and we necessarily do what is not fit for salvation. Luther is not talking about the necessity of compulsion, but about the necessity of immutability, that is, the person who does not have the Spirit of God does evil voluntarily and gladly, and cannot refrain from or restrain his desire and will for evil by his own efforts. The will cannot change and turn elsewhere, but if it is resisted, it will only be provoked even more to will, which would not happen if man were free or had a free will. On the other hand, when God works in us, the changed will, gently nudged by the spirit of God, again wants and does the good out of sheer desire and inclination, voluntarily, not forced, so that it cannot be turned away from it by any repugnance, nor can it be overpowered or forced, but it continues to want, gladly do and love the good, just as it had previously wanted, gladly had and loved the evil. Thus the human will is either a prisoner of the devil or of the stronger one who comes over him and takes away his robbery. If the latter takes us away as his robbery, then we are his servants and captives through the Holy Spirit (but this is a royal freedom), that we may will and gladly do what he wills. The "name of free will can belong to no one but the divine Majesty, who can and does "whatever He wills. If, therefore, this name were to be attached to man, it would mean attaching to man also the divinity itself. The name free will, however, in the way Erasmus speaks of the power of free will not being able to do anything without grace, is an empty word, which is retained with danger for the blessedness and for the deception of the believing people.
Because what has been mentioned so far covers almost the entire trade, but other main things have already been explained in the discussion of the diatribe, we will refrain here from further specification of the contents and refer the reader to the book itself.
The book, in which Luther follows the diatribe step by step, has three parts. In the first part, he refutes that, by which
Erasmus sought to establish free will, and answers the reasons which he had put forward against Luther; in the second part he defends the sayings against Erasmus which he had invoked; in the third part he proves that God's grace does everything, free will nothing.
Luther always remained firm and consistent with the doctrine he presented in this book and never contradicted or changed it. In 1528, in the great confession of the Lord's Supper, 1) he declares that he intends to persevere with such teaching to the end: "I hereby reject and condemn as vain error all teachings that praise our free will, as they strive against such help and grace of our Savior Jesus Christ. For since apart from Christ death and sin are our masters, and the devil is our god and prince, there can be no strength nor power, no wit nor understanding, so that we might send or strive for righteousness and life, but must be blinded and captive, belonging to the devil and to sins, to do and think what pleases them and is contrary to God with his commandments." Following on from these words, the Concordia Formula 2) says: "In these words, Doctor Luther, of blessed and holy memory, does not give our free will any power to send itself to righteousness or to strive for it, but says that man, blinded and captive, does only the will of the devil and what is contrary to God the Lord. Therefore, there is no cooperation of our will in the conversion of man, and man must be drawn and born again of God, otherwise there is no thought in our hearts that would turn of itself to the holy gospel to accept it. As Doctor Luther also wrote about this trade in the book vo servo arbitrio, that is, about the imprisoned will of man against Erasmum, and elaborated and preserved this matter well and thoroughly, 3) and later in the book vo servo arbitrio.
1) Walch, old edition, vol. XX, 1.376, ? 517.
2! St. Louis edition, p. 4W f.; Müller, p. 3W f.
3) In Latin here is added: "and dargethan, that this opinion is godly and insurmountable".
of the glorious exposition of the first book of Moses, and especially of the 26th chapter, in so far as there he has also preserved some other disputations introduced by Erasmus, as "bgolutLnevessitaw oto. how he meant and understood such, against all misunderstanding and misrepresentation to the best and most diligent; whereupon we also hereby draw and point others to it.
Towards the end of the second part of his book, Luther testifies to Erasmus that he does not lead the matter in blind zeal, but with right deliberation and that he was not only carried away in the heat of the defense, that he now completely emphasizes free will, while he, as Erasmus falsely ascribes to him, had previously granted it a certain capacity, and Luther refers to his other books for this. It is therefore not a new, strange doctrine that Luther has presented here, but one that he has also consistently asserted in his other books and, as we have seen, he intends to persist in it to the end. Likewise, our fathers in the faith, even in the confession adopted by the Lutheran Church, have testified that in this book Luther has preserved his cause well and thoroughly, that his opinion is godly and unconquerable. In one of his last writings, which he finished only a few months before his death, namely in November 1545, in the treatise on the first book of Moses, Luther 4) still refers to what he had taught in his book "that free will is nothing" and maintains it.
In order to understand a writer correctly, one must first and foremost keep in mind what he intended with his writing, and must not tear individual words and speeches out of their context or even contradict them with the explanations given elsewhere by the author himself. However, these generally valid rules of correct interpretation have seldom been observed with regard to Luther's writing, which is why the most diverse judgments have been made about it.
4) Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. II, 176, § 141.
To a large extent, what Luther predicted 1) has come true: "After my death, many will bring forth my books and cite them and will want to prove and confirm all kinds of errors and their own imagination. Now I have written, among other things, that everything is necessary and must happen; but at the same time I have also added that one should look at the God who has revealed Himself, as we sing in the 46th Psalm: "His name is Jesus Christ, the Lord of hosts, and there is no other God," and in many other places. But they will pass by all the places and accept only those where the hidden God is spoken of. - Therefore you who have me now should remember that I have taught these things, namely, that one should not inquire into the provision of the hidden God, but that one should be satisfied with the same provision, which is revealed through the calling and through the ministry of preaching; for there you can be sure of your faith and blessedness, and say, "I believe in the Son of God, who said: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life," John 3:36. Therefore there is no condemnation or wrath in him, but the good pleasure of God the Father. And I have also publicly taught the same in my other books and still teach it with a loud voice. Therefore I will be excused."
It would go too far if we wanted to register here all the different statements of Reformed and Lutheran theologians about Luther's book ve servo eu-bitrio. Lutheran theologians can be divided into three classes according to their position on this book. The first class consists of those who claim that Luther essentially presented the teachings of Calvin. To the second class belong those theologians who absolve Luther of this accusation, but still think that Luther used idioms here that were not to be approved of, or at least misunderstood idioms, and who now try to excuse Luther in every possible way. The third class of Lutheran theologians are
1) Walch, "St. Louis" Edition, vol. II, 184, ß 162 f.
those who flatly agree with Luther. These last ones are right. Against the former - of whom there were only a few in the old church - we note that only gross misunderstanding can mix Luther's teaching with Calvin's false doctrine. It is precisely the distinction that Luther makes, on the basis of Scripture, between the hidden and the revealed God that speaks against Calvin. With Calvin, the revealed will of God is mere appearance (voluntas si^ni). Luther is also fully serious about the revealed will of God. We recall only such passages as Col. 1795 f.: "Therefore you say rightly: If God does not will death, then it is certainly to be attributed to our will if we are lost. Right, I say, if you should speak of the preached God, for He wants all men to be saved, because He comes to all with the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not admit Him, as it is said in Matth. 23, 37: How often have I wanted to gather Your children and You did not want to." Furthermore Col. 1802: "The incarnate God, I say, is sent to will, to speak, to do, to suffer, to offer all that is necessary for blessedness" etc. Already above (Introduction, p. 59), words of Luther are quoted in which he explains how he wants this to be understood when he says that God works all things in all. The theologians of the second class have wisely omitted to examine those phrases that were offensive to them according to Scripture, otherwise they would soon have found out that Luther did not speak differently than Scripture speaks. And they have mostly excused or defended Luther with great clumsiness, and by their defense and excuses they have only betrayed that in the matter itself they do not completely agree with Luther, thus also not with Scripture.
The orthodox teachers of the 16th century were unanimous in their support of this writing of Lutber's, and made it their shibboleth, as it were, in the hot battles against the Philippists. Among the statements that were made against the synergists, one can consistently find the one that it is a sign and proof of false doctrine if one says that Luther was mistaken in his book ve servo arbitrio. At the Colloquium in Altenburg in 1568
the Saxon theologians declared that they accepted and approved the doctrine of free will as Luther had presented it most thoroughly in his book Ve servo srbitrio, in the interpretation of the first book of Moses and elsewhere; in great zeal they call those who accuse him of recantation murderers, thieves and robbers of the Christian church and of truth. In the preface of the 6orpu8 lioetriu "e otiristiunue, which was printed under the name of Duke Johann Wilhelm at Jena in 1571, it is called a work of Satan that one had blurted out that Luther had revoked, abandoned and denied his doctrine of the servant will.
Finally, we mention two later judgments of Luther about his pamphlet against Erasmus. In 1527, he writes in his "Answer to the King of England's Blasphemous Writings Title": "He also touches with words of shame my booklet written against free will, which Erasmus Roterodamus, the same king's best friend, has had to leave unedited and should still leave unedited, although he has more art and reason in one finger than the king of England with all his clever ones. And I thank not only the king and Erasmo, but also their God and all the devils, that they have published this booklet for me in a right and honest way. Instead of the words "rightly and honestly," the Latin reads "with well-founded proofs from sacred Scripture" (solickw Loripturae "r^umentis). Luther thus testifies that his book cannot be refuted from Scripture. On July 9, 1537, he wrote to Wolfgang Fabricius Capito: "To arrange my books in bundles, I am not at all inclined and sluggish, because I, irritated by a Saturnian hunger 1), rather wish that they would all be devoured. For I recognize none for my right book, except for instance that of the captured will and the catechism."
Luther rightly declares the Scripture ve gervo "rditrio, along with the Catechism, to be his best
1) The god Saturnus ate most of his children; so Luther would also like to see most of his books destroyed.
Book. It is indeed a theological controversy and doctrinal writing of the first rank. It contains "lightnings and thunderbolts" also against today's disciples of Erasmus, against today's synergists of Lutheran character, who put the decision about blessedness and damnation into the hands of man's free will, who play the same frivolous game with "the grace of God" as Erasmus. But even apart from the actual point of controversy, this writing of Luther's is a true model and a compendium of genuine scriptural theology. What is said here about the principle of theology, the holy Scriptures, clarity, the sole authority of Scripture, about the difference between law and gospel, about sin and grace, the redemption of Christ, about flesh and spirit, the true and the false church, belongs to the best that has ever been taught and written in the church about these things. But this book is not written only for theologians. Every Christian who has reasonably exercised senses can understand it and become glad and certain of his salvation from it. It is a victory and triumph of Christian faith over the wisdom, and especially the sanctimonious wisdom, of this world.
Erasmus was very angry about Luther's book "that free will is nothing", especially about the fact that Luther had accused him of atheism or epicureanism. Therefore, on March 2, 1526, he addressed a letter to the Elector John of Saxony, in which he complained that Luther had offended his good reputation with great lies, and requested that he be punished or at least reminded that he should not again submit to such malice. The Elector informed Luther of this letter and asked for his and his colleagues' advice on what should be done in response. On April 23, 1526, Luther wrote to the Elector John 2): "To Erasmus' writing it seems good to us that E. C. F. G. does not allow himself to be mixed up in the matter, as the Vipera seeks, but answers in such a way: as he himself well knows that E. C. F. G. is in the spiritual matter.
2) Walch, old edition, vol. XXl, IM.
not may nor should be judge; therefore he should have spared E. C. F. G. such request" etc. Perhaps it could also be added: "if it were a secular matter, he (Erasmus) would have repaid Luther with writing that went out into all the world, as he knows that a greater judge belonged to it than a prince" etc. Against Luther's book, Erasmus wrote a rebuttal under the title: Hvpsrnspistos äiutribrro näversus servum arbitrium Alartini Imtberi per Lr "8mum kotvroäumum. The first part was published in 1526, the second in 1527?) In it he says that although he wrote against Luther in all modesty, he was more hostile to him than to others. This was not only done by him, but also by others who had contributed to Luther's book. He tries to maintain what he had written against Luther in the Diatribe, but in vain. Luther speaks about it in the Table Talks 3): "He has written against me in his booklet 'Hyperaspistes', in which he wants to defend his book of free will, against which I have written in my book 'Vom knechtischen Willen', which he has not yet published and will never be able to publish for eternity. This I know for certain, and I defy the devil with all his scales, so that he may confute it. For I am certain that it is the immutable truth of God." Erasmus' book was written in an exceedingly bitter and poisonous manner. In a letter to Michael Stiefel, 4) on October 8, 1527, Luther writes: "Erasmus has
1) The meaning of this addition is: Erasmus has already avenged himself, therefore the matter is no longer under princes, but under God's judgment. In Seckendorf, List. I-utk., tib. I, p. 312, ? 180 at the end, the sense is missed.
2) In the Leyden edition of the works of Erasmus, the first part is Dona. X, p. 1249, the second p. 1335.
3) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 124. Tischreden, cap. 37, ? 124.
4) Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1060. Stiefel was, as we see from Leonhard Kaiser's letter to him, on March 9, 1527 in Tollet (Oestreich) in the "Jörgerschen Haus". Cf. Jen. Ausg., vol: III (1556), col. 447 a and 447 d. The woman WolstganaGorgerin is Mrs. Dorothea Jörg", widow of the knight Wolfgang Jörg". Compare D" Wette, vol. VI, p. I3S.
two hyperaspites, or rather hyperaspides, that is, quite poisonous and over-poisonous vipers plotted against me"; and Melanchthon says in a letter to Joachim Camerarius: "Have you ever read anything more bitterly written, Joachim, than the b^peraspists" (Schildträger, Vertheidiger) of Erasmus? He is altogether an adder" (uspis). On October 19, 1527, Luther wrote to Justus Jonas 5): "I wish you luck, best Jonas, because of your recantation, in which you now finally paint your famous Erasmus with his right colors, nnd rightly recognize this adder, which is full of deadly spines, while before you praised him in many respects. I am glad that you have learned so much from reading the One Hyperaspistes and have changed your judgment about him. And when I read this part of your letter to my wife, she immediately said: Has not the dear man become a toad? Lo and behold! She is also pleased that you now have the same opinion with me about Erasmus." Luther left the book of Erasmus unanswered, 6) because it was already sufficiently refuted in Luther's first answer, and wrote nothing else against Erasmus.
Only twice after that, something from Luther's pen concerning Erasmus appeared in print, namely a short preface by Luther to a book by Antonius Corvinn and a reply by Luther to a letter by Amsdorf. In 1533, Erasmus published an interpretation of the 84th Psalm, to which he added advice for the restoration of the unity of the church. This book 7) appeared under the title: Dos. Lrssmi kowroänmi über äs oareionän eeelvsias coneoräin äsguv soäkmckis vpinionum äissiäüs ste. by Nicolaus Faber at Leipzig in October 1533 in octavo. He may have expected success from this, because the Nuremberg religious peace had come about.
5) Walch, alte Aus", vol. XXI, 1061.
6) Melanchthon's judgment of Erasmus's new remarks on free will was that they were clever but very unclearly written, and that it was difficult to recognize the author's real opinion. Köstlin, Mart. Luth", Vol. II, p. 141.
7) It is found, both in "d" Basel" and in the "Leyden edition", in the fifth volume of the works of Erasmus.
and a council seemed to be at the door. In this writing, Erasmus tries to put the papal church in the most favorable light possible, without, however, daring to decisively defend the main points of the papal doctrinal concept attacked by Luther. He was completely silent on the primacy of the pope, on the prestige of the Roman Church, on purgatory, on the celibate status of priests, and the like, but nevertheless asserted that everyone who wanted to be blessed had to be in agreement with the Church. Against this, the Hessian theologian (later in Brunswick) Antonius Corvinus published a paper in 1534: Quatenus expeckist vckitam recono Lrssmi äs sureienäu eoelesiuv oonoorckin rationem svgui, tantwper ckum uäpurutur s^noäus, juclioium. At the request of the printer Nicolaus Schirlentz at Wittenberg, Luther wrote a preface to this book of Antonius Corvinus (No. 12 in the appendix of this volume) 1) and said in it that he believed that Erasmus and his disciples might want to advise the cause out of good opinion by such a middle position and mutual concession; but conscience and truth could not suffer such kind of concord. After love, nothing was ever omitted on the part of the Lutherans to maintain or restore harmony. On the other hand, the papists always continue to spill the blood of the Lutherans and to drink it and to persecute them with sword, fire, water and all kinds of fury, solely because they cannot, against their conscience, regard the statutes of men as equal to God's words or even elevate them above God. In faith and doctrine, however, there can be no mutual concession, because the adversaries do not concede anything, defend their errors even more fiercely than before, and even demand things that they disapproved of before Luther's time. We, however, cannot approve of that which is obviously in conflict with the Holy Scriptures. There can be no harmony between Christ and Belial. The papists also boast of the teachings of Christ and do not want to be regarded as having rejected the errors of the
1) This preface is, but incomplete, once again in Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 316.
Devils teach, but by the fruits the tree is recognized. They always cry church, church, church! and also call the church godless men, who could hold opinions over and against the Scriptures and establish statutes, and that by divine power. Erasmus affirms this speech of theirs and promises everywhere that he wants to follow the church, but teaches nothing but doubtful and uncertain things. A mind that fears God and desires eternal blessedness cannot be satisfied with this, nor can it believe what is obviously taught against the holy scriptures; it cannot be reassured by being told that it must listen to the pope so that peace and harmony may remain. The sheep of Christ want to hear the voice of their shepherd and master; but Erasmus and the papists offer them only the counsel of men and ungodly doctrine of the devil, which is contrary to the Scriptures. Erasmus would do best to leave theology and pursue his eloquence in other things for which he has gifts. Those who cry out that the church believes many articles that are not found in Scripture follow their madness and invent a completely different church, namely the school of Satan.
Erasmus had repeatedly made hostile and malicious attacks on Luther, the Lutherans and the whole Reformation since the publication of Luther's book, and also his followers appeared against Luther, 2) among them Georg Witzel. Since it was rumored that Luther would answer Witzel, Amsdorf wrote to Luther on January 28, 1534 (No. 11a in the appendix of this volume) that Witzel had stolen all that was his from Erasmus, therefore he must be despised. But Erasmus should be answered and painted with the right colors. The epitome of Erasmus' doctrine is: Luther's doctrine is heresy, because it has been condemned by the emperor and the pope, but his is orthodox, because bishops and cardinals, princes and kings send and give him golden cups. Luther answered this in a missive to Amsdorf, probably already in February 1534 (No. 11b in the appendix of this volume), which he wrote to Wit-
2) Köstlin, Vol. II, p. 141.
tenberg published in print. In this publication, Luther wants to publicly warn Christians against Erasmus, after it has become clear that there is no help or hope in him, and therefore relentlessly expresses his judgment of him. Luther accepts Amsdorf's statement that there is nothing in Erasmus' teachings, that he only seeks favor with people, and that he is ignorant and malicious. Otherwise, Luther had already declared him to be a particularly thoughtless and useless babbler, because he seemed to treat sacred and serious matters quite carelessly and even made fun of them; now, however, Luther was inclined to believe that what was said about him by respected and intelligent people was true, that Erasmus was childish. In the Diatribe, the carelessness of Erasmus had already annoyed him, and Luther had therefore insisted that he was not much different from Epicurus, Lucian, or the skeptics. In the Hyperaspistes, however, he answered nothing to the matter itself, only poured out his poison, therefore Luther gave up all hope for his theology from that time on. Through his mockery of the most holy doctrines of faith, it has become obvious that he has nothing to say about the Christian religion.
holds. In his godless catechism, he also tries to make the doctrines of faith suspicious to the youth and to lead them to doubt. It is not necessary to answer such an adder, among all pious and righteous people it has already disproved itself enough. He deliberately uses ambiguous and deceitful words in order to spread the seeds of heresies under the appearance of Christian faith. Every Christian should interpret them against him, as even the laws prescribe that against the one who can speak more clearly, his own words should be interpreted. A Christian should avoid ambiguous words; anyone who even uses them intentionally is worthy of just hatred. Then Luther cites many proofs that Erasmus uses the most shameful ambiguities. Luther wanted to leave such testimony about Erasmus behind so that he would finally be freed from the suspicion that he was Lutheran. Luther wanted all of Erasmus' writings to be banned from the schools.
Where many other testimonies of Luther against Erasmus are to be found in the Table Talks is already indicated in this volume immediately before No. 68.