28 October 1519.
Translated from Latin.
In your name, sweet Lord Jesus!
Johann Eck wishes salvation in the Lord Jesus to the most reverend Lord, Johann von Schleinitz, the most worthy bishop of the Church of Meissen, his most reverend Lord.
1) The holy Conciliar of Elvira 1) has salutary decreed that bishops, priests or deacons should not go hunting, which is mentioned again in the Decretals under the title of the Conciliar of Orleans (Aurelianensis). And St. Augustine calls hunting a loose art 2c, and St. 2) Jerome on Ps. 91. [v. 3. says]: Esau was a hunter because he was a sinner; and we find nowhere in sacred Scripture a saint who was a hunter; yet we find saintly fishermen. And what is this aiming at, most reverend bishop? namely, that Martin Luther, a priest and theologian and monk, plays the hunter; and it would still go (mite esset), if he hunted wild prey, wild pigs, deer or roe deer, in forests, drifts and sunny fields: but so he hunts an innocent man, namely Hieronymus Emser, a man who stands out in the Church of God by honesty, prudence and scholarship, and that not with barking dogs and gie-
1) In the original Elibitanum: IHiberitamim. - This Concil took place in the year 305.
2) In Latin: Lern. Hiero, for which probably löeatus Hieronymus is to be read, which we have put in bey text. The same case, that Leatns seems to be read in Lerntmräns, is repeated again in this writing, soon after the middle. Our suspicion becomes almost certain that in these two places UernUaräns is not noted in the margin, which Eck does otherwise without exception with all his sources.
Luther is not a man of the fierce bull-baiters, but of his unfortunate writings, his blasphemous mouth, insolent slander, antics, useless gibberish, lies, and other such horrid monstrosities. For by such arts, namely blasphemy, vituperation and insults, 3) Luther seeks to make himself famous, and thinks neither of the fear of God nor of his standing.
2. But if you ask, most reverend bishop, what is the cause of Luther sharpening his blasphemous tooth 4) on my priest, who is such a respected man because of his righteousness and purity of morals, I will tell you: Your neighbors, the red-blooded and heretical Bohemians (for I do not speak of the faithful, who are worthy of all praise), have imagined that they have found in Luther a champion of their errors, and have made public prayers for Luther, that he may be victorious against me in the disputation at Leipzig, but God has not heard the sinners; they have also secretly sent some of their lights to be present at the disputation in Leipzig.
Luther had said: Some quite Christian and evangelical articles of Hus would have been condemned by the Concilio of Constance on the authority of quite godless flatterers: because Emser was now worried that the heretics and red spirits would mock the faithful, and boast of such patronage, he wrote a letter to the administrator of the Catholic Church at Prague, so that the righteous man, who holds so firmly and faithfully to the communion of the truth of our faith, would have something with which to
3) ledoriis probably formed from laedo.
4) Ibeoninum dentem (Horatii Dpist. lib. I" 6pi8t. XVIII, V. 78). From Theon, a Greek poet who was particularly addicted to shame.
*The Weimar edition vol. II, p. 657 mentions two special editions of this writing. One of them is, according to the printer's mark, printed by Martin Landsberg in Leipzig. It comprises 10 quarto leaves. The title is: Joannis Eckii pro Hieronymo Emser contra malosanam Luteri Vonationom responsio. The other has the title: Xd rsverendum )-!>>- oatoliMs eoolesiae VraMnn. administratorem, Hieron^mi Vmser oanonum lioentiati existola, äs disputatione läxsioa. O. Dolcii et Imtbori Quantum ad Loemos obiter deüexa est. - loan DoLii ad malesanam Imtberi venationem super dicta epistola. Lmserann, responsio. Soli Deo Gloria 16 leaves in quarto. Last leaf blank. - Emser's letter to Zack is included below in Emser's writings. Our translation is based on the second edition just described.
He could comfort and uplift his brethren and muffle the vain cries of triumph of the Rottengeister. Emser wrote with such earnestness and modesty that no good and wise man could have disapproved of such a writing, and for that Luther, if he sought the salvation of souls with equal zeal as he plunges a great multitude into ruin, should be greatly thanked.
4. But the impatient brother, who is very quick in his habitual blasphemy, has written all too full of bile against him and made him a spectacle and a gossip, chasing his goat (Aegocerota 1) against brotherly love in the most impudent way and making a mockery of our faith among the Bohemians; and although some Wittenbergers write in the most biting way, because they have poison-soaked arrows, they still always lead in the mouth: Do not touch me, and do not want to be touched in the least. But since that biting man in the monk's habit would like to hunt me especially (plerumque), if only he had dogs to catch me, because he cannot catch me: so I have thought to destroy this hunt of Luther's to catch him in his ropes, yarns and nets, and rely on him who can save me from the hunters' rope and from the hard word. 2)
(5) For, first of all, he is surprised that Emser has become Luther's defender, since Eck scolded him in the dispute for being a defender of the Bohemian mob; this has never been Emser's opinion in his letter, for he does not ask so much about the boastful monk; rather, he has taken care of the Catholic Bohemians, against the spirits of the mob, and states that he has disapproved of the Bohemians' separation from the Roman Church. So Emser served the faith, but not Luther, in this: therefore he should not have been compared with Joab. And the comparison is certainly intolerable, that he dares to place such an honest and innocent priest at the side of the traitor Judas because of such a sincere, modest and Christian letter. And what he who swore to the Christian flag, what he wrote for the good of the faith, what he wrote for the comfort of the faithful, what he wrote for the eradication of schism and error, such a cowl (cuculla) attributes out of poisonous envy to the enmity of Emser, namely, that out of hatred against Luther he had given his soul to the devil. What does not an insolent monk subject himself to? Emser
1) Emser had in his coat of arms the breast image of a buck.
2) Ps. 91, 3, according to the Vulgate.
certainly did not want to harm anyone with such a letter, but to benefit the faithful. And yet, the cap and cowl wearer (Bardocuculla) goes against him so sharply, as if he wanted to precede Lucian in everything.
Luther then chats rather foolishly in his own way that Emser did not make his buck strong enough (sine foeno 3) and that he is not quite in the coat of arms (stsnunnts), which any fool could also mock at a prince's coat of arms (ludere 4); but believe me, Luther, he is also strong and strong (gerit foe- num) enough when it is necessary.
Afterwards he imagines that he is in great danger, but I know that he has long since been swallowed up by destruction, because he is very afraid that he will have to give victory to Eck, as the champion of Catholic truth. God grant that one day the verdict of the excellent high school in Paris will come out, so that he will not give the palm of victory to Eck (because I do not seek my honor), but to the truth, and that one day he will stop seducing the simple-minded Christians and filling them with error!
(8) But since he arrogates to himself the one Lord and head of the faithful, he says: "As my Christ lives and reigns! and this is indeed true; but he will only truly realize that he lives and reigns when he will punish him for so many heresies and aversions and perverse teachings that have arisen in the church (where he does not repent), and Luther dares to make Christ the author of this nonsensical and blasphemous hunt, as if the master of gentleness had ever taught such insolent vituperation and impudent blasphemy.
First he says: "My Emser, I ignore your flattery and Judas kisses; where he also dares to lie to me that I would not have attracted any words of Scripture at Leipzig, nor would I have known how to act, if some had been quoted. But when the disputation, which has been written down by very faithful notaries, comes out, and the verdict of the excellent high school in Paris, it will finally be shown how wrong the imaginary brother has spoken.
3) Cf. Hörnt, Knt^rnrnni lib. I, snt. 4, v. 33. A bundle of hay was tied on the horns of rambunctious oxen so that people could beware of them.
4) Here one sees that Eck, in order to play with Luther's name, always uses different forms of it, sometimes written in capital letters, sometimes in small letters. In this writing one finds: Imtberns, lottern", Imterus, ImMsrns, i,nä6rn8, lecker (- binäerns), Imäer., buäer, bmtber, buätzre, buttere, butbors.
10 He then blames Emsern for calling Luther Catholic and yet not wanting the Lutheran teachings to be approved by the Bohemians, and reproaches him with the children's rule: partibus ex puris etc. [from mere things nothing can be concluded]. [from mere things nothing is to be concluded] . But the hunter makes a false conclusion so that he can attack Emsern all the more freely. But the sincere reader sees sufficiently from Emser's letter that he did not want the heretics to mock the faithful and boast that they had Luther, the teacher of the Catholics, as the patron of their mob: therefore he cites how Luther himself had constantly denied this at Leipzig.
He further pretends that Emser considers this to be a proof: that everything that the Bohemians believe is heretical. Thus Luther perverts and falsifies the words of the priest of God with his lies: thus he also deals with the Holy Scripture; Emser never said this in the letter, but it is Luther's dream. In order that the braggart may blaspheme the innocent with all the greater insolence and make himself popular with the rabble, he treads small things (fimbrias) so broadly. We know that no one is so unintelligent and erroneous that he does not also like very many good things; as Emser also cites Beda for this reason. Therefore, the mad monk may not say here that this is Eck's or Emser's way of concluding, but he says that these are his Lutheran lies and dreams; we do not argue with such reasons, but he only invents such antics so that he should seem learned, but we unlearned.
(12) Therefore it is in vain that you prate why he should not also be called the champion of the Jews. I answer Luther here: If I found that he spoke of some articles of the Jews, which the church has condemned, as being catholic, I would call him just as much the champion of the Jews as of the Bohemians. So he vainly makes a pipe-strike by telling us that either everything the Bohemians hold is heretical, or everything they reject is catholic: since no one could establish this, he would have to be more senseless than a log, as Luther is.
That letters are sent to him from various parts of the world, which assist his excellent insolence, so that he does not recant: so may the protectors of error themselves see how well they do; for not only those who do evil, but also those who have their pleasure in those who do it, are worthy of death. Therefore, Emser was not moved to write by mere speculation, but by the appearance of the matter, and because it was known and obvious that public prayers were being made for Luther.
It is also known and evident how they have boasted of Luther; it is well known that they have sent letters of congratulations to Luther. So let the tongue-thruster stop shouting that there is no cause (nihili) for the theologians to fight with suspicion and fear against the heretics. The mighty hunter Nimrod (that is, the deceiver of souls, as the gloss between the lines of Genesis 10 says) makes such a prey for himself according to his will: may he then hunt his brain-minds and roebucks!
14. It is once again wrong that the theologians needed these two reasons in disputing: namely, whether something pleases or displeases the heretics, but what the godless monk himself said too boldly and defiantly in the disputation at Leipzig: namely, that some Hussite articles, which the holy General Concilium at Constance condemned, were quite Christian and evangelical; which believer does not see that such wicked and diabolical speech is favorable to the errors of the heretics, that it pleases them, that they boast of it, and thus mock the Catholics? This is what the grammatical theology doctor, Luther, taught us with his new theology. He alone is a true theologian, and only Eck and the other theologians are nothing.
15 That the mad monk continues to blather that I am unlearned in the Scriptures: he does this according to his habit, that is, according to his foolishness, as if I had not given any reason for proof for the whole three weeks other than from the Hussite Articles. This blasphemous prank is well understood by the Leipzig gentlemen, and by all those who will read the disputation itself in the future.
16 Furthermore, he again lets loose a bull-biter, the cunning hunter, as if Mr. Emser had said or meant: he did not condemn Luther's teachings, but the Bohemians liked erroneous teachings, the authors of which they mistakenly considered Luther to be. Mr. Emser did not say this in his letter, but it may be as Luther dreamed on the straw. However, we want to consider this strong double conclusion of the strong hunter (cornutum cornuti), since he presents it as if Emser had meant that the Bohemians liked 'other' teachings than those they had read in his books. Just as if he had ever written books, except for some bad, not thought through (incoctos) and erroneous sermons, which he let go out to seduce the poor people. But Emser never claims this in the letter, but Luther took it for claimed, so that he would have an opportunity to lie (to hunt I wanted to say). [But now] to the strong reason of proof. If they, Luther says,
my teachings to be right, and Emser now falsely blathers that they have approved of them because he [Luther] refuses to defend the Bohemians: so it follows either that Emser is speaking falsely, or that Luther must have recanted his words.
(17) But, says David, I will break the power of the wicked, and the power of the righteous shall be exalted. The stone goat of the strong hunter shall be broken. For the Lord Emser certainly does not lie; but let Luicher see that he does not lie. He denies that he is defending the Bohemians, and yet he says and writes that the arch-damn Hussite articles are entirely Christian. What he now so often says with a blasphemous mouth, the monk still dares to write with an insolent brow, was impudently reproached to him by me, as if he thereby aided and abetted the Hussite heretics. Therefore, what he says afterwards, he wants the Bohemians, Turks and Jews to like his speeches: they certainly like it here that you despise the Roman pope and make him look like a bad mass priest. But, my Luther, what praise is this, to please the wicked? What will you do, if you also please the devil, the roaring lion, who goes about seeking whom he may devour?
018 But he raiseth up another horn, which shall fight against the saints, as against Daniel. If, he says, the Bohemians hold with me, they hold right. But I say against it: If the Bohemians hold it with you, they hold as they are; unless he also denies to me that even the Bohemians are heretics, as I hear that he spreads this poison with his Philip Melanchthon. So it is not a sin of heresy: not to believe the priestly sign (characterem), the change of bread and the like. That is why no heretic is among them, even if he says that he eats bread as common food in the reverend sacrament of the altar. That is why the tasteless 1) hunter in an inconsistent way mixes the Bohemian Catholic articles with the rejected and condemned ones. Therefore it is certain that they have boasted that in these articles, in which they depart from the Catholic Church, they have Luther as a champion. And in fact he is arch-Hussite. And it is not necessary for Mr. Emser to borrow Eck's memory in order to be mindful of the matter with which he is dealing, since he himself has more than enough wit, erudition and memory, as you, God-loving bishop
1) In our edition xiäns, for which Wohl insixiäns is to be read.
Johannes, witness that he proved his memory in a finished speech on the day of your consecration. And even if Eck lent as much memory to Emser as Carlstadt, Luther's colleague, has in general, he would still have as much memory as Luther; but let the author of nature have the honor and glory of it!
19 That the dreamer - not the one of whom the arch-fathers say, "Behold, the dreamer is coming," but the one of whom the Lord says, "Thou shalt not hear the words of the same dreamer" - further writes, as if the Lord Emser had wanted the Bohemians to boast of foreign doctrines and their errors under the name of Luther: I do not read that in the letter. And who would not detest Luther's boasting, since he says that many quite Christian Frenchmen, Italians, Englishmen, Germans, Spaniards, boasted of his teachings? How when one donkey scratches the other? How when like and like meet like? I, on the other hand, dearest bishop, declare that I want to dispute Luther's errors, be it at the high school in Rome, or in Naples, or in Bologna, or in Paris, Toulouse, Louvain, Cologne or Vienna. Luther may choose; but it is to be noted, 2) that the verdict must be passed immediately, where we have been heard; if I lose, I will give him palm and lamp; also, after their pronouncement, I will reimburse him the costs. But if Luther is defeated, he shall only recant the errors, not cause any more trouble in the Church of God, and no longer deceive the people of God: so I will hunt with Luther on the right road, so that if the lion's chase (according to Jerome's prophecy) were a lonely forest donkey (he should have said in solitude), 3) it would thus be revealed who is a child and prince of darkness.
20 Our hunter lets out other dogs: that the Red Bohemians have publicly and daily, although unholy services for Luther, when he fought against me in Leipzig: that is certain and true. And although Luther cunningly pretends not to know anything about it, he knows very well why the Bohemians did it.
2) In the text nö, which according to the sense, since Eck always insists on an immediate judgment also later in this writing, may hardly be read as von. We have resolved it with nota or notanänln. Cf. below § 41 at the end.
3) As before with the name of Luther, so here Eck plays with the order name of the same: "Augustinian hermit." The lion is of course Eck, his prey the hermit donkey (onuMr srsrnitu); Jerome should have said: the forest donkey in the desert (in srsino), or, as Eck wants it understood: the donkey in the monastery.
without doubt with Luther in the sentences disputed at Leipzig; even a man who is more foolish than Choröbus can understand this. 1)
So he blames Emsern that he should not have called him a Catholic. If you, good Luther, bear the name of a Catholic with displeasure, then we will immediately give you a suitable name that corresponds to your merits and will call you a Hussite. Are you then not baptized with a proper name? But what has Mr. Emser done in this, that he has not said that you have no damned Hussite errors, for such Hussite rot and pus in you often flows out; but only this, which you have at least said with your mouth (in your heart you are perhaps of a different mind), that you do not like it that the Bohemians deviate from the unity of the church, and that they do evil in this. But if Mr. Einser thinks in his heart that you are a heretic, then I swear to you by my right hand that he is not far from the truth. Nevertheless, in Scripture he has stuck to the sound of your words, with which you have denied that you are its advocate. But, my Luther, consider it well with thyself, and let thy venomous pursuit be, whether these words first originated in thy heart or in thy mouth? Then you will be a man, my Luther, who draws sweet and bitter water from one source.
22 He says: Emser is his Rufinus; so he wants to be a Hieronymus. He makes himself, if he wants, the king of the beans. Rufinus was something great (magna pars) among the teachers of the church, says Gennadius, but I will always prefer Jerome with John Picus to him. Here it is sufficiently clear that the defendant Emser neither contradicts himself, as this ridiculous cuckoo (cuculus 2) argues here with empty pretenses, nor even the gentleman Emser has attacked dreamed (somniarios) Bohemia, but those who argue against the Roman Church, red spirits and heretics: unless Luther wants to impudently say that the whole church is dreamed.
23 But how cunningly and deceitfully he assumes, as if the Lord Emser thought Luther's teachings were true; what intrigues does he use? What nets is he entangled in? Where did he ever say that your teachings were right? I
1) A name found in Virgil, lA. 2, v. 342, which was used by the ancients as a proverb for a stupid and silly person.
2) Here Eck plays with the monk's clothing by putting ououlus instead of 6U6uIIus.
If he were asked what he thought of your perverse teachings from the bottom of his heart, he would soon judge according to his erudition that they were ungodly and damnable. Therefore, the frenzy of this monk is to be wondered at, since he says: we would be found to be those whom the Bohemians had wrongly and falsely considered heretics. So also all Christianity and the Catholics in Bohemia must be lying, because they consider others to be heretics. So may Luther himself stop accusing Mr. Emser, such an honest and learned man, of lying, since he himself is not ashamed of any lie. For he did not write secretly, that the birds of the air might have brought his voice to him, but he had the letter spread by the press of the printer in a thousand copies: therefore the new prophet may not presume that the Lord has given him the gift to discern spirits, to fathom the mind of Christ and the depths of the Godhead. For "who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" "The law and the prophets go down to Johannem." I hold that Luther, with his atrocious and abominable doctrines, would sooner penetrate the depths of hell than know the difference of spirits and the depths of the Godhead.
(24) Emser says, according to the words of Beda, that the heretics mix the true with the false. Luther then goes on about him as if he had spoken against the holy Concilium at Constance, that some Hussite articles had been condemned quite unreasonably. But he may show where Mr. Emser has ever said this, where he has opposed the holy Concilium. Does he then think that others are as stiff-necked and insolent as he, who denies the holy fathers, the decrees of the Roman popes, the canons of the holy concilia so freely, yes, so insolently?
25 As for me, however, he blames me for two lies: first, that I despised the Council of Nicaea; in this he obviously does me an injustice, because it is known from the records of the notaries, and all Leipzig knows, that in the whole course of the disputation I not only did not deny or despise any council, but also did not reject even one holy teacher. Come, let us see who respects the church teachers more highly, whether Luther, who so boldly denies them and prefers his opinion to the old saints, Wider St. Clement's last canon, or Eck, who looks up to their sayings and admires their reputation.
although I know that a holy teacher can be denied if several others are against him 2c Secondly. That he says that I want to master the Holy Spirit, because the Council at Constance declared otherwise, is quite wrong, because the articles I have cited are clear and obvious. And I do not think that Luther ever saw the declaration that the Council made by deputies about the articles, as I have seen and read it. For Luther is more attached to the branches than to the roots. So Luther should also know this, that three times as many errors of Husen and Jerome [of Prague] were moved and discussed at the Concilio, but at that time only thirty were condemned, as can be seen from the acts of Henry of Piro; likewise that of Johann Wickleff's articles only fifteen were condemned, since 223 of their articles, which had been condemned earlier in England at Oxford, were discussed, of all of which I have the copy. But Luther ties his rutches so that he may be deleted: even if I had explained the articles of the Concilium, he says that I would have become a master of the Holy Spirit. So you do concede, as you must also rightly believe, that the Concilium at Constance was governed by the Holy Spirit. Why then do you dare to say (at the instigation of the devil) that the articles condemned there by the government of the Holy Spirit are entirely Christian and evangelical? What furies seize you? what frenzy drives you? what will to blaspheme has come into you?
The present time will judge of both our writings, but posterity will judge better, since my book on the supremacy of St. Peter will soon come to light: I see the Lutheran scraps (frascas 1) of the sheets being consumed daily to make grocer's bags.
27 But let us consider the grammatical theologian's beautiful art of conclusion: You call me a Catholic, therefore you must at the same time assert that my teachings are Catholic; if you apply this to Cyprian, you will see how mutilated and invalid the conclusion is. Cyprian the Martyr has been a Catholic; and yet you will not set up his doctrine of the rebaptism of those baptized by heretics as Catholic. Mr. Emser did this because he believed Luther's mischievous words too easily, since he always says: He does not assert his own, but
1) Because the Lexicon does not offer the word frascas, we had to guess. Eck probably wants to say: the scraps of sheets of Lutheran writings are consumed in the manner indicated by him.
He said that he was ready, if he were taught better, to revoke it; for he always affirmed this in writing, he assured it orally, so that Herr Emser, deceived by such deception, thought that he could still be called Catholic, although his teachings were wrong; as St. 2) Augustin excuses Cyprian adv. Donatist, de bapt. l. II. But behold, most reverend bishop, the weak mind of Luther! Since Mr. Emser had told that the Bohemians had held daily and public (although unholy) services for Luther, Luther was angry in his own way, and reproached him as to how he could say that services for the truth were unholy, or how he could say that services set up for lies were holy. The teacher of grammatical theology does not know that even the most wicked in all sects are said to worship. Furthermore, every Catholic knows that even heretics perform their services, because they hold mass, celebrate communion (conficiunt), baptize 2c. But such services are unholy, because the Lord says through the prophet: I will curse your blessings. The words are clear and bright with Mr. Emser, which Luther nevertheless perverts and falsifies with such slander, in order to satisfy only his hatred and his blasphemy.
28 Luther continues to boast that he also prays for Eck and Emser, as Christ commanded: Thy left hand shall not know what thy right hand doeth; and yet he boasts here as one who is perfect, that he prays for his enemies. I inquired diligently in Leipzig whether Luther held mass? because great feasts were coming up; but I could not be told that he had held one in the three weeks: although I would like to praise him more 3) because he shunned the judgment of the shepherd, namely St. Leo X, and abstained from it. But I pray that Luther's prayer will not harm me. God the Savior of the heart knows how we pray among ourselves. But Luther wants Turks to pray for his errors as well. Like the intercessors, so are the teachings, namely erroneous, impure and presumptuous, annoying and heretical.
The big boaster and blasphemous hunter boasts that he has now only made a start with bull biters, but wants to hunt the buck in the future with Albanian dogs (which, as the histories say, are supposed to be very cruel), if he will continue. The hunter is still full of threats, or has become a buck with the horn on his nose. Who wants to be afraid, he may go back-
2) Instead of Lern. will probably be read Lsatus iias.
3) Not laoäari, but lauäarirn.
The Lutheran wickedness pours out its immodesty and all its poison, and wants to catch, disembowel and flay our poor goat. 1) Mr. Emser is well versed in thorough theology, so he deals in the letter with some very clear reasons that he thereby proves and proves that the supremacy [of the pope] in the church is by divine right, because it was also in the Jewish church, as is known from Aaron. And this reason comes out in our book of Peter's supremacy well prepared for the dispute, therefore it is not necessary to send fresh auxiliary troops to such an insurmountable reason here, as it were. Because of the upper and lower millstone [Deut. 24, 6.] 2) I believe that Mr. Emser followed the gloss, which stands between the text, which speaks: the fear is meant by the lower millstone; because the old law was a law of fear. I remember to have read much about it; but in this short day also the hunter with his biting dogs must be completely caught. And indeed he [the lower millstone] was idle; the synagogue has been weighed down with great burdens, when compared with the church and bride of Christ. Therefore, Mr. Emser rightly thinks that as Aaron was above all priests, so rather the highest priest in the church must be higher than the others. But how did it occur to Luther, whom envy consumes, to accuse Emser, as if he did not prefer the new priest to the old, the fullness to the sign, the truth to the image? since such dreams and monstrosities of the wicked are not read by him, but Luther may have pondered it out of his own sick and harmful brain according to his own discretion. Therefore, because the supremacy of the priesthood was in the image in a sign, it will also be in truth and in fulfillment. Luther then adds nothing but mockeries, invectives and outrageous words that do not belong to the matter, in order to escape the truth, so that he may dare others, who are his equals in madness and folly, with the cup of vanity. This is also the reason why he shies away from the court, because he fears that his cunning, intrigues and deceptions will come to light and be judged, which he now mischievously covers up with great chatter, with teasing and buffoonery.
1) In the original Zlndirs instead of Alnt-srs.
2) An excellent example of the interpretation of Scripture by the two main defenders of the Roman doctrine, Eck and Emser!
(30) The opinion of the apostle was very well known to us, that Christ was the real high priest, but Aaron was a shadow. But this serves the Lord Emser's cause. For if supremacy has been in shadow, it must also be in truth. As for the splendor of the garments, that does not belong here at all, as priests can have delicious garments; at least I do not reject them at the service.
But here the hypocrite brings up a great difficulty (Gordium nodum nectit): namely, that in the Old Testament there was only one high priest, but in the New there are now two, namely Christ and his governor. Thus Luther never gets out of his foolishness; as if the Lord and his governor had to be counted for two. So there is absolutely nothing in the way. Christ is our head; however, there must be one to whom the faithful can visibly take refuge. Therefore, Luther blasphemes the new theologians in a very shameful way: they would be weary of the holy Son of God as the highest Lord. For there has never been a theologian who would have such a weariness as the liar accuses them of.
He then adds another reason, which rhymes well with the Lutheran head, for I know the man very well: with such sophistries he deceives himself and others who have pleasure in him. It is impossible, he says, that all peoples of the whole world can desire bishops from Rome and have them confirmed there. Foolish Luther, who has ever been so foolish as to say that according to divine right all bishops must be confirmed from Rome, in the Lutheran sense? But we deal with this difficulty (saxum) in the book of Peter's Supremacy, where we gloriously present the Lutheran antics.
The monk, who should take hellebore, always continues in the same rage. Mr. Emser had said: There is a pope both by the declaration of the holy Conciliar and by the word of Christ: "Feed my sheep." Then all Luther rages and rages, and it vexes him, because the Conciliar cannot make divine law. But Emser did not say that the Council had made a divine law, but that the holy Council had declared it so that it came from divine law. Thus the Nicene Conciliar declared the equality in the Godhead (homousian) against the faithless Arius, but did not make the equality; therefore Mr. Emser, after he had said quite learnedly that the Conciliar had declared it to be the supreme rule
from divine right, the divine right itself added soon after: "Feed my sheep." But more about that in our book of St. Peter's Supremacy! Therefore, I will not dwell on Luther's mockeries and perverse interpretations, which cause great dishonor to all archbishops and bishops, because there I will duly dismiss his deceitful conclusions and mischievousness. But I would like to wish, most reverend Bishop John, that you would urge all God-beloved bishops to such diligence in spiritual government that the insolent monk could not accuse the bishops of tyranny or laziness! But Luther will recognize his great ignorance from the book of St. Peter's supremacy, and if God gives him a better spirit, it will repent him that he has acted so insolently, scolded, erred, and in addition mixed up so many words.
34 The mad hunter continues to make an elephant out of a mouse, namely out of his completely trivial, miserable reason: that the church of Christ, after his suffering, was twenty years before the Roman church. But I deal with this in the book of Peter's Supremacy, where first the falsity of his assumption is exposed and then the weakness of the reason is completely exposed, so that it must fall into ashes, if it is not, like the Hussite bishop's hat, so surrounded with sorceries that it could not be burned by fire.
But he scolds Mr. Emser harshly, as if he contradicts himself by saying that Peter's supremacy is divine right, and yet everything is so slow among men. But, my dear shorn brother, let your stupidity go. Do you not believe that the dignity of the Roman pope is something human, and yet a power based on divine right? Does this conflict with each other, you satorque malorum (saboteur and sower of evil)? Admittedly, 1) this power is a human one, conducive to man's blessedness; but such sovereignty is also conferred by God. The prickly hunter does not like that Mr. Emser brings forward the example of the penitent thief who repented late: as if the example would not be exceedingly appropriate if we want to show that something happens slowly, but therefore not in a worse way. Therefore, Caiphas and Balaam are terrible examples for Luther, who is aware of the Holy Spirit's revelation in the holy Scriptures and the holy church assemblies.
1) In the original prokseta instead of proksoto.
The Lord may say of Luther's vineyard: "A particularly ferocious animal 2) has churned it up [Ps. 80:14].
Luther, who is always the same, also falsely imposes on Mr. Emser that Peter's sovereignty lay unused for a full twenty years. He never said that, but rather this: it does not harm the Roman church if St. Peter, in giving her this sovereignty, has been delayed twenty years. And who will conclude from this, if he still has his reason right, that Peter's supremacy was therefore idle, since he used it both at Jerusalem and at Antioch? Of this in the book of Peter's Supremacy. But he puts forward a dilapidated reason, which he did not hesitate to cite in Leipzig, namely that St. Peter had sent himself to Apost. 8 as an inferior. This was the reason of the godless Arius, namely that the son was inferior to the father because the father had sent him. So he also seeks a miserable remedy in Apost. 10, because Peter had given an account, as if one of the highest ecclesiastics, in order to avoid trouble, did not have to give an account of his actions. Thus the teacher of grammatical theology tears up the holy scripture.
(37) So also our forger, thirdly, corrupts the holy Scripture, since he blasphemously dares to claim that his [Peter's] saying was changed or confirmed by the reputation of Jacob [Acts 10]: since every grammarian, even a theologian, understands that nothing was changed in Peter's saying. Therefore Jerome has very well said: Peter was the author of this decree of legal things.
38 We do not regard as anything the buffoonish speeches that he makes out of those passages that he understands to be completely wrong and fundamentally corrupt. Let Luther argue with me in the presence of judges and try who has the more correct opinion of the divine law, namely of the holy scripture. Luther, as an excellent blasphemer, goes to writing, so that he can do his poisonous intention enough, but he shuns the court, after the manner of those who do not have a good conscience.
39 But who can bear the impudent lie of Luther, since he pretends that his sentence of the supremacy of the Pope is that of the Nicene Council? for in this he lies more than a Thessalonian or a First [Tit. 1, 12.]
2) In the Psalm: the wild sows.
Nicene Council has never seen. I, on the other hand, show in the book of Peter's Supremacy that through the pronouncement of the Nicene Council the Roman Pontiff has supremacy over the entire Church. In it I refer the honest reader, so that he may grasp Luther's lies, to the canons of the very same council, to the letter of Julius Against the Arians, to negotiations such as those of the council at Carthage.
40 With the same lie he croaks: I would have fled these things to Leipzig, since all of Leipzig knows that this is a Lutheran fabrication and a pure, pure lie . fei. Therefore, I shut Luther's shameful mouth because of this holy Nicene Council in the book of Peter's supremacy.
I have often said, and I still say, that Luther never touches anything thoroughly; he tampers with the branches more than with the root. So he denied to me with his linguist Philipp Melanchthon with equal insolence that the books of the Maccabees belong to the Canon according to the regulations of the church, since none of them has ever seen the Canon of the church from the accepted books of the Bible. If they were not so proud and learned this from Eck, they would be more learned; if not, let them show me the Canon [the register of divine writings]; it shall not be up to me. It serves little purpose that he says: I will not be afraid of the very strong and shouting Eck. If you are not afraid, fight with me, stand on your feet, face me bravely before judges who are about to pronounce. So I also regard it as insignificant that he says: I cannot teach the holy scriptures blessedly. It may be enough for Luther that he teaches errors, aversions, heresies and anything else that may be more pernicious in an unfortunate way.
He boasts that he has occupied himself very much with the scholastic teachers. I will be dead if he understands one. What Jerome 1) says is quite true: Your presumption has deceived you. For although Luther is indeed weak in learning, he is strong in biting.
Afterwards, he comes to the conclusion that he wants to show Wider Emsern that he did not have everything in this matter at Leipzig that he had at hand. About this, compare his book on the
1) In Latin Hier, which can be resolved both with Jeremias, and ntzt Hieronymus. Because the marginal gloss offers Hiero, i.e. Jerome, we have placed this in the text.
Pabst's violence 2), which is full of errors, with regard to the disputation at Leipzig, where it will be seen that he poured out everything he had, namely from the Acts of the Apostles and the Conciliar.
44 And there is nothing in the fact that the deceitful disputant pretends that I have always made objections (fuisse, oppugnatorem) for four days, as one. Anyone who reads the disputation will see that the sophist and Proteus cunningly, while he was the respondens [defender] of his theses, arrogated to himself the position of an attacker (munus opponentis) [of my propositions], and hurled at me all the stronger projectiles, so that when it came to his turn to oppose, he had few arrows left, and only weak ones. With regard to this, I refer to what the notaries have recorded.
With the same arrogance he lies (cretisat), since he says: My reasons for proof were trite and mean stuff, and it had annoyed him in Carlstadt that he had countered my bad objections with such learned and rich answers. How dare you lie so obviously, you knave, who deserves a good beating (verberabilissime trifur)?
46 And how do you now, composed of intrigues, come and say: he [Carlstadt's] was so rich, since you regretted his meagerness, namely, that you had allowed such a dry, meager and forgetful man to enter the fray and the battlefield. Ask in Leipzig, and you will hear of Carlstadt's wealth, not in scholarship, which is quite moderate, but in his abundant reading aloud from books, as boys do. But even this untruth will be exposed when the disputation is published. This, however, I would like to believe to be quite true, that Luther was not at any disputation from which he would have preferred to leave. We know who hates the light, who flees the judgment! I had certainly expected to hear a deeper understanding of the Scriptures; but there I had to hear the Hussite Articles; and since I thought I would have to dispute with a Catholic and God-fearing gentleman, a theologian, I had to deal with a Hussite.
Here, however, Luther utters a ruinous word, since he dares to say: "That up to this day the proof of the Nicene Council has not yet been refuted. For at this council
2) This refers to Luther's explanation of his 13th thesis, No. 36 in this volume.
The fathers have decreed the opposite of what is laid down in the article of the Council of Constance. For heaven's sake! How dare a desperate and senseless monk! He attaches such a great stain to the most holy Conciliar, as if they had ordered contradictory and opposite things. Let this be far from the Holy Spirit who governed and guided the two Conciliarities! I have already said that the stupid monk 1) never saw the Nicene Concilium. I have also added this: that from the Nicene Conciliar the supremacy of the Roman Church, which the article of the Conciliar of Constance teaches, is clearly proven; as I show this extensively in the book of Peter's Supremacy. And there it will be seen that the Nicene Concilium cannot be a tydeus 2) for Luther, but he may rather choose an Arian apostate as his defender.
48 But he abuses the holy scripture with such great malice that he states that Judas had first the supremacy among the apostles, and then Matthias; that such robes deserve nothing but pitch, brimstone and fire. Therefore, who can stand longer with such inconsistent and ungodly stuff?
I am ashamed to say that the Roman popes sought this supremacy only in order to have the power to presume on any matter and to exercise tyranny, and thus to cause nothing but destruction by this power, which alone is given for building.
I firmly believe with the Holy Mother, the Church, that Peter was ordained by Christ to be the shepherd of the universal Church. I also believe that all who sit on Peter's chair have this power. I also adore the saying of the Lord [Ex. 22, 28.], "Thou shalt not curse the ruler of the people, for he that blasphemeth the ruler shall die." However, I am completely of the opinion that, although one should not curse an erring pope 3)
1) BurdoenIIu instead of BurdoeuenIIu. The word durdi occurs more often in the meaning dull, stupid. Cf. Basilius Bader: Ddes. sruäitiouis sodolastieas 8. v. daräi.
2) Dudens, Virgil, ^eueis, lid. IV, 479: A very strong hero, who alone overcame fifty men.
3) Boutiüoi errauti. From this it is clear that Eck did not hold to the infallibility of the pope. Against this, the excuse that xoutiwx could not be translated here as pope, since it also often means bishop, could not help. For the preceding sentences clearly show that we are speaking of the bishop who is ordained by Christ to be the shepherd of the general church and who sits on the chair of Peter.
Luther's Works. Vd. XVIII.
not to flatter him, but to remind him and to punish him modestly. For Christ must by all means be preferred to all men. Thus Paul rebuked Peter, thus Jethro was sometimes wiser than Moses. But it is fundamentally false what Luther so impudently blurts out, that there is no power in the church but only to curb sin: since there is a power in it both to promote good and to keep evil in check. Otherwise, it would not confirm an innocent boy, ordain a righteous youth [to the priesthood], hand the holy sacrament of the altar to a convert who is penitent and does enough.
It would also be a very important thing to deal with the abuses of the Roman court, which, according to Luther, are going on there. But I do not like this way of correcting, since Luther has not yet punished the Roman pope between himself and him alone, in what he already says to the church; therefore he regards Paul's word as good: "Do not rebuke an old man, but plead with him as a father"; but he considers this bad.
52 Finally, he spouts his usual venom, that the church has no sovereignty, basing himself on the very ill-understood words of Christ: "Whoever wants to be the greatest among you, let him be your servant.
At the end, Luther, who is now tired of the hunt, laments the outcome of the Leipzig disputation because it bears the fruit described by the apostles in 1 Timothy 6. But tell me Luther or another right 4) sower of Luther's errors: Who was to blame but Luther and his followers? Why did they not
4) This passage is called in Latin: 8ed dient midi Inddsrns nut uli^uis ennoniens seminntor errorum Inddsruui (the last word probably instead of Indderi), with Eck's marginal gloss: Onnoniei indoeti Inderuni. With this, Eck aimed not indistinctly at the Canonicus Bernhard Adelmann at Augsburg. (Weim. Ausg. Bd. II. 657.) This became the occasion for a rebuttal to the present writing, which Luther himself did not dignify with a reply, on the part of Johann Oecolampadius, under the title: Ounoniei indooti Imtüeruni nd Aloriosissirnnrn, snxerdootissiinuin triuinxdutorsin mNAistrum nostrnin, rnuZistrurn dounnein Bokrnni, tükoIoAistnM. Wittenberg 1520. - We could therefore have translated the above passage as: "or any other canonicus who sows the errors of Luther." - Oecolampad's writing is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1513. From Luther's letters to Spalatin of February 27, 1520 (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix no. 52) we see that Oecolampad wrote to Melanchthon that of all the writings published against Eck, this one hurt him the most.
and calmly waited for the verdict of the excellent high school in Paris? That would have meant to seek the truth of faith: but you did not seek that, but a miserable haze of vain honor, the gossip of the rabble, a vain boast. And since this did not continue, and yet you would gladly wipe out the disgrace you had received, you laid yourselves on the most hostile and bitter vows of writing. And I testify before God and all the saints that I have answered such blasphemies quite unwillingly, since I desired nothing more than that the truth be revealed by the judgment of Paris, for that is why I disputed, so that I would not have to write. And now the opposite has happened: that, since I have disputed, I still have to write a great deal, lest the errors, heresies and perverse Lutheran doctrines, which are all too defiantly praised, hold an illusory triumph and seduce the simple-minded.
But let us hear the godly monk: We did not know that we were in the midst of wolves. What kind of people was Luther among in Leipzig? Among the councilors of the most illustrious prince and lord, Lord George, Duke of Saxony; among the members (senatores) of the Leipzig high school: and the greatest blasphemer dares to call such people wolves, to equate them with dogs and sows! And the vice that he has most in himself, namely, that he seeks fame, he pins on others. I have, God knows! striven for truth, therefore I have waited for the judgment. But the cowl did not seek truth, but glory. His inconstant, biting, vituperative and presumptuous way of writing is an obvious sign that the great speaker is a victor.
before he has won. I wanted him to sit still in the spirit of meekness and humility and wait with me in good peace for the verdict from Paris. He would certainly have had a peaceful man in Eck, and would still have him if he had kept silent and listened to what the masters of Christian truth had said about our opinions in the Athens of Christendom, namely in Paris.
55 I wanted to touch on this briefly in a hurry, most reverend bishop, because I have seen that Herr Hieron. Emser has been unduly mocked by Luther in such a way that neither his manifold and profound learning, nor his innocent life, nor his virtue, which is well known and proven to you, nor the priesthood, nor his prudent prudence deserve such an insolent and biting attack. And the honest reader will easily recognize all this, if he considers Emser's letter carefully.
But forgive me, whoever reads this, and you in particular, most esteemed bishop, if I have bitten the biter again; for one had to deal with the wild and angry hunter in no other way. For I had to force myself to deal with him somewhat harshly, which otherwise does not suffer my usual kindness.
57-. The faithful God creates what he has promised through the prophet, that the poisonous hunter Luther is taken away, and instead hunters of peace and salvation appear. As he says in Jeremiah [16:16], "I will send them many hunters, and they shall hunt in all the mountains, and in all the hills, and in the dens of the rocks: for mine eyes are over all their ways." Farewell, adornment of the bishops. From Ingolstadt, October 28. In the year of grace 1519.