Germanized by Luther himself.
Behold, thou Christian reader, what abominations of theologians this part of the world, Europe, begets. Before this year the Sophists at Cologne and Louvain condemned the gospel, and brought forward some naked sentences, neither fortified with reason nor with scriptures; but the same nonsense has now been far transgressed, in like manner (whoever they are), by those who condemned Luther at Paris: for I cannot be persuaded that such a thing was done by common consent of the whole assembly of theologians. I let alone that much less of those 1) is condemned. How much more harshly and unkindly Luther is treated by them! First of all, a bloody epistle is written beforehand, then on each article special, unchristian and unflattering additions. About this, several pieces of Luther are forced to the left 2); and from the same 3) one may deduce what kind of spirit, what kind of madness possessed the masters of this judgment. For the Holy Spirit of God does all things to turn it to the best. And finally, it is such a book, which no one would believe to be written in Paris. Because the common man considers it that in the same high school the Christian doctrine lives and reigns as in its own castle.
(2) For it cannot be denied that many brave men came from there in ancient times, and hard before our times Gerson, a man (as it seems) full of Christ's spirit. But, as I see, it goes according to the Greek proverb: In former times the Milesians were brave. And if the same now again
1) Instead of "them" (in the Wittenberg edition: "jnen") it is probably better to read "those". In Latin iUW. This refers to the sophists at Cologne and Louvain.
2) I.e., on the wrong opinion.
3) Lat.: Kino, in which, as it seems to us, the preceding is summarized, namely: the bloody epistle, the by-products and the twists.
If they were alive, do you think they would know these judgmental, naughty offspring? In no way, but they would lament the fall of both this high school and of all Christendom, that they would see in the school reigning sophists instead of theologians, and defilers instead of Christian teachers; and would realize that this is the time which the church laments in Jeremiah (Lam. 1, 15.) and says: "God has taken all my bravest from me, and has brought such a time upon me, in which he contrives all my elect."
3 However, when I look at it now, it seems to me that Paris has not started to do evil now, but it has been wrong for a long time, when it started pagan art, and corrupted the Christian doctrine with human doctrine. For it is known that in Paris the unspiritual school doctrine was born, which they wanted to call a theology. And since it is admitted, nothing is left in Christianity; the gospel is darkened; faith is extinguished; the doctrine of works is 4) in decline. And so, we who are supposed to be Christian people, have not even become 5) Mosi's people, but Aristotle's people, and out of the Christian being, against all opinion of the spirit, has become a pagan way of living.
O God! you should see with spiritual eyes what damage has been done to Christianity by your school theology, which was born and raised in you, and which has received from you the other high schools of this part of the world, just as an inheritance. The world must (as Isaiah says Cap. 2, 8.) become full of oil idols. And indeed your articles testify how stiff-necked you have practiced pagan art from the beginning of the same school theology; among how few are you who belong to Christianity! For what does the article serve, that you have set: I run, be a
4) Wittenbergers: are.
5) Wittenberger: still.
*) In Latin: lüeoloZastrorum, which must be noted here, because the following apparent Christ breaks on this expression. - Where this writing is found in the editions, is already indicated with the preceding writing.
962 D. v. a. vi. 39-61. VI. Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xvin, 1147-iiso. 963
clumsy speech? Let there be no difference between these two sayings: Every man's ass walketh, and every man's ass runneth: The ass of a like man walketh. How honest and worthy teachers these are of a Christian high school!
(5) For this you have publicly stated that the pagan arts are necessary for Christianity. Which article of what kind of spirit 1) did he come from, do we not see? Namely, from him who wanted to have the gospel darkened by the teachings of men, and how this went so well for him is not known. For which high school has taught the holy Scriptures purely? But the Parisian school, which for so many years practiced pagan art, now never practiced pagan art, but 2) only helps in the small Logica. What is more pagan than the versor Tartaret, and similar writers, of whom Paris at this time has given innumerable? I have seen the books of John Major, which he wrote about the master of high senses, who is now among the theologians of Paris, as they say, the crown. I do not want to judge his life, but, dear God, what cartloads of alfenzerei are there? Through how many leaves does he dispute whether a horse is needed for riding? Item, whether the sea was created so salty by God. I will remain silent, however, how unchristianly he writes many things about free will. In this place he teaches not only differently from Scripture, but also differently from all school theologians.
Because the Parisians are such people, you should not be surprised, dear reader, that they are not almost gracious to Luther. They were nothing kinder in times past to their Gerson, who was nevertheless a great man in all things, since the Parisian school nevertheless stood better than now; what should they do now, now that everything is full of sophistical conspiracy 3) there! But I also know that there are nevertheless some who do not dislike Luther. But this is the way it is not only in spiritual but also in worldly affairs, even in spiritual affairs beforehand, that the good are the lesser part, and those are most powerful to whom it is least due; which the poet Homerus also saw, even though he was blind, when he says: "The worst lies above. Who does not know by which larvae of Reuchlin's cause was acted there? since it was also said that the whole school had judged; it is right for me, seven [at the most] 4) were theirs, and among them several monks who came together.
1) Wittenberger: waser.
2) D. i. gaukelt.
3) I. e. haunting, empty appearance (kueis).
4) Lat.: ack sununum.
5) which, as they used to say, were then instead of the whole bunch. Who knows whether the same thing happened here?
7. although it is not a matter of who they are that have judged. It is more important to see what they have judged. St. Paul says that we should not give way to the angels if they change the gospel (Gal. 1, 8.), and we should give way to these unsalted, well-fed magistris nostris, who have not yet learned their little logics correctly? Neither rulers nor princes may snatch the apostle away from the gospel (Rom. 8, 38. 39.), and should these larvae of men snatch us away? And what are they but larvae? Let the name Magister noster be accepted; let the name Paris be accepted; but no further than in their schools. In common Christendom nothing shall be accepted but the voice of Christ. He who does not hear it is not Christ (John 10:27).
(8) There is no great power in not answering them. Since they put nothing against Luther but bare articles; and he has thus fixed his thing with writings in all places, before in the book which he calls "Assertio über die Artikel, die Pabst Leo verdammet hat" ("Assertion on the articles which Pope Leo has condemned"), that it may not be esteemed unchristian, except by those who are themselves unchristians. However, I want to indicate one or two pieces, from which one may respect the others and appreciate the whole of their judgment.
9) First of all, if the epistle is not written by a proper speaker, then the theologian who wrote it (whoever he may be) is indeed a fool from the bounds of the Bible; there is nothing in it but female fierceness and temper. How does it read? He alone wants to be wise, he despises us, he is a Manichaeus, he is a Montanus, he is nonsensical, one should force him with fire and flames; which also the anger did not let him speak right Latin. And here the common man also sees that this fictitious bunch of theologians lacks natural reason in that they say: Luther should be killed with fire rather than overcome with reason. Who should not laugh here at such feminine and all things monkish soft-mindedness 7)? And with leave, that it befits me to admonish the worthy gentleman, Ern Dechant: Be careful, dear Mr. Dechant, you are angry now, don't you know that the poet says: Grimm und Zorn stürzen die Vernunft? By grace and favor, the Cologne and
5) Lat.: eonvenerant.
6) D. i. flush.
7) Lat.: impolentlarn - inability.
Lions have never been so foolish; I almost believe it was said by some old people, and not without reason: The French have no brains.
They call Luther a heretic, not because he disagrees with the Holy Scriptures, but because he disagrees with the high schools, the holy fathers, the conciliis 1). On the other hand, the sayings of the high schools, the holy fathers, the conciliis, they call the main pieces of faith. Would that I could act against you here with your own statutes, if these things are hidden from you. What is more publicly known than that neither high schools, nor holy fathers, nor concilia may make principal things or articles of faith? For it may happen that not only the high schools, but also the holy fathers and conciliarities err. If you do not believe me in this, believe your Occam. How are you then so bold that you call man's delusion the main part of faith? Who does not know that Paul said: "No one can lay a foundation other than the one that has been laid" (1 Cor. 3:11)? There he speaks of the doctrines or main articles of faith. What new articles of faith do the magistri nostri of Paris want to add? Perhaps their own, the stinking ones that are made behind the stove?
But if there are no more articles of faith than those written in the holy Scriptures, why should it be unchristian to disbelieve the high schools, the holy fathers, and the churches? so far from it, that we do not disbelieve the Scriptures. Now Luther does not disbelieve the Scriptures, as you yourselves confess; why then should he be accused of being unchristian? He disagrees with the interpretation of Scripture as it has been accepted by the high schools, by the churches, and by the fathers. So I see well, this is the main thing.
(12) So I ask you all here, magistri nostri, whether the Scriptures are not given in such a way that one can understand their certain opinion without interpreting the concilia, the fathers, the high schools? Or is it not so? If you deny that the opinion of the Scriptures is certain in itself without glosses, I do not see why the Scriptures should have been given, because the Holy Spirit did not want us to know what He wanted us to understand. But why do the apostles so diligently provoke us to teach the Scriptures?
1) I. e. contrary. Lat.: äissentit. In the Wittenberg edition, the spelling varies. Here "mishelt. In contrast, in the following § "misballen" and "mishallet". Further down in § SS of this writing: "mishellet". We also have this word in use: unanimously, mißhellig, Mißhelligkeit.
if their opinion is uncertain? And what will you say to this, that even the fathers did not want to believe them themselves, because if they confirm their thing by the Scriptures? Item, what do you say to the fact that the ancient Concilia never decided anything without Scripture? And this is also the reason why we distinguish between true and false conciliarities, that the true conciliarities agree with the clear Scriptures, but the false conciliarities do not agree with the Scriptures.
Therefore you must admit to me that the opinion of the Scripture is certain and clear, so that it interprets itself, where there is a dark place, beforehand in the things that the Holy Spirit wanted to be known and believed. He undoubtedly wanted the law to be known, as he commanded it to be written on the doorposts and pinned in the 2) place of the garments (Deut. 6:8). So he also wanted to know the gospel, that is, the way in which righteousness is given to us through Christ. For if the word of God is to be a rock upon which the soul surrenders, what can it think of it if it is not certain what the opinion of the Spirit of God is?
(14) If the opinion of Scripture is certain, it should be preferred not only to the high schools or fathers, but also to the churches which hold them otherwise, as the apostle teaches us in Galatians (1:8): "If an angel from heaven preaches to you differently from what we have preached to you, let it be forbidden. Therefore, Luther should be free to set the certain opinion of Scripture against the conciliarities, fathers and high schools. What do you sophists want to answer to this? What glosses? What little logics? What intricate conclusions do you want to raise? Either deny that the opinion of the Scriptures is certain; or grant Luther that he sets Scripture against all who hold otherwise.
15 But we do not admit to you that Luther is against the fathers or conciliarities. And that I say first of all about the Fathers, is not Luther's opinion of free will, of grace, if one respects the matter rightly, completely of St. Augustine? For he followed the same in all things in the Commentary, ad Galatas. There are both books available, which if someone holds against each other, he will find that they agree in the summa and main point. Perhaps one of them has something more pointed in some places.
2) I.e. the outermost end of the dress. Lat.: kiinbriis. This expression also occurs now: Ortfeather--the first feather of the goose wing; Orttiegel--echiegel; Ortban---- the band attached to the handle of the epee.
966 L. V. a. VI, 6A-L5. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, I152-11S4. 967
or Subtilers said, and Luther much pieces more diligent, than Augustine. Hui, dear Magistri nostri! Break up and tear yourselves apart; but the same does not almost serve the cause.
16 Now see, in the main part, and precisely in this Luther has the most to do, Augustine is his companion 1), and not a common bad patron. For this he has all the witnesses of his opinion, as many as hold it with Augustine in the same disputation. But Cyprianus, whom he faithfully draws from the book on the Lord's Prayer, is with him. It holds with him, who wrote after Augustin, as he wrote the book de vocatione gentium; because it does not look [so out] that it is of Ambrosius. Item, Maxentius in 2) Greeks. Thus we accept the books of St. Augustine, which he himself most wanted to have accepted.
(17) I do not say this because I think it is important what the teachers have said (whoever they are, if the opinion of the Scriptures is otherwise known), but also to satisfy the self-willed who think that Luther wants to make all things new, when he does nothing else but bring us back to the Scriptures, even to the fathers, who came closest to the understanding of the Scriptures. But you, what are you doing? Is it not true that you do nothing else, but that Christian hearts grow up more in the formalities of Scotus, and connotations of Occam, than in Christ? And listen, you sophists, even though you will not understand it, you do not resist the rising light of the gospel other than as Jannes and Jambres Mosi did (2 Tim. 3, 8.). The same offspring is also the Sorbonite, namely, born from the Egyptian Sorbonite. 3) But how sincerely you hold Sanct Augustine's opinion against Luther, I will admonish you very soon after.
18) Further, about the main piece of free will and grace is also that of the old fathers, that Luther does not want to have the law divided into commandments and counsels, which is the gossip we have only from school theology; which, since it began to measure the divine law according to the pagan art of Aristotle, it has, according to true Lutheranism, not measured the divine law according to the pagan art of Aristotle, but according to the pagan art of Aristotle, according to the pagan art of Aristotle.
1) I.e. the one who agrees with him.
2) D. i. at the.
3) In the Table Talks, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, Cap. 67, § 4, Luther derives the name Sorbonne from sordis, i.e. apples near the Dead Sea, which outwardly have a very lovely appearance, but inwardly contain ashes. Here is perhaps an allusion to Ezek. 2, 6: soruvlna, stubborn, prickly thorns. Cf. also § 31 of this writing: Sorba.
For the sake of the divine commandments, which they only wanted. For which of the ancient fathers did not consider all the commandments set forth in the Gospel to be necessary, that we should not avenge ourselves? St. Hilarius says: The Gospels command that we should not take revenge. St. Augustine, in the book of the Lord's sermon on the mountain, calls it all commandments, which you call counsels, and disputes there that it seems to be a necessary commandment that we should not take revenge. And this opinion is also held by Chrysostom, who is so far from admitting vengeance that he does not demand a commandment more strongly. His Homilia exists, which, if you have leisure before your little logics, dear Magistri nostri, read it.
(19) But that the law does not agree with Aristotle's pagan art, we do not inquire; what is it to us what the same impure man has done? Should we hold Aristotle higher than Christ? But of this commandment of vengeance we will say more hereafter. So I would like to show in many other pieces that Luther agrees with the old fathers. But since everything that Luther wrote about repentance and satisfaction flows out of the piece about free will and grace, what is the need to go much further with the sayings of the fathers? Perhaps we wanted to light a lantern in the middle of the day, when one speaks.
(20) There are some things in Luther's writings that are not easily found in the books of the Fathers, such as those he wrote about the number of sacraments, confession, vows, and other such matters that are relevant to our times. For in the time of the fathers such things did not happen, and Christianity was then still clean, so that there was little doubt about it. They did not yet have the tyrannical laws of the popes. They did not have yet our dear Magistri nostri of Paris, yes, also not the articles of Paris that darken the Gospel. It was perhaps noon of the Gospel; but now it is evening, and at the same time with our sins, blindness, the most horrible punishment of our sin, has possessed the hearts, which has brought us human doctrine for the Gospel, and Sorbonian theology. Has not such a punishment in all places in the prophets of the Spirit of God been imminent in these times? And St. Paul says (1 Tim. 4, 1.): "There will come some who will depart from the faith, and will pervert the gospel through the doctrine of men"; and the like much more. But if these are not the Sorbonian theologians, I do not know what the apostle means.
21 So you see, dear reader, that Luther agrees with the old theologians in most respects; how much cheaper it is now that we should again push it on our dear Magistri nostri of Paris, that it is they who are fooling and prescribing such a theology for us, which the most famous teachers of Christianity have not even dreamed of! If it is unchristian to resist the fathers, nothing is more unchristian than the Parisian disputators, who, in the most important main points of theology, resist the fathers in the same way. A large part of the fathers call it sin and vice, everything that does not come from the spirit of Christ. But they call some moral works (as they speak) not only not sin, but also proper merits for grace. O blindness! A great part of the fathers say that the commandment of God may not be kept by human strength. But here, my reader, hear the disrespect 1) of God from the Parisians. They divide the fulfillment of the commandments into two parts, and say: one is able to fulfill them well, as much as it concerns the essence of the works, but not, as much as it concerns the opinion of the master: just as if the master demanded something more than the essence of the works.
22 O, would God, you Parisians, that I had to do such things with you in your Sorbona, that I would see whether you would also be ashamed of such coarse, stinking, such Sorbonian gossip. Dear Magistri nostri, it is not Luther's but your theology that displeases the fathers. You are concerned with the clamor that they are unchristian, all those who teach differently than the teachers of Christianity. And let this be said of the teachers and fathers. Now let us look at 2) the concilia.
(23) But what are the conciliarities that Luther opposes? You claim that his teaching is condemned by the oldest conciliarities. This is evident from the fact that you make him a Montanus, Manichaeus, Ebion, and what do you not make of him? But in this, either the writer of this epistle wanted to prove his art of writing letters, or there is nothing more malicious and insolent than the Parisian Sorbona. For who does not smell in what [what] opinion they heap the names of the old heretics upon Luther? Namely, that Luther's name would become most hostile. What a request, how boorish it is, is well understood even by those who are of sound mind.
24 For that Luther is compared to Montanus, who is he who does not see how not at all out of
1) I. e. blasphemy. Lat. dlaspüsmias.
2) Wittb. Edition: "lasse".
of a [sincere 3) opinion that happens? Montanus, who wanted us to believe him, relied on his own spirit: Luther, who wants us to believe nothing of him, but of the clear, bright Scriptures; do not boast of his own, but only of the Scriptures. You yourselves are much closer to Montano, who want us to believe the spirit of men, of concilia, of the fathers, of the high schools, more than the Scriptures; yes, you are nothing but vain [people like] Montanus. I speak of you sophists in Paris, who have omitted this judgment without Scripture, and boast that you keep the apostolic way: just as if it were known enough that you have the very spirit that the apostles had. But of this more hereafter.
25 I pray thee, thou Christian reader, thinkest thou that there is some Christian spirit in the Sorbona, which is ashamed of nothing at all to lie? For it is obvious, even to him, the Sorbona, that Luther and Montanus do not agree with each other; nor are they so bold that they accuse the good man with Montanus' name. Just as boorishly and carelessly they make an Ebion out of him. Ebion forced the ceremonies of the old law: Luther does not force them, but lets them be free, so that each one, according to opportunity, or if love demands it, may practice them and leave them without sin. And so St. Paul also holds in the last chapter to the Galatians, when he stopped the ceremonies and ways and let them apply equally and said (Gal. 6, 15.): "In Christ neither circumcised nor uncircumcised counts, but a new creature"; and 1 Cor. 7:18: "If any man be converted, called of the circumcision, let him not make himself uncircumcised:" that is, if any man be converted among them that keep the law, let him keep it with them: "but if any man be converted uncircumcised, let him not be circumcised." Circumcised is nothing; uncircumcised is also nothing: but the fulfillment of divine commandments. From this, I think, it is clear enough what the difference is between both opinions: also how honestly and respectably they have violated Luther's opinion in Ebion's heresy.
26 In the same way, they give Luther the name of Manichaean. The Pelagians did the same to St. Augustine when he testified to Lib. primo adversus duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, cap. 2. Luther is not ashamed of this disgraceful word because he suffers it at the same time as Augustine, although the Manichaeans had no more powerful enemy than Augustine. The school theologians are Pelagians, even more impure than the Pelagians; therefore
3) In Latin: eanckicks.
9702- ". vi, 67-69. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. xvni, 1157-1159. 971
It does not surprise us that you Lutherans chide a Manichaeus, who know nothing else but school theology, that is, twice Pelagian doctrine. And Augustine, how he excuses himself of the Manichaean name, is unconcealed from his protective speech Against the Pelagian Epistle; and in this passage he states more clearly that free will is nothing, as when he argues with the Manichaean Felix], 1) and if it is valid with you, he excuses us there as well.
But are our dear Magistri nostri of Paris so nearly blind that they seriously believe Luther's and Manichaeus' opinion to be one thing; what can be more blind than the people? Again, do they do it out of malice, that they impute to him that they well know it is none of his business; what can be more malicious than they? Manichaeus' opinion is more extensive than that it should be told here, which, if we believe Augustine, who states it in many places, is thoroughly contrary to Christian doctrine. But this much serves this cause: Manichaeus, who denies the free will of man, so that he says there is not an essential thing that would like to be improved and be susceptible to freedom; 2) Luther, who denies that he is free in such a way that he is an essential thing that is renewed by the grace of the Spirit and is redeemed from bondage. From these pieces, my dear reader, you may respect the others. For as honestly as they have driven these pieces, which I have narrated, upon Luther; so they drive them much more.
Let us come again, since we have left it. It is now clear that Luther's teaching is not condemned by the old conciliarists, because his and the heretics' doctrine is not at all one thing. Nevertheless, they should also have considered here: if Luther had agreed with the heretics, in which 3) and for what reason he was condemned in the heretical sects. For where has there ever been such a desperate heresy, which has acted evil in all things?
29 I do not write all this in the opinion that I am giving the old conciliis such great power that, if Luther opposed the bright Scriptures, which concilia they are, one should therefore depart from the Scriptures; but that I am admonishing the reader how much he should believe this great clamor of our dear Magistri nostri of Paris, when they cry out Luther condemns all conciliis that are holy and holy.
1) These bracketed words are omitted in the German translation by mistake.
2) Literally: capable of freedom.
3) Wittb.: waserley.
He is a Montan, an Ebion, a Manichaeus, an Antitorite, and the like.
30 But there were some papal conciliarities in this time of the Roman Antichrist, to which Luther confesses that he resists, but that the clear Scriptures are before him. 4) Why should he not resist them, since they contain so many unchristian things against the gospel? The Concilium of Vienna denies that the keys are common to the church. The Concilium of Costnitz denies that Christianity is the whole assembly of the elect. Item, the same Concilium states that some good works are apart from grace; which pieces strive against the gospel in a straightforward manner. Luther is rightly opposed to the concilium, if he has Christ for himself; [those who] have thus set against this [Christ] have not been Christ's, but the Antichrist's church.
31) Do you think that the two councils of Lyons and Vienna have done nothing wrong? 5) who have confirmed the decrees of the popes, under which Christian may ever suffer the two chapters abolendam, and Venerabilem? What does it help that you theologians of Sorbona raise the conciliarities, you are nothing but vain Sorba? 6) You can never deny that nothing can be set against the Scriptures. But if something is set against it, it can be torn apart again. Therefore, allow Luther to weigh the laws of the Conciliar according to the Gospel; allow him to prefer the Gospel if something is set that teaches otherwise. Even the angels give way to the word of God; so should you also give way to it, the gates of hell, and the poor men from whom we have the papal statutes.
We did not ask anything about the high schools. For that all high schools 7) are heretics, proves the school theology alone. Dear Magistri nostri, now cry out confidently: he has blasphemed God, he calls the high schools heretics. It is right where they teach what is contrary to the Gospel. Now the school theology of the Parisians, which is now the only empress in all the high schools of this part of the world Europe, especially in Paris, is ever abhorrent. Therefore you should not be surprised, dear reader, that Luther is repugnant to the high schools, that is, how
4) Sense: Luther resists the concilia by following the holy scripture.
5) In the Wittenberg edition: Vienna. The Concil at Vienne took place in 1311.
6) Cf. the note to §17 of this paper.
7) In Latin alone: "schools", which we note here because of the 17th article of the next jesting script.
Micah (Cap. 1, 14.) says to the houses of lies. 1) But would you say, Who will believe that so many should err? All are mistaken who teach otherwise than the Scriptures, and all who praise unchristian school theology. But should so many err? Surely, even in Samaria, among so many priests of Baal, how few were Elijah? 2) (1 Kings 18:22) Set before your eyes the whole history of Judah and Samaria, in which Christianity is figured, how few prophets, how many idolaters there were! And at this last time, what a multitude of Sadducees and Pharisees, that is, priests, monks and disciples 3) one finds! Do we not see that the prophet Ezekiel Cap. 16, 44. said: "As the mother, so also the daughter"? we have followed, even transgressed 4) all the abominations of the synagogues, that they might be considered Christian, as the prophet says, held against us.
Now we understand, I think, how Luther is one with the fathers and the conciliar. But with the high schools the Christian faith does not let him be one. From this you may notice how highly learned these Sorba are, who call the main parts of the Christian faith the Fathers, the Conciliarities, and the schools; however, I see nothing at all, so they do not distort that the Fathers and Conciliarities are contradicted, but that the school theology is not dealt with honestly enough. And this is the right Hadermetze Helena, 5) for whose sake our dear Magistri nostri fight so dear. Why do you not write in your right Sorbonian preface from the way: We are magistri nostri, and teach school theology; what have we to do with Scripture, or Scripture with us? It is over with us and our kingdom, if we do not banish all those who reject school theology. We want all things to be [considered] 6) and mixed, so that the school theology does not fall, for if it is not preserved, then we are lost. Although Luther agrees with the old fathers and concilia, he shall still perish, unless ex rejects them and worships us. We are the chief pieces of the Christian faith, and not the Scriptures. And how should we fence with the man by reason, who denies the main pieces (that is, the dreams of our dear Sorbonian Magistri nostri)? He should be badly beaten and um-
1) According to the Vulgate.
2) Wittb.: Heliä.
3) I. e. scholastics, school theologians.
4) D. i. surpassed. Lat.: violruus.
5) The wife of King Menelaus was kidnapped by Paris to Troy; hence the Trojan War.
6) Latin: movenäa. Wittb. Edition: because of.
because he denies the essentials of the faith.
34 It would be unwise to call the Fathers and the Conciliar the principal pieces of the faith, since no other foundation than Scripture can be laid. What kind of wanton rage is this, that one wants to prefer Sardonic Comments 7) to Scripture? Let it not be a heretic who displeases the Scriptures; and let it be a heretic who displeases the French Sorbs. But let the fool's work have a good year. What is it that one loses so many words in such public matters? For what is more public, as I said above, that all conciliarities, all fathers, all schools of opinion, they are as they are, should give way to the clear Scriptures.
35 Let us continue to follow what is more in the Sorbonian epistle. They say: Whom shall he believe that refuseth to believe all common Christendom? Or, how can he be counted among the common Christians who does not want to hear Christianity? since it is said from the mouth of truth Matth. 18, 17: "If he does not hear Christianity, consider him a heathen and a publican" 2c I ask you, dear Magistri nostri, what do you call Christianity or the church? The French Sorbona? But how can the same be Christ's church, because it is far from Christ's word? when Christ testifies (John 10:27) that "his voice is known by his sheep". We call a church that is built by the Word of God, and is pastured, nurtured, educated, and governed by the Word of God: recently, which creates all its things from the Gospel, and judges all things according to the Gospel. "For he that is of God heareth the word of God." Again, "he who does not hear his word is not of God" (John 8:47). And since the Church is born of God's Word, it is also to be nourished by it without doubt.
Luther will recognize you as a Christian church if you teach the Word of God, but he will not recognize you if you present nothing more than your foolish and nasty articles. He hears the church, but only the one that teaches the Word of God. To the same knowledge he submits, who conquers all things according to the Word of God, who follows the judgment of the Scriptures and not the Sorbonian dreams. For what an abomination should the church be, if it were transformed according to any Sorbonian dreamer's comment? Which chameleon, which polyp, yes, which Proteus would be more changeable?
7) D. i. poetries.
974 V. L. VI, 71-73. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, 1161-1164. 975
37 But since Christ said, "If he does not hear them, consider him a Gentile and a publican" (Matt. 18:17), is it not true that he intended the guilty to be tried before the church? He wanted him to be overcome with witnesses; he wanted him to be judged according to the commandment, especially according to the Gospel. But you condemn Luther before you accuse him and overcome him with scriptures. You produce naked articles without Scripture, without reasonable grounds, in which Luther is not sued but condemned. If all other things were already competent, is Sorbona alone the church, that it puts Luther out of the faithful congregation? You should accuse, not condemn; you should have denounced scriptural sayings, and not produce naked articles, and leave the judgment to the church. Now you even turn it around; all that is divine and human right, [you] do not accuse him, do not overcome him; but only condemn him, namely because you are our dear Sorbonian Magistri nostri. Let France be ashamed of the Sorbonne, which is so unchristian.
38 But I do very foolishly, that I act the Sorbona so dishonestly, if she gives new apostles at this time. For our dear Magistir nostri speak, they follow the apostles' example, in that they recite naked articles without reason of Scripture. And would to God that they did not give us the apostles in the piece alone! Christ Himself draws reason from the Scriptures, and wants to have Him believed for the sake of [the] testimony of the Scriptures. Sanct Paul reads sheer foreign words, that is, Scripture of the Old Testament. The sermons of the apostles, what are they but sayings of Christ, taken from the Old Testament? But now we are to believe only the one Sorbonne without all Scripture. Come out of the Sorbonne pit into this light, dear Magistri nostri, that we may see whether such foolish people also have eyes or foreheads. Where did you learn that it is an apostolic example to present doctrine without testimony? even as Christ himself would not let him believe without Scripture.
But let us see the apostolic and the Sorbonian deeds against each other. Apost. 15, 5. ff. it is written that a question was raised about the law of Moses. When the Holy Spirit, through various sayings of the Scriptures and public proofs and miraculous signs, had signified that the Gentiles should not be burdened with the law of Moses, the decision of the same freedom was made. Here I ask you, dear Magistri nostri: what miraculous signs, what sayings of the Scriptures have driven you,
to speak about Luther? Although we would not easily believe the signs, we will believe the Scriptures alone. Secondly, they were chosen to bring the apostles' decision with a living voice and to confirm the faith of the churches. But you, whom do you send out to the churches to explain to them the reason for your opinion? Thirdly, they made an epistle of this kind, in which they introduced the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and wrote thus v. 28: "It pleased the Holy Spirit and us. 2c But you, what kind of spirit do you introduce? 2c
40. Listen, you deaf serpents, what kind of spirit do you lead as a witness of your doctrine to the whole world? The apostles brought in the Spirit of God, that the will of the Holy Spirit was known to them through the Scriptures; so also was the Spirit in the apostles known to the churches. What shall we think of your spirit? How? if someone spoke to you here, as he did in Acts 19:15: "I know Jesus, I know Paul, but who are you? How could the apostles, even though they bore witness to the Holy Spirit, still think that a mere epistle was not enough in such a great matter, but added a message, which the churches confirmed with many sermons? So now the churches want living preaching, not written decisions. And Peter wants the Christians to be able to give cause for their faith. The same is now demanded of you by the whole world, dear Magistri nostri.
It was already known before what Paris held in her school, your books are available, your school disputations are also available; now, however, one demands the reason and cause of your teaching. For these articles of yours against Luther could well have been gleaned by a child in German lands from Gabriel or Scotus. It is even hidden what Paris holds; but it is hidden why she holds thus. Luther does not desire to know your doctrine, but the reason for your doctrine, which he would undoubtedly not reject if he did not know it first. And that God would have you look into your hearts and consider that Luther deals with things that are far too great for one to believe the high school of Paris or Luther without the testimony of Scripture. All those who adhere to Luther adhere to him because they see how he rejects the gossip of men and teaches nothing but the holy Scriptures. They will also believe you when they see that you agree with the Scriptures, because they demand Christ, both from Luther and from you.
42. you think you have the sap-
Play like David, as the prophet says (Amos 6:5). But you sing and play yourselves alone; for this you stay at home. Luther proved his string playing, that is, his teaching to the whole Christian circle, with the approval of the Scriptures. It does not concern the Christians: We are Magistri nostri; we are Parisians; we are Sorbonian; we are the mother of all schools. For these are vain names, against which Germany has become almost [entirely] deaf. Therefore, I advise you, if you want to excuse this unchristian flaw of yours, explain the reason and cause of your judgment about Luther. Do not hold Luther's writings against your teachings, but as a sign and document of your teachings, unless you do not want to be considered Christians. Explain once by what spirit Luther was condemned by the Sorbonian apostles. Not only is the whole Christian circle waiting for this from you, but it is also demanded by the power and right of Christian duty that you teach why you have condemned each of them.
(43) And to make an end of it, I will show in one or two pieces what a lack of understanding of the holy Scriptures, what an unchristian thing there is in Sorbona, for from these one can easily judge from all the others. Luther thus wrote of free will that without grace it can do nothing but sin. And this is evident and bad, if one looks at the Scriptures. For St. Paul says (Rom. 8:7): "The will of the flesh is an enmity against God," for it is not subject to God's commandments, nor can it be subject to them. And those who are in the flesh cannot please God. And John 1:13: "Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." And St. Augustine, following the Scriptures, also teaches the same against the Pelagians, that is, against the Sorbonian Sophists.
44 But here the Sorbs pretend not to see the Scriptures, and excuse St. Augustine with a right Sorbonian gibberish, in which alone one understands the Sorbonian blindness. And if there has ever been any doubt in what kind of writings or arts Paris is skilled, this piece shall make it clear, in which it appears clearly that there is no one in the whole Sorbonne who has touched Augustine. What they are able to do in the Scriptures is easy to measure; since they have not seen Augustine, the common 1) teacher among the theologians. O Theo
1) D. i. which is otherwise best known to theologians.
lies! O Sorbona! Augustine (they say), when he disputes about grace, that the free will may do no good without grace, he does not speak of the justifying grace. O blindness of all blindness, and vain blindness! of what grace does the same man speak? As he writes how Pelagius has so often wavered in the word "grace," he testifies that he demands justifying grace, or the Holy Spirit, which is poured into the hearts of the justified; he openly rejects natural graces; he does not know the special help of God, of which the Sorbonians say.
(45) And that we may judge the matter in depth, I ask you, Sorbon Sorbs, of what do you call it the justifying grace, or the sanctifying grace? Is it not true that it alone reconciles and unites with God? But if this is so, why do you then invent that without such pleasing grace something is pleasing to God? Your words and teachings contradict themselves. You take the name of grace that makes pleasant, but you do not take its meaning. But let us see in what way Augustine uses this little word "grace". I would like to copy his whole book de Spiritu et Litera; for there is not a leaf where he does not mention grace. But these are his words o. 4. äs Spir. et lit.: "But where the Holy Spirit does not help and blow in place of the evil desire a good desire, that is, divine love pours into our hearts, forsooth, it happens that this law: Thou shalt not covet, although it is good, only increases the evil desire" 2c Of what [what kind of] graces does he speak here? when he publicly says that one may sin nothing but without grace? Is it not true, he calls here the grace the divine love, poured into our heart? And you Sorbonians, what else do you call grace but divine love?
46 Dear one, let me acquire this from you, that you read Augustine, I do not say, but and but, but only look at it once. For there is not a leaf in it that does not punish your error. In the 19th chapter he introduces the apostle, speaking of grace, as he says: "Divine righteousness comes through the faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe." May these words also be forced on natural graces or special help? O you coarse clods and right Sorbonian magistri nostri! Who will believe henceforth that you have eyes or reason or brain, who in such clear light are so unconcealedly blind and err? I, by grace and favor! wonder here nothing so nearly (very much), as that
978 D. V. a. VI, 75-77. VI Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne 2c W. XVIII, II67-II6p. 979
There is no one in the entire Sorbonne faculty who is aware of St. Augustine's opinion; that this may also be a sign that this book was omitted by one or two sophists, lied about under the name of the faculty.
(47) These French Sorbs show no more honesty in their judgment on the teaching of St. Ambrose, although it is known who he is, who wrote the book de Vocatione gentium, that he deals with it in a whole disputation, that what happens without grace is sin; and he explains himself what grace he is talking about. Among other sayings he also introduces the one that is taken from Jeremiah in the epistle to the Hebrews: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their hearts I will write it"; which cannot be forced at all on the special help of Sorbon, or on natural graces, so that no saying of Scripture so actually describes the grace that is given to us through Christ, which you call the grace that approves. Now I think it is clear how Luther led Augustine and Ambrose, and how wise the Sorbonne is, which we all here understand to be so grossly mistaken, that even the Louvain and Cologne have never been so grossly mistaken. O the unfortunate France, which has come to have such judges in sacred matters, who would be more worthy to sweep secret chambers than to handle the Scriptures!
From this opinion of free will flow the things that Luther wrote about repentance, and finally everything that he wrote about repentance. And we miserable ones, who in almost four hundred years have had no teacher in Christendom who could have described the proper way of repentance! Some have been deceived with fictitious repentance; some have had their consciences pricked and pierced with penances. Now, in the end, God's mercy has looked upon us and revealed the gospel to His people, and has straightened their consciences whom He has called. If you ask what benefit Luther has done for the church, you have it here in the summary: He has taught a right way of repentance and indicated the right use of the sacraments. Many consciences testify to this. But I will not now discuss the way of repentance or sacraments; for these Sorbs have only condemned Luther, not overcome him, neither with reason nor with writings. And Luther's doctrine persists invariably 1) and immovably, not only against the Sorbs, but also against the proselytizers.
1) I.e. without wavering, unshakable.
sten of darkness. But if they deny with writings what Luther has taught, we will not fail to defend ourselves. For this Lutheran doctrine of repentance shall not force out of my heart nor out of the hearts of some believers any power of hell, let alone a Sorbonian or Papist one.
49) It is not necessary to admonish the laws and conciliarities, but 2) because we have shown above that Luther is at one with the ancients. But that one may see how the Sorbonian Sophists so thorougly deny the divine commandments, we want to come back to it. They speak: The commandment of the forbearance of vengeance is too burdensome for the Christian law. O, the unchristian sophists, who measure the burden of the law according to the philosophy of Aristotle! Is not the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet," also a burden to nature? So I hear well, it is to be dismissed, according to the opinion of the Sorbonian Sophists. The law to love God is also a burden. Well then, let us do away with it. O senseless, O unchristian people! It concerns you that Christ says: "Whoever breaks one of the least commandments shall be the least in the kingdom of heaven. Why did you not have this sense when you made so many laws of satisfaction? Are they not also burdensome to the conscience, which is tortured in itself? Above this you only think of new burdens, and those imposed by God you reject. Right, so you should fulfill the scriptures of the prophets, strengthening the sinner and afflicting the righteous. But that I pass over many things, and teach lately that it is commanded that we seek not vengeance, neither counsel, is clear from the saying of Paul 1 Cor. 6: "Now indeed it is a sin for you to have judgment among yourselves." But if it is a sin to recover one's goods in judgment, there is no doubt that it is commanded not to seek vengeance.
50 I have reminded you, Christian reader, that you should not be deterred from Luther's teaching by the reputation of Sorbona, which you have noted from one or two pieces. From these, which I have indicated, you may judge the others. For Sorbona is Sorbona. You should rather find Christ among the carpenters than among this people. It will henceforth be yours to demand with me cause and reason from the Parisians of their judgment, which if they omit, we will speak of ours also further. Vale. At Wittenberg in 1521.
2) D. i. again.