V. Luther's and Carlstadt's dispute with Eck.

29. Luther's asterisks against the obelisks *) by Eck. **)

March 23, 1518 †)

Translated from Latin.

Martin Luther to Wenceslaus Link, preacher of the Nuremberg church, the true theologian, his brother in the Lord.

The "little spits" (obeliscos) of our corner, which you gave me against my disputations, I thought it would be good to go through them individually, and to add "little stars" (asteris- cos) to my disputations, which are, however, somewhat dark. He will then easily see for himself, through their bright glow, if you wanted to share them with him, how presumptuous it is to condemn foreign things that are, moreover, not understood, and how exceedingly deceitful and disgraceful it is to embitter the views, yes, actually only questions of a friend with such bile, without first warning him, who takes all the best from his friend. But it is true what the Scripture says: "All men are liars" [Rom. 3, 4.]. We are men and remain men. It says now

Corner:

"In the subject of the present disputation on indulgences, I do not want to attack the petty things or what can be contested according to scholasticism, since then I would have to contest the first thesis right away."

Luther:

With what a magnanimous (for I do not want to say haughty) introduction he attacks the matter, only that he modestly preferred to say that he only contests it, and not that he conquers it; namely, "trifles and scholastic matters. For more important things he will perhaps conquer. Who should not be afraid of the bang of this building jaw? But I thought of the word of Horace: "What will this boaster bring forward that would be worthy of such a mouth-breaking?" 1) I could

1) Horace, "Of Poetry," v. 138.

*An obeliscus is the figure of a small spike, which one used to make in books at suspicious places. Asteriscus, asterisk, on the other hand, is a critical sign to indicate, for example, that something is missing. Each of these two words would therefore like to be rendered in German as "Anmerkung".

**Eck never had his Obelisks, which were written in January or February 1518, published in print, nor did Luther publish his Asterisks, which he replied to them; they were, however, distributed in many copies. It was not until a few years after Eck's death, in 1545, that they were published with Luther's Asterisks in the first volume of the Wittenberg Gesammtausgabe von Luthers Werken (toin. I, lol. 145); from there they came into the Jena Ausg. (tom. I, toi. 32), in Löscher's Reformation Acta (vol. II, p. 333), in the Erlanger (opp. varii arZ. I, p. 410), and in the Weimar critical edition (vol. I, p. 281). German brought them only Walch, whose translation has been replaced in this revised edition by a new one. It was not necessary to print the obelisks separately, because they are included in Luther's asterisks.

†) This date is, as it seems to us, a correct Conjectur of the Weimar edition. The signature gives August 10, 1518. That this date must be wrong follows from the fact that Luther writes to Johann Sylvius (Wildenauer) as early as March 24 that Eck has rudely torn the bond of friendship, and highlights some expressions from the obelisks to indicate the spiteful manner in which this was done. "August 10," says the Weim. Ausg., "was lorin III vost Evriaei; but there are two <Ii68 Evriaoi, the one being August 8, the other March 16: suppose that originally the date was determined after the day of St. Cyriacus, it might also be resolved as March 23, and this would suit admirably to chem cited letters of Luther to John Sylvius."

hardly hold the laughter. He does not want to discuss and argue in a scholastic way, from which I understand sufficiently that our Eck made these "little skewers" in the (so-called) carnival time, since he had tied up the high talent as a mask. For in this whole tangle of "little spits" there is nothing from the Holy Scriptures, nothing from the Church Fathers, nothing from the Canons, but he invents nothing but scholastic, arbitrary stuff and mere dreams, and just the things against which I am disputing; so that, even if I wanted to speak peripatetically, I could blow away all his little seeds with one breath and say with the well-known doctrine of his master [Aristotle]: To bring forward as proof what is to be proved first is a mistake in disputing and giving proof. For I hoped that he would argue against me from the Bible, the Church Fathers or the Canons. But he opposes me with the briefs and husks of Scotus, Gabriel and the other scholastics (of which his belly is full), which I reject. But let us only hear how the orator, while pretending not to contest my first thesis, nevertheless does contest it. He says namely:

Corner:

"For since the kingdom of heaven in the words of Christ seems to denote the present church and the time of the evangelical fulfillment which then appeared, it is impossible to see how repentance can express the whole life of believers."

Luther:

This is a scholastic, that is, ridiculous and self-mimicking reasoning. Whether he learned this conclusion from the logic of reason or the logic of faith, I do not know. Namely, because the kingdom of heaven now exists, consequently the whole life of the faithful is not a repentance; as if there were any man in this kingdom who did not constantly sin and therefore did not also constantly need repentance! For that I speak of this repentance, the following thesis teaches. Eck, however, may be making a fuss about sacramental or solemn penance. But that he who says that man is at times without

St. Augustine says in many passages that he does not belong to the party of the heretic Donatus (even though St. Bonaventure, having fallen into error, sometimes wrote such things); indeed, only the faithful do penance. But I pass over that; below a more.

Corner:

"But we do not want to pursue such things; only from a momentary idea, without the help of books, we want to note a few things and (as one is wont to say) designate them with an obelisk."

Luther:

What a presumptuous display of his high spirit! But where he will use a lot of books and think seriously, then he will not set up small spears, but cruel murder weapons (phalaricas), battering rams and cannons, and leave nothing that belongs to the armor of war unused. Dear, what is left for me but trembling and terror? But I am lucky to say that he does not write iron or wooden spears, but only paper and painted ones. At the same time, I wonder why he did not prefer to use asterisks? Perhaps it was because he disliked the light and shine 1) of the stars, but liked the lead color and rust of the skewers. He did not care about brotherly love, that he would have wanted to admonish and illuminate the brother's error, and sincerely add the better, but he let himself be driven by envy to slander and obscure the brother's efforts, and enviously disparage the good.

Corner. 1. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 3rd Thesis.]

"That inward repentance is great, Christ and all Christians have taught; for Christ looks at the heart and the will. This shows

1) Candor the light, white color, also sincerity and honesty, here used ambiguously in contrast to the following livor lead color, also envy and resentment. In the following, this play on words is continued with "anüiäus and liviäus. Also kerruZo, rust, has the secondary meaning: envy.

The widow, who put only two mites into the treasury, and put in more than all, as Jesus testifies. For the will is in the soul, as a king in his kingdom".

Luther:

This is the skewer that is supposed to pierce my 3rd thesis, although I do not see what it actually wants or how it is against me; however, I will advise (even if reluctantly), because I am afraid of giving rise to new skewers.

Perhaps it displeased the man that I said that the inner repentance is not at all, if it does not work outwardly. 2c The obelisk contradicts this and says: No; all have taught that it is not only somewhat a repentance, but a great repentance. Here I add and even say that it is very great and is taught by them as very great. But if Eck wants it to exist only in itself and externally without a work, he will, I hope, make himself hateful enough to his scholastic magisters. For, as everyone says, it is neither great nor true if it is not actively directed toward external works. But Eck, since he did not want to remain silent, but had nothing to say, at least he said this.

Then, I believe that his saying: "For the will is in the soul like a king in the kingdom" must be understood as: "like a bawd in a brothel". Christ is in the soul by faith as a king, the will as a handmaid, but the will by itself is always a harlot, and all its powers are those of a harlot. And even if this were the case, I do not see what difference it makes that inner repentance is great, because the will is very great and a king of powers.

Corner. 2. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 5th Thesis.]

"The [5th] thesis is obviously erroneous. For if he wants the punishments of the canons to be only incidental to the punishments imposed by God, there would be a snare in the penitential canons and no salvation; but if he wants to conceive of them [the canons] as declaratory (declarato- rios) (as they are in truth, but what is

Martin Luther disregarded), then he sder Pabsts, however, by remitting the penalty of the canons, he enacts some penalties."

Luther:

To the first: Our Eck (for so he promised above) does not speak anything in scholastic manner, therefore I am put in the highest astonishment that there can be such a clever head and such a diligence who could have found these things (that means with me antics) in the holy scripture, in the church fathers and the canons, which no man in the world has found in it yet.

Secondly: Although the words of our chatterer are as if he understood me to have denied the remission of any punishment, saying: "by remitting the penalties of the canons he remits some penalties"; but I will believe that this is not falsely imputed to me by him, but that his meaning is that the pope, by remitting the penalties of the canons, remits, however, also the penalties imposed by God (which Martin Luther does not observe, but Eck observes more than is true), and thus he does not remit penalties which are added to those imposed by God, that is, he remits single and not double penalties.

Thirdly: In this thesis, as in all others, I establish nothing, but only dispute. Although I consider most of it to be true, I am still a human being, and in this I have not the slightest authority, apart from the power to make arguments. Therefore I say on this obelisk that I do not want the punishments of the canons to be taken for those that are accumulated, but only for those that are imposed for sins. But that God imposes penalties on the confessing sinner, I deny; and this cannot be proved either by our obelisk writer, or by all his paltry school theologians. Yes, God, when He remits sin, remits guilt and punishment at the same time; since He knows well that it is punishment enough for the sinner to live a good life and struggle with his vices and evil habits, especially if they are ingrained. Therefore it says Ezk 18:21: "But if the wicked turn from his sins which he hath committed,

and does right and well, he shall live and not die; all his transgression which he hath committed shall not be remembered." Here no punishment is demanded, only the doing of good and right. But it is ungodly to claim that more is imposed than God imposes. Yes, in Joel [2:13] God says: "Rend your hearts and not your garments." And in the 51st Psalm [v. 5.] it is said, "My sin is always against me." With these words it is proved that God is satisfied with the hatred of sin and the love of righteousness. And this is how the believer should be throughout his life. Therefore, let him keep to himself this scholastic little fable of his, that the canons declare the punishments of the divine judgment. I will not accept this until he has taught me, not scholastically, but ecclesiastically (as he promised).

But that the canons, if they impose (as they say) accumulated (accumulatas) punishments, should be ropes and not salvation, I again do not know what he says; I also believe that he himself does not know what he says. For even if the priest imposed more than God demands, this is certainly to be borne and also salutary to the one who bears it, for the sake of reverence and obedience to the keys. But if he wants to say that he who enacts the canonical punishments is deceiving the Absolver if the punishments imposed by God are not enacted at the same time, and thus he is entangled in the divine punishments while he is released from the human ones: this is certainly true insofar as it is true that punishments are imposed by God, that is, it is quite false. Therefore, it is not the canons that are snares, but the unlearned and silly theologians who dream that punishments are imposed by God or declared by the canons to be imposed by God.

If our obelisk speaker were as much a theologian as he is a sophist (I almost said philosopher), he should not have been surprised that the canons are ropes of death, since even the law of God is a servant of death, wrath and sin, and entirely that net in which God has decided everything under sin [Gal. 3, 22.]. And to state my opinion, I have wanted to say in this thesis that, since

God always chastises His own in order to humble them to repentance, as He says in Jeremiah [30, 11.]: "I will chastise you with measure, so that you will not keep yourself innocent"; as well as in the 89th Psalm [v. 31. ff.2c - I wanted to say that this preceding punishment cannot be remitted by the pope, but only the following and sufficient one, that is, the one imposed by the church. For God never imposes a subsequent punishment, He is satisfied that He has brought man to judge himself, so that he will not be judged by God, according to Paul's saying, 1 Cor. 11, 31, and that He will say [Ps. 119, 137]: "Lord, just are You and right is Your judgment." [Vulgate.]

Yes, I even say, about which perhaps the completely Aristotelian corner will be surprised: not even the church demands any subsequent and sufficient punishment after absolution, as our 12th thesis says. For even if it is now the custom to carry punishments after absolution, this was not the custom in former times. The only trace that remains of this is that no one is absolved unless the punishment has been imposed on him beforehand and accepted by him, namely, as an obvious proof that in imitation of God the church also grants remission of sins only after the punishment, i.e., that it must already have been carried out, if not in reality, then at least in desire. But whether this custom of our time is a wholesome one, others may judge. It is only my business to speak by way of discussion, namely, that it is quite bad, and that it would be better if one were to let Communion stand even on Easter Day before he had in every way made satisfaction in reality and in deed; as it was done in former times.

To this obelisk still adds

Corner:

"But if you should reject this, then by virtue of the keys, indeed, no punishment would be remitted, which is contrary to the dignity of the Sacrament of Penance."

Luther:

Again, I do not understand what this is supposed to be. It is also no wonder; for I deserve forgiveness for it, because I am not forced to read bright and shining stars, but rusty, dark and black spits, which are quite similar to darkness. Therefore, one must again advise here; namely, it seems to our corner that no punishment is remitted where I do not admit that it is remitted as imposed by divine justice (as they call it); since the canons with their punishments have come out of force.

Here I say: partly the punishments, which, as it happens nowadays, have been imposed arbitrarily, are remitted; partly the canons have not yet been invalidated by a commandment. But if this should be too slight, I reply: In a matter that is not necessary for salvation, something slight is better than a lie; and I expect that either the opposite will be proved to me, or that the church will decide. However, I will respect or disregard the opinions of men according to my freedom; since I do not have to believe the corner either, unless he speaks ecclesiastically and not scholastically.

But to the fact that it is against the dignity of the Sacrament of Penance that no penalties would be issued, I say: Although neither the teachers of papal canon law nor the theologians (except Eck alone) are certain what the keys actually remit in their ordinary form, yet this is precisely what has led me to put forward this thesis as the main reason, that if the keys are to remit only temporal punishments, their dignity is held too low, for they are not given for the attainment of temporal salvation or peace, but for the attainment of the eternal. For a temporal punishment is something quite small and far too bad to be worth remitting through the keys, at least in my judgment, as I will say below. Therefore, this word of the obelisk, that this is a degradation of the sacrament, if it is not to remit punishments, seems to me to be a quite null one; since the degradation of the sacrament is much too small and much too bad to be worthy of being remitted by the keys, at least according to my judgment, as I will say below.

more in it, if it is to enact punishments, at least than his main work. But we hear how he proves this disparagement by discussing it theologically rather than scholastically.

Corner:

"For the sacraments of the new law work that which they signify, wherein they differ from the sacraments of the old covenant."

Luther:

Behold, this is not scholastic! But who says this other than only he who has died in the scholastic antics? Who says this, that the sacraments of the new law effect what they mean, than the Magister of the Sentences, in the 4th book, with the explanation of Hugo, and those who follow these? This subject is so vast that the shortness of time would not allow me to elaborate it. The only thing I lament is that Eck was not silent at first when he promised that he would not proceed scholastically.

I say, however, very briefly: The sacraments of the new law do not work the grace they denote, but before each sacrament faith is required. But faith is grace. Therefore, grace always precedes the sacrament, according to that very common saying: Not the sacrament, but faith in the sacrament justifies. And St. Augustine says: Not because it happens, but because it is believed.

But Eck, the bourgeois (obelisticus) theologian, proceeds from the Scotist dream that the sacraments work grace without any action on the part of the person receiving them, if only no barrier is put in front of it. This opinion is the most frightening heresy, and already no longer a Bohemian poison, but a hellish poison that mocks and overthrows all sacraments of the Church, as we will show in a moment.

But that he says that the sacraments of the new law differ from those of the old law in that the latter do not work grace is equally scholastic and almost heretical. Rather, they are distinguished in that our sacraments are fewer and easier, but those are so many and exceedingly burdensome; or at least in that those only baptize and

Justifications of the flesh in food, drink, clothing, feasts, sacrifices, cleansing from the leprosy 2c were, which meant the One baptism and the One justification in faith, which is now fulfilled. For this is not spoken by the school teachers, but by the church teachers, yes, by the heavenly Paul.

Corner:

"And since with you, according to the 6th thesis, repentance is not able to do anything about guilt: you will consequently admit that it is able to do something about punishment and punitiveness."

Luther:

By "repentance" he understands here again the sacrament of repentance and the office of the keys (because he speaks in such a way that one must always guess what his opinion is), otherwise repentance has neither power over guilt nor over punishment. But what I think about this, I will explain in my "Explanations". For I have not put this sixth thesis of mine in earnest, but for the sake of the custom of others. For, as I have said, it seems to me all too little for the keys that they should only enact punishments. Therefore, as it is doubtful to all how they remit guilt, so also I will set up my doubt in the "Explanations".

However, I ask only this of our obelisk: if it is contrary to the dignity of the sacrament that it should not remit punishment; but the remittal of punishment is due to it most of all for its own sake, because the sacraments of the new law work what they mean: consequently the sacraments mean only the remittal of punishment; which is heretical not only against the church teachers, but also against the scholastic teachers, and at the same time destroys all the sacraments of the church. And this again is not merely a Bohemian poison (as he interprets to me), but a plague greater than that of all the heretics who ever have been or will be. For they do not mean remission of punishment, but remission of guilt. But if they mean remission of guilt, and the priest does not do this by declaring it, then I ask my corner to let himself be a disciple and disputator with me in the meantime, until we find a master in this matter who makes the decision.

Now do you see what it means to condemn another's spiritual gifts without shyness and out of envy?

Corner. 3. obelisk.

Against Luther's 10th and 11th Theses

"In a malicious way priests and bishops are here accused; for just as in the 6th thesis he wanted the pope to remit the guilt which is remitted by God, by declaring and confirming this (although it seems silly that a lower should confirm the doing of the higher), so also the priest can declare to the dying that the canonical punishments according to the divine judgment would be reserved for purgatory, not indeed for doing penance, but for suffering penance. And when the bishops have recognized this, it must be said, not that they have slept over there, but that they have watched far more than Luther."

Luther:

It is silly, he says, that the lower should confirm the doing of the higher. But in the previous obelisk, or rather basilisk, it was not silly, but very godly (so that even Martin Luther, of course, as a godless and uneducated man, did not notice it), that the pope by the canons declares the penances as imposed by God, and in this one that the priest declares that the punishments, which are according to divine justice, are reserved for purgatory. Perhaps, however, the obelisk writer has such freedom that without any suspicion of heresy, when he speaks for himself, God is lower than the pope and a priest; but when he speaks against me, only then is God the higher and does not tolerate an explanation of his judgment by a lower; and so let malice lie with respect to him, but with respect to me speak the truth.

I pass over here that after the acceptance of all it is said of the apostles that they confirm even at the last judgment the judgment of Christ; Eck would have to deny that Christ is higher than the apostles, or say that they are silly.

First, however, I ask from which church teachers (because he does not speak anything according to schola-.

stic way) is proved that a priest can declare that the punishments are reserved for purgatory? Isn't it just what I have denied? and now by such a great dialectician, yes, what is even more, not by a Stoic, but by a peripatetic dialectician, the assertion to be proved is simply repeated to me as proof! Above I have already said that there would be no punishments by a divine judgement, much less such, which would be according to the same. For he did not say: Everything that I will bind in heaven, or as much as I will bind in heaven, that shall also be bound on earth; but on the contrary: Everything that you will bind. 2c These words rather mean that God confirms the doings of the lower; and that is why I said that I had not set the 6th thesis in earnest, but in order to hear others about it.

Secondly, I ask: How can it be true that every priest is a pope at the hour of death, if he does not or cannot remit all punishment? But if he can and does not, how does love remain in him? The divine justice, you say, does not allow it. Why, then, does it permit it in the case of the pope, as often as it pleases the pope, whose place every priest then represents in the most perfect manner?

But now the most beautiful thing (because it is Scotist, but not scholastic): the souls are to expiate the punishments in purgatory not by doing penance, but by suffering penance. Thanks be to Scotus, who, although he is an arch-scholastic and has nothing at all of church teachers, has made Eck (wonderful to say) the best church teacher. As if any peasant could be so stupid as not to know that the punishments (if only they are not the infernal ones and the punishments of the wicked) can only be borne voluntarily; and so it could be said of them that they expiate their punishments not only by suffering but by wanting to suffice.

But I should have better refrained from disputing with the Scotist and in truth Scotin [dark] quibbles, lest they slip away from me by some new-found formality. But this is just a glory for the bishops, so says that obe

lisk, that the bishops knew this very well, therefore it is to be said of them, not that they slept, but that they watched far more than Luther. Truly a happy church, whose bishops are all Scotists or (what fits better here) Eckianists, by whose [Eck's] Scotus they can be defended against the accusation of never having slept;- perhaps because Eck wanted to sleep for them all the time!

Corner:

"I add that even a deceased person could not be absolved from the ban, about which the rights are known."

Luther:

Hui, how soberly and valiantly Eck watches here! I confess that the rights have been made known. But Eck's new preparation is still lacking; therefore, we believe the traditional and customary [rights] until he brings together better ones. It is the 5th book "Von dem Urtheil des Bannes", Cap. A nobis, where the pope states that even deceased banned persons are to be absolved. This is understood by Panormitanus and others: in relation to us, or in the presence of the Church, while he [the absolver], in relation to himself, is in reality absolved by death, without the absolution of the Church. Nor does the ban that remains after death harm him in the least, except that no public prayer is made for him in the church; privately, however, whoever wishes may pray for him; so that it must be understood from this that all binding of the church ceases in death and has validity only for this life. That is why I have called the penalties of the canons also penalties for this life.

But look here at the conclusion of our dialectician: If the priest could not declare that the punishments would be reserved for the dying person for purgatory, then also a deceased banished person could not be absolved. Which, I do not say scholastic doctor, but disciple of the scholastics from the first year must not laugh at such a conclusion? as if to be absolved from the opinion of the people in the Church is the same as to reserve punishments for Purgatory, since there the Church has the remission of

The first is that he is declared guilty and punished, but he himself is not actually absolved, but here he is really and actually bound to punishments; finally, as if indulgence and absolution from the ban were one and the same!

Corner. 4. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 13th thesis.]

"That the provisions of the laws ceased with death is not evident from the end of the preceding."

Luther:

Whether he means the previous one of his obelisk or my conclusion [thesis] is uncertain. But because he makes his statement from a tripod, as it were, without giving reasons, I also leave it as sufficiently refuted from the preceding, until he brings proofs from church scholars according to his promise.

Corner. 5. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 14th thesis.]

"Silly seems this thesis. For a baptized child (since he enjoys a foreign merit) has a lesser love than an adult who passes away in full reason, and yet the imperfect love of the child does not bring him a terror which in itself would constitute a purgatory. For what man of sound senses would like to say. St. Severinus have less grace than a two-year-old child? Therefore, the more perfect or imperfect grace has nothing to do with purgatory, but the punishment due for sin, which has not yet been atoned for."

Luther:

Here, finally, it does not sound scholastic, nor thoughtless, but like a divine saying from heaven. First of all, it would have been very appropriate for Eck to leave his hand off this and the six following theses; for they are too deep to be grasped in any way according to scholastic opinions. For they taste of the experience of that saying [1 Sam. 2, 6.], "He leads into hell and out again." More about this in the "Explanations". However, let us consider the tales of this obelisk.

"A child enjoys someone else's merit." So be it. But who enjoys his own? The adult, he says, in grace. But why then does he say fPs. 143, 2.], "O Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight no living man shall be justified"? But this is ecclesiastical and therefore far from Eck by a double octave. Finally, because it may seem that he used "rejoice" in this passage (as he daintily does) for "possess," I pass over it.

But that is why you have to assume more that a child has lesser love and yet no fear of purgatory. I confess. But, dear, what do we want to say here? The adult is beset by greater temptation and more violently troubled by the fear of death and judgment than a child who does not yet know anything and cannot grasp much. But the adult gets with the knowledge also the pain. Therefore, it is no wonder that the adult who is gifted with great love can fall into sins faster and easier and feel more pain than a small child with little love. Therefore, Eck can also say that, just as a small child with little love is not afraid and does not shy away from fire, water, sword, or even death, so an adult who has great love is much less afraid of such things. But who does not see that the opposite is the case? If God wanted the adult to come so far that he, like a child, neither knew nor feared punishment, then I would also say that he, like a child, would go straight to heaven. But now that he has knowledge and fear, he does not need that little love, but the perfect love that casts out fear [1 John 4:18], and that he may triumph and no longer offend God with his rebelliousness, fearing death more than God, even loving life more than God.

Then it is very uncertain whether a child has less love than an adult, if the adult does not have perfect love, so that even he, after he has turned back and become like a child according to the gospel [Matth. 18, 3], would not have to fear death.

At last he says, not perfection

The reason for purgatory is not the lack of love or the imperfection of love, but the not yet atoned punishment. This he says after the aforementioned dreams, namely, that, as the scholastics say, a punishment is demanded by God for satisfaction, while they claim that every priest can and does everything with a dying person that the pope can and does. Even more; if one cannot have a priest, they say, the desire to have him is enough. What then is left for such a one to atone for, since he is detached from everything?

I will say further that it is the general opinion that purgatory is due to sins and not to punishments, namely to venial sins, as it is expressly stated in the Canon Qualis of the 35th Distinction. And many examples are also given in this regard. Such a sin, I also say, is that imperfect love according to which they die unwillingly, and are impure through their too great love of life and therefore do not love God above all. About this in the "Explanations".

Corner. 6. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 16th thesis.]

"An impudent thesis. For after they are separated from the body, the friends of God to be purified certainly know that they will be blessed, but as through fire."

Luther:

How do they know that for sure? Because Eck says so. And the conclusion has instead according to his master, from an authority in affirmative way. So ignorant is he in the theology of the cross that he believes they are certain to be blessed because they are friends of God and separated from the body.

It is true that I, too, have read excellent men (I do not speak of Scotus or Thomas, nor even of Eck) who assert that certain souls are so stalled until the day of judgment that they do not know whether they will be blessed or damned; but because those who have experience and the examples in this matter are more to be believed than all the spits of all the smiths, there is not much in what Eck's presumption prates or calls impudence. We have read of many who

have appeared as if they were led to the court and held up for a long time. And be it as it may, it is still free to dispute because of one example and one statement and to contradict the mere and unproven opinions of the theologians. I add that the terror of the soul by its nature makes man uncertain; but of this terror I have already said that it is inherent in souls for lack of love, and I shall soon say more about it.

Corner:

"Since it is therefore probable that they have intercourse with the angels, how then can they be placed in a near despair (which belongs only to the god-loaves)?"

Luther:

This smells again of his goat Aristotle or rather deer buck, and he prattles nothing but probabilities, that is, what is disputed, he brings forward as if it were proven. I have known and read all of this, and against what my good versed instructs me now, I have put it up with consciousness and deliberation. The whole corner is opinion, and this he has nevertheless exhibited everywhere, as it were, as a tripod of the sun god.

The occasion for this thesis of mine was this: Since all teachers say that the punishment of purgatory is the same as that of hell, with the exception of despair; and since terror is one of the highest punishments of hell, and finally since terror is a brother of despair, or yet similar to it, and comes very near, as experience teaches; he who fears begins to be suspicious: so it seemed to me probable that purgatory from too great terror is near despair and just like despair. And I don't see what else Eck is drooling against, but only empty words. Therefore, it is not peculiar to the godless to almost despair, otherwise even those who are challenged in faith and hope (of which the obelisk writer as a scholastic rightly knows nothing) would have to be nefarious, since they appear to be quite desperate; which would be nothing other than committing and teaching soul murder (spiriticidia) (that I say so).

Corner. 7. obelisk.

Against Luther's 17th thesis].

"The thesis is not unlike the preceding: 'Whither the tree falleth, there shall it lie' [Eccl. 11:3], according to merit and unmerit. And this is death with men, which is the case with angels."

Luther:

I beg you, my dear Eck, if you want to write against me again, acquire so much intelligence that it is enough for you to make yourself ridiculous three or four times in one writing, but not, as you do here, almost in every speech. But you will only be able to do that if you believe with firm conviction that I have read the swarms of questions and opinions with which you struggle in vain and under mask. I say: I do not want to hear (so that you know it) the scholastic theology, unless it is supported by the church doctrine and already no longer scholastic. Or do you want me to do nothing but laugh at you, since you present nothing but what I doubted when I read it and which I now deny as a disputant?

Of this kind is now also here your fine gloss: "according to merit and unmerit"; namely, lest that passage from Ecclesiastes compel you to deny purgatory with the Bohemian Picards, you invent, nay, you prate from your own words the poem that this is the falling of the tree, that it neither deserves nor does not deserve.

At this point, I will leave aside the trade of merit and demerit, since I strongly doubt whether the scholastics understand it, since they cannot deny that after death the godless man immediately falls into hatred and blasphemy against God and thus becomes worse than he was. But I leave this, I say; for with sophists and cunning and obdurate wilful wranglers this matter cannot be negotiated; since "a fool delights not in understanding, but [in] that which is in his heart" [Prov. 18, 2.], and again [Prov. 17, 17.]: "It is better to meet a bear, which the young

robbed than a fool who trusts in his foolishness."

But I say this and ask for instruction (because that is why I have asked questions and discussions): since St. Gregory assures in the chapter Qualis of the 35th Distinction that venial sins are expiated in Purgatory, how am I to understand that the purified one does not become better? But if he becomes better, how can he not increase in goodness and merit? One would have to consider venial sins as nothing, as the scholastics consider them, but God considers them so great that He imposes such an unbearable punishment for their purification.

So if that passage from Ecclesiastes does not abolish purgatory, which he strongly denies, how much less does it abolish that in purgatory there is no increase in good or evil! It may be that they remain where they fall, in such a way that they do not continue to sin mortally, or in some other way unknown to us.

But when John Damascenus says: "What is death with men, that is with the angels", I hope that he is not talking about the death of all men, since many have died and yet have been called back to life. So where were their souls? They fell, but not like the angels, and yet did not remain where they fell. So who knows if it is the same with the souls in purgatory? We, however, want to immediately claim what we only dream of in a fever as a divine statement, so boldly do we judge even the most mysterious things and do not even allow to doubt it.

Corner. 8. obelisk.

Against Luther's 18th thesis].

"This is the same presumption that is evident from the previous theses. Such an assertion would be as much as to reverse the goal of the Way, of repentance and everything else. For they are in the state of paying, not of earning. Therefore, the love for which each one is given, after having acted in the body [2 Cor. 5:10], must be shown in the life and limb.

not be earned in purgatory. Otherwise, the apostle would have to add: 'that each one may receive after he has acted in life or in purgatory'."

Luther:

To always drink wine is finally burdensome, and every pleasure produces disgust by frequency. How much more is it exceedingly burdensome to hear over and over again these stinking and presumptuous opinions of people, who nevertheless prate them in such a way that they declare everything else, which is not of the same yeast, to be presumption! So often I have to say to Eck that he does not speak ecclesiastically, but scholastically, that is, that he presents unworthy and useless gibberish.

I have disputed and said that one can hold that souls are in the state of merit, although, as I said, I nowhere state anything as certain in this. He resolves this disputation by saying, "They are not in the state of merit." Exactly the same unproven fiction he adduces, which I myself have disputed. Thus women and children dispute or rather argue: It is. It is not. "Yes," "No." "Yes," "No," and yet in this they are the sharpest theologians. But about this enough above and in the "Explanations". How learnedly he applies the saying of the apostle, which he cites, to the matter! The apostle speaks there of the judgment seat of the last judgment, where death and purgatory will cease. But he draws it to purgatory and the death of man in time, so that he interprets what the apostle speaks, they shall receive in judgment: they shall receive in death. For this is so among the scholastics (I almost said scoffers) the most popular and praised custom of interpreting the holy Scriptures; if such an apparent frenzy can be called a custom. These people are described by the 1st Psalm [v. 1.], "And on the seat of pestilence sitteth not" [according to the Vulgate]. Instead of the word pestilence, the Hebrew reads lezim, which means mockers, mocking interpreters, that is, those who teach and interpret the words of Scripture in such a way as to deceive souls thirsting for truth. Hence their name is also correct'

so close with this name, as they are not far away from the matter. For what does scholastic mean other than lusorius 1)?

"The goal of the path inverts them," he says. If God would, I could invert beginning, middle, end and everything that belongs to the way as well as to the error of the scholastics; for I would then have hope to satisfy also the Eck, who has promised that he does not want to do scholastic theology; only that he has described these side issues in passing (I do not know, seized by which deity) a little broadly in fact.

Corner. 9. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 19th thesis.]

"The falsity of this thesis is evident from the foregoing. For they know not less but more than we, who are in the body that weighs down the soul. 2) So they know that they are dead and do not despair, nor do they enjoy God; consequently they know that they are in purgatory; but if they know this, they also know that they are among those who will be saved."

Luther:

May the good Jesus have mercy on you, my dear Eck, so that you do not still come out of your mind with envy against me or die with love for your [scholastic] studies! . What else can I say, poor thing? I am unwilling about the matter and man takes me.

I said in the 19th thesis that it could be that not all who are in purgatory are certain of their blessedness, and I have an example of this, as I said above, then also the opinion of some. And therefore I alone have wanted, not that my thesis is certain, but that it is not necessary to consider the opinion of the scholastics certain. I only punish the presumption of those who proclaim for certain what is quite doubtful. Therefore, I do not deny that some are certain, but not all; just as he who is challenged with the contestation of faith

1) I.e. a schoolboy, but also one who makes fun of others - iHusor -.

2) As Walch has already noted and as follows from Luther's refutation, instead of sxistsnts - sxistentes must be read.

is uncertain whether he believes, but the one who promises him is certain that he believes, if only he has the discernment of spirits. For if he did not believe, it would not hurt him, he would not lament and weep over his unbelief. But this feeling of unbelief and the pain over it is an obvious sign that faith is alive in him. He who is dead in faith is not hurt that he does not believe. This is how it is in despair and in every challenge. Thus I have said that some souls may be uncertain (of which there are many examples), whereas we are quite sure that the souls in purgatory will be saved. Thus, I say, I have disputed and doubted.

But our obelisk, who brings forward nothing new that has not already been disputed by me, does not dispute, but preaches from heaven the disgusting opinions of the peripatetic [Aristotelian] theologians and says that the souls in purgatory know more than we do. Then, in order to show what is the more they know, he adds: They know that they are dead, not despairing. 2c From this I conclude: Therefore, we do not know that they are dead; we do not know that they do not despair; we do not know that they do not enjoy God; we do not know that they are in purgatory; we do not know that they will be saved; we do not know this, I say, because we are still burdened with the body. This means nothing else than saying: "we are all heretics", because Eck wants it that way. Not as if I do not know that this is not his meaning, or as if one could not understand his words differently (but only if one wants to do violence to them); but so that the obelisk writer once sees how easy it is to twist other people's statements, not to mention obvious errors, and how difficult, on the other hand, to let others pass without bringing oneself into greater disgrace. Just as envy is always unintelligent and foolish, so it also shows itself to be the greatest liar, to its shame, precisely in the attempt to accuse others of lying. Learn, then, my dear Eck, that it is something different to judge the writings of others than to write something oneself that can be judged. That

even fools can do; not even Socrates is skilled enough to do this. But I beg you, do not be a fool.

Corner. 10. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 20th thesis.]

"The conclusion that this thesis makes is nothing. However, we do not admit the inference, since the priest, by virtue of the given keys, remits the punishment, even that one owes to God, so that the noble sacrament of the evangelical law is not given to the wind."

Luther:

He has denied the prefix [TH. 17-19], but not overturned it; therefore he denies with the same cleverness also the conclusion: so great is the prestige of this scholastic tripod! If they deny, one must deny; if they assert, one must assert; if they deny the same again, one must deny it again. But do not think, dear reader, that they are a kind of Gnatho 1) in Terence; they are theologians, that is, speakers from God, from Him who instills a great frenzy in the soothsayers, which is known to you from Virgil.

But well! This splendid obelisk does not allow this my concluded thesis therefore, so that the sacrament is not given into the wind. We give thanks for it. Then it is not given to the wind, then it is a noble sacrament, then it is completely evangelical, if it does not remit guilt and conscience, but punishment, that is, something very small, which is contemptible to all Christians. O theologians, who make punishments so great in order to make fainthearted Christians! How much happier are the pagans who used to encourage their own to death! But we, by disgusting the punishments, mislead ours into a childish fear. But enough has been said above that it is not true that through the sacrament the punishment owed to God is remitted.

But it grieves me that the sacraments of the new law have come to the point that

1) Gnatho is the name of a person in Terence's comedy "Dunuodus" who, as a lickspittle, talks to the host in all matters.

they must serve for temporal things, namely for punishments, since they were given for the attainment of eternal things. But just as the theologians are only windy and driven out by the wind of opinions like a pig's bladder, so they do not consider the noble sacrament of the gospel as given into the wind, but turn it into wind. And yet, according to everyone's judgment, including their own, the sacraments are called vessels of grace, with the exception of Eck, who calls them vessels of punishment, not to be imposed, but to be taken away. But I believe he does it only for this reason and rightly deviates from them, because he did not want to set up anything scholastic in these obelisks.

Corner. 11. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 25th thesis.]

"An impudent thesis, which perverts the whole order of church government, and might be rejected on many grounds."

Luther:

However, only in such a way that the reasons are Eckisch, that is, not scholastic. But who can bear such a persistent and continuous sacrilege with such a conspicuous carelessness and ignorance? All too long impudence and presumption defeats patience. He judges everything and understands nothing. I deny with the whole church that the keys have power over the purgatory, as it is clear from the previous and from the next thesis, what the obelisk should have noticed. How should it therefore be possible that I should have contradicted myself in such close, even in the very near theses, especially in a matter which I have thought through so carefully with myself? It would be, then, that according to the philosophy of Cratylus, I would be that horse that can go only once into the same river; so that here I would have attributed not only to the pope, but also to the very last priest a power, which before and after in all theses has been denied by me.

But Eck, who thinks evil of me with a fierce heart, wanted that he could incite the whole church to hate me, and that only with loud false and from himself

lies. Who would believe that such toxicity could be found in a theologian? So I have said that the power is the same; I have not said that a bishop or a priest has as great a power over purgatory as the pope. Not that they have there a jurisdiction of keys or a power of rights, but rather a power of forces; not to command, but to act. That is, the pope can intercede for souls through the general intercession and prayer of the whole Church; a bishop can do so through the special intercession of his diocese, and a pastor through that of his parish; as is done on the day of All Souls' Day, on the general penitential days, and at the services for the dead (parentationibus). And it was at least not my wish that they should be mocked by the word "violence" in this thesis of mine. But it is dear to me that it has so happened to these presumptuous judges that they have mocked themselves, so that they may learn henceforth to treat foreign things with fear and without arrogance, and to learn before they teach, to hear before they judge....

Corner. 12. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 26th thesis.]

"This thesis seems to indicate that the one who has made it does not understand what in the apostolic bulls this expression 'intercession' wants to mean: Since it does not diminish (as the author of the thesis wants), but rather adds and explains the way of communication, as this can be nicely explained and the existing apostolic commentators have explained."

Luther:

I openly confess that I do not understand this kind of intercession: that is why I have made this disputation, in order to be instructed about it. The words that Eck recites, "do not diminish, but add," I can also recite, but I do not understand them.

But that he says that they are explained by the apostolic interpreters, I have read none except Gabriel Viel, and now I hear that Eck can explain these things beautifully. But that I do not have a hair on my head for both explanations.

Eck himself is to blame for this, who said above in an obelisk that it is impertinent if a subordinate wants to explain and confirm the actions of the superior. But since Gabriel and Eck are under the pope, one must despise them as impudent declarers. I add that all jurists say that it is only proper to interpret [laws] to whom it is proper to give them. But I am waiting for Eck, the beautiful explainer, who understands everything; perhaps he will also teach me to understand the way of intercession; only he must not speak scholastically for me. But more about this in the "Explanations".

Corner. 13. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 28th thesis.]

"An audacious thesis that could cause noise, turmoil and divisions in the Church of God, but not increase love."

Luther:

Dear, see here the theologian, how he lusts after my ruin! Only his own increases the love. It seems to me that Eck is also one of those who do not even want to know their mistakes and want to rule over the people of Christ with vain tyranny. Everything is allowed, only you must not touch this ulcer, i.e. the avarice of the popes, priests and monks.

But I am surprised that not only Eck, but all scholastics sometimes punish not only avarice, but also simony in their theses. Then all decrees and books are full of the vices of the popes. And yet, so many books punishing so many vices have not yet caused riots and schisms. My only and very small rebuke of a vice should be able to cause such a tragedy? Either Eck is hired for money and a hired agent of certain friends of darkness (Melaniorum), as we remember that one once proceeded against Johannes Reuchlin; or else he has completely passed over into the Pythagorean rebirth (palingenesia). 1)

1) The Pythagoreans assumed a kind of soul transformation (palingenesia), which they regarded as a purification process, in which man would be transformed into an ever better being.

Does it befit a theologian to speak so carelessly and incautiously (not to say maliciously)?

Corner:

"But the end is mixed with poison. For if the intercession of the Church were solely at God's discretion, so that He wanted to disregard and reject the priestly devotion, then no priest in particular would be able to give a mass to one more than to another. No more anniversaries for the dead should be endowed, no more special masses should be said, since, according to God's will, they could benefit another in the same way, or even more; nor would it be necessary to commemorate the living or the dead in the Canon [of the Mass]."

Luther:

I confess, the end is quite poisoned; not, however, in its origin, but poisoned by Eck's art, and so it is already no longer my, but Eck's obelisk, or rather basilisk, tail; for what it [a basilisk] looks at is immediately death. .

I will refrain from speaking here about the priestly devotion; others may see how it is done correctly; for I have nowhere spoken of it in my theses. But Eck, who understands everything in everything, i.e. nothing, also wanted to poison my loud and harmless opinions in this way. But I say one thing: If Eck seriously wanted to say that the priestly grants were not solely in the will of God, so that he distributed them according to merit, as St. Augustine teaches of the deceased, then already not his tail, but head, foot and everything that he is, is poison. It is quite frightening to me to hear, not from a Jew, not from a Turk, not from a Bohemian heretic, but from a Catholic theologian, that the intercessions of the Church are not in the free will of God alone. If you teach the people in this way, you are not a preacher, but a destroyer of the church. But I freely proclaim against such an impure heretic and say: Cursed be all devotion of every priest, if he does not first purely and reverently put it into the discretion of God alone.

God, and has preferred God's attention far, far ahead of his own, and has added his own conditionally! Should the theologians make God such a prisoner that He can no longer do what He wants?

But I leave that. For I have not spoken of the grant, but of the acceptance, which Eck, if he had a nose, could have smelled from the preceding theses. For I have set them up against those who say that souls are led out of purgatory by this way of intercession, since intercession is only a use. The value of the use, however, does not consist in the discretion of the one who gives it, but of the one who accepts it. Therefore, since the indulgence is not offered as an indulgence through the power of the keys, but as an intercession for them, I have denied that a soul is redeemed through it, unless it so pleased God. And this is also only disputed by me, not asserted. Now I expect the explanation, but not an impudent one, that is, from subordinates 1). What I say to the statement of Sixtus IV, however, can be seen in my "Explanations".

Corner. 14. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 29th thesis.]

"We know from Scripture [Job 19:21] that souls cry out to us: 'Have mercy on me, at least you, my friends; for the hand of the Lord has touched me, and since they have the love and affection of God, they would like to be united and joined to God, their ultimate end, in an orderly manner as soon as possible.' This cannot happen unless the penalty is paid or compensated."

Luther:

If I had not read this, I would not have known that souls call out to us and desire to come to God: Eck, the holy doctor, brings forward such entirely new and unheard-of teachings; and therefore I am surprised against whom I actually raise the thesis-

1) To understand this expression, compare what Luther said about the 12th obelisk.

I have placed. But let's leave the mockery, rather compassion is necessary here.

I therefore ask, how may Eck understand his woxte? For what does it mean to want to be connected with GOtt in an orderly manner? Is this not that they should not seek what is theirs, and that they do not want to be connected to God for their sake, but for God's honor and will? How, then, if God did not want them to be joined to Him quickly? Would they not want the same?

But what am I talking so ecclesiastically with a scholastic? My reason to discuss this was that it did not seem impossible that some souls did not want to be redeemed from the punishments, as one could find in Tauler's sermons a striking example of a virgin who offered herself according to God's will also to the punishments of hell. And Moses [2 Mos. 32, 32.] and the apostle [Rom. 9, 3.] wished to be eternally banished by God according to His will; just as also the bride in the Song of Songs rejoices and says [8, 6.]: "Love is strong, like death, and zeal is firm, like hell"; and further it is said in 1 Sam. 2, 6.: "He leads to hell and out again." But the scholastic teachers do not write of a strong love, but of a soft love, not one that endures evil, but seeks only the good, that is, the desire of one's own advantage. That is why they are so foolish.

Corner:

"Severinus is to be spoken of according to what was last said. The story does not come to me, but I remember to have read, when I was still a boy of eleven years, that Severinus appeared to his uncle and revealed to him his purification with the cause of it and asked for the prayer of the priest in his chapel. This contradicts Luther's thesis. But if it were so, the good man should know that one may not draw any conclusions from the deeds of the saints beyond a general law."

Luther:

I pass over the sillinesses of this speech artist and his as it were secured mockery to my insult. Only his lies I want to pursue. I have never said that

I have also not made a law out of one example or drawn a conclusion. But I have done this enough, that I have traced back their general to a particular, in order to show their insolent presumption.

Then that example of Severinus, which he rebukes as false, and against which he cites a proof from his childhood, in order perhaps to clearly testify to his foolishness, I have not established according to what one has heard, but as I have heard it told by certain learned men. But these reported. St. Paschalis had been in purgatory, and yet miracles had happened at his grave, and he could have freed himself by his merits, but he had not wanted his reward to be reduced. That is why he preferred to burn. They told the same story about Severinus. I do not reject these speeches, but I do not follow them as credible testimony either; I have quoted them only for the sake of dispute and to hear others. That is why I have also characteristically said: "as they say." Such books have less credibility with me than the speeches of such men; but more, what I have already said above, about Paul and Moses.

Corner:

"Augustine, on the other hand, prayed, 'Lord, burn here, cut here, that you may spare for eternity.'"

Luther:

As if I had forbidden that no one should pray for the remission of punishments, or as if one could not want the punishment that another would like to pray away. But let the quarrelsome sophist go.

Corner. 15. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 30th and 31st theses.]

"Since it is a common opinion that one can do enough in a mortal sin, e.g. a priest imposes on one in fasting as a pardon to pray the Lord's Prayer five times a day until Pentecost and' to fast on Fridays, although the priest knows with probability that the one will not be in the

If he does not complete the satisfaction imposed on him, he sins; but if he does complete it, why should he not do enough in anything? Since the indulgence is for satisfaction alone, 2c: it would therefore not be improbable that one in sins could also obtain the indulgence, as I also hold and have held in reality."

Luther:

Eck had forgotten this obelisk and added it at the end, after the others, because he thought it necessary that I should recognize in what dark and gloomy darkness he was.

In many respects I dislike this rusty and useless little spit. I would make it short if I denied the whole of what he slurs; for he brings these mists right out of the yeast of scholastic opinions.

I therefore say that he who is in a mortal sin when he prays the Lord's Prayer does not pray, but curses himself, because such a one is turned away in spirit from everything he asks; indeed, he opposes everything he asks. So he does not do enough for God, but becomes more guilty.

If Eck had read from St. Augustine even the few booklets "On the Spirit and the Letter", I would strongly promise myself that he would condemn and lament not only this, but all obelisks, yes, his whole scholastic. He would condemn and lament not only this but all obelisks, indeed all his scholastic studies.

Of course, I admit that one who prays in this way is doing enough for the church that imposed it on him, but not for God. Yes, I firmly believe that it is not the intention of the church that the imposed penance should last longer than he is able to fulfill it, namely as long as he stands in grace. For it must not be supposed of our gracious Mother that she intends to enjoin useless things or to impose something that is not salutary. Yes, she precedes the being and the first action before she imposes the second action. So I hold and do not turn back on what the scholastics mean against it, what the custom, or rather the abuse of unlearned men, holds against it. But if I am mistaken in this, I desire to be instructed.

And I will be more expansive about this one day. For these unlearned heroes of opinion, who impose human laws, have introduced to us innumerable cords of conscience in the church. Therefore, to him who has fallen again into sin, all imposed penances are to be remitted and not to be imposed further than as long as he stands in grace. For if bodily labor can be imposed only as long as the body is healthy, how much more can labor be considered imposed on the soul no longer than the soul is healthy. But nothing is to be imposed on the dead.

Furthermore, I am not opposed to the fact that indulgences can also be given to those who have no repentance; however, not because this was necessary for Eck's reason, but because the remission of punishment, as the very least gift of the church, can also be given to the unworthy. For to the worthy, the punishment is rather imposed by God. I say all this because there are no punishments more sufficient than those freely instituted by the Church and used to be imposed before absolution; but why they are now imposed after absolution, I do not know.

Corner. 16. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 34th thesis.]

"We do not accept the appendix of the thesis; otherwise he who is to absolve would have to say, after the penance imposed: 'What I have imposed too little, let the will of the pope complete,' whereas one says: 'What I have imposed too little, let the bitter suffering of Christ complete'; also, a priest would not be called the representative of God, but of the pope and the bishop."

Luther:

This is the same gibberish as that in which he said above that through the Sacrament punishments imposed by God are remitted; which I have denied and still deny, and he cannot prove. Then he again argues that the suffering of Christ or the sacrament only remits punishments. For this is the way he values the Sacrament and the suffering of Christ, who works in the Sacrament, so that it does not

He does not remit guilt, but punishment, and even this only as a temporal punishment. Truly, a great honor of the suffering of Christ, that it remits temporal punishments, which the Gentiles also despise!

Furthermore, I admire the sharpest perspicacity in which he himself found a reason for proof against me in the alley, namely that the absolving priest says: "What is less, replace the bitter suffering of Christ. It would perhaps not have been safe for me to say here that this custom of the priests does not please me; otherwise he could say again that I am sowing Bohemian poison. But it disgusts me that the suffering of Christ is considered so unimportant that it is regarded as an addition and, as it were, an appendage to our effectiveness. Finally, since it inflames us more to punishments than to remit them; but for the remittal of punishments the will of a man, the pope, is sufficient. But about it more extensively in its time.

It is ridiculous that one would have to say: "Let the will of the pope be completed. He always dreams that it is necessary to supplement, and that punishment is sufficient, and that remission cannot be effected otherwise than by another compensation, so that there is no true remission, but only an exchange and lawful satisfaction by another. This is also condemned by the teachers of papal law, and it contradicts the word indulgence. For what is a true indulgence needs no other compensation; but if compensation takes place, it is not an indulgence, but a satisfaction. Why, then, do they mock us with hypocritical words, and do not call the matter by its proper name, so that they call the indulgence not indulgence, but compensation? Yes, it would be with more truth that Christ's sufferings would be compensations than if we ourselves paid the compensations. For who would cherish such a frightful heresy that he would not prefer the suffering of Christ to his punishments and works? But about it widely in the "Explanations".

Corner. 17. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 36th thesis.]

"A quite erroneous thesis; since it is established that there are many people who have a true repentance without

have complete remission. I put the case of a dying man who is to be purified [in purgatory]. He has true repentance, otherwise he could not receive the grace of the sacrament and forgiveness of sins; and yet he does not have complete remission of punishment, otherwise he would not enter purgatory. Therefore, in a very dangerous way, he [Luther] has set up a general proposition that would have no difficulty when proved in particulars."

Luther:

If Eck would be as much at hand with researching and listening as he is with judging and condemning, he would not become so silly with so much madness and buffoonery. Behold, the one epithet "true" has caused him to fall into such a shameful error. I understand by a truly penitent one who has perfect repentance, of whom all say that he goes to heaven even without sacraments; and he who denies this is a heretic and blasphemes against God. Therefore, my general sentence stands firm.

I say even more: even a merely half-repentant, as he accepts it, has equally perfect remission of the church punishments due to him; for the priest must remit them to him if he sees him repentant. And no penitential punishment is required, from the dreaming of which all these Ecks' things arise.

Corner. 18. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 37th thesis.]

"A true thesis. But since (as is clear from the following) there are different kinds of communion of the saints and participation in the goods and merits, Luther strangely mixes them everywhere with each other. Otherwise, if there were an equal and merely general participation of those who are in love (as David says [Ps. 119, 63]: 'I am partaker of all them that fear thee' [Vulgate]), then all brotherhoods and all societies would be in vain; which is nothing else than spreading Bohemian poison."

Luther:

These two coarse invectives, that he called me a heretic and a venomous man

I believe that I should bear it for the sake of the gospel by following Christ's example alone and saying: "I have no devil" [Joh. 8, 49.However, since I live in a famous university, in a confirmed order, in the so noble Duchy of Saxony, in a respectable diocese, and these are all Catholic; furthermore, since I myself claim nothing, but disputire and seek to be Catholic, while only obstinacy in an error in faith makes one a heretic (here, however, is only an error, if it is an error at all, then also not in faith, but in scholastic opinions): It is necessary to accuse Eck of dishonor and to make his mouth, which overflows with lies and blasphemy, make his lies true or prove that a simple error is a poisonous heresy.

If disputing means tasting like a heretic, then Eck is the greatest of all heretics the church has ever seen, for he has poisoned everything at four of the most famous universities with poison, that is, with disputations. 1) I am surprised at man that he does not freeze to the toe when he goes to the sacrament of the altar, when he is mindful of such cruelty against his brother. In everything Eck plays along with me just as Johannes Reuchlin was played along by his Satan. Both have the ambition, where they could, to stir up all abominations, all morass and all abyss of errors, heresies and all evil; that would be the highest joy for both.

But, to return to the thesis, I pass over the various kinds of participation in the goods of which Eck boasts. What it is or what it does, others may judge. It seems to me that a great deal of carnality is nourished in this; indeed, to speak frankly, it seems to me to be harmful in many respects if one does not prefer by far that general, true, genuine, ecclesiastical participation which is recommended both by the Gospel and in the Lord's Prayer. Also, the one who disregards those ways is not a

1) At the universities of Vienna, Bologna, Freiburg and Ingolstadt, Eck had shone as a skilled disputator.

Heretics; but he does much better who unites them into one than he who separates them. For so teach the apostles, however much the scholastic dreamers may think otherwise.

But be that as it may, I speak of the general and true participation in the goods of the church. This, I say, every Christian has without a letter of indulgence and it alone is sufficient for him. St. Augustine also speaks of this so often against the Donatists, ascribing everything to the unity of the Church. And I do not believe that by the letters of indulgence another one is conferred, or one should prove it. So let this Hecuba bark until it becomes a dog. I do not care about human opinions.'

Corner. 19. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 39th thesis.]

"This does not seem so difficult, since repentance refers to guilt, and indulgence to the punishment due for guilt. And according to this, the following thesis must be corrected, namely thus: 'Since true contrition seeks punishment in order to do enough by itself or by something that has equal value with respect to satisfaction'."

Luther:

I confess that all this is true, if scholasticism is true. What Eck claims, I deny, and therefore he takes as proven what he should prove.

Corner. 20. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 42nd thesis.]

"A true thesis when understood with reference to earning; a false one when understood with reference to sufficiency."

Luther:

Again, he comes up with the argument that the punishments are only sufficient, but not meritorious, while Paul says [Rom. 8, 28] that "all things are for the good of those who love God". And the scholastics themselves admit that the gratifications are at the same time meritorious. From this it follows at the same time that indulgences are inferior to pardons. For it is better to do enough and thus earn at the same time, than to be able to

The first is to enjoy idle gratification. It follows from this that indulgences are harmful, for they are a remission and omission of merits. For so it follows from their own fiction.

But I deny, as mentioned above, this double punishment; because John the Baptist, who was certainly sent to teach repentance, did not impose repentance at all, but only prescribed rules of life for the soldiers and others [Luc. 3, 14.]. But it is an atrocious blasphemy if someone wanted to say that John did not teach perfect and complete repentance, so that the scholastics would have had to add atonement as a third part (which John did not know), who also want this to be required by divine judgment and not merely by ecclesiastical power. But then John the Baptist would have appeared to be a snare and a seduction, because he would not have taught anyone to do enough.

But, they say, John taught [Luc. 3, 8]: "Do worthy fruits of repentance"; consequently he wanted satisfaction. I answer: The gloss is true, if it is allowed to stain the holy scripture with our dreams. But these worthy fruits of repentance he himself named when he answered the people who asked him what they should do [Luc. 3, 11.]: "He who has two skirts" 2c, that is, they should lead a good life. For in this way one does GOtte enough.

Here, however, I wanted to advise the scholastic teachers as well as Eck to leave Christ and John the Baptist behind (because they are not scholastics) and to take refuge in their father Aristotle and, relying on this teacher, to deliver to me that most sacred oracle: "No valid conclusion can be drawn from a testimony in a negative way". But let us leave these scholastic great posts; Eck does not speak scholastically.

Corner. 21. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 43rd thesis.]

"He thinks it better [to act] in a meritorious way, not in a sufficient way, as he himself explains in the following thesis."

Luther:

Again, out of the tangle of opinions, he brings forward the dream that something else is satisfaction and something else is merit, which has been amply refuted above.

Corner: 22nd obelisk.

[Against Luther's 45th and 46th theses.]

"We all know that a thirsty person who is in the utmost or, as it were, in the most extreme need is to be helped according to the commandment [of God]. In the same way this is to be understood of him who has only the necessities for his house."

Luther:

This is that happy scholastic divinity, for the sake of which alone all scholastics would be worthy of the favor, which once the Romans determined for the philosophers and Plato in his "State" for the poets. O not scholars of God, but scholars of mammon, who interpret this need for us as an extreme or as it were an extreme one. I ask you, which angel would be allowed to sow such an interpretation?

So one need not lend to the needy, nor borrow to the needy, nor clothe the naked, nor visit the sick, nor even do any work of godliness or love, if the neighbor has not come to the point that he is already about to give up the ghost. For when else should the need be extreme? Or perhaps the Holy Spirit is so unlearned that when he said simply "need," he did not know or forgot to add "the utmost, or as it were the utmost," so that this was reserved for our scholastics, lest they too should have lived or taught in vain. Dear, why does even natural human feeling possess so much goodness that it offers itself in vain, and does not first wait for necessity, but is rather anxious that no necessity should occur? And the incomparably kinder love of God should do none of this? Do you not see there again that the scholastic teachers are desecrators of the holy scripture?

Corner:

"More could be said about the following theses, several of which are crude and tasteless, not to say that they taste of. Bohemia."

Luther:

Behold the unbridled mouth full of cursing and bitterness. Because these theses contain only love and fruitful godliness toward one's neighbor, the lover of the unfruitful indulgence that serves only one's own advantage calls them Bohemian. And how could envy give love any other name than the worst? And even if Eck were an angel in the midst of the seraphim, I still say that he is the most godless enemy of love and a deceiver of the simple-minded people, when he teaches that the barren indulgence is good for the people and that the preaching of love is a Bohemian taste.

Corner:

"But there is to be considered in them dishonor to the sanctity of the pope."

Luther:

Before I was a heretic, a Bohemian, full of poison and what else; now, to make my wickedness full, I am disrespectful to the pope. Eck, who swore to shower me with blasphemy, has become a Timon 1) or is worthy to hold the office of a chief priest of the childish Hercules 2). Dear God! Can this man do nothing but curse, revile, slander and blaspheme? and yet he is the most reverent towards the pope and a theologian, that is, one who speaks from God, if blasphemy and cursing is God.

Am I therefore disrespectful to the pope, because I claim that I am disrespectful to a man who, for the sake of so

1) Timon of Athens, a contemporary of Socrates, notorious as a man-hater.

- 2) Hercules was worshipped as a god at Lindos, a city on the island of Rhodus. He had a large temple there, in which great festivals were celebrated in his honor (Herakleia). He could be worshipped here only by curses, imprecations and words of evil foreshadowing; whoever uttered an auspicious word had violated the sacred customs.

Is the prayer of many necessary, more than money, the more miserable he is, the greater he is? Or is not rather he an insult against God and the pope, who declares this to be wrong, and wants to let money be more necessary than prayer? Whether this is merely blasphemy or not rather the most ungodly wickedness? But no vice, no crime is too great for the flatterers; indeed, they think of Christ as so distant from the church and the pope that they think they can deceive him with their pernicious flatteries, as if he were a mere and noisy man, and the more insidiously they flatter, the more they believe they are telling the truth. Yes, they do not even notice that through God's admirable wisdom this protection is left to the Church (should it also be the only one), that even if the Pope with the whole of Rome wanted to agree with the parasites and deviate from the truth (since God is before), he could not dare to do so. For he would have to shy away from and be held back both by the multitude of scholars and great spirits, who (by Christ's grace) are now developing so splendidly; and by the power of kings and princes, who favor these scholars at great expense; as well as certainly by many nobles at the papal court, who are more devoted to true piety than all these. For what should even the devil himself, let alone a wicked man with all flatterers, presume to do, if they saw that, with contempt of those SoPhists with their opinions, the Bible and the Doctors of the Church were held up to them? Or does this cruel, but tame, tyrannical flattery already miss itself to such an extent that it should dare to set itself also against God's word? May Christ and his word be with me, so I will not be afraid, what can the whole world do to me?

I say this so that those painted tyrants (Nerones) and shadowy images may not think that they have said the right thing and won with their terrors, that is, flatteries, for the sake of it, because they hope to bribe the pope's majesty with their lies. The Pope is a man, he can be deceived, especially by such mischievous and glittering lickspittles; but God is the Truth, who cannot be deceived. Therefore ask

I ask my very friendly enemies not to frighten me further with flattery from the pope or with our excellent Magistri nostri, but to instruct or overcome me with firm reasons from Scripture and the decrees of the fathers, if they are so interested in victory.

Corner. 23. 1) Obelisk.

[Against Luther's 58th thesis.]

"Further on he confessed that the indulgence was enough; and since the priest, in imposing the penance, says: 'What I have imposed too little, supplement the bitter suffering of Christ,' 2c why does he return to that treasure?"

Luther:

O of the unusual [spiritual] vein and the truly peripatetic talent! A priest says so, therefore it is so. This conclusion takes place according to the dialectics of faith. But, he will tell me, the custom of the Church is to be respected. If it is a custom to believe that the merit of Christ's Passion and the Sacrament is used only for the remission of punishments, and this is not rather a folly, I admit it. Further, if it can be proved in an ecclesiastical way, I admit it again and more. And since I repeat this so often (although unwillingly) in an ecclesiastical way, I hope that Eck will finally be moved to understand that he must henceforth no longer bark against the truth in a scholastic way. Thus, everything that any, even the most ignorant and superstitious priest has invented with pious intentions (as they call it), must also be considered by learned theologians as a custom of the church.

One must, however, deplore the Sacrament of Penance, which, according to these excellent Magistri nostri, has come so far in esteem that it is the only one among all that remits penalties and is not a vessel of grace nor a sign, except of penalties, while Baptism does not remit penalties but sins-.

1) In all editions, with the exception of Weimar's, from here to the end, the counting is reversed. This obelisk is once again listed as the 22nd.

remits sins and confers grace. Thus Confirmation, thus Holy Communion, thus Consecration, thus Marriage, thus the last rites; all these remit sins and confer grace. Only the Sacrament of Penance, it is that remits punishments and does enough, but it earns nothing and it pours no grace. Perhaps it is a bastard among the seven and spurious, as poets say of the Pleiades. I am speaking here according to Eck; for others will perhaps deny that indulgences belong to the sacrament of penance.

Corner:

"Further, if man had to suffer all the evil, punishment, and cross of the world by merit of Christ's suffering, it would be said in vain that Christ conquered death, redeemed the human race, and nailed death to the cross."

Luther:

Nobody will persuade me that this statement of Eck was made seriously. It is far from it that a theologian speaks against the understanding of all theologians. Yes, even though his words read as if he wanted to say that man does not need to die because Christ has conquered death, which surpasses all madness, I still want and believe that he wanted to say (in order to advise) that the merits of Christ do not work death, that is, Christ's death does not work that man must die, but rather it works life. (I deserve pardon if I am mistaken; for this rusty little spit speaks darkly). If, then, this is Eck's opinion, what else does he show with it but his gross ignorance? since he turns the apostolic way of speaking into a verbiage of peripatetic tongues wagging with Aristotelian sundries or rather full of a mishmash of words. However, I want to explain myself in order to do good to the envious slanderer.

I mean to say that the merits of Christ are not remissions of death, cross, hell, but rather exhortations; that is, that a Christian who truly loves Christ does not seek remission of punishments of this kind, but, prompted by the example and love of his Lord, follows him in this

and despises indulgences. This is what I meant when I said that the Passion of Christ works penalties, but not indulgences, over which the pope has no power.

Corner:

"Nor is his explanation valid, since he digresses from a general participation in the merits of Christ to a particular one; as we said above."

Luther:

Very well he refers to his above dreams in order not to bring greater ones to market here. See also you there that marvelous, that is, scholastic distinction of participation.

Corner:

"From this, then, the most impudent error is revealed, that the merits of Christ are not the infinite treasure, which is also not entrusted to the pope for orderly distribution."

Luther:

To demand the grammar even from a theologian: If it is an error, how can it be impudent, or even the most impudent? An error is something pardonable; for it is not impudently accepted voluntarily, but ignorantly committed. Not that I consider it a great thing that a theologian should err in grammar, but that you may see that he is guided more by frenzy than by reason.

I will try to say it more accurately (if I can). It is an impertinence when someone teaches something in the philosophy of Aristotle that he does not think he can prove from his testimonies. Do you admit that? So it is by far the most impudent presumption of all to assert something in the church and among Christians that Christ did not teach. But that is what our corner is babbling here, while he speaks nothing in a scholastic way and follows the truth alone quite bashfully, namely, that the treasure of Christ's merits is in the hand of the pope. Where does the Scripture say that? where do the Fathers say that?

ter? where the Canones? where anyone in the whole world (Magistri nostri excepted)?

And so that I too may vent my anger a little, it is an anger and displeasure of God, and nothing other than opening the door to all heresies, errors, and the whole of hell, if one so freely asserts what one pleases, since the Spirit speaks [1 Thess. 5:21.]: "Test everything, and keep what is good." If the scholastic teachers, your unhappy masters, had refrained from this arbitrariness of asserting, distinguishing, thinking according to their pious intention (as they call it), the church would not now be so full of error and foolish things, and also you would not have invented your so lead-colored and black spits.

I admit that in an extravagant of Clement V. there is a narration about the treasure of Christ's merits, which would be distributed through the indulgence; but I never read that this was confirmed. It is something else when the pope tells, and something else when he decrees; yes, it is much different when the pope decrees and a council confirms. Moreover, it is not I, nor Eck, nor the Magistri nostri who declare the apostolic see, if we do not want to be insolent, as the not insolent Eck said.

Corner:

"Therefore every Christian should rather put his hope in this treasure than make a release out of punishment, cross and tribulation, which is due to him, as it were, out of his merits; for when we have done all, it comes to us to say: "We are worthless servants" [Luc. 17:10]. And this, deeply considered, would throw over the whole ground of the imaginary sayings (quasi dictorum) of this good man."

Luther:

If Eck spoke of the remission of guilt in these words, he would already be completely ecclesiastical and he would have me completely wanting to kiss his feet, yes, his footsteps; so much do these words please me. Cursed be he who does not trust with all his heart in the treasure of Christ's merits; as Jeremiah says 17:5: "Cursed

is the man who relies on men." This is exactly what I teach, write, think, shout and desire with all my might; and this, considered quite deeply, would not throw my reason over the heap, but would fortify it most powerfully.

But, since the wretched theologian understands these words of the remission of punishment, and insofar as that treasure is in the hand of the pope, he not only does not deeply consider the word of Christ, but completely nullifies it. For he wants man to trust in the remission of punishment and to subordinate the merits of Christ to this ungodly trust.

Therefore, to explain myself more clearly, imagine, dear one, if only for the sake of the game, that the merits of Christ are a treasure for the remission of punishments, so as not to deny it altogether obstinately. Nor do I say that the merit of Christ is incomparably more glorious when it works cross and suffering than when it remits; and I am compelled to make distinctions or yet to imagine them: The merit of Christ can come to us in three ways'.

First, that it is the epitome of our trust and the chief of righteousness, according to the saying of Paul [1 Cor. 1:30], "Who is made unto us of God unto righteousness," that is, who hath made his righteousness ours, even as he hath made our sins his own [1 Cor. 1:10].

Second, that this may be the cause for us to do likewise, that we also may do so for ourselves and for others. These are the works of Christ's merits. Of these two ways St. Augustine speaks in the third book "Of the Trinity", Cap. 4, that the life of Christ is both a sacrament and an example; a sacrament in the first way, in that he makes us righteous in spirit without us; an example, in that he exhorts us to do likewise in the flesh, and works with us.

Thirdly, that it [the merit of Christ] remits (as they call it) the remissions for sins. This third way, I say, is without canonical or ecclesiastical proof. If this were also the case, it would still be

less than the second, just as the second is less than the first. Yes, I do not see how this third way should be possible; that is why I wanted to dispute.

Corner. 24. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 60th thesis.]

"A clumsy and blind thesis. For who can say that treasure and key are one and the same thing, since the key is a suitable tool for unlocking the treasure? Yes, this rather gives a case against Luther. If Christ gave the keys to the church, ask him: To what end? What is dipser treasure? How is it to be opened by the keys? It is therefore the thesis a sword of Ajax and kills itself."

Luther:

You see how skilful and more sharp-sighted than even Argus this obelisk is. Didn't I say right at the beginning that Eck seemed to have made these obelisks in the carnival time at the sound of the cup? Or at least the one can serve Eck as a testimony that frenzy and reason cannot live in the same brain at the same time.

First, from Aristotle's Book of the First [Analytica], he champions the proposition: the

Key is a tool for opening the treasure. I am surprised that he did not say: to open the treasure chest; since the chest must be something other than the treasure, then also the lock. And if you want to pursue the likeness or the image completely, then perhaps the entire household goods of the city of Rome must be brought here.

Then, puzzled by this sharp conclusion, he asks: How can a key open and be opened at the same time, if the key is also the treasure? The quite silly disputator! He hears that I deny the treasure; for I call that which is distributed (that is, the keys bestowed by Christ) the treasure, but he sets up as such that which is distributed by the keys, that is, he means that which is distributed by the pope, but I mean that which is distributed by Christ.

To the last: so he claims, this thesis is a sword of Ajax 2c Truly, a new Aristarchus, yes a new Homer! For who ever wrote that the sword of Ajax killed itself? and not rather that Ajax killed himself with the same? But one must credit his late Zechen somewhat. For he wanted to say, the thesis is a sword of Ajax, with which I killed myself, but not with which it killed itself, just as the sword of Ajax did not kill itself, but Ajax. Perhaps he has dreamed of that animal which ate itself, and instead of it he has fallen for the sword of Ajax.

Corner. 25. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 62nd thesis.]

"No one denies that the Gospel is a treasure that teaches and instructs us about what to believe. But that indulgences are given out of this treasure is downright ridiculous, since neither the pope who distributes it nor the practicing priest mentions it when absolving, nor has any of the teachers of the subject of indulgences ever sown such things, with the exception of this new prophet, who transcends the limits set by our fathers."

Luther:

Our fathers he calls, I think, Aristotle, Porphyrius and their followers, who are not new prophets; but more worthy than the old patriarchs, also than the apostles and (not to omit any honor) than the angels in heaven are those whom Eck may revere. For that here by him the church fathers cannot be meant, he must necessarily admit, although he is mad.

Then he spouts out in the same drunkenness that I claim that indulgences are given from the treasure of the gospel, which no healer of the same, he says, intends. I think this is too good for the Shrove Tuesday disputations; for if they were not, he would already have remembered from his own words above that I say indulgences are not given from the Gospel, but through the keys. For that these

The theologian understood above and it will become even clearer below that the theses I wrote are the treasure of indulgences and that this treasure is different from the treasure of the gospel. But the theologian wanted to have something ridiculous for the celebration of those days of wild lust, and since he found nothing else, he wrote in my theses.

Corner. 26. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 67th thesis.]

"A thesis full of poison, which may have come to light to excite sedition, not to increase the love of Christ. If Luther had been moved by godly love, he should not have raised such a thing before the simple-minded, who are easily annoyed anyway, but before those whom it concerns; and perhaps, who knows, whether God would not have given it prosperity and progress?"

Luther:

Thanks be to him finally once for his benevolent admonition, which, of course, is preceded by a rage. I ask: why doesn't the pope stir up an uproar and fill everything with venom, when in the 6th book of the Clementines, 5th Distinction, 1) he decrees most severely about the abuses of the indulgences, in so many words, since he does this with assertions and commands, which I touch upon with few words in dispute? Or is it possible that there are no indulgences that abuse their powers? or is it not even allowed to discuss those who abuse their powers? Or does Eck alone appear as the protector of all shameful deeds? Or is it not rather to fill everything with poison to resist those who punish vice, even the papal decrees? This is what a theologian teaches and does, if he can still be called a theologian who speaks such devilries with rage and snorting.

Then he says one thing with full justification, namely: I would have given the simple ones trouble. For since I did not state these theses in

1) It should read: Olsw. 11d. V, tit. 9. Cf. the note to H 21 of Luther's "Freedom of the Sermon on Indulgences and Grace" above.

I have published my theses in the German language, distributed them no further than in our area, and sent them only to scholars and more educated friends, so I find none more simple-minded than "our fathers," "the old prophets," that is, our excellent scholastic Magistri nostri. But I have known these people's annoyance well in advance, and with knowledge and deliberation I have despised it not only in this but in all my other theses. Rightly, I say, he calls these "simple-minded"; for they are good for nothing but to be annoyed.

Corner. 27. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 69th thesis.]

"If this is true (the pope says that the treasure of indulgences is drawn from the merit of Christ), why did Luther contradict it above?"

Luther:

Must I, my dear Eck, appear to you as if I were about to tell you that the treasure of indulgences is the merits of Christ, because I advise that indulgences should be reverently allowed? Is it really one and the same thing to allow indulgences and to call indulgences the merits of Christ? Should not the decrees of excommunication and absolution, the ordinances, again the abrogations, declarations and dispensations of the pope be received reverently? and yet no one calls them merits of Christ. How do you dream that I contradicted myself according to your most logical reasoning, because I said above that indulgences are not merits of Christ, and here I say that they are to be admitted? Must I teach you your Petrus Hispanus, of the sentences in which the same expression is used in a twofold manner? But in which bull do you find that the pope says that indulgences are drawn from the merits of Christ, than in that extravagante of Clement V, of which I have spoken above and will speak more widely in his time?

Corner:

"Let all guilty punishment be remitted, says the pope; why then does it compel Luther

merely on the punishments imposed at the discretion of the pope? So continue through all the above theses."

Luther:

Not the pope, but Eck says that all punishment should be remitted. Why I say this, however, I have already stated sufficiently in the previous: because I have not asked for the scholastic, but for the ecclesiastical teaching, not for the impudent interpreters of their superiors, but for the confirmed teachers of the church.

Corner. 28. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 77th thesis.]

"The thesis is false and detracts from the head of the church. If, however, he aims at the 'private persons' of Peter and the pope, the thesis is true; but if he means the papal painting, it is to be disregarded altogether."

Luther:

What am I hearing? So Peter and the Pope have no greater graces than indulgences? Perhaps the closer Eck comes to the end, the more freely he rages and the more venomously he speaks.

I defend this thesis in such a way (that you know it, Eck!) that if you should seriously contradict it, I will call you not a Bohemian heretic (for he admits all sacraments), but the common enemy of the whole church and prove you as such. What Christian anywhere could bear that the pope or St. Peter have no greater graces than indulgences? So the indulgence is more than baptism, confirmation, the Lord's Supper, the Gospel, the power to judge, and all that is greatest? In truth, then, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope to say that indulgences are the greatest of all graces.

If Eck did not have this opinion, he should have tempered his presumption beforehand, and should not have stated it so stormily, but theologically, even before he understood it himself. For I have set up [this thesis] against those who trumpet this indulgence in such a way that they dare to claim that the pope could not have a greater [grace]

and now Eck (as I see) has taken the opposite of this opinion of mine from it, by understanding nothing, while he understands too much.

Corner. 29. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 81st thesis.]

"On the other hand, the effect of this disputation and the presumptuous disregard of indulgences is that the clergy can be defended not merely (not) from the calumnies, but hardly from the swords of sophistical laymen."

Luther:

Like the previous one, also this obelisk has its value mostly, yes, completely from the flattery against the pope. For this is how the unlearned asses (I do not say scholastics) tend to argue, that they fight what they are not able to overthrow neither by scripture, nor by testimony, nor by reason, by flattery against the pope, without caring how true, but only how pleasing they speak, if only the, even if false, hope of victory smiles at them.

But this I hope, that our chatterer, even if it is only because of his scholastic theology, will grant me that indulgences are not meritorious, nor even necessary for salvation. But if this is so, I hope that I will be allowed to refrain from it, and that I will not be forced to redeem it; that therefore there will be no presumptuous disregard of it on my part, but that the mad and vituperative envy of Eck will declare freedom to be presumption. Yes, I say, moreover, even if the codrus bursts at this, 1) that I wanted there to be no indulgence anywhere; and I await the verdict of a not impudent interpreter, whether I am a heretic in such a way?

Furthermore, that he says that the clergy can hardly be defended from the swords of the laity is the second strength and a commonplace of all scholastic reasons. The clergy can be protected most easily, because Christ is with them. That

1) According to Virgil's 7th Eclogue (v. 27), a proverbially used expression of an envious person. Kodrus was a bad poet, hostile to Virgil out of envy.

But it is no wonder that the scholastics are in danger, since they are only safe under the leadership of Aristotle. Then they have nothing else in mind than tyranny; that is, that the theology, cast in new words, is not understood by the people, and then the trade in indulgences is hidden in such a way that they themselves do not know what it is worth, and are content with the fact that the people must not know this and must not ask us about it, lest the profit be reduced. An obvious proof of this is that so much effort and labor is expended in a matter that is neither necessary nor deserving, but absolutely nothing in a necessary one.

Corner. 30. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 82nd thesis.]

"To answer this question is quite easy; but the brevity of this writing, written in haste, does not permit it. But all these questions can be resolved sufficiently and according to the truth, and that by reasons and not by mere force, as the one supposes."

Luther:

They can be solved by reasons. Why then do the indulgenceists solve them by sheer force, who only drive at the trembling people with lightning and fire, if someone so much as mutters against such questions? I believe that they can be solved sufficiently, that is, scholastically, and not insolently, that is, one can babble words that no man understands. But about this more extensively in the "Explanations".

Corner. 31. obelisk.

[Against Luther's 92nd thesis.]

"Following Christ in tribulation is a matter for the perfect. But to pray for peace and tranquility, to strive for and seek them, this is what the Holy Scriptures loudly demand and teach. This also Christ taught, since we are to pray: Save us

from evil. I could prove this by a thousand scriptural sayings, if it were not witnessed many times everywhere in the Old Testament."

Luther:

For the corner is the tower of David, out of which hang a thousand shields of sayings, not against war, but for peace. So then, let the cross come to an end and let no one suffer anything, but in peace and good pleasure, that is, through the remission of punishments, let us enter safely into the kingdom of heaven. It would perhaps be better for God to become a liar, since He said [Revelation 3:19], "Whom I love I chasten," than for our Aristotelian fathers not to remain within the limits they set for us.

I am ashamed of such silly and stupid talk. Eck is a theologian and yet he is diligent not to know that the peace of Christians is the glory of a good conscience, which no indulgence can give, but the remission of guilt through grace. But external peace, as well as that which indulgences give, is death and the letter that kills. Our very astute obelisk writer alone dreams of external persecutions. But with this I want to make the end of my conversation with the presumptuous, ignorant, inexperienced, that is, scholastic theologian.

Anno 1518, August 10. 1)

1) This date is incorrect and should probably read: March 23. Cf. the note to the heading.

The following writings also belong here:

Eck's letter of apology because of the obelisks of Carlstadt of May 28, 1518, which is included: Walch, alte Ausgabe, Vol. XV, 957.

Luther's letter that Eck's statement satisfied him to Christoph Scheuel at Nuremberg, June 15, 1518. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 596.