January 18, 1519.
Translated from Latin.
In defending the papal power over the whole church, Dungersheim bases everything on the false imputed decrees and tries to take away the credibility of the church history of Eusebius, as far as Rufinus has a part in it, at least with regard to the Council of Nicaea.
1. greeting before. I have perceived, Martin, my brother in Christ, that in the matter of the pope you are entirely dependent on the holy Council of Nicaea, which I do not so much disapprove of, if only (with your permission to speak) the negotiations and decisions of this Council with what they presuppose, as it were, as a kind of foundation (and thereby the faith of the same in this matter) are duly taken into account. For not everything that the aforementioned council judged on this matter is mentioned in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, and what it states is not by Eusebius, but by Rufinus, which Rufinus himself openly admits in the preface of the 10th book; but even the little that he repeats of the statutes of this council, he does not reproduce completely, even as it was originally stated. This is clear, both from the way he speaks and from other very credible writers who have dealt with these matters; but Rufinus himself also indicates that he has not fully understood what was said to him, as by others.
said, has struck, has shortened. Finally, he has also completely omitted to mention the Canon itself in the observation of Easter, after he had mentioned what the aforementioned Council had decided about it. Moreover, how much credibility at least Rufinus should be given, or how reliable his writings should be considered, is evident from the Canon of the Proven Writings (de opusculis probatis), and from the defenses (apologiis) of St. Jerome, and from the replies, both to him and to others. Thus, Rufinus' account is deficient in this matter. Namely, as the writings of the oldest writers 1) and also the canonical laws claim, there are no less than seventy decisions (sanctiones) of the aforementioned council, among which are also those that just Rufinus has omitted, namely:
1) According to the forgeries of the pseudoisidoric Decretals. Cf. Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, 7th ed. Hin8cüin8, voerstalW?86ncko-l8i(ic>riunus (1863) p. 451 f. 464 ff. 474. 476. 478. 535. 538. 542.
*) Although in old books the name is also written Düngersheim and Tungersheim, Löscher, Walch and the Erlangen edition have preferred the above spelling, because Dungersheim uses it constantly in his last writings.
**) This, as well as the following letters of Dungersheim to Luther together with Luther's answers to them are first printed in the collection of Dungersheim's writings, which appeared in 1531 in Quart at Leipzig (printer Valt. Schumann) under the title: HiMu ox>U86u1a irmAistri Hwroninii DunS6r8Üsim 6x Ostrotrancias Lospüoro, vulAS Oollssnkartü, saoras tUsoloSias xrowssoris, 8tuckii Iüp8i6N8i8 ooIIoMO 6t Canonici Eiccnsis, contra LlartiNUIN Imtüsrum ockita stc. Then the correspondence with Luther takes the first place with the special title: Miynot spistolas D. Hioronirni sx Ocüscnkartü, äatas aä Martinnrn I,ntücrnin, "nrn rssponsalidns sjns ach l^uasäam sarnnäsrn. From this Löscher printed it in his Reformation Acta vol. Ill, 27 ff. In the Bnef collections of Aurifaber and De Wette, only Luther's reply letters are found. In the Erlangen correspondence I, 356 ff., Dungersheim's letters are also included; our translation is based on these. The time determination is according to the Erlangen edition.
2 "It has pleased us (say the Fathers, who under Constantine the Great assembled at Nicaea as a Conciliar) that if a bishop is accused or judged in any matter by his fellow bishops in the same country, he may appeal as he pleases and apply to the pope of the apostolic see, who may either himself or through his deputies procure that the action be taken again. And if the pope judges the matter anew, no other bishop shall be appointed or decreed in his place. For although the co-regional bishops of the accused before them may examine the acts of the pope, they are not permitted to render a decision without consulting the Roman pope. For to the holy apostle Peter none other than the Lord himself said: "What thou shalt bind on earth" 2c And there they call the apostolic see the mother of all others, "to whose disposition also (they say) the ancient prestige of the apostles and their successors and the canons (as they speak) reserved all more important ecclesiastical matters and the judgments of the bishops". And they add: "Of those who take up arms against the fathers we hold that they are dishonorable, and also those who hold with the enemies shall not be admitted to impeachment or to testimony." Accordingly, they want, as they say, that in all things the prerogative of the Roman Church be inviolate. Likewise, "He who is in league with foreign errors," they say, "or deviates from the path of his purpose (sui propositi), or is disobedient to the sacred canons, we cannot admit, nor permit him to attack those who believe rightly, or those who obey the decrees of the holy fathers."
This and many other things about these things are found there. Therefore, also the great Athanasius, bishop of the see of Alexandria (who in this council stood by his predecessor Alexander as eldest [presbyter.] and acted confidently in the Lord against the arch-heretic Arius), when afterwards the Arian heresy gained the upper hand by favoring Constantius, the heir of Constantius the Great, and he was forcibly expelled by the party tainted with this error (fasos), wrote himself together with other Catholic bishops from the East to the Roman pope who succeeded Silvester, and humbly asked for help. The inscription of this letter is: "To the holy lord and the venerable Marcus of apostolic highness (culminis), the pope of the holy Roman and apostolic see and of the universal church, Athanasius" 2c
But it is the beginning of this letter: We doubt not that it hath come to you. "2c There is express mention of these seventy resolutions of the Church Assembly at Nicaea, and there the Oriental Catholics confess that they are subject to the Roman See, and therefore refer to the aforesaid resolutions. And after the beginning of the letter: "We wish that we may obtain from the power of your holy See, which is the mother and head of all the Churches, through the present [deputies], provided we are supported by your prestige and strengthened by your prayer, that we may remain unharmed by the said enemies of the Church of God and our enemies. "2c
They also mention the envoys of the Roman Church by name, who were present at the Concilium in question. The holy pope Marcus (on whose feast day I wrote this, 1), when he answered them as a pious father in a letter of consolation, not only did not conceal the dignity and privilege of this Roman See, but acknowledged their assertions as quite true, as is stated there; he could not, however, bring the matter to a conclusion, because death prevented him from doing so. But when after that the parties were cited to Rome by Julius, his immediate successor, the Catholics, through Athanasius with his assistants, appeared obedient, but the rebellious Arians, who, as before some more hidden, so then quite evidently, had fallen from the truth of the faith into the depths of error, had of course an abhorrence of submission to the apostolic chair. They wrote back to Julius with pride and dared to threaten that they would act against him, that they would no longer obey him, and that they would do anything they liked if he did not support them in the expulsion of Athanasius and his followers. Nevertheless, they greet him as "Father" and close their letter with the words: "May the Lord preserve your apostleship, which prays for us, for a long time to come, most holy Father."
(5) Now, when Julius counters this letter with a letter of reply, he punishes them severely, as they deserved, for many things, especially for having acted against the faith and the canons of the church assembly at Nicaea, and for having assembled a council of their own at Antioch, without his consent, for the purpose of
1) January 18; this is also the date of the letter. (Erl. Ausg.)
Destruction of the often-mentioned church assembly at Nicaea; and again he duly censures them for interfering with the rights of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and many other things he accuses them of. Among others, the ecclesiastical history of three very eloquent Greeks, Bishop Theodoret, Sozomenus and Socrates, gives a detailed account of this. In this history, Cassiodorus 1) claims, not without reason, that it contains much that is very necessary for Christians. In the already mentioned history in the 4th book, the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 12th, 15th, 16th, 24th and 29th chapters are of this kind. There it is also said in the 9th chapter: Pope Julius did not even want to appoint a deputy for the council of the rebels, since the order of the church absolutely dictates that councils may not be held without the appointment of the Roman pope. The same [church] history also tells from the words of Pope Damasus that Athanasius wrote to the bishops in Africa and reminded them about the faith.
6. Bartholomew] Platina, in the biographies of the Roman popes, who has thoroughly researched the archives of the apostolic see (for he was the abbreviator 2) of this see), also speaks of the aforementioned as follows: "Julius did not refrain from punishing the bishops of the East, but especially the Arians, because they had announced a concilium at Antioch without the order of the Roman Pontiff, and this could not be done without his authority, because the Roman Church would be higher than the others" 2c, namely, according to the provision of the said council, adding that they had resisted Julius.
7 But this also Antonius Sabellicus 3) states in the seventh Enneas of the eighth book, as follows: "Julius did not desist from attacking the Oriental bishops with letters, that they, without it being
1) Cassiodorus, who died in 563, compiled the first Latin church history from the works of the aforementioned Greeks, which became the most important textbook of the entire Middle Ages under the name Historia tripartita.
2) Bartholomew Sacchi, called Platina from his birthplace Piadena in Cremonese, was abbreviator, i.e. notary of the papal chancery, under Pius II, and as such had to draft the epistles, Lrovss. He died in 1480 under Sixtus IV as librarian of the Vaticana. (Erl. ed.)
3) Marcus Antonius Coccius, called Sabellicus, because he was born on the border of the Sabine, at Vicovaro, 1436; died 1506 as chief librarian at Venice. Each book of his historical work had 9 parts, hence Lnuoaäes.
to proceed from him, had met to negotiate the most important matter, since the bishop of the Roman Church surpassed all others in dignity." This is to be understood in the way recognized above at Nicaea; and he added that they rewrote to Julius and resisted him with their pointed objections. And this presumption of some Orientals lasted until the times of the Emperor Phocas, "who (as he says) restored the ornament of the Roman Church, which had been taken away by ambition," namely, by preventing the Orientals, as is given to be understood in what has been said, from that audacious presumption, by which they sought to take away the right of the Roman See, which was due to it according to what has been said before.
8 Johannes Naucler [d. 1510] at Tübingen says something similar in the second part of his chronicle in the 12th generation. And that others also report a great deal about the same thing, you can find out. From this, however, it is clear that the Arians of the Orient were among the first who did not want to submit to the Roman Church. And therefore Platina remembers Bonifacius III, namely that he "obtained it from the Emperor Phocas that the chair of the holy apostle Peter, as it is the head, says Platina, of all churches, should also be called so and held for it by all. This position (as he says) the church at Constantinople presumed to appropriate, since sometimes evil princes favored this". It immediately appears that this, I say, according to what has already been said above, as indicated by Platina himself, is to be understood in such a way, namely, that Phocas restored the Roman See in the exercise of its right. For a little after this the same Platina says: "I pass over," he says, "that Peter, the prince of the apostles, bequeathed to his successors, the Roman popes, the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power conferred upon him by GOD. "2c This becomes still clearer when one recalls what he himself said above about Julius.
9 As a sign of this, the Roman popes also had their permanent envoys (apocrisarios) in the Orient, especially at Constantinople. One such was Gregory the Great before he became pope, which can be seen in his preface to Job and elsewhere. Also your Bergomensis, 4) in the addendum to his Chronicle, in the 9th book, by Julius, whom he described as a man of admirable
4) Jacob Philip Forestus, born near Bergamo, 1434, died in 1520 as an Augustinian monk, hence "your", namely friar.
of worthy sanctity, speaks in the same sense. The Roman popes who immediately succeeded Julius also wrote to the Orientals about the same thing. These letters, together with those of Julius and Marcus, also those of the Orientals, namely Athanasius and others, as mentioned above, are still at hand. Therefore also that holy Gregory, whom Bergomensis as well as others praise with truth as a very humble and exceedingly holy man, although in his letters or, as it is called, his register, in order to show the ambition of some people, especially of John at Constantinople, as detestable, has not made use of the word "general", which was taken in a meaning not to be tolerated: But he does not conceal that the other churches are called by the Roman one to share in its care, but not in the fullness of its power, which belongs to it, since, as he says, the others are called by it. The same is also written by the above-mentioned Pope Julius, from whom Gregory seems to have received it, as it were, from hand to hand. Therefore, the holy Canons also constantly cite these sayings of both, causa 2, qu. 6.
10) This Gregory was followed by Bonifacius the Third, of which is said above, soon after, at the time of Phocas, but Phocas followed in the imperium on Mauritius, who as an adversary against the holy pope Gregory favored the ambitious bishop John at Constantinople and not long after was killed for his misdeeds with his whole house from God's judgment with the sword 1).
The holy father Augustine, together with other African [bishops], in a respectful letter, asked Innocent the First to condemn the heresy of the monk Pelagius, by which he took away the necessity of divine grace, thereby sufficiently indicating the prestige of the Roman See. Innocenzo, in his answer, says among other things: "Carefully and appropriately you consult the majesty of the apostolic dignity, the dignity, I say, which, apart from what comes from outside, has the care for all churches in difficult matters, which opinion should be held, in that you have followed the old way of order, which, as you know, has always been observed by the whole world against me." In reference to the aforementioned Nicene Canons, however, continues.
1) The murderer of the emperor Mauritius with wife and children was his successor Phocas i. I. 602. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2711, § 143.
He continues: "For you will also be given the grace of the canons, and your good deeds will be enjoyed by the whole world. And to what those canons refer is touched on above in what was said at the beginning. But it is to be noted that he speaks generally, both as to place and time: always, he says, and everywhere, as has just been [stated]. And in another letter, which Innocent writes back to Aurelius Augustine and other African sBischöfes, he remembers that tradition and speaks thus of the Fathers at Nicaea: "This they resolved, not of human, but of divine opinion, that if they should undertake anything concerning remote or distant countries, they should not take it into their minds to make a decision, unless it had first come to the knowledge of that See, where by the whole reputation of it would be confirmed, which would be a just saying, and from thence the other churches should take it. 2c St. Augustine and other African [bishops] still wrote back to Innocent on account of the aforesaid heresy, and not only did not contradict [what he had said], but approved it by asking that he, as before he had condemned the error of Pelagius, so now compel him to condemn his books also: "It curse," they say, "Pelagius his writings"; it follows: "Or, if he says that they are not his, or says that that which is imputed by his enemies to his writings, which he denies to be his, nevertheless curse them and condemn them because of your fatherly admonition and the prestige of your holiness. "2 Therefore Innocent branded the books of Pelagius, who was then doing his business in the Orient, and which he had published there, with eternal curse, as is also described in another letter of his. By the way, I pass over much that could have been mentioned there. For from the statements that Rufinus added to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in the 10th book, Cap. 6, only in passing, namely about the fact that no one should ordain someone who belongs to another diocese (which the rebels, when they answered Julius, as said above, against the reinstatement of Athanasius, which had been done by him [Julius], as if it were invalid, had attracted for themselves), you can see what it is worth. 2) This is also indicative in the above-mentioned
2) Latin: Quantum kaelaut. May one refer these words to ex Owtis, or from Pistorius sodssiÄstwus (pluralis), always the sense remains: the church history of Rusinus proves nothing.
The fathers say, with reservation of the apostolic reputation in all things. Of course Rufinus and those have omitted to insert this!
(12) And what he mentions above concerning the city of Alexandria and its sub-bishops or the co-bishops of Egypt 2c, namely, in occurring cases, and what he says of the city of Rome [which also has some [bishops] more closely connected with it, namely, the one at Ostia, Alba, Palestrina, and others), you can consider for yourself how this is to be taken according to what has been said before, namely, that nevertheless before it [Rome], as
the head of all, according to what is ordered, as [said] above, the greater things are to be brought. I also ask you not to fail to write back to me in detail and affectionately through the bearer of the present [letter], who will wait for your [answer]. When I have obtained this, I will send you other things about other things, with the right intention (with the help of Christ), like this, and it shall be subject to the judgment of the holy church. I wish very much that it may always be well with you in the Lord.
Hieronymus Dungersheim from Ochsenfurt.
21 Luther's response to Dungersheim's first letter. *)
After January 18, 1519.
Luther responds to the previous letter. The issues raised by Dungersheim would also come up in the disputation with Eck, so he should accept what Luther would answer Eck as answered to him. Luther did not base himself on the Council of Nicaea, but on the Holy Scriptures.
To the excellent and highly esteemed Mr. Hieronymus Dungersheim of Ochsenfurt, the highly learned Doctor of Sacred Theology at the University of Leipzig, his in Christ highly esteemed [Mr. Martin Luther wishes] salvation in the Lord.
I was very pleased with your diligence, dear sir, with which you looked up so many books in order to bring together what you presented to me. Indeed, I too had already read all this in the History of the Church and in the Tripartite, then also in the Canons, what is reported about Julius and other Roman popes, except for the one thing you write about concerning the decisions of the Council of Nicaea, that [decisions] are omitted, and of course this very one thing you cite is the most powerful thing, on which the strength of this whole letter of yours rests. But, venerable Lord in the Lord, believe that I also know where you have read this and where it is written, and you will not need my answer.
I know that in the Roman decrees only twenty resolutions of this council are enumerated, while Rufinus counts fewer. 1) Finally, we have the resolutions of the whole council in Greek. I expect, however, that D. Johann Eck will present either the same or greater. Therefore, I ask you not to be annoyed that my answer is delayed. What I will answer him, shall also be answered to you.
In the meantime (I ask you) let this float before your eyes in your judgment, that it is not permitted that what is divine right is changed or interrupted by any obstacle, at any time, by any case. But since Eck has presumed to make a general (proposition] 2) against
1) In Rufinus the 20th canon is missing, therefore he counts only 19. That in newer editions of the Nist. sool. of Rufinus 22 canones are listed, has its reason in the fact that (probably by later copyists) the 19 canones were provided with 22 numbers.
2) Namely, his 13th thesis.
*This letter is found in the collection of Dungersheim's writings given in No. 20 and from it, printed in Aurifaber I, 147; Löscher, Reformations-Acta III, 22; De Wette I, 205 (the latter places the letter "at the beginning of January"); Erl. Ausg., Briefwechsel I, 365.
472 D- Br.-W. 1,366 f. 373 f. 21. Luther's reply to Dungersheim's first Schr. W. XVIII, sso-592. 473
to prove myself, namely that he [the Pabsts] has always been of divine right: you see for yourself that our disputation is such that I must be free to conclude from a particular, but he only from the general. And therefore, if you prove the supremacy with the testimony of some, but I argue against it with only one, the conclusion will be in favor of the weaker part (sequetur), and I will destroy your whole general with one particular, because divine right must be observed all around.
Therefore, if the Roman popes in the Council of Nicaea immediately admitted what I said from Rufinus, which you also do not reject, I will easily prove that it [supremacy] is not divine right, or that both the Roman popes and the fathers of the Council are heretics. For they cannot be contradictory to each other.
have concluded. Not that I depend on the Council of Nicaea with all my might, but because I overturn all opposing grounds of proof with this one. But I base myself on the words of the Gospel, that all apostles were equal, and on the word Matth. 18, 18: "What you will solve on earth" 2c. I regret, however, that so much questioning arises from this matter, since I do not deny the Roman Pontiff supremacy and admit everything they want, only that I do not want the old saints and the apostles to become heretics for the sake of this new article of faith, which they themselves did not keep. Farewell in Christ, dear Lord, and interpret this, what I have brought forward, for the best. Wittenberg 2c (in 1519). 1)
Br. Martin Luther, Augustinian.
1) The bracketed words are found in Aurifaber, Löscher, De Wette and Walch.