The epitome at the end of 1519; Luther's preface and postscript June 26, 1520. **)
Translated from Latin.
Luther's preface.
Martin Luther wishes the devout reader salvation!
So far, kind reader, you've seen that I've been working with my New Year's Eve in the papal
I acted in such a way that I joked and played more than I seriously attacked anything. This courage came to me from the fact that I saw how this man, who was not only
*) The original printing of the epitome alone appeared, as the Erlangen edition after Panzer VIII, 224 indicates, at Perugia under the title: Kllvsstri krisratis Lxitorna rssxonsionis aä Imtwsruin. ksrusias iriviZilants st Äeourants I?. Ouspnrs cks ksrusia Orck. l?ra6ä. "um äuodus 6X oräino sockalidus sidi ackseitis per Llikron^nauir" ^raneiseuin Oartulariuna äioti I". Oasparis tratruolbin. 1519. toi. - The edition Luther was in charge of appeared at Wittenberg on June 26, 1520, as well as another in the same year with no indication of the place. In the Wittenberg collective edition, the writing is torn. I, toi. 188, in the Jena tom. I, toi. 64, in the Erlangen (opx. varii arZ.) tona. II, x. 79. Only Walch brought it into German, but with the omission of the Prierias' letter. Our translation is based on the first original edition of the larger work, which appeared in Rome after 21. July 1520 (for from this date is the papal ban on reprinting, which is printed on the back of the title) under the title: Lrrata 6t ar^umonta Martini Dutbris r6eitata, (wteeta, r6nu1sa 6t 6Opiosi88ilN6 trita: p6r tratrorn 8i1v68truni krioriatoir^ rnaZi8trurn 8aori palatii, of which this epitome constitutes the third book, and in which this short epitome has come out united with the other two books for the first time. This epitome has Prierias, as he states in the first chapter of the first book, toi. 1 d, "for the scholars who can take much from little". Also for this main work, the Epitome must have been printed first, because at the end of it we find the indication: "Rome, printed by Antonius Bladis de Asula, March 27, 1520, in the eighth year of the reign of Pope Leo X." Luther's preface and afterword as well as his glosses have been translated by us according to the Erlangen edition.
**On June 25, 1520, Luther wrote to Spalatin: "Tomorrow Silvester and the German Romanist (Alveld) will be finished", which undoubtedly refers to this writing. There is only One passage from which we can read with great
I am not only ignorant and crude in spirit, but also, caught in the Thomistic darkness and the antics of the popes, or rather the decrees of completely unlearned scribes, tried to win a victory over me with a certain simple-minded stupidity.
But now it comes to light what horrible things he had in mind; for the wretched man, in order to avenge himself for my jokes, has published an epitome (short epitome or (to speak in Silvestrian Greek) "an epithoma 1) of an answer to Martin Luther", which is filled from head to foot with so many and great blasphemies that I would like to think that the booklet 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 like this, then I freely declare with this writing that the true Antichrist sits in the temple of God and rules in that Babel clothed in purple (Revelation 18:16) in Rome, and that the Roman court is the school of Satan (Revelation 13:6).
What shall I say? He makes a god out of every, even an ungodly, 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 ungodly; while at the same time everyone confesses that the pope has his reputation from the saying of Christ: "Thou art Peter" [Matth. 16:18] and "Feed my sheep" [John 21:17], that is, that the Scripture does not come from the reputation of the pope, but that the reputation of the pope comes from the Scripture. And therefore they also flee as soon as they are urged.
1) Namely, instead of sxitorris, 68, or oxitorna, no, Silvester declines: exitlrorna, atis and therefore makes it noutruni. The change from oxittioma to 6pitorna at this point in the Erlangen edition is therefore unjustified.
The people of the world have nothing else to turn to than this holy scripture as a place of refuge with which they fortify and protect themselves. But now this Satan fortifies the scripture by a man. Who is the Antichrist, if such a pope is not the Antichrist? O Satan, Satan! How long will you abuse the patience of your Creator to your great misfortune?
Although I gladly grant the wretched Silvester that the Scriptures receive their power from the pope: for this will be the only way to deny the papal tyranny and to overthrow it at once. For if they prove the papacy from Scripture, and raise the prestige of Scripture by the prestige of the pope, then the pope can be founded on no other testimony than his own, and he exists not by divine right, but by his own. But what do I refute the thus manifest madness of this blasphemous Satan? The best refutation will be if I publish the booklet itself, as it is published, without citation (nudum); it carries its refutation, which is stronger than I can wish.
Read then, dear reader, and sigh that the glory of the Roman Church has fallen so low that it not only produces and nourishes within itself this heretical, blasphemous, diabolical, infernal poison, 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 the others (heretics).
If Rome believes like this, then happy Greece, happy Bohemia, happy all who have separated from him and left the midst of this Babylon! but curse all who have fellowship with him. And I, too, if the pope and the cardinals (do not) silence and revoke this Satanic mouth, will herewith confess as a testimony that I am not in communion with the Roman-
It is probable that the larger writing of Prierias came into Luther's hands, namely Tischreden Cap. 80 H 13: "Thus did the Elector Frederick at Worms. When a vehement refutation against my writings had come from Rome, which all the bishops eagerly bought, he said slyly: O I saw and read it three years ago, and they let it lie." Neither the Dialogue, nor the Replica, nor the Epitome of Prierias can be meant here, for all these writings Luther himself had reprinted. If, however, one refers three words of the Elector to the Prierias Errata 6te, then the words of Frederick have their correctness, because he has already seen and read the content of this writing in the Epitome. Only the time determination "three years ago" would seem a little too long, if one assumes that these words were spoken in 1521 at the Diet of Worms.
The church, together with the pope and the cardinals, is an abomination of desolation that stands in the holy place [Matth. 24, 15]. Faith is now extinguished in her, the gospel outlawed, Christ banished, and the customs more than barbaric. Only one hope was still there: the inviolate prestige of the holy scriptures and at least a correct opinion of them, even if there was no understanding. Now Satan also takes this, the castle of Zion and the tower of David, which until now was impregnable.
So farewell, wretched, lost and blasphemous Rome; the wrath of God has come upon you as you finally deserve;
even through so many prayers done for you, you have only wanted to get worse day by day. "We heal Babylon; but she will not be healed. So let her go" [Jer. 51:9], "and be a habitation of dragons, and ostriches, and field-spirits, and owls" [Isa. 13:21.; 34:13.], and, as her name implies, an everlasting disgrace, full to the mouth of mammon idols, perjurers, apostates, doggies, priapists, murderers, Simonists, and innumerable other monsters, and a kind of new idol temple (pantheon) of ungodliness.
Farewell, dear reader; forgive my pain and have compassion.
Letter from the Prieria to the reader.
Br. Silvester of Prierio wishes the pious reader salvation!
Let Luther now recognize that his prayer and that of his people has been answered (namely, that our letter, which threatened to give birth, would not bring a miscarriage), and if it pleases, give thanks for ita ) For he has not given birth to a miscarriage, but to a strong and powerful pugilist, who is so armed with deadly weapons that he, as was promised, is to strike the defeated to the ground under the watch of the entire Christian peopleb ) . But so that he cannot pretend that he was overcome deceitfully or unawares, he sends the list of his weapons. Thus
Then let him gird himself and be a strong man;c ) for with an allusion to that much-used word where he says: "Teach me who can," this fighter says: "Martin will answer if he can. He will be able to talk, but he will not be able to give an intelligent answer. But soon you shall get to know the weapons yourself. Farewell.
a) Out of humility, he raises himself.
b) Also in India and Scythia.
c) See how heroically he calls for the answer to two books by a preface to the third book, which, as the Gospel says, is the first and last.
Of the Legal and Irrefutable Truth of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, third book: a very long table of contents, but only a very short epitome.
Aftera ) we have, with God's help, exposed the errors of the opponent and refuted them, let us now briefly repeat what has already been said.
a) You will notice here, dear reader, the figure of speech, the past for the future. 1)
1) In order to understand this remark of Luther correctly, it should be noted that Prierias had this epitome published alone, without the larger work, already in 1519 and sent it to Luther, and the latter could not know whether Prierias had started or even completed it. On July 21, 1520, Pope Leo X, in his protective writing on the Lrrata 6t arZunaeuta Llartlni L-utsris etc., says,
The first chapter of the first book was about our intention,b ) which we have in the whole work, first of all to expose the bad teachings of Martin Luther and then to completely overrule them.
which he calls lidruin äo irrbkraZabili V6ritat6 roinaNN6 666l68ia6 rornani<iii6 pontlüeis, that Prierias "intends to have the same printed, or rather has begun to have it printed. Luthern, however, as he wrote to Spalatin on Oct. 13, 1519, had received the false news that -Prierias was silent, but the pope had given the brother Cyprianus in Paris orders to write against Luthern. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. X V, appendix no. 37, § 5.
The first is to show that the contending church is the monarchical and hierarchical kingdom of Christ, and the second is to show that in this hierarchy the Roman superior (praesul) is the first and supreme hierarch according to divine right, who alone has to decide the highest concerns (resolutivus) and who alone is the infallible judge of truth about everything that concerns faith and morals.
b) Honestly, he says that it was his intention; because, since he tried in vain and accomplished nothing, he only bears xxxxxxx[false]
Fire) on display.
Chapter Two. c) That the contending church is the kingdom of heaven and Christ's monarchy, likewise also a hierarchy. And there [it is shown]
1. That the holy catholic church is the kingdom of Christ;
2. that it is also the reign of Christ;
3.d ) that it is an empire and a monarchical rule;
4. that it is the fifth in the order of the world monarchies, and there [namely Cap. II, punctum 4. is dealt with) also after the holy scripturee ) of the four earthly monarchies, the Assyrian, the Persian-Medic, the Greek and the Roman;
5. that of all the monarchies that have been, it is the most excellent.
c) If Silvester did not say this, no one would know it, d) As Christ says: "My kingdom is not of the
world" (Joh. 19, 36.), and agrees the word hierarchy, holy dominion, and worldly, unholy dominion, like Christ and Belial.
e) That is, that of New Year's Eve, who is a new god.
Chapter Three. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the first hierarch, not only according to dignity, but also according to jurisdiction. And there
1. The error of those who say that St. Peter did not see Rome is rejected;
2. is described,f ) who is understood by the Roman superior; for he is the one who is Christ's representative and Peter's successor, he may have his chair where it is, at Antioch, as in former times, or at Rome, as now, or elsewhere, if it pleases God;
3. that St. Peter was appointed by Him during Christ's lifetime as the first of the apostles;
4. that this first place (primitas)g ) includes not only the dignity, but also the jurisdiction and the power;
5. [It is] shown in a probable way [that] Peter alone was appointed bishop by Christ personally, but the others by Peter;h )
6. That the Roman superior is the supreme hierarch who contains the whole being (hypostasim) of the church under his bailiwick;i )
7. that the appointed Roman superior is to be considered the shepherdk ) and bishop of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.
f) The Antichrist will also be Christ's and God's representative.
g) Since Christ says, "The greatest among you shall be as the youngest." (Luc. 22, 26.)
h) With the exception of Judas Iscarioth and Matthias, of whom Apost. 1,20: "His bishopric is received by another.
i) Like Nero and Domitian.
k) to graze and perish.
Fourth Chapter. That the Roman superior in the ecclesiastical hierarchy is the highest hierarch, the head of the world, against the opponent who denies that the pope is the church in power (virtualiter), which is, however, proper to the head. And there [it is shown]
1. that he who was called Cephas by Christ, changing his namem ) was appointed by Christ to be the head of his sheep;
2. many objections to it are refuted there;
3. that after the death of Peter in the church another general shepherd was needed on his chair and after his departure again another onen ) and so on until the end of the world, namely as long as the church will last.
4. thato ) the true and undoubted successor of St. Peter alone is the true and undoubted Roman pope;
5. thatp ) the Roman church was the first and was appointed by Christ as the head of all churches, and with what ignorance it is said that it was not the head after Peter had his seat there;
6. That the Roman superior, who is lawfully established, be the head in the same way and with the same power, as also St. Peter;q )
7. A certain opinion of wrong people is refuted there, that the pope is not the head of the general church as a collective, but only healed [as an individual] (distributive)r ), from which they want to conclude that the pope is not the head of a council;
to the last, many objections against it are solved there;s )
I) Not the foot or elbow.
m) Notice that Cephas is said to be the head, contrary to John 1:42, where it is written that Cephas is called Peter.
n) So Prierias.
o) The Antiochian successor of Peter is the Roman one.
p) So Prierias.
q) If also Peter is an apostle, and the pope only a bishop, namely smaller and yet the same.
r) Yes, only confusedly and materially.
s) According to Prierias way.
Fifth Chapter. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch everywhere?) against the adversary, who deprives his jurisdiction of some nations, e.g. the Greeks and the believers who live among the unbelievers. And there
1. The generality of this monarchy is proven by the holy") Scriptures;
2. The godlessness of Anton Roselli is rejected, who taught that Christ, inasmuch as he was man, had no right to an earthly reign;v )
3. Augustine and the Scriptures prove that once again a second proclamation of the gospelw ) will take place with a greater conversionx ) of the nations than in the times of the apostles, when their sound went out into all the world [Ps. 19, 5.], in such a way that the pope will rule over everything in the world, not only according to right, but also according to deed;y )
4. What jurisdictionz ) the pope can exercise even over the unbelievers, be they pagans, Jews or even heretics.
t) That is, in the brain of a Prieria.
u) As- Virgil [Aeneid, 3rd book, v. 57] says, "The holy hunger for gold."
v) Because Christ has denied himself the right of an earthly rule in order to leave it entirely to his Roman governor; mark this well!
w) Of the Roman Jubilee Year.
x) Inversion.
y) Also over everything in heaven after Christ and God is cast down.
z) Note that the pope is free to be the most cruel murderer of men.
Chapter Six. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch for all times, a) against the opponent's assertion that the Roman church was not always the head in former times, who also seems to have persuaded himself that he could destroy its doctrine for the future. b) And there '
1. from Daniel and otherwise manifoldly proved, that the kingdom of Christ hath no endc ), except at the end of the world by the transition from earth to heaven; and there [is shown].
2. That this eternal duration is taught by the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, likewise also by those of the New, and thirdly by the sacred teachers.
a) Except when he dies.
b) The teaching of the pope is not destroyed, rather it is precisely it that must destroy everything.
c) This is true, but not so the realm of the pope.
Chapter Seven. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the hierarch, the originator of all hierarchical jurisdiction,d ) Against the opponent who holds that the jurisdiction of the pope over the general and that of a diocesan bishop over his diocese are the same with respect to purgatory. e) And there it is shown]
1. that the power of jurisdiction passes from the Roman superior to all ecclesiastical persons, as from the head to the members, whether without means or by a means;f )
2. how many1 ) opinions are about this; the wrong ones are refuted;
3. that a bishop has indeed many powers, but all of them are traced back to those of consecration and jurisdiction, and all of them are inherent in him only from the Roman Pontiff;g )
4. Concerns are resolved there and many opinions are refuted.
d) This is a strong hunter, like Nimrod.
e) Money may be drawn from it, but not souls.
f) By jumping and taking it on the side.
g) Even if the latter is asleep.
Chapter Eight. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, with whose jurisdiction nothing can be compared, against the opponent who wants that in a council and consequently also in the general church there is a power that is not in the Roman pope. And there [it is shown]
1. What the name "church" means and how many different things it means;
2. that the power of the keys, whether flowing from consecration or from jurisdiction, was not given to the contending universal church in such a way as if all or individual members of it had received it in its entirety;
1) In the original: 4110t. In the Erl. Ausg. 41106.
3. that the power of the keys of the general church was not given in such a way that it was given to all members of the church at the same time as a whole (collective), or, as it is customary to say, socially (coIlegialiter), and not to a single member in particular;
4. that the power of jurisdiction in the general church is not greater than in St. Peter and his successor, but not even as great;
(5) It is concluded that since the saints say that the keys are given to the general church, this is not to be understood as if they were given to all the members of the church, either individually or collectively, but that they are given to some members in the church, as first to Peter, but to the apostles in their order and in subjection to Peter.
6. that there is not only no jurisdiction greater than that of the Roman superior,k ) but not even one equal to it;l )
7. Many knots are untied against what has been saidm ) and especially the: The world is bigger than Rome.
h) Nor Christ, as befits the Antichrist.
i) Since the pope is not part of the general church, it is true that he has a different power than that of the church, namely a tyrannical and diabolical one.
k) So the tiresome New Year's Eve, which does not miss threatsI) stings once the Christi!
m) Silvester's key solves them!
Chapter Nine. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, the lawgiver,n ) whose laws, because they are necessary for salvation, concern all men,o ) Against the opponent who claims that the decrees of the popes are quite cold and nothing. And there
1. that it belongs to the Roman superior to give laws;p )
2. that it is necessary for the sake of blessedness to submit to the laws and commandments of the Roman Pontiff, who commands nothing contrary to God's commandments;q )
3. that it is heretical to say thatr ) not all must obey the laws of the Roman Pontiff;
4. that the decrees of the Roman popes, even if they are not issued at a council, are also not inserted into the [papal] law book, and also all their provisions are to be accepted and executed by everyone. s)
n) Because he has not keys (claves), but clubs (clavas)!
o) Truly, they affect souls and corrupt them! p) To give laws, that is, to destroy the church, q) As he does almost everywhere.
r) Rather, it would be exceedingly Christian to abolish the pope together with his quite godless laws.
s) Namely, so that from the heretical decrees the church becomes heretical.
Chapter Ten. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, the sole judge of all,t ) from divine power, against the opponent who says that the Roman church has its first rank and consequently its power not from God and always, but from elsewhere and for four centuries. And there 1. that many do not know from whom the Roman popes have received their power after St. Petrus,u ) and there many opinions are separated;
2. that the power of the Roman superior is directly from Christ, who is God (a Dea Christo); from which it is concluded that the whole world cannot even limit or restrict, much less abolish, the power of the Roman superior with one another;v )
3. that the power of a council is not of God,w ) except in the case of heresy or schism, not in every, but in a certain one, namely, when it is not certain or provable by anything that a Roman superior is there: but all the power of the fathers of the council, whether as individual members, or whether as a body or council, comes from the Roman Pontiff. There also many false opinions about this are rejected;
4. that among men alonex ) the Roman pope has his power directly from God.
And there many objections are resolved, so also especially the one that is usually cited from the decision of the Constance Council, which, although it was not the decision of a true council,y ) as the Lord John de Turre cremata has proved, is nevertheless also rescued by rational proofs and testimonies and shown to be true at the time of the schism, in which, however, the decision is left to the more learned.
t) The soothsayer [divinornm, Is. 44, 25.] and sign interpreter. No miracle!
u) No wonder, since they invented the same from their heart.
v) First frenzy of Silvester.
w) Second frenzy.
x) And so Paul lies, to the Galatians [1, 1.], saying that he is not of men, nor by men.
y) Notice well, to the followers of Rome only that is a concil, what and as far as it seems good to them!
Chapter Eleven. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch.
a judge without a judge,z ) Against the opponent, who by appealing to the Roman superior makes a higher judge, either a single person, which is rejected now, or some body, which will be rejected in the following chapter. And here [it is shown]
1. Where does a concilium get its name?
2. What is a general concil?
3. that if only one undoubted pope holds the chair, it is up to him alone to call a council, and there some knots will be untied;
4. when the chair is discharged and in the event of such an emergency that cannot be met without a council, to whom it shall be incumbent to appoint a council;
5. that either the Roman superior or someone in his place must have the chairmanship and leadership in the council,b ) and there many false opinions are being dispelled;
6. that a pope, even if he cannot change the place of a council in which his heresy is to be tried, can nevertheless do so if he is an undoubted pope, despite the Constance council;c )
7. that the Roman superior may completely annul a council that has already been lawfully assembled and opened;d )
8. that the decisions of the concilia do not bind or obligate anyone unless they are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff's prestige;e ) and there many objections are resolved;
9. that the Roman superior in the external court, except in the case of his heresy,f ) can have no superior, although there are opinions whether he can do so by agreement on an arbitrator.
z) and that this will be the Antichrist is foretold by the apostle.
a) namely of the wicked.
b) With the exception of the Council of the Apostles, Apost. 15, in which Jacobus presided, and the Nicene Council, in which Eustace of Antioch presided.
c) The Constance Concil only remains valid as far as Silvester wants.
d) Satan can do that too, and so can robbers.
e) Speeding!
f) except for the case of confession and malaise, where the doctor is higher than he.
Chapter Twelve. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the hierarch, a judge who has no body to judge,g ) and I speak of one who undoubtedly is. Different in the case of a heresy or a schism, of which is said above, and that, as previously thought; Against the opponent, who has invoked a future Concil. And there
1. Of the double power of the fathers of the council?) namely: as single persons, which differs from the power of the pope in a double way, namely like a second cause from the first, and like a partial from the whole; and: insofar as they are a body, which is the same as the authority of the pope, not according to number, but according to analogy; and this is in the pope an ordinary and full one, but in a council a delegated one and as far as it pleases the pope;i ) there is also spoken of the authority of the fathers at a provincial council;
2. that of the powers, that of the pope and that of the fathers at a council, in the way in which they are distinguished, the papal is superior;
3. Many contradictory issues are resolved there;
4. that the Roman bishop is in no way bound by the decisions (canones) and resolutions of the concilia, insofar as they proceed from the concilia,k ) which is said because, if a concilium were to determine something that is also so according to divine law, whether written or natural, e.g. that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, or that a certain contract is usurious, the pope would indeed be bound by it, but not because it comes from the concilium, but from God, Dist. 25, 1) qu. 1, Cap. Sunt quidam;
5. that the pope, although he cannot change the decisions of the councils, inasmuch as these are sometimes also those of God, that is, of divine right, as has just been said, may nevertheless annul those which belong to the council as a council, or which relate to the given right, in the same way as his own, that is, for a just cause to be left to his discretion;l )
6. that the fathers of the council cannot decide exactly about everything; and there the godless opinion of Marsilius of Paduc2 ) is rejectedm ) and many objections are resolved;
7. that an undoubted pope cannot be legally deposed or judged by the whole world, let alone by a council, even if he would be so angry that he would lead peoples in droves with him to the first slave of hell, that is, the devil,n ) as Cap. Si papa 3) of the 40th Dist. says, but, as it is said there,
1) In the original: 5.
2) Marsilius Patavinus (of Padua), called Raimondini after his family name or Meinardini after others, a teacher of law from the Franciscan order. He was Rector of the University of Paris in 1312.
3) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 275.
one must pray to God. The opposite, however, is held byo ) those who had once been red spirits, such as Panormitanus in his disputation, which begins: Episcopus, and certain living persons, against whom I would like to disputate especially,p ) if our Lord would grant me the desired rest;
8. that a true pope cannot be forced to abdicate because of a schism,q ) and there many objections are resolved;
9. 9. If, however, the heresy remains completely hidden from the church, the pope is not deprived of his power, but it is believed thatr ) the supreme bishop, Christ, replaces what is lacking,s ) but if he mends, then he is again pope; If, however, his heresy should be quite obvious and no longer require proof, and also be a heresy in an essential way (formaliter), that is, with hardening of the will, then he is deprived of his power. If, however, it is presumably doubtful, then a general council is the judge, which must then be assembled either on its own initiative, as in the case of Marcellinus, 1) or by those to whom it belongs according to the foregoing;
last, that a concilium may depose a pope in case of manifest or proven or admitted heresy, or rather declare him deposed.
g) I.e. the Antichrist.
h) Observe here the hair-trigger distinctions of the Archmaster of the Most Holy Palace!
i) The will of the pope is the guide for everything.
k) You see now that the pope has nothing in common with a concilium, consequently also nothing with the Church of God, which is true.
l) Note the magnificent restrictions! m) and the whole Constance Concil.
n) Shudder, heaven, be astonished, earth; O Christians, behold what Rome is!
o) Catholic and holy.
p) neither happier, nor more reasonable, than this is written.
q) This is how the shepherd loves his sheep!
r) That is: one dreams.
s) Namely, Christ also inhabits the dunghill of ungodliness through a new grace.
Chapter Thirteen. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, a judge from whom no appeal can be made, but again against the opponent,t ) who, as said, has appealed from the pope to a future council. And there
1) St. Marcellinus, Roman bishop from 296-303.
1. that it is not permitted to appeal from the pope to a council;u )
2. that he who appeals from the pope to a future council is not only subject to the ban,v ) but also stupid, if he does not know that he is doing something that he cannot do without the consent of his opponent, that is, the pope, or malicious, if he knows this well and appeals anyway;
3. that it is permitted to appeal from a council to the absent pope, but not to the present one;w )
4. Many objections are solved there.
t) This is none of Luther's business, you shameful flatterer!
u) Speeding!
v) Just as Christ was banished by the Jews.
w) An opinion of the archmaster.
Chapter Fourteen. That the Roman superior alone has to decide in the highest doubts,x ) against the opponent who says that in these matters of faith the council is above the pope. And there
1. that the pope aloney ) has to decide all questions and concerns in matters of faith by a judgement from his power, that is, which is legally valid and final;
2. if we speak of the Concil as something that is not separate, in contrast to the pope, but includes the pope as its head. If we speak of the council as something that is not separate, in contrast to the pope, but includes the pope as its head,z ) then the power of the council and that of the pope, properly considered (analogia), is only one, and accordingly it is also up to the council to decide on the faith, if the pope does not forbid it;
3. Many interjections are solved here;
4. that it is the sole business of the Roman superior to interpret the laws ordered by God and nature and to explain them in doubtful cases, not only in matters pertaining to life, but also in those pertaining to faith, which is testified to there by sayings, examples, and rational reasons; and this is proved to be true not only from the probable interpretation, as it belongs to the teachers, but also from the necessary one, so that his decisions are to be obeyed under the penalty of eternal and temporal death. a)
x) by sheer force, even if he were the most ignorant and depraved man in doing so; for he speaks and it comes to pass.
y) That is, without anyone being there, namely when sleeping in bed.
z) A remarkable and magisterial distinction.
a) It is not Silvester who is speaking here, but Satan, the chief of the devils.
438 D. V. a- H- 93 f. III Luther's dispute with Silvester Prierias. W. XVIII, 229 f. 439.
Fifteenth Chapter. Thatb ) in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarch, an infallible judge of truth, against the opponent, who deviates and contradicts in this far, as it is obvious in his book. And there
1. What it means: the pope acts as pope,c ) and how all disputes of the saints and teachers about this are traced back to one, and what the root of all opinions is, namely: the pope acts as pope or head when he makes use of the help of the members and does in good faith as much as is in him to understand the truth; another would be where he maliciously deceives;
2. that the general church cannot err in decisions about faith and life;
3. That the pope, though he may act wickedly and believe unjustly, if he is a single person, yet, as pope, he cannot decide unjustly;d ) and this is proved first in a probable manner, and then in an incontrovertible manner, not only by canons and conciliarities, but also by sacred Scripture; 1)
1) Because here is one of the few passages of the Epitome in which Prierias refers to the Holy Scripture, and from this he wants to have proved irrefutably that "the pope as pope cannot decide unjustly", we want to let the reader have a small insight in which way he has really done this in his larger work, of which this Epitome is the table of contents. We therefore place here the interpretation from his great work, Errata et arGuMenta Nartini Imterig reeitata, äeteota, rspulgn 6t 6Opiy8iWilN6 trlta: per tratrsrn Kilvsgtrnm krio riatsni, MaZwtrurn gaeri palatii. It says Lot. 88 b.: "In general, all the conciliaries, without any exception, have desired that their decisions and pronouncements, both on faith and on other matters, be confirmed by the pope. This could not have taken place at all, if the infallible judgment which the Church has, as must be confessed, had not been inherent in the Roman Pontiff (rSgläsrSt). Yes, the Lord himself says this, saying: 'All that you bind cast' 2c For he [the Pabsts binds by commanding by a saying (xronllneianäo äiesrm) what must be believed. - What GOtt says, directly or indirectly, in itself or in a likeness, insofar as it is a likeness, is true, because truth could not lie in any way. But God has said that the judgment of the pope, namely as pope, that is, with the cardinals assisting him, is to be held inviolable. For this he said of the pope and the assessors in the old law, as is clear from Deut. 17, where he commanded under the penalty of death that it should have its end with the judgment of the highest priest in everything doubtful. And it is ungodly to deny this of the pope and his assessors in the new law, under which the grace of the Spirit is more fully infused, as shown above; and the power (antoritas) of the pope is greater, since he has the keys. This is also fully proven by
4. that all general decrees of the pope, when he decides about faith and life,e ) are from the pope, insofar as he is pope, or with the advice of the assessors [the cardinals];
5. Many objections to the foregoing are answered there, by which the enviers of the Roman see wish to prove that the pope has already erred, not only in his actions, but also in his decisions: and especially in regard to St. Peter, whom the apostle rebuked; upon which the adversary has erected a great but dilapidated edifice.
b) Satan is talking here as well.
c) The pope acts as a pope when he is carried by the referendums and offers the holy feet to kiss them, then when he eats up the whole world by avarice and corrupts the souls.
d) an opinion of Silvester taken from hell.
e) As was proved by the last Concil [the V Lateran in 1512], where it was decided that the soul was immortal, and tithes were to be extorted for the Roman belly.
Chapter Sixteen. That in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the Roman superior is the highest hierarchf ), onlyg ) the infallible judge of truth, against the opponent who expressly wanted it to be the business of a council and not of the pope to decide about faith and life. And there
1. that a general council,h ) even if legitimately held, yet understood as something separate from the pope, can err in its decisions about faith and life, and it is proven that it has often really erred;
2. that a lawfully held council, if it is understood to be connected with its head,i ) the pope,k ) can absolutely not err in its decisions about faith and life;
3. Many reasons of malicious people are resolved there;
4. that if there were a disagreement between the pope and the council in matters of faith, namely, if the matter had already been decided by an irrefutable judgment of the Holy Spirit according to what has been said above, one would have to side with him who had the said decision for himself, because the other part, even if it were the pope, would set himself against the Holy Spirit, which is impossible if he had already done as much as is in him;l ) but if the matter had not been decided, one would have to side with him who had the said decision for himself.
the Cap. per V6n6rakil6in" 2c This is the scriptural evidence on which Silvester relies in this passage, complete. All his other proofs are either from the Canons, or St. Thomas, or Aristotle. Can one wonder that Luther did not answer him even One Word from it?
would be, but first to decide, so some say, one must take the side of him who has the better reasons, what Panormitanus in the Cap. Significavit in "Of Election" and in a certain disputation beginning with Episcopus, but unreasonably,m ) as is proved there; in this case the pope would have to hear all and then form a judgment on the impulse of his heart (which in such matters is governed by Godn ), therefore one would have to adhere to the pope who proceeds in good faith and after careful consideration, because he also has an irrefutable judgment without a council, as is proven, but not a council without a pope, as is also proven;o )
5. that if parties or the fathers of the council were to disagree with each other, the pope or the legate,p ) who presides over the council in his place, must not form a judgment according to the judgment of the greater, but of the more reasonable part, or of the part whose reasons are better, even if it were only one; for- also Paphnutius 1)q ) contradicted the Nicene Synod and kept right; Cap. Nicaena. in the 31st Distinction;
6. Many objections are refuted there.
f) Satan.
g) I.e. without anyone being present, as above.
h) as the last Lateranese was.
i) Because lü the One Head of the Pope is more than in the whole Church Chnsti.
k) Satan.
I) What does the "in him" mean? That he would not easily allow a council because of the danger that the church would be reformed.
m) I.e. not Silvestri.
n) fromi the God of this world, who has his work in the children of unbelief [Eph. 2:2].
o) Yes, of course (produturu 68t)!
p) Or even the palace master or some notary.
q) a beautiful conclusion from a holy man to a godless one!
The first chapter of the second book shows that it is heretical to say (r ) that true indulgences cannot take place in the Catholic Church, against the adversary who took occasion from the proclamation of indulgences to attack the apostolic see. And there [it is shown]
1. What is the meaning of the word indulgence, as well as remission (veniae) and indulgence?
2. What is indulgence?
3. that in the Church the pope and the bishops or certain others give true indulgences under restriction 2) of the pope;
1) In the original: Panuptius.
2) In the original: limatione instead of 1iruitutivu6.
4. Several throw-ins are solved there;
5. that the saints, who found themselves moved to grant such remission, were not guided by their will, but by their reason, which is proven there from probable and immediately also from compellings ) reasons;
6. As in our good works, e.g. almsgiving, there is a merit and a satisfaction: the first always belongs to him who works it, but not the second, but this belongs to him for whom we intend to do enough;
7. That the merits of Christ or of the saints are not fully rewarded is said by some canonists in a non-genuine sense;t ) but they mean to say that the gratifications of the same are not yet all exhausted or bestowed, otherwise even the suffering of Christ could not be a gratification for those who do daily penance;u )
8. It is explained in what way there is a treasure in the church, which is also proven immediately afterwards in the last chapter, and indeed irrefutably;v )
9. by whom this treasure can be distributed;
10. reasons are presented to prove the indulgence and the treasure in a probable way, but then also in a necessary wayw ), after, however, the Extravagante of Clement VI is mentioned, which was issued under the advice of assessors, in which the said treasure is mentioned in detail;
11. that it is heretical to sayx ) that the Church cannot grant true indulgences, which is proved many times, and it is suggested that St. Anthony and Felinus [Sandeus] held the same.
r) heretical according to the faith of Silvester, in which ungodliness is believed, as the apostle predicted [2 Thess. 2, 10. f.].
s) and from the per se known and first principles of the book Elenchorum [Fallacies of Aristotle].
t) Silvester, the inauthentic speaker (iin^roprii8tu).
u) as if Christ's suffering and the merits of the saints were in any relation. Thus he disputes in Silvester's way.
v) From Aesop's first fable.
w) finally also by itself.
x) heretical on the renegade road of Thomas.
Second Chapter. That it is now heretical to say that in the church no real indulgence can take place for the deceased. And there
1. that about this question there used to be opinions between the theologians and canonists;
2. that the opinion of those who believe that the indulgence is intercessory for the deceased is true? and it is proved many times;
3. that the aforementioned opinion is now no longer opinion, but doctrine and pronouncement of the church,z ) and the counter-sanctified opinion for the same reason is now an error and not 'merely an opinion;a )
4. that it is heretical to claim that indulgences do not benefit the deceased;
5. It is explained how the "in the way of intercession" is to be understood;
6. Very many objections Wider Vorgenanntes are resolved.
y) according to Thomistic truth.
z) the Thomists.
a) in Thomistic theology.
Chapter Three. That it is heretical in force and in its consequences to say that no punishment imposed by divine justice can be remitted by the pope granting indulgences. And there
1. that after repentance and grace, man is still obligated by the guilt to solve a temporal punishment, which is proven manifold by Scripture,b ) teachers and canons, even if the opponent denies this.
2. that after repentance there is some place of purgatorial punishment called by the word "sweeping," and it is shown there how purgatory is twofold: an ordinary one, which is generally believed to be under the earth,c ) although this is uncertain, and an extraordinary one (dispensatorium, i.e., granted by dispensation), which is at least sometimes in this world;d )
3. that in purgatory the punishment imposed by divine justice is remitted or resolved;
4. It is proved that it is heretical to say that the pope cannot remit the punishment imposed by divine justice through indulgences;
5. of a new and erroneous opinion that the pope may remit said punishments, but in reality does not do so, even if he grants plenary indulgence, but always remits only the punishments imposed by the priest; this opinion has not yet been published or rather made known.
b) that is, by the fifth book of the Conflatum of Silvester. 1)
c) Note that the impersonal word "one holds" is the basis of Thomistic and Roman theology, for with it they prove all their things.
d) Silvester's testimony.
1) The main work of Prierias, on which he had worked for eight years, entitled: Conflatum krierii ex anZtzlieo (ioetorb saneto lüoma had only four books.
Chapter Four. How the indulgence itself is to be understood? e)
e) The indulgence has a threefold essence, metaphysical, natural and logical; the fourth is concealed, namely the fabulous (chimeri- cum) and most genuine essence.
Chapter Five. How is indulgence to be understood on the part of the grantor?
Chapter Six. How is the indulgence to be understood on the part of the recipient?
Chapter Seven. That the foundations that I have previously established against the opponent are true. And there
1. that the general church is by its nature the totality of all believers in Christ called to divine service; but that the general church is by its representation a lawfully held council; but that the general church is by its power the Roman church, the head of all churches, and the pope;f )
2. that the Roman Church is, according to its representation or in its more prominent way, the body (coIIegium) of the most reverend lords cardinals, but according to its power, the pope, who is the head of the Roman and the general Church, but in a different way than Christ;
3. that just as the general church cannot err in its decisions about faith and life, so also a true council cannot err, which does what is in it to know the truth; which I understand, however, if the headg ) is included, and that it finally and finally happens, though it may be mistaken at first sight, as long as the trial continues for the investigation of the truth, yea, has also erred at times, though more by setting up than by deciding, though it has been led out of error by the Holy Spirit;
and in the same way neither the Roman church, nor the pope can err in deciding about faith or life, as pope, that is, if he does and does the pronouncement ex officio, so much is in him that he knows the truth;h )
4. That anyone who does not base himself on the doctrinei ) of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, as the guide of faith, that is, who is infallible in what must be believed, from which also the Holy Scriptures draw or have drawn their force, is a heretic;
5. that the Roman church can decide something about faith and life by word as well as by deed, and that in this there is no difference at all, except that words are more suitable for this than deeds, therefore also for this reason habit acquires the power of a law;
6. Inferentially, that whoever holds that the Roman Churchk ) cannot do in matters of faith what it actually does is a heretic, in that he holds differently in matters of faith than the Roman Church.
f) Here the writer improves himself, who before fim dialog had three churches, but now has five. Thus Rome's wisdom grows.
g) A magisterial and most scientific distinction!
h) That he sucks the world by estimations, he is truly not mistaken; alas!
i) Here, Satan is speaking from the lowest hell.
k) by taking the Roman church in the sixth way for the magister of the palace.
Chapter Eight. That the adversary has some errors, except those which he states in his theses and their explanations. And there
1. proved that it is a mistake that the pope is in matters of faith under a concilium, if it is not understood by the faith1 ) of the pope himself, while the opponent speaks of matters of faith straight and in general;
and as a second error it was rejected that the pope could err in a decision about faith: and he [Luther]l ) must speak of it (as is proven there), in so far as the pope is pope;m ) and the third error is that the decrees of the Roman popes are quite cold and nothing;
and the fourth is that the Roman Church is not the head, except according to the quite cold decrees of the Roman popes from four hundred years ago, Wider which, he says, are the completely proven stories of eleven hundred years ago;
and the fifth that it is permissible to appealn ) to a future concil;
and the sixth, that the Roman Church or the Pope is not the Catholic Church by force;
and the seventh, that it is quite bad to say that God has not commanded anything impossible;
and the eighth, that the saying Matth. 16: "All that you will bind" 2c, is not a privilege of Peter, but belongs in the same way to all apostles and priests, and certainly to the whole church.
l) Because he did not know this palace-master distinction.
m) I. e.: Nimm Brod [yes gold - addition of the Wittenberg and Jena edition].
n) O how this wound and ulcer hurts!
Chapter Nine. That it is an erroro ) to say that the pope cannot, through the indulgence, give any
The priests and the canons shall not remit other punishments than those imposed by the priests or the canons. And there
1. the error is cited and proven to be rejected from what has been said;
2. All the bases of the opponent are answered and it is shown that he proceeded frivolously, because he cites the Scriptures badly,p ) so that the same not only does not prove, but also does not go to the matter, or yet only rarely, and this he does throughout the whole book.
o) He proves these errors of Luther, but at night in his secret chamber.
p) This is also how the people of Cologne and Louvain answer, and this is the solemn way of the magistri nostri to answer: You have misquoted and misinterpreted the Scriptures.
Chapter Ten. That it is a mistake to maintain that the pope cannot grant plenary indulgences, either here or in the future. And there
1. Showed that this is an error, if it is understood of the punishments which divine justice requires of us for sins, or which in judgment are imposed on the soul to endure (veniunt).
2. all his grounds of proof are resolved;
3. It is shown that it is a mistake to say that in purgatory the pope cannot remit the punishment of the canons, not in the actual form, but in an equivalent one (aequiva- lenti);
4. Another error is rejected, according to which he claims that every punishment of this life is changed into the punishment of death if one willingly suffers it;
5. It is proved that the Roman Church was the head at the time of Gregory, which the latter denies;
to the last, its foundations, which are nothing, are destroyed.
Chapter Eleven. That this opponent has a bad opinion of purgatory, where these errors are also rejected and the counterfactuals are refuted.
The first error: Man's way in relation to the increase of his condition (habituum) and to the merits of works does not end with death;
The second: The imperfect love of a dying person necessarily entails a great fear, even after death, which is all the greater the less it was;
the third: This fear and terror is in itself (to say nothing else) sufficient to constitute the punishment of the purgatory, since it is closest to the terror of despair;
the fourth: Hell, purgatory and heaven seem to be as different from each other as despair, near despair and safety are different from each other;
the fifth: In the souls in purgatory, love seems to increase as the terror decreases;
But the foundations by which he is moved to expose these errors are, as will be shown, powerless in many respects, but especially becauseq ) he misapplies the sacred Scriptures and understands them differently from those who interpret them literally; and many beautiful things are said in the refutation.
q) How he talks so cologne!
Chapter Twelve. Once again, that the opponent has bad opinions about purgatory, where again many errors and many falsehoods together with its foundations are nullified.
The first false thing is that he says that there seems to be nothing, neither Scripture nor reason, to prove that the souls in Purgatory are outside the state of merit or increase in love. Thus that one.
But its falsityr ) is already evident from the fact that we have proved the opposite from reason, from the sayings of the saints and the canons, as well as from Scripture; likewise from the testimony of Scripture and the saints at the same time: for St. Gregory, in the 4th book of his Dialogues, in order to prove the present matter, namely, that merits do not change in purgatory, cites many passages from Scripture, as illuminated from the previous chapter.
The second falsehood is that he says that it does not seem to be proven that they are sure and certain of their blessedness, at least not all of them, even if we are quite certain of it. So that one.
This is utterly false,s ) for we have proved the contrary on probable, and then also on compelling grounds, and have shown its foundations to be void; especially that of supposing that the whole church holds that the punishments of purgatory are the same as those of hell; whereas no one says this, but it is quite false, sincet ) in purgatory there is no sin of blasphemy and despair of attaining blessedness, which is the greatest torment and punishment of the damned; for guilt is a greater evil than punishment, since guilt deprives us of God, but punishment of a creature.
The third falsehood is that he says: Who knows if all the souls of the purgatory also want to be redeemed? So that one.
But this falsehood is refuted in many ways; but what he cites for himself is nothing,
namely that Paul or Moses should have demanded to be eternally damned by God for others, and from the scriptural passages he attracts this is not to be concluded, but he misunderstands and misdirects them. u)
r) The most beautiful conclusion of all: Silvester says the opposite, therefore it is wrong.
s) According to the same Silvester conclusion.
t) The guilt is not the same, consequently also not the punishment; again Silvestrian.
u) Likewise refute the Cologne.
Chapter Thirteen. That the opponent holds false opinions about the authority of the pope; and there many errors are cited, rejected, and the foundations of them shown to be void.
The first error is that the pope cannot remit a debt except by declaring and confirming it as remitted by God, or else that he remits only the cases reserved to him. Thus that one.
And this error he bases on another, namely, that grace is not conferred by the sacraments of the new law,v ) Against the common teaching of the famous teachers, Augustine, Jerome, Hugh, the Magister of the Sentences, Beda, Rabanus, Peter de Palude and the Council of Florence.
The second error is that he says that in the Sacrament of Penance repentance is not as necessary as faith, namely, that one believes that one is absolved, and that faith in absolution achieves incomparably more than fervent repentance. And in those, he says, who believe in the word of Christ, "All things thou shalt redeem," 2c, the key cannot err. So that one. And again he says: "Even if the priest errs or does not err, you do not err if you believe that you are absolved. So he says.
And here also the pope's emptying of purgatory is discussed in answer to his first article; and it is proved that, just as the popew ) can bring one soul out of purgatory by indulgence, so also two and three, and so on ad infinitum, as long as there is a reasonable reason for the individual to be brought out; e.g. if the individual souls had such persons who came to them in a complete manner according to the pope's command.
The third error is that he says that the art of confession is tedious and useless, or rather to despair and ruin souls, in which we have been taught until now to count the sands, that is, to investigate, summarize and weigh the individual sins in order to bring about repentance. Thus that one.
The fourth error: the indulgence, given intercessionally, is of no more use than intercession alone.
The fifth error is that he says: "I do not care what the pope likes or dislikes; he is a man, like others. There have been many popes who have liked not only errors and vices, but also abominations. I hear the pope as a pope, that is, as he speaks in the canons, or concludes with a conciliar, but not when he speaks according to his head." Thus the one who also gives the example of the blood deeds of Julius.
The sixth is that he says that it is not up to the pope alone to issue new articles of faith, but only to judge by those that have been established and to decide questions of faith according to them. Here, however, there is a new article on indulgences, therefore the decision on it belongs before a general council, much more than the conception of the Blessed Virgin, especially since here there is none, but there there is much and great danger to souls; otherwise, since the pope is only one who can err in faith and life, the faith of the whole church would be in constant danger if one had to consider everything he liked to be true. Thus that one.
The seventh is that he says: If the pope would hold with a large part of the church in such and such a way, and would not err, nor is it a sin or heresy [to hold otherwise], especially in a matter which is not necessary to salvation, until by a general council the one is approved and the other rejected; Which, to say it briefly, is already proved by the one thing that the Roman Church, even with the general conciliar of Basle and almost the whole Church, holds that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin, and yet those who hold the opposite are not heretics, because the other part is not yet rejected. Thus that one.
The eighth is that he holds the opinion that a bishop has the same power over purgatory in his diocese and a parish priest in his parish as the pope; which is touched upon and explained here to some extent.
The ninth is that he says: For the punishments of purgatory are remitted without the power of the keys by mere repentance; for he who has perfect repentance in regard to God is absolved from purgatory.
The tenth is that he says: For with plenary indulgence, that is, of all penalties, the greatest part of the people is deceived. So that one who, in explaining the same, thinks it improper, as it were, that some say that after such an indulgence the soul of the departed, when it is
no longer commits any other sin, into heaven. Then he continues: "No wonder," he says, "if those write, read, and shout in such a way that one who, after having obtained indulgence, dies from a relapse, immediately goes to heaven. For this," says he, "is as if there were only sins of the deed, as if the remaining tinder were no impurity, no obstacle, no means to keep from entering heaven, while yet it is impossible for him to enter heaven until he himself is made whole, even if there were no sin of the deed." Thus that one.
v) You lie, Silvester; Luther believes that grace is given through the sacraments, better than you.
w) Luther also says this: just as he can pull out one, so he can also pull out many. For the comparison remains, because he can pull out none.
Chapter Fourteen. That the adversary has bad opinions concerning the spiritual treasure of the church, from which it grants indulgences. And there
I. the right understanding of this treasure is given;
2. It is shown that it is possible that such a one is in the church;
3. it is shown in a probable way that it is so in fact;
4. the same is shown in a proving manner;
5. It is shown that what he cites for the opposite proves nothing and is almost cited as not belonging to the matter, and that all his bases are nothing but bites and vituperations. And in this chapter, in refuting the opponent, still infinitex ) very marvelous things are treated.
x) Perhaps the infinite of Melissus, Anaxagoras and Leucippus.
Fifteenth Chapter. After the second volume is finished, the disputation with Eck and Luther's explanation about the authority of the pope came to my attention. Now it is added: that from what is said here and there above, his new errors are rejected. And there [it is shown]
I. That the Roman bishop (antistes - head) is first according to divine right, both in dignity and jurisdiction, according to the testimony of the Latin teachers;
2. according to the testimony of the Greeks;
3. according to the testimony of the concilia;
4. according to the testimony of Scripture, to which he has responded inadequatelyy );
to the last, the same is irrefutably proven for theological reasons.
y) Because Thomistic [is judged about it].
Chapter Sixteen. That from what has been said all the opponents' invectives are resolved. And there
1. That his reasons by which he seeks to prove that the supremacy of the Roman superior is not of divine right are void to him, although some are not void in themselves; nor are they all [asserted] in a treacherous manner.
2. that his solution, which he gives to the scriptural passage [Matth. 16, 19.]: "To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven", is nothing, and his seven reasons of proof are refuted; and the same will be
3. from his solution to the passage: "Feed my sheep" [Joh. 21, 17.] proven, and his four reasons for proof refuted;
4. that he unjustly and out of ignorance ridicules the decree of Leo I. Ita Dominus of the 19-Distinction, and his four reasons of proof are refuted;
5. that he laughs at the decree of Leo IV De libellis of the 20. 1) Dist. out of ignorance;
6. the same is proved by the chapter Cleros of the 21st Dist. and his three reasons of proof are resolved, especially the one he takes from the African Conciliar in the chapter Primae sedis of the 99th Dist. where, deceived by the ambiguous expressionz ) "primacy of the chair", he did not understand in the least this chapter so clear that it did not need an interpretation;
7. that he is wrongly fighting the decree Anaclets In novo of the 21st Dist. and it will also be
1) In the original of Epitome 2. dist. but in the work itself 20.
proved by the testimony of a Greek emperor that the priesthood of the new law flowed from ancient Rome to all other [churches];
8. the same also of the decree of Pelagius Sancta of the 21st Dist. and its four grounds of proof are refuted;
9. that he attacks with the greatest ignorance the decree of Nicolaus Inferior of the 21st Dist. and that the arrows he hurls at the opposite are nothing;
10. the same of the Cap. Omnes of the 22nd Dist., and his seven libels are rejected;
11. the same of the Decree Anaclets Sacrosancta of the 22nd Dist. and are rejected its six calumnies;
12. that he unjustly and maliciously attacks Paschalis in his Decretale Significasti sim titled "Of the Election" 2);
last, that he proves his thirteenth thesis badly, but all his proofs come either from malice or from great ignorance. But let him beware; for, as far as I understand, he already bears the judgment of God on his neck.
z) What wonder if they invent new ambiguities from their heart every day?
a) That is, by divine right.
b) This is also said Kölnisch and Löwenisch.
End of the third book of the legal and incontrovertible truth of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff.
Rome, printed by Antonius Bladis de Asula, March 27, 1520, during the reign of Leo X, in his 8th year.
2) Here the original has correctly: äs elsetivns, instead of äs sIssraoZ^un in the other editions.
Martin Luther to the reader.
Christian brother, you who read this, what is brought forward by Silvester, the instrument of Satan, you must recognize that this is only composed out of deepest hatred and out of unbelievable fear of a general concil. For the Romanists, who have long since gone out of their minds with the rage of their godlessness, go about it in order that they may have unpunished liberty to undertake anything that might help the shattered and devastated Church.
not be helped by the means of a council, and the Roman Nimrods, Ishmaelites, bloodsuckers, Sybarites, Sodomites, Antichrists, who seduce the whole world (as Peter predicted [2. Ep. 2, 3.]) "with invented words", not be given a goal.
Because they see that they cannot prevent a council, they think that the pope is over a council, without whose authority no council can be assembled.
none could last, none could oblige, none could do anything, but he, the pope, was the infallible guide of truth, the guarantor how to understand the Scriptures. With these more than infernal inventions and lies they will have made a mockery of the Conciliar, if they are obliged to admit one before they admit it, so that they may thus keep their Sodom and Babel in all things unpunished.
If the frenzy of the Romanists continues in this way, it seems to me that there is no other remedy than for emperors, kings and princes to arm themselves with force and weapons, and to attack this plague of the whole world and to put an end to it not with words but with the sword. For what do these rejected people, who are also deprived of common sense, slur other than what is predicted that the Antichrist will do? and as if they considered us more senseless than blocks.
If we punish thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, heretics with fire, why do we not much more attack with all possible weapons these teachers of perdition, these cardinals, popes and all this yeast of the Roman Sodom, which corrupts the church of God without ceasing, and wash our hands in their blood, in order to free us and ours, as it were, from a common and most dangerous fire? O happy Christians, wherever they may be, if only they are not under this Roman Antichrist, as we wretched people are!
However, I will make myself free and leave this as a testimony to my conscience and my admonition that the Roman Pontiff's power, be it divine or human law, is not higher than commanded in the fourth commandment, that is, the first of the second tablet, where it says: "You shall honor your father and your mother". Therefore, I maintain that it is given to all of us in the commandments of God, esp.
is equal to the first three, so that if he does anything against one of them, he is subject to any believer who can punish and accuse him, according to the words, Matth. 18, [45-17]: "If your brother sins against you, go and punish him between you and him alone. If he does not hear you, take one or two more to you. If he does not hear them, tell the congregation," that is, publicly in front of everyone. "If he does not hear the congregation, consider him a Gentile and a tax collector.
Who is he who could exempt the pope and the papists from this law of the gospel? Is the pope not a brother? or has not Christ commanded this to all his own? Show me a passage of Scripture that proves it is not lawful to force the pope under this rule. Or do they dare to frighten us with their diabolical little fists that we should not obey this commandment of Christ, that we should sin against God for the sake of a man, and for fear of a human statute nullify the commandment of God?
Truly, now I understand of whom Peter spoke when he said 2 Ep. 2:1 ff: "There shall also be false teachers among you, by whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed; who shall deny the Lord that bought them, and by covetousness shall deal in fancied words with you." Or is that not blaspheming the way of truth, claiming that the word of Christ has no validity in relation to any sinful person? I am excused and declare publicly according to these words of Peter and Christ: If princes, bishops and whoever else of the faithful do not warn, punish, accuse, consider the pope a pagan when he sins by any crime, they are all blasphemers against the way of truth and deniers of Christ, who shall be eternally damned with the pope. This is my opinion.
Luther's dispute with Prierias includes the following writings:
a. Luther's letter to Spalatin of August 8, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 527 § 2. (Luther works on the refutation of the dialogue.)
b. Luther's letter to Spalatin of August 21, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 529 f. § 5.
(The dialogue and Luther's response to it are under press in Leipzig).
c. Luther's letter to Spalatin of August 31, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 599 § 4.
(Luther sends his response to the dialogue to Spalatin).
d. Luther's letter to Spalatin of September 2, 1518. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 9, § 2.
(Luther believes that his very erroneously printed explanations and refutation of Silvester's dialogue came to the attention of Spalatin).
e. Luther's letter to Johann Lang of September 16, 1518. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 15 a, § 1.
(All copies of the dialogue have been sold. New ones are being printed).
f. Luther's letter to Johann Staupitz of February 20, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix no. 31, and
g. Luther's letter to Wilibald Pirkheimer of February 20, 1519. De Wette, vol. VI, 12 f.
(Luther writes of the witty, intentional misprint in the dialogue in the Basel collection of his writings, magirum [Koch) instead of: magistrum and the sharp notes on the dialogue).
h. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 7, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 586.
(Luther sends the replica to Spalatin from Leipzig).
i. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 11, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 614 f. § 2.
(Luther asks for return of the replica and Rath whether he should answer it).
k. Luther's letter to Scheurl of January 13, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 616 § 3.
(To the reply, even if it were from Prierias, it is not worth to answer, because it is childish and feminine and nothing else than lamentations of his pain).
l. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 14, 1519. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 5, § 4 at the end.
(The Wittenbergers think that it is not necessary to answer the reply, because it is probably written by one of the dark ones, who plays the Silvester).
(Luther mentions that he let Silvester's replica drive).
n. Luther's letter to Spalatin of October 13, 1519. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 37, § 5.
(Luther is told that Prierias is silent, but Brother Cyprian of Paris will write against him by the Pabst's command).
o. Luther's letter to Spalatin of early June 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 723.
(Luther sends the epitome to Spalatin.)
p. Luther's letter to Spalatin of June 13, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 696 § 1.
(The epitome is under the press.)
q. Luther's letter to Spalatin of June 25, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 700 § 3-.
(The epitome will be ready tomorrow).
r. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XXII, 1652.
(Des Prierias Errata et argumenta Martini Luteris recitata etc. are sold during the Diet of Worms [second half of April 1521).
s. Luther's letter to Johann Lang of April 13, 1519. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 44, Col. 101 § 13.
(From the sub g. mentioned misprint in the Basel collection).