End of January (?) 1519.
Translated from Latin.
Answer to the above letter of Luther. In it, he seeks to support his view of the supremacy of the pope from the church fathers and to refute Luther's interpretation of Phil. 2, 6. 7. from the same.
Hieronymus Dungersheim from Ochsenfurt [wishes] Martin Luther eternal salvation in the Lord.
That you liked my previous letter very much can only be very pleasant to me, dear brother in Christ, Martin, because I have the confidence that it also pleases the Lord Himself, for whose honor I sent it, as well as this one (as I am not aware of anything else).
(2) Since you also imply that the letter's intention is directed to what I said was recognized in the matter of the pope at the holy council of Nicaea, but omitted by Rufinus, you understand me rightly; for in that (as there) the right understanding of the holy Scriptures, as it appears to us in the saints, is at the bottom of the letter.
The decrees of the Roman popes on the supremacy of the papacy are, of course, written on it, and there is no doubt that they are also formed to some extent according to the pattern of the same. If you therefore know, as you say, where I have read this, and have read it yourself, it is strange if you still have reservations.
Finally, although it is written in the book of decrees that there are twenty decisions of this council, it is not possible for you to deny that there are many more, namely up to seventy. This is also asserted in the context of these decrees immediately afterwards from the words of the great Athanasius, who attended this council. Among them is also
*) This letter is in the collection of Dungersheim's writings listed at No. 20; then in Löscher, Reformations-Acta III, 34 and Erlanger Ausg., Briefwechsel I. 373. The time of this letter can only be determined approximately. From Dungersheim's zeal it can be assumed that he did not wait long with this answer to Luther's letter.
that of which I stated in the previous letter that it was omitted by Rufinus. Of this, and not a little, is found inserted in various places of the same, according to the nature of the titles. But that I have read what I then attracted, namely, from Athanasius, Julius, and others whom I have named, in the originals which I have at hand (penes me), with several other such [writings], you may not doubt. Therefore, if (as you continue) you have the decisions of this whole council, they may be written in whatever language they want (but I add: if you also have them all), you also have those. But if you do not have those, then you do not have all of them, since among all of them these must certainly be included, because they are the ones that are most suitable for the purpose. I also suppose that you can have the resolutions of the whole council, as you speak; nevertheless, it does not follow that you have all of them, namely, if there are to be only twenty, since there are seventy; for to the whole council belong all those as well as some of them. The Concordia of Gratian 1) is not in the least opposed to this by the words of Stephen [III], but rather serves our purpose, namely, that some have been lost; namely, if they have been lost, they must have been present. But it is certain that from his archive (scrinio) some have been lost by some accident, or that only twenty have been found, but that with others seventy have remained, as they are present. Yes, he himself also mentions that, according to the indication of many, those that seemed to be lost were added to others. But also Gratian does not claim that there are only twenty, but that they are there, as also Rufinus does not deny that there are more. How now? Wouldn't someone have guessed about those, 2) which the Arians or rebels (setting aside the others) have drawn out in Greek, of whom I have shown in the previous letter that they have cited for themselves what seemed to speak for them in the letter to Pope Julius, but omitted what was against it? For these people of broken senses strove with all their might to do so,
1) The collection of Gratian's decrees (c. 1150) has the title Concordia or Concordantia discoräantiurn canonum.
2) It seems to us to be read according to the context exciäerir, which can also be construed with the mere accusative; but not, as the Erl. Edition wants, exciäerit - caffiren, make invalid.
also to shake and invalidate this whole Concilium, so holy, even in the orthodox expression (prolatione) homousios, as you know: but what has remained in the Church may contain what has been inserted in various places for the cause of the pope and other things, as was said before. In no way, then, may it be considered that legitimate conciliar bodies have made decisions contradictory to themselves in this matter.
(4) But it is still more proper to consider what I have drawn in my previous letter from the holy father Augustine and the Africans to the pope Innocent, and from what he wrote to them, as I will also mention below. If this is added to the foregoing, then Rufinus himself is admittedly convicted that he not only does not tell exact things (penitiora), although only very few things, but mutilated things, and this still quite superficially. Also at the one in the Tripartita, of which you indicate that you have read it, I think you perceive that it also proves very strongly to the point. Namely, of the letter of Athanasius and others to the pope Julius, and his [letter of reply] to them, in which this is more clearly contained; and of the summons of Athanasius with the Oriental [bishops] to Rome, and their appearance, but of the contumacy and sedition of the Arians. And that, according to the ecclesiastical order, conciliar meetings should not be held without the determination of the Roman pope; this order, in fact, is contained in the aforementioned Nicene resolutions, as well as in those letters of the seventy chapters 2c Also that Julius had reinstated Athanasius, who had been expelled by force by heretics, and therefore those had written him a letter that was full of mockery, and that they had unlawfully instituted a heretical meeting, which Julius also rejected. After that, how the successor of the patriarch Athanasius, Peter, also came to the Roman abbot at ships to stop the persecutions of the heretics, in this story Book 7, Cap. 37. 37. that afterwards John Chrysostom - not that Epiphanius, who also appeared obedient with other Orientals (what is described by St. Jerome) of his time at Rome, but - Theophilus had unjustly deposed by a mob, Book 10, Cap. 13. of the above [history]; that by order of Pope Innocent also Chrysostom should have been reinstated. Also other such great [reports] of [things] of-.
476 D. Br.-W. i, 376 f. 22. Dungersheim's second letter to Luther. W. xvm, ssr-sss. 477
of the same kind, that they cannot be inserted here in detail, but hardly in part.
(5) This is perfectly consistent with the sayings of the holy fathers, with the decisions of the conciliar bodies, even the later ones, and with the decrees of the Roman popes. Therefore you wisely say that your answer is not necessary to me, nor did I desire it for this matter; for it has not occurred to us even to desire it, since it is fully established by the Conciliar and the holy Fathers that this is the most certain and correct understanding of sacred Scripture; but I have wished that you would express in your answer the benevolent consent of your heart to this and to other similar things, so that the frightful and most highly to be regretted aggravations, both given and taken, and moreover, as is to be feared, still worse consequences, also unchristian vituperative writings, and the all too terrible death of immortal souls for the sake of this controversy, may yet at last, though late, cease, and by this means true peace may be restored among the parties.
6) But that you do not let yourself be bound by Rufinus' reputation is good, since it is small in other things, but in this matter it can be of no importance; for his account is mutilated and without probative force, as is admirably evident from what is also said elsewhere; but even then it is clear that it has no value, if it should be sufficient for you. 1) For when it is compared, as it must be, with what he omits, it is evident that it proves absolutely nothing against the supremacy of the pope. From this it is still proved that it is not to be suffered that even a suspicion is harbored that those exceedingly wise fathers and excellent men had thereby decided something contradictory. Otherwise, if one passage were not to be understood and interpreted by another, and what is omitted somewhere were to be supplemented by what is said elsewhere, one would find many contradictions even in the holy Scriptures (which is not possible).
(7) But you then add that you do not depend entirely on those Nicene Fathers or that Council, but on the Scriptures. But those men have attracted it [the Scriptures] in this matter; to think of them, in fact, as if they did not have the same
1) In reference to this difficult passage, Walch says: gives no right mind at all". We have completed the sentence thus: seä sst) do" eu Ipsu sinvulicla sst, nt upxarst), yuancko tibi suKwwt.
or it [the Scriptures] would have a different and opposite meaning than these so many and so great men (in the midst of whom Christ, the truth, has undoubtedly been) have assumed, - how godly this is, everyone can see. Therefore the authority to solve 2c is given to all apostles, but over all and against all to Peter, as the often-mentioned fathers assume, as is quite clear from their sayings, if one adds what is put in Matthew [16, 18. f.].
Therefore, I beg you to be moved by these heralds of divine truth and by the golden word of the holy father Augustine, among many others, in his most devout meditations, 2) where he says: "The exceedingly kind nature of the Godhead acts bountifully, forgives completely, so that for the sake of the confidence of penitent sinners, where sin has become powerful, grace also tends to be powerful. This, I say, is testified to by Peter, who, after being denied three times, was commanded to shepherd the whole Church. This is testified by Paul, who from being a persecutor of the Church became a chosen armor and the teacher of the Gentiles. This testifies Matthew, who was chosen from the custom house to be an apostle, to whom it was also conferred to be the first scribe in the New Testament." So much there. I could cite many other sayings of Augustine and others, which prove essential in relation to this, if I considered it necessary for this time.
(9) But you mention Mr. D. Eck, in regard to which you should be sure that it is not known to me what or of what kind he will write, as indeed it is not known to him either, as much as it is to me what I have written or whether I have ever written or still write to you. But this I think I have noticed, as far as I can remember, that in that dispute of yours no mention was made of the other decisions of the Council of Nicaea 2c. Accordingly, I also do not know whether the writings, which I have otherwise cited, were then or now in his mind (menti fuerint), at least with respect to the originals. From this and from other things that I have said above (menti fuerint)) and briefly, I do not want to be understood that I have said anything against anyone. Therefore, whatever may happen through him, I do not want to be included in the answers that come to him from you or that want to be given to you by him, because
2) Not in the meckitationibns, but in the book äe äiliMncko Oeo, cap. 12, is the following passage. (Erl. Ausg.)
I do not feel like getting involved in disputes right now. If it should nevertheless happen that I get involved, then no one can justifiably hold it against me, if I only explain myself reasonably (evolvam) and defend myself. But this and the former I write confidentially, as you see, because you promise somewhere, as I take it, that you want to live peacefully from now on.
(10) By the way, you ask me to keep this in mind in the meantime, that it is not permitted that what is divine right be neither changed nor interrupted, neither at any time, nor by any case. This is not doubtful to me, nor has it ever been, since I know that it is up to God alone, who is the author of this right, to leave it or to change it (conditionem). Again, I ask you to consider that this does not abolish the fact that the Church, and especially the general conciliation, can declare with its rightful presider and thus determine what should be considered such a right. That this, at least in this matter, as much as it had to be, was abundantly done at the Council of Nicaea by those Fathers, is quite evident, both from what has been stated above, and from other things which could have been stated in great abundance. Now, if by the obstinacy of the heretics, or by the tyranny of some temporal power (such a thing is again mentioned in the other epistle), the exercise of this right should sometimes be hindered in certain places or persons by permission of God, could it be justly said that it was thereby either changed in its nature or interrupted? Finally, with how great reverence this is also followed by the Orientals, one has seen in Athanasius and other orthodox believers, if one adds what has been brought from the letters of Innocent, who says: This has always and everywhere been held, and this means following the canons, and it is not human but divine opinion decided by the fathers. This reverence has also been seen in Augustine and the Africans, who not only did not deny it, but rather built it up and exercised it by the further use of this authority and by their petition. From this it follows that they considered it so; for would they not otherwise be convicted that, by writing and acting in this way, they were defying the prestige of sacred Scripture with knowledge and will, against their own consciences, in condemnable manner?
1) manifestario 60N86U8U, actually: with apparent consent.
would they have acted contrary to it in a godly way? Or vice versa: if they did not think so, but nevertheless acted and wrote so, would they not be made known by the Scriptures as godless hypocrites? Which orthodox (recte sentiens) could take this in mind from such people?
For this reason, they also express sufficiently in their other conciliar sayings how healthy they are in spirit. In this way, the authors of the canons, the Roman popes, would also fall into the aforementioned condemnation; among them Severinus, Cornelius, Anacletus, Dionysius, Marcellus, Marcus, Julius the First, Damasus, Innocent the First, Zosimus the Greek, Leo the First, Felix the Second, Hormisda, Pelagius, Boniface the Third, Honorius the First, Theodoric the First, also a Greek, Gregory the Great, Agathon, Nicolaus the First, very learned and very holy men, who handed down to posterity the negotiations and writings on these matters, with other popes of this See and the leaders and superiors of the churches of the Catholic world, with the conciliarities, universities, princes, nobles, and commoners (plebeis) down to the present day, who firmly believed that Christ Himself, while still walking on earth, had undoubtedly conferred upon Peter and his successors this prerogative to establish His holy Church. Among many other things, the aforementioned Nicene decisions (capitula) testify to this, namely, that the judgments of the bishops and the greater affairs of the Church, according to the ancient prestige of the apostles and their successors and the canons, are reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and that the Roman Church was given the prerogative by the Lord, assuring that it must remain inviolate in all things. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone should be made a heretic for its sake, or why it should be claimed that it is a new article, or that the Roman popes have allowed the opposite to be issued, or that anything of the kind should be said. For it [this article] has always been held by all orthodox believers, as is clear from the foregoing, and, so far as it had to be, has been applied by those who behave rightly. Also, not the opposite, but the established proposition has been recognized in the often-mentioned Concilium, as has been said above.
12 But though some of the forefathers, either Greeks, or Africans, or others, have become rebels against the light in various things, yet, as the apostle says [Rom.
3, 3] their unbelief does not stop God's faith, because, as he says [Rom. 10, 16], not all are obedient to the Gospel, but God knows His own [2 Tim. 2, 19]. Therefore it is not proper to fear anything from this sound opinion for the salvation or faith of the good (because there is no object of fear); nor is there any certain news that any saint ever entertained such fears, but rather that the fathers brought others to this [opinion] as much as they could, as has been proved shortly before. One must fear, however, that if it is held otherwise, by far the most irreparable evils will result from it. Only one of these, which is to be feared with other similar ones before all, I will touch upon very briefly for the sake of example.
13. Suppose there were a tyrant who heard this, who, because of his ungodly deeds against the apostolic see or otherwise, suffered the jnterdict (as it is called) over his whole territory according to right and merit, whom otherwise some fear of God could have kept in check, but who now, who now, as the hearts of the children of Adam are inclined to evil, according to his thus corrupted inclination, would be willing to accept this opinion, and, considering the authority of the pope "less or more" to be nothing, would force his clergy to perform the service as before: it can easily be seen how great a danger there would be at once (in foribus) for good and body, or for conscience and blessedness, whether one obeyed the pope or obeyed the tyrant. It is therefore an exceedingly great cause for fear that such church punishments would be despised, that the rights and liberties of the churches would be torn apart, and that the divine and the human would be set aside to the infinite ruin of souls. For it is an all too evil time into which we have fallen. For evil people will be able to say: If that subservience arose only by human agreement (consensu), then it can also be raised with equal justification by human disagreement (dissensu), or why then, they will say, should these be more subject than those to a yoke which they are not obliged to bear? and the like, which is an abomination to think. But this is said in passing.
14 Furthermore, if any Roman Pontiff, or Concilium, did not always and where it could, draw the sword of his power, but for the good of peace either overlooked or permitted some things, especially those of which one would
(The pope could hope to keep in wholesome obedience those who are inclined to stubbornness or quarrels, as among the Greeks the beard, the leaven) a wife [of the priest] whom he has previously married as a virgin, and similar things, which can happen to God for a certain reason, as has been touched upon elsewhere by the Alexandrian churches: who could deny that this is done wisely out of Christian and paternal gentleness? Therefore, we find that some great Catholic men, like Irenaeus and his ilk, have in certain cases reminded the pope of this according to the circumstances of the time. In what way could one deduce from this the opinion that his power, that it was divine right, was even the slightest bit broken, or that it sank to the kind of a human right?
15. Furthermore, if among the Greeks or Africans or others there are simple-minded and unlearned people, who either have not heard of the duty of submission to the Roman pope out of divine right, or because of their limitedness cannot grasp what is right, but have the lively will to stand in the Catholic faith, as Augustine speaks, in which they believe everything that is necessary to believe, and are also willing to learn and be instructed if possible, if they are otherwise good: do you then also believe that this wickedness or error of the superiors, who know this or can and ought to know this, deprives them of their blessedness? For how many could be found even among the Latins who are so good Catholics that, if it were necessary, they would be willing to endure martyrdom for the faith, who also form false ideas about divine things, e.g. that God is corporeal (which, according to Augustine, is the heresy of the anthropomorphites), and, as it were, as a kind of Geryon 2) even worship the supra-essential Trinity and other things - which the painters, according to the freedom they have presumed for themselves, along with the poets, are used to depict - as it were in devout contemplation, as one also reads of some hermits. But never, if they are so minded, as said above, they are to be condemned for the sake of it, since the same Augustin reports that they have communion with the church.
(16) But I understand the above also from the more recent Greeks, since their historians report a great deal, both of their return to the Ge-
1) I.e. the leavened bread in the Holy Communion.
2) Geryon, a three-legged king in Spain, from whom Hercules took his cattle.
The following is a list of the most important things that some of them believe against the teachers of their language, e.g. the origin of the Holy Spirit and other things.
(17) In short, after this and similar things that could have been said, what other particular (particulare) 1) could be asserted, by which the opposite could be proved? one may also consider more attentively oters, or times, or merchants, or even the orthodox persons, who are proved by their lives. Therefore, I cannot entertain the slightest suspicion that any general and lawful council could ever decide otherwise, since you yourself rightly hold that what is divine right cannot be changed by it.
(18) But someone might think that the life of some [more Roman] courtiers and their insolence, which presumes everything, could be improved in the opposite way, 2c, but, as the apostle says [Rom. 3, 8], one does not have to do evil, so that good may come out of it. Let it be done, therefore, as far as possible, what is pious, in the royal way, which of course still remains, since the church rule established by God must always remain inviolate. The rest, however, may be ordered in humble prayer to God, who, as the apostle says [Rom. 8, 28], will make everything serve the best for those who love him.
19 Finally, however, you say that you regret that so many questions arise from this matter. Indeed, not without reason you regret it, and I with you, do not doubt it, have fraternally an equal regret, but I have wondered how it might have occurred to you to argue for such an obvious thing, and indeed to the extent that even the men, 2) who already in former times resisted Pope John XXII until death, who nevertheless possessed not little perspicacity, did not doubt it at all.
20) But also among other things that you have brought forward, I have also wondered no less why you have not understood the mind and the opinion of the often-mentioned Council of Nicaea and of the holy Greek fathers, and also of the Latins, who very well understood Greek.
1) With reference to Luther's letter.
2) William Occam, Marsilius of Padua, John of Janduno 2c (Erl. Ausg.)
and others, which have always been held in the church as a kind of pillars, in the interpretation of the passage of the apostle: Who, whether he was in divine form 2c, Phil. 2, [6.]. There they understand it in such a way that by "the divine form" quite expressly the all things creating being of God is designated, in which the son is in an inexpressible way with the father of the same being (homousios) and equal. Because that form of the Godhead (because of its simplicity) cannot be a multiple (plures). And especially this passage they use against the faithlessness of Arius and others, as it were, as a projectile that cannot be escaped (inevitabili arcu), which is clear from the words of many. But you, in your sermon "on two kinds of righteousness," 3) where you take this word of the apostle as a basis, admittedly bring forward the opposite, by saying, among other things, thus: "Divine form is not called the essence of God here, because Christ never emptied Himself of the same." As if this could not exist in truth, that Christ, according to the words of the apostle, emptied Himself, and that the divine form denotes the Godhead itself, as the saints want. And shortly afterwards you add: This saying must be understood in a negative way, which many have taken in an assertive way, namely (as you say) that Christ did not consider himself to be like God, that is, he did not want to be like God, and other things which you put there.
(21) But from this it seems to follow, as it were, that Christ could deny himself, and not believe (arbitrari) that which belongs to him in such an unchangeable way, that in another way he cannot be at all, nor be rightly known; namely, it would follow that by not believing this, he would abdicate (abdicare) that which is naturally proper to him, as the same saints decide. For you go on and say: "But it must not be understood assertively in this way: he did not consider that he was like GOtte, that is, that being like GOtte, 4) he had not considered it a robbery. This interpretation, I say, yes, the simple mind, according to the saints, you do not want, and yet these truly holy, highly enlightened men interpret it without hesitation in an assertive way in the Catholic sense; but as your words are and follow, this opinion [the Father] has no suitable mind. You conclude, therefore, that there under "divine
3) Wittenb. Ausg, vol. 7, toi. 44 b. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1262 ff.
4) Luther: has.
In this passage, the term "form" must be understood to mean accidental, created forms, namely virtue, righteousness, freedom, wisdom; as also under the form of servitude, submissiveness and other things, which you act upon throughout the entire sermon. Now, on the other hand, that greatest Athanasius, as the Tripartite calls him, along with other fathers, has confidently and victoriously refuted, especially through this passage, the arch-heretics who dared to challenge both the divinity and the humanity of Christ, as I have already said above.
22 For since Athanasius himself explains this passage, namely: "Which, though he was in divine form" 2c, he speaks thus: "Count how many heretical men fall and fall for the sake of this saying. Marcion from Pontus claimed that this world was godless, and that this flesh had imbibed godlessness, and therefore Christ, who is God, had not taken on such corrupt and unfilial flesh. The Galatian Marcellus, Photin and Sophronius said that the word of God is a power (energiam). And Paul of Samosata claimed that this word had its beginning from Mary, as is clear. But Sabellius [taught] that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were only a kind of simple names attached to a person. Arius, however, claimed that the Son was created. Apollinaris of Laodicea, however, that the Son did not assume a sensible (sensibilem) soul. See how they are all almost felled with one sword, namely by this statement of Paul: Whether he was in divine form. But how do you, Marcellus, first assert with your followers that Jesus is a power, that is, an effect, not a being, since 'form' means the being itself, just as the form of a servant is the nature of a servant? And how do you also now, Samosatenes, rave that Christ had his beginning from Mary, since it is certain that he was from eternity in the form of God, that is, in the divine essence? Notice how Sabellius falls, for he says that Paul does not call this a robbery, that Christ is equal to GOtte. But in one person there is no equality, because he who is equal (par) and equal (aequalis) must necessarily have another with whom he can be compared, therefore two persons result from this equality. Arius at least and also the others are refuted with many things, likewise by: In the form
1) This passage is not found in Athanasius, but in Theophylact (around 1100), as Luther also notes in his answer. - In the beginning of the citation yuot is to be read instead of guoä. (Erl. ed.)
GOtte', that is, in the essence of GOtte, and he did not say 'made', but being; a speech very equal to that: I am who I am, and: he did not consider it a robbery to be equal to GOtte. You see the equality, so why do you say that the Father is greater, the Son smaller? But notice the quite nonsensical refutation of those whose one says thus: Since the Son was a lesser God, he by no means usurped that he was equal to the greater God. But what Scripture teaches that there is a greater or a lesser God? For this is the folly of the heathen. For that the Son is the great God, listen to Paul, who speaks thus [Titus 2:13]: The appearing of the great God and of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Accordingly, how could he who is said to be small and lowly have presumed this greatness? Incidentally, since Paul wants to instruct us to humility, it seems quite inconsistent with himself if he would remind us of such things as they hold, namely, that the lesser God has not rebelled against the greater. For what humility could they learn from such statements that the lesser God has not rebelled against the one who is supposed to be more glorious in Godhead? For this is a sign of impotence, not of equality, which, as we say, the Son has with the Father. But this can be seen, that it brings a true and indeed the greatest humility with it, that he, who has the same power with the Father, has become man. But enough of this. Notice, therefore, what Paul says: He did not consider it robbery to be like God. For if anyone takes anything, he fears that he will lose it, for he withholds something that is someone else's. But if he has something lying in him by nature, he does not worry much about it, since he is sure that it is in such a way sem Theil that he cannot take it off, and will take it again immediately if it seems as if he had taken it off. Therefore, I say that the Son of God had no fear of lowering himself from the dignity proper to him, because he did not obtain it by robbery. So I say that he was equal to the Father and was aware of his own dignity, and therefore preferred to become lowly, since even in his humiliation he kept his majesty. But he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant. Now where are those who showed that he had humbled himself unwillingly in order to carry out the Father's command? They may hear. As he himself, as a lord, and who has full power, not under another's command, has emptied himself. But since he
If he has taken the form of a servant, I say, let Apollinaris be ashamed of himself. For he who has assumed the form or nature of a servant has indeed a reasonable soul." So far Athanasius, and to yourself I leave it to compare this with yours.
(23) For you also say of the figure of a servant that it does not mean the human being. For St. Cyril, the Greek patriarch of Alexandria, who was awarded the victory over the heretics of his time at the Council of Ephesus, says in the third book of his treasures (Thesaurorum) in the second chapter Against Them: "It is quite inconsistent that we understand the true Son of God to be the Son of God. It is quite inconsistent that we believe the true Son of God, for whose sake God is the true Father, because he is God from God, as man is from man, - it is quite inconsistent, I say, that we believe the Son of God himself to be like us, who are not truly children and gods, but only by the grace of him who gives for his mercy's sake. Therefore the apostle Paul says: "Because in the form of God he did not consider it a robbery to be like God, but humbled himself, taking the form of a servant." 2c But "he himself says to the Father [John 17:5], 'Father, glorify me with the clarity that I had with you before the world was. But what was the clarity of the Son before the world was? Of course, that he was in the form of God." 2c But he said before: "He emptied himself and took on the form of a servant, and thus appeared all the more humble, the greater the difference between God and man. For he was not before a creature, and afterwards God; but being God from eternity, he afterwards became man." This is what Cyril, among others, said.
24 Also John, the patriarch of Constantinople, who was a goldmouth (Chrysostom) according to his name as well as his scholarship, says in his third sermon (homily) about John, among other things: "There are people who erroneously and ungodly think that Christ did not make himself like God, but that the Jews had used to do so. Therefore we want to go back a little further. Did the Jews persecute him or not? It is obvious that they persecuted him. Did they persecute him for that reason, or for some other reason? In this we also agree. Did he break the Sabbath or not? We do not disagree on this either. Did he betray God his Father?
1) Rather Homil. 37 In loann. ean. 5. (Erl. Ausg.)
named, isn't it? This is also not doubtful. The other follows from this. As that he called God his Father, that he broke the Sabbath, that the Jews persecuted him for this and much more for that reason [John 5:18], was not an opinion, but the truth, so also when he makes himself like God, as is clear from the above. My Father, he says, works, and I also work. These are words of him who makes himself equal to the Father, for in the words there is no difference [of working]. He saith not, The Father worketh, and I minister thereby: but it is the same word, I work. "2c It follows: "Paul testifies, Who, though He was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be like God, but emptied Himself and took the form of a servant. And Christ himself says: I have power to lay down my life" 2c So much in this passage. The same also says in the second sermon on the Epistle to the Hebrews among very- many things, with which he attacks the aforementioned heretics with some others: "These 2) all the apostle has at the same time cast down with One blow, saying (Heb. 1, 3.]: The image of his being, and bearing all things with his powerful word. "2c It follows: "To this is added that man is not called image (character), is not called likeness, which expresses the essence or likeness which agrees according to the very nature of the essence. For as the form of the servant indicates nothing other than actually a man, so also the form of God indicates nothing other than God. "2c
25 In the same place, John Damascenus, in the fourth book De orthodoxa fide, in the 19th chapter, says: "Some of what is said about Christ indicates the conformity and equality of essence (consubstantialitatem), such as: I and the Father are One; and: He who sees me sees also the Father; and: Which, whether he was in divine form; and other passages of the kind." So far this.
And all these, with others whom I shall now pass over, were Greeks, and had the peculiarity and mode of expression of their language without doubt in the most perfect manner. But also the Latins, certainly very great men, who also, as I have said, were not ignorant of Greek, accepted this opinion without any hesitation as the safest and strongest to effectively refute those heretics.
2) istos, not istÄS.
3) Should read: 18. cap.
(27) First of all, the holy father Augustine, in several passages of his works, especially those which he wrote against those heretics, therefore, against Maximinus, the bishop of the Arians, in the second book, chapter 5, he speaks thus: "I have shown," he says, "whence the Father is greater than the Son; because he is not greater than God, therefore the Son is eternally equal with him; but he is greater than man, because the Son became [man] in time. There," he says, "I have adduced the apostolic testimony: Which, being in divine likeness, he thought it not robbery to be equal with GOD. For by nature he had equality with GOD, not by robbery." This is what he says.
(28) When Maximin wanted to evade this, but could not deny the apostle's saying, Augustine says again: "For if you admit the divine form, why do you not openly confess that God's Son is like God? especially because you could not find anything to say in your favor concerning the apostle's words, where he says: He did not consider it robbery to be like God. And because you could not deny that the apostle said this, therefore you said: that he did not rob, neither do we say; as if "he did not rob" were the same as "he did not have," that is, equality; and as if: he did not consider it robbery to be equal with GOD, were said as if it were said: he did not consider that equality with GOD must be robbed, because it did not belong to him. For a robber is he who usurps another's thing; as if the son had not wanted to rob it, since he could have. You see with how great folly such an opinion is held. Therefore recognize that the apostle said: He did not consider it robbery to be equal with GOD, because he did not consider it something not belonging to him that he was born [according to the Godhead], but yet, although he did not consider equality with GOD to be alien [not belonging to him], but his own, he humbled himself, seeking not what is his, but what is ours. That thou mayest know that it is so, mark whence the apostle came to it. For when he commanded Christians the humility of love, he says, "Consider one another more highly than yourselves; and look not to your own, but to the things of others. Then, to exhort by the example of Christ not to seek or have in mind what is his own, but what is another's, he says, "Let every man be minded as Jesus Christ was. Who, though he was in the divine form
which was his own, he did not consider it a robbery, that is, he did not consider it something alien to be like God. But still, by seeking ours, not his, he emptied himself, not that he lost the form of God, but took on the form of a servant. For this nature is not mutable, so that he emptied himself by losing what he was, but by assuming what he was not, not by annihilating what is his, but by assuming what is ours." This is there.
In the same book, in two places, he expresses the same opinion about the divine form in which Christ is according to the apostle. Likewise, in the third book of the same, in the second chapter, where he says: "You say that you worship Christ as God. "2c Likewise, in the 14th chapter of the same book: "Neither can he who has received be unlike him who has given. "2c Likewise, in the following 15th chapter: "You do not deny that the Son is in divine form." And there: "He did not consider it a robbery, that is, not something foreign" 2c.
30 Similarly in the 23rd chapter of the same third book: "We read indeed" 2c Similarly in the 6th book "of the Trinity", Cap. 3: "The Scripture testifies aloud that he did not consider it a robbery, as if to say, Therefore every enemy of the truth is forced. "2c Likewise in the 7th book of the same work, Cap. 3: "For since to pure spirits" 2c Likewise Book 1, Cap. 14 (13) 1): "This is peculiar to the pious" 2c Same there: "But it is the appearance of the form" 2c Same in the book Against the Speech of the Arians, Cap. 8: "The Unity of the Person of our Lord JEsu Christ" 2c Same Cap. 11 same there: "To this comes that Christ is not only God" 2c Same, same there, Cap. 22: "We read that the obedient Son" 2c Likewise on John, in the 9th tract: "No one will say I have understood wrongly" 2c Likewise in the 12th tract: "If you were born of the Spirit" 2c Likewise in the 14th tract: "The Father has given all things into his hand" 2c Likewise in the 19th tract: "That form will be judge" 2c Likewise in the same tract: "The righteous will go into eternal life." Likewise in the 22nd (21st) tract, "What will happen hereafter when the form of the Godhead shall be seen." Likewise, in the 36th tract, he introduces Christ speaking: "The
1) Here, as in several following places where Dungersheim has cited incorrectly, we have placed the correct number in brackets after the Erl. Edition, we have placed the correct number in parentheses next to it.
I have taken the form of a servant, but I have not lost the divine form. "2c Similarly in the 17th tract, where he sent above: "Therefore the Jews sought to kill him all the more. "2c Similarly in the 25th (23rd) tract: "The Word and Flesh, Christ. "2c Similarly in tract 67: "We must, dear brothers, direct our attention more to God. Likewise in the 70th (69th) tract, "I know," he says, "O Lord, you have emptied yourself." Likewise in the 78th tract, "By this the Son is not equal to the Father," 2c; expansive. Likewise in the 99th tract, "He gave him to execute judgment. "2c Likewise in the canonical epistle of John, same in the 4th tract, "What is this: which, though he were in divine form." Likewise in the book Enchiridion, Cap. 35: "Christ, the Son of God, both God and man." Likewise in the letter to the Arian Maximus, above: "For as the Son is always born" 2c Likewise on the 74th Psalm: "This same Son, by whom we are made" 2c Likewise in the sermon on the words of the apostle Cap. 5 (15): "It was robbery for someone to be like God, and because he sought robbery, he found destruction" 2c Same, Cap. 31: "If you say that the Son was made, you deny it." 2c Similarly, in the sermon on the day of the birth of St. John: "Behold, how great he who is so small has become." 2c Similarly, in the sermon on the knowledge of God: "John said, And the Word became flesh." 2c Similarly, in the sermon on the words of the Gospel: "We have seen Jesus Christ, both God and man. Book: "But after he had taken on the flesh, by which he became man" 2c Likewise there: "For this cause therefore the Word became flesh, and he emptied himself" 2c Likewise there: "You concede the kingdom to the Son of God, the King, with the Father" 2c Likewise in the book of faith in Peter, 1) Cap. 2c Likewise in the book of the faith in Peter, 1) Cap. 2: "The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was in divine form." 2c Likewise in the book of the faith in Peter, 1) Cap. 2: "The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was in divine form." 2c Likewise in the book of the faith in Peter, 1) Cap. 2: "The Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was in divine form.
1) A writing falsely attributed to Augustine. (Erl. Ausg.)
2) This second sermon is spurious. (Erl. Ausg.)
(3) Cap. 12: "When the Son, who was in the form of God, emptied Himself" 2c Likewise in the Book of the Trinity and Unity, 3) Cap. 2: "So that he showed his likeness" 2c Same, Cap. 9 (6): "The unity of the person of Christ JEsu" 2c Same: "So Christ was not yet what he had begun to be, but he emptied himself" 2c Same in the Book of Questions about the New and Old Testament, 3) Question 97: "Therefore it is evident that Christ is called the true Son of GOD" 2c Same about the 130. Psalm: "Since the Lord Jesus Christ was the Word with the Father, through whom all things were made" 2c Similarly in the first book of the Trinity, Cap. 6: "The Son is like the Father and is an inseparable effect of the Father and the Son." 2c Same Cap. 13: "This is the way of the devout, who thus hear of his incarnation, that they believe that he is the Son of God, that is, that he thus for their sake became smaller than the Father, in the form of a servant, they assume, so that they may believe that he is like the Father in divine form."
This and other things, which I pass over, about this passage of the apostle, the holy father Augustine has, and in every single case he interprets it of the eternal form of Christ or of the divine essence in an assertive way, and not in a denying way of created things, speaking often in this way: what he had by nature he did not steal, but it was due to him 2c But also in the aforementioned first book of the Trinity he says, as it were, in conclusion in the 7th chapter: "And this rule of resolving this question through the whole of holy Scripture is taken from one chapter of the letter of the apostle Paul, where this distinction is set forth very clearly. Cap.: "And this rule to resolve this question through the whole holy Scripture is taken from One Chapter of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul, where exceedingly clearly this distinction is set forth; for he says: Who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be like GOD, but emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant" 2c It follows: "He is therefore the Son of GOd, GOtte equal to the Father by nature, lesser in gifts; for in the servant form which He assumed He is lesser than the Father, but in the divine form in which He was, even before He assumed [the servant form], He is equal to the Father. In the divine form he is the Word, through whom all things were made; but in the form of a servant he became of a woman 2c Accordingly (he says) in the divine form he made man, in the form of a servant he became man" 2c Similarly in the 11th Cap.
3) Unauthentic writing. (Erl. Ausg.)
there he says: "Therefore, knowing this rule, how the sacred Scriptures must be understood concerning the Son of God, so that we may distinguish what is spoken in them of the divine form, in which he is like the Father, and what is spoken of the servant form, which he assumed, according to which he is less , than the Father, we shall not be confounded by the sayings of the Fathers, which seem to be contrary to this and to contradict each other" 2c, where he again makes many distinctions or differences between the divine form and the servant form in Christ. Similarly also in the immediately following 12th chapter: "According to the divine form," he says, "is spoken [Prov. 8, 25.] - Before all hills he hath prepared me, that is, before fallen high creatures; and fPs. 110, 3. according to the Vulgate]: Before the morning star I begat thee, that is, before all time and temporal things; but after the form of a servant is spoken [Prov. 8, 224: "The LORD created me in the beginning of his ways," and ibid. much else on this stroke. Finally, in the 13th chapter of this book, he introduces Christ speaking on the same opinion: "But it is the appearance of my form; when I was in it, I did not consider it a robbery to be like God, but, that I might assume it, I emptied myself."
32 St. Ambrose on the Epistle to the Philippians also said: "Be of the same mind as Jesus Christ was, who, though he was in the divine image, did not consider it a robbery to be like God. Christ (he says) was always in divine form, because he is the image of the invisible God. But the apostle is talking about the Son of God, since he became man and took on flesh, saying: "Be of the same mind as Jesus Christ was. Jesus Christ also was, that is, God and man, who, though he was in the form of God and certainly walked among men, it was evident by his actions and works that he was God. For the form of God does not differ from God in anything. For this reason he was called the form and image of God, so that it might be known that he was not God the Father himself, but that he was what God is. This one, then, did not consider it robbery to be like God. For he knew that he was in divine form; he did not steal it so that he could say: I and the Father are One. And in the Gospel of John: "For this reason," he says, "the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his true Father, making himself like God.
made. So rightly he made himself equal to GOtte; for he thinks that he who commits robbery makes himself equal to him in relation to whom he is inferior." Likewise the same: "It is not said that he assumed the divine form, but that he was in the divine form; but it is said that he assumed the servant form, since he humbled himself, as it were, as a sinner." Likewise, "When the Son of God was born man, he was in the form of God; for when he was seen as man, he did the works of God, so that it might be evident from his deeds that he was God, who was thought to be only a man. For the works indicated the form" 2c, which he further elaborates. Ambrose has the same opinion also in the 2nd book about the faith in Gratian, Cap. 41 1) (8). The same there in the 3rd book, Cap. 6 (11). The same in the letter to Sabinus. The same in the letter to Irenaeus.
33 Even St. Jerome in the first book about Zechariah says about the saying Cap. 2, 8.: He sent me according to glory to the Gentiles 2c: "The voice of the speaking Savior (he says) is introduced, who says that he is sent as almighty GOD by the Almighty, not inasmuch as he is almighty, but inasmuch as he is sent according to glory, which, though he was in divine form" 2c It follows: "And it is not to be wondered at that Christ is the Almighty, in whose person we read in Revelation [Cap. 1, 4.], This saith the faithful witness, the beginning of the creature of God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the LORD God Almighty." Similarly about Isaiah in the 14th (3rd) book about the saying Is. 6, 2.2c He says: "It is said that they have six wings and cover the face of God 2) and the feet and proclaim the testimony of the truth, and everything they shout shows the mystery of the Trinity, and among themselves they marvel that the Lord of hosts, who has the divine form, has taken on the form of a servant and has humbled himself to death" 2c The same about the same in the 18th book says: "They have six wings and cover the face of God 2) and the feet and proclaim the testimony of the truth, and everything they shout shows the mystery of the Trinity, and among themselves they marvel that the Lord of hosts, who has the divine form, has taken on the form of a servant and has humbled himself to death" 2c. Buche says about the saying Is. 65, 1.: I say, here I am 2c: "What follows: Here I am 2c, agrees with that in the sense s2 Mos. 3, 14.]: I will be, he who sent me to you. Which, though he was in divine form, he did not think it robbery to be like God 2c, but, calling forth the peoples of the whole world, he makes A people of his na-.
1) This scripture has no 41 chapters. (Erl. Ausg.) 2) In the Vulgate: Hus.
mens, the Christians." The same Jerome says about the prophet Amos in the 3rd book about the passage Cap. 7, [7.?]: "And he had a diamond 1) in his hand" 2c: "It is said that the diamond, like amber, attracts poison to itself and resists magic arts; such is the Lord and Savior, who, although he was in divine form 2c, yes, until death on the cross. Namely, of this assumed form Isaiah writes [53, 2.], "He had no form nor beauty. "2c Similarly, about the 49th Psalm, verse 16: But GOD will redeem my soul 2c, he says: "The God-man did not consider it robbery to be like GOD, but emptied himself and took on the form of a servant." Likewise in the 5th (3rd) book on the epistle to the Galatians [Cap. 5, 13.]: By love serve one another, he says: "For he that will be first, let him be servant of all, that, as the Savior, who had the likeness of God, thought it not robbery to be like God, but took upon himself the likeness of a servant. "2c This is what Jerome says among other things.
34 Also Pope Gregory the Great, the first of this name, says in the 2nd book of his Moralium in the 4th (22nd) Cap.Since God took on the form of a servant of man, "neither did the lowliness of the assumed flesh make an entry into the majesty, because he wanted to keep what he assumed, but did not want to exchange what he had, nor did he diminish the divine through humanity, nor did he consume the human through divinity, because, as is said by Paul: WHICH, though he was in the form of God, he did not consider it robbery to be like God, but emptied himself and took the form of a servant. For him, that he emptied himself is as much as that he showed himself visibly from the greatness of his invisibility, so that he covered with the form of a servant that which without barriers penetrated everything according to the Godhead. The same there book 29 (?), Cap. 3 (?): "Who, although he was in divine form, did not consider it a robbery to be like God. The Lord JEsus Christ is in that he is the power and the wisdom, born of the Father before time. "2c Similarly, in the homily on the words: Mary stood 2c, the same says: "Christ is born of the Father without time, he condescended to be born of the mother in time." It follows: "What wonder is there, if he who is earlier than the mother is like the Father? We have also learned from the testimony of Paul that Christ is divine power and divine time.
1) In the Vulgate: trulla vsmsutarü.
is wisdom" [1 Cor. 1:24]. It follows: "In Paul's heart, then, Jesus was equal with the Father through faith, since Paul said to them, "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider it a robbery to be equal with God."
35 St. Leo I, Pope, also says in the 41st (124th) letter to the monks in Palestine: "What reconciliation can there be by which God could be reconciled with the human race, if the mediator between God and man did not take upon himself the cause of all? But in what way could he have accomplished the mediation in truth, if he who in divine likeness was like the Father, were not in the likeness of a servant also partaker of us? "2c Similarly, in the same epistle, he says: "St. Paul preaches, whether he was in divine likeness," 2c to: "to the glory of GOD the Father." It follows: "For in the divine form the Son was like the Father, and between the begotten and the begotten there was no difference in essence, no difference in majesty, and even through the mystery of the Incarnation nothing was taken away from the Word that might be restored to Him by the gift of the Father. But the servant form, through which the Godhead, which is not able to suffer, has fulfilled the great divine mystery, is the human lowliness, which is elevated to the glory of the divine power, in that the Godhead and mankind, from the moment of the conception of the Virgin, are united in such a unity that neither divine things could be done without man, nor human things without God" 2c
(36) St. Hilarius (whom St. Augustine, the father of the saints, has cited for the assertion of his own), in his letter against the Greek emperor Constantius, an Arian, said among others: "You forbid that one should speak what is not written, and yet you yourself use what is not written, but you do not speak what is written. Thou wouldest have it preached that the Son is like the Father, lest thou shouldest hear of the apostle: Who, though he was in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be like God, but emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant. Christ does not rob what he was, that is, being in divine form. Being in divine likeness would not be an equality with GOD if the equality with man was not being in servant likeness. Now, if man is Christ in servant form, what else is in the divine form but Christ, the GOD?
Therefore, for your sake, let it be preached that he is like you, lest it be written in your faith, And let every tongue confess that Jesus is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father. O over thy deceitful flattery! for thou coverest the waters with chaff, hidest the pits with sod, and layest snares under the food. Thou thinkest to do enough for the ignorant" 2c
37 Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt, an old teacher, also says about the epistle to the Philippians about this passage: "Who, even though he was in divine form, that is, in equality with the deity of the Father, being equal and like him in everything, he did not consider it robbery to be like God. Robbery is when any man usurps by force a foreign thing that does not belong to him. And the Lord Jesus would have committed robbery if he said that he was like God the Father, saying: I and the Father are one, if he was not in truth the Son of God, equal to him in everything. But his forerunner, when he said, I am not Christ, when he was asked by the scribes and Pharisees and the people, would have committed robbery if he had said: I am Christ. Simon the sorcerer therefore committed robbery, when he said [Acts 8:9, f.], I am the Son of GOD, though he was the child of the devil. "2c It follows: "And took upon Him the form of a servant, that is, He took on humanity in truth, and became like another man. Here (he says) the likeness (similitudo) is put for the truth itself, that is, he became truly man, because the Word became flesh, that is, GOD became man" 2c
St. Bernard in the first sermon on the birth of the Lord: "What is more unworthy, what is more detestable, what is more severe to punish, than that man, seeing that the God of heaven has become a little child, still continues to defy on earth? [Ps. 10, 18.] It is an intolerable insolence that, where the majesty has emptied itself, a little worm puffs itself up and makes itself big. This, then, is why he who has emptied himself and taken on the form of a servant
who in divine form was equal to the Father". The same about the Song of Songs, in the 8th sermon: "But who (namely Christ) did not consider it a robbery to be equal to God, so that he dares to say, I and the Father are one; because he is joined to him as an equal (ex ue^uo), he also embraces him as an equal and does not beg for a kiss from a lower 1) position, but joins the mouth with the mouth in equal majesty."
39 In the 77th (76th) sermon: "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe. Accordingly, so that the merit of faith is not annulled, let him withdraw from sight and give place to virtue [namely, faith]. It is also time for him to return to his own property. You ask: to what kind of property? To the right of the Father. For he will not consider it a robbery to be like God, since he is in divine form." 2c The Son of God is like God (coaequalis) and of the same nature with him, who, as the apostle says, "though he was in divine form, he did not consider it a robbery to be like God, but emptied himself." 2c
40 However, in order not to be unduly expansive or to exceed the limits of a letter, I must return to your matter. For at the end you express the wish that I may interpret what you have sent for the best. I am willingly prepared to do this according to the brotherly love by which we are bound to each other, if you hold on to this will with constancy. But let me know about this again by letter through the messenger who delivered this. Then I will be able to show you in more detail what I have drafted, to the praise and glory of Almighty God, in whom, I wish, you may always prosper.
Hieronymus Dungersheim from Ochsenfurt.
1) Instead of inferioridus, intsriori is to be read, as already correctly noted in Walch's old edition.