February (?) 1519.
Translated from Latin.
In response to Dungersheim's second letter, in which Dungersheim pelted Luther with quotations from the Church Fathers, Luther said that the evidence he had obtained from the Fathers was not sufficient. One would like to interpret the Fathers according to the Scriptures, but not vice versa.
To the excellent and respectable Mr. Hieronymus Dungersheim of Ochsenfurt, the highly learned Doctor of Sacred Theology at the University of Leipzig, his [Lord in Christ wishes Martin Luther's] salvation.
I have now received, dear Lord, your second letter, in which you again write about the papacy and, among many other things, again bring up Athanasius and the decisions of the Council of Nicaea.
2. dear, listen to what I say briefly. Because I'm still waiting for Eck, who in turn has poured out new frenzies, this big braggart (magno promissor hiatu). I ask you, what is it that I should confess further? I confess that the Roman Pontiff is higher in dignity than all, and that he should be honored. From this it follows that he is consulted in difficult matters and is asked for help when greater need arises; but I do not know how I would be able to maintain this against the Greeks. For even you do not give any satisfaction with regard to this matter. It does not follow that he must be consulted; therefore there must be no bishop anywhere except by his authority, and nothing must be done in the church except by his command. If I were to attribute to the pope, I say, this power to order all [bishops] and to do everything by divine right, I would make Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian, Athanasius, Gregory, and all the bishops of the Orient heretics, because they had never been under him.
Nor were they appointed bishops under him. For even the Council of Nicaea was not held by his command, nor was he himself present at it, nor a deputy for him, nor did he have the first place: unless you would deny that the Council of Nicaea was a general one.
What shall I say of the decisions of the Council of Nicaea? They are not against me; moreover, they are everywhere considered uncertain, so that it is still unknown which and how many of them there are, and to which one faith can be attributed. Finally, the works of Athanasius, which you use, are doubted to be by Athanasius, and are rather considered to be those of the Bulgarian Theophylact. 1)
4 But what Julius the First and other Roman bishops did, you know how that proves nothing. In greater matters, therefore, the Roman Pontiff may be approached by those who wish to do so. Why then does he interfere with his power when he is not required, and drags everything before him, orders everything, forbids everything? Show me where this power is found in the writings of the ancients. You have read that Gregory the Great in the decree [dist. 22, cap. 4.] confesses that if a debt [or crime] requires it, then
1) Theophylact, Archbishop of Achris in Bulgaria 1078 until after 1107. From his ooininsutur. in 6p. uci kNilipp. is indeed taken the passage cited in H 22 of the previous letter, as Luther correctly remarks here.
*This letter can also be found in the collection of Dungersheim's writings cited in No. 20 x". 26; in Aurifaber vol. I, 148; in Löscher's Reformation Acta vol. Ill, 24; in De Wette vol. I, 218 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel vol. l, 438. The date is a conjecture of the Erlangen edition. De Wette assumes: end of January or beginning of February. However, it is also possible that this letter was written shortly after the publication of Eck's second disputation note on March 14, if Luther's words at the beginning of this letter about Eck's "new frenzies" refer to this note.
500 D Br.-W. 1,439-441. 23. Luther's reply to Dungersheim's second Schr. W. XVIII, 622-624. 501
the Roman Pontiff is the superior, otherwise, without fault, all are equal. Thus I want the supremacy of the Roman See to be honored when it is necessary and he is called upon to help. Although, as I have said, I could not prove this either at Leipzig, 1) or even today, nor could I meet those who held the text of Scripture against me. For I fear nothing so much in this matter as that, if a dispute broke out with heretics, we would be exposed to ridicule by basing ourselves on our glosses and speaking without a testimony of Scripture. For the devil fears not the rod of Egypt, but the sword of the Spirit. And in this matter you, and all others with you, would do me the greatest favor if we would test the sayings of the fathers against the words of Scripture, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles that Paul's words were also accepted (namely, that] they read the Scriptures day and night to see if it was so. You and Eck, you have the custom of accepting the sayings of all, and of making the words of the Scriptures conform to the words of the fathers, as if those did not want to draw us much more to the Scriptures than to themselves. I, on the other hand, have the custom, following the example of Augustine, to follow the little books to the source, without prejudice to reverence for all, which Bernhard also boasts of doing.
(5) As for the second, the passage Philippians 2, which you think I have treated badly by following Erasmus, here you also do not bring the text, but the opinions of the fathers. First of all, my good Lord, I think you know that this verse, Psalm 110, 3 [Vulgate]: "With you is the dominion in the day of your strength, in the splendor of the saints from the womb, 2) before the morning star I have begotten you" of the divinity of Christ has been asserted against Arius as the highest proof, or at least as one of the first (proofs, as one might expect in the
1) This does not refer to the upcoming disputation, but to his presence there in January. (Erl. Ausg.)
2) Deviating punctuated from the Vulgate; in the latter the punctuation mark precedes ex utero.
Tripartita and in the Augustin reads, so that both the Greek and the Latin church holds this Psalm in this sense, and even uses as a song at the service. For this reason, you will not make heretics of the Lyra, Burgensis, and even the Hebrew language, where one reads that this verse can certainly not be understood by the Godhead. That is why the holy fathers do not always fight against the heretics with clear and obvious sayings. How many sayings Jerome abuses against Jovinian, Augustine against Pelagius and others against others!
(6) Likewise, with what confidence does Augustine use the saying in the first book of Moses [Cap. 1, 26]: "Let us make man, an image to be gwich unto us," to assert the Trinity and the image that is in man, while neither can be proven from it, for in Hebrew it says: "I will make," not: "let us make.
7 Similarly, the passage 2 Mos. 3, 14: "I am who I am" all refer to the essence of God, while Burgensis and the Hebrews prove that it is to be referred to the effect of the help, because it says: "I will be who I will be", in the future time (in futuro). And the like innumerable.
8 What wonder, then, if they have also forced the passage Philippians 2 on the Godhead, which, considering the words, is more appropriately of mankind? I do not think I sin if I deviate from the fathers in any darker text. But what do you do, who set aside the text and occupy yourselves only with the sayings of the fathers, but that you leave cases doubtful and uncertain? In this the Magister Sententiarum has given a very bad example, in that he endeavored to bring the sayings of all into agreement. Hence it comes that we, being armed against the heretics with doubtful and dark opinions, become a laughing stock.
(9) Nor do I deny that this saying of Paul to the Philippians can be interpreted as Peter, Matt. 16, is drawn by many to the rock (Petrus ad petram); but it is necessary that the theologians be guided by a simple grounded
Fortify the mind against Satan. For this is my endeavor, and herein also consists the whole dispute against Eck, who holds fast the multiplicity, which is not pleasing to me.
10 Finally, it pleases me that a zeal for research has arisen from the disputation, only that I regret that this is happening in
to which other necessary things are put in the rear over this one not necessary thing, in which I still pursue enough and more than I can maintain myself. But I see quite well what is sought by many through this. But God lives. In that you are well, dear Lord.