31 Carlstadt's Defense Against Eck's Monomachy. *)

Started August 28, completed September 14, 1518.

Translated from Latin.

Defense of Andreas Carlstadt against the duel (monomachiam) of the respectable Johann Eck, Doctor of Theology and Ordinary at Ingolstadt.

Carlstadt accepts the judgment not only of the apostolic see and the universities of Rome in Italy, Paris in France, or Cologne in Germany, but also of all and everyone who has read the dialogues (dialogos) of Jerome Against Pelagius, and the books of Augustine äs psssatorum msritis, äs spwftu "t litsra, äs psrksstious sustitzias and Wider Julian 2c, and other Church Fathers, the writings of Chrysostom, Cyprian, Cyril, Hilarius, Ambrose, Cassianus, Gregory, Bernard, Beda, not from back to back, but from beginning to end, as far as the matter at hand is concerned, read and understood.

To the venerable fathers and lords, Henning Göde, provost, and Laurentius Schlamau, dean of the collegiate and free church of all saints at Wittenberg, doctors of law and highly renowned professors, his most honored patrons, Andreas Carlstadt wishes Heil.

Since I, venerable fathers and lords, have titled Wider den Zweikampf (monomachiam), which D. Johann Eck, the very learned professor of theology, has titled "eine Vertheidigung" at his discretion, and which he, I hope, more ornamentally than happily titled Wider die Wahrheit under my name under

*) Against Carlstadt's 405 sentences of defense, which only appeared after July 7, 1518, in the form we have communicated (they were published more than once by Carlstadt with quite a few changes, sometimes in parts, sometimes in their entirety. Löscher, Reformation-Acta, vol. II, 77), Eck sent out a rebuttal on August 14, 1518, his MononEÜia, as Carlstadt calls it, under the title: vekeusio 4oanm8 LcLü contra amaruleutns D. ^udreae Lockeusteiu Eurolstutiui iuveetiouss. We do not print it separately because it is included in the present paper, the defense of Carlstadt against Eck's Monomachy. Löscher (Ref.-Acta Bd. II, 107) describes both the previous and this writing of Carlstadt as essential pieces of Reformation history and as rare. First this writing appeared at Wittenberg, probably only in October, with Johann Grünenberg, under the title: Oekeusio ^ndrsus Eurolostackii n<I versus exiruii O. 4ouuuis Delrii mouoiuaetiiaiu. Then Löscher included it in his Ref.-Acta, vol. II, 108 ff. Our translation is made according to this.

I have not set myself the task of compiling Aristotle's reasons, even if I could; unfortunately, however, I have not yet been granted the task of deriving a booklet from the stream of Ciceronian eloquence, since in this matter I cannot regale your ears with flowery ornaments. Rather, I have deemed that it is sufficient for me in our struggle if I speak in such a way that I am understood, so that I imitate the simplicity of Scripture when discussing it and have a way of speaking that explains the matter to my peers, explains the meaning, makes the obscurity clear. This, of course, can also be achieved by such a way of speaking, which does not make many useless words, nor is it rich in scheming circumlocutions, since truth has never needed the exaggerated adornment and make-up of words, nor, like a sick person, has it sought the medicine of speech. Furthermore, in my theses, which Eck has corrupted by not a few distortions 1), I have said nothing of mine, nor have I put forward my opinion, but repeat that which the Holy Spirit has revealed through the Law, the Prophets, the Apocrypha, the Evangelists, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers, but what our distortionist 2) thinks against the same under the pretense of my name, all who have a good judgment will decide that it will perish through his slobber 3). Your office shall be to act as a psyller 4) so that the truth shines forth in this dispute, and to implore that arrogance be destroyed and envy be kept away. To avoid this corruption and that pride is not in my ability, because I fall into manifold nets of sins and am wrapped in the mists of darkness. I will crawl on the earth and not start from the beginning, lest, by going too far in this business, I be left already in the beginning. I know how money differs from beans 5). Be well, and let this be your concern. Go to

1) orditntidus--robberies. The sense is: the theses are deprived of their right sense, thus twisted. Cf. also the soon following äiversurius.

2) äLversurius - one who goes astray.

3) pure, ablative of xus; not sure, as is emendwt in Walch.

4) k[Mi, a people in Africa who could summon snakes and cure snakebite by sucking out the venom.

5) Actors and children helped themselves to beans instead of money.

given in haste at Wittenberg, on the day on which the machina of D. Eck was delivered to me, August 28 in the year 1518.

Carlstadt sends his regards to the respectable Mr. Eck.

It does not behoove me, highly learned Mr. Eck, to defend my honor in such a way on this battlefield, to which you seem to draw me with invectives and jibes, or to refute your invectives, of which you are overflowing, so sharply that someone could think that I rather protect my cause as that of truth, since I have truly attacked you no differently than as a skirmisher opposing divine truth. Therefore, I have decided, as much as it is possible, to oppose these holy things, which do not become clear otherwise, to your acting (histricosis) sentences with God's help in such a way that you may realize at the same time that you have inflicted ten insults on me for one, if I have inflicted one at all, and that you have adapted inappropriate testimonies of Scripture to your opinions. Then, when we both, wearied, shall choose arbiters and desire a judgement, only a judgement made according to the canonical Scriptures shall satisfy us. You should not think that the aversions are great (as you say), through which truth overcomes all wickedness: War must be for the sake of peace. And let us not allow a false peace to take away what has been preserved by the righteous warfare of the fathers; let us pursue the truth, not hatred. Fare well, and be inclined to him whom thou makest an adversary for thy projectile. Given at Wittenberg, August 28, 1518.

Eck's first comment or rather first rebuke. 6)

Since the kingdom of heaven in Christ's words seems to denote the present church and the time of evangelical fulfillment, it is impossible to see how repentance can express the life of all believers.

Carlstadt's defense record.

Eck's first sentence is this: He does not see that the contending church, for which the time of fulfillment has come, needs repentance, since it is the assembly of all believers, among whom not a few are righteous.

6) Cf. Col. 538 in this volume.

The excited corner defends, or rather offends like this:

I wonder where it might have come into the mind of D. Bodenstein to say: the first sentence of Eck basically wants that the contending church does not need repentance, since this is nowhere found in my note 1). Therefore, because the ground is dilapidated, everything built on it must also fall down.

I recognize, D. Eck, your judgment about my foolishness, namely you wonder where the sense of your rebuke came from? I do not pale because of this rebuke of yours, since I must confess my ignorance when circumstances demand it. But I am not so dull of mind that I should understand only 2) the sound of your words, but not also what you want and what kind of opinion you show with it. Why are you not surprised at yourself? since you must mean the same thing that I have stated, and I would not have denied that what you wonder about, that it has come into my mind, is not seen or read with the eyes, but yet I only claim that it is found in the intention of the writer. You base it on this: it does not seem that repentance expresses the life of all believers. I said: The church, as D. Eck says, does not need repentance. For by saying that not all the life of believers will be repentance, you make this implicit conclusion: So some life of the faithful is repentance, and again, according to the laws of alternate (altercantium), I would say, of alternate things occurring occasionally in a matter (subalternarum in materia contingenter accidentium) (of which here is an example, if it is permissible to use scholastic expressions), the opposite of this, namely, this [conclusion]: some life of the faithful is not repentance, becomes equally true. Take both of these together; will you not then admit that any church, which is the assembly of believers, has no need of repentance? Thou wilt indeed admit it: is it not, then, the ground of thy proposition? But I have set up a contradictory proposition against your, not my, ground, namely: the whole life of the believers is a repentance. This I had taken from innumerable books

1) This is what Eck calls what is presented in the "Obelisks," since the obelisks are notes on Luther's 95 Theses.

2) tum, should mean: tanturu. (Walch)

I do not see that anyone could be allowed to contradict this. Moreover, that every Christian teacher must accept this, all church teachers testify, although the scholastics argue against it. I have no doubt that you will admit that the many individual (particulares) churches of God make up the one general and holy one, as it were a holy and godly body; and at least of the individual ones, in which only the righteous and not also the ungodly can be found, you would not deny the reason I have given, because the righteous have no need of repentance. But I confess that the most holy are in need of repentance in this life, this is my reason, because this is a truth testified by the whole canonical Scripture, which does not mislead nor err. Your reason, however, or, if you wish, mine, which is derived from your sentence, in this I agree with you, is dilapidated and false, and everything and anything that is built on it and that only grows out of it suffers from real sickness and must, as truth teaches, do a great fall of itself. In this way I thought I had to refute this sentence, which really begins at the first beginning (ab ovo coepit exordium), not because I wanted to violate the modesty that you demand but do not observe, but because you undertake to [prove] by the testimony of Scripture, but nevertheless turn here and there and throw in what has sprung from the heads of men, namely from their inclinations (pectoribus). Never, dear Eck, have I believed that you have taken away all repentance from the general church, but from your used testimonies I see that you deny that the whole life of believers is a repentance; this I refute. But you base your opinion on one kind of repentance, as we read in the following sentence, as follows:

Therefore, I claim and confess with the Holy Mother, the Church, that penance is a sacrament and the second tablet 3) after the shipwreck. Likewise, I humbly confess with her and the holy fathers that through penance the souls of the faithful are purified and cleansed, and no living person has heard that I had a different opinion about it.

3) Shipwrecked people used to have a painting made of themselves and the shipwreck they had suffered in order to go begging with it.

This is the proof or explanation of the previous sentence. You say that nowhere in the note do I find that the contending church does not need repentance. This you now prove and explain by this [sentence], saying, For I maintain with the mother, the church, that penance is a sacrament. If this was your opinion, then you have carelessly contradicted the following sentence: The whole life of the faithful is a penance; for that is not understood of sacramental [penance]. I thought that a man gifted with the acumen of Chrysippus would have contradicted on the matter, but since I see that you did not speak in reference to the matter at hand, I calmly tolerate your rebuke and do not reproach again.

By what inference, indeed, by what order can you conclude this proposition: repentance does not express the whole life of the faithful, from that: not the whole life of the faithful is expressed by sacramental repentance? Does it follow, dear Doctor, dearest brother, that the destruction of one part is followed by the destruction of the whole? Further, that I chat with you in a philosophical and dialectical manner: is then the ground of proof, which one transfers from a single (subjectiva) part to the whole, valid to deny the whole (negative validum)? e.g. if I were to say: he has no fever, therefore he has no infirmity or disease. Now, if we apply this to the matter at hand, is it valid: sacramental penance does not express the whole life of believers, consequently there is no [penance] which embraces or expresses the whole life of believers? Why do you wonder that I see what you mean? For I have long since seen through those sophistical antics and could point out to you that you are making fallacies by inferring from a lower thing to a higher one in such a way as to nullify the latter (destructive arguendo). But away with these monstrous fictions of men: on this battlefield we do not suffer them. Our way of disputing is another. About the matter itself I want to do with you and ask this of you, that you do not think or speak according to your arbitrariness about the scripture given by the Holy Spirit.

I myself affirm and confess sacramental penance with the Church, but I teach with her and the holy Fathers not only this, but also others. There is the writing of Augustine "On the Medicine of Penance"; likewise another treatise "On the Usefulness of Penitential Doing" and many others of the same, on whose

One or more Gratians, who may have a great reputation with you, but not an outstanding one with me, are not at all fruitful in their way, but lean and coldly support themselves too much. Yet he cites the book of Augustine, in which the latter teaches a threefold way of repentance; but in citing it, he has founded repentance more firmly, insofar as, as I see, it concerns you, not me.

Obviously, dear D. Eck, St. Augustine teaches the penance which expresses the whole life of the faithful. His words are: But the other penance is that the practice of which must be throughout this life, as long as we walk in the mortal flesh, in constant humility of prayer. See the reasons there and consider carefully that there is a penance whose practice must take place throughout life, not in a frivolous way, but with humility, but also with prayer. Do you not see that Augustine clearly asserted that the whole or all life of believers must be a penance, or, as you say more delicately but also more obscurely, that penance expresses the whole life of believers, because it comes to all believers who live here, for he speaks of all who walk in the mortal body? only, according to Ambrose, where Scripture does not distinguish, neither do we have to make a distinction. Therefore, the whole life of believers deals with repentance.

But why do I make a fuss with these reasons of proof? For the passage quoted from Augustine satisfies the grammatical reader, namely, that the whole life of all believers is a penance. But what kind? Note, one that is practiced in constant humility of prayer; it must be a perpetual one, that is, all, that is, a whole one. For perpetual, according to your Aristotle, is nothing that is not whole, that is not all. For if the life of the faithful were not a whole atonement, or not all atonements, it would not be an everlasting one. But what is more difficult for a man than to repent with humility without ceasing, so that a man becomes lowly in his opinion, with prayer or supplication; that he goes into his closet and closes the door behind him and pours out his heart before God with the full fervor of his soul? These are very difficult things and yet they occupy the whole life of the believer, order it, drive it. Is this the sacramental penance? If it is sacramental, what do the scholastics, your patrons, say that minor sins are forgiven without the priest's absolution? Likewise, if you call it a sacramental one

640 Löscher, R.-A. n, 113-ns. 31 Carlstadt's Verth. Wider Eck's Monomachie. W. XVIII, 712-714. , 641

Will you not then also prove the sensually perceptible signs of the Sacrament to be equally eternal, and by what testimonies of Scripture? In this act of penance, the whole assembly of saints cries out with one voice: Forgive us our trespasses. Hear David crying piteously: Woe is me, for my pilgrimage has become a long one. Lament Job, who laments and says: Is not the whole life of man a temptation? And the wise man: The body that perishes weighs down the soul. Must this wholesome repentance be taken away from the church and the righteous believers, so that your rebuke may stand? Did not Paul, who was incorporated into the body of the church, sigh and eagerly wait for the redemption of his body? Therefore, agree with me, not with me, but with the Scripture, on which the prestige of the Church is based, and affirm that this non-sacramental repentance extends through the whole life, in all believers, especially the righteous. Of the sacramental, which has the key, namely, of the third act of penance, which must be performed because of the sins indicated in the ten commandments, from which the penitents in the church actually take their name, I likewise teach, according to the testimony of Scripture and the holy church fathers, that it is a permanent one. 1) I do not say that that sign (namely, the words of the priest who says, "I absolve you from your sins according to the word of the Savior: What thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven) shall always remain and sound, so that the priest shall always pronounce it with his voice, but that inner repentance, which is promised by this sign or sound of the words, but also takes place by the action of the Holy Spirit inwardly in the heart, must be an everlasting one according to the words of the Savior: Whoever does not take up his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple, or, as Matthew says, he is not worthy of me. Likewise John: Whoever is my servant, let him follow me, and where I am, there shall my servant be also. These words speak without distinction of all the works by which we strive to follow God and fulfill his commandments. But what do they teach? Read carefully and you will find that we must follow Christ in every work by which we want to serve and follow God. But if we must follow, how can we stand still? how can we stop? 2) How

1) As an aside: This is not opposed, dear Eck.

2) As an aside, Christ teaches in Matthew that sins should be constantly remembered.

interrupt the constant and following steps? So you will admit this perpetual repentance, by which we are badly converted to God, by which we please God but displease ourselves, in which we do not condemn the righteous God, but confess with Daniel and Baruch that we are ungodly and unrighteous, yes, our own disgrace. Of this repentance, I say, by which we tremble in regard to God, disagree with us, and feel a shudder before us, since we hate our souls, must be expressed in uninterrupted series in all of life, what that noble eagle [Christ] taught quite clearly: Where I am (that is, Christ), there shall also my servant be. So where is the servant of repentance? Where is the servant and the subject? Only where Christ is. 3) But you may object that this is not written of repentance. Therefore, respectfully hear this scripture: My sin is always before me. If "always," how can you suppose that any life is without that avenging repentance? Or don't you know that God, when He purifies, keeps no one innocent? that we enter Heaven through many tribulations? Are you not familiar with Isaiah, through whom God inculcated: Remember thou, and I will not remember: for if thou forget that which thou hast committed (admissorum), I will remember it. Or should you not want to know that (among other things) to repent is to fulfill all the commandments of God? As Ezekiel reminds us, "If the wicked repents of all his sins which he has committed, and keeps all my commandments, and does justice and righteousness, he shall live; I will not remember all his iniquities. Oh how great a comfort we hear when God promises that He will not remember our sin! If the wicked repents, by what law, dear D. Eck, how is repentance commanded? The learned Ezekiel speaks: And keeps, he says, all the commandments 2c How long? We must agree with the evangelist who resolves this: He who perseveres to the end will be saved. The commandments must be kept if the penitent is to enter into life, and he must persevere in keeping the commandments, not allowing himself to be interrupted, but continuing in constant observance, even to the end of life. Therefore, the whole life of the believers or the life of all believers is a repentance. This is not contradicted by the fact that God leads out of hell, that He sends word to the poor, that He shows mercy after wrath, because these testimonies, which do not contradict each other, are not the same.

3) In passing: This is not contradicted by Cassianus cks xsoo. satist.

contradict, nor even the foregoing, are not [unseemly] to be announced here (adglutinanda). But whoever desires to know this very beautiful subject, wait a little, we have collected this, because, God willing, we want to publish it shortly. But Eck will admit, both verbally and in writing, that this repentance, although the perceptible sign is temporary, is equally perpetual. If he still shakes his head and insists on what he started with, then we have to dedicate another booklet to him with full rights. You who have little in the way of knowledge and scholarship, or who are eager for it, read Augustine in the scripture cited and "On the Usefulness of Penitential Doing," "On Faith in Peter," Cap. 3 and 31; Ambrose "on the defense of David"; Chrysostom, Ps. 51; Augustine on the penitential psalms, and Cyprian. This about your second rebuke. But there is perhaps another error rumored about the second tablet of the shipwreck. But since you have either dismissed it yourself or are hiding it deep in your chest, I will not refute it, but go further. The rest of the same rebuke and its last part reads like this: "Likewise, I confess with her and the holy ones.

Fathers humbly that through repentance the souls of believers are cleansed and purified, and no living person has heard that I had a different opinion about it.

You assert something true, if you understand it rightly, if you do not trust in works, but have the faith of the indwelling Christ in such a way that you believe that you are helped by God alone; if you assert that repentance is poured into the hearts by the Holy Spirit, and thus believers are cleansed and purified by it. But I believe that this is true not only of sacramental repentance, but of every repentance which we gather from Scripture, and against your proposition I say that the faithful righteous and those who are clean through repentance are cleansed and purified. If you admit this, your proposition falls away, in which you denied that the whole life of believers is a repentance. Speak with the Scriptures, and the controversy will end. But this and the like you may add, that you may bring and draw to your side simple-minded and unlearned people (against me, as if I were insulting you); I did not think you so unlearned, and that what unlearned people spread here and there is hidden from you.

D. Ecks III.

For thus, says A[urelius] Augustine, His abundant mercy is communicated by God, that the punishment which justice requires is not left; with other sayings of the saints which one reads in the canonical decrees.

This is the proof of your sentence from Augustine and other saints whose sayings are read in the canonical decrees.

First, tell me what these canonical decrees are, if they are those of the Roman popes? Bring them forward, cite them! If they are the ones of Gratian, why do you suggest that they are canonical? Because he has no more power to canonize (canonizandi) the sayings of the saints that he has gathered than you do, and just as I do not believe that you can canonize writings, neither does Gratian. Here I would like to say well, you have forgotten your Scotus, who, moved by good reasons, says that it is not clear to him that the sayings (capitula) collected by Gratian should make all [Christians binding, after Jerome and Augustine, and I will not call any other than the writings of the Holy Spirit canonical. According to legal scholars, Gratian never had the power to make any sayings canonical. See the specula, of Joan. And., Panormitanus, Felix, Paul, de Cass. and others, lest you ascribe more than is fair to Gratian and put a bit in the mouths (lupatis arceas) of our church scholars.

Secondly. To the passages we have quoted, which all who have read Augustine and those who look at them know to be true, you add contradictory ones. But since contrary things, as Ambrose says, cancel each other out, I might argue for myself, since the knee is nearer to me than the calf; but this may go, because we who have a carnal inclination (animalis affectio) almost all think too much of ourselves (φίλαυτοι). What I have been

is as much closer to the canonical scripture as my shirt is closer to me than my coat. I know that you have seen that my opinion has used the testimonies of God to prove it; with regard to yours I am doubtful, since a statement of the same teacher, which is justified by a canonical saying, overturns, erases, nullifies an opposite one, which stands unproven.

Thirdly. I am afraid that you used a doubtful (apocryphum) saying of Augustine against a clear and certain one, and, as it.

The first time that you have done this, you have put on a revoked one instead of a non-revoked one, and thus mixed the sea with the sky.

Fourthly. I confess that between the pronouncements of the Holy Fathers and the Scriptures (which the Doctors of the Church call canonical) there is a world of difference, because the Fathers did not set out to reach the highest goal in any respect, 1) Pay attention to what I have mentioned in the 12th sentence. But of the order of the canonical Scriptures according to the doctrines of the Church we have gathered much in the explanations of the first theses, namely of our firstfruits. If it pleases you, we want to talk to you about it in this very booklet. Just take in hand what Augustin says in the second book, Cap. 31, Against the Grammarian Cresconius, namely: "We may not judge at all about the holy scriptures, which comprise the canon of the church, but we judge according to them about the other books, both of the believers and of the unbelievers. Memorize this well, it holds my anchor. I love you so much that I don't want you to be put down by going back far (revolutatione) to books. You do the same: lead, prove.

Fifth. What you cite in general, show it, so that I may recognize whether you act as a faithful or a negligent or a scheming teacher, who guesses from a piece of the main thing (ex cauda capitis) to the whole context of the thing. Show the passage, so that we may then also have a lame [teacher], if I can find nothing for my opinion. I will draw from the sources of Augustine. Thus, after Jerome, let us move from the Latin copies to the Greek and from these to the Hebrew, with which Augustine agrees, and investigate the sources and beginnings of the booklets.

Sixth. You also do of it and to it, and interfere with impossible things, saying that God's bountiful gift is so distributed that the punishment which justice requires is not left. You admit mercy and deny it; or take it away. If the punishment of justice does not remain, neither does mercy. For as the healthy have no need of the physician, but the sick, so also the righteous are not called, but the unrighteous' Therefore we read: He who draws you in mercy and compassion. He has come,

1) Luprsmam asssyui oetavam - to reach the highest octave.

to make the sinners blessed; likewise: I have not come to call the righteous. Therefore I believe that the discipline of justice will always remain, for the sake of which he also punishes justly and gives mercy out of mercy, otherwise man would not need mercy. Nor do I see what advantage for your proposition would result from this. Beginning with the general, you did not want to take away the sacramental penance of the church; further, you set up this proposition that you admit with the mother, the church, that there is a sacramental one; finally, you fell to saying that there is no penalty left to justice. If you think that no punishment of justice is left by the sacramental one, why does he want to be washed further who says: I recognize my sin? I see what a quagmire you are sinking into; let us clear it away not here, but hereafter. Perhaps you have the opinion, which I learned and taught earlier as a scholastic theologian, that through repentance all impurity is so removed that not even a speck remains, 2) indeed, that the repentant becomes thoroughly healthy and pure. I am afraid that you suffer from the same false opinion as the one who is washed and no longer needs to wash his feet, and so you think that the punishment of righteousness does not remain. This is a very bad error, which is completely tainted with the sin of hypocrisy. Nevertheless, Augustine may have said the opposite, but he recanted it in many pronouncements and with much better reasons (armatius). He uses, namely, the sayings of Solomon [20, 8. 9.]: For when the righteous king sits (on his throne) in judgment, who can boast that he has a righteous heart? and Jeremiah: Why will you contend with me in judgment? and David likewise: Of mercy and judgment will I sing unto thee; likewise: Go not into judgment with thy servant; for before thee no living man is righteous. Before him no living man, be he righteous as he will, can escape the chastening of justice. Should you alone be able to do it? Yes, he also uses this passage: Mercy boasts itself against judgment, in the letter to Jerome, de sen. Jacobi, de spiritu et litera, in the last chapter and others. As the stronger and better equipped takes the robbery of the weaker and defenseless, so the same teacher, since he bases himself on a saying, takes his acquired defenseless robbery by the opposite equipped opinion,

2) In passing: Those have reason to speak likewise who have only looked at Chrysostom above.

excludes [his opponent, takes him away, rejects him. So you see that this opinion is more valid (receptorem), and that Augustin became more learned by writing. Jerome uses this saying [Ps. 32, 5. 6.]: I said, I will confess against me my transgression, and thou wilt forgive me the iniquity of my sin. For this all the saints will ask you 2c For this forgiveness of iniquity all the saints will ask: but after you no saint will ask. This is what I intended in my 131st thesis: Blessed is he who strikes his children on a stone; this [thesis] you, prevented by some heat, have not touched. Therefore the punishment of justice remains, since the just, not the vicious, as soon as he begins to speak, is his own accuser. To what is stated from Augustine we will answer [elsewhere].

D. Ecks IV.

I also confess that repentance is properly accomplished through contrition, confession and satisfaction with the addition of the absolution of the priest, as Chrysostom and other fathers have summarized it. That this was my opinion of penance, I call to witness: Princes, counts and the whole audience of my sermons.

If this was your opinion, that you knew only this sacramental penance, you have not yet touched the one you wanted to destroy, namely: The whole life of believers is a penance. This did not speak of the application of a sensually perceptible sign, that the application of the same is the whole life, but it was shown that everything and the whole life of believers requires repentance and confession, as the Scripture speaks. I admit the repentance that God works, according to the passages of Scripture that I have cited in the 145th thesis and others. Since you can read this, it would be superfluously repeated here. Christ looked at Peter and he began to weep bitterly.

The confession of the heart, which is the first, without which the external has no meaning, I admit. God works this, according to the saying: Confession and glory is his work, namely God's, not man's; it is not due to someone's willing or running, but to God's mercy, therefore confession is God's work. For if it were the work of a man, it would be a lying work, as the man who performs it, of whom it is written: I said in my anguish, all men are liars.

We speak the lie from our own. A good confession of sins is God's work. I would like to prove this more strongly, so that when I follow in your footsteps, I do not bring up what is known to you and become annoyed. I will not bring up what is known and become annoying to you. The Savior of sinners says: He who does the truth comes to the light, so that his works are revealed, for they are done in God. The works, he says, are done in God. Which ones? By this he means that his justification is not due to his merits, but to the grace of God. Augustin äs poeout. moä. Book 1, Cap. 33.

But you say: We argue about confession. Listen to the same Augustine on John, 12th tract: He who confesses and accuses his sins already acts in God; he who does the truth accuses the evil in himself. For if we say that we have no sin, the truth is not in us. Therefore, he who does the truth confesses his sins. The confession of our evil belongs to truth no less than to humility. So he who does the truth comes to the light. But why does he come? Because his works are done in God. It is God who works in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure, so a true confession is God's work. Certainly, if the inner confession of the heart, inspired by God, does not precede the outer confession, then the latter must be empty and void. When the Holy Spirit comes, he says, he will testify and you will also testify. You add: With the addition of the priest's absolution. What this sacramental absolution of the priest does would be very nice, and even necessary to tell; but since this is not within the scope of our very narrow and short disputation, let us save it for our booklet "On Penance" and there, with God's help, say something that can delight the reader's mind, according to the canonical Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church. I fear that certain people would like to elevate the sensually perceptible signs as high as Christ, yes, as God. They may look up what Augustin says in the Tractate, John 10. cap.; äo äoot. ollrist., lid. I, oup. XVIII; äs üäo uä I^strum enp. III.

I know that all atonement is deficient because it has sin in it that can be forgiven, for everyone who does good sins. The sufferings of this time are not worthy of the glory to come; but if they are not worthy, they are not sufficient, and therefore they are not to be called atonements. But about this in more detail elsewhere.

But that you have princes and counts as witnesses

Who could not claim that you did this in order to chase a little praise? But I do not want to repay you for your invectives with invectives; I only deal with bringing you to the battlefield of the church teachers.

D. Ecks V.

But right at the beginning of my remarks I rightly deny that repentance expresses the whole life of believers. That I therefore said that not all the life of believers is repentance, D. Bodenstein falsely put this on me, as if I had denied the repentance of the church.

I do not want to make assumptions from your painting (picturis) whether you make a distinction between "everything" (omnem) and the "whole" (totam) life; I do not pursue foolish antics. But I have posited that all and the whole [life] of believers is a repentance; add this. For 1) All and the whole life of believers is subject to corruption, hindering good, opposing the spirit, sowing corruption; all this repents the righteous. Truly, no one desires an incorruptible and immortal life, if he should not be sorry for the corruptible and mortal life. Therefore, as the whole life and all the life of believers is mortal, so it is worth the effort that repentance expresses the whole and all life of believers. Augustin äe poeu. weck. Cap. 2 That this and other penances must be constantly done because of offenses is denied by D. Eck; or if D. Eck maintains and confesses that all Christ's faithful, however holy they may be, need some true penance, even though it is not the sacramental one: then a little leaf (pagella) makes us agree. But if he insists on his censure, by which he has asserted without distinction that he does not see how the whole or all life of the faithful is a penance, I have not falsely attached any stain to him, but rightly the church will accuse him of error and the Scriptures will reprove him, and it will happen that even a great house can hardly unite (sociare) the disunited. I fight for the truth and strive for it.

D. Ecks VI.

For throughout life, repentance is neither actual nor effective.

1) Nam, not non (Walch).

(virtualis), nor as virtue, nor as sacrament, nor as satisfaction, done from a commandment of necessity.

Here Eck lets the war cry of Scotus sound; with his protection he rushes between, heaps and makes it heavier. I know that your patron Scotus, with regard to actions such as penance, distinguished in three ways the intended meaning (intentione) 2c, namely, one according to the deed (actualem), one according to the power (virtualem), one according to the constant practice (habitualem), keeping an order of the more perfect actions, and so made distinctions with regard to penance etc. In order that you may know that I have spent some years among his testimonies, I add this to show you. Keot. IV, älst. VI, Hu. VI; and IV, eist. XIV, Hu. I, urt. Ill, where repentance is dealt with; and II, ist. XIU; and II, ist. XXXVI; and III, clist. XV; and I, ist. I, hu. II, urt. IV; and I, aet. Ill, Hu. VII; and III, Hu. prolo. and HH. XVIII, art. Ill, and VI, mettm. These I have gathered together, that thou mayest know that I too have examined these things, but have found and hold better than they (that is, than the scholastics), namely, the Doctors of the Church, who have imbibed the truth and juice of the sacred Scriptures. Now I say to this sentence: I do not want to understand it, because I defend the theological truth, and I do not accept other words (voculas) than those which the Scriptures use. If you are sent by God, if you love God, speak with the words of God; if you are from Aristotle or from the inventions of men, let their words sound.

To the basis of this proposition, which is admittedly dilapidated, I reply that active repentance is commanded during the life of all believers. This is sufficiently clear from what has been said before.

D. Ecks VII.

It follows that D. Carlstadt has cited so many collects 2) in vain and has filled up his paper uselessly by struggling with the church prayers (collectis) in 25 theses.

What is Eck dealing with here other than that all of you, dear readers and arbiters, should mock me, laugh at me, hiss me out? He assaults me with this thought of Jerome: The blacksmith practices his blacksmith's trade, great things come to great people; but they despise me, as if I were little

2) In the 2nd series of theses of the previous scripture.

and treat small things. For he thinks that I must be blind, that I am not worthy to fight with him with these weapons, projectile and arrows, and he can justly blame me for what Goliath had reproached David with, and say: Am I then a dog, that thou comest to me with a stick? as if these weapons and shield were altogether too bad to fight with him. I will make all of you judges of this, whether he does not ridicule the congregation more than he ridicules me.

D. Eck knows from his Aristotle this sentence: That, because of which a thing is of a certain quality, is even more of the same quality. But D. Eck judges that I am to be laughed at because of the church collections, therefore he also judges that the collections are to be laughed at even more. But let us go further: the same judgment applies to things of equal value, or rather: the same law applies to things of equal value that have the same purpose. The collections of the church agree with the sayings of the holy fathers, and not only with them, but also with the writings of the evangelists, apostles, and prophets; they have the same opinion about them, as a good booklet has and represents the nature of its source. Thus, D. Eck scorns the Collects of the Church as well as the canonical Scriptures and the sayings of the Holy Fathers. Is this how you honor your mother, the church, with adornment and splendor? Do you thus help the things through which the Church, as with her best offerings, gives her heart to God? Furthermore, as a member of the church, I will take this insult to heart with other sighs, and if you do not revoke your error, yes, this arrogance of yours, and make amends, then I will avenge the disgrace. For I am not ashamed, humbly in the name of the Lord, to attack so great a Goliath, and I am not ashamed to cast him down and smite him, who goes about in steel armor, by means of the collects.

Is then the effort lost, which I have given myself with the countering of the Collects? which the holy fathers have not worked out without anointing and effort at the command of the church and have thus connected the epistles or prophecies with the gospel in the most beautiful harmony and have put into a short word expression what contains the strength and the power and the area of the holy scripture. Away with you, D. Eck, be silent, fall silent ! Return 1) honor the prayers of the church! The collections are not contemptible things, but beneficial, fruitful, well-ordered (eruclitLs).

1) Instead of "reversrl" will be read revertsre.

I do not think my paper is worth so much honor that collections should be written on it; you say that the collections are not worth your paper. But I have mentioned the collections in such a way that one can see that you have not touched any of them, or more correctly, that you have not known them. This sentence is dismissed with such an answer, because it contains nothing learned, but disparages the wholesome and holy prayers of the church.

D. Ecks VIII.

Although it is to be wondered at that D. Carlstadt interprets Eck as his foundation, which he never thought of, it is no less astonishing that he turns from the repentance that we must do according to the command of the Lord Jesus to the repentance by which we suffer the blows and punishments inflicted by God.

In the first part of this sentence you return to your first defending sentence, namely, that you wonder about the same thing here as there; if this is the case, he suffers the same wounds made by your bullets. The second part is: So this is no less 2c

If D. Eck sees that anything he reads deviates from what Scotus drools - for that is what he has imbibed - he immediately cries out, writes and banishes it as something monstrous and wrong. I, D. Eck, hold against your defense taken from Scotus (Scotisticum patrocinium) that repentance consists more in endurance (pat,ibilita,t,6) and suffering than in action; unless Augustine was mistaken, who says: Everything that we are commanded 2) to do is required in these short words: Thy will be done. For when we ask that God's will be done in us, which is set before us in God's holy law, we confess that God's commandments are fulfilled through our suffering, or, to put it more plainly, when we suffer and let it pass over us. Or, if we fulfill the commandment of repentance by doing, causing, or producing good works, as people like you talk about, we would be all too foolish to ask the Father as a gift that we might do so. Yes, since we cannot receive anything good, unless it is imparted to us from above, God works it through Jesus Christ, so that we do not want to withdraw from His commandments, and since we want to do them through His effect, He works that we do them, as Augustine teaches, äs Krut. st üb. urb. o. And Jerome in the Dialogue Wider Pelagius

2) praseixtuntur, not: xkroixiuntur.

about the matter at hand: so that we do not merely feast on the outward appearance of repentance, let us also explore its depth.

I have said, yes, not I, but Christ: Whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. All texts without exception unanimously read like this: He that taketh not; no text saith, He that maketh not his cross, or causeth not his cross, or bringeth it forth, and followeth me, but: He that taketh not. David confirms this when he sings: Pierce my flesh with nails from your fear. Here he asks that he be crucified by the fear of God, not his [fear]. He does not want to make nails or a cross, but he asks that he receive nails and be struck on the cross by the fear of the Lord, so that he will not throw off the cross. Moreover, Jerome remarks on Matthew, Cap. 10, in another Gospel it is written: He who does not take up his cross daily, lest we think that a single blaze of faith is enough; always the cross must be borne. Let Christ tell us whether we follow him more by suffering than by doing. Whoever wants to follow me, he says, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me. If you want to follow Christ, if you want to repent and suffer for what you have done and do good, as it is written: "Forsake evil and do good; deny yourself, deny what is yours, deny your will. Or according to Origen: Let all works breathe self-denial, and according to Bernard: If thou desirest Christ, despise thyself; if thou wilt do the will of Christ, who saith, repent, break thy will, and do the will of Christ; let not thy will be done, but God's will. Therefore leave and reject all ability to work, according to what is written: Turn from your will and wait only on God, for this is the most perfect effort to come to Christ, that we regard ourselves as nothing and know that we can do nothing that is pleasing to God, unless he himself has given it.

Therefore, if you want to follow Christ, reject the active, causing and producing faculty; if you want to repent, deny the own faculty of the will, deny yourself, then you can bear the cross of Christ and follow him, so that you may say: I am poor and a beggar, and the Lord cares for me. Since man has a poor will, which has nothing of its own, that is, which has no actions prompted by it, and no actions of its own, and even if he has a begging

If a man shows his will, begging for help and casting all his care on the Lord, the Lord will take care of him and feed him.

For he who dwells under the umbrella of the Most High says to the Lord, "It is you who receive me, my refuge, my God; I will hope in him. On the other hand, he who does not dwell firmly and constantly under the umbrella of God, that is, he who partly ascribes to himself the ability to do something, or he who misses to work, to do or to bring forth holy works of God by his will, will not say to God the Lord: You are the one who receives me, my hope, but will partly ascribe it to his own will. But in order for you to hope in God, to trust and to say, "You receive me," you must dwell under the umbrella of God. How will it be for you? I have said that God is concerned about the beggars, for He saves from the snare of the hunter, that is, from those who, with sweet speeches, flattery and persuasion to evil, lay snares of beasts for man, that is, those who deceive in a sweet way, but He also saves from those who attack with harsh words. If you hope in God's shield, but despair of yours, His truth will surround you with a shield, grace will surround you, which rightly accepts temptations, which rightly overcomes them; for God is faithful, who will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but will put an end to temptation.

But we cannot overcome the temptations that surround us because of our sins, harass us, wear us out, and hinder good works too much by ourselves, but in all this we overcome by Him, that is God, through Jesus Christ, consequently not by ourselves. For we are rather driven than we act, because those who are God's children are driven by the Spirit of God. So we take the shield of God; behold, we suffer justly. Will you not admit that the ability to receive something is a suffering one? In the same way we also receive the ability to overcome persecutions. This is it, then: he taketh up his cross, and followeth after me; not he doeth, but he taketh; Christ beareth, and we follow. But how? We must be drawn: Draw us after thee, and we will run; for no man cometh to Christ, except the Father draw him. If we are to come, the Father must draw us. If thou, O Christ, bidest us take up our cross, compass us about with thy shield of truth. He will thus with a shield

that is, with the cross his truth will surround you, and you will not be afraid of the terror of the night. You carry the cross blessedly, when Christ lays out his cross. It is said: Truth will surround you with the shield (see, it is always the suffering or exquisite will, not the active will), with the shield of chastity (continentiae), patience, prudence and humility, because by these four sides (cornibus) the cross of Christ is represented. Thou shalt not be afraid of the terror of the night: 1. of the arrow that flieth by day, 2. of the work that creepeth in darkness, 3. of the approach of the evil enemy at noon, 4. thou shalt not be afraid of the temptations of sins; thou shalt not be afraid. Because you will overcome far through the shield, the cross of Christ.

The terror of the night has in it the punishments of night and condemnation, but so that we do not fear it, we are given the gift of the cross, which holds up to us the sins we have committed, for whose sake we speak with the prophet: For I am made to suffer, and my pain is always before me. For I show my iniquity, and take thought for my sin. Laying up eternal chastisement in our thoughts because of our sins, we consider all that we suffer to be delicious, and exclaim with Daniel: Lord, you are righteous and have justly brought these evils upon us because of our sins.

This power of the cross fights against pusillanimity, chastises the body and keeps it in bondage, so that the flesh may become accustomed to endure tribulations and to endure punishments and mighty scourges (flagella procellarum).

On the left side of the cross of Christ, patience is represented, which turns against open insults, public persecutions, namely the arrow that flies by day and wounds openly. This power is given by God, received by God, not made by our free will; it is not broken by disgusting evils, nor does it consent to open persuasions to evil, but repays evil with good, overcomes the enemy in good, gives food to the hungry, waters the thirsty, and gathers fiery coals on his head.

On the right side of the cross, the hand of divine prudence is stretched out. This has the wisdom of serpents; so that it is not deceived, it plugs the ears. This power, which we ask from God and receive through Christ, is directed against the works that creep in darkness,

namely, flattery, the poisonous deceit of slandering the brother, sowing hatred, secretly persuading to evil, lest she be deceived, lest she be fed with poison under the appearance of honey. The upper side of the cross has humility. This alone deserves prestige, and it alone is what is praised (intitulatur): He who humbles himself will be exalted and blessed. This power of the cross preserves good works; it watches and strives, lest the pride of good works lift up its head and destroy all other efforts.

Therefore, accept Christ's cross, which he himself offers you, which the Lord himself bore for us; accept it, but not in vain; do not sleep, do not stand still, but follow Christ. For Christ suffered for us, says the apostle Peter, and has left us an example, that we should follow in his footsteps. Do not accept the grace of God in vain, for he who stands there, let him see to it that he does not fall, for there are always [various] kinds of temptation, but may there always also be the shield by which you can destroy the temptations, and just as the whole and all life of believers is a temptation, because the life of man on earth is a temptation, so also the cross of Christ must always be borne. See then, dear D. Eck, as Bernhard says in his 2nd sermon on St. Andrew, and on the Psalm: Who under the umbrella 2c, in the 5th and 6th sermons, that repentance (I do not say sacramental, that is, receiving the grant of a sensually perceptible sign 2c) embraces the whole life of the faithful. For it shuns evil and turns to good, it accepts chastisement, it does good to enemies, it guards against flattery and crushes arrogance. This pride, as the last thing, puts all righteous believers in ambush and so powerful that there is not a moment when the saints should not need humility and repentance.

But blessed is the soul, says Bernard, which boasts of this cross, and overcomes, only so that it may persevere in it. Therefore, let each one pray that he may not be taken away from this cross. The apostle Paul also reminded us that it is through God's good pleasure that we can take upon ourselves the cross of Christ, so that we may not weaken or fall away in the sufferings of our neighbor. And how much more in ours? since the sufferings that attack us are more burdensome and severe. Therefore, if we receive this strength from God

that we do not fall away, repentance 1) consists more in suffering than in doing; indeed, the act of repentance, if there is one, is based on suffering and goes back to it, as it were, as its source. For the apostle wrote thus for the sake of this thing: He had sent before [Eph. 3:13], I have asked that ye might not be weary because of my afflictions; I have required your will, which ye have as a free one. But that what I have asked may be done [Eph. 3, 14-18.For this cause I bend my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he may give you strength to be strong, that you may not be weary; that he may give you strength to be strong through his Spirit, which is grace (note the shield of truth and the cross), and that Christ may dwell in the inner man through faith, that you may understand what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth. But when do you grasp this? Hear the apostle saying, "Let boasting be far from me, except in the cross of our God Jesus Christ; and let us also boast in the same. In it we find the breadth, the length, the height and the depth, for with these words the cross is set before us. For it has the breadth, to which the hands are fastened; it has the length, that from there to the earth the wood extends; it has the height, where the head of the crucified is; it has also the depth, that is, what is put into the earth and is not seen. Behold, what a great mystery! From what you do not see, the whole of what you see arises. The breadth is the love that alone works right; this makes a cheerful giver whom God loves. He who sows in blessing will also reap in blessing.

What is the length? He who perseveres to the end will be saved; this is the length of the cross, where the whole body is stretched out, where one stands to some extent if one perseveres in standing. If you want to boast of the breadth, have love, but boast so that you have received it from God. If you want the length of the cross, have perseverance. But if you want the height or loftiness of the cross, lift your heart upward. How upward? There hope, there love, from there ask for strength, there expect reward. Likewise, if you do not do all these things for the sake of eternal reward, 2) you will not be rewarded.

1) As an aside, the act of repentance refers to suffering.

2) According to what soon follows, God Himself is to be regarded as the eternal reward. Therefore, the text will probably not need any change here.

you will not have the height, and there will be neither the width nor the length. For what does "having the height" mean other than to think of God, to love God, and to love God in vain? to ask Him as a helper? finally to regard God Himself as a reward? to expect nothing else from Him but Himself? If you love, love in vain; if you truly love, he himself will be your reward. Blessed are they, O Lord, that dwell in thy house: for ever shall they praise thee. From the depths comes all that we are able. I can exclaim: How are thy works so great, how are thy thoughts so very deep! an unintelligent man knoweth it not, and a fool regardeth it not. A fool does not recognize it, because it is deep, therefore many, who wanted to give an account of this depth, have fallen into fables. Notice this, you scholastics. I do not want you to demand account from me about the depth. I am a man, I am mindful of the depths of the cross, I do not penetrate them; I shun them, but do not explore them; unfathomable are his judgments and inscrutable his ways. Man, who are you that you want to be right with God? Do not want to know what God has wanted to keep hidden. Ambrosius: Do not allow yourself to know the hidden things of God. This is from the 7th sermon of Augustine "on the words of the Apostle"; äs Aiatia X. Dsstum. Cap. XXV. XXVI. and in many other places, although Jerome and also Ambrose explain the Apostle's saying to the Ephesians [3, 18.] differently, D. Eck may like to read Augustin carefully and crucify his sentences, or at least allow them to be crucified.

When you consider the height of the cross, your propositions, especially those that attribute too much to the will an activity (activitatem) and a causing (elicitionem) (to speak with the expressions of Scotus), are lost. Of this kind are the fourth 3) sentence, which derives the being good (bonitatem) for an external action from God and from an internal action, as if God alone were not enough, and the 8. 15. 24. 32. 38. and 40. sentence of the second note. 4) These are truly to be crucified, that they may be humbled, that they may lift up the heart, for they enter into the movement of the heart, which they alone should pour out before God.

If you consider the breadth, you may crucify the theses which you have set up about repentance. For just as the whole life of the

3) In Löscher and Walch erroneously the second; hence in Walch an unnecessary change of the text.

4) With this the first obelisk of Eck is meant, above which the second row of theses of this writing is placed.

If the world is full of repulsions for believers, it is also full of the twofold repentance of which we have spoken before; but you do not seem to have admitted it in your first remark. Likewise the sentences which you have attributed to me quite falsely, as if I had said that one should not pray for one's enemies, you may crucify. For the breadth extends to the love and benevolence against the enemies. So hang them up, pierce them and pin them with the nails of truth and brotherly love. But these are in the first row or note the sentences 14. 15. 18. 2c

If you look at the depths and pay closer attention, you will confess that everything we argue about comes from the election of grace, and that you have all too impudently claimed that the object of the election of grace is something foreign (extraneam) in relation to works and does not belong to it. For the apostle says [Eph. 2, 10.]: We are his workmanship, created for good works, which God has prepared that we should walk in them. Augustin says: He has decreed (praescivit) and predestined that He would give good works to the elect. Why do you deny that the election of grace belongs to good works and that it is intrinsic to them? For this, that God justifies, He does in secret; for it is because we are justified that good works begin; not because they precede, that we are justified. For if grace were of works, it would already be no longer grace. The breadth has the perseverance.

Whoever does not take up this cross, in whatever form it may be presented to him, is not worthy of Christ. Therefore, it is not a true repentance that does not have humility, love and perseverance. There is no man on earth who is righteous and does not repent; but there is also no righteous man who does not always repent.

We have noted the above for V. Eck and the students with different concern, but with the same intention: so that the students would have something to read at the same time, but D. Eck would see the general refutation of his propositions.

D. Ecks IX.

And it is quite astonishing that he calls this a penance, and yet the Church asks that this be averted from the people of God, which, as he assures afterwards, lasts with the good throughout life.

And I can't help but wonder with D. Eck about the one who wonders so finely. He has sharpness of mind, reverses the context

of the refutation, and secretly stings. But I knew, dear D. Eck, before I made the attempt, that a scorpion lies under every stone; therefore I procured the oil, by which its sharp poison is removed, before I touched this stone.

To get behind the matter, I did not say, D. Eck, that the Church asks that God avert the penance (the prayer of the Church is clear enough), but that God avert the scourges; 1) something else [it would be if said:] the penance; as penance and scourge are two different things.

It does not move you that I have quoted from the prayer of the church that the faithful and just people ask that he may turn away the scourge of wrath, as in my 111th thesis 2) has the very clear wording (linea). Thus, on the Saturday before the 1st Sunday in Lent, the Church prays: And graciously turn away from him the blows of thy wrath; since elsewhere she prays that she may be mended by the gracious (pio) blows. The Church suffers merciful blows, but prays that she may be delivered from the strokes of wrath. But since you spurn, scorn and despise the holy prayers of the Church, I hold up to you the canonical Scriptures. Have you not noticed that somewhere in the same context the righteous and holy David says: He is prepared for scourging (made for suffering), and his pain is always before him? Since in the beginning of the same psalm [38.] he prays thus: O Lord, punish me not in thy wrath, and chasten me not in thy fury. He prays, says Chrysostom, that he may not be punished in anger, that is, severely, nor chastised in wrath, that is, without mercy. This is not a commandment, he says, of a man who does not want to be punished and refuses to be chastised. To this I could add what Augustine wrote, and I could add what Chrysostom said in the 66th Homily ad populum, but stronger is the saying of Jeremiah, who says: "I know, O Lord, that man's doings are not in his power" 2c, and immediately adds: Chasten me, O Lord, but in judgment, not in anger. This testimony you see in Jerome, then also in Augustin <le xsoo. ras. lid. II, oup. XVII, from which it is clear that the Church asks because she desires that the scourge of wrath, not penance, be averted. This is the appropriate answer

1) Instead of averti will probably have to read avertst.

2) The 10th thesis of the second row in the previous scripture.

3) oratio, not ratio. (Walch.)

to what has been set up above. You see that you do not celebrate a scripture twister. I have said nothing about mine. Consider whether you are not to be pitied, since you fight with me with closed eyes, after the fashion of an Andabata. 1)

D. Ecks X.

For since the understanding of the sayings must be taken from the things that are to be spoken of (ex causis dicendi), D. Bodenstein should have rightly considered which penance we were arguing about.

You present what is known and quite true, so that even a legal scholar writes that the force and power of the laws lie in the intention or in the thing that must be spoken of. This matter, which should have been spoken against (causam contradicendi), I have considered quite well in your rebuke. I have considered that your whole purpose was to prove completely and without distinction that not all or the whole life of believers is repentance, and against this you argue from near and from far, and indeed with all your strength. But I hold with the Scriptures that the whole life of believers is a repentance, as I have stated again.

D. Ecks XI.

For when he thought of the repentance of which our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, Repent 2c, I, having a different opinion from him, evidently spoke of the repentance which is done by us, not of that by which we suffer.

Here you name the thing which is to be talked about. I have taken from this the meaning of your sayings. I have perceived that you are chattering thoughtlessly [deviated] from the path of truth, that you say that because of the sacrament of penance you cannot see how penance can express the whole life of believers.

You, too, should have remembered the teaching that a proposition is understood according to the antecedent propositions from which it is inferred; that is, how others pronounce it: The statement of a teacher must be understood according to the cited texts.

I could say something about the citation of the saying of Christ, but since I see that you contradict more from your head than from the saying of Christ, this is not necessary. But I see

1) Andabata, a Roman gladiator who fought blindfolded.

2) praemissas, not praeoruissas (Walch).

various citations in the Church Fathers, which I will communicate when I am prompted to do so.

Since Christ says: Repent, he shows what we have to ask from him. He does not say that free will can repent of itself, but rather he says: Without me you can do nothing.

D. Ecks XII.

Therefore, it is clear that the collections and prayers of the church are not only not against me, but rather that they are attracted in an improper manner. For the Church prays that God may protect us from impending dangers etc.

The sharp-witted swordsman D. Eck, who touches the arrow thrown into him, but hides the pain of the wound, says that the collections are not against him, and yet he tries to undo them, as can be seen in the 9th and 14th sentences. Here he throws himself on the other side. He says that the collections are not against him; and by thus resisting the knot by which he is bound, he is tied more tightly and becomes entangled in his own rope.

But it is against D. Eck the prayers of the church, which we read in our theses 102. 103. 105. 106. 110 and in others, which in brief say this: The church, gathered together, says in truth: We sinners ask you, hear us. If all and every individual, as many as are in the Church of God, confess and speak with truth that they are sinners, then it follows that the whole life of the faithful is in need of repentance for sins. D. Eck says nothing about this. For the Church does not speak of sacramental penance. Moreover, the Church asks that God's people be cleansed from the sins that are in them, not from those that will be in them. These are words and requests of a penitent, which I have proved from the penitential psalm. But D. Eck goes straight through and believes that it is enough for his fight if he laughs at the holy prayers of the church and denies them according to his liking, but finally [says] that there is nothing fighting against him, because he denies that it is fighting [against him].

D. Eck, tell me, when the general church is assembled and says: We sinners ask you, hear us; whether it speaks the truth or not? If the truth: whether it is the prayer of a penitent or not? If you admit that it is (the prayer of) a penitent, say: whether it is of one who does sacramental penance? If it is the prayer of one who does sacramental penance, provide one who is not included (extruuuiusrariuiu), who could absolve. But

you will not be able to provide such a one. Since I have accepted all the assembled believers and [shown that] they all ask for forgiveness of sins, but no one can absolve himself with others, you will consequently admit a penance that is not sacramental, but still, because all believers pronounce this word in prayer: We sinners 2c, so you will admit that the life of all believers will be put under the penance.

Likewise, say whether all of God's people speak the truth (namely, the universal Church): We deserve chastisement (flagella)? If it is true, because the Church says so, then you will consequently admit that all believers repent. If you refuse, listen to the Church, which on Thursday in Quinquag. says: God, who is offended by guilt, is appeased by repentance; and shortly thereafter: The scourge of wrath, which we deserve for our sins, turn away. Behold, the Church confesses offending guilt, and the word of appeasing repentance pronounces God's people whole and entire; otherwise the Church would say: Behold the prayer of a part of thy people. Actually, then, God's people (namely, the Church) includes all believers; they cry out and confess that they deserve the scourges of God's wrath and that they repent of their guilt by asking God to remit it; but there is nothing in the prayer about a absolving priest. You will therefore admit that there is a penance that is not sacramental, that takes place daily, that encompasses the entire life of the faithful, and that the church collections cited against you are really against you. From this and what is still to be proven, it is obvious that you are bound. You yourself try to untie the knot, but you would have better concealed the following sentence.

D. Ecks XIII.

Therefore, he should not have guessed a solution for me without books, since in a confessed matter no solution is necessary. What is bound must be solved; he had not bound anything and is looking for the solution. If such a solution had been necessary, then I would have wanted to answer him abundantly with God's help and grace.

I suspected that you would respond to the collections in which the whole multitude of believers say that they repent of their sins and trespasses. I confess that it is true that the church asks to be freed from the sins that are coming, not from the guilt that is in her, namely that the general church does not live in her.

She asks that she be protected, so that it will not be in her. Thus I have answered for you, and, as I suspected that you would answer, so you have indeed answered, as all those judge who understand your 20th and 21st sentences.

D. Ecks XIV.

However, we deny that he claims in the letter that the Church prays only for the righteous, since he uses the prayer: Purify 1) etc.

In the ninth sentence, Eck was blind because of too much love for his sentences. In this sentence he has taken lynx eyes and sees what is not in the nature of things, and fights fiercely with every kind of weapon, he tries it in every way. But he also plays the role of the giants Enceladus and Porphyrion, who attacked Jupiter and wanted to storm it down from heaven, because in my theses, especially the 112th and 113th, he sees, fights and destroys such things, which, if I had set them up, would certainly bring me out of the kingdom of heaven, that is, out of the church of the faithful, where I would not be able to get along again. For he presumes to interpret to me that I wrote that the church prays only for the righteous, and therefore he rightly denies it. As if I had thrown to the winds the Gospel, the Apostles and the Doctors of the Church, in which we read: Love your enemies; likewise: Pray for those who persecute and blaspheme you.

Did you have to look for a reason to contradict from the church prayer that I cited against you? With this work you do not seek the truth, but rather try to desecrate the collections. This sentence is therefore to be marked with a murdering spike 2) (obelo) in front of it, so that the readers know that you have imposed on the church as well as on me what we have not thought of.

Finally, I ask D. Eck to search through all my theses and to bring up just one syllable from them, by which he could support his wrong opinion, to which he has twisted the healthy words of the church. But why does he resist so wilfully? To have something he could say? what he could bite?

1) This refers to the Collecte mentioned in the 11th thesis of the 2nd row on Thursday after the 3rd Sunday in Lent. The following on the 15th thesis same there. Therefore must be read here instead of: kuriüeat - ?uriüea.

2) An allusion to the name "Obelisk", which. Eck had given to his notes. Cf. the note to the title of No. 29 in this volume.

D. Ecks XV.

Yes, the holy and most loving Mother, the Church, often prays also for sinners whose hearts she wants to see purified, yes, she prays also for the unbelieving and faithless Jews.

Who dares to deny that we must pray for the unbelievers, Jews and enemies? For the enemies who do not want to live rightly (bene), we are obliged to pray that God's mercy may precede them, namely, that God may work in them the will; but for the righteous we pray that God's mercy may succeed them, namely, that what they will may be done by Him [God], through whom it is worked that they will. Augustin Lnoli. oap. XXXII; oontra ckulian. lib. IV, oap. Ill, L; aä Lonikao. oontra ckua8 6pLst. lib. I, oap. XIX; lib. II, oap. IX, X; äs ckono p6r86V6ran. oup. XX, XXIII; äs ^ra6ck68tin. 8anotor. oap. VIII. XI; äs vera IQQ066N. oap. 0611.

D. Ecks XVI.

Therefore, the name of the faithful also includes sinners, because St. Gregory I, in the Homily on Virgins, says that the Kingdom of Heaven refers to the present Church, in which foolish virgins are also found.

I do not deny that those are called believers and elect who are known to be baptized and to live rightly, but many of them are among the number of foolish virgins, and have not burning lamps, but are wicked and tares. They are believers and Christians in name, but in reality they are far from it. But I am talking about believers who are believers in fact and in name, who are made white by Christ's blood, who are God's elect, none of whom are lost, who belong to the number of saints of whom John writes: 1) They came out from us, for they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would certainly have remained with us. For these believers, the Church prays especially that they may be purified, as I said in my 113th and 114th thesis 2). For what I have just said, read carefully Augustine: cke oorrep. st grat. Cap. 7.8. 9.; "of Wednesday" Cap. 5.

1) This saying, as Walch already remarks, is quoted because of those who remain.

2) In the 12th and 13th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous number.

D. Ecks XVII.

For faith is not lost by any mortal sin, as love is, but by unbelief, although the saints sometimes give their name to the faithful in a narrower way from complete faith (fide formata). 3)

Faith, of which Paul and then his interpreter in this doctrine (materia) of faith, Peter, spoke, is cast out by every sin by which love is lost, 4) although the scholastics deny this, for faith is active through love. If you take away love, you also take away grace; this is the first thing. Second, the righteous lives by faith. Third, justification comes by faith. Fourth, faith is counted for righteousness to every believer; therefore, whatever takes away justification takes away faith. Fifth, by faith the hearts of the righteous are purified, who live by faith; then also faith is grace. Sixth, David asks of the Lord that faith may be given him according to his mercy, saying, Make me alive according to thy great mercy, and I will keep the testimonies of thy mouth; likewise: Give me understanding, and I will search in thy law. The apostle also bears witness to this opinion, saying: "For by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; not from works, lest anyone should boast. When the foregoing is well considered, it is clear that the apostle ascribes faith to grace, so that all faith is grace. But I am speaking of the faith by which we give healthy applause to the truth, by which we believe in God, by which the righteous live, for whose sake alone they are believers before God 5) who believe and are righteous. I do not care about the scholastics' reasons of formed (formata), unformed (informi) and acquired (acquisita) faith. The faithful have their name from the faith through which Christ dwells in the hearts of the faithful, not from the faith that men obtain from their works. But of these believers the prayer of the Church is: Purify the hearts of believers 2c

3) The fides formata of the papists includes love, and justifies for the sake of love. Cf. the Concordia Book, St. Louis edition, p. 81; I. T. Müller, p. 107.

4) Marginal gloss: Truly! a golden saying.

5) Walch: Perhaps: chosen.

D. Ecks XVIII.

But even if it is admitted that the Church prays in this prayer only for the faithful righteous, it is wrongly concluded that they have sin for their sake, because the Church prays that they may be purified.

Only unclean things are purified, since, according to Chrysostom, sins do to souls what filth and diseases do to bodies. Heal my soul, for against you I have sinned; so the righteous, who can be cleansed, has sin from which he is cleansed. But who doubts that sins make the spirit of man unclean, and that nothing can be cleansed except what is unclean? with what dialectician should this conclusion not hold? That righteous man must be cleansed, therefore he is unclean; but Job says that no one is clean from filth. Did Christ conclude wrongly when he said: The healthy do not need a physician, but on the contrary, the sick need a physician?

If D. Eck is not ashamed to publish these trivial antics, what would he do in an oral argument? For there we all have greater freedom, even if we do not let ourselves be driven in with conclusions (quamquam inconclu- sibiles); there the unlearned crowd shouts, even if there is no victory, that he has carried off the palm of victory whom he hears shouting the strongest. For such a judgment has the uneducated (amusa) simplicity.

D. Ecks XIX.

Since it could also be understood from the pleasure adhering to punishment (poenali) and the things quite remote from our will (pure involuntariis), creeping over us unnoticed (surreptionibiis), not from an act burdening us with guilt (criminoso actu), which alone is actually sin. For lust is rather called a daughter of sin, although it is sometimes also called sin in a broader sense.

If the prayer: Purify the hearts of the faithful, could be understood by lust, the implication would still stand that it defiled, if for its sake some had to be purified. But to other matters; to the point. Notice, sincere reader, according to D. Eck's wretched opinion, nothing is called sin in the proper sense, but a crime, as if only a great, tremendous sin or crime were actually sin. For he was not ashamed to write like that.

He accuses all those of improper speech (improprietatis) who call minor sins, venial sins, absolute and actual sins. Did Cyprian, for example, clumsily call sins in the holy Lord's Prayer the daily sins for whose forgiveness we daily ask? Or did Chrysostom do this in a useless way, who wrote the same abundantly? Or in an indelicate and crude way the so very delicate and learned Jerome? Or Augustine in a bad way? Or Bernard in an inauthentic way? Or Cassianus in a foolish way? and so all the others? Beware all of you, teachers of the Church! Your speech has a severe judge. Consider the apostle who wrote: I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; and shortly after, If I do that which I would not, it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in my flesh. How evil he, according to D. Eck, he called sin what he does against his will, even with reluctance evil, which he does not want! Beware also, Apostle James, that you have inculcated in us a speech that is inauthentic in word and content; but you have also taught evil when you write: Lust, when it is conceived, begets sin; but sin, when it is finished, begets death. But come also thou, O Christ, and hear that even thou hast spoken falsely, since thou hast immediately added after the mighty short pattern of prayer which is given to the righteous: For if you forgive men their trespasses, the Father will also forgive you your trespasses, from which it is evident that you reproached us with the fact that the trespass of which you had said before was sin. Why did you speak so inauthentically? But is it really, why does D. Eck bark against you? In order that he may say that the subreptiones of lust is only inauthentic sin, of which your saints and righteous ask to be forgiven as sin and guilt, since they are, as it were, frail in your righteousness by resisting these sins of lust. May Augustine, who was bitten (morsus), also be silenced, who said: If, because of the frailty of the flesh, reprehensible and ungodly movements "creep in" (subrepunt), we sin and for this reason we need the prayer: Forgive us our trespasses. David may also suffer, for he says inauthentically: Remember not the sins of my youth and ignorance; likewise: Lead my soul out of trouble. I have now briefly touched on this, but have written it in more detail in my First Theses, which we have written for D. Eck, when he

who desire to be released. Let not those be unclean who ask to be delivered from the evil of lust? let not those be unclean who pray: But deliver us from evil? Because Eck says this and Augustine agrees with it "of infant baptism" Book 3, Cap. 4 and elsewhere, and "against Julian" Book 6, Cap. 11, where Augustine declares that the apostle spoke the above in the person of others.

Of lust I say that it is sin according to Augustine. First, because it is made by sin, as by the Scriptures that which is made with the hand is called a hand, and speech, in so far as it is produced by the tongue, is called a tongue. Secondly, it is called sin because it is moved by pleasure in sin. Third, because it does sin and gives birth to sin, and instills evil in us against our will, and through rebellion plunges us into guilt if we are not freed by the assistance of grace, and because it is sin to consent to the same. There is more about this in the Firstfruits Theses. [This is from proven church scholars.

D. Ecks XX.

Even if it were understood by accomplished desire, D. Bodenstein's conclusion that the church asks that the righteous be cleansed from punishment, not from guilt, since he already no longer has it, would not yet stand.

Here we see that today 1) a new kind of purification is given to us for nothing, as far as what D. Eck has just mentioned is concerned. The Church asks that the hearts of the faithful be cleansed from lust; D. Eck, in his usual manner, says that the Church asks to be cleansed from the punishment of lust, not from the guilt of it. This we, I and the Doctors of the Church, did not know, namely, that the Church asks to be cleansed from some blow (verbere); for we meant that a blow with a beating does not punish, but the cause for which the blow is given.

To the matter. The righteous God does not strike an innocent with punishment, since Daniel says: "Because of our sins you have brought all this evil upon us, and the Church says that no wickedness would harm if there were no wickedness. Likewise it says: Turn away the scourges which we deserve; and if you want to see that which deserves the scourges, turn your eyes to the beginning of the prayer: God, who is offended

1) Here we have, just as the old Walch edition, from weggelaffen.

by guilt 2c, it is said; as in the 106th thesis 2), where I have stated, it is said: we deserve, not: we have deserved. So it is a present guilt which is earned. For D. Eck serves Cap. 35. 3) [in Augustine's writing] "of the doctrines of the church".

D. Ecks XXI.

But if we were to concede this to D. Bodenstein as well, his conclusion would still be invalid (frigrida), since the church asks that the righteous be cleansed from earthly lust by protection from it, which is more excellent than by healing; but every scholar easily sees that I have nullified those thorny writings.

Our cold conclusion I want to make warm with God's help by Cap. 1. at the end [of the Scripture) äs spir. et lit. I cannot make the truth entirely free from thorns; that saint in misery was converted when he was pricked by a thorn. If then thou mockest me, I confess that I am thorny; and if I were not, and would not confess it, how then should the rock become a refuge to hedgehogs? I will glory in this, that I see Christ wearing a crown of thorns, that he may destroy, blot out, and break my thorns.

To the matter. See, dear Eck, whether I have erred in the 110th thesis 4), whether it is a void assumption; for you think that the church confesses that the righteous are protected from sins, but not that they are righteous and sinners at the same time. But what do you want to say to what is stated in the 105th thesis 5): Let us abstain from harmful vices, where the church asks that the righteous also abstain from harmful vices? So she confesses that the righteous commit vices and harmful things, because she says: Your people 2c, and understands this also of the people, which is in fact God's people. What do you want to answer? What do you want to say to the apostle John: If we say we have no sin, the truth is not in us? "We have," he says; you do not read, If we say that we can have, or: that we are guarded by God's grace, so that we do not have 2c, but: If we say that we do not have etc.). What does having sin mean other than that sin is inherent? Shortly thereafter, it is said that God forgives those who

2) The 5th thesis of the 2nd row.

3) The same chapter of the same book of Augustine is mentioned again below at the 41st sentence of Eck. We therefore assume that 6 XXXV is set instead of 6. XXXV.

4) The 9th thesis of the 2nd row.

5) The 4th thesis of the 2nd row.

the sins they confess. What will you say to this: the righteous man is his own accuser at the beginning of his speech? He accuses himself either falsely, that he has sin, or with truth. Falsely? Then you will admit that he lies and is not a righteous man, but an ungodly one, because the mouth that speaks lies kills his soul, especially when he lies. But if you admit that a righteous man accuses himself with truth, it follows that the righteous man has sin and is a sinner.

D. Ecks XXII.

Furthermore, when he asks Eck 1) what the church prays for other than that the righteous may be cleansed from the building by which the righteous build wood, hay and stubble on faith in Christ, Eck answers this question without hesitation that the church quite rightly prays in such a way that venial sins, which are the lighter ones, such as hay 2c, are remitted at the prayer of the church, so that the righteous may not suffer in purgatory the punishments they deserve.

Do you not now warm to the cold conclusion? For you admit in this thesis that the venial sins of the righteous are remitted at the prayer of the church; you admit, then, that the righteous have inherent guilt, although you said a moment before that the church asks that the righteous be protected from guilt, but not that the righteous be cleansed from their inherent guilt.

But what you introduce about the terror or fear of the righteous, that they would be punished by purgatory because of their guilt and sins, I would go further if this argument contained this in itself. But your opinion seems to find support in this word: Lord, do not punish me in your wrath, according to the interpretation of Augustine.

D. Ecks XXIII.

But not only this, but also other things the church asks, that the faithful may be cleansed from the construction by which they build up iron, ore or lead, namely harder and heavier mortal sins, as in the prayer for the people: Rid us, we ask you, Lord, from the bonds of our sins 2c Likewise: We beseech thee, O Lord, absolve us in mercy from all our sins. But I do not want to increase the army of my sentences with collections, as D. Bodenstein has done.

1) In the 15th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.

If you have brought this doctrine to the present matter, namely, that the righteous build mortal sins on the faith of Christ, I do not accept it unwillingly to hurl it back at you, for it is hearty (animosa). And I did not dare to say this from the dialogue of Jerome quoted, although I had more suspected than fully understood that the righteous could sin mortally and yet righteousness would remain. But this I know, namely, that it is very difficult for the righteous to distinguish whether their guilt is venial or mortal; but you had established this quite heartily, if you had only stayed with the matter at hand.

With regard to the collections, prove that they are not the prayers of the righteous. For he who accuses himself of his sins is righteous; he does good who comes to the light so that his works may be revealed, and God is faithful who forgives the sins of the one who confesses them. These are actually the prayers of the righteous, through which the Church asks that sins be blotted out. However, I do not want to sink into the stream of oblivion that you quite obviously ridicule the collections, as if they were too tasteless, yes, too small and unworthy to prove your opinion.

D. Ecks XXIV.

But I do not despise the opinions of others. For Mr. 2) Erasmus leads from the first [book] of St. Jerome Wider Joviman an excellent opinion, and St. Ambrose, as well as some others, interprets the apostle's word of hay and stubble of evil doctrines, gold and silver of sound doctrines. Let us both run, dear D. Bodenstein, and let you also see [something] (da tu), my friend!

Also Augustin does not despise the opinions of others, if it is so with the darkness of the scripture, because it is difficult that it gives only one understanding. However, whatever understanding may come out, it must agree with the rule of faith.

But that you secretly accuse me of an innovation in the Scriptures (novitatis scripturarum), I bear patiently, but I do not judge that they are new teachings, which the prophets, the evangelists, the apostles and the church teachers gave us as rules before your teaching came into existence.

2) The D. can possibly also be called Desiderius.

D. Ecks XXV.

We therefore do not deny, but rather confess most strongly, that the Holy Mother, the Church, asks that her members be purified and the branches be cut out (pur^url), as we have already admitted before that a different kind of purification is necessary for us.

He admitted before that the saints are not cleansed from inherent guilt, but guarded so that it does not dwell 2c; afterwards he contradicted fund said] The righteous have venial sins, which even the scholastics must admit.

Our will, for whom Christ is the vine and the heavenly Father is the vinedresser, still needs purification, so it is impure; it is therefore "a fruit-bearing branch that needs purification. He who bears no fruit in Christ is spoken of before in the text Jn. 15. If D. Eck agrees with me with the holy scripture, then it is dear to me, I accept it, and I wish him luck.

D. Ecks XXVI.

And the kind of purification of which we have thought, D. Bodenstein here willingly admits, since all believers still have the old man about them from sin (vetustatem relictam 1), which A[urelius] Augustine in his time called sin from just causes, but this is no longer in use in our time.

If D. Eck admits that the righteous saints here have guilt and actual sins from which they ask to be cleansed, then he is of my mind, and that is right (bene); but if it is otherwise, then he holds it neither with the truth nor with me, which is sufficiently proven from what has been said before.

But there is an old life (vetustas) left in the inner man from sin, namely an evil and impure one, of which the apostle says: The inner man is renewed from day to day. Truly, he who is still being renewed day by day is not yet completely renewed, and insofar as he is not yet renewed, he is still in the old life. Therefore, according to what is still in the old life, even though he is baptized, he is still a child of this world; but insofar as he is in the new life (novitate), insofar he is a child of God. The same apostle commanded that we should put off the old man with his works, and put on the new man, who is created according to God in righteousness and holiness.

1) In the 22nd thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.

lness. So the righteous, who is renewed daily, has the evil old life daily; therefore he is not completely pure, is still a child of the world. From the way of speaking below.

D. Ecks XXVII.

For what is the old life of sin but a tyrant, and the law of the members the evil desire, which rages in us, promotes evil, hinders the good? And this is sown in us from the old sin of Adam through original sin.

This proposition is based on the preceding. Of the difference of the old life, likewise, what a difference is between the lust and the old life and how they take place in a twofold man, I have written very abundantly in the proofs of our first thesis, but the preceding may suffice. Because of one difference one can see: Augustin "Against Julian", book 6, cap. 5.

D. Ecks XXVIII.

But this, as we have often mentioned, is not actually to be called sin, but rather a punishment, whether it incites sin or promotes it, since it remains in a baptized child.

I have quoted to D. Eck the book of Augustin "von der Kindertaufe", book 2, cap. 7. If he had read it with the following, he would have kept this and similar sentences in his bookcase. But what to think of this opinion is obviously according to what is said before about the evil desire.

D. Ecks XXIX.

For in such a child there is actually no sin; not the original sin, because this is washed away by baptism; not the real (aotual sin), because it does not yet have the use of its reason. Now when sin is spoken of in him, it comes from an extrarial designation, in that an expression is used that designates where it comes from, or what it will come to. 2)

As in baptized children lust (the imputation of which is extinguished, but it itself is not yet buried) is called sin, we have

2) tsrmini 6 yiio vsl aä Husm. L Huo, because it has sinful origin. Husm, because it will become a sinner.

already mentioned. But that they have no sin of their own will, Augustin "von der Kindertaufe", book 1, in the 35th and in the last chapter, and de bono persev., cap. 12, and also Jerome at the end of the dialogue against Pelagius seem to assert. But I believe that it is a different question whether a man is without sin of his own will, and whether he is wholly (absolutely) without sin. Therefore, since this proposition does not belong to the main part of our dispute, I have not been allowed to touch upon it, but if the opportunity arises, with God's help we will diligently pursue it.

D. Ecks XXX.

For so we must not let sin reign in our mortal body, that we obey its lusts, for this sin is in our members, but it does not reign if its lusts are not obeyed, Augustine says.

The righteous, by the grace of God, resist the sin that is in the flesh, that it may not reign; they take away the dominion, that what it commands may not come to pass, but yet have sin in their members. For thus saith the apostle, Sin therefore shall not reign in our mortal body. He does not say, Let there not be sin, but let it not reign. The wrath rises: Give him not the tongue to revile; no unreasoning wrath would rise, if sin were not in the members. Augustine on John 1, tract. 41; äs vsrbis ^post., 12th Homily; and Epistle 200. You see that it is something else to have sin and to perform sin (partum), and something else to allow sin to reign; you see also that anger is evil. I did not say that sin reigns in the righteous, but that very often the righteous fight against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit, so that they do not do what they want. They have evil desire, but do not let the desire rule. I am surprised that D. Eck reads Augustine so carelessly, but it is not to be wondered at, because only a crime is true sin with him and in a real way. This [take] with patience [auf] , elsewhere we want to bring forward more.

D. Ecks XXXI.

Therefore, the church rightly asks to be renewed in the spirit of the mind 1) and to attract the new man, so that thus

1) In the 23rd thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.

with the second Adam the spirit has the supremacy, but the law of the members, which has passed from the first Adam to us, which contradicts the law of our God, is subdued.

If D. Eck thinks that when Christ, who is the second Adam, renews the spirit of our mind and looks at us as the new man, grace thus has supremacy in us and insofar as the contradictory law does not give rise to sin, then he, together with Pelagius, places men, as it were, among the angels. Let D. Eck consult Augustine Against Julian, Book 6, Cap. 5; if he has read this carefully, but also understood it, then let him answer. He sees to it that he does not make man godlike (xxxxxxx), and

tries to escape the truth by a new trick. For if he claims that the righteous man is not a sinner and in truth has no sins, he will hardly be able to escape this rebuke.

D. Ecks XXXII.

Likewise, we admit that it is a glorious penance to confess sins, 2) if there is nothing else in the way (ceterisparibus); but we cannot actually confess infirmities, since not what we suffer ((passiones), but only sins are the object with which penance has to do (materia circa quam).

This may go with other similar things. But the fact that he denies that we actually have to confess our weaknesses shows what he knows from the apostle, the prophets and the church teachers. The apostle likes to boast 3) of his weaknesses so that the power of Christ may dwell in him; the power becomes mighty in weakness. Weak is everyone who is content with God's grace; those who are not content with it are not weak, they have no weaknesses. But what is weak before God is stronger than people. The weak need a physician, therefore it is said: Heal me, O Lord, for I am weak. Behold, dear D. Eck, the righteous confesses his weakness and is healed. Whatever weakness may happen to us (vento adfe- ratur), it must be confessed, so that we may be driven by God's Spirit. I could say many more things, but I will leave it at that.

2) In the 24th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.

3) We have, just as the old edition, drawn ludenter not to the previous, but to this sentence.

D. Ecks XXXIII.

But that alms, fasting and prayer are remedies for venial sins, 1) we admit; but if he wants to exclude mortal sins, that they are not cured by them, we do not accept his statement.

How remitted mortal sins may be redeemed by alms 2c, to state this here would lead too far. But that by the alms of an ungodly and unbeliever his own sins are remitted, I deny completely, because nothing is pure for the unclean and unbelievers, but both their mind and conscience are unclean [Tit. 1,15.], and because everything that does not come from faith is sin [Rom. 14, 23.]. The life must therefore first be corrected, then God is to be reconciled for past sins through almsgiving, according to the saying [Matth. 23, 26.]: Purify the inward things, and the outward things will also become pure. For one must first show justice (judicium) and love, then also not leave alms pending. Students may consult Augustine in Enchir. Cap. 70. 75. 76. 77. But the alms given by a gross sinner (criminoso) serve to make him less punished. For Fabricius will suffer less punishment than Catilina; not because the latter is good, but because the latter is more wicked, and Fabricius less impious than Catilina. Augustin against Julian, Book 4, Cap. 3, v. 6t. D. Eck may look, and he will find what I mean.

D. Ecks XXXIV.

Since they belong to atonement, as the third part of penance, but the sacrament of penance, as A[urelius] Augustine considered it, is ordered against mortal sins, although those three things do not in themselves expiate guilt, but the punishment of sin.

The first part of this sentence is refuted by what has been said before, and enough has been said about it and about the second part in the preceding. The third part, however, requires examination, since it is written: Give alms, and everything will be pure for you. Likewise: Alms wipes out sin. But I have never read that punishments stain the penitent, but often that certain punishments are purifying, and that all those which are borne with patience in this life are purifying, I see written quite unanimously. The fire proves the potter's vessels, and the trial of affliction proves the penitent's vessels.

1) In the 29th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.

The fire will prove the rightness of a man and the nature of his work. But if a man's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, even as through the fire. This also I hold: He who purifies does not make innocent.

D. Ecks XXXV.

Therefore, although Nebuchadnezzar had sinned mortally, Daniel still advised him that he should redeem his sins with alms. Likewise, our Lord Jesus Christ said: "This kind of evil spirit is not cast out except by prayer and fasting.

This is sufficiently clear from what I have stated in the 23rd sentence, for God first judges the person in Christ. Afterwards, He establishes the works in which one must walk. Another text says this quite clearly: God saw Abel and his sacrifices. For since he wanted to say that the Lord looks at the sacrifices, he carefully prefixed: He looks at Abel. The sacrifices of the wicked are truly an abomination to God. He says: If you spread out your hands, I will turn my face away from you. The gifts of the wicked are not regarded by the Most High. Likewise: I will accept the face of Job, so that your foolishness will not be imputed to you, about which Gregory is to be consulted, about Job, Book 35, Cap. 5.

D. Ecks XXXVI. 2)

Since the church at war never lacks people who sin, it is rightly always in need of repentance as long as it is at war, but it is not rightly concluded from this that the whole life of the faithful is a repentance.

Since all who are rightly disputing in the disputing church sin in disputing, and all who belong to the disputing church are actually and in truth sinners, and for that reason need daily repentance, it is rightly concluded that all or the whole life of believers is a repentance.

D. Ecks XXXVII. 3)

That the growth of love through our guilt (vitio) is missing, if he understands by guilt the sin that makes us worthy of the eternal punishment and hatred of God, I do not accept, because St. Michael lacked the growth of grace before the perfection without guilt.

2) Against the 27th thesis of the 2nd row in the previous scripture.

3) Against the 28th thesis of the 2nd row.

If D. Eck had read Augustin, he would not have doubted what has been mentioned, but would have written that this guilt is actually sin, according to the law of God, even if it is different according to D. Eck. Eck it behaved differently. But it was stated: Augustin äs ssuten." llaoodi, book 2, cap. 10. I add for the blamers: Augustin äs p6oo. insr., book 2, cap. 17. 19 and 20. The last chapter äs spir. st lit. deals with it more extensively. What is stated about St. Michael is unseemly.

D. Ecks XXXVIII.

It can be assumed, however, in the sense that through our fault (vitio) the growth of grace is lacking, that is, that from our imperfection, which we suffer from a faulty desire (ex vitiosa concupiscentia), we receive a lesser grace, for it is clear from Augustine (from whom this sentence is taken) that he calls "fault" (vitium) the tinder of evil.

Behold, he confesses that Augustin was cited to him, but he did not want to understand him according to the writings cited by him, so that he could all the more freely chatter away what he dreams, but I understand the teachers according to the cited sayings, judging from these about their interpretation and the conclusions [drawn from them], according to my 2. 3. 2c thesis.

It is not only through the guilt of the desire that dwells in the flesh, but also through the remnant of the old life that remains in the inner and spiritual man that the growth of love is lacking, so that all arrogance of the soul is subdued and everyone who prays knows that even if he prays, he does not do enough and sins. For there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin.

D. Ecks XXXIX.

From this it is sufficiently clear in what sense it is said that a good man sins in doing good, and that he is good and evil, since evil here expresses the human frailty that makes our works imperfect.

This and the preceding is sufficiently clear from what follows.

D. Ecks XL.

But no one, unless he is nonsensical, will admit that someone deserves eternal life by the same act by which he, like

In this sense, our fathers, the most proven theologians, have been talking for four hundred years with the benefit of souls.

If D. Eck accuses those of silliness who claim that there is sin in the proper sense in a good work, which he himself calls a meritorious one, then, according to the rule of the jurists who say that what is set at the beginning refers to everything that follows, which aims at the same purpose, I have certainly been quite silly, since I have actually called the lack of a good work sin, indeed I have written so.

But I would have considered it a very impudent presumption to deviate from the rule of the church's way of speaking and the word of God. For I have regarded the word of God as a guideline (gnomonem) and rule, which is given to the theologians, so that they may judge according to it everything they read or hear, whether it is true or false, actual or inauthentic, in the interpretation of the holy scripture. But since I do not see in D. Eck I have not a beginner but a ruler (imperatorem) over the sacred Scriptures, so I hear that my opinion 1) which I had formed about the Scriptures is silly. What consolation is there now? Must one follow D. Eck, who speaks his words, and not only speaks his own, but defends himself in such a way that he violates God's word and rule? What remedy is there for such a great disease, what deduction 2)? Dear D. Eck, I would rather speak with the Scriptures and have a right opinion with nonsense, than actually speak with you of sins and think evil of the Scriptures to the ruin of the soul, for I know that God has mentioned what is foolish in the sight of the world, so that he might put the women to shame. And what is foolish in the sight of God is wiser than the world. Take heed how firmly he holds his opinion, but let him know that he has spoken such things as would find credence with a deaf man. This good man would rather go around the trade by crooked detours, so that it may appear that he has won, than to keep the straight path. This is not to be wondered at, for who would gladly yield to another head? Who can? This I know (what Ambrose says), that God is not to be judged by foreign assertions, but by His words.

In short, D. Eck has not read, and no man of sound mind can in my thefen

1) sxiMmationsm, not sxtirnationsm. (Walch.)

2) Instead of sndäuurn, which does not exist, we assume sudclustulli in the sense of purganz.

That is why it is quite strange and improper, and serves no purpose, but it does serve a great purpose in making a great rant. Therefore, his refusal is something alien and improper and serves no purpose, but to make a great rant, it serves that purpose quite significantly. But I hold fast until I am better instructed by the law of God and the decisions of the Church that the sin of a righteous work or a good action, if God wanted to reckon it, is capable of plunging into damnation (regnet ad damnationem). For the Savior says: If you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your sins; that is condemnation, not forgiveness of sin. This, if my memory does not deceive me, Cyprian has clearly confirmed: But since the good work is found in a righteous and blessed man, God does not impute sin in this work, as the Scripture says: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin. He therefore admits 1) that he is blessed to whom the Lord does not impute sin or wrong. Therefore sin is found in the blessed, but it is not imputed, says Bernard. About this imputation elsewhere.

Sin in a good work or action is actually sin because Scripture calls it sin. Furthermore, it is written thus: There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin, therefore the righteous man actually sins in doing good, and if he did not confess that he sins, he would have a falsehood in the spirit and would not be blessed. The sin in a good deed is in a bad way actually sin. Likewise, it must be repented of, washed away by prayer, fasting, almsgiving and tears. For the sake of that guilt, God is offended and we deserve scourges, as the Church testifies. God, who is offended by guilt, she says; and shortly after: Turn away the scourges of your wrath, which we deserve for our sins (so the whole Church cries out altogether). This is testified by the righteous and holy prophet, when he says [Ps. 80, 5.]: O Lord God of hosts (virtutum), how long wilt thou be angry at the prayer of thy servant? Seest thou not that the servant of God, the servant of righteousness, not the servant of iniquity, lament that God is angry over his prayer? Is the prayer of the saint an evil work? Far be it from that. If it is a good work, why is God angry? Because there is guilt in it, the Church asks that, by pursuing or doing justice, she may be free from guilt. It

1) tatstur, not tatsntnr.

is therefore the guilt for which David confesses that God is angry. Augustine says: God is angry like a chastening father, not like a condemning judge. So in the good deed it is something that must be chastised and that deserves scourging; it is something for the sake of which God scourges every son whom He receives. Thus the righteous Jeremiah asks [Cap. 10, 24] that he may be chastened in judgment, not in anger. See Augustine in the psalm cited and Ezekiel, Book 2, Cap. 17, 16. Admit, then, that in a good action there is actually sin. Do not make uncertain what Scripture has made quite evident and what the church always confesses.

But since you say that proven theologians have been speaking the opposite for a long time with the profit of the souls, then list these proven people. I point out even more proven church teachers, yes, I know that one must speak with the holy scripture.

Moreover, even if I admit that they have been talking like this for four hundred years, I will not admit that in the meantime the pleading of the church has been silent and that their prayers have stopped, rather the Scriptures and the church have always resounded for more than eight hundred years.

Finally, I will not admit that a way of speaking contrary to the holy Scriptures of God is valid, nor will I admit that such a custom can be established through a thousand years. It is true that an ancient custom is considered a law when it has arisen through [good] customs, but not also when it has been adopted through error, through sins and without [sound] judgment.

But the apostle overturns every custom and declares it to be an abuse, as he says [Gal. 1:8]: "But if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed;" and shortly after [v. 12]: "For I received it from no man, nor learned it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Still more generally I say that reason and truth always exclude custom, therefore, where truth is revealed, custom must give way to truth. Thus Augustin says "of infant baptism Against the Donatists" Book 3, Cap. 8 and Book 7, Cap. 27: "In vain, therefore, do those who are instructed by reason oppose us to custom, as if custom were greater than truth, or as if in spiritual things we should not follow what has been revealed to us by the Holy Spirit for the best.

is. This is quite true, that truth and reason must be preferred to custom. But if truth comes to the aid of custom, then nothing must be held more firmly, says the same Augustine, äs duptis. sto.

Christ does not say to me: I am the custom, but: I am the truth. Therefore, surely he who despises the truth and fails to follow the custom is either envious of the brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God by whose inspiration the Church is instructed. Augustine "On Baptism Against the Donatists", book 6, cap. 35. 35. But who doubts that an evil custom is to be rejected as a harmful corruption? See then what your citation of four hundred years, as you say, helps your opinion. Now if the sayings thus quoted from Augustine seem to you to have greater prestige with Gratian, then see Cap. 8i oousustuäiusrn; Cap. Hui ooutsmptu, which words are not in the chapter. Likewise Augustin Cap. k'rustru and Cap. Älsla sutsui in the 8th Distinction.

As for what you say about the gain of souls, I call God to witness whether I have ever been able to understand true humility from the scholastics; but I see that it is praised in the church scholars according to divine Scripture, because they always make us sinners and incapable and weak. Let us therefore say, with the more approved, that in every good work there is sin.

D. Ecks XLI. 1)

Thus, one and the same cannot be called good and evil at the same time, because the good will enter eternal life, but the evil will enter eternal fire, since someone will not be sent to hell and heaven at the same time.

So Christ spoke inauthentically when he said [Matth. 7, 11.]: If you, who are bad, can give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to those who ask him? inauthentically the very eloquent Jerome, who says: Although someone is a prophet or an apostle, it is said to him by the Lord: If you, who are bad 2c Jerome "against the Pelagians", 3rd book, 7th conversation. Therefore also in fact the very careful Augustin, who says in the 54th letter: Man receives from God that he is good, but with regard to his own he is evil. As far as

1) Against the 34th thesis of the 2nd series.

If he does right, he is good, but if he sins, he is evil. But who is without sin in this life? The same Augustine ad Bon. against two letters, Book 3, Cap. 3. if they were not God's children, he would not say to them, Your Father who is in heaven, and yet he calls them evil. Read and you will see that you say quite badly that only those are called evil who deserve eternal fire. There you will find that not every sin makes one a child of the devil, but a child of the world. You will also find that every sin makes man evil. But all children of God sin in this life. More passages (allegata - citations) we have brought together in our firstfruits theses.

The scholastics conclude thus: All the righteous in this life are actually sinners and therefore 2) actually evil. Those who in truth, that is, really and truly, have sin, actually have sin and are actually evil. All holy and actually good children of God in this life truly have sin: thus all actually good and righteous children of God in this life actually have sin and are evil. This conclusion holds engraving (discursus tenet); you throw out the upper sentence if you don't want to argue about words. You are, of course, actually a man, because you are truly a man. I set up the subordinate clause according to the saying of John, who says: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. So, if the truth is in us, sin and the true and real essence of sin is in us. Namely, because you are truly a man, if you denied it, the truth would not be in you. Therefore, in order for the truth to be in us, we must have sin and confess it. But insofar as sin is in us, insofar we are evil, according to Augustine, as above. Note also, dear D. Eck, that he says: thus we deceive ourselves when we say that we have no sin, lest you bring upon yourself the stain of being a deceiver and washing dung with dung. But who will hear him who sets himself against this truth? Who will tolerate him? Who will not think that the privilege of speaking such things is not rather a sacrilegious wrong, if the Scripture is said to speak in such a way improperly (ita impropriare scripturam.).

Finally, I fear that D. Eck has fallen under the curse and ban, because everyone is supposed to be cursed,

2) subiliäs is probably used here in the sense of xroinäs.

who says that the saints, that is, the righteous, have no sin which God may forgive and cleanse them from, or that they pray this prayer: Salvage us our sins, for others not righteous, not prayed for themselves. Augustin de Ecclesiast. dogma. 1) Cap. 35, 36 and 86.

each of us watch and judge between us. But this I have mentioned, so that the well-bred (morsus) D. Eck might be transplanted into the garden of the church teachers and see whether he has directed his arrows against Christ or against me. I see that he does not consider that he concludes against the holy scripture.

D. Ecks XLII. 2)

Everyone knows that the faithful fall, who knows that Adam fell in Paradise, David in his kingdom, Peter in the apostles' fellowship, but the righteous rise again very quickly through repentance and through the consideration (discussionem) and detestation of their sins, as God the Lord puts the hand of grace under them.

He fishes with a golden fishhook; from sins he diverts to crimes, of which enough has been said.

Second note D. Ecks. 3)

Christ and all Christians have taught that inner repentance is great, since God looks at the heart and the will. This is shown by the widow, who put only two mites into God's box, but put in more than all, as the Lord Jesus testifies. For the will is in the soul, like a king in his kingdom.

Carlstadt's first defense sentence Against the reason of the preceding. 4)

But since D. Eck in the second sentence Against Us has made inner repentance great for its own sake, because he says that the will is the king of his actions, he shows that he either does not know the Scriptures or that he obviously contradicts them.

1) In passing: Even if the book de eccles. ckoZ. is not by Augustine, it is usually cited as such.

2) Against the 36th and following theses of the 2nd series.

3) Eck's 1st obelisk. Cf. Col. 539 f.

4) The 1st thesis of Carlstadt's third series of theses in the previous paper.

Second defense sentence of the same. 5)

For our will is not king and lord of those works of which God has decreed that they should belong to the will, if one does not want to promise certainty to the presumptuous corner 6) Against the testimonies of the prophets and apostles.

Other [defense] sentences can be seen in the theses.

D. Eck's I. Blame speech.

Eck never made the inner repentance great for its own sake, because the will should be the king of its actions, but in comparing the inner repentance with the outer one, I wanted the inner one to be greater than the outer one.

If D. Eck would not contradict this sentence in the following, then we would neither blame this nor the following sentences. But since he pulls the barge against the current and afterwards has fallen back with his hands and drifted to where he did not want to go, it is fitting that we punish this and that at the appropriate time and place, as far as it can be done in a short time.

D. Ecks II.

Since the inner repentance, as it is commonly, has been produced by the will, but the outer repentance, as a dominated one, is subservient to the produced one, the dominating is more excellent than the dominated.

Immediately he pulls down the strings by openly saying that the inner repentance is produced by the will, that is, the will is the master or the producing faculty for the inner repentance. But I maintain that no salutary repentance of any kind was produced by the will, but that it was God's gift, and that the woman did more than the others for her sake, because the heavenly Father instilled in her a burning love, for she was quite poor, even in spirit, as Christ speaks truly, saying: "Every plant that my Father has not planted will be rooted out. So the good will of the chief husbandman is the plant, the good will is also the first germ of all good works; this germ precedes everything, according to what is written, Before all works the true word shall go before thee, and before every deed steadfast counsel. I confess, then, that inner repentance is better, because God will not despise a troubled and bruised heart, because a troubled spirit before

5) The 2nd thesis is the same.

6) xromittsrs, not prasmitters.

God is a sacrifice, and that the inward repentance precedes the works of the outward repentance, according to the saying: Purify the inward, but that God may give everything, as Sirach has foretold: In all this ask the Most High to direct your way in truth. 1) According to the letter, I do not know how the story of the two mites rhymes with your sentence. But if you want to relate it to the will, then I can again turn the same text against you, namely, that this woman is praised for her own sake, because she was poor in spirit and without the ability of her own will. Bernard says that the two mites mean body and soul. But you make this great, that the will produces the act of repentance. I contradict this and hold that God is the author of the good will and the good performance, according to the words of Ezekiel: I will do unto you, and that of the apostle: God works both the will. 2c I confess that we diverge far and wide; but after you have said with me that the inner repentance is great for its own sake, because it is God's work, because it is God's gift, then Andreas [Carlstadt] will belong to you, will revere you and hold you in high esteem.

D. Ecks III.

Again, as with the first remark, 1). Bodenstein has reversed the intention of my words, and by not touching the main issues at all, he has twisted the conclusion of my comment hanging on it according to his sense, in order to have all the more ample opportunity to slander.

What is it, dear D. Eck, that you try to cover yourself (involucrum struis)? In vain you set a net before the eyes of the birds. You say, I am reversing your opinion: did you not fear the judgment of the readers, who also tend to weigh according to the guideline? Why did you call the end of your note an appendix? Do you think that people might think that you have added the cause or reason of what precedes (on which what precedes is based) more than an appendage? For you wrote: For the will is in the soul, as a king in his kingdom. Who will not assert (causabitur) that by this conclusion you have given the reason of the preceding? If you now still insist that you have added more an appendage than a reason, then your following sentences are opposed to you; but I have taken heed of your reason and laid the axe to its root.

1) äiriALt, not äiliZat.

D. Ecks IV.

I want the inner repentance to be good and better than the outer, because the outer is nothing without the inner, and its goodness (bonitatem) comes from the inner and from God.

The outward repentance, yes, even more generally, no outward good works are regarded by God, if the inward is not good. For this reason the Savior rebukes the Pharisees, because they kept the external pure, but the internal was full of impurity, and adds: "You Pharisees, first purify the internal, so that the external may also become pure. Who then doubts that outward repentance is impure, when inward repentance is impure? Of this we do not dispute, but of the cause of inward repentance. You say it is produced or generated by the will; I say it is God's gift, God's work. Of inward purity this is evident from the word: Create in me, God, a pure heart and renew in me (in visceribus meis) a right spirit. So I am unclean and do not have a right spirit, since I have a spirit that goes and does not return; I have a spirit that goes out to evil and does not return from the same; renew therefore the right spirit and create in me a pure heart, that is, a pure will; take away the stony heart, that is, the will that is completely hardened, and give me a heart of flesh, a will that feels its wounds. So we ask from God that the inner be cleansed, we do not produce or generate the purity of inner repentance, so inner repentance is not better for its own sake because it is produced, but because it is good because it is given by God.

D. Ecks V.

For whatever men do, the intention directs them all. Therefore, even if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it is of no use to me, says the apostle. So the inward must be weighed.

In Augustine I found that the intention makes a good work, but that the intention is directed by faith, and it is very much a matter of what cause one does it, and one must see to what end one does it; it is also a matter of what mind one acts, and each one is to be estimated according to the mind for the consideration of either the reward or the punishment, and from this the passage in Matthew is explained: If your eye is simple, the whole body will be bright. If your intention, from which you do whatever you do, is simple, that is, if your eye is simple, then your whole body will be bright.

If the intention is pure and right, and you look at what must be kept in mind, then all our works that we do according to it must necessarily be good. I therefore admit that the intention makes a difference between external works; but what does that do for your opinion? That intention is a good work of God, is not produced by the will, but inspired by God to the will, otherwise it could not pray: Turn away mine eyes, that they look not after vanity. And to this present matter, contrary to your conclusion, serves the apostle's saying that it is love that works the love of God and the good intention. For love is kind, it is patient, it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things; consequently not the will. So you see that love, poured out in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is not the will that works the good intention. But I could also answer that statement by saying that our judgment is useless etc.

D. Ecks VI.

Therefore, by comparing the will with the lower forces that put it into action, I wanted it to be true that the will is in the soul, like a king in his kingdom, because he rules and is master over them, even though he has it from God that he may rule for good.

The good will, which is God's gift, is not satisfied with the grace (already] obtained, but takes its refuge 2) in the powers of the Lord and keeps its strength with God. Jerome writes to Ctesiphon thus: It is not enough for me that he has given once, if he does not always give. Even what is mine cannot remain mine without God's constant help, and therefore (and for the sake of other [causes] to be said) I say that the will, even if it is supported by grace, needs prayer, so that it may to some extent force the flesh under itself, as is its nature. 3)

D. Ecks VII.

The meaning of St. Augustine is: because God searches the heart, looks at the heart, witnesses within, judges, approves and crowns, it is enough that you present yourself as one who wants.

1) 6X66Utri668, not: 6X66Utri66.

2) Instead of 86 dit, perhaps 86(1 it will be read. 8s äit would also give a very appropriate sense, namely: enriches 2c, if it could be proved that, as the second person of ditto can also be 618, so instead of the "ritten (ditnt) dib would occur.

3) xro inZsnio 8 "o, not: xro inA6nic>8O. ,

The Scripture says: Man sees what is before his eyes, but God sees the heart; likewise: He searches hearts and kidneys; but what does this prove to your opinion? Or do you not know that it is God, not free will, who gives a new heart and a new spirit, who makes the good will he accepts?

D. Ecks VIII.

St. Anselm testifies to this in explicit words: the will is the mover, he says, in the whole realm of the soul, to which everything obeys, and Boethius says: there are two things in which the whole efficacy of human actions consists, namely the will and the faculty.

Greater is the reputation of Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose, who say: Our heart and our thoughts are not in our power; and of Jeremiah, who says: Man's way is not with him. Likewise the apostle: We are not able to think anything of ourselves. If then we cannot have a good thought, how shall we have any other? In addition, Christ says: "It is not you who speak, but it is your Father's Spirit who speaks in you. Behold that the Spirit speaks in the righteous more than they, that the heart of the king is in the hand of God, and he inclines it whithersoever he will. But it is quite false that everything obeys the will, for the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and they are contrary to each other, so that you do not do what you will. And this is true: Not what I will (says the righteous Paul), but the evil that I do not will, that I do. He does not want to be lusted after, and the flesh lusts; he does not want to have evil desires, and he has them, and for that reason he has a mighty war with the flesh. Also, the effects of good human, actions that God's mercy makes human, are not at all in our ability; we ask that God may give them, we ask that He may receive them.

D. Ecks IX.

The Holy Scripture agrees with this [Sir. 15, 14. ff.]: God created man from the beginning and left him in the hand of His counsel. He has added His commandments and commands. If you want to keep the commandments (volueris), keep them, 4) and in order to have eternally the pleasing faith

4) Here Eck, deviating from the Vulgate: eon8srva. In the latter it says: 6on86rvadunt ts.

he has presented water and fire to you. Stretch out your hand, according to which you want (volueris). Consider [that it is said: If you want; after which you want (volueris).

Mortal man is shrewd to deceive not only others but also himself. By tightening the knot, he unties it. What you do not want, dear D. Eck, you say. You put the knot and the unraveling together, but you also, according to your habit, cite such a scriptural passage, which disputes with you. You will not consider that the Scripture says: God created man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his counsel. 2c If you consider it unworthy of you to be ignorant of the Scripture, then look at another Scripture passage which expresses how man was created from the beginning. Do you not read that God made man righteous (rectum)? Therefore, you must understand the Scriptures according to what they express (cum effectu), so that you may know what kind of beginning man had, namely, a righteous one. But if a righteous one, then also with the first grace, by which the first man could have stood if he had wanted to. You will admit, then, that what you have stated does you more harm than good, because you will admit that grace has given free will this possibility of being able to do good, and that free will does not of itself have the producing faculty or dominion in works, for since it has fallen, it does not of itself return to good. Consider 1) also how much trouble you have wasted in proving the ground of your reproof (which you called an appendage). But for the resolution of your opinion, see Augustin lib. III.

D. Ecks X.

That is why, I believe, St. Bernard called free will exceedingly powerful (potentissi- mum), hence he also says: Take away free will and there will be nothing that can be blessed.

From your citations of scriptures, everyone can easily notice what care you take to understand the teachers; for you cite them in a quite ludicrous way. This is clear from the preceding, from this and the following sentences to the pupils or listeners at Wittenberg, even to the younger ones. For since Bernard and Augustin before him say: Take the

1) rseonäs, should probably be rsoolk. (Walch.)

free will away, then there will be nothing that can be blessed, so they say that God works beatitude in free will, here justification, there 2) glory. And you dare, against their opinion, to conclude from this statement in favor of the conclusion of your rebuke that free will is exceedingly powerful. You should have understood and concluded from their intention: therefore God's grace is the most powerful. But your inference has corrupted Bernard in a thousand places, especially where he does not deal with our cause. But so that all may understand what Bernhard says, I add here his words and opinion from the book "Of Grace and Free Will" col. I: Take away free will and there will be nothing that can be blessed. (D. Eck did not pay attention to the "what" [quod] , but perhaps instead of "what" [quod] read "whereby" [quo], because he says that it is exceedingly powerful). Take away grace (the same Bernard immediately adds) and there will be nothing whereby (unde) one can be blessed. Here he expresses the power, since he says: Therefore (unde) there will be nothing whereby (a quo) one can be blessed: If thou despise this, note that he added: This work cannot be done without two things: The one, ivhereby (a quo) it is done, which is what he called, "therefore" (unde) it is done; the other, to the good of, or in which it is done. See, he indicates more the capacity to suffer (pati- bilitatem) and the receptivity (suscep- tivitatem) of the free will, that I say so, than its activity or capacity to do; but of grace he says that it works blessedness in the free will. 3) And so speak the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, which you dishonor, sully, and destroy by your very paltry citations.

D. Ecks XI.

Therefore Augustin says: It depends on how a word comes out of the mind. Only a guilty mind uses guilty language; and several similar things are read in the canonical decrees.

This is solved with the 5th sentence of this [second] series.

D. Ecks XII.

Therefore, the same says: One must not look at what a man does, but with what mind and will he does it; for in the-

2) instead of alii will read illic.

3) As an aside, Anselmus also talks about free will.

In the same That we find God the Father and Judas. The father we bless, the Judas we detest. A different intention therefore makes different actions.

Too uselessly you repeat the same so often, because that this differs in nothing from what was said in the 4th sentence of this series, one can easily recognize. Of course, I should rather despise this by silence than by refutation. But to serve the students, I say that what we think right is God's gift, and if we keep our feet from falsehood and in righteousness. For as often as we do good and are of good mind, God works in us and with us that we work. Augustin.äs vera iimoo. Cap. 22. fund] 111. Now as to the works which are done outwardly, both he who fears punishment and he who does righteousness do not do contrary to the commandment, and therefore they are alike in hand, unlike in heart; alike in action, unlike in will; cke vsru irnioo. Read, dear Eck, that book from beginning to end, then judge about the scholastics.

D. Ecks XIII.

°So, Eck's remark stands firm, that the internal penance, because it comes more directly from the will, is preferable to the external, since the internal yes (quamvis) works as an effective the external, when, where, what kind and how it must be, as it is with other affirmative (affirmativis) commands.

This gossipy sentence repeats what has been said before and adds what the scholastics have thought up about the circumstances. Here I want to give D. Eck only one passage from Cassianus, about which he should wonder and sweat. It is impossible, he says, for the mind to dwell on good thoughts when the main intention (principale) of the heart is directed toward shameful and earthly contemplations (intuitus); therefore, we must turn away from the contemplation of vices with haste when we are led to such thoughts by a pernicious memory, lest what happened to Solomon [Prov. 23, 33. ff. Vulg.] wrote: "Thine eyes shall look after strangers, and thine heart shall speak perverse things; and thou shalt be as one that sleepeth in the midst of the sea, and like unto a stupefied helmsman that hath lost the helm, and shalt say, They smote me, but it hurt me not; they pulled me, but I felt it not." These are the ways,

The end of these, however, leads to ruin. Therefore, we must strive to incite ourselves to a praiseworthy repentance by desiring virtues and the kingdom of heaven rather than by harmful memories of vices, because inevitably someone will be suffocated by the very harmful stench of a cloaca as long as he wanted to stand over it or stir its excrement. Now may your patrons, the inventors of circumstances, go with you, who by their teaching sink their souls more into sins than tear them out. I know that this will cause a war cry and frightful skirmishes, but I shall not care if, by obeying the truth, I can render it some service. I know very well what Scotus in his writings and with great subtlety XVIII, Thomas de mulo, II, Art. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8, and others, then also his defender Capreolus have found out.

D. Ecks XIV.

And according to the aforesaid sense, which actually lies in the words, it is certain what I added at the end of the note, that the will is in the soul, like a king in his kingdom, as also A[urelius] Augustine says: The will is the measure of all deeds and of our merits, and elsewhere he says that it rules over the lower powers.

Suffice it for your antics what we have said before about intention, good disposition, and other things. But it is fair that you teach us that Augustin ever said that in relation to what you claim, so that you may earn yourself either honor or just disgrace. Do you think you are talking to stones or senseless plants?

D. Ecks XV.

Therefore, Saint Anselmus speaks to God in the person of the other powers and says: You have given us a Lord whom we cannot obey. I would add the testimony of Aristotle, but (as I hear) he who has the opposite opinion (diversarius opinator) does not believe him.

I will never equate the reputation of Anselmus with the merits of St. Jerome. The latter says: I am not interested in what Aristotle teaches, but in what St. Paul teaches; and everywhere in theology he abhors the

The proofs of the philosophers, yes, it seems to him the doctrines of the philosophers are the firstborn of the Egyptians. The same says in the Dialogue against Pelagius, Book 1: "But that which you state in another place, that all are governed by the will, which Christian can hear that? For if they are governed by their own will, where is the help of God? And How do you interpret this [Ps. 37, 23.j: From the Lord are the steps of man directed? 2c I have also said that it is quite false that the sensual powers must obey; rather, they resist even in the righteous, and an ungodly they lead captive. The heart of man may take its course, but it is up to the Lord to direct its steps. If man's steps are directed by God, then he wants His way, namely God's way, not his own. Otherwise, he will take his own way, which will be evil, and he will be trapped by sin in the flesh.

I will give my verdict on Anselmus once and for all (semel): I will not admit that he has spoken entirely carelessly, although I see that he has put forward many things without proof; but this without right] judgment.

D. Ecks XVI.

But although I have made my remark clear, D. Bodenstein pulled it, as it were, by the hair on the question (materiam) of the election of grace, citing everything that follows for this purpose, that there is no cause for the election of grace, but all our goods are from GOtte. This is the ordinary opinion of theologians and quite detailed in Gregory of Rimini u.cl meutern ckis. XXVII, II. truot. and <M. XI,, I. of the first [bookP

We, unlearned and learned without distinction, write poetry. A loquacious sophist and everyone misses to understand the art of the holy scripture, and there is also no lack of people who, driven by arrogance, philosophize about the holy scripture; there are people who, with a certain fluency in words, even with audacity, expound to others what they themselves do not understand. The opponent is mistaken who does not cite any evidence for his contrary opinion (inermis diversarius), because he asserts that the election of grace has nothing to do with works and does not belong to them. Where is the word [Jer. 31, 3]: I have always loved you and have drawn you to myself out of pure goodness? Where is the word [Rom. 9:15]: To whom I am gracious, to whom I am merciful?

Am I merciful, and on whom I have mercy, on whom I have compassion? Where is the word [Rom. 8:30], Whom he hath ordained, them hath he also called; whom he hath called, them hath he also justified; whom he hath justified, them hath he also glorified? Where the word [Eph. 2, 10.]: He hath prepared us for good works, that we should walk therein? Where the last letter (spistola ll.) and äs voo. ow. A6n. of Ambrose? Where the book of Augustine cks prasclest. 6t Zrut., äs ckono p6i86v., äs prneckestin. 8unotor., äs oon6ption6 st Aiut., cke Krutiu 6t lid. u.rd.? Likewise uck8iwpli6. and others? So much on the preceding and following.

D. Ecks XVII.

But several good and holy theologians have admitted the reason of the election of grace in a certain (suo) way, like the doctor seraphicus Bonaventura, St. Thomas in a writing, Alexander of Hales, Henry of Ghent, Thomas of Strasbourg, Gabriel Viel, Silvester of Prierio and others, whose I have thought of in the Chrysopassus 1); these contain that, with which one can resolve for the most part what is stated here by D. Bodenstein.

to penetrate? Good things are easily proven to me, even without witnesses, even just by their natural appearance.

D. Ecks XVIII.

However, I do not undertake here to defend one of the two parties, because the trade of the election of graces does not belong to the matter and is something quite foreign. Therefore, I do not know in what kind of spirit D. Bodenstein digresses so improperly on this subject. If, however, he should like to make this counter-.

1) A lecture by Eck on the election of grace, delivered in 1512, published in print in 1514. Cf. Wiedemann "Eck," p. 453 ff.

2) A gold-speckled gemstone, chrysoprase, Revelation 21. 20. Eck titled his book after this biblical passage.

If I have to negotiate with a university to be chosen, I am willing to put forward theses about them and to answer for them, or to oppose the one who represents them.

The beginning [of this sentence] is already set down by what was said earlier against it (prioribus teils), the end needs this answer: I admit 1) that you are a disputator, I almost said an insurmountable screamer, since you are blind in one and the same dispute, if you will, and again, if you will, more sharp-sighted than a lynx and more changeable than the Empusa, 2) because you can change opinions so easily; hence it is that I shy away from arguing with you verbally. But, if the costs are reimbursed and I get safe conduct, then I want to enter the battlefield with you, but on condition that the mutual reasons and refutations (solutiones) are dictated to reliable notaries.

D. Ecks XIX.

But although what he says does not belong to the matter, and does not serve in relation to my remark, I want to go through his theses briefly right now, so that I make his bites harmless, by which he tries to wound me with injustice.

Therefore, let us turn our ears and eyes to the ruler of the sciences, so that nothing may fall away in vain.

D. Ecks XX.

I confess first of all that the will in a meritorious work is not the king, but the servant in comparison with Christ the King, who reigns in the good will; therefore, all that he has attracted from the Lord JEsu about the will does not strike me.

Take heed, he says: in comparison to Christ 2c What he means by this comparison, I will explain below, so that I am not called a presumptuous person when I say it here. Finally, he denies that he is affected by what has been said, from which we have concluded that God, not the will, works good works, and yet it is sufficiently clear from what has been said before and what follows that Eck denies this.

1) Instead of eonersäsrs, probably eonesäsrs should be read.

2) A ghost sent by Hecate.

D. Ecks XXI.

Therefore, in none of my writings, whatever they may be, have I ever promised security to the will, as D. Bodenstein accuses me of, 3) about which I am quite surprised; but let him see for himself, as the apostle reminds us: Let him who stands see that he does not fall.

That you promise security to the will (since this is required by the things about which you argue), I will prove. The saying: Let him who stands see that he does not fall, does not conclude for the ability or the faculty of the will, but rather, if it is rightly understood, it entails that we do not stand by our will, but by God's grace, that is, our will stands rightly by God's grace, not by itself. Therefore, the ability and activity of grace is attributed to God, for he who stands stands by the Lord, for God is able to establish him; by His will he falls who falls, by the will of God he stands who stands. So take it in this way: whoever stands, watch, that is, fear, tremble, lest he fall. If you want to know the cause, hear: because he stands through the Lord; this the apostle teaches elsewhere in other words, saying: Create your blessedness with fear and trembling. Why with trembling? Listen, because God the Lord works the willing and the accomplishing. The above saying therefore proves against you, unless D. Eck wants to show that a good work does not come from the will, but that it is God's work.

D. Ecks XXII.

And it is even more wrong that he says, 4) I do not know that repentance is a gift of God, since I have long known (and not from D. Bodenstein) that it does not depend on one's will or walk, but on God's mercy; that He has mercy on whom He wills and stiffens whom He wills; that no one comes to Him unless the heavenly Father draws him; that our righteousness is like a stained garment; That it is not of the works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his great mercy, that he has saved us; that though we have done [everything], yet we must say that we are worthless servants; that we can do nothing of ourselves,

3) In the 2nd thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

4) In the 3rd thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

than from ourselves, with innumerable similar passages. Therefore, I am surprised at Bodenstein that he measures so precisely what I know or do not know, although I must confess my ignorance 1) by calling out to God with the prophet [Jer. 1, 6. Vulg.]: A, a, a, HErr, I do not know how to speak.

D. Eck says that he does not know how to speak, and yet here he brings together a large sentence, and claims that he knows the scriptural passages that he cites. I am surprised at this, because I know that the same lettuce has [the same] edges 2) and that his scholastic doctors touch the Scriptures only just (summis naribus); I am surprised that he prides himself on knowing the Scriptures, because it is known to me that this does not mean to know the Scriptures when one draws the sayings of them to an opinion not lying in them (alienum), but when one holds their force and meaning. But in order that he may know that this armored sentence is of no use to him, I have undertaken to transfer the armor of the same to the following sentences, where I want to turn these sayings Against the one who cites them, like a sword of Goliath. D. Eck has forgotten that he has made the election of grace something that does not belong to the good works and is foreign to them, while here, with respect to repentance, he has brought together many passages that those who have written about the election of grace use.

D. Ecks XXIII.

Furthermore, the representative of the opposite opinion (diversarius) cites Jeremiah, 3) so that I should see my disgrace, by again charging me with what I have never thought of, in relation to which I freely confess that no meritorious good work is ever done without the special assistance of divine grace and mercy.

In my 145th thesis 4) I quoted the saying of Jeremiah, who says: "Convert me, O Lord, and I shall be converted", in order to prove that our conversion is a deed of God, not of our will. Therefore it is a gift of divine mercy. This [passage], says D. Eck, is not against him, because he also confesses that no good work can be done without special help.

1) ivseitial", not jnstitiam (quencher).

2) This may well be meant by: siniilss Kaders ssirnilia] lakra leetneas - Same brothers, same caps.

3) In the 4th thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

4) This is the 4th thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

by the grace of God be done, and he cries out that I have charged him with what he did not think.

But you who read this sentence of his will easily judge that I have not burdened him with anything, but that I have refuted his opinion, since he clearly states that grace assists the will so that it can do a good work. What else does he show but that grace does not work, but assists the will that works? It is something else to assist the active, something else to work. I could both state and refute the opinions of the scholastics here, but in the First Theses there is ample opportunity to do so.

In short, if grace assists or helps the will to perform good works, inasmuch as the will alone is not sufficient to live justly and righteously, if it is not helped by the mercy of God, then it follows undoubtedly according to Augustine's opinion: So it is not due to God's mercy, but to man's will, because God's mercy alone is not sufficient unless the consent of our will is added (in this way, and quite badly, our changeable defector in the opponent's camp (contraversarius - who takes the opposite opinion to his previous one) has added the following thesis, but it is evident that we will in vain if God does not have mercy, but that God does not have mercy in vain. For if God has mercy, we will. Furthermore, the good will does not precede the calling, but the calling precedes the good will; so it is not said for the sake of it: It is not up to someone's willing or running, but up to God's mercy, because it is only through his help or assistance that we obtain that we will; but for the sake of it, because he himself works in us the willing and the doing. Perhaps you murmur against it with the saying: Many are called, but few are chosen. But the readers who have their hearts in the right place (cordati) may see this knot in Augustin, Book I, Question 2, M. N., and only then may they give it to one of us.

D. Ecks XXIV.

Therefore I have always judged that in this trade (which is remote from our cause) those have a more correct opinion who give to GOtte what is his, and to free will what is his; and for this being true, I adduce the same Jeremiah to the adversary: If you

turn, and I will turn thee; likewise Zechariah, Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you; likewise Ezekiel, Turn ye unto me, and repent 2c

Even though he connects this sentence above with the 20th [sentence] of this series, he still overturns what he has confessed with a wonderful appearance. Judge whether this means making the will a servant in good works, if we attribute the beginning and start of a right conversion to God to the will? So what does he give to the free will and what to God? This may be taught to us by the testimonies he has put on, for from them we take what his opinion is. To the free will he puts this: Turn to me. Behold, the origin and beginning of right conversion he ascribes to the will, but, what GOtte? So will I also convert to you. What is this different, according to what Eck states, than to assign to GOtte the lesser and only the complement of conversion? What else does he assign to GOtte but the work of a follower? For he states that God is waiting for our conversion, and to prove this he has cited this passage: Repent. So where does Christ go first? Where is your divine revelation [8ibMas koliuru - oracle), which you told us in the 20th sentence? To what purpose are the other sayings that you have put on, e.g.: It is not because of someone's running 2c and similar ones, are invoked by you? What an abominable sin thou hast committed, see in Augustin ad Bonifao. contra äuas epist., book 2, cap. 9; likewise äs sool68ia8tioi8 cloKinatibu8 cap. 44. I will bring up more when I find out that what I have mentioned is not sufficient for you.

In short, I could greatly promote your foolishness and give it a semblance if I wanted to, but far be it from me to argue against the truth in order to flatter you. I will indicate 1) that the testimonies are not only inappropriate for your cause, but even contrary to it, but only briefly and above. The saying in Jeremiah: If you convert, I will convert you, does not belong to the matter at hand, according to Jerome's interpretation. But if it is part of the matter, the prophet Jeremiah declares explicitly and clearly in what follows that our conversion to God is not in our power, but in God's, for he says: "Convert me.

1) Instead of juäwavo probably iudisavo would be to be read, which seems to us commanded by the following: 8sd vrsvitsr st psrkunstoris.

Lord, I will be converted. But because he says: My God, it is clear from this that the beginning of the right conversion is also the gift of God. This he teaches in other words and perhaps more clearly in what follows, since he says: I will convert the conversion of Judah 2c From this it is clear that the opponent has falsely attributed to the will that which need not be given to it. In the same way one must also understand the testimony of Ezekiel, who also wrote: I will convert your conversion, while afterwards he demands conversion by saying: Convert and repent. See Augustin de grat. st lib. ard. Cap. 15. 13. and in other places, and fall silent. In commanding the conversion of the heart to God, Scripture teaches what must be asked of God in order that we may say: Convert us, God of our salvation.

D. Ecks XXV.

For this reason, Augustine's excellent solution suffices for all the sayings that have to be cited for each of the two parties; he who does not have it easily gets into danger between door and hinge, 2) for this is the art of bringing each to its proper place.

D. Eck, in his great distress, defiles 3) in his fear of death (expirando) the sacrificial knife (saxum) and desecrates the sanctuary. But he brings everything to its proper place, to ruin the ruin, to misery the misfortune; he mangles 4) the holy scripture, he bites the holy church teachers. I cannot marvel enough at the impudence of the man that he cites Augustine only once and, what is more, so wrongly. Augustin is clear <1s psooat. ms., book 2, cap. 5 and in other places where he teaches that we are instructed by God's commandments, so that we ask of the Lord what he commands us to do: Give people who ask what you command.

D. Ecks XXVI.

So I confess that God gives repentance to man, just as faith is also a gift of God; if only we frail people do not disdain to accept it. Therefore, D. Bodenstein makes in vain of his statements

2) ivtsr saxuiu st sasrura, between sacrificial mefser and sacrifice, a "sprüchwörtlich" idiom for the highest distress. Dres immediately takes Carlstadt out again.

3) sonkorit seems to us to be a verb formed from koria, ornna.

4) To this expression Isesrat refers afterwards under the 31st sentence: saerariiM litsrarum lupus.

a large amount, not after the manner of a man who presents something by conclusions (concludentis), but of one who only argues (argumentantis).

God does not need a preparatory disposition. For when He works the conversion, He also works the assent and takes away the disdain. So what do you want to give to the will? Nothing, but that he must receive. At the end you reprove (vulneras) the way of writing common to both of us.

D. Ecks XXVII.

Since the will in the soul rules over the lower forces, without Christ, it produces bad fruits through its unevenness with the divine will. For if it is not supported by the grace of God, it produces nothing but thistles. Therefore, it is dangerous if the will is not governed by God.

Why do you restrict the holy scripture by so many limitations, as if the free will had not been described completely (absolute) by Christ, afterwards by the apostle, but also before by the prophets after the fall. Out of the heart, says Christ, come evil thoughts; here he does not limit the will to the dominion over the [lower] powers. Furthermore he added what belongs to the evil thoughts: adultery, theft, blasphemies 2c, and the apostle says [Rom. 3, 9-13.]: We have proved that all are under sin, as it is written: There is none that is righteous, neither is there any; there is none that hath understanding; there is none that asketh after God. They have all gone astray and have all become unfit; there is not one who does good, not even one; their mouth is an open grave, viper's poison is under their lips. 2c This describes the will without grace exceedingly completely (absolutius), but your restriction narrows it down.

D. Ecks XXVIII.

But when the Lord Jesus rules the will by His grace, His rule over the lower powers is not taken away, but fortified, just as the original righteousness made the lower powers completely obedient to reason.

Christ's grace saves from the power of darkness and transfers to the kingdom of light; it calls from darkness to its marvelous light and leads to God: it thus takes away evil and gives a new dominion, yes, before grace re

the will does not have any powers well. 1) I am surprised that D. Eck is not ashamed to repeat the same thing so often in a useless way, and gives the paper for such trivial things, which he nevertheless takes away from the prayers of the church. 2)

D. Ecks XXIX.

And D. Bodenstein judges me, 3) that I pour out my prayer on my righteousness. God, whose mercy is without end, knows how useless a servant I am. If God would, he would make me one of his day laborers with the prodigal son! But D. Bodenstein, since he has judged another, may he pray that he will not be judged as well. For I know that my prayer is nothing unless God makes it something.

It is clear from your 24th sentence what you attribute to God and what you attribute to the will. But you do well that you now curse as ungodly that which you had defended. If you pray rightly, confess publicly that you cannot begin to pray rightly if God has not given you the beginning of the prayer and everything that follows it, according to what Jeremiah writes: I will reveal to you the prayer of peace and truth. But there is a difference between ascribing to the will an active ability to produce prayers and confessing that prayer is nothing if God does not inspire it. But I will gladly beseech God with you that He may reveal to us not subtle sophisms and subtle syllogisms, but His Word.

D. Ecks XXX.

God does mercy on earth 2c D. Bodenstein says that I cannot take that from the mercy with which God is merciful. 4) To him I answer by using [my] reason: I accept the general opinion which Peter Lombard taught after Augustine. God does mercy when he shows the effects of mercy, as he is the salvation of the wretched and the beaten (calamitosorum); as it may also otherwise be with the opinion that he states.

1) In passing: Even the will of the just has too little power (juris) over the members of the flesh. Augustin äs p666. in", Book 2, Cap. 22.

2) Cf. Eck's 7th sentence in the 1st row.

3) In the 20th thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

4) In the 22nd thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

My opinion is sufficiently clear and always approved by Augustin, from which I took it. Since we read: You are my mercy, I said the mind is: you make me merciful, you make that I can practice mercy. The opponent 1) often invokes Augustine, but in such a way that it does not serve the point. However, I have not rejected the other opinion, but I have established the opinion of the passage [cited by me].

D. Ecks XXXI.

If D. Bodenstein understands by works of mercy those, as the whole Christian nation of theologians now holds it, which are applied to the wretched neighbor, I deny that they alone are rewarded. But he may be speaking in the sense that the works of mercy would be rewarded which we alone work by his giving us his mercy; then I accept the opinion . but, as Augustine prescribes, I better the language. For as Fortunatianus says, "Words must be used like coins, which are marked by the public stamp.

The wolf of the holy scripture dares to cite Augustine for the purpose that the custom of speaking should have more validity in theology than the holy scripture. How false, abominable and despicable his doctrine is, can easily be seen by those who read what we have mentioned above about the custom, and that it is not written: Blessed is the man who meditates day and night on the custom of those who corrupt the Scriptures; but: Blessed is he who meditates day and night on the law of the Lord.

Where is now the vaunted humility that you brought forward in the 29th sentence? You cannot deceive me by flattery, nor escape what is so delicately expressed in the iambic verse:

'Ζχ των περισσών χαρδίας λαλεϊ στόμα.

[Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.]

D. Ecks XXXII.

Good works are in a sense in our capacity, in a sense not, because they are merits lying in the will (voluntaria) and

1) Here is the same expression as in the 23rd sentence of Eck: "outravsrsurius - who suddenly turns from one opinion to the opposite one.

something by which one earns (demerita), as discussed in detail in the doctrine (materia) of the election of grace.

This proposition overturns 2) all the good that he established in the 22nd, 26th, and 29th [propositions] of this series. But you affirm what you had denied by altering, namely, that good works are in the faculty of the will. Why, then, do you say that prayer is nothing unless God makes it something? If a good work is partly in your power, then according to this part it is something, even if God had done nothing. But I want to help my dear brother with this: I will willingly sacrifice to you, adding: Sacrifice the sacrifice of righteousness. Connect this with it: No one comes to me unless the Father draws him; and the saying: Establish, O God, what you have worked in us. Do you not see that a willing sacrifice is God's gift? that it is therefore not in our will? Conclude from this that the righteousness of our sacrifice is like a stained garment.

D. Ecks XXXIII.

Of the church prayers, which he thinks he is leading Wider Eck, I say, I pray that, I stand that with all my heart, which the holy mother, the Church, prays, so that God may place me in the fellowship of all those who fear God. Therefore, a respected (gravis) man and high standing (maturus) theologian must not strangle (vinoii6) his poor fellow servant and charge him with the abominable sins of spiritual pride. God knows what is hidden in the heart. It would be better that D. Bodenstein and I, one for the other, prayed that we would be blessed, that we would be enlightened, and that we would be pardoned with help, whatever God Almighty wants to give.

If you pray with the Mother, the church, with all your heart, what is the cause that you treat her prayers so insolently? What kind of godliness is this that you take the church prayers so badly? But it is ungodliness that someone who is struck (morsum) should help himself hypocritically with the sacred Scriptures (in sacris scripturis dissimulare). Finally, I will gladly pray with you that we may be enlightened, that we may be blessed, that you too may abandon the sophistry of the scholastics and be brought over to the church teachers.

2) Instead of wriat, ksrit should be read.

D. Ecks XXXIV.

Although I am in great need of a teacher, and with A[urelius] Augustine I am willing to be taught by a one-year-old child, I have long known what D. Bodenstein wants to teach here from Ezekiel. 1) He should spend his effort on something else and learn to speak more gently about a fellow servant than to carelessly charge him with an error. For I too send the following prayers 2) with the Church and with him to God. God grant that we pray devoutly.

You are hit, my dear brother, D. Eck, so that you have to visit the church psyller 3).

D. Ecks XXXV.

Furthermore, he concludes, 4) Eck does not have to put his hope in himself and his will; this pleases me. For I do not put my hope in myself, for I am a very poor, miserable man, but I have put my hope in the Lord, who will guide me and provide for me. But I could probably put something from D. Bodenstein into the subordinate clause and then hold this against him: It is shameful for a teacher 2c [if he punishes another for what he himself is guilty of]. Of the following, I have the opinion as I have said.

To attach to the will an activity in good works is to place its hope in a man; but to transfer all ability from the will to God is to cast hope in God. But even I do not boast that I do this. But I humbly ask God, who does [this], that I may do it.

D. Ecks XXXVI.

Of the I and the we, 5) of what is ours and what is our own, I hold according to what has been said before, because the good works of God and our find, God's gifts and our merits, for God gave them to us so that by them we might merit, as St. Peter said, Behold, we have forsaken all and are unto Thee

1) In the 29th thesis of the 3rd row of the previous scripture.

2) In the 30th and the following theses.

3) See the 3rd note to the letter of this writing to Göde and Schlamau about Here the church prayers (Collecten) are meant.

4) In the 34th thesis of the 3rd row in the previous scripture.

5) In the 39th, 42nd and the following theses of the 3rd series in the previous scripture.

What reward shall we have for this? What reward shall we have for this? Our Lord Jesus did not punish him because of the word "we", even though he is the most careful teacher.

St. Ambrose attributes it to the great mercy of God that God makes His works our merits, and for His sake promises and gives eternal life to the one who leaves everything and follows Him, which St. Peter now receives in eternal rest. Furthermore, my dearest Doctor, I wish you happiness from the bottom of my heart, and for my part I also want to please you again that you have allowed yourself to come to this truth, namely that our good merits do not depend on our ability or strength, but that they flow entirely from God. If this is your opinion, you will absolutely deny both the active (activam - based on human activity) atonement and the very powerful freedom of the will; indeed, you will affirm that our merits are not in our power. To this you can very well apply [Ps. 30, 7. 8.]: I said when I was well: I shall never lie down: but when thou didst disguise thy face, I was afraid. 2c This sentence, in this sense, I adore and praise, and look up to it as to a saying that came down from heaven (ex Tripode).

D. Ecks XXXVII.

Therefore, the church asks in the church prayers that it may be assisted by the merits and intercessions of the saints. If I now wanted to write the church prayers under our affirmations in the manner of D. Bodenstein, then all the Mass priests know what a collection I could bring about here.

In such church prayers, the Church asks God to look graciously upon His gifts or His works, not as if our merits, which we have brought about, were pleasing to Him, so she asks that all our doings take their beginning from Him and be brought to completion by Him. If you understand it in this way, then you take our merits in the right way and according to Jerome, Augustine and Gregory, but if otherwise, as far as the producing faculty of the will is concerned, then I oppose it. But I spare you because of the previous sentence, otherwise I would call upon the most holy Father in Christ, our Lord, the Lord Leo X, who by divine providence is the pope, and accuse you that you have not heeded his most holy prayers for nothing.

read 2c Therefore, I use the collections or prayers of the church for their sake, because you and your kind immediately threaten those who deviate from those opinions with fire, and so that the Roman church knows that I treat neither new nor unusual, but very old and commonplace doctrines, and she now not only does not burn me, but protects me with motherly kindness against our opponents of the church prayers. Bite this if you can, or accept it.

D. Ecks XXXVIII.

Since, according to the opinion of the most proven theologians, "doing what is in him" is as much as removing the bar and obstacle of grace, I will not admit that he who does what is in him does what is displeasing to God, according to the generally accepted principle of the theologians: God never withdraws from the one who does what is in him.

According to the opinion of the untrained theologians, "to do what is in him" is not only to remove the bar and the obstacle of grace, but also to prepare oneself for grace. But according to the opinion of the Doctors of the Church (these are the words of Ambrose) God loves in us what He Himself has done, and hates what He has not done; likewise: The changeable will, which is not governed by the divine will, approaches godlessness all the faster, the more eager it is to act. This has been pointed out to you in the 184th thesis. 1) Similarly, I have quoted some things from Augustine in the 188th thesis 2) and in the following about the writings that you did not want to read, so that you would not be disgraced. I also enclose for you what he has compiled de vera iQQoe. 126, where he says: If that is in us which we ourselves have done, then we will be condemned by it. Read this and other things, and then murmur against them and hold up your patrons; I will not suffer you to make excuses. If you had only touched what has been mentioned with the tip of your finger, you would not have raved with such great insolence, nor would you have jumped off your 36th sentence.

D. Ecks XXXIX.

He is cursed, says Jerome, who says that God has bound man to the impossible: therefore God withdraws from him who wills.

1) The 42nd thesis of the 3rd series.

2) The 46th thesis in the same place.

that all men may be saved, according to his infinite goodness never to man, unless man withdraws himself.

That the law, not God, has commanded the impossible to man, I have written in our first thesis, and that Jerome is not to be understood so crudely. By the way, that I admit the last part of this sentence is written in the 381st and 383rd thesis, 3).

D. Ecks XI,.

That a good action is in its whole essence from God, I do not assume in the way that the will behaves purely suffering against him, but I hold that the created will is the second and secondary cause (causam minus principalem) of a good action, although it also has this action from God: therefore the saints say that a good action is entirely from God.

He ties the rod with which he will receive blows, and in part he deviates from what he absorbed from Scotus. In short, Ambrose in his last epistle writes that it is too presumptuous to say that one needs God in one part of good actions, but not in another. But about this and about Augustine's opinion more extensively in the First Theses.

D. Ecks XLI.

Otherwise, it would be impossible to see that the good works of St. Peter belonged to him more than to St. Linus; indeed, it could not be said of anyone that he deserved because he had done nothing, while it is certain that everyone will receive either good or evil after he has acted in bodily life.

D. Eck certainly doesn't see what he himself put together above and shows that he directed his voice after his precentor and that he came out with it. He does not understand that the money which is hidden in his purse belongs to him more than that the money should belong to this purse. In short, we earn and act in such a way that we are rather driven, because God drives 2c and crowns his gifts.

D. Ecks XLII.

But that he rebukes Scotus and Capreolus 2c You bring together many useless and large sentences 2c

3) In Latin erroneously: 372 and 389; a printing error instead of 382 and 384. The latter numbers agree, because of the omitted number 87, with ours.

The sentences of the third row I save, because of prevention of our book printer, for the notes to the book de spirltu et litera, where they can, yes, must be either treated or also refuted according to their splendid nature, both more conveniently and more abundantly. They will certainly emerge from the austere writing desk and shall finally get rid of the snot that is to be blown out immediately.

To the venerable Johann Wortwein, head (paterfamilias) of the house of the German Order of St. John at Würzburg, his most esteemed patron [Carlstadt offers] his greetings!

I submit to you, my dearest patron, the notes which I have hastily and fleetingly drafted against our opponent's pompous propositions (contraversarii), for your consideration, but with the request - so that you may do the right thing - that I, who have departed from the opinion of the so-called scholastic theologians, only want to trouble their defenders and also those who attack us. Furthermore, since I have tasted better things in my innermost heart, who will accuse me of having unjustly fallen away from the vain opinions of the scholastic theologians? and who will reproach me for accepting the glorious writings of the most learned men instead of those paltry, farcical, vain things? Who will at least not praise this effort, that I recommend and advise the students the pure nard (odorem) and the purest balm of the holy scriptures? And who will blame me if I rebuke and repel those who hinder and tear up the holy Scriptures? Therefore, since I have recognized that the adversary (di- versarius) has set out with shield and armor to attack (mordere) even the sacred Scriptures under our name, I have seized with my hand the scourge and the [above] described (depicta) chastisement, and immediately hold out arms and resist; nor do I fight in a cause foreign to me. For to the defense of the holy scripture (which the opponent treats mercifully) I have directed all and every one of my efforts, yes, I have also committed myself with an oath to give up my spirit for the defense of the scripture. In addition, there are other things that require a separate hand.

del, namely that D. Eck not only despises the prayers of the Church and considers them worthy only of the Mass priests, but also, once he allows them with displeasure, that he twists them to a wrong opinion. He incites the apostolic chair against me with secret flattery, he incites the brethren against me to contempt, as if insults had been inflicted on them by my pen, finally he brazenly drools against heaven whatever he wants. The man is very skilled in argument, so that some say that if fresh laurel beckons to him (viridi incensa lauro), he can obtain it all the more easily before the enemy and personally; this is confirmed by the inconstancy and changeability of his sentences. Therefore I have opposed these very brief remarks. I have resolved to confront him more precisely and more abundantly in other books, so that he may soon learn that we are exceedingly far from each other, and either to desire the sharp judgment of scholars or to regard it as nothing. You should now make do with this little. Let your mind rest once from the many labors and refresh yourself by this new occupation. Stay well with me and be well. Given at Wittenberg, on the day of the Exaltation of the Cross (Sept. 14) in the year 1518.

To the learned D. Johann Eck.

Highly learned Eck! Here you have my notes on the sentences (axiomata) of your first and second series, which I naturally began to publish as soon as they would have come to my hand. Therefore, direct your heart with care to the church teachers. If now (which is far) these things of ours should have anything ungodly about them, refute it. Truly, I will give way to the one who is superior to me in war. But I ask forgiveness because of the haste. Fare well in Christ.

Wittenberg in the house of Johann Grünenberg.

In 1518.

xxxxx xxx 1)

[It is all quite vain. Eccl. 1, 2.]

The same protests as in the defense sentences 2c

With reservation of the right to add 2c

1) With this reversed vocal designation in Löscher.

712 L. V. Ä. Ill, 9 f. 32. Eck's thirteen theses Wider Luther u. Carlstadt. W. XVIII, 860-862. 713