End of August 1519.
Translated from Latin.
First thesis.
Every man sins daily, but he also repents daily, as Christ teaches: "Repent" Matth. 4, 17.], with the exception of a certain new righteous man, who does not need repentance; as the heavenly vinedresser also cleanses the fruit-bearing branches daily.
This proposition is based on the reason that every human action is either good or evil, there is also no indifferent (neuter = neutral) action, or, as those say, no morally good one. Therefore, I must first ward off two things, which one tends to hold against this.
The first is the reputation of the school among almost all theologians throughout the world who hold the opposite. Although I owe them all reverence, they will still allow me to prefer the Holy Scriptures to them. Therefore, if I displease anyone, I ask that they not immediately say to me, "You alone are wise, and the church has hitherto erred without you, and so many minds have not been able to see what you see," and not confront me with such pleas. For to pass over the fact that God sometimes spoke through an ass what He hid from a prophet [Deut. 22:28], and showed Samuel, when he was still a child, what He revealed to the priest of Israel, Eli,
If they have not revealed [1 Sam. 3], then they may at least be calm according to their own example and also allow me what they concede to themselves among themselves and to each other. Scotus stood up, One Man, and challenged the opinions of all schools and teachers, and prevailed. The same did Occam; many others have done so, and continue to do so to this day, and since each one of them is free to contradict all of them, why am I, I alone, deprived of this favor? finally, since I too have contradicted all of them in many other opinions, without complaint, why should I suffer a new law in this one? Therefore, I ask that whoever wishes to do so, take note, not of who and against whom, but of what and against what I speak. Let the reputation of those persons depart [Gal. 2, 6.] whom God does not respect. We read in the Gospel that Christ commands to listen to the scribes and Pharisees who sit on Moses' chair, not because they are persons, that is, Christian scholars and Pharisees, but because they taught Moses. Otherwise, since the world is now exceedingly corrupt and the times are very dangerous, if we begin to act with pride and contempt, it might very easily happen that we fall into the danger of which Ps. 14:6 is written: You have the poor man's
*The first printing of this manuscript was published (on Sept. 3, it was already sold) probably already at the end of August 1519 by Johann Grünenberg in Wittenberg and was published again by him in this year. In the same year another edition was published by Wolfgang Stöcke! in Leipzig and two other printings without indication of the printer. In 1520, an edition not organized by Lucher himself was published in Leipzig by Melchior Lotther. The dedicatory letter to Spalatin, written by Luther on August 15 (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1356 ff.), was published alone, without the explanations, by Siegmund Grimm and Max Wirsung in Augsburg. Mur this is found in the Baseler Sammlung Lutherscher Schriften of March 1520; zuglerch with the explanations In VI. Dutüorii Iriorivratiouriru pars una, Lasiloao in aodikus Vda6 Dotri 1520, Vlonso lulio, p. 291 (the attribution) and p. 517 (the explanations). The dedicatory letter alone is still found in ] urilubor, LxistoInrrirrr VI ^utkkri, Dom. 1,1556, lol. 185; in De Wette vol. I, 290. In the collective editions we find both pieces; in the Latin Wittenberg of 1545, Dom. I, Lol. 293 d and in the Latin Jena one of 1556, Dom. I, toi. 294 u, with the possible elimination of the favorable verdicts on Carlstadt; in the Erlanger opp. lat. var. arx. Bd. Ill, 228; in the Weimar edition Bd. II, 391. Then still in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, Bd. Ill, 733. Our translation is according to the Weimar edition.
Council to shame, as far as God is his confidence. Therefore, both of us, knowing that we are all human beings, how easy it is to err, how seldom it happens, and how difficult it is to have a true opinion and to act rightly, would rather seek the truth in common endeavor than bite and consume each other solely out of a desire for honor or to maintain our own opinion.
The second thing that is held against me [is] that this article was expressly condemned at the Council of Constance among the articles of Hus: if I do not now soon keep silent here and recant, they will stop their ears, storm me [Apost. 7, 56. and threaten me with fire, for they do not deign to delay here, nor do they accept any excuse, but, I pray you, is this the way to seek the truth, if one immediately blocks the mouth of him who seeks the truth? And where is this that Peter commands to give an account to everyone who demands it? [1 Pet. 3:15.] Further, have not the conciliarists often erred? Did not Cyprian err with the bishops of all Africa at a council held even on an exceedingly important article of faith concerning the power of baptism? And what is it to wonder if even nowadays a conciliar stings everything, since we live in a much more indifferent (frigidiore) time than Cyprian? And so that I speak clearly and freely, which I do most of the time, I believe that I am a Christian theologian and live in the realm of truth, that I am therefore guilty not only of affirming the truth, but also of asserting and defending it, even with blood or death.
Therefore, I will be free and will not be captivated by anyone, neither by the prestige of a council, nor of a power, nor of the universities, nor of the pope, that I should not confidently confess what I have known to be true, whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or by a heretic, whether it has been approved or disapproved by any council.
I will not be afraid even of the envy which will perhaps innocent me as a patron of the heretics, because
I know that truth has nothing to do with envy, as it is said in Wis 6:25: "And I will have nothing to do with poisonous envy, for such a man will not have wisdom. So what is it to me that lying envy accuses me? It is a praise to displease the wicked. I also dislike the heretics. But because nowadays the sophists do not deal with any accusation so foolishly [as with that of a heretic], they bring about that almost only among the heretics the Catholic Church of Christ remains, among the heretics, I say, not who are, but who are called so by the frenzy of those.
And in this I will follow the decision of the jurists, so that it will not be thought that I alone, and presumptuously, do this. For it says Panormitanus de electione, Cap. Significasti, that one must believe a single (privato) believer more than a whole council or the pope, if he has a better ruling [of Scripture] or reason. If this is true, why should one not be allowed to make use of it? Why should I not dare to try whether I alone could not produce a better testimony than a council?
Therefore, let us look at the conciliarities. Is it not known to all that the church has sometimes condemned things and at the same time also the opposite, such as: "God does evil, God does not do evil"? Although I do not know whether it was the church that condemned this. For the church does not have the power to condemn an explicit statement of the holy scripture, which is also written in the text. For that "God does evil" is expressly stated in Isa. 45:7 and Amos 3:6 and in many other places. And this does not serve the purpose of saying that it is condemned because of the false mind of the heretics. For the words of Scripture need not be condemned because of the wrong mind of any man. For otherwise, because of the Arians, this word also would have to be condemned [John 14:28]: "The Father is greater than I", yes, the whole Scripture would have to be condemned, and it alone, because from none of the words of the Scriptures can be found.
other [source] heresies have arisen. What could be more foolish than this? For far be it from this, that a godly and simple-minded Christian should have learned anything rightly in the holy Scriptures, which, if he came under certain judges of heresy, whose feet are hastening to shed blood, he himself should also be forced to condemn, because of the false reasoning of others who have been condemned. For in this way we would pave the way for the whole prestige of the Holy Scriptures to be overturned at once, and the most impious of blasphemers would rise up, saying that the Bible is the book of heretics, and that Christians must protect themselves with other books, namely those of the teachers.
So I also find two contradictory things in the Council of Constance: First, it was stated there that a council is above the pope, of which I judge that it is quite true. For St. Jerome also writes to Evagrius: "If the reputation is asked, the world is greater than Rome. Thus the whole Church is greater than the One Roman Church, and thus the Roman Church is not above the whole general Church, but on the contrary, the whole Church (and 'one Conciliar representing the same) is above the Roman, as well as above every other special Church. For even the whole is greater than its part, since the Roman Church is a part of the whole general Church.
If this is true, it is clear that the Council of Constance wrongly condemned this article of John Hus: "The pope does not stand above all churches by divine right. For if the Roman church and the pope are above all churches and above the council by divine right, then it was established against divine right (which is quite ungodly and heretical) that the pope and the Roman church are under the council and the whole church, because it is not in the hands of the church or of a council to break divine right, therefore it could neither depose nor appoint the pope. Or do you think that the bishop of Lyons would suffer to be either deposed or installed by the bishop of Mainz, if he knew that by divine right he was higher than the bishop of
Mainz, however much he would like to have deserved it? Yes, he would not have to suffer it either, if he did not want to be godless and a heretic. So also the Roman bishop cannot and must not suffer that he is ruled and determined by a council (statui), if he stands above the council and the church by divine right: for it is for him to rule, not to be ruled, who is the supreme by divine right.
And so it is evident that the Council of Constance either wrongly condemned the article of Hus, or that it decided and acted in an ungodly manner against divine right.
But in all this, see how the Holy Spirit is present in the Church: that which was established at the Council of Constance, that the Pope is below the Council and the Church, and confirmed by that of Basle, was now rejected at the last Council of Rome, and the whole Council of Basle was overturned, and it was established that the Pope is higher than a Council. What shall we say here? Inevitably, either the council at Rome or the council at Constance is heretical, if one may not deviate from the decisions of the councils.
Finally, the way is now broken for us to weaken the reputation of the conciliums and to contradict their actions freely and to judge their resolutions. For, as they say, if a council is convicted (deprehenditur) that it has erred in an article, its whole reputation immediately falls. Who, then, is so bold as to dare to accuse me of being a heretic, even if I should deny all the resolutions, both of the Roman council and of that of Constance, since I have this support and this excuse, that it is incumbent upon a council to prove its resolutions and to show that it has not erred, after it is established that it has sometimes erred and may err.
What then, do you think, do the decisions and condemnations of the conciliarities of our time, given in the place of the church (vicariae), help us, but that they make us uncertain (if we rely on them), where Christ, the church, a council, the Holy Spirit is to be looked for, and that everything is completely in the all-
greatest confusion (in primum cahos) is confused?
But I want to return to the one from Constance with which I am most attacked. I claim that his condemnation of the article of Hus: "The pope is not by divine right over all churches", is also ungodly because it is contrary to the Council of Nicaea and the one in Africa, also to the whole Oriental and African church, since only by the sixth Council of Chalcedon the supremacy (not by divine right, but by the church) was offered to the Roman bishops, but not even accepted by them in such a way, as St. Gregory writes. Gregory writes. For if the supremacy had taken place by divine right, then the Conciliar of Nicaea with the four following ones would be heretical, and all in the Church of the Orient would be heretics, heretics would also be the Roman bishops, because they rejected the proposed [supremacy]. Therefore, I do not want to yield anything to the reputation of the Council of Constance in this matter. For I will in no way suffer the greater part of the church to become heretical for the sake of the Council of Constance, which has erred, as is clearly evident. It is also not to be wondered at, since these things have been led mainly by the machinations (machina) of the heretical judges and their comrades.
There are also many other quite true articles of Hus condemned there, which I will refer to if the opponent tempts me: for I will clearly prove from the words of the Council itself that the opinion of John Hus was not that an evil pope, or one who lives in mortal sin, is not to be considered a pope, although the bloodthirsty heretic judges saw to it that many articles were imposed on him about this and condemned.
Nor do I care here that they proclaim me a patron of the Bohemians; I show the words of the council itself, which they boast against me, and follow the same: if these should be found to be false, what is it to me? But if they are true, why should I not follow them? It behooves me, as I have said, against
all clamor with words, titles, names and dignities to tell the truth and deny the false. For I believe that a Christian must act in this way. And I ask that if I do not please them under the name of a Christian, they may imagine and allow that I, for the time being, as a Turk or as some unbeliever, oppose my reasons and testimonies to them, so that they may at least thus see and realize with what effort they could maintain their faith, and how easy it is to say: "The Council has decided thus" and how difficult it is to maintain that just that was decided correctly (bene). I therefore say that this article was wrongly condemned at Constance: "Every action of man is either good or evil," and let it be answered whoever thinks he can defend that decision.
Firstly, the apostle says Rom. 8, 14: "Those who are moved by the Spirit of God are the children of God. Likewise [v. 9]: Whoever does not have Christ's spirit is not his. Here I ask, Whose is he that is not Christ's: is he not of the devil and of sin? But he who is the servant of sin does nothing but sin.
Secondly, the same Gal. 3, 10, says: All who deal with the works of the law are under the curse. See, here he says that the works of the law outside of grace are cursed, that is, not indifferent (neutra - neutral). And he says: "All who", not excluding anyone, and not making any middle position between curse and grace. It is not valid for them to say that the apostle is speaking here of the ceremonial law, that it was then fatal. For it is clear from what follows that he is speaking of all the works of the law, since he cites Moses, who says [Deut. 27:26], "Cursed be he who does not abide in all that is written in the book of the law. After that he says [Gal. 3, 13.], Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. But Christ has not redeemed us from the ceremonial law, which was taken away after his death, but from every law, giving grace that it may be fulfilled. If therefore the works of the law are accursed without grace, how much more are none of the works of the law accursed without grace?
other works indifferent (neutralia) or morally good!
Third, Matth. 12, 33: Either plant a good tree and the fruit will be good, or plant an evil tree and the fruit will be evil. Here Christ does not allow a middle position (medium) to be understood, as he also says there [v. 30]: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. So you see that one must either gather with Christ or scatter, either be with him or against him: but against him is only sin, also scatter only he who sins.
Fourth, John 15:6: He that abideth not in me is cast away as a branch, and withereth: and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they must burn. Behold, he that is without Christ withereth and perisheth, and thou sayest "neither" (neutrum), that he neither withereth nor is green, but is at times in a middle state?
Fifth, Romans 14:23: Whatever does not come from faith is sin, which is the rule of St. Augustine. But that they say that faith is taken for conscience, and that the apostle speaks of those who act against their conscience, even though St. Augustine rejects it: but so be it, the opinion still stands: He who does not have faith in Christ does not have a good conscience toward God, so either he does not believe, or he doubts whether he pleases God in his works. If he doubts, he sins against his conscience, because he does not firmly believe that he pleases God; therefore he does what he does not think is good, and in this way he always sins. But only faith firmly trusts that it pleases God, and through this faith it comes that we please God, because this faith in truth has a good opinion of God and it considers Him to be the true God, thinking good of Him, according to the words of Wis. 1:1: Have an opinion of the Lord that He is good. For it is impossible for a man to be blessed and to live rightly if he does not have the opinion of God that He is good toward him.
Sixthly (to pass over several things, so that I am not too prolix), I will mention the reason that St. Augustine used in the
especially against Julian in the 4th book, which Gregory of Arimini also repeats in the 2nd book, question 28. It is this: The virtues differ according to their final purpose [which they have, not according to the service [which they render]. For every virtue except grace seeks its own, it cannot seek what is God's, because it has no capacity for a work of love, of which with the praise due to it 1 Cor. 13, 5. is said: Love does not seek its own. Therefore, no virtue has God as its ultimate purpose, nor can it love God above all things and for God's sake, otherwise grace would not be necessary. And it is from this cause alone that all the good works of the Gentiles, or those that are done by nature (naturalia), are evil, because they do not have the end that they should have. This is what the apostle Rom. 3, 10. ff. says, in that he includes all men, both Jews and Gentiles, even though the former did as much as they could in righteousness and the latter in wisdom: There is no one who is righteous, there is no one who has understanding, there is no one who asks about God: they have all gone astray and have all become unfit. Behold, no one inquires after God, and all depart; none understands God, much less should he have Him in his work for his end. Therefore he concludes confidently and says [Gal. 3, 2.]: God has decided all under sin. Behold, he excepteth none: "all under sin," which also David saith [Ps. 116, 11.], All men are liars. But what truth should a liar speak? What pure thing should come from the unclean? says the wise man. [Sir. 34, 4.]
But that it is said, "Did not Caiphas prophesy the truth? [Did not, as Matth. 7, 22. says, many prophesy in the name of Christ and do many deeds?" I answer, they have spoken the truth, but not in a true way; they have done good, but not in a right way. For who is not convinced that a harlot has as good gold on her as a chaste, respectable woman, and that she also has such beautiful limbs? but she does not wear and use this so well. In the same way, those good works of wisdom, the
Deeds 1) of gifts, since they are undeserved gifts of God, very good, but because they are not directed to the final purpose they should have, they do good, but not in a good way. Therefore, out of the good gifts of God come evil works, through our fault. Therefore Christ will say to them [Matth. 7, 23.]: Depart from me, all you evildoers. How could those be evildoers who have done such great good works, if they had not used the good in an evil way, even though they have benefited others through the evil use?
Seventh: If the just in grace cannot do good without sinning at the same time, how much more does the unjust do no good! and from this I conclude that every action of man is either good or evil, and that there is no intermediate (medium) and indifferent (neutrum) action. The antecedent 2) will be clearly proved by the following [2nd] thesis.
Therefore, I now return to the matter at hand, namely to the thesis: Every Christian repents daily because he sins daily, not by committing gross offenses, but by not fulfilling the commandments of God. And to prove this, the saying of John [15, 1. ff.] would suffice, which is set in the thesis that the heavenly vinedresser also cleanses the fruit-bearing branches daily. If they need cleansing, they are unclean: if unclean, they are sinners: if sinners, they need repentance. Therefore, the word of Christ belongs to them: Repent.
Secondly, the word of the same John in the first epistle [Cap. 1, 8.]: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. St. Augustine cites this saying in many places, and lays stress on the word: "we have," in the present time, that it does not mean: "we have had," but: "we have." Therefore, we sin daily, and daily we sweep out sin (purgamus): so we do penance, if you do not want to say that penance is not purification.
1) virtuturn must be translated here as "deeds" because of the relation to Matth. 7, 22.
2) Namely, that even the righteous in grace cannot do good without sinning.
of sins, contrary to the opinion of all who place repentance, which cancels guilt, as the most important part of penance. Finally, St. Augustine, based on this word of John, dares to say in the book "Of Nature and Grace": "If all the saints, gathered together in a heap, were asked whether they had sin, what else would they say," he says, "but: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"? But no sin is taken away without repentance.
Third, the word Ps. 32:6: For this shall all the saints pray thee in due time. Behold, every saint prays for the iniquity of his sin: but this, of course, is repentance; and it cannot be said that he prays for past sin, or for the punishment of past sin, but for the present. For, to show this, he added: "the iniquity of my sin," for this he will pray, namely, not for sin, by which also punishment is sometimes signified, but for the iniquity of sin, which is a guilt. For it is prayed for that which is to be forgiven, for that which is forgiven we give thanks.
Fourth, the word 1 Tim. 1, 15: Jesus Christ came to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost. He does not say: "I have been", but: "I am a sinner", according to the words Rom. 7, 18. f.: "I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. The evil that I do not want, that I do. And [v. 14]: But I am carnal, sold under sin. Gal. 5, 17: The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. But to lust against the Spirit is sin, because it is forbidden by the commandment of God, "Do not lust." Therefore, this sin is quite actually sin and to be eradicated by repentance, as Rom. 6:6 teaches that the sinful body is to be destroyed and not to obey the desires of the flesh. But the desires of the flesh are sins and against the divine law, therefore repentance is necessary for them.
Fifth, Luc. 13:2 ff: Do you think that they were guilty before all the people who live in Jerusalem? No, I say
He says to you, "If you do not repent, you will all perish. Behold, he imposes repentance on all. So Lucä at the last [24, 47.): Repentance and forgiveness of sins had to be preached in his name among all nations. Behold, the whole Gospel is nothing but a preaching of repentance: so the evangelical life is nothing but a repentance. Therefore Bernhard rightly says: "He who does not hasten to repentance shows by deed that he has no need of repentance, as if it were by far the most inconsistent thing that someone could exist who had no need of repentance.
Sixth, the whole Church, as Augustine testifies, to the end of the world, prays, "Forgive us our debts." But this is a word of repentance, so that Christ says [Matt. 6:12, 15.], "If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses": he speaks to the apostles, holy children of God, and where are their trespasses? They are venial, but they would be mortal sins if they were not forgiven. There are, of course, certain people who talk that this prayer is prayed for the punishment of sins; one must beware of them as forgers of the word of God. For what will they say to the prayer: "Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done"? This also the most holy pray: but by praying they confess that they have not yet sanctified the name of GOD, that in them is not yet the kingdom of GOD nor His righteousness, but by this prayer they seek the kingdom of GOD and His righteousness, [they confess that] they have not yet done the will of GOD. But all these are debts that make us guilty (debita culpae), and sins against the law of God, who wants His name to be holy, to reign in us, that His will be done among us. And it is not to be believed that prayer is only for appearance: hence it follows that all pray truly and confess in truth that they lack this. And so it is clear that the prayer of the Lord alone teaches us, first, that we are sinners all our days and always sin; second, that the whole of life is a repentance and a prayer and a contrition.
From this follows further: against the decision of the Council of Constance that every action of man is evil apart from grace, since even the action of the righteous in grace is not good and also does not fulfill the commandment of God.
Finally, so many of the apostle Paul's exhortations urge us to put to death the members that are on earth, Col. 3, 5, and the works of the flesh, Rom. 8, 13, and to renew them through the renewing of the mind, Rom. 12, 2, and to wait for the body so that it does not become lustful, Rom. 13, 14, and to crucify the flesh with its lusts and desires, Gal. 5, 24. 13, 14; that we should crucify the flesh along with the lusts and desires, Gal. 5, 24. All of this is aimed at (as is clear) the need for constant repentance, because the sin of tinder (i.e. original sin) is constantly stirring and brings forth new desires, like the cursed earth thorns and thistles, Gen. 3, 18.
Other in the explanations (resolutorio) of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd thesis and 1) thesis. But I do not yet see that the opinion of this thesis is refuted: for even at Leipzig it has not been touched with a syllable. If you yourself want to deny their opinion, then it is necessary that you deny almost all the books of St. Augustine, which he published against the Pelagians, since he moves completely in all things in this opinion. It follows, then, that this is not a new opinion, as Eck slandered, but Eck's thesis, which opposes it, is a new and old error, which belongs to the heresy of the Pelagians; nor does a concilium have anything to set up against it, if it does not want to err, as it has often done.
2nd thesis.
To deny that man sins even in the good, and that a venial sin is such, not by its nature, but only through God's mercy, or that sin remains in a child even after baptism, is to trample Paul and Christ underfoot at the same time.
1) Here, the more detailed designation of the thesis is missing (Weim. edition). - The explanations to which Luther refers here and below in the 11th thesis are the explanations of his Disputation von der Kraft des Ablasses; in this volume Col. 100 ff.
This thesis conceives three things in itself: that sin is in a good work; then, that sin is not venial by its nature, but by the mercy of God, and that sin remains after baptism.
The first is presented like this:
Isaiah 64:6: But now we are all like the unclean, and all our righteousness is like an unclean garment. This single saying alone should stop the mouth and the gullet of all opponents, since it is quite clear that we are all unclean, and not only our unrighteousness, but also our righteousness is unclean before God.
But I know what they tend to oppose here, namely that the prophet speaks of our righteousness, which is from the law, which also the apostle condemns. St. Jerome also seems to lean toward this opinion. But the words of the prophet are clear: for he speaks in his own person and that of all the believing people, who were not justified by the righteousness of the law, but by grace, since they also ate the same food and had the same spirit of faith, as the apostle says [1 Cor. 10:3]. For the righteousness of the law does not make a confession before God in humility: it does not accuse itself from the beginning, but puffed up it excuses itself and justifies itself, therefore it is by justifying grace alone that one says and confesses that one is impure and ungodly. Secondly, he does not say, "our righteousness" or "we," but "we all," and "all our righteousness": he excludes no one, and claims of no righteousness that it is pure. So this cannot be drawn to some who have not been justified by grace, nor to the legal alone, but to all and to all their righteousness. But it is certain that there were some among them who were justified by a better righteousness than the legal righteousness, and that at that time also there was at the same time a righteousness other than the legal righteousness, and yet he says that all are impure and all righteousness is defiled. Therefore this saying prevails, and the words thus revealed enforce that the declaration of any one, whoever he may be, must give way to their fully revealed sense.
But also that is said according to a bad way of understanding that the legal justice was impure in comparison to the evangelical justice, because in any case the ceremonial law was good and ordered by God. Therefore, the righteousness of it was by no means impure in itself, since at that time they were forced to keep it no less than the holy Ten Commandments. Therefore, those who speak of the righteousness of the Law as impure look only to the time of the Gospel, in which it is abolished, not because it is impure, but because it gave foolish people confidence against the grace of GOD, as the apostle teaches [in the Epistles] to the Galatians and to the Romans. Therefore, as the ceremonial righteousness was good and right, and yet impure, so also their righteousness from the holy ten commandments was impure, however good it might be: for the prophet speaks for his time, in which the righteousness of the law was not yet abolished. Otherwise one would have to say that God had commanded them. To keep unclean things, which is abominable. So the word stands firm: "all our righteousness is unclean" and: "we are all unclean."
Secondly, 1) the word of Ecclesiastes 7:21: There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin. But this word also tends to be circumvented in such a way that the righteous sometimes does good and sometimes sins. But this cannot stand; for if ev had intended this, it would have been enough to say, "There is none righteous who does not sin." For what superfluous words should he have used, as if anyone could be a righteous man who acts in an evil way? For only the righteous doeth good, and of the doing of good he is called a righteous man: therefore, to indicate the defect, he adds, "who doeth good, and sinneth not." For when he speaks of works that are not good works (benefacta), he speaks thus [Prov. 24:16.], A righteous man falls seven times in the day, and rises again as often. Here he does not add, "A righteous man who does good."
Thirdly, 1) the passage Rom. 7:19: The evil that I do not want, that I do; the evil that I do not want, that I do.
1) Cf. Col. 43 and 58 in this volume.
2) Cf. above Col. 58.
The good that I want, I do not do. And further on [v. 22.For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, which is contrary to the law in my mind. 2c Here let us pay attention to the apostle: Reason and also the reputation of both the church and a council must give way to this, because here that is taught, the opposite of which I could not believe, even if an angel from heaven taught it. No one will be able to overcome this passage of the apostle, nor to evade it. First of all, one and the same man, Paul, the holy apostle, full of grace, has here at the same time pleasure in the law of God and at the same time he resists the law of God, at the same time he wants the good according to the spirit, but he does not do it according to the flesh, but the opposite: thus he sins while he does good. For to go against the law of God, who could dare to understand by it anything else than sinning? Not doing good, is that not against the law of God? But while he wants this good, he does not do this good, but the opposite evil. Since he is therefore never without reluctance, he never does good without an affliction, so he never completely fulfills the law of God. Therefore, that I say so, that unwillingness (noluntas 1) of the law of God is always in the flesh when the willing of the law of God is there; by this he does good, by that evil. The not willing is of the flesh, the willing of the spirit: therefore we ask that God's will be done on earth (in the flesh) as it is done in heaven (that is, in the spirit). In the same way he says [Rom. 7, 18.: I have willing, but I do not find doing. This is also what the scholastics say, that man is not inclined (difficilis) to good, but inclined to evil, and yet they dare to say that in a good work there is no sin, as if the inclination, which hinders a joyful and free love of the law, does not stand in the way of the law of God being done enough, which is only fulfilled by pure and free love. Ps. 1, 2: In the law of the Lord is His pleasure (voluntas), and 1 Tim.
1) Cf. above Col. 59.
1, 5.: The main urüma (finis) of the law is love. Thus the 45th Psalm [v. 8] says: You love righteousness and hate ungodliness. Therefore Paul concludes [Rom. 7, 25]: "So then I serve the law of God with my mind, but the law of sin with my flesh. What can be said more clearly: "The same servant serves with the same servitude the law of God and the law of sin"? Do you still deny that it is sin to serve the law of sin? With the same insolence (fronte) you also want to deny that it is something good to serve the law of God. Therefore, every good work of every man in this life is tainted with sin (vitiosum) because of the bondage of sin by which he is held captive in the flesh, so that he always remains a debtor to the law of God and a sinner, and is only blessed in the one thing that he exclaims with the apostle [Rom. 7:24, "I wretched man, who will deliver me from the body of this death? 2)
Fifthly. 3) The same opinion of the same [apostle] is found in Gal. 5, 17: The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. These are contrary to one another, that ye do not do the things that ye would. Is Paul not clear enough here either? To lust against the Spirit is sin and against the law of God. But these two things remain as long as the flesh remains: so they do not do what they want. They want to keep the law of God, so that they may not desire anything against the law of God, but they do not do so, nor do they fulfill this desire: therefore they remain sinners and do not do a work in which there does not remain a guilt or a lack in relation to the law.
But against this they lie down and say: "this lack is not actually sin, therefore one must keep the way of speaking and talk like most. I answer: "Your way is corrupt, because it is not
2) In the Vulgate: äs corpore niortis üujus. In all Latin editions at our disposal, also in the Weimar: äs morts sorporls ünjns.
3) Fourth in the complete editions. In the single editions no fourth precedes. This seems to be included in the third, where two proofs are given. (If. Edition.)
Paul says that he is serving the law of sin and acting against the law. Paul says that he serves the law of sin and acts against the law. But nothing can be called sin in a more proper way than that which is against the law and serves the law of sin. So continue with your abusive way of speaking. But about this further down with the venial sin.
Therefore, 1) there is so much sin as unwillingness, aversion, reluctance, and so much merit as willingness, freedom, happiness. These two things are mixed together in our whole life and work. For we are not without the flesh, nor do we work without it. But whatever the flesh is, such it works. Since it is completely non-will (noluntas), there is already mortal sin and turning away [from God (aversio). But a complete will is not in this life: therefore we always sin while doing good, although sometimes less, sometimes more, depending on the flesh being [more or] less impetuous with its impure desires. This, then, is the reason why there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin; but there is such a righteous man only in heaven. But since man is not without this unwillingness, nor does he work without it, he cannot for that reason be without sin in a good work. For how can he work without it, since he cannot live and be without it? Therefore, the righteous man is like a rust-eaten tool that God has undertaken to smooth, which cuts badly as long as it is rusty, until it is perfectly smoothed.
Sixth. Here belongs the parable (Luc. 10, 30. ff.) of the Samaritan, who poured oil and wine into the wounds of a half-dead man and bandaged his wounds, but did he heal him immediately? No, but he ordered the innkeeper to take care of him until he came back. Therefore, the church is the inn where we are healed of sins daily after receiving the grace of baptism. And our works are such as are done by those who are full of grace.
1) Cf. Col. 59 above.
who are beginning to get well, but are not yet recovered; therefore it is evident that they must be partly sick, partly well, but very different from those who do perfectly well. Therefore Christ, Matth. 7, 11, calls the apostles simply "bad", iudem he speaks: So then you, who are bad, can give good gifts to your children. But if they are bad, then the saying of the same Lord will stand firm [Matth. 7, 18.]: A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit, and only insofar do they bring forth good fruit as they are a good tree, and vice versa. But that this understanding or custom of speaking has been lost among the theologians, this is the cause that they have let go of the holy Scriptures and have begun to speak of these divine things in a human (that is, in an easier, as they think) way, and so they have gradually lost also the sense of the Scriptures, whose words they let go at the same time, as it were, as vessels, so that, knowing that in baptism all sins were forgiven, they immediately concluded that there was no sin left, and therefore called the tinder not a sin but a weakness, contrary to the express text of the apostle, since sin is forgiven there, not that it is not there, but that it is not imputed, as St. Augustine says. So in all truth sin is there, only that it is not imputed, because it has been begun to be cast out. Therefore, the imputation is taken away, but the sin itself remains until it is also expelled. We are in a phase, that is, in a transition, from sin to grace. Now, if you would cease to cast it out and consider it a non-sin, you are already no longer keeping the covenant of baptism, and the imputation of it comes again: for you have made the covenant to fight sin, and to wrestle against the devil and all his nature (pompis). If you understand this about the sins that are outside of you, and consider your sin that is within you to be no sin, then you neither understand the sacrament of baptism rightly, nor do you accept it. Therefore, the sin of tinder [original sin] is not different from any gross sin.
Offense after or before baptism, since it is equally against the Law of GOD as any other sin, except that it is not imputed.
Therefore, others may see for themselves what they have learned in scholastic theology. I know and confess that I have learned nothing but ignorance about sin, righteousness, baptism and the whole Christian life, nor about the power of God, the work of God, the grace of God, the righteousness of God, faith, hope and love. In short, I have not only learned nothing (which would still have to be suffered), but I have only learned such things that I have had to unlearn again, because they were completely contrary to the holy Scriptures. But I wonder if others should have learned in a more profitable way (foelicius). If there are some such, I sincerely wish them happiness. I had lost Christ there, now I have found him again in Paulo. .
Seventh, the parable of Matth. 13, 33. belongs to it: The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour, until it was completely leavened. The measure (satum) is a kind of Hebrew measure, which, as Jerome indicates, contains one and a half bushels. But what the three measures of flour are, now is not the place to say. Now it is enough that we human beings are the flour, the leaven is the hidden Christ, the grace given to us in the spirit of faith. But just as the leaven does not suddenly leaven the whole dough, so the grace poured in is not immediately spread through the whole body, but gradually leavening the whole man and making him like himself. Therefore, sin is left there, but because it has begun to be expelled, it is not imputed to the one who expels it. For this is that in baptism all sins are forgiven, namely, that they are not imputed, but not entirely removed. It is therefore a human error and a human sin that sin is taken away according to its essence (quoad formale): but the essence they call the deprivation of grace, the basic substance (materiale) the tinder.
itself or the nature (habitum). Only the imputation is taken away: the essence, however, remains as far as the basic substance remains, that is, the deprivation of grace is there as great as the remaining [evil] lust. For love must take the place of evil desire, which is not where evil desire is. The cause of the error is that they place only the soul and its nobler part as that with which grace has to do (subjectum gratiae); furthermore, that they distinguish flesh and spirit according to reason (metaphysice), as it were, as two self-existent things (substantias), while the whole man is spirit and flesh, only so far spirit as he loves the law of God, so far flesh as he hates the law of God. Thus health and sickness are next to each other in the same body or in the same place of the flesh. For this reason, as Solomon says [Prov. 20, 9.], no one can boast that he is pure in heart, because the flesh, which is the inclination of the flesh and evil desire, which [1 Cor. 5, 8.] is the old leaven of wickedness, corrupts the whole man. According to Gen. 6, 3. my spirit shall not abide in man because he is flesh, he says, not: because he has flesh, because by the whole inclination of his heart he lives and weaves (carnem sapit) only in the flesh. Therefore, the new leaven, that is, love, is again mixed with this old leaven, so that he throws it out of the whole man, first from the heart, then from the whole body and all the members.
Eighth, that very strong testimony in Psalm 143, 2.: Do not go into judgment with your servant, because before you no living person is just. Here I ask whether that righteous one, whom they invent, since he has already been in the most "beautiful" merit, is to be counted among those who live, since the Psalm has spoken in general: "not a living one"? If he is counted among them, he will not be just before the judgment seat of God, as it says here. Why this? If he is without sin in a good work, he cannot be condemned by God, who is righteousness itself, who loves nothing more than righteousness, and it is not to be feared that the righteous judge will not condemn righteousness.
condemn. But if he is condemned, he is already not without sin and is found to have acted against the law of God. For only he is condemned who has not done enough for the law of God.
If, then, he who is a servant of God is not found righteous in the judgment of God, not even one of the living, among whom some must necessarily be very holy, if we believe that the holy church, the congregation of the saints, lives on earth, who nevertheless fulfill the law, what? do you think this is a frenzy among those who are so nonsensical as to claim that without grace and outside the church the law can be fulfilled by natural forces, according to the whole essence of the deed (quo ad totam substantiam facti), though not according to the intention of the governor?
Moreover, returning to the article of Hus, who was condemned at Constance, how great an error it is to say that there is an indifferent (neutrum) action that is not evil, since the action of the righteous cannot be justified before God! To them the word of Jeremiah [49, 12.] can rightly be said: Behold, those who were not guilty of drinking the cup must drink; and thou shalt remain unpunished? Thou shalt not go unpunished. And 1 Pet. 4, 18.: If the righteous is hardly preserved, where will the sinner and the ungodly appear? And see what monstrosities follow from this. To the ungodly outside grace they ascribe not even a venial sin in his good works, but the same is only not meritorious: while here sin is so imputed to the righteous in a good work, that if he were brought before God's judgment, he could not be declared righteous (that is, a mortal and damnable sin); how much more, then, are the good works of the ungodly damnable and mortal sins, by no means indifferent (neutralia,) or mediocre (media,). And still they boast that scholastic theology is not contrary to sacred theology, although in this way the position of a sinner would be better than that of the righteous, since the latter did not sin in that in which the righteous sins.
Let us now see where the sayings of the holy fathers flow from.
Augustin in the 9th book of the Confessions says: Woe to the life of men, however praiseworthy it may be, if it should be judged with mercy set aside! What follows from this, I pray you? Is it not this, that every sin is by its very nature a mortal sin, but by the mercy of God alone is it venial? And this, of course, is no wonder, because all sin is against the law of God. But to be against the law of God is already the most serious [offense], as much as there is in it. For that which is in any way contrary to the law of God must be constantly separated from God, since nothing impure will enter the kingdom of heaven [Revelation 21:27]. Furthermore, since not a jot will pass from the law that does not have to [Matth. 5, 18.], it is necessary that not even venial sin may remain. For [Ps. 12, 7] the speech of the Lord is pure as silver tried by fire, which is purified seven times. Man must also be as pure, otherwise he will not be saved, because not one tittle will melt.
Therefore, it is again a serious error of the theologians who do not care at all about a venial sin and prate that a venial sin does not offend God or offends only in a venial way. If it is such a minor offense, why is the righteous hardly blessed? Why does the righteous not endure the judgment of GOD and cannot be declared righteous? Why are we compelled to pray so earnestly, and in no more casual or improper way: "Forgive us our trespasses", and: "Thy will be done, Thy kingdom come, hallowed be Thy name"? Is it not clear that these wretched theologians (theologistas) first extinguish the fear of God in men, and then put pillows and pads under their arms and heads, as Ezekiel [13:18.] says, and remit prayer from them and dampen the spirit? It is not a matter of little importance (they may say what they will) if one deviates from God's law and will even a hair's breadth, nor is the divine mercy something small,
which forgives venial sin. Thus, they consider the law and the will and the mercy of God to be something almost useless, so that prayer cannot be fervent and the gratitude of the righteous cannot be kindled. Let us therefore be on our guard against this Pharisaic leaven.
This, however, sufficiently demonstrates that Eck's second thesis is both erroneous and ungodly, since he denies that the righteous sins in every good work, or that the righteous sins mortally (looking to divine judgment), or that sin remains in a baptized person. For this he drew from human dreams, having neither read nor understood in the holy Scriptures what sin is, or what a good work is.
Again Augustin says in the 1st book of his Retractations, Cap. 19, in answer to the question whether all the commandments of God had been fulfilled by the apostles: All the commandments are fulfilled when that which has not been fulfilled is forgiven, for among these commandments is also that which the whole Church prays to the ends of the earth: "Forgive us our trespasses." You see that the commandments are not fulfilled by men with their deeds, but by God through His forgiveness. But what is forgiven in the works of the commandments but sin? But this is not a small pardon, which the divine majesty bestows. Therefore, they may refrain from belittling venial sin, for the remission of which not a man, not an angel, but the mercy of the eternal Majesty is necessary. Then it is not a small commandment that the same Majesty has commanded to pray, as Augustine says here, "Forgive us our trespasses." The divine majesty esteems venial sin so highly that, in order to eradicate it, she gives the commandment to implore her mercy, and a man wants to imagine that he is safe in this [sin]? Woe to the man through whom trouble comes!
Again, the same Augustine, in the 29th Letter to St. Jerome, speaking of the virtues, says: "And to summarize generally and briefly what concept I have of virtue, as far as the right way of living is concerned, virtue is love,
with which that which must be loved is loved. This is greater with some, with others less, with some not at all. But a complete [love], which could not be increased as long as man lives here, is with no one. But as long as it can be increased, that which is less than it should be comes from a debt (ex vitio). From this indebtedness it comes [Eccl. 7, 21.] that there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin from this indebtedness [Ps. 143, 2.], -that before God no living man is righteous'; from this indebtedness that [1 Jn. 1, 8.] 'if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves'; of this indebtedness, that even when we have gone so far, we must necessarily still say, 'Forgive us our trespasses,' although everything we have said, done, thought, has already been forgiven in baptism."
Does not this very clear statement of the most famous father confirm everything that has been said before, that he makes the evil desire that naturally remains from lack of love the cause of sin in every good work?
Since St. Jerome in the 2nd book against the Pelagians interprets the saying Psalm 32, 5: I said: "I will confess my unrighteousness against me", then you forgive me the iniquity of my sin. For this all the saints will ask you in due time. If he is holy, he says, how can he ask for iniquity? If he has iniquity, on what ground can he be called a saint? Finally he concludes, citing very many testimonies of Scripture, especially Job: "Behold our Job, who is blameless, about whom no complaint can be made, who abstains from all evil, with which end of righteousness he is crowned - that he needs the mercy of God.
The same in the first book: Then we are righteous, if we confess ourselves as sinners and our righteousness is not based on our own, but on God's mercy. Therefore, it is up to God's mercy and forgiveness, not up to man's willing and running.
Let us add the Gregory in his moral doctrine.
First, about the saying, Job 9, 2: A man may not justifiably stand against God. He says: The holy man, because he sees that all the merit of our virtue is debt, if it should be judged strictly by a judgment that penetrates into the interior (ab interno arbitrio), so he adds correctly for the sake of it: If he has a desire to quarrel with him, he cannot answer him one for a thousand.
Secondly, the same about the word [Job 9,12.]: If he suddenly asks, who will answer him? For, he says, if judgment is passed without compassion, then in the inquiry the life of the righteous must also perish.
Thirdly, the same passage [Job 9:15]: "If I had anything righteous, I would not answer, but would stand before my judge: for, as we have often said, all human righteousness is shown to be unrighteousness when it is strictly judged, and therefore requires the asking after (post) righteousness, that, since it might have fallen down if it had been judged, it may stand by the mercy of the judge alone.
Fourth, the same [v. 28.]: I feared for all my works, because I know that you do not spare the one who is guilty of something. Behold, the holy man fears in all his works which are not evil (for such [evil] did not the holy man do, as the Lord testifies of him at the beginning of the book [Job 1:8.]), and perceives that he is in debt and has done too little. There Gregory says: what I have done openly I see, but what I have done inwardly, secretly, I do not know.
Fifth, ibid. Mob 9, 30. f.]: Though my hands shine as purely as they may, yet thou wilt dip me in dung 2c Gregory: For as long as we have the punishment of corruption upon us, we by no means attain true purity even by the very best works, but only imitate it. And further on: although I practice right works through effort, I still see in your knowledge that I am not pure. And at the end of the moral teaching: Where is there still room for blessedness under these circumstances, since our evil is purely evil as well as our good,
that we think we have can by no means be something purely good?
So you see that every good work is partly evil, even in such great men, yes, what is even more and something wonderful, how can both be true that Job confesses that he is a sinner, the whole book, since God praises him in the beginning [Cap. 1, 8.] exceedingly gloriously and declares him righteous? For God does not lie, nor does Job, since God, who cannot lie, undoubtedly praises him for his truthfulness. Job, then, is in all truth a sinner, as he confesses in truth; but he is also in all truth a righteous man, as God praises him: how can this be otherwise consistent than that he was indeed a sinner, a righteous man abev solely through the forgiving mercy of God?
But here some say, "True, no one is righteous when he is brought before God's judgment": "yes," they say, "in such a way even the angels are not righteous." I answer: this last is blasphemy, because GOD is wonderful in the blessed (Beatis) (as the apostle says) [2 Thess. 1, 10.], and their righteousness is not to be measured according to the measure of our righteousness. For they are completely and purely righteous, even according to God's. But we, being born in sins and having put on sin as our nature, are not without sin until we become like the angels.
But the first proves for me, because that is why I said that no sin is venial by nature, but all are damnable, but that they are venial is due to God's grace, which is to be greatly respected. Therefore, so that the mercy of the divine majesty is not disregarded, it is necessary to make venial sins very great.
Let us also add the reason of what has been said.
It is necessary that this commandment be fulfilled [Matth. 12, 30]: "You shall love God, your Lord, with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength", so that not even the smallest letter or bag may fall apart. But since we have proved from the apostle, Rom. 7, 23, that sin and evil desire in the members are contrary to the law of GOD, we have to be careful not to let them get in the way of the law of GOD.
it is clear that no one can love neither with all his heart, nor with all his soul, nor with all his strength. For where there is evil desire in the heart, in the soul, in the powers, not all the heart, not all the soul, not all the powers love, and they sin for the sake of it insofar as there is evil desire or sin left there, and so by this commandment God keeps all under sin, so that he may have mercy on all. [Rom. 11, 32.]
But here they have invented a gloss (interpretation) which is probably the most pernicious of all that have arisen in a thousand years, namely, that God does not require the perfect fulfillment of this and similar laws, although Christ [Matth. 5, 18.] clearly says that not the smallest letter nor one tittle shall perish from the law. Therefore it is to be feared that these teachers belong to those whom Christ describes by saying: "Whoever therefore shall destroy one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven [Matth. 5, 19]. So it is not necessary to say, "God does not require a perfect commandment" (for that is changing God's commandment), but rather, "He forgives what we do less." But He does not forgive those who snore, but those who are active, who fear and speak with Job [Cap. 9, 28.]: "I feared for all my works, because I know that You do not spare the one who is guilty of something." But they teach that he spares him who is guilty, saying, "He does not ask for it." Beware, therefore, lest you think that the whole commandment is not required of you, lest you fail to see how much you owe to God, and thereby become proud and lukewarm, and disgust yourself before his mercy, to which he has tried to urge you most strongly by a commandment impossible to you.
Finally, I reintroduce the Lord's prayer, which alone informs the soul more and better about free will, grace and sin, than all the books of the newer theologians and the quibbles of the disputations.
Whoever prays "Hallowed be your name" is undoubtedly asking for what he does not want.
because one must not play with fictitious words before God. If he does not, then he is a desecrator of the name of God. But do we consider it a small thing not to sanctify the name of God, but to desecrate it?
Likewise, whoever prays that God's kingdom come, which is righteousness and peace and is within us, as Christ [Luc. 17:21] and Paul [Rom. 14:17] teach, does he not confess that he is unrighteous and in need of righteousness? But only righteous and holy children of God pray such things.
So, whoever says, "Thy will be done," is he not confessing that he is rebellious against God? Or is it not a sin if the will of God is not done? Where is the free will now? Or does he not despair of himself here, flees to grace alone, only commits sin and confesses that the commandments of God are impossible for him? Where is the "doing as much as is in him" here, since the righteous pray and confess in so many ways that they are sinners? So this prayer is on everyone's lips, and yet the theologians, through so much effort and questioning, have not yet found out what free will, sin and grace are, what they do or are able to do. I have therefore rightly said that man must be suspicious of his works and, as it were, like a gout-ridden man, paralyzed in hands and feet, he must stand by the grace that produces works, although Eck has condemned this opinion with his appendages, as an exceptional proof of his ignorance.
1) Therefore away with these posts and human proofs which say, "One and the same action cannot be accepted [by GOD] and unaccepted, because otherwise it would be good and [at the same time] not good." For this I adduce from the sophisms of Scotus, that I may show how far they are from the truth, while they begin to measure these divine things according to miserable human reasons. For if they were not ignorant of the truth of Scripture, they would not say so. And if they were to accept the doctrine of grace, sin and free will, they would not say this.
1) Cf. Col. 62 in this volume for the following explanation.
If they understood their will correctly, they would not consider such quibbles to be good reasons.
I say accordingly: The same action is accepted and not unaccepted. But that it is not unaccepted (for I must use their words) is not due to the good nature of the act, but to the divine pardon: if it were not for this, none would be accepted. Therefore it is sufficiently clear that they do not know the divine mercy, and therefore they do not know Christ's, since they find a good work worthy of acceptance without the pardoning mercy.
Again they would like to say: "Why then is it said 1 John 5, 1. sund Cap. 3, 9.]: He who is born of GOD does not sin?" I answer: It is impossible that any child of God could sin. But still it exists that he sins, but because he is forgiven, therefore he does not sin, even if he truly sins, unless Paul was not born of God, since he says in Romans 7:25 that he serves the law of sin, or that even John lied against himself, since he says [1 John 1:8]: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. There follows the explanation and union [of the two opposing expressions] as I have given it [1 John 1:9]: But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. To those who so confess, he forgives and makes sinners not sinners, but to those who deny, he retains [the sins] and makes the righteous not righteous. Therefore, this is the description of a righteous man in this life: the righteous man first accuses himself. Therefore, Christian righteousness is an indictment of oneself. As soon as the self-accusation falls away, righteousness also immediately gives way. These confessors are led by Christ in his triumphal procession, "JEsus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews", that is, the confessor. This is the good and sweet word, which the apostle 1 Tim. 1,15. makes sound in the most pleasing way: "This is certainly true and a precious word, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost.
Therefore, my second thesis stands firm, and it is clear how sin remains after baptism, and is mortal sin in every good work (if mercy does not help), and that no sin is venial by its nature. Therefore, it is again affirmed that the actions of the ungodly are much more purely evil, and thus every action is either good or evil, contrary to the decision of the Council of Constance, that is, of the Thomists, who obviously had the upper hand there.
From this it is also concluded that the free will is purely suffering in all its doing, which is called willing, and that the distinction of the sophists is babbled in vain, that a good action is entirely of grace, but not totally (totaliter). It is, in fact, wholly and completely from God, because the will is only carried away, drawn and moved by grace. This pull, which flows over the limbs and powers, both of the body and of the soul, is its activity and no other, just as the pull of a saw that cuts wood is something purely suffering that befalls it from the sawyer, nor does it contribute anything to its pull, but nevertheless, since it is pulled, it acts on the wood, more driven than propelling. This sawing is called by (cum) the sawyer her work, although she is purely suffering. But about this more extensively in his time.
3rd thesis.
Whoever claims that a good work or repentance starts from the abhorrence of sins before the love of righteousness and that there is no sin in it, we count him among the Pelagian heretics, but we prove that he is also nonsensical against his holy Aristotle.
This thesis is firmly proved from the foregoing. For if it is true that no good work can take place before grace, that not even a purely good work takes place in grace, but repentance is naturally a good work, then it is necessary that this should begin with the grace that precedes it. For we are speaking of salutary repentance, not of the repentance of Judas or of the damned. It is therefore
It is explicitly a Pelagian heresy to say that repentance precedes the love of justice. The love of justice, however, is a grace of God, not nature. But in order to show more clearly the ungodliness of Eck's thesis, let us elaborate a little further on the matter.
I have taught in the Explanations 1) and in the Sermon on Repentance 2) that the remembrance of sins before the love of justice is not beneficial to anyone, but harmful; therefore, care must first be taken to love justice: only then, out of love for justice, can sins be detested. Eck called this doctrine "modesty" 3) not heretical, but claimed that it was contrary to the Gospel and the Holy Fathers. Therefore, with a splendid title, which he placed in front of his theses, he announced (with the same modesty) that he would dispute "against the new doctrine".
Let us look at the apostle Paul who says Rom. 4, 15: "The law only causes wrath, for where the law is not, there is no transgression. And Rom. 5, 20: "The law came in next to it so that sin would become more powerful. And Gal. 3, 19: The law was given for the sake of transgressions. And 1 Cor. 15, 56: The power of sin is the law. By all this the apostle means that by the law sins are rather increased than taken away, and the more evil desire is forbidden, the more it is provoked. The clearest of all, however, is Rom. 7, 8: "Sin took its cause in the commandment and stirred up in me all kinds of lust.
So the opinion stands firm that without grace the law kills and increases sin: although outwardly it keeps the hand in check, yet inwardly it inflames the spirit against its will all the more. Since the sinner, who has been commanded before grace to investigate his sins, must of necessity
1) In this volume Col. 101 ff.
2) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 1220 ff.
3) The play on words that Luther uses hrer cannot be well rendered in German. Mockingly, he has written here Leeiana rnolsstia (grumpiness) instead of Leeiana moässtla (modesty).
If he has to be mindful of the law of God, against which he has sinned, it is necessary for him to stir up the lusts again and hate the law, to which alone grace gives love. Thus it comes about that he becomes a hypocrite and worse than before, since he pretends to hate sins, which in truth he neither hates nor can hate, unless he loves the law before; indeed, he now loves sins more than before, and would also, if he dared, no doubt confess this himself. Therefore, by these pernicious and heretical doctrines the church is filled with hypocrites, since they seldom teach of the love of righteousness, but always of the hatred of sin; but how to attain to the hatred of sin they neither know nor teach.
And what am I dwelling on? Since my corner himself admits that free will before grace has no capacity except to sin, how can he be so nonsensical as to take the liberty of saying, in this Pelagian thesis, that he not only does not sin, but acts in accordance with the Gospel and the Fathers, who takes repentance from the abhorrence of sin, that is, takes repentance from sinning, since before grace nothing but sinning takes place in man?
Furthermore, this is also a scholastic opinion, that repentance must happen in love: thus love is rather than repentance. But love is pleasure in the law and in the divine will. If he understands his thesis in this way, of the detestation of sins flowing from love, what impudence and presumption is it to call this a new doctrine and contrary to the Gospel and the Holy Fathers? Therefore, I say, if he thinks that his thesis is contrary to mine, he holds a heretical, Pelagian opinion; but if he thinks that it agrees with it, he presumptuously and foolishly boasts that it is a new doctrine and contrary to the Gospel.
Furthermore, he does not understand his Aristotle, who, although he is a blind pagan, sees more clearly than my Eck that every virtuous act (actus virtutis) comes from free choice and will and love, and that the
The fact that sin is a deprivation and righteousness is a real thing is said by all. But that sin is a deprivation and righteousness is a real thing is what everyone says.
4. thesis.
God changes the eternal punishment into a temporal one, namely, that the cross must be carried, which neither canons nor priests have any power to interpret or take away, although they, seduced by harmful flatterers, may presume to do so.
I have not yet heard a refutation of this thesis, except that Eck's counter thesis says that this contradicts the Scriptures and the customs of the church. But whether he has another scripture and church, I do not know, perhaps he understands the church of the wicked [Ps. 26, 5.] and its abuse, and by scripture its bulls and letters. It is enough for me that the church is not able to do anything but pray in what God wants and does. She has the keys that she uses on earth, and I do not see how she can bind or loose that of which she has absolutely no knowledge, since it is claimed that knowledge is necessary for the use of the keys. About this abundantly in my "Explanations"; 1) if I will see these refuted, I will give in.
5. thesis.
Every priest must absolve a penitent of punishment and guilt, or he sins; likewise, a higher dignitary sins when he reserves secret things without the most just cause, however much the custom of the Church, that is, the flatterer, opposes this.
Also this [thesis] accuses Eck's sentence as contrary to the custom of the holy mother, the church. But I do not dispute about what happens, but what should happen. But that the priests are restricted by the bishops, and the bishops by the pope, that they are not able to do this,
1) In this volume, Col. 100 ff.
what they should do: by what right this is done, that, I confess, I do not know. I see the custom, but demand the right, the divine right, I say; because instead of that I get human [right] and custom. For since elders and bishops by divine. Since elders and bishops are the same by divine right and were the same in former times, when they still provided for the people with preaching and ministrando, I do not see by what right the bishops, after they have left the office to the elders, have taken away the right of the elders with them, since they rose higher.
There are also many other things in the rights and customs of the Church, which I do not understand how they could have happened. One of them is the oath of the bishops, which they were forced to take for the pallium. The kind of oath the bishops are forced to take for the pallium and are imprisoned in complete servitude to the totally godless Rome. Of the kind is the papal month and the expectancies of grace (gratiae expectativae - expectances). Of the kind are the reservations of the cases and innumerable things similar to these. These happen, but the opposite should happen.
6. thesis.
Perhaps the souls in purgatory do enough for the sins; but that God requires from a dying person more than a willing death is asserted with the most trivial presumption, because it cannot be proven in any way.
Also this [thesis] no one has touched yet and I have written elsewhere 2) enough about these things; also it does not hurt much that Eck's theorem calls everything erroneous what I have set up in this thesis of mine, because many people talk a lot. Therefore, in order not to repeat the same thing, I refer to where I said it.
7. thesis.
Who shows that he does not know what faith is, nor what repentance is, nor what free will is, who prattles along that free will is the master of his
2) In the "Explanations," in this volume Col. 132 ff.
The one who dreams that someone is not justified by faith in the Word alone, or that faith is not taken away by any gross sin, is the one who does not act, whether good or bad.
Here I have indicated three errors of Eck.
The first is that the free will is the master of its actions, which is already sufficiently refuted by one saying of the apostle, Rom. 6, 20. 22: You were servants of sin. But since you have been freed from sin, you have become servants of righteousness. In this way, whatever state of life we may be in, we are servants either of evil desire or of love, for one of these two will rule in free will. Thus Christ says John 8:34: "He who commits sin is the servant of sin. Peter also says, 2 Petr. 2, 19: "For whosoever is overcome of sin is the servant of sin.
But if you would say, "In a certain sense it is true that free will is the master, if grace is not excluded," I answer, "Whether there be such a sense or not, it behooves a theologian to speak according to the custom of theology and the sacred Scriptures. And since they force all Christians under the rules of speech they have invented, why then are they such free despisers of the divine rule? I confess that the free will can be called lord, prince, bishop, king and any other arbitrary thing, but such is spoken at the risk of the grace of God and the understanding of the Scripture, which calls us by the word "servants" [servitutis], and whoever understands the free will differently, does not understand it.
The second error is even more harmful and clearly shows that my dear Eck does not know what faith is, denying that man is justified by it alone; but he also does not understand what being justified means.
So we say with Paul, Rom. 1, 17: The righteousness that is before God is revealed in this 1) which comes from faith in faith, as it is written: The righteous
1) I.e. in the Gospel.
will live of his faith. Or should the apostle have been instructed by Eck and his followers (ab Ec- cianis) that he should have added this strange explanation (glossam): "but not by faith alone"? Likewise Rom. 10, 10: If one believes from the heart, one is justified. See how here he attributes righteousness to faith alone, so much so that he mentions the heart alone and is silent about the other members that may work. If one confesses with the mouth, he says, he is saved, but only after he has already been justified by faith.
I will therefore say, to pass over these insipid antics of the sophists: No works justify or make a righteous man, but faith alone; but he that is justified doeth works. For thus the sense of Scripture entails that justification is earlier than works, and that works are done by the justified. For we do not, as Aristotle errs, become righteous by doing righteous works, but, having become righteous, we do righteous works, just as a man does not become a bishop by doing the works of a bishop, but, having become a bishop, does the works of a bishop. So it is not the works of faith that make faith, but faith does the works of faith. Thus, it is not the works of grace that effect grace, but grace effects works of grace. Hence it comes that God first looks at Abel (in whom He is pleased) and only then at his works [Gen. 4:4]. This is what the apostle wants, that we are justified by faith alone, not by works, even though we, as already justified, do not let works stand in the way. And therefore he dares to say further [1 Tim. 1, 9.] that no law is given to the righteous, because he who is justified by faith does not need the law, but does works voluntarily. This way of speaking and understanding is never understood by such sophists who are drowned in their works. For when he says Rom. 2, 13: "Not those who hear the law, but those who do the law, will be righteous," he is speaking because they are considered righteous, not because they could be justified by works, and this is not the case.
To do the law is to fulfill the law, that is, to believe in Christ.
But that the letter of the apostle James [17] is quoted: "Faith without works is dead", first of all the spelling of this letter is far below the apostolic majesty and cannot be compared with that of Paul in any way; then Paul speaks of the living faith. For a dead faith is not a faith, but a delusion. But look at the theologians, they hold this one saying stiffly and firmly, and do not care at all that the whole other Scripture praises faith without works; for this is their custom, to attack (cornua erigere) the whole Scripture with a little snatched chunk (oratiuncula) of the text.
Therefore, those who boast of the title of theology should first learn what faith and works according to Scripture are, and not immediately condemn everything in which these [faith and works according to Scripture] have given offense against their outmoded opinions. If the people take offense at this, they may attribute it to their unfortunate studies, that they have not taught the people to understand the words of God and the way of speaking of the Scriptures (tropos), which is necessary for salvation; they themselves are the originators of such offenses. With great danger, works are preached before faith. But faith without works is preached without danger, because the people are willing and inclined to trust in works, and works easily outweigh faith. But where pure faith is taught rightly, works will come of themselves and without danger, if only they have first learned that more, indeed everything, lies in faith, which must work works.
It is frightening to see how ignorant even the theologians are, let alone the people, in the knowledge of the faith they profess: so full is the church of boasting with outward works that Christ seems to have said of our time [Luc. 18:8]: "When the Son of Man comes, do you think that he will also find faith on earth? In short, since faith is a right and good opinion of
If a man is God, but every opinion alone and for itself draws him to works, then there is no doubt that he who has faith does all works. For if an idea (opinio) and love of the woman does not leave one idle, but does more than is required without law and teacher, how should not faith accomplish much more the same? The world is governed by opinions alone, and a Christian should not be able to be governed by faith alone? Finally, who teaches the sophistical theologians to do, suffer, think, and shun so many and so great things for the sake of their opinions? Is it not only the inclination to their opinions? But elsewhere a more.
The third error is exceedingly ungodly, that he says her faith is not taken away by any gross sin, since faith is righteousness, but gross sin is the opposite, unrighteousness. But I know that he would like to hold up to me the little argument about infused and acquired faith: but is it proper for a good man, let alone a theologian, to know that someone's thesis is true, and yet to look for another meaning from which one can persuade that it is false, and that he would thus slander the truth because of an expression and the ambiguity of a word? What a splendid theology is this, if you would deny the sentence: "The dog is a barking animal" and say: "On the contrary, the dog is a constellation in the sky", since you know quite certainly that "dog" is taken by him in a different sense than by you!
To whom is this sophistical and hateful double-mindedness, or more correctly multi-mindedness, not detestable in a Proteus, let alone in a theologian? But since Eck says by the prefixed title that he disputes "against the new doctrine," I understand from this that, according to theological simple-minded speech, he does not speak of a faith other than that of which I have spoken; otherwise he would not speak against my new doctrine, and the title would lie. Therefore I say that this his antithesis is of all that I have ever seen the most heretical and godless, since it denies the only justifying faith against the apostle Paul and
860 V. L. Ill, 280 f. 36. Luther's explanations of all theses. W. XVIII, SI3-S1S. 861
denies the gospel of Christ and asserts that it is not abrogated by any gross sin. Furthermore, he defends free will as the master of his actions, against the Scriptures.
8. thesis.
It is, of course, contrary to truth and reason that those who die unwillingly are deficient in love and therefore suffer the horror of purgatory, if truth and reason are the same as the opinion of bad theologians.
This [thesis] has no refuter yet and I have said a lot about it in my "Explanations". In order not to arouse overkill, I do not want to repeat it.
9. thesis.
We know that bad theologians claim that the souls in purgatory are certain of their blessedness and that grace is not increased in them, but we are surprised at the highly learned people that they cannot give any reason for this belief of theirs that would be probable even to a simple-minded person.
This [thesis] has been attacked by Eck many times, but has achieved nothing, because no man can know what happens to the souls in purgatory. Through this confession of ignorance, I easily escape the counter-evidence of all, because no one can teach what he [1 Cor. 2:9] has neither seen nor heard and has not entered the heart of any man. We can have conjectures about this and similar things as much as we want, but it is only fitting for bad theologians to boast about what are only conjectures as the most certain articles of faith.
But to the reasons of proof, whose main and only force is this: here all merit is brought about, not there, I have sufficiently answered in the "Explanations" 2). Also, I did not say that they (the souls) deserved, but that the grace of the Lord was the only one.
1) Cf. Col. 145 ff. in this volume,
2) Cf. Col. 158 ff. in this volume.
The number of people is not increased, and I have said that it has not yet been proven that they are not in a state of merit. When this will be proven, I will give way.
10. thesis.
That the merit of Christ is the treasure of the Church, and that we are helped by the merit of the saints, is certain; but that it is a treasure of indulgences, no one pretends but a shameful flatterer, the extravagant who depart from the truth, and some fictitious acts or customs of the Church.
Here, a few things must be added to what I have said in the "Explanations" because of the explanatory [Decretale] of Leo. 3)
First of all. Even if the extravagant and declaratory sentences are as it may be, it is certain that it is not at all in the hands of the church or of the pope to issue articles of faith, nor even laws about morals or good works, because all this has been handed down in the holy scriptures. Therefore, it remains that ev alone has the power to declare articles, and to order ceremonies for the outward adornment of the church, which he can abolish again if the consideration of godliness should require it.
Furthermore, when explaining articles of faith, he must not use such people who are well practiced in human traditions, rights and opinions; they will not explain anything good, but theologians who are well learned and have proven themselves in life, as John Gerson also thinks; not as today certain papal flatterers lack the right way, that they without scholarship, without regard to good life, make statements from their head, as if they were sure that the Holy Spirit governs them. We admit that the church is not abandoned by the spirit of Christ, but by church is not understood the pope and the cardinals, nor even a council. Therefore, this thou-.
3) Leo's X. Nova decretalia of November 9, 1518. (Weim. Ausg.)
The first thing to be done is to have confidence in the presence of the Spirit and in the certainty of judgments, and to act in fear, drawing on the Scriptures.
Secondly, I say that the merits of Christ are spirit and life; they are grace and truth, as John 1:17 says: "Grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ. Since it is not in the power of any man to distribute grace and truth, spirit and life, the pope or the church cannot distribute the merits of Christ, that is, grace and truth, and I hold this opinion and will hold it, even if an angel from heaven, let alone the pope, should say otherwise, since the whole church and all teachers unanimously deny that the grace of God is given through a man.
If you say, "He can turn the merits of Christ wherever he likes," I answer, "The merits of Christ are grace and truth, whether they are given or sold, distributed or given. For, however they may be used, they are nothing else than Christ's merits: therefore, just as a man cannot give them, so he cannot give them either, you may say what you will.
Again, you want to say, "he gives the merits of Christ office-wise." This I admit, but not for indulgences, because indulgences are contrary to the merits of Christ. The merits of Christ are grace and truth, which make him who obtains them better in spirit and more holy; but indulgences do not bestow anything good in spirit, but remit the good of the spirit contrary to the merits of Christ. Therefore may they look to their words and their custom. I say, with all deference to them, that, as the words read, the merits of Christ cannot be the treasure of indulgences, but, on the contrary, they are a treasure of things imposed (impositionum), and of punishments to be endured, entirely opposed to indulgences.
Therefore, I confess that they [Christ's merits] are given office-wise in absolution from guilt, for there the
The merits of Christ act on the word of the priest if the sinner believes, otherwise not at all.
Therefore, I do not condemn that explanatory [decree], but leave it in its understanding. If, however, it should be interpreted as contradicting what has been said, I reject it and demand that an account be given of what has been said. Furthermore, show that you have the power to make articles of faith, or bring a proven revelation: Paul forbids me to believe mere [unproven] words.
11. thesis.
To say that indulgences are a good thing for a Christian is nonsense, because they are actually a good deed's affliction, and a Christian must reject indulgences for the sake of abuse, because the Lord says: "For my sake I cancel your transgression" [Is. 43:25], not "for the sake of money".
The prophet calls Ps. 40, 5. the teachings of men, with which God is worshipped in contempt of His command, lying folly: how much more nonsensical are those who dare, although the indulgence is a remission of good works and salutary punishments, to advertise this to the Christian as a good, whose good consists in being full of good works and punishments of the cross in the image of His Lord Christ!
Furthermore, it [indulgences] is always an affliction to a work, in that what is given would not be given if they did not know that the indulgence would be returned for it. So they do their good because of their evil or because of their less good. It is certain that in this not God but man himself is sought.
Try it, and you will see that I am telling the truth. For in Italy, where indulgences are offered everywhere free of charge, no one cares about them, whereas in Germany no one would give them to you if you did not give them. So strange is the nature (ingenium) of indulgences that they prevail in Italy in a completely different way than in Germany.
864 in, 283-285. 36. Luther's explanations of all theses. W. xvm, 917-920. 865
Johann Eck contested this thesis in Leipzig, but in such a way that the whole indulgence almost dissolved into a murmur (in sibilum ierint), for he himself did not seem to respect it much, and yet God wished it had long been recommended as our Eck recommended it, then Roman avarice would have carried off less robbery and booty from Germany, then the Roman mockers of the peoples would not have been able to make such fun of the raw ignorance (barbaram ruditatem) of the Germans. Other in the explanations.
12. thesis.
That the pope can remit all punishment due for sins in this life and the life to come, and that the indulgence is useful to those who have not committed gross sins, is certainly dreamed by the quite unlearned sophists and corrupt flatterers, but they cannot demonstrate it in the least.
Also this [thesis] has not yet been attacked by anyone I have seen, except for the wind of Eck's thesis, which has not been followed by rain.
But because this [thesis] is also contrary to the last explanatory [decree], which says: The church remits the punishments required by divine justice for sins, I say here: I have often said that the Church is capable of nothing but prayer against divine justice, if divine justice is not to be taken ambiguously. For I have no doubt that the punishments which the church requires of the sinner are at the same time required by divine justice, according to the covenant which he [God] has made with the church, saying [Matth. 16, 19.]: All that thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven. There he clearly says that with him is bound what is bound in the church, and so in regard to the sinner the righteousness of the church and that of God coincide. But in this way, it is not in accordance with the custom, which understands by divine righteousness another, separate righteousness of God, outside of the covenant, according to which the church has not laid down or interpreted. If the
If the explanatory [decree] should speak of this, then I say that I do not believe it. But I will let it be an opinion, as it [the decree] is also taken from opinions. For, as I have said, I do not accept new articles of faith, they may be established by whom they will, if there is not a proven revelation with them, nor an explanatory [Decretal] about any article, if it has not been explained by the holy Scriptures, of which that more legal than theological explanatory [Decretal] also has not even one syllable.
But here they argue against me that the prestige of the church is great and infallible because it is governed by the Holy Spirit; then also according to Augustine: "I would not believe the gospel if I did not believe the church. Here, of course, is a new sea of disputation to sail.
I say, as I said shortly before: that the reputation of the church is great and infallible, because it is governed by the spirit of Christ, this I confess with all my heart. But we owe this understanding to certain shysters and everywhere yes-saying theologians, that "church" is taken for the pope's clerk and penitentiariis (poenitentiariis) or magistrate of the palace (for the popes themselves seldom take care of these matters), since we speak of the whole general church, not of a certain small and sometimes the worst part of the Roman church. And that is why we have bulls and declarations from Rome that are worthy of such a church.
To the saying of Augustine, I say first of all that the mind extended by certain people is this: "I would not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Church, that is, I believe the Church more than the Gospel." And that this is their opinion is evident from the fact that they therefore ascribe to the pope the power to interpret the Scriptures, even to him alone. Furthermore, they oppose it [Augustine's saying] to all those of whom they hear that they doubt or oppose the letters or actions of the popes.
A more damning opinion, indeed, not even an equal godlessness, has neither Lucifer
himself, nor all heretics together. For from this it follows that the pope and the scribes of the palace are above the gospel and therefore above God, while Lucifer only desired to be like God. By this new wisdom they set up the pope as the man of whom Paul says [2 Thess. 2, 4.]: He exalts himself above everything that is called God or worship. For the church is a creature of the gospel, incomparably inferior to it, as Jacobus [1, 18.] says: He begat us according to his will by the word of his truth, and Paul [1 Cor. 4, 15.]: I begat you by the gospel. Therefore the same word is called the womb and womb of God, Isa. 46, 3: "You who are carried in my womb and lie with me in my mother, because we are born of God and carried by his powerful word.
If this is what St. Augustine would have wanted, as they impose on him through no fault of his own, who would not rather he had never heard the name of Augustine? Therefore we must go to the source. For St. Augustine writes against the Brief fundamenti of the Manichaeans, not of Vincentius, as those say, in the 5th chapter: "So much do they take care both of books and of words, that they do not care even to stir their foot to know the origin or the meaning." Further, the words of Augustine, which read thus, "I did not believe the Gospel if I were not moved by the prestige of the Church," are rendered by those great braggarts thus, "I did not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Church." Therefore it is not to be wondered at that so much trouble has been taken over the understanding of this saying, and that so many booklets of [various] interpretations have flowed from it. For it is a well-deserved trouble that those are tormented with many interpretations who do not think it worth the trouble to read a book or a writer, but try to guess the understanding from their heads, if a saying has been picked out and distorted somewhere.
First of all, it is a common phrase
(tropus) of St. Augustine, to say that he was moved by the appearance of this or that. For so he writes in the 1st book of the Retractations: "After I had read some interpreters of the divine speeches, whose reputation moved me" 2c. 1)
Secondly. In this passage he does not take the church for the pope or for Rome, but he understands by it the general church spread over the whole world, as he soon lets follow: "For I believed the gospel when it was preached by orthodox believers (Catholici).
So the content, intention and epitome of St. Augustine at this point is the following: "I do not believe you Manichaeans. Why? Because I do not read anything about you in the Gospel. But since the orthodox throughout the world abhor you, but extol the Gospel to me and preach it constantly everywhere, but I would not have believed the Gospel if the whole world, which teaches so unanimously, had not moved me to believe by this reputation of theirs, I am at the same time moved by the same reputation not to believe you, because I read nothing concerning you in the Gospel, which, moved by the reputation of the whole world, I believe." From this it is clear that this is what Augustine wanted, namely, that through such a great agreement of all, the Gospel and the Church could be proved and the heresies rejected, which are contrary to so great a multitude, especially where those who are dealt with accept the books from which this is proved.
That this is the opinion of St. Augustine will be obvious to anyone who compares the preceding and the following and observes the intention (scopum) of Augustine. In vain Gerfon wants to understand it, in vain Mayron, in vain also others of the first church, again others of the church with inclusion of Christ, the God.
1) In the edition of 1520 and the following complete editions, the following addition is found here, most likely not originating from Luther: Then he understands by reputation (autoritutsrn) not power, as it is usually taken, but, as the best Latins, e.g. Pliny, used to attach "reputation" to wine and especially to precious stones, although they have no power over other things, as if one spoke: "a delicious opinion and value".
In the Book of Confessions, he also says that he was not a little moved to believe in Christ because he had seen that the Holy Scriptures had been given such a great reputation by God that they were held in the highest esteem in the whole world. So also here he says that he was moved by such a great people, who agreed in the whole world concerning the gospel, in which he found nothing of the Manichaeans, therefore he could not believe the Manichaeans, who were detested by those of whom he saw that they received the gospel in such a way that their reputation moved him to believe that this was the gospel. And this, therefore, is not rightly said, that by the approval of the church the gospel is known, since Augustine says nothing about an approval, especially if one wanted to understand the Roman church, but [it is said] by the multitude in the whole world, which has no small standing, since this could not happen without the greatest miracle of God, in that so many tyrants resist, so many Christians lay down their lives, that the gospel should spread and grow in such a way. For if he had not seen this happen, he would not have believed the Gospel. What is this? Would you not believe if the whole world also raced against the gospel? I have therefore said that he speaks more to convict the heretics and to prove the Catholic faith (for that is what he was dealing with at that time) than of his own faith, which does not spring from the reputation of anyone, but only from the Spirit of God in the heart, although man is moved to the same by word and example. But because the heretics are so strongly resisted by this example of faith, as if to say, "The faith I have in the gospel I could not so defend against you, if I were not moved by this prestige of the church." And this is something similar: "just as I would not have believed GOtte if I had not believed Paul who was preaching," for [Rom. 10:17, 14.] faith comes from preaching. For how shall they believe, of whom they have heard nothing?
have heard? Thus the proof of faith comes only from the example of the whole church on the whole earth. For how could he persuade, even if he alone believed most strongly, if he could not also cite the example of others, and as strong an example as possible?
Therefore, "I did not believe" is necessarily understood to mean, "I could not be persuaded nor persuade to believe," otherwise he would be speaking quite falsely, since only the Holy Spirit brings anyone to faith. And here again I will bring a simile: John [1 Ep. 4, 20] says: "He who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God whom he does not see? since it is impossible for a brother to be loved if love is not first turned toward God. So this is the meaning: "it is not proven that one loves GOD whom one does not see, if one does not show that one loves the brother whom one sees." You see, then, how far those of Augustine were wrong who did not observe this way of speaking, and how inconsistently it was applied to the Roman Pontiff and the Roman Church.
Again you may say [Luc. 22, 32.], "Christ prayed for Peter, saying, that thy faith cease not." If "cease" (deficere) is taken according to Latin speech, it is quite evident that Peter's faith ceased when he fell and denied Christ. Therefore, Peter's faith did not remain in Peter at that time, but in the Virgin Mary, and in the thief at his right hand it arose. For Peter has the same faith as all, as Augustine says in the 1st Book of the Trinity: "This is my faith, because this is the Catholic faith." And in this way the faith of Peter is none of the business of the Roman Church, because the meaning is that the faith of Christ (which is that of the whole Church), which was then in Petro, should never cease. But if "cease" is taken according to Hebrew for "to come to an end and cease altogether, and never be restored again," then it is clear that Peter's faith had fallen, but had not ceased, because it had risen again from the fall.
the. But from this personal faith nothing can be concluded for any bishop, nor does anything concerning this faith concern his successor, as much as the actual meaning of the words contains in itself.
13. thesis.
That the Roman Church is higher than all others is proved by the very cold decrees of the Roman popes that have arisen in the last 400 years; but against them are the proven histories of 1100 years, the text of divine Scripture, and the decision of the Council of Nicaea, which is the holiest of all.
I have already explained this thesis to some extent in the published explanation 1) and I will say more against future opponents. However, because this thesis is annoying in the ears of the pious, that is, of the envious and proud, I will again add some things, so that it does not go out without any proof (nuda). Therefore I prove first of all that according to divine right every city must have its own bishop, which I show from Paul, Titus 1:5, who says: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might fully establish it, as I have left it, and fill the cities back and forth with elders, as I commanded you. But that elders feast bishops, Jerome testifies, and the following text shows it, since it says [v. 7.]: For a bishop shall be blameless, 2c But also St. Augustin in the 29th letter to Jerome, since he wants to describe a bishop, adds the reason and says: Because it was a. City; as if to say, "It was not a simple elder, but a bishop, of whom I speak, because it was a city of which he was the head."
Secondly, I presuppose that Christ has, or once had, Christians at all ends of the earth, as in the outermost part of India and Ethiopia and in other regions, according to Ps. 2:8: The end of the world is yours, and Ps. 72:8: He will rule from the sea.
1) This is the next preceding scripture, No. 35: Luther's explanation furthermore 13th thesis on the power of the pope.
to the other, and from the water to the end of the world.
Third, I presuppose that believing Christians can be perfect and poor, and let go of all their belongings so that they have nothing of their own.
I conclude:
Suppose these believers were at some extreme end of the earth, perfect and poor, do you think that Christ, who wanted his law to be gentle [Matth. 11, 30.], would have wanted his believers to bring, by such a long way and at such great expense, a bishop from Rome, provided with the pallium and confirmed? For by so doing, he would in truth have laid a greater burden on his church than he ever laid on the synagogue; indeed, he would have forced them to renounce evangelical poverty and, in contempt of his commandment [Matt. 6:19], to take care and be concerned how they might gather together riches and expenses so that they might obtain the pallia and confirmations. For if it is a divine right to receive all the bishops of Rome, then it must not be broken because of any circumstance, whether of place or of wealth (rerum); and for this reason it would be necessary to break another divine right, namely, that we should not care for the other morning, as Matthew, Cap. 6, 34, teaches. For it is impossible that from so many ends of the earth so far a journey should be made by those who, according to the Gospel, are not to provide for the morrow; for they will not have the cost.
If you should say: "the Roman pope can transfer his power to the neighboring bishops", I answer: then it would no longer be a divine right that the bishops should be brought from the city of Rome, because a divine right cannot be changed or transferred to another by the one to whom it belongs. And why does he not transfer this power to the supreme bishops (primatibus) even today? For what is opposed to this but loss of profit and honor?
But imagine that any church was
captured by enemies, so that she could not send to Rome for a bishop. What should this do? If it is a divine right, the imprisonment does not excuse it, because the divine right is not bound to any thing, but is to be kept above all and in all [things]. If you say, "It is enough that they desire to send," I say, "Why is not this desire enough also in other bishoprics, which are exhausted 1) and located so far from Rome that they are forced to buy a bishop to their great detriment (against love)?
Secondly: It follows from the words of Paul [Tit. 1, 5.Secondly, it follows from the words of Paul [Titus 1:5], by which he assigns to every city a bishop (who are now called pastors), that bishops, patriarchs, supreme bishops (primates), which exist today, are only by human right, which is also indicated by the decrees by which the Roman popes assign to themselves the constitution of all churches and dignities, and so, according to divine right, the pope is by no means higher than anyone else, or he is only higher than the pastors. Over the others, who are in the middle (mediis) or higher, he is a superior only by his right and custom, according to which he is also higher than the cardinals. And as one priest is not preferred to another by divine right, so no bishop to any other bishop. For all this is ordered by the Church.
From this it further follows that, since the one Roman bishop cannot take care of all parishes (over which alone he is the superior according to divine right, if he is a superior at all, as I have said), it is not to be believed that Christ wanted to oblige him by divine right to do the impossible, and that for this reason he is also not the superior over all by divine right. But if not over all, then for the same reason
1) By the frequently repeated purchase of the pallia, as the Archbishopric of Mainz, which had to pay 20,000 gold florins for the pallium, had to pay this sum three times within 9 years and a few months: after the death of Archbishop Berthold, on December 21, 1504, after the death of Jakdb, on Sept. 15, 1508, and after the death of Archbishop Uriel on Feb. 9, 1514. The latter was succeeded by the well-known Albrecht of Brandenburg.
Over none in particular, and so by divine right all bishops of all cities are equal.
Furthermore, as we said in the beginning, the Council of Constance decided that the Council was above the pope, as it also preserved the custom of this decision by removing and installing the pope. But if the pope is higher than all according to divine right, then the council has committed and established a heresy, because it is heretical to condemn divine right and to declare the opposite.
Because you would now say: "The council does not install or remove a pope, but a man, since the papacy always remains", I answer: this is a ridiculous and tasteless little argument. For it follows that it does not depose the pope as pope, but only a man: thus a deposed pope must still be pope, because he remains the same as before, since nothing has been done against his pontificate. In short, it acts not against man, but against the pope as pope, because it takes the administration from him, just as it has the power to confer the administration, no differently than the pope himself installs a bishop, where he inferentially installs not man as man, but the bishop as bishop, by conferring on him the right of administration. Otherwise, it would also be said here, I have not appointed a bishop or a pope, but a man, since the bishopric remains. This pretense (larvas) they have invented, since they have made of "bishopric" a word, not of service, but of dignity (which, I do not know in which general real thing [reali] lies hidden).
If then the pope is of divine right, he may not be deposed in any way, whether he be evil or good, whether he be heretical or orthodox, but he must be tolerated until his death, just as David tolerated Saul, who was anointed king by divine right. Therefore, again, the decrees are mistaken and must be heretical, which state that a pope must be deposed for heresy, because they order something contrary to divine right, since there is no higher authority.
who can depose him. But if someone is higher, e.g. a council (which is true), he is already no longer higher than all by divine right, but receives this higher position from the human right of the council, from which he must have it changed again according to its discretion.
More (as I have said) [I will raise] when I am irritated, for one must still keep weapons for protection against the obstinacy of the envious.
Finally, I repeat what I said in the beginning, that I absolutely confess and defend the supremacy of the Roman pope, however great it is, has been, or will be, only that I know it is a new doctrine that one wants to fortify it by divine right, because none of the ancient fathers thought of this article of faith, who nevertheless investigated everything concerning our faith so godly and carefully and yet did not act or live according to it; but I will in no way suffer that they should all be called heretics. And from day to day I please myself more and more and become proud of it, that I see that I get more and more a very bad name. For the
Truth, that is, Christ, must increase, but I must decrease [John 3:30]. I look forward to the voice of the bridegroom and the bride more than I am afraid of the noise and clamor of the voluptuous voluptuaries (procorum 1), being sure that the people who are seen fighting against me, are not themselves the authors of evil, nor do I hate them, but Behemoth, that prince of evil, whom I recognize by his darkness, would like to become terrible to me if he could, and eradicate truth from his kingdom by taking occasion with me. But he who is in us is greater than he who is in the world [1 John 4:4], under whose leadership this enemy will do nothing, amen.
- - Praesens male judicat aetas, Judicium melius posteritatis prit.
[The present time judges badly, the judgment of the posterity will be better].
1) We cannot prove this word lexically. The reading is certain, because it is found in all editions at our disposal. Perhaps Luther instead of procerum = noble people, mockingly put this word so similar to the word poreorum, which gives the sense expressed by us.