March (?) 1519.
Translated from Latin.
This answer to Luther's previous letter is again about the supremacy of the pope and the interpretation of the passage Phil. 2, 6.
Jerome of Ochsenfurt to Martin Luther.
Eternal salvation in the Lord! There are things in your letter, Martin, dear brother in Christ, which I cannot approve, and to begin with the last, I confess that it displeases me not a little that you receive what I have sent differently than I meant it and have expressly stated how I mean it. I have also shown myself [willing] to receive everything for the best, as you wished, but you now have the suspicion that something, I don't know what, is directed against you. For you say: "You see quite well what is sought through this." 2c Are you still free to judge the heart of a man who speaks the truth differently than it behaves? Therefore, I wish even now, if God is gracious to me, that you may not harbor any mistrust at all, that I send this to you in sincere opinion.
Now let us come to the point. You complain that I "again write about the papacy and, among many things, present Athanasius and the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. To this I say: If you had accepted what was briefly said in the first letter, there would have been no reason to speak more expansively in the second with respect to the earlier or to refer to it. But even now you do not notice a great part of it, especially that the Nicene Fathers call the apostolic see the mother of all and decide that the prerogative of the Roman Church in everything must be inviolate.
that St. Peter was told by none other than the Lord Himself: "All that you will bind, and other such things. For that you say, "You confess that the Roman Pontiff is higher in dignity than all and is to be honored, and from this it follows that he is consulted in difficult matters and is asked for help when greater need arises," is not at all enough for those fathers, if it is not added: as in dignity, so also in authority, according to the evangelical institution of Christ, and that he thus stands higher or is the superior by divine right. Furthermore, if (as you say) he must be approached for help in greater matters, but what we are discussing about this matter is of this kind, then you too may approach him, who now presides over the church with the right of which I have spoken, and he will undoubtedly answer you with the Conciliar and the Fathers just this and, as I hope, receive you paternally as one who agrees with it. But shortly thereafter you weaken what you even confess, and say: "In greater matters, therefore, the Roman Pontiff may be approached by those who wish it. And further on: "Thus I (you say) that the supremacy of the Roman See be honored when it is necessary, and he is called upon to help," from which it follows that he is entitled to nothing or can do nothing, even in greater matters of the church, however necessary they may be, if he is not required. For by the enclosed condition you carry this
*This letter can also be found in the collection of Dungersheim's writings listed in No. 20, and in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, Vol. Ill, 56 and Erlanger Briefwechsel Vol. I, 452.
when he is required and that by those who like it. For if he is to be consulted only by those who wish it, how does that rhyme with his dignity, according to which, as you confess, he is higher than all, and that he should be consulted for help in difficult matters and when greater need arises? Or, conversely, if it follows from this dignity of his that he should be consulted in such matters, how can he be approached in them only arbitrarily? For how should a necessary consequence not be contrary to free will and to him who perhaps does not want it? What, then, do you attribute to the Roman Pontiff in any difficult matter of the church more than to any arbitrator in this or also in any other matter, although it is secular, should this arbitrator also be chosen from the least contemptible people (homunculis) by the parties? Is it not therefore logical that what you have said should be contradicted, that because of his dignity he should either be approached, or asked for advice, or his help sought, at least in difficult matters and in major emergencies? For although his help would be required in these matters, what would be the use of it if you did not also consider this to be so firmly established that you should follow what he establishes above all in the church? The kind is admittedly what is acted of his cause.
But you add the confession: "You would not know how to maintain this against the Greeks. And further down: "Although, as I have said, I could not prove this either at Leipzig or even today, nor would I be able to meet those who held the text of Scripture against me. I (you say) fear nothing so much in this matter as that, if a dispute were to break out with heretics, we might be exposed to ridicule. "2c
4 But if, as you write, these are heretics who also hold against that which you confess, but the Greeks do so to such an extent that you cannot trust yourself to uphold it against them, what will they be? Further, what harm does this do to the truth, if it seems that it cannot be defended against heretics and stiff-necked people? For according to the apostle [Rom. 3, 3.] their unbelief does not cancel God's faith. For against the Arians and many others of the same kind, the Fathers and the Conciliar not only did nothing by the truth of the Scriptures, but by the same the heretics only fell deeper, dragging the orthodox mind of them elsewhere, so that they could not be persecuted.
that when one heresy was finished and condemned, sometimes several arose, like the heads of the Hydra. So it was with the Jews that the apostles had to say to some [Acts 13:46]: "The word of God had to be spoken to you first, but now you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, see, so we turn to the Gentiles 2c: And they believed, even of the Gentiles, how many of them were ordained unto eternal life. Thus the Lord Himself, having even used works of the Godhead, when He represented that the prophecies were fulfilled in Him, was led to a precipice (praecipitium 1), and when He said: I am [before Abraham, the wicked wanted to stone him and kill the one who showed that he was like God. 2c, so that he said, as Matthew reports, [Matth. 13, 14. f.]: "Over them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says, The heart of this people is hardened, and their ears hear evil, and their eyes slumber, lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should help them." This also John adds, when he reports it [12, 41.]: These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him. Paul also, when he mentions this in the Acts of the Apostles [28, 28.], threatens and says: "Let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles. 2c To all this and even greater things than this, the wretched people have gone from bad to worse, so that they did what they wanted to the Lord and his servants, which the Lord also foretold that they would do [Matth. 23, 34]: Behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men. 2c He also spoke very clear parables against them, which the Gospel history does not conceal. Therefore St. Ambrose complains that he was first seen by the heretics, that is, if the grace of the spiritual mysteries could not have shone forth in the sermon. 2) So what is it miracle or
1) This is the reading of the Erl. Edition; the other two offer xrasmxuurn, which is rendered in Walch's old edition as: "to the colonels".
2) For the understanding of these words we put the passage from Ambrose (vxxoZit. svanA. lib. 7, aux. 48.) here: If, moreover, the animals see man first, it is said that by a kind of natural force they cut off from him the sound of his voice; but if man sees them first, they are said to be greatly dismayed. And I must beware of this, lest, if the grace of the spiritual mysteries cannot shine forth in today's sermon, it be thought that the wolves saw me first, and wrested from me the solemn testimony of the voice.
Strange that not everyone agrees with this truth either? for no one will set him on the right path whom God has rejected [Eccl. 7:14. according to the Vulgate].
(5) But what is to be thought of the newer Greeks, superiors and subjects, I have explained in another letter 1), where it has also been shown what the ancients of the same language believed and did with the peoples entrusted to them. How much do you think the number of those will be today, who in matters of the most holy faith are most fiercely minded, than Turks, Tartars, Jews and heretics of various kinds? But are these things for that reason less firmly founded in the first truth, even though they do not want to listen to them, and even persecute them mortally? Or is there for the sake of it a standing of persons with God, who owes nothing to anyone and bestows grace without merit on whom He wills? Finally, what the apostle thinks of the last times, he expresses in the letters to his disciples Timothy and Titus, and also the Lord himself says [Luc. 18, 8.]: "When the Son of Man shall come, thinkest thou that he also shall find faith on earth?" If, therefore, what is necessary has been done, since it is not in man's power that those who are accounted for should accept faith, then for that reason there is certainly not a hair's breadth of deviation from the truth. Therefore, it is a futile fear that the heretics would mock you 2c if you kept what the church holds. Rather, listen to the holy father Augustine, a man who, according to his holiness, judges quite reasonably what is to be done in this matter. For in the book de Donatistarum correctione, Cap. 9 (3), he teaches that such things must be kept in check by laws, and assures that this is not only just, but also godly, regardless of the fact that some (as they also did) should want to kill themselves because of it. But in the 7th (2nd) chapter he precedes with the words: "Not those who suffer persecution because of ungodliness and because of shameful separation of the Christian unity, but those who suffer persecution because of righteousness, are true martyrs. For Hagar also suffered persecution from Sarah, and she was holy who did it, and she ungodly who suffered. "2c And in the following chapter he shows that suffering persecution is not a wise sign of a true Christian, although he does not inflict anything, since there is also a rightly inflicted persecution, namely, that which the Church
1) In his second letter § 12, § 15 and § 16.
Christ to the wicked. He then exhorts that one should call upon the secular arm, as it were as God's help, against them, and praises a certain bishop who, in order to protect his army against heretical impurity, had acted in this way. And he advises the kings that they should be more concerned about this than about adultery or other crimes of this kind, showing that heretics are more deserving of the death penalty. But he wants them to be treated mercifully if they return to the right doctrine. Moreover, he asserts this also by the similitude of a collapsing house, from which someone who does not want to go out, if it is possible, is led out by force, namely, as he says, "by laws given against them, many are made free," either so that they do not become heretics, or cease to be so. He also introduces Christ's example in the conversion of Paul, saying, "Where is that [founded] which the heretics are wont to cry, It is free to believe or not to believe? Whom did Christ do violence to? Whom did he force? Behold, they have Paul, by whom they may know that Christ first compels, and afterward teaches." It follows: "And whom greater fear hath compelled to love, whose perfect love casteth out fear. Why then should not the church compel faithless children?" It follows: "Therefore, in these who must be compelled, the Church follows the Lord." After this he cites something from Christ's doctrine of equality and says: "These who are found by the ways and fences, that is, in heresies and mobs, and are forced to come in, they must not blame that they are forced, but take heed to what they are forced. "2c But also in regard to their deprivation 2) he cites what is said in the Book of Wisdom [5, 1.]: The righteous shall stand with great joy, and saith, "When (saith he) the body of Christ taketh away the spoil of the ungodly, and the riches thereof are gathered unto the body of Christ, they must not abide without, that they should blaspheme, but rather come in, that they should be justified." And further on: "The heretic shall not stand against a Catholic, 3) who has taken from him what he has earned, because the laws of the Catholic emperors have come into force; but the Catholic shall stand against the heretic." It follows: For it is not said, Men shall stand, but the righteous shall stand.
2) sxolintio, that is, the confiscation of their goods.
3) That is, to be allowed to bring an action for the taking away of his goods.
And there, too, many other things. Among them he also remembers how the Catholics preached and wrote fiercely against these stubborn ones. Finally, he assures that he wrote this for the sake of those who did not want the heretics to be forced by imperial laws. Book 2 of the Retractations.
It should be noted, however, that he says this mainly against those whose heretic superior opposed the holy pope and martyr Cornelius and caused the schism by which the Donatists separated themselves from the unity of the church. Therefore, in the preface of the book, he says: "Wretchedly, they alone quarrel about the community, and rebelliously, against the unity of Christ, they practice enmity by the perversity of their error," rebaptizing their own, believing the rest to be Christians, of whom he shows that they were banished and cut off for that reason, and that the cause of those who were such people in Africa was first brought to the church at Rome and there judged and condemned. He also reports that the Pelagians, although most of them were active in the regions of the Orient, were repeatedly banished by the most holy men (as he calls them) Innocent and Zosimus, Roman popes, after they had long cunningly concealed their heresy and slyly taught the people the poison of their error; Their heresy was also brought before the Roman See, he says (as it was due), despite the fact that Pelagius had made a confession of the Catholic faith in the regions of the Orient and had, as it were, sent out a recantation of his errors; despite the letter that he had sent to the pope about his purification, because it had been learned that it was hypocritical. There are letters from African bishops to Pope Innocent about this, and letters from him to them, as I mentioned in the other letter, which can be found in the epistolary book of St. Augustine, a part of which he also included in the aforementioned book. There he also continues: Pelagius had tried for a while to avert the stain of heresy from himself and had been considered good and holy at first, also by him, Augustine, and he had brought forward his errors, as it were, under the name of another, so that his deceitfulness would come to light less, but finally he could not remain hidden, since he also tried to deceive the synod before which he had been summoned. Accordingly, he shows that he and his followers were rightly banished and condemned.
had been dammed. He also tells about this in the 3rd book de peccatorum meritis et remissione and mentions that Pelagius also interpreted the letters of Paul, and accuses him of having mixed in "his new teachings against the implanted (so he says) opinion of the church". He also obtained that his books were condemned by the Roman Pontiff at the same time as the author, as I have shown in the other letter. Thus his trade, which, as he says, had arisen suddenly, grew into a great conflagration, so that it had to be extinguished by the prestige of the apostolic see. The same holy father does not remain silent about the heretic Petilianus, who attacked the Roman popes with unbelievable blasphemies, because he and his accomplices had been banished from the Roman See, as it is more extensively written in the Scripture of One Baptism. Also, since in the book against Fulgentius he punishes the heretics who, when the Scriptures are held up to them, remain on their senses and do not allow themselves to be instructed, he calls their conventiculum a den of robbers and the fornicating woman spoken of in the Proverbs of Solomon [Cap. 7.He compares them to those sorcerers who resisted Moses, because he stood for the people of God, and wants to insinuate that they should be punished with death according to the example of the saints, because they did not agree with the truth, which he, as he reports, defends by the prestige of the apostolic chair. That he was sometimes driven to such things by this prestige is described by the bishop Posidonius in his biography. This must move us, and what he, in the above-mentioned book of grace against Pelagius, punishes the stubbornness of heretics, he introduces from Scripture: "Not all (he says) have faith who hear from the Scriptures that the Lord promises the kingdom of heaven; nor can all be persuaded to come to him who says, 'Come to me, all you who labor.' But whose faith is, and who are persuaded to come unto him, he himself sufficiently sheweth, saying, No man cometh unto me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him."
7 Much the same is found in his sayings, as well as in those of St. Jerome against Vigilantius and other heretics of his time, and in the sacred canons, by which we are taught in what manner it behooves the Church to act against the obstinate, with hindsight, and against the unjust.
The fear of mockery, scorn, abuse, slander, and defamation of the unpleasant, so that, according to the admonition of Augustine himself, one should not even worry about the mockery of the pagans, but rather be careful not to deviate in the least from the truth and the right way in order to win them, since, in order to achieve this, not even a venial sin may be permitted.
(8) Since you, in order to excuse yourself, mention the mere names of Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian and Athanasius, I now refer you to what is otherwise known of their sayings, especially what Jerome says to Damasus, among other things, that he who eats the paschal lamb outside the house, which is commanded to the Roman Pontiff, is an ungodly man. And Cyprian to Cornelius says that Peter answered for all because the Church was founded on him. And Augustine in his "Reflections" expresses his joy that after being denied three times, he had been entrusted with the pastoral care of the whole Church. And as Athanasius writes with the Oriental Catholics to the pope, he invokes the prestige of the Roman See as the mother and head of all [churches]. But Gregory, since you introduce him speaking, although very briefly, 1) may himself speak more closely in the register (as it is called) in the 7th (9th) book, Cap. 69 (68) to the bishop of Thessalonica and other Greeks. Irritated against the man of hope, the patriarch John of Constantinople, he forbids to hold a synod, threatens and testifies that without the prestige of the apostolic see, whatever is negotiated otherwise will have no validity, and a synod of this kind must not be called, and those who act contrary to it must be deprived of the communion of the church, 2c Accordingly, he praises his predecessor of blessed memory, as he speaks, Pope Pelagius (namely, the one of whose canon you say elsewhere 2) that he spoke only with words, but not in the sense of Christ), because he invalidated the negotiations of a synod, which was held otherwise, by strong opposition (districtione). He reports the same in the 4th (5th) book, Cap. 78 (21) of the same register, where he also explains the word "general", which the aforementioned John arrogates to himself, as if the latter had presumed to be called the sole bishop in the world, and to that extent he just rejects it.
1) In the previous letter § 4.
2) In the [iiAust. Lrl. var. arZ. II, 388. Incidentally, the canon is by Gelasius, not Pelagius (Erl. Ausg.).
But not because he wanted something to be taken away from the prestige of the apostolic see; rather, because that John undertook to harm it, he resisted it in about six letters. In the same book, Cap. 80, and in other places of the letters, he writes about the same reputation of the pope in much the same way. And in the 6th (7th) book, Cap. 201 (40), he speaks thus, as it were in conclusion, to the patriarch in the regions of the Orient at Alexandria [Eulogius]: "Who should not know that the holy church is founded on the firm foundation of the prince of the apostles, who expressed in his name the firmness of mind, so that he was called Peter of petra (rock)? to whom the voice of truth says: To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to whom again it is said: And if thou be converted some day, strengthen thy brethren; and again, Simon Johanna, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep. Therefore (he says), although there are many apostles, only the chair of the prince of the apostles had the power of supremacy. "2c Finally he testifies aloud that the fullness of authority is vested in the Roman chair (as also Julius [testifies], of whose sayings and deeds you make the assumption 3) that they prove nothing on the matter), but the other churches, he asserts, are called by him to share the care. He also does not conceal what has to happen to the obstinate ones in the proceedings with the aforementioned. Other things of the same humble, true and extremely holy Pope Gregory I will now pass over. For from this you can easily measure what he intended by what you have mentioned, and what he thought of the supremacy of the Roman See, and in what way he understood the passages of the evangelical, that is, divine law, which he has attracted, and the orders of the Church, driven by the spirit of God (afflatus). But you have not to fear, if you keep it with the Conciliar regarding the supremacy of the Roman pope, that you will [thereby] make the aforementioned saints and Gregory heretics. But I fraternally point out to you that you must fear very much that they might accuse you severely before Christ, the founder of the church, that you have spread that they have held differently about the church than it holds itself. What do you fear, that you would make the aforementioned saints heretics by agreeing with what they themselves have held, and do you not rather fear that you would at the same time make them heretics?
3) In the previous letter § 4.
Do you make heretics out of the popes I mentioned in the previous letter? Among those is also Gregory the Great, who, acting in the same way as these saints, defended the dignity or prestige of the See of St. Peter with deeds and writings, according to all their ability and duty.
(9) Though you imply that they did this against the right understanding of Scripture, namely, out of ambition, it is known that whoever does this with a persistent will has a fatally sinful and heretical opinion, which would be frightening to think of such exceedingly holy men.
(10) Again, therefore, I say that if the pope should relax any of his rights, which he can relax if the cause exists, namely, because of the remoteness of the places, or to keep the peace with disputants, or anything similar, this prudence of paternal care and indulgence will be praiseworthy.
(11) Therefore, what you say about bishops as if they were without him is not wrong, for they are not without him, nor were they so, since he, in order to relinquish his right for the aforementioned reasons, himself agrees that they are so. Now, that you are not satisfied by this and other things that are given now and in the earlier letters, you must necessarily not blame me, but those whom I have attracted, the fathers and conciliates and others who can be seen, if anything at all (which is far off) can be blamed on them in this; but rather blame it on your sense, since, even if not you, still the matter itself is satisfied. For who do you think could satisfy you, since these so many and so great people cannot satisfy you? For you are also far wrong in saying that at the Council of Nicaea (which was the most famous because of the meeting of 318 fathers) there was no deputy of the pope, and that it was not held by his command, since the more proven histories and the letters of Athanasius himself, who was present there, list by name the deputies he sent there. But the substitutes are due the place of him whom they represent in his absence. And that the fathers themselves at that council, together with the named deputies, acknowledged that no council could be held without the consent of the Roman pope, is evident from the proceedings (Actis) of that council.
(12) Nor is it necessary for the Roman Pontiffs to be present in person at the conciliar meetings, but it is sufficient for them to agree with what has been said.
and approve what they rightly decide, as St. Pope Leo I shows in a letter to the Greek emperor. If this were not written, in what way do you think it probable that the most Christian emperor (as St. Jerome calls him), Constantine the Great (who, according to the Tripartite, had procured the removal of the Fathers at his own expense), who was so godly in matters of faith and so favorable to the successor of St. Peter that he ceded Rome to him, had brought about this solemn assembly without his consent, or that the Nicene Fathers had consented to it, since they had decided the foregoing according to Scripture? But you want those decisions to be considered as uncertain, which are so obviously for the cause of the pope, as shown above. But the sacred canons, which are taken from them, and the oldest manuscripts, in which they are preserved written, and proven histories, as well as the letters of Athanasius and the Orientals to the Roman popes, and the latter to them, which on both sides repeat the decisions themselves, according to the wording of which also the later concilia have made their decisions about the power of the Roman pope, ascribe certainty to them. All this together, I say, with other things that might be said, makes them so certain that no doubt can remain for a right-believer. Now if anyone should continue, according to his inclination, to cast doubt on certain things in this way, it does not serve the cause which he has taken upon himself to defend.
(13) The same could be said of the works of Athanasius, in regard to which it is written by the most credible men that the ones they have are his, and this is also proved by their expressly stated titles. Now if it be said that they are of another, what is this but to take away their credibility? But supposing that what is contained in them were not from him, the fact that it agrees in every way with the truth no less proves that it is true.' Since you say that I know that from all that I have mentioned in the previous letter from the Tripartita and similar [writings] about Julius and other Roman popes, nothing is proved: I say that I know the opposite, namely, that because they, as governors of Christ, have acted this sacredly and quite rightly, it proves enough and more than enough about the matter, and presents it completely. Since you now ask in relation to this, where one can find this authority of the
I refer you briefly to this and to what was said earlier, that is, to the decisions of the conciliar bodies according to the Protestant Scriptures, and to the writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers, and thus to the custom and faith of the Catholic Church up to the present day.
14 But that thou wouldest have me and all to be at thy bidding, that we should test the sayings of the fathers by the words of the Scriptures, and say that I accept the sayings of all, and put the words of the Scriptures to them, that cannot please me. For the first, in the way you want, is full of danger, as I will say more widely below, but the other is your mere pretense. Therefore, dear one, hear me. I have a far different custom, which you could also have perceived from my letters, since I know that sacred Scripture is, as it were, the foundation (principium) of theological doctrine, which originally comes from infallible truth, and therefore, above all writings that come from anyone else, must be dearest to every Catholic's heart, as St. Augustine also asserts that this is his custom, and I did not mean that you should doubt this from 'me or any orthodox. But what is the proper and certain understanding in this Scripture, do you not think that this must be left to the Church? Christ is always with her, according to the consolation he gave her when he went to the Father, and constantly enlivens her with his spirit in necessary matters of faith, and assures her that even the gates of hell shall not prevail against her firm foundation. How should one not, for the sake of it, stick to what this church has more than once acknowledged according to the Scriptures through the concilia? This is what the exceedingly wise Augustine did in all things, but especially when the Donatist mob was raging against the apostolic see, which cannot be hidden from those who take a closer look at his sayings and deeds. This is what the sons of the church do without a thought of conscience, even if (which is far from it) conscience (which can only be an erroneous one) seems to draw someone elsewhere, because Christ wants it to be heard in it as well. That this is therefore the custom with me, as one of them (which I hope by God's grace), you could have gathered from my letters, if you had wanted to read them more attentively, where it concerns any truth, especially if it concerns faith, that is, that which the church holds as such, if the sayings of the fathers according to the Scriptures, according to which
grace, which was so abundantly bestowed upon them, to show him as such. I wish myself happiness in an exceptional way, and it is no small consolation of my faith that the truth remains the same everywhere; accordingly I do not accept it other than as a gift coming from above, but I would not believe less if one or the other of the fathers should not prove it, if the church believes it, to which (as is right) the same holy father attaches so much that he testifies that he would not believe the gospel either if he were not moved by the prestige of the church. But it is the pope's business, as far as the conciliar bodies have decided. Therefore, in such matters I leave any other glosses in their value, however great it may be (because it will not be able to weaken the aforementioned in any respect), and keep it with the church in the dark word, until I come to see under the guidance of Christ.
(15) Nor do I admit to you that this means drawing the Scriptures from the fathers, as many are said to have done from the rock (petra) to Peter, as you finally conclude for your opinion, but rather, on the contrary, I claim that it means wisely using the fathers, who faithfully paid attention to the Scriptures at the hint of God. That I do this, even without the test that you want to have newly introduced, you nevertheless testify to me yourself (although you do not intend it, since you charge me with the opposite). Namely, you do not deny that I follow the fathers, yes, that is what you blame me for; But you claim that they wanted to draw us more to Scripture than to themselves, and that this is, according to the example of Augustine, to follow the booklet to its source. 2c Since this is well done, and they themselves have thereby faithfully followed Scripture, for otherwise they would do otherwise than they taught and drew, I have indeed followed them (as you also testify) and compare their sayings with Scripture, as they themselves have done. Not because they say it, but because they speak right and true, since they speak it according to the Scriptures in the Catholic sense, I do not keep company with them unjustly, but especially, as it is right, I follow the Scriptures, which, as I have said and you admit, they follow, and to which they want to draw us. But I do not want this to be understood of the things which they either revoke, or in which they do not remain the same to themselves, or do not agree rightly among themselves. For I also hold with them what the church holds, and I do not doubt that they always want to hold with the church. The
does not mean (as you want), to leave everything uncertain and doubtful, what is catholically certain. For then, even according to you, the Fathers themselves, whom one must follow in the aforementioned manner, would have left everything doubtful and uncertain, since they are faithful, exceedingly wise and catholic interpreters of Scripture and pillars of the Church. Rather, this means faithfully and bravely overcoming foreign and hostile things, which the Fathers have already most shrewdly shot down with bullets from the firm foundation of Scripture, and strengthening what is ours. If you had this custom, you would not doubt what has already been decided by the church, at least in synods. Which of the two is best done, then, you can judge for yourself. For is it not evident that to act otherwise than as stated above is as much as to make certain things uncertain, and to expressly write and hold that which so many and so great people have done with the church, namely, which presents (reputat) such a synod, mainly in necessary matters of faith, as I have said, by an ungodly industriousness? Or does this not mean the Scriptures say, to be in bondage to the fathers, who do not hold so, but rather want to go according to his own head? How great a temerity this is, you recognize without a doubt.
16 But even that does not take place here, which you take from the Acts of the Apostles, where it is perhaps a matter of those who have only been students of the Catechism for two days, in relation to the extremely well-considered decisions of the general conciliarities. Therefore, if one acts as you will, nothing is so certain that it should not find an examiner, not to say a mischievous mäkler (sycophantam captiosum). Who should not see how doubtful the very firmest certainty of Scripture would become? Finally, you know that from such a procedure all heretical sects have arisen; for there never was an arch-heretic who did not chatter away that the Scriptures were for him, presuming a new examination of them against the mind of Christ and the Church, as Arius did against the equality of the Son with the Father in the Godhead, Sabellius against the real distinction of the divine Persons, Eutyches against the personal union of the humanity of Christ with the Word, and likewise with others. But for their sake and for the sake of their followers, what has been decided by a synod must certainly not be revoked in any way, but neither, as if it were uncertain, must it even be discussed. Therefore, about this writes the most holy and very learned
Man, the pope Leo I, to the Greek emperor Leo in the 57th (162nd, according to others 132nd) letter, which begins: With great joy 2c: "We must abhor (he says) and persistently shun that which heretical deceit strives to obtain, and not again allow to be drawn into controversy that which is godly and clearly established, lest we seem to doubt it according to the caprice of the damned themselves" 2c It follows: "Therefore, since I know that you, venerable prince, are enlightened with the clearest light of truth, and do not waver in any part of the faith, and separate what must be held fast from what must be rejected, I beseech you not to think , that my lowliness is to be accused of mistrust, since this warning of mine not only cares for the general Church, but also serves your honor, lest in the time of your government the impiety of the heretics should appear increased, and the safety of the Catholics disturbed." It follows: "For it is all too unseemly, all too unjust, to admit to liberty of trial those whom the Holy Spirit indicates by the prophet, saying [Ps. 18:45.], The strange children have lied against me" (According to the Vulgate) 2c He writes such things also in other letters, which I now leave aside.
17. How do you think that this proves to me that those decisions of the saints and the conciliar are called by the cane of Egypt (which is the unstable and weak darkness), because (as you like) what is cited against the deniers of the supremacy of the pope ordered by divine right from the aforementioned [conciliar and saintly] proves nothing, nor does it give any satisfaction with regard to this matter for its sake, because the Greeks, or, as you say, the heretics, do not turn to it, and so it is not based on truth, but on a fragile reed and on a deceptive support, about which, of course, the devil (by which, however, I understand a faithless heretic, which you speak of immediately before) does not care, as if these testimonies (documenta) had no value, .but rather only bring harm, so that it seems that they are also rightly exposed to the Gesp'ötte. May God not punish you! But I wish you would consider whose these threatening and quite impudent words are, and against whom he (who speaks them) brings them forward. Certainly an ungodly Rabshakeh [Isa. 36, 2. 6.] against the church of God and for its sake against the Lord. You should also see what God answered him through the prophet [Isa. 37, 22]. "Whom (says he) hast thou reviled and blasphemed? against whom hast thou
you lift up your voice and lift up your eyes? Against the Holy One in Israel." Then follows [v. 28. f.], "But I know thy dwelling, thy going out, and thy coming in, and thy raging against me. Because thou hast raged against me, and thy pride is come up into mine ears, I will put a ring upon thy nose, and a bit in thy mouth." This, then, should rather have been said Against the vain speeches of the heretics, by which they revile the Church of God with the mockery which you fear, and have already, as the apostle [Tit. 3, 11.] says, condemned themselves. And, as St. Hilarius rejoices, against the same, 1) since God protects them, they will never prevail. Therefore, the Holy Scripture continues and says [Ezk. 37, 34]: "The way he came, he shall return." Consider that the apostle commanded, as follows [Tit. 3:10. f.], "Avoid a heretical man, when he is once and again admonished. And know that such a one is perverse." And with what a horrible end this rabble perished, the Scripture does not conceal in the 2nd book of Kings [19, 35.] and Isaiah 39 [37, 36. ff.], where the foregoing of Rabsake is found literally. Therefore, the heretics may laugh as much as they like with those who believe them, but we who are believers have an avenger in heaven, the original truth itself, which it is certain will eventually be victorious in everything.
18 After this, however, I am displeased that you, without making a distinction, accuse the Roman pope so much of ambition. Everything, you say, he commands, everything he brings before him, does everything, forbids everything. For if he is Christ's governor in this respect, and must be acted upon in the church according to Christ's will, then the consequence is that the affairs of the church belong to him, as the highest judge on earth, to whom all should finally take refuge, especially those who have been wronged. 2c But could it be said, for the sake of this being exercised by the faithful, that he does everything in the way in which you accuse him? The provinces have their decrees, the dioceses their synodal resolutions, the churches their ceremonies and customs, the monastics their, as it is called, constitutions [orders, rules] 2c Does he then forbid these to be kept? yes, rather he praises and favors them, outwardly perhaps from time to time because of a cause arising. Otherwise, I do not see how you and the people of your order and others in the
1) Hsnäsm, not snnäsiru
Church, which, while keeping their rules, could be found in useful ways far and wide. There are papal rights, there are laws of princes who did not disdain to imitate those, there are proven interpreters of them in the Christian schools at his command, there are also judges to exercise them. Does he not then approve of all this for the sake of Christian peace, for the protection of the good, but for vengeance upon the wicked, and put up with it, as said above, unless you meant that all this should be trampled under foot at once? as if it were not also ordered by the church on general concilia under his presidency, or perhaps the church should be asserted not [as existing] by these, but by those whom you describe as rottians and heretics? But the aforementioned [church], which is founded by Christ, must remain until the end of the world.
(19) If, then, in the foregoing, or in any other matter whatsoever, anything should be done improperly, I will not approve of it; but neither is life (moribus) spoken of here, but rights. Therefore believe me that this is not the right way to put something in order, that one wants to break the right.
20 Many other things come to mind that I should have written about. But now, so that I do not go too far, I will come to that saying of the apostle, Philippians 2: Which, if he were in the likeness of God. If anyone compares what you cite for your assertion with this passage, he will see that you meant to say that it was not only not clear and quite unsuitable for the intention of the Fathers, namely, to refute the heretics, but that they all cited it in a wrong way, twisted it and, as it were, dragged it there by force as a dark and uncertain one. For you say of this saying that it can be drawn to the Godhead, and you do not think that you sin by departing from the Fathers in any darker passage (since you had spoken of this immediately before). But you also refer to other passages as similar, in which, as you wish, the fathers were absent, and bring forward from them the other thing that I have said, in order to show that they have cited this saying just as improperly, but that you have interpreted it more correctly, especially as you speak, if the words were rightly regarded. Of course, I am very sorry that you should differ from all in so glorious a passage, which, moreover, is so clear against the perversity of the heretics. Clearly, I say, because it is clear to all except the heretics.
It is doubtful, even for Erasmus, whom you confess to have followed, that it is to be understood by the Godhead, but you dare to state that it must be understood by created beings. I have already said this in the last letter. For the letter of the apostle does not read "in forms" of God, as several, but "in the form" of God, which is one of his essence, in the same way as it is indivisible and cannot be multiplied (plurificabilis). Furthermore, Erasmus admits that he did not want to offend the opinion of the Fathers. Finally, this passage is so certain that even the heretics themselves (against whom the saints always used the same insurmountable sign of victory), although they were very cunning persecutors of Catholic truth, could not take it otherwise than from the figure of the Godhead, nor did they dare to contradict the saints in it, convinced by the clarity of the words, although they chattered away that the figure of the Son was different from that of the Father, and set gradations in the Godhead with their blasphemous mouths. That this is so, is reported by the extremely credible author Augustin, among many others, in the first book Against Maximinus (who is considered to be a bishop of the Arians and who undertook to defend their whole extremely corrupt sect in such a miserable heresy), that he speaks like this: "It is certain that the apostle says: Which, whether he was in divine form; for who should deny that the Son of God was in divine form? For that he was God, that he was Lord and King, I mean (says Maximinus), we have already explained more extensively. And because he did not consider it a robbery to be like GOD, the holy apostle teaches us this, that he did not rob it, and also we do not say" 2c Augustine repeats this in the 2nd (1st) book Wider denselben in the 5th cap. like this: "Fifthly, I have shown whence the Father is greater than the Son: because He is not greater than GOD, therefore the Son is coeternal with Him. There I have cited the apostolic testimony: Who, even though he was in divine form, did not consider it a robbery to be equal with God. For by nature he had equality with God, not by robbery. To this you said in your answer: For who denies that the Son is in divine form? For that he was GOD, that he was the LORD" 2c, as above. Augustine adds, "These words of yours not only contain nothing against us, but seem to be more for us. For if you confess the divine form, why do you not openly confess that the Son is like God? Especially because you
with regard to the words of the apostle, since he says: "He did not consider it a robbery to be like God, you could not find anything that you could have said for your opinion" 2c, which the holy father elaborates there to refute that proud heretic more thoroughly. But you oppose it in such a way that you say somewhere that the teachers of theology did not have the [right] understanding of this passage, namely, those who took it like the saints, and assert that the same, both Greeks (in whose language this passage is written by the apostle) and Latins, who did not understand Greek, have here twisted this passage and dragged it to the opinion which they say is contained in it. Moreover, after the passage is thus defended by you, you compare it with that which is written in Matt. 16, which the fathers used to put on for the supremacy of St. Peter, saying that it could be put on the Godhead as Peter is put on the rock (petra) by many. I beg you to consider this more carefully, and as you see that you have failed in this passage of the apostle, so you will also see that you have failed in the one to which you compare it. For that it is much easier to believe, or rather easier to believe, that you are mistaken than that the fathers were mistaken, and especially the general conciliarities, I hope you will not deny. One must therefore always obey the church (in whose midst is Christ) more than cling to one's own opinions, especially in matters of faith; this I urgently advise you out of brotherly love; if I can persuade you to do so, I am sure it will not repent you either. For who knows for what benefit (also for you, if you agree) God has permitted this temptation over you: but there is nothing more dangerous than to trust too much in one's own judgment. For [Prov. 14, 12.] it pleases some a way Good 2c; of which perhaps at another time.
(21) But what should I think of the other [passages] which you cite as an example, although they are dissimilar? I suppose that you assume how great the reputation of the church is (as it is touched). If, therefore, she uses any passage as a certain one, why should not her children, of course (though it might have been different in another language), use it confidently, as the fathers themselves have certainly been exceedingly obedient? especially against those who admit this passage as a well-established one (authenticum), and above a similar passage to the same opinion elsewhere in the canon of Scripture in the language from which the translation was made?
is found. For what believer could doubt in the least that the Spirit of Christ is and remains no less true in the Church than in the writers of the canonical books? For Christ sent the Comforter to her with the promise that he should abide with her forever. But in what manner the writers of the earlier faithful [Fathers] have adduced the sayings [of Scripture], sometimes by stating the words exactly, sometimes the meaning, sometimes the sayings of one or in one place under the name and title of another, may be read, whoever will, in St. Jerome to a great orator at Rome and in similar writings. Not that I want to concede this to any other private writings, but to the church, whose members were also those authors of holy [writings], and who had received this power from Christ.
22 Now, therefore, I come to the passage which thou adduceest as an equal first, 1) though, as I saw above, it is unequal [Ps. 110, 3. according to the Vulg.]: "With thee is dominion in the day of thy strength, in the brightness of the saints from the womb, before the morning star have I begotten thee." This, thou sayest, is not said of the Godhead of Christ, and cannot even be understood of the same, and yet the Fathers would have asserted this saying as the supreme proof, or yet as one of the first proofs against Arius 2c How now, if it were shown that this very one could not be understood at all otherwise than of the Godhead? First, I think you will not deny that the Psalm from which this verse is taken is in letter about Christ, since the apostle in the first and second chapters to the Hebrews quotes from it as referring to Christ. And the Lord Himself says of Himself to the Pharisees, Matt. 21 [22:42 ff]: "How do you think of Christ? What son is he? They said: David's. He said to them: How then doth David in spirit call him a LORD, saying, The LORD hath said unto my LORD? 2c Now that thou bringest up Burgensis and Lyra, which were with thee, and would not be heretics for thy sake: Dear, where will you show from them what you promise? For Lyra interprets this verse, as it reads, of the Godhead well and excellently, saying: "By the fact that it is said: With you is the dominion, the equality of the Son with the Father is shown, but at the same time also the difference of the persons, according to the passage in John [1, 1.]
1) In Luther's previous letter § 6.
Word 2c Also the equality and equality of essence by what follows: before the morning star I have begotten you" 2c Although he also adds (something) from the Hebrew text, so he does not invalidate that in the least, nor does he revoke it. Furthermore, he says that the Chaldean translation (which is considered by the Hebrews to be the same as the text) is like this: It said the Lord to his word, which among the Catholics is as much as to the Son according to his Godhead; uno Burgensis does not deny this. Therefore, what you say of the Hebrews, what does this prove against the Church or the Fathers, that their Catholic interpretation should not stand against the heretics? Since so has the Roman and Gallican text, also that of Jerome and that [improved by him according to the Septuagint] (conciliata), yea, also the Greek, which according to Jerome is that of the seventy-two (interpreters), which the apostles used and approved, as the same declared to Damasus, whom he calls the highest priest. And, what is greatest, this is also held (as you yourself confess) by the Greek and Latin churches in worship. So this verse, as it reads, and as I enclose it, cannot be understood otherwise than of Christ's Godhead, so that it is the words of the eternal Father to the coeternal Son from His essence, namely, from the womb, begotten before the morning star, and therefore before all time, because by Him all things were made. For the morning star, as well as all other celestial bodies, were made by him with the heavens, according to whose motion time is reckoned. This is contained in the same way in the 72nd Psalm (which also deals with Christ according to the letter); there it is said [v. 17.]: His name is blessed forever, his name remains longer than the sun; and other things in the same place, concerning the Godhead. For the morning star revolves with the sun more uniformly in its own circle. Burgensis also testifies that there is a name in Hebrew that refers to the filiation. This he says in the book which has the title: Scrutinium Scripturarum, in the first part, Dist. 9, Cap. 10. You have something else, which is similar to the one that follows: I have begotten you, in Isaiah (53, 8.), where it says: Who can excuse his begotten? which they explain of the eternal birth of the Son from the Father, although Jerome, according to a similar interpretation, admits that this can also be understood of his temporal birth from the virgin, namely, so that a cultivation (compago) that does not agree with the sacred construction is not incoherent, because the prophet also has the pre-
which is about Christ's humanity. If, then, the heretics, such as Arius was, whom you introduce, and the followers of his false doctrine (perfidiae), whether Greeks or Latins, read this passage] just as the church reads it, how should it not be effectively and appropriately brought against them? since, according to Augustine and others, disputation must be carried on with the unbelievers on the basis of what they accept from ours, as it were on a basis common to both. What use, therefore, is this example to your purpose? But especially because it is so unequal, since the passage of the apostle, even in the original Greek edition, does not read differently with respect to the figure of God as the saints use it.
The second thing you cite by way of example 1) is from the first chapter of the first book of Moses: "Let us make man in our image and likeness," in reference to which you rebuke Augustine and say: "With what confidence does he use this [passage] for the assertion of the Trinity and for the image that is in man, while neither of these (you say) can be proved from it, because in Hebrew it says: "I will make", not "let us make": 'let us make'." But even if "I will make" were there, not "let us make," this does not prevent the confidence of St. Augustine the Father. But St. Jerome, who is so learned in Hebrew, seems to help St. Augustine up again, as it were, in his explanation of the 90th Psalm to Cyprian (which he will interpret by the truth of ecclesiastical expression as he implies that another interpreter would not be necessary). He reads this passage thus: "Moses, through whom the Lord gave the Law, out of whose mouth we have heard God speak: Let us make man in our image and likeness" 2c Also in the traditions or questions about the first book of Moses, where he promises that he will indicate what is in our [Bible] differently than in the Hebrew, he does not change anything in relation to this passage. I have also read another, very knowledgeable of Hebrew, who asserts that this verse is spoken in the plural in Hebrew and reads thus: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. But, as I have said, this does not take away Augustine's confidence, namely, that he has the power to prove both, even if "I will make" were there. For there the connection of the singular with the plural shows the unity.
1) In Luther's previous letter § 7.
of the essence with the majority of the persons in just the true catholic sense, as Burgensis, 2) according to his origin or nation a Hebrew, widely explained in the above-mentioned book, Dist. 9, Cap. 2. There he also says that in Hebrew there is "Elohim", which is the plural of "El", which means God. Also from another root word he shows that in the beginning of the first chapter of the first book of Moses the Trinity is designated, since in the word "he created" (which also stands in the singular) the essential word, namely "is", is included, or "it was creating Elohim", that is, Gods. It is to be noted, however, that here still is added "our", which obviously goes to a plural of the persons, like "image" and "likeness" to the unity of the being. This interpretation of Lyra about the image of the Trinity in man is also approved by Burgensis and he adds that also the Magister (Sententiarum) in the 16th dist. of the second book gives the same interpretation, in that he considers the image of the Trinity, which is in man, to be certain, and so for the sake of it both of the aforementioned things are there. Yes, that the image of God in man is also meant here is not denied by the newer Hebrews, although they do not accept a majority of the persons in the Godhead in the way that the Catholic faith teaches, as blind and faithless people, as Lyra faithfully reports her interpretation of the image of God in man, which is assumed according to some accidental things. So, if one may read "let us make", or "I will make", because there the singular is connected with the plural, namely "Elohim" and "our" with "image" and "likeness", Augustine and other Catholics, who interpret in this way, have what I have established (propositum). But especially (as already said before in a similar passage), if they argue about it with the heretics, who have any [other] opinion of the Trinity, in a right-believing way, since the Jews know that creation belongs to God alone, which Burgensis proves beautifully from their teachers.
(24) From this it is quite easy to see what is to be thought of the third thing that you cite as an example. For since you reprove all that they refer the word in the 2nd book of Moses 3: I am who I am, to the nature of God, Burgensis
2) Paul of Burgos, as a Jew Solomon Levita, after becoming a Christian, Bishop of Carthagena, Burgos, Chancellor of Castile and finally Patriarch of Aquileia, died August 29, 1435, 85 years old, multiplied the Nie. of Lyra glosses on the Bible. (Erl. ed.)
but and the Hebrews show that it must be referred to the effect of the help, because it says: I will be, who I will be, in the future time: so it is already said before that he says that in the word "he has created" (which goes more obviously to the effect) the essential word "he is" or "he was" is included; but "I will be" belongs to the inflection of the same word, and it is proved that it refers likewise to the essence, may God be in himself in the future (who is always and everywhere unchangeable), or may he be to be recognized in the effect. Therefore, although Burgensis says that in the. Therefore, although Burgensis says that in what follows there is the name of four letters (tetragrammaton, i.e. Jehovah), and that to this actual name belongs the nature of God as He is in Himself, more than to the (name) in which He is called: "I am", he nowhere denies that this very name refers to the essence, whether one reads "I am" or "I will be". But rather he asserts this in an identical passage, as has been said before. Lyra also asserts that by each of these two: "I am, who I am" and "I will be, who I will be," the same thing is signified, namely, the eternity, immutability, and necessity of being, which quality is peculiar to GOtte and belongs to him alone. For that which is "I am" is said in Scripture of the essence of God, with all the difference of time, because eternity is at all times. For of the past the saying is, "In the beginning was the Word"; of the present time, "Before Abraham was, I am." When the Jews who knew the law heard this, they picked up stones, considering this a blasphemy, and did not believe that Christ was GOD, since they knew the passage in the second book of Moses. For even according to Hebrew usage, the future time is sometimes substituted for the present. And at the same time of all (time] Revelation says: "He who was, and he who is, and he who is to come." In addition also Burgensis approves this interpretation according to our translation; because it is that of the holy Hieronymus (in the letter to the Marcellus of the ten names of God, where he puts as the sixth name of God "Asher Ehejeh", which is in the 2nd book of the Bible).
It is read in the letter of St. Moses: "He who is (he says) has sent me to you"; and to the pope Damasus in the letter which begins: Quoniam vetusto. It is also present St. Augustine in the 5th book of the Trinity [Cap. 2] and St. Thomas in the first part, 13th question [Art. 11].
(25) Ignoring all else, I thought I should say this, so that you may see that the saints have not explained the Scriptures in an inconsistent way in those passages, and yet that none of them is like the one in Philippians 2.
26. That you say that Jerome against Jovinianus and Augustin against the Pelagians also used so many sayings wrongly, I pass over, since you cite nothing in particular; Only that I know for certain that they have exceedingly clear sayings from Scripture to prove the opinions which they mainly have in mind, this one (Jerome) namely about virginity being preferable to marriage 2c, that one (Augustine's) about the necessity of grace 2c Now if for the sake of adornment, or in order to carry the matter further, or for some other cause, they have put on something else, this will not be the same as what is said of the apostle's passage, in the aforementioned way. Finally, 1) but it does not seem necessary to you that this matter of the pope be dealt with, but to me [it seems necessary] that it be defended, because (as St. Jerome thinks) if there were no such head, there would be as many sects as cities 2c Now if it is not a necessary matter with you, I ask you, why do you cling so much to your opinion (sentimento)? Why don't you rather join what is established?
At last you close and say: God live. I know that. But he lives in this way not to those from whose hearts, as the apostle says, Christ is banished, but to the church, but only to its believing members. For their life is Christ, and they will not lack what they ought to believe and speak rightly, in that he himself presents it to them. In him I wish that it may always be well with you and that you may act lovingly. Given 2c
1) In Luther's previous letter § 10.