February 1534.
Grace and peace in Christ! I thank you, dear Lord, that you judge freely of my little book. For I do not care that the papists should be offended at it, because it is not written for their sake, as they are henceforth not worthy that we should write or speak for them. For God has given them a wrong mind, so that they also dispute the recognized truth.
Our cause was heard at Augsburg before the Emperor and the whole world, and was found blameless and equal to sound doctrine. Thereafter, our confession and apology came out and is in the light of day throughout the world; thereby we answer countless books and all past, present and future lies of the papists.
We have confessed Christ before this wicked and adulterous generation. He confesses us again without a doubt before God the Father and His angels. Our light shines on the lampstand. He who sees may see more and more; he who is blind may become more and more blind; he who is righteous may become more and more righteous, and he who is unrighteous may become more and more unrighteous! Their blood be upon them! We are pure from their blood. We have told the ungodly of his ungodliness, but he will not repent: so he may die in his sins. We have saved our souls. Therefore we do not need to write, or to have written, for their sake.
4 That you also advise one to despise the wretched interpreter of language or word-stealer, whom you call Erasmus' thief, and rather answer Erasmus himself: you should know that I have already despised him enough, because I have not read a single leaf by him. Jonas wrote against him once, without my will, because I, like you, advised him to despise him. For I know the man from within and without as such a man, who is not worthy that an honest man should have anything to do with him or talk to him, because he is such a fundamentally envious and hostile hypocrite.
5 Moreover, you know how I tend to overcome such writings with silence and contempt. For how many books of Eck, Faber, Emser and Cochlaeus and many others, which seemed to go pregnant like mountains and to give birth to who knows what monstrous things, I have so muffled with silence that they are no longer remembered! Cato calls them "courageous brawlers" (vitilitigatores), and lets their speeches pass by, but they would have become famous if he had gotten involved with them. The well-known saying is true:
Hoc scio pro certo, quod si cum stercore certo, Vinco vel vincor, semper ego maculor.
[I know for sure that when I fight with dirt, I will always be sullied, I may win or be defeated.]
Our glory is this: What can be brought against us in the Scriptures and the Fathers, that has been brought forward and explained. For the rest, they alone have the honor of being able to revile, lie and slander; we will gladly grant them this, because otherwise they cannot become famous by any other virtue.
(6) With regard to Erasmus, however, we have been astonished at your judgment, in that you simply assert that there is nothing substantial about his doctrine except the favor of the people; you attribute to him ignorance and wickedness. If you could persuade the people to accept this judgment, you would be like a little David, knocking down this big-talking Goliath with one blow and destroying his whole sect at once. For what is more vain and deceitful than the favor of men, both in all other things and especially in spiritual things, according to the testimony of the Psalms: "There is no profit in the help of men. And, "All men are liars." So if the whole of Erasmus is vain, it is also based on vanity and lies. What need is there to answer him? He will finally perish even with his vanity, like smoke, if we include him among the shadows and wanton brawlers, who
have been taken away (obscuratos) by my silence.
I have already declared him to be a particularly careless and useless talker, because he seemed to me to be so careless with sacred and serious things, and again, to be so serious about bad antics, ridiculous things and jokes, although he is an old man and a theologian, moreover, at this time, when there are so many great trades and so much to do, that I would almost like to believe it to be true what I have heard from respectable and intelligent people: namely, that Erasmus is really childish.
8. And since I first wrote against his diatribe, and had to consider his words (as John says: Test the spirits), his carelessness, especially in such an important matter, annoyed me, so I stung him as a deep sleeper, so that I awakened the lazy and cold disputator, and blamed him that he would not be much different in mind than Epicurus, Lucianus, or the skeptics, whether he would learn to be a little more careful to act his cause better. But I have done nothing more than to provoke the adder, which out of a furious spirit has given birth to snakes upon snakes (viperaspides1) ), an offspring worthy of the father and very similar to him. But to the matter itself he answered nothing at all; therefore I have from that time on left all hope of his theology.
(9) But now I agree with you that it was not carelessness in him, but in fact, as you say, ignorance and malice; namely, that although he knows our or the Christians' teachings, yet he knowingly and deliberately does not want to know them. Although he really does not understand, nor can understand, what we teach with one another quite clearly against the Pabst's synagogue [Rotte]: yet he must know the known things which we teach with
1) In 1526 and 1527, Erasmus published a book in defense of his diatribe under the title: Hvperuspistks d. i. Schildführer oder Vertheidigung. Luther now jokingly calls this writing: Vipsraspiäss. Vipern, is the name of the viper, which gives birth to living young, and means both "shield" and a very poisonous "snake".
of the church under the papacy, because he writes much of it, or, more correctly, mocks it.
(10) For example, the things of the Trinity in the Godhead; of Christ's divinity and humanity; of sin; of redemption of the human race; of resurrection of the dead; of eternal life, and the like. He knows, I say, that many godless and false Christians also believe and teach these things. But he does not like all this. Yes, a true believer who has a little wit (cui Spiritus in naribus est) can easily see that he thinks nothing at all of religion, and especially of Christianity, and detests it. He lets this be known in many places, and will once again betray and corrupt himself with his own traces, like a shrew.
Among other things, he has recently published a catechism that is written with a completely diabolical art, by which he treacherously seeks to infect the youth with his poison so that it cannot later be removed from their minds; just as he has sucked his witches and furies in Italy and Rome, so that he cannot now be cured by any medicine. For what Christian should tolerate the manner of teaching the youth or those inexperienced in the Christian faith, which Erasmus uses? A tender and inexperienced mind must indeed first be educated in the simple, necessary and certain principles, so that it firmly believes them, because every apprentice must necessarily believe. For he who doubts himself or is taught to doubt, what should he ever learn?
(12) Our new catechism teacher, however, deals solely with making his pupils doubtful and suspicious of the doctrines of the faith, since right at the beginning, setting aside all firm foundations, he reproaches them with heresies and vexatious opinions, by which the church has been plagued from the beginning, so that it is almost as much as if he said: There has never been anything certain in the Christian religion. But if an inexperienced mind is overwhelmed with such examples and dangerous questions at the very beginning, what else can it think or do but to be frightened off by the Christian religion as a plague either
secretly or, where it has become bold, publicly detest the same?
And this mischievous sense, he thinks, will be noticed by no one. As if we do not have innumerable examples of such devil larvae in the Scriptures. For the serpent first provoked Eve to doubt, since he made her suspicious of God's commandment from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; but when she had become doubtful, he overthrew and overcame her (where Erasmus does not consider this to be a fairy tale).
(14) So he also creeps along with the same serpentine walk, tempting innocent souls: Why have there been so many sects and errors in this one religion of truth (as it is considered)? Why so many different creeds? Why is the Father called God in the Apostles' Creed, the Son not God but Lord, and the Spirit neither God nor Lord but Holy One? and the like,-who (I ask) poses such questions to simple souls whom he wants to instruct, but the devil himself? But who could speak of the creed in such a way? Behold, there you have the beginning, end and turning point of the excellent fable, namely the mouth and tool of the wretched Satan himself.
(15) But behold, I almost fell for the refutation of this catechism, since I only wanted to tell you why I am afraid that one does not have to answer such an adder, but that it already refutes itself enough among all pious and righteous people.
16) He has done the same play on the apostle Paul (the paraphrases or paraphroneses, 1) that I speak according to his word, I pass over now) in the preface to Romans, where he praises and exalts Paul in such a way that the simple and inexperienced reader can no longer be led away and deterred from reading and learning Paul by any art of speech, because he portrays him as so confused, intertwined, with himself.
1) As Luther shortly before wrote Hyperaspistes.
titled as Viperasxiäss, so here the karapUrusss (paraphrases) as ?arapNrou6868 (follies).
contentious, changeable, and excruciatingly difficult that one must believe it to be the letter of a nonsensical fool, let alone that one could hope to derive some benefit from it.
17 And among other quite poisonous stings, he also had to pronounce that Peter calls Christ a man, but not a God. 2) That is a good word and very appropriate.
18. But his doctrine, with all that it comprehends, what is it but a mockery of Christ and all things done by him? Who should grasp anything else from this doctrine than a disgust, even hatred, to learn such a confused, unclear and perhaps fabulous religion.
19 Who would be allowed to speak of the apostle and evangelist John, who is most respected by Christians after Christ, in such a peevish and spiteful (I do not want to say hostile) manner? He has nothing but worlds in his mouth? unless he be thought a foolish and unskilful man. For Christians speak of the apostles with fear and reverence, but he teaches us to speak of them with unholy disgust and rejection. And this is the next step, to speak unholily also of God Himself, whose apostles they are; yes, it is just such hopefulness as if one said that the Holy Spirit (whose words are the apostles') led nothing but worlds in the mouth.
20 Such things are innumerable in Erasmus, or rather, he is that entirely in his theology, which many others have already noticed before me, and notice daily more in him. Nor does he cease to increase his censure daily, and to come out with it more grossly; for his judgment hastens on, and his ruin does not sleep.
21 And this is something peculiar in Erasmus' godliness, that in the Epistle of Christian Philosophy (which, added to his New Testament, is publicly circulated through all the churches), after having raised the question: Why Christ, as such a great teacher, came from heaven, since there are many similar and perhaps more perfect things among pagans? he answers: Christ is (I believe that he is)
2) Apost. 2, 22. The man from God 2c
(which I believe to be quite Erasmusian) came from heaven so that he would do these things much more perfectly and better than the other saints.
22 Here Christ, this poor regenerator of all things, (so he bites the Lord of glory) has lost the honor of a redeemer, and has merely become holier than others. He could not have spoken this word out of ignorance, but must have said it with diligence and will, because even those who do not truly believe know and confess everywhere that Christ came down to redeem us men from sin and death.
This was the first passage that made my mind averse to Erasmus. I immediately began to suspect that he was merely a democritus, or epicurus, or a mischievous mocker of Christ, who was showing his hatred of Christ to his fellow epicurians everywhere; but with such fanciful and cunning words that he could rage quite furiously against the Christians who might be annoyed by his pointed, suspicious words, and not want to interpret everything for the good of their Christ. As if Erasmus alone were entitled in the world to put everything in his speeches, even in the greatest things, on screws according to his arbitrariness, and all people must nevertheless be so subject to him in this servitude that they must all understand and interpret his most scandalous and mischievous speeches in the best and most honest way.
Why does he not prefer to speak honestly and openly himself? Why does he take pleasure in such deceitfulness and dangerous figurative ways of speaking? Such a teacher of oratory and theologian should not only have known, but should also have demonstrated in fact what Fabius teaches: that one should avoid an ambiguous word like a cliff. And if such a thing should happen to slip through our fingers, it can be forgiven; but to seek it with diligence and resolution is not worth forgiveness, but the most just punishment of all. For what is such a two-tongued and hateful way of speaking intended to do, but to scatter and preserve the seeds of all heresies among words and letters that seem to be in accordance with the Christian faith, so that, while it seems as if they teach
and if religion were defended, it would be completely destroyed and annihilated without notice?
25 Therefore all do well who interpret his suspicious and deceitful words against him, and one must not let his cry: false accusation! false accusation! be mistaken, as if one did not interpret his words in a fitting and louder way. For why does he avoid fitting speeches, and seek after unskillful speeches?
For this would be an outrageous tyranny, to force the whole human race under himself in such a way that what sounds mischievous and dangerous should nevertheless be interpreted for the best, and he should be granted the dominion to speak deceitfully at all times. Rather, first compel him to act rightly, and urge him to serve the human race, that is, to shun such two-tongued and unholy speech or vain laundering, as Paul commanded that unholy empty talk be shunned.
27 Therefore the common laws of the Roman Empire also condemn this way of speaking, and punish him who could have spoken more clearly, and yet spoke darkly, by prescribing that his words should be interpreted against him. And Christ Himself condemned the mischievous servant, who excused himself in a sly way, and used His own words against him: Out of thy mouth do I judge thee, O thou servant of rascals. For if one were to get into the habit of speaking doubtfully and cunningly in religion, in law and in all important matters, what would become of it but a completely confused Babel, since in the end no one could understand the other? That would not be learning eloquence, but losing one's natural speech.
(28) And if such a wild liberty were to apply, I could interpret everything a heretic has ever said in a reasonable way, even everything the devil has said or done, or could say and do for all eternity. Where then will remain the ability to refute heretics and the devil? where the wisdom of the Lord Christ, which all adversaries cannot resist? where the art of reasoning, the master of teaching? where the art of speech, which is powerful to persuade?
One will not be able to teach, learn, talk, comfort, frighten anything, because one does not hear anything that would be certain or actually said.
29 When Erasmus says of John the Evangelist, so lightly and ridiculously, that he has nothing but worlds in his mouth, he must be struck with the judgment of Epicurus or Domocritus, and told to learn to speak more reverently of majesty. Fools may sometimes speak immodestly or foolishly to princes, but not always with impunity. But if another would do it with sound judgment and intentionally, he might be punished alive as an insulter of majesty.
(30) Thus, when he says: Peter calls Christ a man, but conceals that he is God, he must be blamed for Arian opinion and heresy, for he could have omitted such treacherous speech in such important matters of divine majesty, or spoken more godly. For here the words clearly indicate that the Arians had no desire to call Christ God, and it was better that he should be called only a man. Although they might or might not be interpreted as referring to the deity of Christ, they are offensive to Christian souls as they stand and read, especially if the author is suspicious, because they have neither one nor a simple mind, and are understood more for the Arians than for the orthodox.
(31) Thus Jerome writes of the Arians of his time, who taught just as artificially: "Another thing the priests speak, another thing the people hear. For it would not have been necessary to tell the Christians that Peter did not call Christ God, even though he did not conceal the truth that Christ was God. And it is not enough to invent: Peter called him a man because of the common people, for since he called him a man, he certainly did not conceal God for that reason, except that he did not put these letters "God" in this place, which Erasmus strictly demands here as well as often in other places, only in order to set traps for the inexperienced and to make our religion suspicious.
(32) Carpi (Carpensis 1), whoever he is, quite rightly rebuked him as a follower of the Arians, in the preface to Hilarius, where he wrote: "We dare to call the Holy Spirit God, which the ancients did not dare to do. Now he has been well reminded that he should recognize and correct his beautiful figurative idioms and Arian pieces; but this he does not do at all, but scolds that they are satanic false accusations, and mocks the Deity once again as much as before. So high he defies his two-tongued art and mischievousness in speech. Nevertheless, he confesses the Trinity quite seriously and does not want to be regarded as anything less than having denied the Trinity in the Godhead; only that he says that the forwardness of the moderns (which he will later want to have interpreted as special diligence) has taken many things from Scripture and dared what the ancients would not have dared. As if the Christian religion were based on human reputation (for that is what he wants to say). This is nothing else than that all religions are considered fables.
Although Carpensis is obviously void in many things and attacks Luther in a hostile manner, Erasmus, out of unheard-of arrogance, imagines that all men are blocks and sticks who are neither able to understand the matter nor to hear the words. For only read the passage, and behold the inveterate devil. This passage has made me (for others may hold it as they wish) not trust Erasmus, even if he confesses in clear words that Christ is God. But I need the. Chrysippus' cunning conclusion (sophisma): If you lie, then what you speak true is also a lie. For what did he need (if he truly believed that the Holy Spirit is God) to say: We dare to call the Holy Spirit God, which the ancients did not dare to do? And the word "dare"
1) Erasmus's rebuttal to Carpensis is entitled: Xpolo^iu aä Xldertura, Ourxorum prMaipkM. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XVIII, Ein" leitung, p. 108, note Carpi lies in the Duchy of Modena. At that time, it was the capital of the principality of the same name and belonged to the House of Pico.
so to turn about on different sides, sometimes to praise, sometimes to scold, even in the very newer ones; since, after all, we have this from the old ones themselves and we did not dare to do it first?
34 Furthermore, it is an obvious lie that the ancients did not dare to call the Holy Spirit God; if he does not, according to his beautiful figure, understand among the ancients Democritus and Epicurus, or take God according to the letter (materialiter) for the four letters "God". But what is the use of such hateful mischievousness than to make an elephant out of a molehill in front of the unlearned, and to make them understand that the Christian religion is nothing at all, merely because the four letters "God" are not everywhere where he could demand them.
(35) His fathers, the Arians, also made much of the fact that these letters Homousios (equal) and Innascibilis (who cannot be born) were not in the Scriptures, and did not care that the matter itself was clearly shown to them. But where the name of God stood, they soon made a false interpretation, mocking the truth, and pretended that it was not a real God, but a name-god. So one cannot do anything with these vipers, one speaks the same with or without scripture.
This is the wickedness of Satan, when he cannot deny the matter, that he turns to require such words as he prescribes. Thus the devil might say to Christ himself, "Though thou speakest true, yet speakest thou nothing, because thou speakest not in such words as I would have thee speak, but I would rather that it were said in no words; as Marcolfus would be hanged upon such a tree as he himself would choose. But he did not want to choose one. But of this another time, when God gives time and life. For I intend to leave behind me my true and certain testimony of Erasmus, and to offer Luther to such vipers that they may sting and bite him, but not that they may tear and devour him completely.
(37) But what I have said about our freedom [in the will] I repeat, namely, that one should not at all suffer Erasmus's tyranny in his ambiguous speeches, but should rather
must simply judge from his mouth. If he speaks Arian, he must be judged Arian; if he speaks Lucian, he must be called a Lucian; if he speaks pagan, he may be called a pagan, unless he improves himself and ceases to defend such words. For example, in a letter he speaks of the incarnation of the Son of God with the most shameful words and calls it: Coitum Dei cum virgine [God's intercourse with the virgin]. Here he must be judged as a terrible blasphemer of God and the Virgin. And it is of no help to him, if he wanted to interpret ooitum afterwards in the manner of the sound Christian doctrine. Why did he not speak according to it before? Because he knew that the Christians would necessarily be severely annoyed by the word coitus; indeed, 'if he had not wanted to annoy them, he would not have spoken so. We should also be justly annoyed by it; and it must be called an ungodly man who does not get annoyed in such sacred matters by such a shameful, offensive word, although we know what coire means still further. But since doubtful speech is always to be taken in the worst way, it may be pardoned if it comes to the tongue by chance; but where it is used with diligence and intent, it must be condemned without all mercy, as has been said. For to hold fast the doctrines of faith is a hard and divine work, if they be taught in proper, significant, and certain words: how then shall they be held fast if they be delivered in ambiguous, doubtful, and crooked words?
38 St. Augustine says: "The wise men of the world spoke freely in grave matters, and spared no offense. We, however, (he says) must be guided by a certain rule. Therefore he does not want to suffer the words fortuna and fatum, neither in himself nor in others. For even if someone understands by fortune the mind of God, who acts against what is known by nature, and therefore has no evil opinion, he still says: Keep the opinion and change the language!
39 And even if Augustine had not said this, nor had the power to say it, it is in the nature of every profession that it is
sacred or secular, use his certain expressions, and avoid the ambiguous ones. For even bad craftsmen either blame it as something punishable, or laugh at it as a joke, if someone speaks of their things with alienis terminis [words not in keeping with the art] (as they are called). How much more must one teach in holy things, where certain blessedness or eternal ruin follows, with certain and proper words! Let us play with ambiguous words in other minor things, such as nuts, apples, coins, and such childish and foolish things, but in religion and important things of the world regime let us flee from ambiguity as much as from death and the devil, as much as it is possible.
40 But our ambiguous king sits securely on the throne of his ambiguity, and oppresses us simple-minded Christians with a double trouble. First, it is his will and heart's desire to annoy us with his ambiguous speeches; and he would be sorry that such blocks did not annoy him. Afterwards, when he sees that we are offended by it and fall over his deceitful, flowery speeches and cry out at him, he first rejoices victoriously and is glad that the desired robbery has fallen into his yarn. For then he has found opportunity to practice the art of speech, breaks loose upon us with great power and clamor, mangles us, scourges us, crucifies us and throws us into the deepest hell, because we understood his words to be slanderous, poisonous, diabolical (and what else might be called annoying), since he would have wanted them to be understood in this way. 2c
With this whimsical tyranny (who would think that the woman of ambiguity would be capable of so much, or who could suppose that a man would be so foolish and rely so much on such a basic concealed way of speaking?) he not only forces us to suffer his free desire to ambiguate, but also to the necessity of remaining silent. He wants and desires that we be annoyed, so that he and his Epicureans mock us as fools. Again, he does not want to hear about it, that we are annoyed, so that he is considered to be quite Christian. So we poor people shall suffer pranks upon pranks, and yet neither sigh nor murmur.
Yes, yes, dear Squire, you must be ordered to do so, especially among Christians.
We Christians, however, who are to judge not only bodily things, but also angels and the world, and already really do judge, not only do not suffer such tyranny of the ambiguous, but also oppose it with the freedom of double condemnation. The first is (as I said): that we condemn everything that Erasmus ambiguously speaks and interpret it against him, as Christ says: "Out of your mouth I judge you, you rogue, likewise: Out of thy words thou shalt be condemned. For why hast thou spoken against thy soul? thy blood be upon thy head. The other is that we condemn his skillful interpretations and interpretations twofold, because with them he not only does not correct what is ungodly said, but even defends it, that is, he ridicules us twice as much with his interpretation as with his first speech.
For example, by coitum Dei et virginis he does not want to understand a common coitus, but another kind of union, namely between God and the virgin, since Gabriel is the wooer and the Holy Spirit fulfills what otherwise the seed does etc.
44 Behold, for the sake of Christ, what we must suffer and hear from such an interpreter of himself. But he says all this in order to defend such a shameful and obscene word even against Christians by mockery and to force such annoyance upon us, because he knows well that such a mystery of the most holy incarnation cannot be expressed for anyone with doubtful and shameful words. But what they can make Epicureans understand, I am afraid to think. Why do we not also want to call God's conversation with Moses and other prophets a coitum, and write that the angels are the wooers, and the Holy Spirit is the sperm ejaculator, or what else may be called more obscene? But here it is the sex, which seemed to him useful for this mockery, by which it could be said of God that he mated with the virgin, so that such a fairy tale would become of it,
1) Victualin, food stuff.
how that, in which Mars is said to have been with Nhea, Jupiter with Semele, and what the Christians hold (secta christianoruin), becomes, as it were, one of the pagan fables, and you would like to see that people of such a fundamentally depraved brain can be found who take such things for seriousness and truth and do not mean what shameful and tasteless stuff they believe and worship. This, of course, had to be made clear to the Christians, the simple-minded louts, by such blurry expressions, so that they might begin to doubt and, through doubting, fall away from the faith, and thus the whole religion would perish before a man would realize it.
(45) This is the parable, Matt. 13, where the enemy sowed tares in the night when the people were asleep, and went away. We Christians are surely asleep, and even if we were not asleep, such sweet sirens would easily put us to sleep with their flattering speeches and make night before our eyes: however, the weeds of the flowery and deceitful words are sown. And since now and then the Sacramentarians, Donatists, Arians, Anabaptists, Epicureans 2c rise up again, we ask: Wherefrom the field of our Lord hath tares? But those who sowed it have gone away and give themselves such an appearance with their clever interpretations, adorning themselves in such a way and eluding our eyes that it would seem that they had sown wheat. So he [Erasmus] escapes and goes safely away with honor and praise, and seems to be a friend, when in truth he is the enemy. enemy. This is the way of the adulterous woman who devours and wipes her mouth and says, "I have done no evil," Proverbs 30:20.
But so much to your letter, dear Amsdorf, is perhaps already too much and too burdensome. However, I have to report why it seems to me that Erasmus is not to be answered either. For I have enough to do with teaching, strengthening, improving and governing our people. Furthermore, the work of translating the Bible alone occupies us completely. From these works, Satan might try to pull me away, as
he did before, that I left better things, and went after clouds and vain things. For the servile will (servum arbitrium) alone can show you how difficult it is to touch Erasmus, the changeable Proteus, because of his slippery and changeable way of speaking, on which he relies excessively. For he does not remain in a certain place, and is cunning to avoid the pranks, like a disturbed wasp.
But I, the wretched, must hold my peace in an inconvenient place, as a sign of contradiction. For everything that Luther writes was condemned ten years ago, Luther alone writes out of envy, hope, bitter gall, yes! out of Satan himself, but those who write against him all write out of the Holy Spirit.
48 Before these years, it required much effort and tremendous expense to make a dead monk a saint. But now there is no easier way to make even living people, even if they are people, like Nero and Caligula, saints (canonisandi); for this it is only necessary to hate Luther. One may hate Luther and bravely blaspheme, and thereby he is equal to a saint, yes, almost equal to our most holy Lord, the servant of the servants of God [that is, the pope].
But who would think that hatred against Luther would be such a powerful and profitable thing? He brings wealth even to beggars, yes. He brings wealth even to beggars, yes, to blind men, moles and frogs, he brings grace from princes and kings, he brings prebends and dignities, he brings bishoprics and offices. He brings even the donkeys the reputation of scholarship and science, he brings the grammarians freedom to write books, yes, finally he even brings about the eternal crown of honors and victory in heaven. O blessed people, all of you who are like Luther, who so easily and without effort attain such high things at once, which all the most excellent people could not attain at once by any wisdom, by any virtues, not even Christ himself with all his miracles, both his own and those of the apostles and all the saints.
50 But this is how the Scripture is fulfilled: Blessed
are those who persecute Luther, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Blessed are you who curse and say all evil against Luther. Rejoice and leap in that day, because your reward is great in heaven. For this is what they did to the apostles and holy bishops, to John Hus and similar people who were before Luther. Therefore, it seems even more advisable to me now not to answer, but to leave my testimony about Erasmus behind me, also for his sake, so that he may finally be rid of the worry that, as he complains, lies so anxiously on his heart, namely, that he will be taken for a Lutheran. For as Christ lives, they do him great injustice, and I must defend him even against his enemies who call him a Lutheran: for he is, as I must most certainly and faithfully testify, by no means Lutheran, but merely an Erasmus.
51 I would like to see the whole of Erasmus banished from our schools, for even if he does not do any harm, he is of no use: he neither teaches nor does anything. And it is of no use to the Christian youth
It is not at all useful to get used to this Erasmian way of speaking. For it will not learn to speak or think seriously and emphatically about any matter, but only to mock all others in the manner of a crow or a buffoon, and otherwise to do nothing but foolish antics. Through such levity and vanity, however, it gradually weans itself from religion, until at last it has an abhorrence of it and becomes quite nefarious. It should be left to the papists, who are worthy of such an apostle, and thus would get the right food for their mouths (haberent labra suas lactucas).
Our Lord Jesus, whom Peter does not conceal from me as God, but in whose power I know and am certain that I have often been saved from death, in whose faith I have begun and accomplished all these things, which the enemies themselves admire, may He also protect and save us to the end: He is the Lord, our true God, to whom alone with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory and honor forever and ever. Amen.