Jesus.
Martin Luther wishes the respectable Mr. Justus Jonas, provost of the Collegiate Church in Wittenberg, his superior in the Lord, salvation in the Lord!
I, my dearest Jonas, also wanted to wish you good luck for the office you recently took up 1), but since I could not be present myself, I decided to send this Latomus of mine to you. But it is no longer such a one who reviles the knowledge of languages, for this Jesbi to Nob is beaten to the ground by the power of our Abisai [2 Sam. 21, 16. 17.], so that you have nothing to fear; not even such a one who still justifies the crime of the Lion murderers by the malicious make-up of a feigned modesty and by unfortunate clever expressions as a belated lawyer - for you have seen yourself, as I believe, how this man boastfully leans only on his lord, the pope, and his bull: but I send
1) In 1521 Jonas became professor and provost at Wittenberg. Cf. Guericke, Kirchengeschichte, 7th ed. Vol. Ill, p. 75.
you such a one, who, purified by Luther's cleansing agent, now seems to have more peace from the goblins and ghosts, by which he was driven around until now and used to drive around pious souls. If they had given this "reason" at the right time and had consulted with these wise people before the deed, as was proper, they would neither have condemned nor burned my books, nor would they, like the fools, have consulted about them only after the deed; this much, I hope, I wanted to have accomplished. Latomus teaches me in this little book of his how easy it was for them to gossip in their corners in the absence of Luther: that is heretical; that is erroneous; what they would not have dared to touch publicly if they had not relied on power.
Moreover, I am also convinced that Latomus would never have given this splendid "reason" if the bull had not fueled his confidence. Relying on it, he boasts that his deed is approved, still dreams of the old and outdated terror of the bulls, and therefore believes to have terrified the whole world with his little book, so that he already dares to fight against Lu-
*This work appeared in Wittenberg in August 1521 and in a second edition in the following year. Of the complete editions, they bring the Latin Wittenberg, Dorn. II, lol. 223; the Latin Jenaer, Dorn. II, lol. 400; and the Erlanger, oxx. varii nrZ. V, x. 397. In German translation (which was replaced here by a new one according to the text of the Erl. edition) only Walch.
The people of the city are not allowed to play games with the frightening words of God's scripture. But I do not want that such a deed would not have been approved by such a bull. Again, I would not want that I would not have been condemned by such a bull. Everything is in perfect harmony: the bull, the cause, the judge, the lawyer, from whose communion and contagion may the Lord Jesus protect me and all pious souls. Amen.
But you cannot easily believe how reluctantly I tore myself away from the peaceful writings of Christ 1), with which I was busy here in this Patmos of mine, and wasted time reading the antics of a prickly and thorny sophist, because I saw a man who, sophistically from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head, and still inflated by the water bubble of the bull, wrote with such confidence that he no longer thought he needed either diligence or deliberation. He was content to chatter away what he had read or what just came into his mouth. But there is nothing more annoying than answering such people, because one can neither exercise one's mind nor further one's erudition, and yet one is forced to waste the best hours. I suppose that man believed that Luther was either brought to the side or condemned to eternal silence, and that they could now again freely take over all the world with their sophistical tyranny. Because of the fall and the diminution of this tyranny they blame me not a little; and would to God that this fall had been a complete one, so that through this perfect guilt, which is seven times in vain (if we believe the most holy popes who omit the bulls), I could sin until death.
But I am afraid that while we are bravely arguing about grace and good works, we are depriving ourselves of both grace and works. When I see these terrible signs of the divine wrath, I have for
1) Luther translated the New Testament at the Wartburg, but here the interpretation of the Epistles and Gospels from Advent to Epiphany (church postilla) is meant, as is evident from the conclusion of this writing. Cf. also Luther's letter to Melanchthon of May 26, 1521, Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, appendix, No. 79.
I have no other desire than that my head be given fountains of tears [Jer. 9:1], so that I may weep for this utter desolation of souls that this kingdom of sin and destruction brings about. The monster of Rome sits in the midst of the church and pretends to be God; the bishops flatter him, the sophists pay homage to him, and the hypocrites do everything for him; meanwhile "hell has opened wide its soul and opened its jaws without measure" [Is. 5:14] and Satan plays with the destruction of souls. And there is none among us who will stand up earnestly and with tears in the day of this fury and oppose it like a wall for Israel [Ezek 13:5]. Therefore I am full of displeasure at these blasphemous people like Latomus, who sophistry in these serious matters and force us to leave better things to occupy us with their raging nonsense, and invoke upon their exceedingly hard foreheads the word [Ps. 6:11.], "Let all mine enemies be put to shame, and greatly terrified, turn back, and become ashamed suddenly."
But in order not to delay you with a letter that is too long, I will answer the main points of Latomus' preface with another introduction. But you take this testimony of my attitude toward you and ask the Lord for me, that I also may be saved (for so I dare to speak with the apostle [Rom. 15, 31]) from the evil and unbelieving people who are in this Babel, and that a door may be opened for me to the praise of the glory of the grace of the gospel of his Son. But I also pray the Lord to give you his Spirit, so that you may not deliver the pestilent decrees of the Antichrist, which you have been commissioned to teach, with any other intention than what I have told you, namely, that you may be an Aaron, clothed in holy garments, that is, armed with the words of the Holy Scriptures, and with the censer of prayer, go out to meet this desolator in the midst of this Roman fire, by which the whole world is now burning, but which shall soon be extinguished by another fire from heaven, through the future of our Saviour.
for which we are waiting. So you, dear brother, shall do that you teach that one must unlearn what you teach, and they shall know that everything which the pope and the papists set up and hold is to be fled as deadly things. For since we cannot by force eradicate this public common evil of the world, and are compelled to administer such godly offices of Babylon, there remains only this, to administer them in such a way that we recognize them as quite different, namely, as ravagers and enemies of insatiable cruelty quite contrary to our Fatherland, the heavenly Jerusalem; lest we should be in agreement with those who are perishing, in whom the gospel of the glory of God is obscured [2 Cor. 4, 3.], laughing at our captivity also, and flirting with it.
And do not consider your office small, since you have to present the salvation and life-giving gospel of Christ after the poisoned dung of the pope and his exceedingly mad nonsense, so that the youth may have an antidote against this poison, the smell of which already kills man, until it learns to reject evil for itself and to choose the good. This Emanuel is commanded to you. So be manly and strong and do not be afraid of this Baal Peor, since he is hardly a Beelzebub, that is, a mosquito man, if only we believe, because Jesus Christ is the Lord, highly praised forever, Amen, who may complete and strengthen you and his little church with you. In him farewell.
At the place of my sojourn in a foreign land, June 8, 1521.
To the preface of Latomus.
First Latomus accuses me of having submitted my writings from word to word to the pope from the very beginning; but this he fabricates according to his sophistical audacity. I regret, however, that I submitted so seriously. At that time I really did not have any other opinion about the pope, conciliarities and universities than the one one usually hears. For although much of them seemed to me inconsistent and quite remote from Christ, I nevertheless put a rein on my thoughts for over a decade, according to that saying of Solomon [Prov. 3, 5.]: "Do not rely on your intellect." I always believed that there were still theologians hidden in the high schools, who would certainly not remain silent if these teachings were ungodly, and I also believed nothing less than that there were hardly anywhere else as coarse lumps and asses, moreover as mischievous, as now appears, as to lions.
But my courage grew under the trade with the knowledge of things when they betrayed their ignorance and unworthiness so excellently by taking offense at the sign that is contradicted [Luc. 2, 34]. If they had not revealed it so abundantly and had not kept it to themselves longer
they would certainly have made me foolish to the end. But thanks be to my Lord Jesus Christ, who, for the sake of this challenge, has honored me a hundred times over with this knowledge, so that I am now completely convinced that the pope is the last abomination, who has been predicted by the entire Holy Scripture as the Antichrist, but the universities are the most horrible Satanic schools, in which theological sophists, those Epicurian sows, lead their rule.
He says that I am far from the evangelical modesty that I teach, especially in the book in which I just answered the sophists of Louvain, because they had doctrinally condemned my books. But I never demanded that anyone should consider me modest or holy, but that everyone should accept the gospel, while I gave everyone permission to pounce on my life at will. But my conscience boasts that I have never harmed anyone's life or good reputation, only the ungodly and blasphemous teachings, efforts and attacks against the word of God I have attacked quite sharply. As I do not apologize for this, I am not without example. John the
Baptist [Luc. 3, 7.] and after him Christ [Matth. 23, 33.] calls the Pharisees "viper-bred" with a very immodest and harsh invective against such learned, holy, powerful and honored people, that they themselves say that he has the devil. If Latomus had been judge here, dear, what judgment would they have expected? Elsewhere Christ calls them blind men, [Matth. 23.], liars [Joh. 8, 44.], wicked and children of the devil [Joh. 8, 44.]. But Paul, dear God, how far is he from evangelical modesty, since he curses the teachers of the Galatians [Gal. 1, 9.], who were, I believe, great men; others he calls dogs [Phil. 3, 2.], impudent talkers [Tit. 1, 10.], deceivers [Col. 2, 4. 8.]; furthermore he scolded the magician Elymas to his face a devil's child, full of all cunning and mischievousness [Apost. 13, 10.].
Nor do I believe that the sophists have a right to judge my disposition, since they see that my work is not different from that of the apostles, of Christ, and of the prophets; but evangelical modesty is in our time, according to the teaching of such people as Latomus, when one speaks with bended knee before the godless and godless popes and sophists: "Gracious Lord! Your Grace acts well"; "Most excellent Magister noster, 1) Your Exaltedness speaks well." But if you call them as they are, unlearned, stupid, ungodly and blasphemous against God's word to the unspeakable harm of godliness and souls, then you have violated the whole gospel.
By the way, if one flattered them, even though one would kill all men or throw the whole world among themselves, one would not be immodest. For when would Latomus ever accuse the pope of immodesty, who drives his frenzy through so many wars and wicked actions? Does the evangelical modesty and immodesty depend only on the worship of the papal idols and sophistical fools?
1) By this expression the university teachers are designated, since the judgments of the universities usually began with the words: Magistri nostri. Luther himself leaves this expression untranslated in his German writings, e.g. Jen. Ausg. (2nd ed.), vol. I, toi. 647 d.
heads off? Moreover, this modest driver and praiser of modesty, Latomus, not only does not accuse that bloodthirsty bull, whose cruelty every godly person detests, even if it rightly condemns, but praises and extols it, leans on it and boasts about it. These are those bloodthirsty and false ones [Ps. 5, 7.], who feign modesty in words and gestures and yet crave for nothing but murder, terror and blood. Never-, no one will persuade me that this is a sincere and humble man who can please this bull. I would rather be frank and not deceive anyone by flattery; I can testify to that. My outer bark may be somewhat hard, but my core is soft and sweet; for I mean no one any harm, but would like to know that everyone is well advised along with me. Furthermore, as my hardness harms no one, so it deceives no one; he who avoids me will have nothing to suffer from me; he who endures me will profit. Solomon says in Proverbs, 28:23: "He that punisheth a man shall afterwards find favor more than he that feigneth."
Then, to add to my guilt, he cites a certain old man who seemed wise to him and who discussed the question of how to rebuke the Roman bishop. His own opinion is that one should neither be completely silent nor completely talk out of it; but how this is to be accomplished is beyond his understanding. No wonder; he had to show himself grateful to such a high bull, for whose sake one must not know even what the children know, and in turn must know what even the angels do not know. For Latomus, the master of theology, who professes with this title to know divine things, which he also defends in this book as the cleverest of them, this wretched man does not even know the human things that occur in daily use, nor does he know what to advise the souls in danger; Yet he is certain what the souls in purgatory are doing, who are completely removed from our perception, of whose condition the holy Scriptures bear no witness, while they want all their and the pope's teachings to be abundantly contained in the Scriptures.
But, my dear, let us leave the sophists to their ways, for nothing suits them but hypocrisy, flattery and lies. Let us listen to the old man who seemed so wise to him. He prescribed three ways: first, that the princes and cities cease to demand improper things, and that they reject what should be offered unduly; then one should first begin to remedy in oneself what one blames on the pope, since it would be impertinent not to bear a fault with which one is afflicted in a prince; the second way is prayer; the third: Toleration. So much for that way.
The first way, then, is wishing, that is, a thought that we think, for example, if the donkey could fly, the donkey would have feathers. So let us think like this: If no one would demand unworthy things, the pope would be better. But why don't we also think like this: If the pope would improve himself, then nobody would dare to demand something unworthy? But what should happen in the case where the pope (which is usually the case) is not challenged, but rages out of his own foolishness? then if, which is the greatest thing, he does not care about the gospel and does not do any of the episcopal works that are written in 1 Tim. 3? Or is it enough here also to think: If no one would ask unworthy things? Doesn't everyone in the whole world already think just like that, not only what the wise When prescribes, but also what I have added? For who does not wish that? But what is he able to do further? For who can keep princes and cities in check (except the power of God, which he teaches to seek in the second way through prayer)? But neither does he advise anyone to try; for it is the fault of princes and nations that the pope is evil. Let us rather think: If the devil should stop riding him, he would become good; and let us blame it on the devil that the pope is evil. You could use this advice also for yourself and think: If God would, I would be blessed here and in the life to come! This would be the best way to get to heaven.
Therefore, the world already goes beyond the first advice of this wise man. And now, for whom do people everywhere pray more than for the pope? Likewise, whose tyranny does one bear more equanimously than that of the pope? Where is the advice of this wise man? How glorious an idol does he make of the pope, this so wise man, that the sheep should first begin to feed themselves, and the people to prepare their own way, and the shepherd the pastures, and the leader the path? But see how finely he also agrees with his poet Latomus. Latomus thinks that one must not be completely silent; the wise man, on the other hand, thinks that one must be absolutely silent. Here I would like to know which of the two is lying, the poet or the poem? For either Latomus lies that he considers him wise, or he lies in this: he means that one must not be completely silent. But even the wise man himself does not remain the same; for once he advises to remain silent, and yet again he makes a whorehouse out of the pope by saying that he lends improperly and that one must reject what is offered unduly.
How finely Hilarius said, it would be difficult to defend the cause of truth against the ungodly, if prudence would only give as much advice as ungodliness takes upon itself. But further, let us consider the secrets of this holy flattery. One must tolerate in the prince the vice (he says) with which he himself is afflicted. In order, then, that all should be silent (for the commandment of this wise man of Latomus to be silent is a general one), all must be afflicted with the same vice, even against their will; or at least those who are not afflicted with this vice are permitted to punish. Why, then, does he call these silent? I am heartily inclined to such a skilful and considered gratitude against this approving bull; but since this admittedly witty game is actually directed against Luther, I would like to be instructed as to what vice he [Lutheri] has in common with the pope as prince? Or does he want to make me guilty of all the Roman crimes? But, since he who is called to preach the gospel to all creation
must proclaim, I ask if the pope is not a creature? So why is it not allowed to tell him the truth publicly and freely? But enough of this; this flattery has its reward, worthy of its appalling stupidity. Therefore let us leave this seven times stupid and blasphemous wise man and let us be instructed as free confessors of the free gospel should be instructed; and let us keep and do so:
The greater a ruler is, especially a prince of the church, the less one should tolerate his vices but punish him severely. For it does not befit the word of God to be bound for the sake of a man [2 Tim. 2, 9]; nor does it know any respect for the person. Thus Ps. 119, 46. says, "I speak of thy testimonies before kings, and am not ashamed"; and Ps. 2, 10. He punishes them, saying, "Be ye therefore wise, ye kings, and be ye chastened, ye judges of the earth." Examples are all the prophets who, called from the common people, punished the kings, priests and especially the prophets. Who does Christ punish in the Gospel? The common people? Or not rather the great ones alone? What, then, is this pernicious flattery of Latomus, which seeks to obscure these examples for us, and lies that he does not know what the schoolchildren know!
But Christ was God. It is true, but he humbled himself and took the form of a servant, and did not punish as God, but became an example to all preachers that they should spare the common people, but not the princes, because the people's misfortune comes from the guilt of the princes. But may one remain silent because of the fact that evil rulers rule out of God's wrath, as Latomus flatters? He judges, in contrast to Christ, that one should spare the prince and not spare the common people. Truly, a splendid judge of things, who measures vices not according to merit but according to persons, and holds the people responsible for the vices of princes. For he does not teach that vices should be punished or concealed because they are vices, but because they are found in great or small persons.
What do these enemies of the cross want other than that the scandal of the cross should cease? since they know well that the common people can be punished without danger, but the princes cannot be touched with impunity. But they are hirelings, dumb dogs that cannot bark [Isa. 56], that see the wolf coming and run away [Joh. 10], or even make common cause with the wolf. Not so Christ, who hangs in the hedge with his horns [Gen. 22:13.], whose descent touches the mountains so that they smoke [Ps. 144:5.], who puts the head of Behemoth in a fish trap [Job 40:26.], who dares to reach into the terrible ring of his teeth [Job 41:4.], who pierces his cheeks with a rod [Job40:21.], and kills the lions with Samson. In short, all Scripture testifies that the voice of the Lord breaks the cedars [Ps. 29, 5.], that he will go over the mountains of Israel, the oaks of Bashan, over all the high towers, and just about everything that is great [Isa. 2, 12 ff.], as is clear to every child, though it is beyond the understanding of a master in Israel.
Reverence is due to the Highness, I confess, but only without prejudice to the Word of God, which is God Himself, whom one must obey more than men. But if one is to bear the vices of any authority, this can only be the case with those of the worldly authority, not with the ecclesiastical; not only because the ecclesiastical is not of God, as the worldly is. For God does not know this people of the popes who rule today, since he has only appointed in his church preachers of the gospel and ministers of the word; but they are also not appointed by men, but have rather set themselves up against the will of God and of men, like the giants before the flood. But it is also not to be borne because the vice of a worldly authority is without danger for the souls; but a bishop who neglects the word, even if he were holy, is a wolf and apostle of Satan. He who does not watch for the sheep against the wolf is in nothing different from a wolf.
But even though we know that the devil does not sleep when the bishops sleep, we flatter them, yes, help the devil,
by defending them and killing and condemning those who wake them up and remind them of their duty. Dear one, how can one continue the frenzy? Therefore, let him be cursed thrice who does the work of the Lord here carelessly [Jer. 46:10] and flatters the priest, who makes common cause with the infernal wolf and looks through his fingers, and has no pity for the ruin of so many souls of his brothers, who were bought with Christ's blood and now perish so miserably. If Latomus had written nothing else, with this one infernal counsel he has amply shown that he is full of the satanic spirit. How can there still be hope that these sophists read, understand and teach the holy scriptures with pious intentions? How can they decide about the Christian doctrine? Moreover, what salvation can be expected from those to whom such a council seems wise, which consists of nothing but nothing but the words of Satan himself? who considers the cause of the church, the vices of the shepherds and the salvation of souls to be so insignificant, as if it were only the fault of a worldly tyranny, which only corrupts the body or the fortune? I, poor man, am very much afraid that I have been much too gentle and modest against the pope and the bishops, these playmates and companions of the devil, and that I myself have not yet sufficiently considered those thousands of souls that the Antichrist, with his bishops and sophists, the very last abominations of the world, is constantly corrupting.
But a riot is to be feared and those are not getting better after all; so Latomus says. What a Jewish speech! For they also feared that Christ would cause a riot, and yet they were not a whit better, yea, they were worse; should Christ then have kept silence? And who told you that those did not become better? Is this a theological justification: those will not hear, therefore you must be silent? The rebellion that destroys the body is feared, but the rebellion that destroys the soul is defended! Thus that wise man fears where there is nothing to fear, to prefer the peace of the body to the eternal salvation of souls. Who could fight this vile slave, this rejected parasite with
his most atrocious advice? It is such people whom the pope rightly approves; it is such people upon whose judgment books must be condemned and burned.
Never is a riot less to be feared than when the Word of God is taught; for God, who is a God of peace, is then present. If the idols, the popes, do not want to hear this and continue to strengthen their tyranny with prohibitions, condemnation and burning, and then a riot or other accident overtakes them, then one has to laugh and mock them with wisdom, Prov. 1, 26. The guilt then does not lie in the said word, but in the godlessness, which does not want to listen to the warnings and punishments of wisdom, as it says there. But lest Latomus escape with the excuse that he speaks not of the gospel, but of punishment: we know that Christ himself could not teach the gospel without punishing; and wisdom speaks that her punishment was hated and blasphemed [Prov. 1:29, 30]. It is the salt of the earth; it bites to cleanse; chastises to heal; chides to save; kills to make alive. He who teaches otherwise does not preach the gospel, but babbles his flatteries.
Let us now come to another point. In order to honor Löwen's nonsense, he does not want to absolve me of the suspicion that I have taught heresies under the pretext of disputation; for one should not disputate about what has been decided by the prophetic and evangelical writings, as the Roman bishop Leo's words read, which he quotes widely; fodthermore, my way of disputing is not scholastic, but heretical, because I have taken it up, not to seek the truth, but to fight it. But so that you may know here how Latomus writes his own, I say again that I have disputing from the heart from the beginning, before I knew that our magisters were fools and swine; for after that I have not said (as they themselves confess) that I disputing, so that I have even offered myself to the fire. Never
there has been such hypocrisy in me that I would have pretended that I wanted to dispute about what I knew I had to claim, how this honorable man lies. But even if it had seemed that I wanted to argue in a malicious way, on what grounds would this not have been allowed? Because this Leo said it? Who gave Leo the power to forbid it? The faith of Latomus and the sleepy nature of the sophists? Well! did Christ never answer the Jews when they maliciously tempted him? Or is Leo's word more valid than Christ's example? This is the constant and unrestrained frenzy of the sophists, that they raise the words of men, but conceal the words of God.
But the following is even cuter: Leo does this only so that the opponents should not dispute, but he does not forbid them to answer. Latomus turns this to mean that it is not necessary to answer the opponent, and this is the very wise advice of the Louvain school to proceed against Luther. If the Turk overtakes us with war, which he is absolutely not allowed to do, and does not want to desist from it, then we want to send the theologians of Louvain as envoys to him, who are to say to him: You are not allowed to fight, otherwise we will condemn you; then we will let him rage and boast of being victors. Therefore the counsel and commandment of Paul [Titus 1:9] is no longer necessary, that the bishops should keep the sound doctrine of godliness, that they may be mighty to punish the gainsayers, and to shut them up; but it is enough that they may not dispute, and that the simpletons and idols may be safe. Yea, let us now lay down prayer, and all weapons of the spirit, and cease to resist even the devil, and say unto him, It is not lawful for thee to offend the church. And this is how we act in reality. This is the faith of Latomus, in which he acts the sayings of the Fathers.
But what is this presumption and presumptuousness of so humble a man, that he so brazenly proclaims his thing to be prophetic and evangelical? For Leo's words are lukewarm
The prophets and evangelists were lions. So the prophets and evangelists were Lions? Luther did not know this at all, nor does anyone except Latomus know it, which is a great miracle. It is just as presumptuous that he claims that my disputation contradicts the truth, because he, as an infallible judge and evangelist, understands by truth the views of the Lions; while the foolish Luther believed that this was a matter for the judge and not for the party. But it is also a sophistical pomposity and murderous fervor that he says that one should not have looked through the fingers of my errors; which, however, no one has ever proven as such, or still proves today. But it was enough that the opinion of the prophets and evangelists of Louvain was the truth that was opposed to them.
The content of the sayings of this council [at Louvain], which Latomus describes in this preface, has been, as can be clearly seen: We are magistri nostri; we are the judges; we cannot err; the whole world is subject to us; what we say is an article of faith, is evangelical and prophetic. Have I not clearly predicted all this in my little book against them, which Latomus here confesses? If I were the enemy of this faculty, I would not be able to go more strongly through the arrogance, pomposity, presumption, ignorance, stupidity and malice of this concilium than Latomus does here in this glorious preface; so much does every tittle breathe a Moabite arrogance and a more than sophistical presumption. For he does not speak of this controversial question differently, as if this matter had always been completely undisputed, so that Latomus makes us such excellent asses almost gods; of course, so much wind could a single bull drive into a single bubble. 1)
That erroneous books should be burned, I agree with and approve of; but not those that have not yet been proved to be erroneous, such as the presumption of the new prophets da-.
1) Sense: The bull of the pope could blow out the latomus so.
hertobt. For I, too, have burned papal books, so that our magisters might see that it takes neither art nor intellect to burn paper, which our kitchen boys and servants can also do. Fire (they say) does not disprove evidence. In the Acts of the Apostles, Cap. 17. they did not burn the books until they knew, according to recognized truth, that they were forward. Our magisters followed what was easier, but what cost effort and labor they left to the hearts of the faithful; for the sentence stands firm: The lions do not err.
Moreover, it grieves me that Maximilian, at the time when the Sophists were martyring the books of the Jews, did not turn their attack on their own heads and exterminate all their sophistical caterpillars, locusts, vermin, frogs and lice and bring them to the unified and pure Scriptures. For this would have been by far the most salutary counsel, far more necessary than that a great fuss should have been made about the books of the Jews, who pursue their cause fiercely with such mad and foolish articles that I was quite ashamed that so great a fuss should be made among us about these trivial things by our prophets and elders under the name of Christianity. But we deserved no better thanks then than we now hope will soon be given us. Nevertheless, it pleases me exceedingly that the pope has approved the verdict of five universities in this matter; for what could this high and glorious see, the worst opponent of Christ, have done that would have been more worthy of him?
What he means by saying that in the article they condemned, "The saints did not live without sin," they did not condemn the antecedent clause, but only the consequent clause of a bad consequence (consequens malsequentae consequentiae), and that he is surprised that we do not fear the judgment of the whole world, since we attack them for the sake of this condemned article: I do not quite understand. Perhaps he wants the world to guess in advance their secret dialectic, which he also uses in his book, as we shall see; perhaps he will also expound this there. Meanwhile I laugh at his
Rejoicing and his triumph, that he boasts that he has quoted the fathers contradicting me, not rarely, but frequently; not above, but thoroughly 2c, unless (he says) they wanted to claim that the same had spoken contradictory things. For Latomus does not believe that we want to claim this 1), since he is sure that we are not prophets; therefore he sings a song of triumph: Yay, yay! Woe to the conquered! But while they read the fathers, whom they used to despise, we were not idle either and found that they have been very often men, erring, contradicting themselves and sleeping, so that also this triumph of Latomus is built on sand and will collapse as soon as I will attack his book.
Finally, the extremely polite drinker drinks me the foretaste of his booklet and says that some of my articles go against the basic articles of faith. So let us also drink to this nice toast, and you will see what the basic articles of faith are for lions.
The first [article,
which the Louvain have unjustly condemned] is:
God has commanded the impossible.
The honorable and sincere man acts in such a way that he does not allow me a breath, not even the addition of the word "us" or "without the grace of God", which he cannot deny that it is added in my books. But we ask, what kind of a strict and ungracious fundamental article of faith is this, which denies that the fulfillment of God's commandments is impossible for us, that is, for our powers without the grace of God? Did Paul, or Christ, or Moses establish the same? No; but a certain human decree, taken from Jerome, which reads as follows:
"He who says that God has commanded impossible things, let him be accursed." This ambiguous and dark word of a man is raised so high by the sophists that they, of all the
1) Instead of Ä886rturus, ÄL86rtnr08 will be read.
The people who are deprived of their senses only cry out: "Cursed, cursed, cursed," so that you can already tell by their voice that they are racing. One must give way to this human word and remain silent, no matter how obvious, clear and abundant scriptural verses may argue against it. Not even a syllable of an illuminating gloss is permitted to this so tender little decree, but it must be thrown open as strictly as it reads, forced upon all ears and impressed upon all hearts, to the greatest danger for faith and the knowledge of the grace of God, for no other reason than because it is man's statute and our magistrates are accustomed to judge according to it as an infallible guideline. For free will has received no little power from this decree.
Moreover, this basic article of faith is as impudent and ambitious as a Romulus who did not want to let his comrade and brother Remus rule with him in common dominion. For there is also another decree, quite godly, which stands beside this annoyance and reads thus: "Whoever says that we can fulfill the commandments of God without God's grace, let him be accursed." This poor decree has no one to raise it up, exalt it, inculcate it, and impose it, but it must (as I have said) yield dominion to its brother. This is not a fundamental article of faith, and according to it even our magisters judge and condemn nothing. Why is that? It is just too divine and almost all writings of the magisters contradict it.
Moreover, consider the extraordinary equity of our magistrates. Since it was not enough for them that this poor decree remained hidden, they made an addition in order to render it powerless by a fat gloss and to suppress it completely, and said: The commandments of God are fulfilled in two ways: in one way according to the nature of the deed; in the other according to the intention of the governor. How splendidly they turned their noses up at the truth by inventing this subterfuge! For that is why they no longer considered grace necessary to fulfill the commandments of God, but only to fulfill the intention of God, which is imposed beyond the commandments. God namely
lich, as an unjust driver, is not satisfied with the fulfillment of the commandments, but demands that they be fulfilled in grace, so that grace is not grace, but a kind of compulsion. For to the law of God the free will has done enough, but God is not satisfied with it. This is the most ungodly and blasphemous opinion; but (as I said) this is how one deals with this unfortunate decree.
But if you in pious zeal wanted to soften the first sentence ["He who says that God has commanded the impossible"] that the impossible is also taken in a double way, namely either in grace or out of grace, then they resist with hands, fire and sword and do not allow it to be touched at all, but if you do not confess it as it reads, they cry out: 'Heretic, heretic, heretic! for he denies the decrees of the fathers, he does not believe the holy church and does not keep the fundamental articles of the faith! Dear, what else can you do here but let this viper breed ripen to its unquenchable hellfire? Or can you still doubt that this sophistical society is the school of Satan? See how confidently this bubble of Latomus holds out such a decree to me, and how he, after the manner of the Magistri nostri 1), conceals the other; namely, because he wanted to deceive the ears of the whole world, only so that it would not be found out that the Lions acted ungodly.
Yes, even more. See how much they have attributed to this ungodly and blasphemous gloss. They teach that so much can be accomplished by the works that are done according to the nature of the deed, if they are done with all natural powers, that God necessarily and infallibly bestows grace upon them. This means to do as much as is in us, while Paul and after him Augustine resound with such thunderous voices that man without grace only becomes worse through the law, because the law works wrath [Rom. 4, 15.) and has come along so that sin becomes more powerful [Rom. 5, 20.), so that through this god-robbing doctrine, they can destroy the whole of God.
1) msAistraliter uostraliterHue.
The New Testament has been destroyed and we wretches, who are Christians in name only, have been led to believe that Christ is good for nothing but to teach us.
For what need is there to tell what they are fooling about an unformed, acquired, general and particular faith, as well as about their basic articles of faith here? It has now come to this, that although it is impossible to fulfill the commandments of God without grace in regard to the intention of the one who is territorial, you nevertheless have it entirely in your hand and it is exceedingly easy to obtain grace through the works that you do according to the essence of the deed, so that free will already prevails not only in the works of the essence, but also in the intention of the one who is territorial himself, that is, completely in the grace of God himself; for it is entirely in his hand to come to grace or not to come.
Hence comes the morally good, the neutrally good, and, what shall I say? they have so many fundamental articles of faith as they have sayings of the fathers, decrees of the councils, ordinances of the popes, opinions of the magistri nostri, that you can see how the world has been ruined by a whole flood of such fundamental articles of faith; what do you think will be their conclusions and inferences from this? And since this is the seven times wicked theology of the newer ones, so that no one can deny it, this unclean and impudent mouth of Lion still dares to stick out the rebuke and to sound into the world: the same was taught by the ancients what these newer ones teach, and still continues to bring the sayings and opinions of both into agreement with each other, in order to unite Christ with Belial and to mix the light with darkness [2 Cor. 6, 14. f.].
But if we look at how powerful scriptural sayings are forced to give way to this annoyance, it is the whole execution of Paul, Rom. 8, 3. ff.: "For what was impossible for the law, because it was weakened by the flesh, God did, and sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.
and condemned sin in the flesh by sin, that righteousness required by the law might be fulfilled in us." Here you see how he claims with clear speech that it was impossible for the law to fulfill the righteousness required by the law in us; unless you also enforce here that by the righteousness of the law the intention of the governor is to be understood. But if it was impossible for the law, which is given to help, how much more is it impossible without this help of the law! yes, it was so, quite impossible, that the help of the law rather became a hindrance. For he says that the law was weakened in this impossible, that is, not fulfilled because of the sin of the flesh; or they would also have to say here that it was not fulfilled according to the intention of the governor. But then it is not the fault of the flesh, by which, as he says, the law is not fulfilled, but the fault of the intention of God, who, not satisfied with the fulfillment, also demands grace; and thus the law is rather strengthened by the flesh, but only weakened by the intention of the one who is territorial.
O blasphemous and furious words! But, as I said, this divine saying of Paul had to remain silent under words and rust, 'so that the decree, this fundamental article of faith, would retain its dominion. Thus it says Apost. 13:38: "By this is preached unto you forgiveness of sins, and of all things, whereby ye could not be justified under the law of Moses: but whosoever believeth in this is justified." The apostle did not have so much knowledge of the Greek language that he could have said, "By which it was very difficult for you to be justified," so he was forced to say it was impossible.
Likewise Apost. 15, 10. Peter says: "This is the yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." What do you say, Peter? They could not bear it? Did they not bear it according to the nature of the deed? Have they not been circumcised, sacrificed, and kept all these things? I see that you do not know the basic articles of faith and in many ways you are talking against the theology of Louvain. But it will be Latomus
object here: Peter speaks of circumcision, as is clear from the beginning of this chapter. But could they not have been circumcised? He speaks rather of the law of Moses; for so it is written shortly before [v. 5]: "And there came out certain of the Pharisees' sect, which had believed, and said: They must be circumcised, and commanded to keep the law of Moses." Behold the yoke that Peter calls unbearable. But what decision does he finally come to? "But (he says) we believe to be saved by the grace of the Lord JEsu Christ, even as they also" [v. 11]. And you have, O Peter, no essence of that which can bear the yoke and compel the grace to be there?
I pass over what he says to the Hebrews [Cap. 7] about this impossibility not only in one place. Even Christ, after he had said, Matth. 19, 24, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, and his disciples, horrified that it should be impossible to attain blessedness, said, "Yes, who then can be blessed?" did not know this fundamental article of faith, therefore did not deny this impossibility of beatitude, but rather affirmed it, nor did he modify it to the effect that it was merely difficult, but spoke thus [v. 26.], "With men it is impossible; but with God all things are possible." For he said this not merely of the rich, but in answer to the question, Who can be saved? Since, therefore, in the New Testament only the ministry of the Spirit is supposed to prevail, that is, the preaching of grace, as the apostle says, it would have been desirable either that Jerome had never uttered this word, or that it had remained buried in obscurity; For it behooves Christians to proclaim and confess only the glory of God, that is, our impossibility and God's possibility, as Christ says here; and all aversions must be removed that could set up or flourish the free will - and of this kind this little decree is probably one of the most excellent - so that the honest knowledge of God's grace and our misery may be preserved.
But it may have moved man that I said: Not all of God's commandments can be perfectly fulfilled in this life even in grace. This is not my opinion, but Augustine's, in the 1st book of his Retractations, Cap. 19, of which we will deal below. But by saying that it does not happen, I have not denied that it can happen; and the magnificent sophist has not even learned so much from his logic that he knows that "not happening" is something different from "not being able to happen. I have said: It does not happen; he puts in: Therefore you have said it cannot happen. Who doubts that God can give someone such a great grace that he fulfills [the law] perfectly, as we think of the blessed Virgin? even if he does not do it for everyone. If the little decree contradicts this, it goes to the gallows and is cursed.
But here he suffers from another error, from which all sophists always suffer, and that is that he wants to prove something by that which is yet to be proven, 1) which is the most erroneous way of disputing, in which also this whole book of Latomus moves. For it is the constant folly of the sophists that they take what they should first of all prove and substantiate and presuppose it as an infallible fundamental article of faith, as in this place. Latomus should have proved above all that fulfilling the commandments of God perfectly means that one is sufficient for the commandments of God in everything, so that no forgiveness is necessary. For Augustine and I deny this, and Scripture also denies it. But he, without hesitating in the least, certainly goes along as if he had a fundamental article of faith that cannot be proved (indemonstrabile), and while he believes that he devastates everything with the sword of the spirit, he plays a ridiculous game before us with the chaff and stubble of his opinion. Yes, not even his little decree has this opinion; since we say that all the commandments of God are fulfilled, not by our doing perfectly, but by the abundant
1) petitio princixii.
God's forgiving mercy. Here nothing is impossible; indeed, everything is quite perfect; and we say something better than if we claimed that everything is fulfilled without the forgiving mercy by works alone. And he should also have proved (as I said) that his expression "impossible" signified what he thought. But they themselves also confess that in this life no perfect grace is given to anyone, but that it is always increased; but since grace is given only for the fulfillment of the commandments of God, it would also follow from this that they are not fulfilled insofar as the grace of God does not become perfect. But because our magisters say this, it is not worthy of condemnation; if Luther were to say it, it would be an error.
Second article:
Sin remains even after baptism.
He condemns this article on the authority of St. Gregory, although I have proved it by the testimony of Paul, Rom. 7. But he, who erroneously takes the proof from what is to be proved, 1) interprets sin here not as sin, but as weakness, as if he had contended that it must be interpreted in such a way, as if either Paul had not known with what words he had to speak, or I was not allowed to use his words. If we look at Gregory's proof, he says, "Christ saith, But he that is washed is clean altogether: nothing therefore remaineth of the uncleanness of his sin, because he that redeemed him declared him clean altogether." I pass over Latomus' sleepy talk, since he promised that he would weigh the testimonies, not count them, that is, to speak according to sophistical artifice, he would not weigh them, but count them. I now confront Gregorius. Tell me, dear Gregory, where does Christ say what you say? Did you not have to bring the words of Christ in their wording? Thou sayest, He that is washed is wholly clean; but Christ saith thus, He that is washed must not, but wash the feet, but is wholly clean [John 13:1o]. Whence this uncleanness of the feet
1) petitor prineixii.
after washing? Does he not affirm that he is completely pure in such a way that he still needs to wash his feet? What is this but that in baptism the sin is completely forgiven and yet still remains? As Paul also says, Rom. 7. Throughout life the feet are washed, even those who are completely pure, as he says [v. 14]: "You shall wash one another's feet."
Does this passage not speak for me and against Latomus? All sins are washed away, yet there is still something left to wash. The saying is clear. How, then, can anything be washed away except because it is forgiven and abated by grace? How can anything still need to be washed except because there is still in truth [uncleanness] left in its nature? But about this later; here Latomus had to be deprived of his confidence, in order that he might see that the fathers had sometimes been men, and then in order that he might recognize his quite erroneous way of disputing, which I have called the proof from what is to be proved (petitionem principii), since he should first have proved that "to be wholly pure" is so much as that no sin remains after baptism. Nor do Gregory's words enforce this, or, if they do, they must be denied. But they come out with the words of the fathers, into which they have put their own opinions, like the ass under the lion's skin, wanting to make us fundamental articles of faith, not according to the opinion of the fathers, but according to their own, which they impute to the words of the fathers, these deceitful workers [2 Cor. 11:13].
Third article:
"One need not confess all mortal sins to the priest."
Of this he says, he is damned by a general concil, consequently he is damned; the conclusion is good, from Latomus on his wise. But what scripture has the concil for itself? If a council is valid without scripture, and it is enough that only the people with bishop's caps and plates assemble, why do we not assemble the
and stone images from the churches, put pointed hats and bishop's caps on them and say that there is a general council? Is it not fundamentally wrong for a council to act or decide without God's word? But I now say even more and deny by all means that one must demand a confession, in my booklet published on this subject in German, which I also want to translate into Latin as soon as time permits. For human statutes are to be completely removed from the church, of which also Latomus confirms in his dialogue that they can be abolished again by men; but this confession is nothing else than a tyrannical compulsion of the popes, which has no basis in Scripture.
The last article:
"Every good work in the holy pilgrims is sin."
Hui, how inconsistent stuff he makes out of this article, which seems to him, such a great man, to go straight against the passage of the [Athanasian] Creed: "Those who have done good will enter into eternal life." Here, however, he triumphs in earnest, so that he asserts that one should be ashamed that one demands an account from them in such matters. Finally he even threatens, the furious man, so that no one would want to keep it with me. This is what the Jews did before Pilate (John 18:30): "If this man had not been an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you. Truly, they are fools and impudent people who did not believe our magistrates of Leuven at their mere hint, as if they were such people who either wanted something bad or could err like other people, especially since the bull-bishop also approved of their deed, namely one water bubble (bulla) the other (bullas).
But behold the unworthiness of man, who everywhere declares sin (of which I speak in a good work) to be such as they call a damnable one; for only this goes against the saying, "But they that have done good shall enter into everlasting life." For they themselves admit that a
They even assert what Gerson says: No venial sin is venial by its nature, and there are more taking away than giving graces of God; 1) but it is only venial through the mercy of God. And about which one should be surprised, Latomus does not deny at the beginning that in every good work there can be venial sin, such as negligence; and yet it is not absurd with them to put sin in this way in a good work, not even against the creed, for no other reason than because I have not said it, but they have said it.
But this too I will later wrest from them, and perhaps they will freely admit that it is uncertain whether any work of all men is without sin, however good it may be; for they will probably not force any man to claim such a thing of his good work. And behold, what is uncertain may yet be, and perhaps it is so, even according to their opinion. But if another says it, it is inconsistent and contrary to the creed, that they think nothing more inconsistent can be said. For this uncertainty compels them not to assert the opposite as certain, and therefore not to deny or condemn the proposition (propositum). For the sayings of the Fathers, which he who proves from what is to be proved (petitor principii) introduces, he draws all to where he does not prove that they belong, namely, that in a work there is no sin, however much those [the Fathers] may say that they [the works] are good, they do not condemn 2c For of this I also deny nothing. But briefly, dear reader, you can take this preface of Latomus as the image of a sophist; for here you see the image of a sophist splendidly painted, which consists in that he feigns modesty in gestures and words, but otherwise bristles with such great pomposity, presumption, arrogance, malice, unworthiness, presumption, conceit, ignorance, and stupidity that nothing surpasses it.
1) plures Zratias Del xrivativss tzuam xositivas 6886.
The first article attacked by Latomus is this one:
Every good work is sin.
First, he introduces unseemly things, second, he opposes them with the opposite, and third, he dissolves my foundations. This is his own division. In order to drive this Sanherib back to his country, I will start from the last point and first defend what is mine.
In order to take away from me the most glorious passage, Is. 64:6, where it says: "We are all like the unclean, and all our righteousness is like an insolent garment," he treats it in such a way that it can be of no use either to him or to me, by making it uncertain what it is to be understood by. He states that some understand it of the Assyrian captivity, others of the Babylonian, and still others of the Roman captivity of the Jews. He himself, however, joins Jerome and Lyra in the latter. Finally, fourthly, he claims that it should be admitted that the passage refers to the faithful, but he takes recourse to the synecdoche 1) and wants "all our righteousness" to be as much as "some righteousness", according to a figure of speech that frequently occurs in Scripture. Since he does not present anything certain and since Jerome's testimony is not sufficient, since he, as he himself writes to Augustine, almost only uses the opinions of others in his interpretations, the opinion is left undecided.
And this is first of all answered to everything what he bases, concludes and builds on this opinion. For one must argue with certainty. Therefore this testimony must be uncertain for Latomus and useless against me. Hereupon I must endeavor that it be certain and strong against him; and first of all I admit and prove that it speaks of the captivity of the Jews and in the person of the captives, not of the Assyrian [captivity], for by this the city of Jerusalem was not laid waste, nor even the tribe of Judah taken captive, as in this place the pro-
1) A trope, since the whole stands for the part or the part for the whole.
phet weeps. If I can now prove that it cannot be understood from the Roman one, I have forced that it must be understood from the Babylonian one. Let us now first look at the passage itself [Is. 64, 5. ff.]:
"You met the happy and those who practiced righteousness and remembered you in your ways. Behold, thou wast angry with us, because we sinned, and abode long within; but we were saved. But now we are all as the unclean, and all our righteousness is as an unclean garment. We are all withered as the leaves; and our sins lead us away as the wind. No man calleth thy name, or riseth up to hold thee. For thou hidest thy face from us, and letest us languish in our sins. But now, O Lord, you are our Father, we are clay, you are our potter, and we are all the work of your hands. O Lord, be not angry with us, and remember not our sins for ever. Behold that we are all thy people. The cities of thy sanctuary are become desolate; Zion is become desolate; Jerusalem lieth ruined. The house of our holiness and glory, wherein our fathers praised thee, is burned with fire; and all that we had of beauty is put to shame. O Lord, wilt thou be so hard unto such, and hold our peace, and smite us down so much?"
Latomus, of course, as an exceedingly strong jumper, bravely jumps over the wall that stood in the way of his opinion in the words: "yet we were helped"; which cannot be understood of the rejected Jews, but is undoubtedly spoken in the person of the elect and faithful. When he then came to the word: "You met the joyful one," to which he had said: "Who then is he who practices righteousness, whom the Lord meets as a joyful one? if this word, as M[artin] wills, is understood by every believer at every time," he suddenly fell silent, as if he had bitten on a pebble, so that one does not know what he is asking, perhaps fearing that he might miss the interpretation entirely.
Latomus with his own says it will be this
said in the person of those who looked to Jerusalem and the Temple, whose restoration they desired, so that they might sacrifice and praise God in it, as their fathers did. This I affirm to be true, not because they say it, since I do not believe them, but because the text that compelled them compels me also; otherwise, why would he [the prophet] have increased his lamentation with so many words, and set forth the desolation of the city with such diligence before God, if he did not ask that,' that God would have mercy on the city and restore it? He uncovered the wound to the physician, of course, with the request to heal it. Moreover, to the words, "And all that we had of beauty is put to shame," he added, "O Lord, wilt thou be so hard to such?" What does this, "Thou wilt not be so hard," mean other than: Let it not lie so? For if he never restored it, he would indeed have been very hard on what was once desolate. Is it not therefore certain and quite clear that with these words for the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple is prayed and sighed? fönst I fehe no reason, why he should have it in such a way to lead, to put to the heart, to make important and insistently emphasize. Thus, with the obstinate sophists, one must doubt even that which is known in itself until it becomes certain.
It follows from this that with these sighs and words, prayers were made for such a thing as could be restored; for the Holy Spirit is not so foolish as to admit praying for something that is obviously impossible. But it was already established that according to Christ God was not to be worshipped on a mountain, nor in Jerusalem, but in spirit and in truth, as Christ speaks Joh. 4, 24. This future mystery was also revealed by the spirit of Isaiah in such a way that no one else after David has recognized and prophesied it so clearly. Likewise Haggai 2, 10. foretold this last house. And Daniel [Cap. 9.] foresaw that the determined desolation would come to the end after Christ, so that it is impossible that it will be taken away again, as the Jews expect. Therefore, this weeping and invocation cannot be postponed to the times after Christ.
The only reference is to the time of the Babylonian captivity, where hope, longing and prayer for the restoration of the city are rightly attributed to the spirit.
This is also to be noted, lest we ascribe blasphemy to the Holy Spirit, as if He sometimes spoke in the person of the ungodly and blasphemers. In Ps. 109 it is decided that the prayer of the Jews in the Roman captivity will be sin and abomination. Then Christ says in the 16th Psalm that he would not take their name in his mouth [v. 4]. So how should the spirit of Isaiah in the person of the blasphemers offer their blasphemies before God with such great humility, such pious confession, such sincere heart and zeal? For his prayer would also have to be sin and blasphemy. The Scripture does indeed say that the Spirit prays through the saints in relation to the ungodly and for the ungodly, but never in their person. He is the Spirit of the body of Christ and stands by the saints in their weakness, sighing and praying for them [Rom. 8, 26st What kind of prayer this prayer of Isaiah is, who does not grasp it with his own hands? So Christ wept over Jerusalem, but not in the person of Jerusalem; so also Paul [Rom. 8.] for the Jews, but not in the person of the Jews; but here Isaias makes himself the person of those with whom and for whom he prays.
Since it is therefore dangerous to assert something that has no example in Scripture, we must assert only what it contains. Let us confess that the Spirit of the Body of Christ never speaks, works, lives and remains in a foreign person, that of the devilish body, but always in a person of his own body. The one who praises God cannot represent the person of the one who blasphemes God, since the one who represents the person of someone and the one whose person he represents must agree at least in word, attitude and desire, if they cannot agree in ability and works. But between these Jews and the Spirit of God there is an irreconcilable contrast, while the Spirit, if he had spoken through Isaiah in their person, would likewise still speak today and much more, since his words
and the present need urges them most strongly. Nor can we deny that they are words of the Spirit, since they are written in the holy canon. But because they are of the Spirit, they are godly, and faithful and holy, which does not fit the person of the Jews at all (as you see). If he only spoke the words of the wicked, their opinion could still be tolerated; but praying and acting in their person, that cannot be tolerated. He speaks in Isaiah the words of the proud Babel and Assur and Sanherib, he tells in Ezekiel the words of the great dragon in the river and many others, but he never leads another person than the godly and his own.
Moreover, it is clearly stated in the text: "Behold, we are all your people. Or do we not know what that means: to be God's people? These Jews are now no longer His people, as it is said in Hosea [1, 9.): "Call him LoAmmi [not My people]; for you shall not be My people, and I will not be your God." And again [Isa. 64:8.], "But now, O Lord, thou art our Father; we are clay, thou art our potter, and we are all the work of thy hands." But are the Jews children and not rather enemies? Are they the potter's clay, who do not want to be formed? For they do not recognize the potter. Are they the work of his hands and not rather even Satan's work? Also the sophistry does not apply here that they should call him in a common way father, potter, creator. The prophet speaks in the spirit, and the words come forth from the fervor of the spirit, in which God is only the father of children who believe, just as we also worship the Father in the spirit in the Lord's Prayer. Therefore, especially in the New Testament, he does not hear the name "Father" without the spirit, which would certainly be the case if this were said in the person of the Jews, since (as I said) the need for it is pressing and the words are still there.
From this, I think it is sufficiently clear that this cannot be said in the person of an unbelieving people, which will become even clearer when we see the meaning of these words.
But the fact that he now claims that such all
Common expressions in the Scriptures usually have the sense that they are to be understood only by some, as e.g. the sentence: "All seek their own", since Titus and many others were not such people, and so also here under the expression, "all our righteousness is impure" wants to be understood: only some [righteousness] of some people: so here either the malice and spitefulness makes Latomus blind, or he must be especially stupid, not only because he plays with inappropriate examples, but also because he pulls here completely without reason this figurative idiom by the hair. If it were so free to play with figurative idioms according to mere arbitrariness without providing a reason, what then prevents that one also gives a new sense to all things? So I would also like to say that the saying Ps. 1:3: "And all that he doeth prospereth," can be understood in this way: only some things prosper; and Ps. 2:12: "Prosperity to all that trust in him," that is, only to some who trust in him; further Ps. 5:7: "Thou destroyest liars," that is, only some. And, beloved, what kind of antics could be made after this in the holy Scriptures? It was not for such a great theologian as Latomus to say that something could be said in this way, but that it must be said in this way. The question is not what arbitrariness can do in the fool, but what conscientiousness must do in interpretation, especially since he boasted with such full cheeks that he did not want to count the testimonies of Scripture, but to weigh them and to accuse Luther of citing them badly. Does that mean weighing the testimonies? Does that mean convicting of bad citing, if he only says: I can understand it this way and that way? Didn't I accuse those sophists up to now of this very mistake, that they could understand everything in such and such a way, but never wanted to understand it as they should? This does not mean to refute the opponent, but to nullify the holy scripture.
While he is then so vividly mindful of this figurative way of speaking in this passage, how roughly does he snore, on the other hand, in the following passage where it is said: "No one calls on your name or sets out to hold you"? Could he not also imply here that there were only some, that is: some,
and many do not call your name? This would have prevented him from having to make such a silly and unrhymed digression in order to prove that there had never been a lack of those who had called upon the name of the Lord at all times. Or perhaps this figurative way of speaking does not take place in negative statements? Does it not seem to be set Is. 57, 1.: "The righteous perishes, and no one takes it to heart; and holy men are raised up, and no one heeds it"? Did Isaiah not understand this, who just said this? Or is it only allowed to Latomus to make figurative speech wherever it pleases him, and to make none wherever it does not please him? For the wise man realized that "all our righteousness is defiled," spoken without a picture, would conclude against him; therefore it had to be avoided. On the other hand, the other: "No one calls on your name", if it is spoken figuratively, would not resolve against Luther, therefore the saying had to be taken away from him. And such a great man, however, did not think how by this arbitrariness and audacity he would give his opponent ample opportunity to turn this against him. For with the same authority, I too can turn these two figurative expressions around, so that soon both expressions, soon only one of them, may be figurative and not figurative. But is this the way to handle the Scriptures?
Again, this excellent theologian puts the saying: "All our righteousness is defiled", which he had attached in a figurative sense to the believers, afterwards without image to the Jews, since they were finally destroyed. From these they interpret this passage to have people of whom they could claim without image that all their righteousness is defiled. Thus Latomus arrogates to himself the liberty of dealing arbitrarily with the sacred Scripture, even when he speaks in earnest and argues for the faith against the most shameful heretic. If I were a heretic (which Christ forbid) and saw that such foolish antics were being made against me, I would hold my opinion and consider everything they have suspicious for the sake of their own inconstancy and silliness; for I could not believe.
I have never known them to seriously and truly believe this to be true, so now I condemn and detest it [their thing] all the more.
But now, let us do this lionizing and new way of theology, and I will throw the whole matter of Latomus over the heap and overcome it with one word. For as often as he fraudulently concludes with the testimonies he cites that a good work is not a sin, I take refuge in the subterfuge that instead of the whole I put the part (synecdoches) and say: A good work is taken for good only in part; likewise also sin is taken for sin only in part; for thus he himself puts the part for the whole and says, -eternal righteousness of some is not well done. What then will be easier than my victory, which is won with the weapons of the adversary himself? Behold, that is, after the manner of Louvain and Latomus, to draw the meaning of Scripture from the context, the sequence, and the circumstances of the text; and yet it is high treason to call them blocks and sticks.
Therefore, away with this lionizing stuff (lovanitas) and right wind-making (vanitas), let us rather substitute here Augustine's saying, which agrees with truth itself and common sense: "A figurative speech proves nothing." Though he said it in reference to sacred images of things, yet it may be applied quite appropriately to the grammatical images of words. For in no Scripture, much less in the divine, may one hunt for images according to mere arbitrariness, but they must be avoided, and one must rely on the plain, pure, and original meaning of the words until circumstances themselves, or some apparent inconsistency, compels one to acknowledge an image. Otherwise, what Babylonian confusion of language and words would arise in the world? Then it would be better to be mute than eloquent. We want to show this by rough examples, because our Löwen magisters have become all too doltish. When the poet speaks: 1)
Then the Trojan Caesar will arise from a beautiful lineage:
1) Virgil, läd. I, v. 286.
and one wanted to take here the expression figuratively, as if Caesar was said for many Caesarea, then you can this freely after your arbitrariness; but do you throw such a thing also to the linguists? Again, the other verse: 1)
Romans, you shall rule the earth's peoples with authority:
you can argue that it is to be understood without all figurative expression by a single Roman citizen; but what will the linguists say to that?
Thus it is said in Ps. 16:11: "You make known to me the way to life"; here you can also say according to your brain that earthly ways are to be understood, on which we tread with our bodily feet; but instead of the way, you are at the same time following an error. But what need is there of more words? We admit that everything is full of figurative ways of speaking, but, in order to meet them, [fine] observation is necessary, which, however, cannot be sufficiently guided by a certain rule, although I have not yet found an example of such figurative speech in those general expressions, as Latomus poems here. We have these two things to guide us, the inconsistency of the content and the nature of the words. For the fact that, for example, the sword at the side, Ps. 45:4, and the two swords of the disciples, Luc. 22:38, do not mean one of iron, is proved more strongly by the circumstances under which these words are spoken than by the inconsistency, although this also applies; again, when it is said that he who leaves his wife receives her a hundredfold in this life, the inconsistency of the thing compels us not to understand it of bodily leaving and receiving.
Thus, in the present case, it is not enough for my Latomus to say that this can be understood figuratively, namely, all for some; I will not tolerate any figuration until he has proved the inconsistency or the necessity of the circumstances, but I will force him to understand it in the simple, proper, and original meaning: all our righteousness be impure; he must do this, I say, because in the whole of Scripture
1) Ibidem, I^id. VI, v. 851
no inconsistency is found that would be contrary to it. And so this testimony still stands unconquered, mocking the attempts of Latomus and his rash boasting, and proving that all our righteousness is impure, and that every good work is sin. Nevertheless, I am surprised that here he has completely forgotten his subterfuge, which he uses in all other things; for he also recognized here that impurity is nothing other than an imperfection, as he does with the words error and sin, with the same right, according to which they tend to impute [new] essence to things and [new] meanings to words, just as they please. But the magnanimous hero once hoped to become more famous by a more respectable victory than he has become by his other evasions.
In addition to the fact that this figurative way of speaking cannot take place here, there is the other reason that it is the rule in Scripture: where it has simply and most perfectly established a general proposition without any hesitation, with the exclusion of any synecdoche or particularity (particularitate) (that I say so), it is not satisfied to have asserted the general proposition, but it also adds the general proposition in the negative. Thus, for example, Rom. 3:12, 11, from the 14th Psalm: "They are all gone astray, and have all become unfit; there is none that understandeth; there is none that inquireth after God; there is none that doeth good, not even one." Here Paul observes this rule and reinforces it by simply concluding all Jews and Greeks, that is, all the children of men, under sin. For if the synecdoche were not excluded here, the apostle's whole discussion would fall away at this point, and he would prove nothing for the necessity of grace, which is what he intends. Another testimony of the same apostle [Rom. 4, 7] is the saying from the 32nd Psalm [v. 1. 2.]: "Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, in whose spirit is no falsity." Behold, for a complete
2) In the original: illustris.
and round forgiveness, it was not enough that he had affirmatively said that they were forgiven and covered, but he also adds that they are no longer imputed, and that there is no falsehood in his mind. In the same way it says Klagel. 2:2: "The Lord has destroyed all the dwellings of Jacob without mercy," to show that nothing precious was left behind; and Ps. 28:5: "He will break them and not build them," so that it would not be understood as if he wanted to break them only in part. It is, of course, a very sweet synecdoche and necessary figurative expression, a symbol of both the love and the mercy of God, that while it is sometimes said that he strikes or destroys, it is to be understood in such a way that he does not destroy completely or strike all; for he touches the whole when he touches a part of it.
So also in this passage, according to the same rule, Isaiah puts many assertive phrases together with negative ones and says: "We are all like the unclean, and all our righteousness is like an insolent garment. We are all withered like the leaves, and our sins lead us along like a wind." Now follow the negating sayings: "No one calls on your name or sets out to keep you," that is, all our righteousness is so impure that with you the righteousness of no man counts for anything, as if you could be stopped in your wrath by it. Therefore, Latomus' frivolous little sin is here thrown over from the bottom of the heap.
But I say this, not because I would have admitted to Latomus that in the passages brought by him the figure of speech of the synecdoche is present, but because I confess that this figurative mode of speech is frequent in the Scriptures. And let the sophist see with what light chaff he struggles against a great rock, so that his posies may be easily overcome in more than One Way. For I do not remember to have seen a synecdoche in general sayings in any place of the Scriptures. But those whom Latomus teaches, he himself forces on the synecdoche, which they do not have in the least. Moreover, he refutes himself by saying,
Such words would have to be applied to their subject; as for example in the saying of Isaiah [13, 5]: "To destroy the whole land", of course not the whole earth is to be understood, but only the land of Babylon. So in the gospel Luc. 2, 1. "all the world" is estimated, but of course not the whole earth, but only the whole Roman Empire. Likewise [Matth. 27, 45]: "Darkness fell over the whole land" is only understood of the land of the Jews, since the Roman writers do not think of such darkness, with the exception of that fabulously chattering Dionysius in Heliopolis, whose existing letter is, in my opinion, fictitious. Moreover, he draws "all righteousness is impure" on the people in the Roman captivity, without synecdoche.
Thus the passage [Is. 1, 5]: "The whole head is sick" 2c, does not contain a synecdoche for a double reason, firstly because it is general, secondly because the negation is added: "There is nothing healthy in him" 2c And, as Paul interprets Rom. 9, this applies to the Jews who are still left after Christ, in whom in truth the whole head is sick and there is nothing healthy in him; but so they were already in Christ's time. For he speaks against those who were then outside Christ and remained. So also the saying of Jeremiah [6:13], "For they are all covetous, both small and great," applies only to the multitude of those who are covetous, 1) to the exclusion of the pious; just as also the saying of Paul, "All seek their own," applies only to those who are his object and aim. For otherwise Paul, when he includes all men under sin in Romans 3 and says that all lack glory in God, would have included himself, Abraham and all the pious in that saying; but he spoke against those who acted without true faith. Therefore, as I said, Latomus plays with silly examples, plagued by the evil conscience that is aware of the error from which he would like to escape, but cannot. For it is an obvious proof that he has been overcome by the invincible truth, because the wretch, after so many
1) corpus avaritiae.
The people of the world look for a way out, and so fearfully at that. Ah, a conscience that stands in truth does not tremble and change like that; the wretched sophists look for such excuses too late.
But here is the figurative way of speaking of the synecdoche in the Gospel [Matth. 12, 40.]: "So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the midst of the earth"; as well as [Matth. 27, 44.]: "Likewise also the murderers reviled him, which were crucified with him"; and exceedingly clear Ps. 78, 18.: "And they tempted God in their heart, that they should require meat for their souls." This is said to rebuke, as it were, the whole people of Israel. On the other hand, in Ps. 105, 40: "They asked, and he sent for quails," 2c, it is said in praise of them, but both times by means of a synecdoche, the whole for a part; above all others, however, this figure of speech prevails far and wide in the prophets. But in this place the word of Isaiah cannot be so restricted to some, because he includes himself, does not speak to others, as it happens in the aforementioned passages, but he makes a prosopopoeia 1) of persons speaking of themselves, and speaks: "all of us"; "all our righteousness"; he does not speak: "you" or "your" 2c
But now it remains how this can be attributed to the believers. And I believe that it is not necessary to prove that they were faithful and pious, since they obeyed God at the word of Jeremiah and went into captivity, some voluntarily, others forced. For the flesh of Christ and the apostles was still in them, 2) for which alone we can say that they were pious and faithful, since it is rightly believed that throughout the whole human race, in the order of its flesh, up to the virgin mother, it was a holy and chosen seed. I want to summarize it therefore first briefly, and then make the text.
1) prosopoxosia, personal poetry, i.e., when inanimate things are regarded as persons and allowed to speak.
2s I.e. Christ and the apostles were still to be born from the people of the Jews.
I have taught that our good works are such that they cannot bear the judgment of God according to the saying Ps. 143, 2: "Do not go into judgment with your servant, for before you no living man is righteous." But since his judgment is true and righteous, he does not condemn works which are altogether without fault; for he does wrong to none, but as it is written [Rom. 2:6.], "He will render to every man according to his works." Therefore it follows that our good is not good, unless his mercy reigns over us, which forgives; but that it [our good] is evil, since his judgment is against us, which gives to every one his due. This is the way to teach fear and hope in God. But this wisdom of godliness my detractors condemn and inflate their works, deprive people of the fear of God and hope, and make them arrogant with their pernicious teachings by inventing a good work worthy of praise, reward and glory, as Latomus also barks here.
I have also proven this breathing with this passage of Isaiah, and quite correctly, as far as I can see so far; yes, it stands even firmer for me now than before the foolishness of Latomus. For Isaiah wants, since God is angry and cast His people into captivity and desolation, that God now acts with them not according to His mercy, but according to His judgment, yes, in His wrath. And although there are also righteous and pious men in this judgment, whose righteousness could have been considered pure, outside the judgment under the rule of mercy, it is of so little use to them now that they are like the very last and most impure sinners. For the Lord does not acknowledge them in his wrath, but gives the righteous along with the wicked, and will not be held back. But what does he do but hold those who are righteous and make them appear as if they were not righteous? In this judgment, however, because he judges righteously and truly, they must necessarily be righteous and yet impure at the same time. And so he shows how no one can rely on his righteousness, but only on his righteousness.
on God's mercy. In this sense also Job Cap. 9, 22. speaks: "This is the one thing I have said: he kills both the pious and the wicked." For he does not speak of a fictitious pious man, and yet he does not kill him unjustly. So also here Isaiah understands the truly righteous and pure. For the Spirit speaks in the spirit of the pious, not of fictitious righteous or in the person of fictitious righteous. It is the truest righteousness and yet, as it were, impure, because it suffers everything that the impure suffer, not innocent before the righteous God, but innocent before men and in our conscience.
In this sense it is also said in Ps. 44, 18. f., where those who endured much evil say: "All this has come upon us, yet we have not acted unfaithfully in your covenant; our heart has not fallen away, nor our walk departed from your way", that is, what he says in Jeremiah Cap. 49,1 ) [v. 12] says: "Behold, those who were not guilty of drinking the cup must drink; and thou shalt go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you must drink also." In what way did they not fall under judgment, and yet they had to drink? Namely, in their conscience and before men, as was the case with Job, whom the Lord testifies there as innocent, while in the 9th chapter he says quite differently, otherwise the righteous God would not have chastised them. For Jer. 30,2 ) 11. he again says: "I will chastise you in judgment, so that you will not consider yourself innocent." So we all sin before him when he should judge, and perish when he is angry, while yet, when his mercy covers us, we are innocent and pious, both before him and before all creatures. This is what Isaiah says here.
It should be noted that the one who does righteousness does not mean the one who does righteousness, as in Ps. 15:2: "the one who does righteousness"; he calls all such righteousness unclean; but the one who does righteousness.
1) In the original: Cap. 48.
2) In the original: 31.
He is the maker, that is, the author of righteousness, so that righteousness may be found in his days, as it is said in Jer. 23:5, "There shall be a king who shall reign and establish justice and righteousness in the earth"; and Ps. 119:121, "I am over the righteousness and justice." For it is happy and joyful times when there are authors of righteousness, who, however, must necessarily at the same time be dispensers of righteousness. And this whole passage laments just that, that although there are good and righteous, they nevertheless cannot establish righteousness in this time of wrath, by which the wrath of God would be subdued and stopped, but they are destroyed together with the wicked, since their righteousness is considered to be nothing, because the wrath of God does not allow them to accomplish anything at all; how then this passage can be further elaborated at my peril.
"You met the joyful" 2c When the times are joyful and righteousness flourishes, which is definitely the realm of your grace, then you are also gracious, you meet them and receive them with open arms, they call on your name and you hear them, they set out and find you, they hold you and you spare them all, as in the time of Moses in the wilderness. Then is found: to walk in thy ways, then is found: to remember thee, to praise thee, and to thank thee for the benefits that are poured out. But now, when your wrath is raging and the times are sad, we are nothing but sinners, you are not met, not found, nor held. Though there be good and righteous, yet there is none among them that riseth up and taketh hold of thee, or calleth thy name for us; for neither dare they: here is no praise of thee for good deeds, but only lamentation for our evil. And as at the time when righteousness flourished, the sins of others also became white as snow, and thou didst not punish them, yea, thou didst not reckon them sins, so at this time of wrath, when righteousness has perished, thou also holdest all our righteousness to be impure, and punishest it at the same time with the sins of others, and dragest them along with the evil, thrusting us into the power of our
unrighteousness and allow us to receive what our sins have earned, so that we are all like the unclean. Thus, when mercy is taken away, our sins carry us away like a wind, against which all our righteousness is powerless.
So also the people say of an enraged prince: No one dares to say anything to him about this matter or to intercede for it, not even children, nor wife, nor friends. So now he complains about the so great wrath of God, that he also treats all righteousness of all the godly as if it were sin and impurity, and they may not and could not call upon or bow to him. But it is quite dull to understand this passage of the godly righteousness of the ungodly, compared with this exceedingly fervent and vehement prayer, which, if it could ever be prayed in a puffy way, can be prayed today, where there are many godly people. But the Antichrist, the pope, has such power that he drags even the elect not only into the evil of punishments, but also into error; and there is no one here who will stand up, stop and call on the name of God for us wretched ones.
That this sense agrees quite nicely with the following, I think, is quite obvious, and it has this defect with my people, like Latomus, that they believe that the Holy Spirit does not speak seriously, but only puts on a kind of fictitious righteousness. But then he would not complain that it would become impure, since it would already be impure. Here he confesses that righteousness is intact, and the question is how it becomes defiled and unclean, in that it does not suffer what tends to be the case with true righteousness, but the opposite, because it does not rise up and hold on to the angry God in the day of wrath, with which it is nevertheless able to do everything in the time of grace. Thus, the wrath and the severity of the judgment take away the righteous with the unrighteous; mercy alone saves all who are saved. Therefore, my dear, you see, I believe that this passage with all that follows, with the actual meaning of the words, with the simplicity and unity of the sense, without the extensive variability of the Lion
of the sophists, is in my favor and is unshakably established, mocking the bark of this Scylla. It is certain, I say, that a good work is impure by its very nature when the cloud of grace is taken away, because it alone, by the pardoning mercy, is hooked for pure, worthy of praise and glory.
Therefore, this passage not only supports my opinion, but also offers an example of this teaching. For the good works outside the pardoning mercy are as we hear Isaiah complain here. And yet, if they were not really unclean and evil, the righteous judge would not deal with them in this way. From this we see how abundant God's grace is over us, how He is gracious to the unworthy, so that we may be grateful from the innermost heart and love and praise these riches of God's glory and grace. This service to God and knowledge of the truth, however, these key-makers and petty sophists, who alone claim to be the illuminators of Scripture, hasten to destroy, while they do nothing other than tear it into many pieces and make it ambiguous and obscure.
This is also an answer to the pompous mockery of Latomus, which he uses to call Luther a very inconsistent man, because I said that this passage does not only apply to the Jews, in whose person I confess it was spoken, but to the saints of all times. This same spirit that Isaiah has here in his time and in his tribulation was also in Job, was also in Abraham, in Adam, and is still in all the members of the whole body of Christ, from the beginning of the world to its end, in every man's time and in every man's own tribulation. Or perhaps Paul 2 Cor. 4, 13. should not have said: "So we also believe, therefore so we also speak"; because he did not have the same rapture (ecstasin) and at the same time as David [Ps. 116, 10.]. The times, things, and bodies, even the tribulations change, but the same spirit, the same mind, the same food, the same drink of all through all remain. Or, if they do not get this
If the Psalter falls, this shall be my advice to the murderers of Louvain, that they burn the Psalter of David and make a new one, which praises our triumphs over Reuchlin and Luther; for that one tells the old deeds of the Jews, which no longer fit us who are now alive (novos). You blind men and moles, look the Scripture of God in the face, judging by the works and not by the spirit, just as the Jews, standing in the wilderness at the entrance to his tabernacle, saw nothing but the back of Moses, who entered the tent of the covenant of the Lord.
Let's move on now:
Since I had said that this could not be understood by righteousness of the law, which rather puffs up, but does not sigh humbly, as this passage sighs, Latomus says, I presuppose wrongly, since the whole text refers to the arrogant Jews, who ask for temporal deliverance. And this false opinion he proves with splendid prestige, that is with the opinion of Latomus, who believes that this passage is to be understood by these Jews. So these people dare to build on themselves and condemn everything. Therefore, the Holy Spirit must sometimes be haughty in the person of the arrogant and speak peevishly before God. Moreover, Latomus presumes to add in the same presumption that the preceding chapter is to be understood by the same, by the arrogant, who speak arrogantly [Isa. 63:17, 19]: "Why do you let us, O Lord, err from your ways? We are the same as before, when you did not rule over us," while Isaiah speaks in the same context, in the same spirit.
Furthermore, since I had said that the righteousness of the law is not evil, and only condemned its use, for which it is blamed, Latomus again shows how learned he is in the Scriptures, and introduces the saying 2 Cor. 3, 10.For even that part which was glorified is not to be regarded as clarity against this exuberant clarity"; after that he thinks that I have not understood the saying Ezk. 20, 1) 25: "Therefore I delivered them into doctrine, which is not good".
1) In the original: 19.
see. If he dealt with me verbally like that, I would think he was joking if he was good, or mocking if he was bad. But for the sake of others, let us say a few things about it. Many have the conviction that Paul is dealing in this passage with ceremonial righteousness, which is abolished, while he is speaking of the whole law and compares law and grace with each other, but not law with law. The error comes from the fact that they consider the gospel to be a doctrine of laws. In short, there are two offices of preaching, one of the letter, the other of the spirit; the letter is the office of the law, the spirit that of grace; the former belongs to the old, the latter to the new [testament]. The clarity of the law is the knowledge of sin, the clarity of the spirit is the revelation or knowledge of grace, which is faith. Therefore, the law did not justify; indeed, since it was unbearable to human weakness, grace is still covered with it to this day on Mount Tabor. For no one can endure the power of the law if grace does not serve him, therefore Moses was forced to cover his face. Therefore the Jews do not understand the law until today, since they seek to establish their own righteousness and do not want to have it made a sin that they bowed under the righteousness of God. For this is the effect of the clarity of the law, that all become guilty, as it says Rom. 3, 9. [Gal. 3, 23.]: "He shut up all under sin." Thus the law is the power of sin [1 Cor. 15:56], works wrath and kills [Rom. 4:15; 7:11]. But the spirit makes alive.
So that Ezekiel says, "I delivered them into the doctrine which is not good, and into the judgments wherein they could not have life," refers to the whole law, not only to the ceremonies, just as Paul's saying, "That part which was transfigured," refers to the same whole law. For the whole law was holy, right and good, as Paul says Rom. 7, 12. But for us, what is good cannot be good because of our infirmity, nor does it make us alive, but kills us; for even God Himself, the highest good, is no good for the ungodly, but the highest
Terror and torment, as it is said in Hos. 5:12: "I am a word to Ephraim, and a maggot to the house of Judah," and [v. 14.] "I am as a lion to Ephraim, and as a young lion to the house of Judah."
It is therefore an error of our magisters, who know nothing at all in the Scriptures, neither what law is, nor what grace is, neither what ceremonial is, nor what legal is, ever understood; therefore they become ashamed and conclude one thing for another. So I say, just as the law of the ten commandments is good if it is kept (that is, if you have faith, which is the fulfillment of the law and righteousness), so it is death and wrath and not good for you if you do not keep it, that is, if you have no faith, however much you may do its [the law's] works. For the righteousness of the law, even of the ten commandments, is unclean and abolished by Christ, yea, more than the ceremonial law, for this very [righteousness of the law) is properly the covering before the face of Moses, which is taken away by the glory of faith. So you will keep the ceremonial law, however good it is, if you keep it, not by works but by faith, that is, if you do it in such a way that you know that righteousness is not in it but in faith. On the other hand, it is not good, death and wrath, if you keep it apart from faith, and is as much as if you did not keep it. It is clear, then, that the whole law is the killing letter, but the life-giving spirit is grace in faith in Christ.
Since he gave them the law of the letter through Moses and not the law of faith, he [God in Ezekiel 20:25] rightly says that he did not give them a good or life-giving teaching, since it could not make anyone good and alive. But grace is the law of life, which makes good, alive and righteous. And so Paul wants the ministers of the New Testament to be ministers of grace, not of the law, because their ministry is not the ministry of Moses, for that was already done, but the ministry of Christ, that is, to preach the clarity of grace. And I would like to hear from our
How do they know that Ezekiel and Paul, 2 Cor. 3, speak of the ceremonial law? Will they not refer to their head alone or to the testimony of a man? For these impure swine go about tearing out the sayings of Scripture without thought and understanding them as they please, and yet they presume to fight for the faith without first examining their weapons to see if they are painted or real.
But since I handled that passage of Isaiah: "All our righteousness" and "We are all unclean" in such a way that I urged it to be a general one, because it says: "all" and "we", "all" and "our", this hair-sharp dialectician reverses the proof and speaks: One must rather conclude thus: he does not say "all," but "we all," nor "all righteousness," but "all our righteousness," since he wants this to apply only to the godless Jews, not to believers or to all. This is already sufficiently refuted, since it is based only on the mere vacillating opinion of Latomus, but I have proved that it fits mainly to the believers, and just to the best.
But the so rich theologian has another evasion (he says): "Supposing he had simply said 'all righteousness' and 'all are unclean,' this is still to be drawn to a part, to some," again calling upon his protector, either the hyperbole 1), or the synecdoche, here. But if you say to him: from where do you prove that here is a figurative way of speaking and must be accepted, he answers: "Because it is found in other passages of Scripture (as was proved above), like [Is. 1, 5.): Here you see again that the magister Latomus is free to invent figurative sayings in every passage without distinction and to play his game with the Scriptures according to his will; and this is called to lions: to weigh the testimonies of the holy Scriptures according to the magisterial way, to teach thoroughly and to overcome the heretics happily. For according to this magisterial way I also will easily defend that this saying of Je-
1) I. e. the exaggeration of a thing.
saias denotes only One godless Jew, and will also deny Latomus that he can make their righteousness impure from this passage and apply this passage to them, and in this way: If he says, all your righteousness is unclean, I answer, it is, for the sake of figurative speech, to be confined to some only, like the saying, "the whole head is diseased." But let us admit these some, and suppose there were two, and say to them: All your righteousness is unclean; they will answer, no, it is a figurative way of speaking, where the whole is taken for the part. Do you not think, dear reader, that we have done splendid theology? For since it is enough for Latomus to say in the argument that there are similar things in Scripture, I believe that, since he once read that a virgin gave birth, he will make virgins mothers as often as he likes, satisfied that he can show that this once happened in some place.
Now behold the pretension and the manner of the sophists, by which they accomplish nothing but to make everything ambiguous and inconstant. Their own little decree: "Cursed be he who says that the commandments of God are impossible," they enforce with such severity, with such obstinacy, as the words read, that they do not allow a single syllable of a godly interpretation, making heretics of the whole world, if anyone should even complain against it. Why is that? Because it is their thing, taken from men and a purely human word. But as soon as one uses the Scripture of God against them, they are full of innumerable excuses, there is nothing they could think of that would not immediately be an article of faith, and yet they think nothing simple, constant and uniform. I believe that if Christ were to call from heaven today: Luther's opinion is true, they would still find a distinction of the true, so that they would not be forced to return to the right way. But you, dear reader, can take those unfaithful eyes of the fornicating woman [Prov. 7] as a testimony that with our magisters there is not even the striving for simple truth, but only for manifold truth.
and inconstant mockery. If I were to work my way through opinions, parables, and diverse interpretations like this, I would not want to be a Christian. For how could I hope to find grounded truth in these storms and floods? So what remains? Without doubt, since Latomus cannot prove that there is a figurative way of speaking here, he will be forced to admit this saying without a picture in the simple and proper meaning and that all our righteousness is defiled and all men are unclean without the mercy of God.
Latomus also attacks another passage, namely Eccl. 7, 21: "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin." Here he even threatens me at the end to cease to put a stain on the glory of the saints, because, according to him, the glory of the saints is to be their work without sin; as they say Ps. 3, 4. "Thou art my glory," 1) that is, thou art my good work without sin, and Ps. 89, 18.."For thou art the glory of their strength", that is, thou art their good work without sin; namely, that we make ourselves gods, as they said, Ex. 32, 23: "Make us gods"; which is actually said of good works, which those saints of Latomus boast about. And with this agrees Isaiah 2,2 ) 8.: "They worship the work of their hands, which their fingers have made." For the saints of God become ashamed before God in their works and boast in Him alone, as Jeremiah 9, 23. says: "Let not the strong man boast of his strength," and Paul 1 Cor. 1,3 ) 31.: "Let him who boasts boast of the Lord." But, as I have said, our magisters speak in this way with too much prudence, so that the thoughts of their hearts might be revealed, that they might have higher thoughts of godliness than the prophets or apostles could conceive. For what Latomus sincerely thinks of faith and works is sufficiently proved by his mouth, which overflows with that of which the heart is full; nature here precedes art, so that he could not conceal it.
1) Thus the Vulgate. In the German Bible: "You are the one who sets me in honor.
2) In the original: 3.
3) In the original: 10.
The consequence, the circumstances and (as he calls it) the thread of the speech has left aside here the extremely clever hunter of the testimonies, because he noticed the danger, therefore he first took his recourse to the interpretations of others and then after his kind to another passage of the scripture. Nevertheless, if I had nothing except this saying, I would not insist on this opinion either. But I have based it on it, because I could not present anything satisfactory against it, as Latomus cannot either, nor, as I believe, any other. Because the passage therefore seems to belong here in clear words, and also because no other meaning can be found in it by us, I have connected it, until the Holy Spirit gives a more perfect interpretation, with those who are clear and infallible. I have also often tried to evade it with such glosses on which Latomus relies (elusi), but it has always stood firm, resisted it, and agreed in great agreement with my other passages. For while Latomus adds nothing new, he believes Luther saw nothing of it, and this credulity was enough to cause him to write.
It is easy to say that the saying, "There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin," is as much as 1 Kings 8:46, "There is not a man who does not sin." But while in that passage he (the Holy Spirit) connects "a man and a righteous man", further "doing good and not sinning" with each other, in the Book of Kings, on the other hand, he simply says: "man" and simply: "not sinning", so Latomus escapes by fleeing from what follows and from the circumstances, which he had promised to follow after all. But I, who observe them, firmly maintain that it is not my business, as a man of understanding, to assert that "man" and "righteous man," likewise "sinning and doing good" and "not sinning," are one and the same thing. But I fully admit that if Latomus held this passage against me and acted as a defender of this opinion of mine and claimed that man is almost always described in the Scriptures in the evil sense, then I would be wrong.
The meaning is taken for sinners, as Gen. 6, 3. and 8, 21.: "Man will no longer be punished by my Spirit, for he is flesh", and Paul [1 Cor. 3, 4.]: "Are you not carnal?"; 1) likewise often: "I speak in a human way" [Rom. 3, 5.]; likewise: "Of a human day" [1 Cor. 4, 3.] and Ps. 82, 7.: "You will die like men" 2c, he would have truly frightened me.
The passage should therefore have been rejected with clear scriptural claims that it did not contain this meaning, or it should have been given way to, if it teaches the same thing that many other sayings do. For it is a testimony, but in its mouth the word will stand only if a second or third saying agrees with it. Therefore, since I do not know how to resolve this passage, I will get rid of its requirement by giving way to it, since other and clearer testimonies will be added until the Spirit reveals that man is as much as righteous man, and doing good and not sinning as much as sinning. So long, however, I will follow what the words say, since (as I said) I would not follow them, but leave them undecided, if they alone were present. But the affirmation of this sense is safer than the denial, even if it alone says this in the whole of Scripture, because in this no one sins when he accuses before God his good works as useless, sinful, even as none at all, and with Job fears all. On the other hand, it would be dangerous, even ungodly, if he praised and extolled only one work before Him. This reason even forces to accept this sense, even if the saying, as Latomus wants, only spoke so for appearance. Now, however, since he goes into it with clear words, and there is only the fear that it might contain something hidden, and the meaning is neither quite dark nor quite clear, the meaning that agrees with godliness, or even no meaning at all, must have preference over one that is godless.
In addition to this, also here in Hebrew "the one who does good" is the one who is the author that good is there, so that it is not only an inherent (perso-
1) In the Vulgate: Are you not "men".
nalem), but an effective, outwardly gratifying good (bonitatem.), and yet he says that such a one sins, how much more must he make him who exercises the good a sinner! If, however, my knowledge of the Hebrew language were to find credence, I would maintain that in the Hebrew this sense lies, for it reads thus: For there is no man righteous on earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. The first part: "there is no man righteous on earth" certainly proves what Latomus quotes from the books of Kings: There is no man that sinneth not; yea, it proves still more, as is before the eyes. What follows then sets apart that such a one sins even when he does good. For the Hebrews know that the connective word is used superfluously in such expressions, e.g. Gen 17:14: "If a child is not circumcised in his flesh, and his soul is cut off from among his people"; also Ex 12:1, 15: "Anyone who eats leaven, and his soul perishes from among Israel"; so also here: "He that doeth good, and sinneth not" is as much as: he that doeth good, sinneth not.
But Latomus has not refuted this, which forces the consequence, since I said that it seems superfluous that Solomon still adds to a righteous man and speaks, who does good and does not sin, as if another would be righteous, who does not do good; because what he thinks to have made a mockery of falling and sinning has no weight at all. For it is not according to what Beda or any man says that I ask, but according to what they ought to have said. But one must pay attention to the Scripture of God, not only what is said, but also who says it. Nor does it help him that he brings in the other passage from 1 Kings 8, since he was told that he must first prove that this passage has the same opinion and proves against me. For he was not allowed to put something next to it [which does not belong to the matter], but had to refute it. Otherwise, why did he not also introduce the saying: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"? And how many times,
1) In the original: 13.
I ask, must one tell him that he should not put next to it, but against it? just as I have not put next to it and the like, but contradictory to those passages. I do not listen to it, so And so is said elsewhere, but that is what I want to hear: elsewhere the opposite is probably said. He does away with his "one can say so" and brings instead the common "one must say so.
And this he must do. For since they have judged, condemned, and burned, and have also been approved by the bull, it would be exceedingly shameful for them that they have based themselves only on what can be said in this way, and have not shown that it must be said in this way. For what will the world think when they show themselves that they have passed such a certain judgment on something so doubtful, have carried it out, and have had it approved? And who would not affirm that Latomus, that defender of truth, when he should have given reason and cause and defended the truth, had become publicly disgraced, and had written with no other intention than to sophistry and ridicule, but not to teach or to defend. For that is too crudely to engage in sophistry and to put the understanding and judgment of the whole world to the test. I do not want anything of mine to be said in this way, but everything that does not have to be said in this way, let it go there and remain to be disputed. Even if Latomus could bring it about that what I have brought forward would not be compelling, this would not suffice for those who give an account, not for those who condemn, not for those who have burned what is mine, as if it not only did not enforce, but should not have been said at all. What frivolity or stupidity is this, that when you have made it the object of your argument to speak of Christ, you immediately take up another song and sing of the Trojan Hector?
Among other things, he also chats against Luther with sophistical (dialecticis) quarrels, as if he were without all logic and ignorant in dialectics, and says: "It is an equally bad conclusion: 'It is not a righteous man who
He sins with one and the same action, as this conclusion: 'There is no man who lives and does not see death'; consequently he lives and dies at the same time. Or as if someone said: "There is no man who wakes and does not sleep," and one would conclude that he wakes and sleeps at the same time. Likewise: "There is no man who lives and does not eat"; therefore he eats at all times when he lives. So far that one.
Dear, give me one of the schoolboys of Latomus, who has heard one day of dialectics, to test before him his teacher's skill. Say, boy: Is every such conclusion good, that from something impossible everything results what one likes, as the first beginnings have in Aristotle? For example, is this a good conclusion: 3 and 2 are 8, therefore the devil is God, according to the rule: On something impossible follows everything arbitrary. For as soon as the antecedent sentence is correct, the final sentence must also be correct. Is it therefore not just as correctly concluded: There is no man who lives and does not see death, consequently he lives and dies at the same time? For if the antecedent proposition is impossible, since no living man can see death, then from the same antecedent proposition follows also the converse of the conclusion, namely: consequently he does not live and die at the same time. Likewise: There is no man who wakes and does not sleep. Consequently, he wakes and sleeps at the same time. Is this not a correct conclusion? But the opposite also follows: therefore he does not wake and sleep at the same time; for the antecedent is impossible, since the man who wakes cannot sleep; but not vice versa. Does it not also follow that there is no man who lives and does not eat; therefore, if he only lives, he eats and does not eat; yes and no, and all that one only wants to infer? Why then does your teacher deny these conclusions and condemn them? Why does he fool thus in so serious a matter? Or has the bull also approved this glorious deed? Therefore, dear reader, see how blind this sophistical spitefulness is, that it does not grasp even these pupilish beginnings and the common sense.
But it may be some pendant
of Latomus (Latomaster): "Our glorious magisters have willed it so: There is no man who lives and does not see death even in the future' and 'There is no man who wakes and does not even sleep', that is, at any time other than when he is awake; and 'There is no man who lives and does not even eat', but not at any time when he is alive: "There is no man that liveth and eateth not even," but not at any time when he liveth. For from this it does not follow: consequently he lives and dies at the same time, wakes and sleeps at the same time, lives and eats at the same time."
Thanks for the good lessons. But this is to free our splendid magisters from one inconsistency and to plunge them into two others. The first of these is that they do not know grammar, nor do they know the difference between the expression of the present and future time, in that they express a future thing by the present time, at the same time concealing many epithets, perhaps as a punishment for having previously slandered the knowledge of language, and now cannot express these sensations (passiones) of the soul, which, according to Aristotle, as the dialogue of Latomus has it, are the same in all, and, as they intended, are speechless. So I admit that this conclusion is very bad: There is no man who lives and will not see death (as the 89th Psalm has v. 49.), or does not see death at times, consequently he lives and dies at the same time. Equally bad is the conclusion: There is no man who wakes and does not sleep at times, therefore he wakes and sleeps at the same time. It does not follow: There is no man who lives and does not eat at times, therefore, when he lives, he eats. But against whom do these ridiculous conclusions argue? Did Luther say: There is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin at times, therefore he does good and sins at the same time? Who may force this epithet "sometimes" upon me? Who would dare to add it to Solomon?
And this is the second inconsistency of our magisters, of which they are almost always guilty, which is called petitio principii 1). And because Latomus uses it so often, I will not be annoyed.
1) To use as evidence that which must first be proved.
I would like to leave it to Latomus to remind man just as often whether he could perhaps learn at least some rule of dialectics from this dispute. I say, then, that Latomus should have proved that Solomon's saying included the epithet "at times," thereby limiting sin to the evil works outside the good work. But he, as if it were already proved, takes and proves in the most erroneous way what is denied by what is denied.
. But even if these errors were not, he stumbles in the way of stating something in itself or as something accidental. For I have willed (which will make all the hairs of our magisters stand on end), and I now say, that sin, if one speaks of it in itself (praedicatione perseitatis), is inherent in good works as long as we live, just as the ability to laugh is in man (I speak after the manner of Aristotle, but not of the Sophists, who do not yet know what is "in itself" or "own suffering" [propria passio] in Aristotle), but eating, sleeping, death are in man only when one speaks of the accidental (praedicatione per accidens). As therefore it does not follow that man has the ability to laugh all the time, consequently he laughs all the time, so it also does not follow that man lives, consequently he wakes, eats and dies all the time. However, just as follows: Man lives, therefore he has the ability to laugh, to eat, to sleep, to die 2c, so also follows: Man does good, therefore he sins. For the man doing good is the basis (subjectum), the sin his suffering, as from Solomon was put to the basis.
Therefore, I want to manage such inferences of being-self better than Latomus and prove my inference with true examples and with necessary ones as necessary. In this way it follows quite correctly: There is no sophist in Leo who treats the Scriptures and does not twist the sayings and does not condemn the truth, consequently in the same action he treats the Scriptures and twists them. For it is the manner of the sophists to treat the Scriptures at times, but it is peculiar to them to pervert and condemn them. Thus it also follows correctly: There is no theological bungler (theologista) at Louvain who
preach, and not speak fables and his dreams, therefore, as often as he preaches, he fables. For a theological bungler presumes the word of God, but his peculiarity is to teach fables instead. Likewise: There is no hypocrite in Louvain who says mass and does not worship an idol; consequently, as often as he says mass, he worships an idol; for all precepts are necessary and intrinsically so, since they cannot be otherwise. You will forgive me, dear reader, this silly talk of mine, and attribute it to Latomus, who was not afraid to slander the truth with such antics in such a serious matter. I wanted to pass over these quibbles, but, mindful of the splendor and the bull, I feared that simple people would believe that these foolish antics were really any good. If they were valid, they would convict my opinion of an incredible inconsistency. That is why he had to be rewarded what he deserved. These are the people whom the pope approves of and calls the faithful cultivators of the Lord's field, only to my displeasure, not out of pleasure in them, which they alone boast about.
But that he adds Jerome, who teaches, "There is no man who does not sin," is as much as if he were not constantly without sin, that is, there is no righteous man who does good who does not sin, must be understood in such a way that he sometimes sins, as one reads of David that he did all the will of the Lord and yet sinned at times. Again, here Latomus brings his, "It can be said so," and yet does not prove that it must be said so. Dear, who doubts that the saints sin at times? But Latomus should have proved that such was Solomon's opinion in the present saying. His second mistake in this passage is that he concludes from something similar. The third error is the petitio principii, because he does not prove the similarity beforehand.
I admit the attracted opinion of Jerome, but I deny that this is the same and same opinion of Solomon. What is to be done now? I, too, will again shout at Latomus: "Do you hear, Latomus, your reasoning that you adopted
is this: A good work is not sin, and the proposition: a good work is sin, you must refute, not prove that: the saints sin sometimes; also not that, refute: the saints never sin. For no one is arguing with you about this. Now Jerome does not even think of this saying of Solomon in this passage, let alone prove that it has the meaning that Latomus brings from it. It is a very tasteless conclusion: Jerome says that the saints sometimes sin and are not always without sin, therefore Solomon wants the same thing when he says: There is not a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin. Why don't you also say: Paul says that a virgin does not sin when she marries, therefore this is the same as Peter says: "Dear brothers, watch and be sober"? You draw conclusions and do not prove them; then you want to force the meaning of one passage into another passage by your own power, as if the whole world had to believe you without any testimony. Bring together as many passages as you want, but be mindful that you must also prove that they have the same opinion that you want them to have. For this, my dear Latomus, was the task you took upon yourself; if you have not accomplished it, you have accomplished nothing. It stands my opinion and my Solomon still firm, and you will be transferred as murderers and robbers of God. But whether Jerome treated correctly the saying, "David did all the will of God," and yet sinned at times, in that he says that God said "all will," but did not add "continually," I leave undecided, since it does not belong to what is before us. We say that all of God's will is done in such a way that He forgives each of our works, as Augustine says: "The commandments of God are fulfilled when that which is not done is forgiven." Here we are not disputing those gross sins with which even the saints sometimes sin, but the daily one that clings to us, just as they themselves speak of a venial one. Jerome's interpretation seems rather harsh to me: all, that is, at times or most, of the saints' sins.
time; however, I do not condemn them because of that figurative way of speaking the synecdoche.
Then he obviously errs in accusing Paul as if he either sinned or did not do a good work when he wrote to Timothy concerning the parchments and as often as he thought of the necessary needs of this life. Now where is that boaster here, 1) who said he wanted to weigh the testimonies, not count them? It is a mistake, I say, to claim that Paul did nothing good in this. Paul himself says much better [Col. 3, 17. 1 Cor. 10, 31.]: "You eat now, or drink, or whatever you do, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". The ordinary life of the righteous is nothing but good works. For not one claw of his sheep did Christ leave in Egypt. I say this so that the sophists may know that the holy fathers, as they sometimes sinned, which Latomus proves from Jerome in the example of David, so also they sometimes erred, which I prove here in Jerome. Accordingly, their testimonies have the greatest value if they are based on clear scriptural passages; if not, they should not shout to me and boast as if they had won because the testimony of some saint was on their side. We are in the controversy where one must rely on divine and indeed certain and obvious testimonies. Human testimonies, however, may have their validity in confidential persuasion and in a speech to the people.
However, because he uses Paul as an example who did a good work without sin, we also want to undertake this personification (prosopopoeiam). So let us imagine St. Paul or Peter praying, or teaching, or otherwise doing a good work. If the good work is without sin and without any fault, he can stand before God with due humility and say thus: "Behold, Lord God, this good work I have done by the help of your grace; there is no fault or any sin in it, nor does it need your pardoning mercy, which I also do not ask for; furthermore, I want you, according to your true and
1) Thraso, a boastful officer in Terence.
the most severe judgment. For I can boast to you that you cannot condemn me, because you are just and true; yes, I am sure that if you do not deny yourself, you will not condemn it. There is no more need of mercy, which in this work remits guilt, as your prayer [the Lord's Prayer] teaches, which here is utterly empty of content, but only justice, which crowns the same."
Do you not shudder and sweat, Latomus? It is certain that all this can be said by such a work-driver, yes, it must be said, because one must speak the truth, especially before God, because one must not lie even for the sake of God. But the truth is that a work that is without sin, worthy of praise but not in need of mercy, does not fear the judgment of God, indeed, may already trust and hope in the Merk itself and the gift of grace received, because we have something that we can even hold up to God Himself and His judgment and truth. Therefore, we do not have to fear Him anymore, nor trust in His mercy. Is it not so, Latomus, that all this must follow and happen? For even if God destroys good creatures, he does not condemn and reject them. So, of course, he could also destroy such a saint with his work, but he still cannot condemn or reject him, because the truth remains firm: "Thou lovest righteousness, and hast ungodly nature." [And so, through the grace of God, we have something that we can hold up against God in this life and before the judgment and safely set aside both His mercy and His judgment.
And where is then the saying Ps. 143, 2.: "Do not go into judgment with your servant, for before you no living person is righteous"? Or is "no living person" a synecdoche here, that is, many or some living? But also Paul says 1 Cor. 4, 4: "I am aware of nothing (see the good works), but in this I am not justified". How not justified, since in a good work there should be righteousness and no sin? Surely you have preached the gospel with all your strength, you have, as Latomus says,
collected a collecte with all virtuous circumstances, which are also demanded by Aristotle. Surely you cannot deny that this work was good, so how are you still a sinner in it? Or are you not a sinner, since you do not call yourself justified in it? Or do you even lie, that you do not call yourself justified, while you are justified? When you hear Latomus, you should not say, "Neither do I judge myself, but it is the Lord who judges me," but you should say, "I judge myself because a good work does not fear his judgment, for he is righteous. So either people like Latomus blaspheme God's mercy and judgment with their works without sin, or you, Paul, lie, even blaspheme yourself the truth taught by them. It cannot stand together: I have a work without sin; and: in this I am not justified. Do not make God unjust, that a good work without sin does not justify. For what should he condemn in it? imperfection? but this is not sin, but a punishment which increases the goodness [of the work], so that it may even be better to have many such imperfections than few.
But you say: Jeremiah says Cap. 17, 16: "But I did not flee from you, my shepherd, because I did not desire the days of men, you know that; what I preached is right in your sight", and 2 Kings 20, 3: Hezekiah says: "O Lord, remember that I have walked before you faithfully and with a righteous heart, and have done what is pleasing to you. I answer: but he does not say that he has not sinned just in these things, expressing almost the same opinion as the apostle, "I am well aware of nothing," I have done what was pleasing to thee and all that I was commanded, but in this I am not justified. He speaks only as far as he is conscious. Moreover, the saints in the Psalter and everywhere else invoke the judgment of God for their cause against the opponents. And yet, those who are blameless before men and their conscience are not justified in this before God, but in another, namely in Christ. Therefore, if the Apo-
How much more are Hezekiah and Jeremiah not justified in what they say, since it is much greater and more perfect not to be aware of anything than to walk in the truth and do what pleases God. For these can still be conscious of something, as Latomus also proves from Jerome.
Incidentally, it is quite another matter about the Word; for there also Paul dares to say that God cannot lie, nor deny Himself, for the Word is His, not ours, on which we can stand with confidence, even before Him, and say: "I know that thou canst not condemn this, for it is justified in itself, it is not even conscious of any thing, it does not fear thy judgment, nor seek mercy; moreover, we can also hold it against thee, since it is according to thee in all things. "2c But in the use, service, and treatment of the Word we cannot, because here what is ours is added. Therefore Jeremiah well saith, "That which I have preached is right in thy sight." Moreover, we must die for the word, since we are so certain that it is the pure truth; but who should dare to die for its good work, which would be without all error? For even Paul, when he said to Timothy [2 Ep. 4:7], "I have fought a good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith, henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me in that day," does not say that he is justified in this, but speaks similarly, as Hezekiah, on condition of mercy, by whose beneficence, being unconscious of anything, he expects the crown of glory. All believers do the same, for hope does not expect wrath but glory, as Titus 2:13 says, not in works but in the mercy of God.
But how? if Latomus and his people wanted to slip away here and say: We do not want it to happen this way, because no one is sure whether he has such a work. What do I hear? Are we stoics or academics, that
we don't think anything is certain? Truly, I do not believe that they are so great. For what would be more inconsistent than to teach good works and at the same time not know what good works are, or yet not be able to show an example. For Paul [1 Cor. 4.] by no means doubts, neither David; for he saith not, I am doubtful; but, "I am not aware of anything." And Hezekiah saith not, I am doubtful whether I have done that which is well pleasing in thy sight. And David, Ps. 7:9, saith not, Judge me according to my doubt; but, "According to my righteousness which I have." Again, Paul [1 Cor. 4.] doubts not whether his works be in sin; for he saith not, But in this I doubt whether I am justified; but thus, "In this I am not justified." And David saith not [Ps. 143:2], Who knoweth whether any living man be justified in thy sight; but, "For in thy sight no living man is justified." For who would be persuaded to do a good work, if he had to doubt what a good work was? Who would want to run in doubt, or on the uncertain, as the apostle speaks [1 Cor. 9:26.], and make air-strikes knowingly and premeditatedly? Then there would never be peace in truth, since one must have good works, and no one would know in his whole life when he had them.
Therefore, God has advised us in the best way, since He made us certain of both, teaching Gal. 5:22 that good works are manifest, "but the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace," 2c, and Matt. 7:16: "By their fruits you shall know them." Again, he makes us certain that they are not without fault and sin (lest we put our confidence in them), so that in every work we cannot with doubtful and deceitful confession acknowledge ourselves sinners and be found to have mercy [Isa. 57:1, according to the Vulgate; 1 Tim. 1:13]. Furthermore, that we might have an unfailing peace, he has given us his word in Christ, upon which we may confidently lean and be secure from all evil. For against the word even the gates of hell with all their sins can do nothing. There is the rock of our refuge, there we can also with Jacob
to wrestle against God and dare to force Him with His own promises, His truth and with His own words (so to speak). For who will judge God and His word? Who also wants to accuse or condemn faith in his word? So let my people, like Latomus, cease to tarnish the glory of God and keep their blasphemous mouths in check, nor set up for ourselves the idol of our doubtful and unbelieving work, lest we too turn our honor into the likeness of a calf eating hay [Ps. 106:20].
At the end he is unwilling that they were accused of not understanding what sin is according to the use of the Scriptures. Let us see, he says, in the Scriptures what sin is; then he takes sin in four ways, first for the cause of sin, secondly for the effects or punishment of it, thirdly, the sacrifice for sin, fourthly for the guilt itself, by which the soul becomes guilty. And I wonder why they did not take the same also, fifthly, for the reward of sin; then these fertile discerners, so that we would have the whole Aristotle, could also have taken sin itself and sin as accidental. If I now wanted to ask here: what is this scriptural passage in which this quadruple of sins appeared to Latomus? he answers that Origen and Ambrose call the devil sin, and Augustine the evil desire remaining after baptism or its incitement. From this I conclude that Origen, Ambrose and Augustine are the holy scriptures, in this way not only the gods are increased by the good works, but also the scriptures of the gods are increased by the sins. For what would the gods be if they did not also give us holy writings? Then he denies that he is called a sinner who has sin of the second kind, that is, evil desire or its impulse after baptism.
But let us leave these monstrosities and come to the point. Here I advise you, my dear reader, to be free and a Christian who does not listen to the words of any man.
has sworn, 1) and a constant confessor of the Scriptures. If she calls something sin, beware that you are not moved by anyone's words, since they who want to speak better deny sin itself and want to call it sometimes an imperfection, sometimes a punishment, sometimes a defect, by which they weaken and mock the words of God, since the Scriptures have nothing of it. But you believe that the Holy Spirit knew well how to express His things with suitable words, so that He did not need the little feet of men. For it is unbelievable how Paul torments the sophists by calling Rom. 6, 7 and 8 the evil desire still remaining after baptism sin and not punishment. If they could, they would buy this word with a lot of money.
St. Hilarius rightly held that one may not assert anything apart from the heavenly precept; but whoever would attempt this would either not understand it or would not let others understand it, which also happened to these people with the word sin in this passage of Paul. But the sophists do not realize how inconsistent and implausible it is to call sin the punishment of sin in this passage, and that this cannot be taught on the basis of any other testimony of Scripture, which should be the case in a dispute, so that the opponent's mouth would be shut, as Paul commanded Titus. But not only can they not teach that sin is punishment in this passage, but above all, not even Leo's way of doing theology is able to teach anything here, that at least one other passage would be brought forward from Scripture in which sin similarly denotes this punishment, if he also did not give force to this passage that it is to be understood by such a sin. But since this is the crux of almost the whole question, and the whole confusion of the misshapen mass of Latomus boasts of these gimmicks and ambiguities of the word sin, we must deal with asserting the truth in such a way that the opponent has no more opportunity to challenge it.
1) In the Erl. Edition: iraturu, which is probably just a printing error, instead of: iuratum.
mock them, but he has, if we cannot prove by Scripture that sin must not be 1) distinguished in this way and must not be taken ambiguously. In truth, neither they nor we can prove this. Therefore, we must remain with the plain and consistent meaning and not go beyond it until a clear passage of Scripture compels us to go beyond it. We must therefore start this a little higher.
Above all, do not doubt that sin is not taken in many ways in Scripture, but in a single, very simple way, and do not let the garrulous sophists deny this to you. But sin is nothing other than that which is not according to the law of God. For the saying is certain, Rom. 3:20: "Through the law comes knowledge of sin," just as, conversely, through sin comes ignorance of the law; for sin is darkness that is illuminated and revealed by the law, so that it can be recognized. But we gladly assert this and rejoice that Scripture very often makes use of grammatical figures, the synecdoche, metalepsis, metaphor and hyperbole; indeed, in no other Scripture are there more frequent figurative modes of speech. Thus, throughout Scripture, heaven is only a simple and definite word denoting the upper world building (maolljuam); yet it is set Ps. 19:1 by a metaphor for the apostles. What the earth means as a simple word everyone knows, but metaphorically it denotes the ungodly who are trampled by vices and all evil. Now, if someone wants to claim that these words nevertheless have many meanings, I answer, "If you will, I do not object, but then what is this dictionary you have that is supposed to teach us the words? since such figurative expressions are in the arbitrariness or, so to speak, in the
1) Walch had correctly added this little word "not", which is missing in the original.
2) Synecdoche: a part for the whole, or the whole for a part; metalepsis is a trope, since what follows stands for what precedes; metaphor is an image in a single word, while allegory contains images of things (cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. 22, Tischreden, cap. 52, § 3); hyperbole is exaggeration.
Are they at the pleasure of those who use them? As Horace teaches: 3)
Dixeris sZrsZis, votum si eulliäu Verbum Usäckicksrit zuueturu uovum.
[In German: Man kann etwas herrlich ausdrücken, wenn eine scharfsinnige Gedankenverbindung ein bekanntes Wort zu einem neuen macht].
For example, everyone considers flag to be a simple word, but if I say cross flag or flag of the word, everyone sees that a new word has been made out of a well-known word in an excellent way, and if someone wanted to make these splendid new formations into his own meanings, what would come out of it? Will you therefore write in your dictionary: Flag sometimes means the applied cross and the preached gospel? Persius calls the onion clothed with an undergarment (tuumaMm). Is therefore to be written: Note, undergarment means an onion skin?
Therefore, I do not like those Hebrew linguists who attach so many meanings to one word, after the procedure of those Chaldeans Onkelos and Jonathan, whose occupation seems to have been to extract for the unlearned what the Scriptures express with the most beautiful and delicate figures of speech and to render them with a coarse and simple expression. Hence, in this language, those ambiguities have arisen without cause, and a kind of Babylonian confusion of words. For by this diversity the mind and spirit are extraordinarily distracted. If only one simple meaning had been established (as often as it can be done) and all other images and fanciful ways of speaking had been set aside, all this confusion could have been removed in a calm and easy way. Furthermore, one would also help the memory and the intellect in an extraordinary way and at the same time take in the mind with sweet pleasure. For I do not know what power is inherent in this figurative way of speaking that it so powerfully enters and makes an impression, so that every
3) Of Poetry, v. 47 f.
Man by nature likes to hear and speak figuratively.
Doesn't it sound much more sweet [Ps. 19, 1.]: "The heavens tell the glory of God", than that: the apostles preach the word of God? And when Moses, 5 Mos. 4, 19. speaks of the heavenly bodies, which should not be worshipped: "That thou worship them not, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath ordained unto all nations under the whole heaven." If you render the Hebrew word in its simplicity with the inclusion of metaphor, you certainly cannot hear anything sweeter, more powerful, more complete; for so it reads in Hebrew: "Which the Lord thy God hath ordained to all the peoples under heaven to love." I pray thee, what an instruction to godliness? what an excitement of the senses? what delight is there not in this word? that God, the Lord, has given those stars of heaven to all nations, as it were, to flatter and caress them, so that by his sweetest and most tender goodness he might lure them to himself, and by these gentle benefits invite them to love him, as a mother caresses her child on her knees.
If you now come to me here with double meanings and claim that this word at this point actually means "he has distributed" or, as our translator [Vulgate] translated, "he has created," then I must indeed yield to you, but how great loveliness you have thereby at the same time robbed me of and, as it were, thrust me out of paradise onto earth, in that you speak all too actually and without a picture, while in the picture I also possessed your meaning no less with pleasure! For the fact that 1) share, portion, lot, inheritance is said of it, who does not see that this comes from the fact that God shows himself friendly to everyone according to his need and makes his caresses our share, so that you can say: This is a demonstration of love by God for me and my share, and therefore the meaning of the word division seems to have been extracted by a metalepsis. To this also belongs the saying
1) From "to divide out"; from xartior is derived xortio, pnrs.
Gen. 49, 7: "I will divide them in Jacob." But Ps. 5, 10. says: "With their tongues they pretend", instead of with their tongues they caress, which retains the graceful word. Therefore, what you make into three words, as it were, divide, caress and create, you could have summarized with greater grace and clarity in a single word, according to the usage of the authors, who either applied the image or abolished the figure of speech.
Thus, when it is said Deut. 6, 7. "And thou shalt tell it unto thy children," it sounds stronger if thou hadst said [according to the Hebrew[, "And thou shalt sharpen it unto thy children." 2) For that it is not to be a simple narration is proved by the following: "and speak of it when thou sittest in thy house, or walkest by the way, when thou liest down, or risest up." If you want to say against this that "sharpen" does not refer to words, but to iron equipment, so that here this word must mean in the proper sense "to repeat, to tell, to say emphatically," I will admit that, but I still want to believe more in the former than in the more agreeable and perhaps sole meaning. For the emphasis of this word seems also to have been emulated by Paul 2 Tim. 4, 2. where he says, "Stop, whether in season or out of season; punish, threaten, exhort." What does this mean other than that the word of God must be constantly driven and inculcated, sharpened and kept shining, so that no human ordinances find their way in and blunt the word of God and that the word of Ecclesiastes is applied [10:10]: "When the iron becomes blunt and the edge remains unsharpened, it must be sharpened again with power.
And Ex. 32:25, where it is said, "Now when Moses saw that the people were made bare; for Aaron had made them bare for the reproach of shame, and had set them bare among their enemies" [according to the Vulgate], I will not be hindered from rendering the same better thus, "And Moses saw that the people were made bare (for Aaron had made them bare by his babbling, that he might set them fine)." To this word emulated
2) Thus in the German Bible.
Paul to the Galatians [5, 4. 11.] and said: "You have lost Christ", and: "The trouble of the cross has ceased", that is, the trouble is over, now no longer active, and also Christ is no longer active in you. In the same way, Aaron with his calf had brought it to this point with the people that it was neither driven by God, nor did God work in it, but, detached from all divine works, it was prepared for the glory of its own righteousness. Do I not summarize in this word beautifully not only the nakedness itself, but also what it is and indicates? namely, that it would come, as Aaron had also done there, that the priests would withdraw the people from the law of God and, if it were now free from the divine effects, would set it up in their [the priests' own works; as Paul also speaks sGal. 6, 13.]: "They want you to be circumcised, so that they may boast of your flesh." For Moses touches this glory when he says that the people were made loose by Aaron, and yet made to his shame, that he might be branded with it himself, since at his instigation the people had become so; which Jerome expresses, "for the shame of filth, and had put it merely among the enemies," which yet has no reference either to the matter or to the wording, for one wanted to make everything ambiguous, which I will not deny. From this word 1) the king of Egypt has the name Pharaoh, because he is the king of such a people, which was free from the works of God and only active in its own works.
Now one more thing. In Psalm 119. the word "consider" is frequently repeated; e.g. [v. 24.], "Thy testimonies are my consideration"; and [v. 16. 117.This is expressed in various ways in different versions, but I can easily summarize them all in one meaning, namely, what is usually expressed in German: "freundlich zu ihm thun, fein zu ihm stellen," 2) as it is written in Genesis 4:4 ff: "Und der HER sahe graciously an Habet und sein Opfer; aber
1) Namely from
2) Given in German by Luther himself.
Cain and his sacrifice he looked not graciously upon." Else Prov. 8, 30.: "I had my pleasure daily"; and again [v. 31.]: "My pleasure is with the children of men." Isa. 17:7, 8: "In that day shall a man cleave unto him that made him, and his eyes shall look unto the Holy One in Israel, and shall not cleave unto idols." Further, Isa. 66:12: "On their knees shall they keep you kind"; again, Isa. 6:10: "And blind their eyes." I pray you, all these meanings may be right, so that one and the same word "consider" may mean to keep, to have one's pleasure, to look upon, to keep kindly, to dazzle, and perhaps more. But is it right to make so many meanings out of one word, when you could either combine all of them, or most of them, into one meaning and change them just by figurative speech? God saw Habel," that is, while he was doing this, he inclined his mind toward him. "Wisdom has her pleasure daily," that is, while she does this, she inclines her mind to all and ingratiates herself in a kind way with the children of men. In this way, man turns sweetly to God, as a mother caresses the child on her lap and fixes her gaze on his gaze and caresses herself against him. Thus he blinds their eyes, making them now voluntarily fix them on their aspirations, and they are thus closed. Thus "your testimonies are an afterthought" by turning only to them with contempt of everything else. In short, I sum up all this diversity by turning to things, judging, preparing, gladly and from the heart.
This I want to have said for the purpose of proving that the Scriptures are full of figurative expressions; but we must not therefore make as many meanings and words as there are figurative ways of speaking, for what need is there of figurative ways of speaking? And to return to my task, Christ, being sacrificed, was made sin for us, but in a figurative sense, being in all things so like a sinner, condemned as such, forsaken, and put to shame, that he differed in nothing from a true sinner, but that
he did not himself commit the guilt and sin he bore. Thus in the 69th Psalm [v. 5] he says: "I must pay that which I have not stolen"; so that there is no doubt that he confesses them as his own, he says there [v. 10]: "The reproach of those who reproach you falls on me"; and again [v. 6]: "You know my foolishness, and my debts are not hidden from you." But there must be in the metaphor a difference from the real thing; because similitude (similitudo) (as they say) is not exactly the same with the thing (identitas). And what is transferred is transferred according to similitudinem, otherwise it would not even be a transfer. And Paul looked at this when he said Rom. 8, 3: "God sent His Son in the likeness (similitudinem) of sinful flesh"; and Hebr. 4, 15: "He was tempted in every way, as we are (pro similitudine), yet without sin." And in this rendering there is a metaphor not only in the words but also in the content. For in truth our sins have been transferred from us and put on him, so that everyone who believes just this has in truth no sins, but, transferred to Christ, they are swallowed up in him, since they now no longer condemn. Just as the figurative way of speaking is more charming and powerful than the simple and coarse, so also true sin is troublesome and unbearable to us, but the transferred and metaphorical one is exceedingly pleasant and salvific. Therefore, as Christ is in truth called the rock by the apostle, 1 Cor. 10:4: "But the rock was Christ," so also Christ is in truth sin. Likewise Christ is the brazen serpent, the paschal lamb, and all that is said of him; but therefore we do not say that "brazen serpent" are two words, any more than "rock." No one has ever said: Paschal lamb means in one way a piece of cattle, in another way Christ. No one has said: Aaron means Christ in one way, the son of Amram in another way. No one has said, David is in one way the son of Jesse, in another way Christ; Solomon is in one way the son of David, in another way Christ. And yet we say with truth
Christ is David, Solomon, Aaron and all those models of the Old Testament. And because of this Christ, who is made sin, also what is similar to him (sua similitudo) is called sin, namely the sacrifice of the Old Testament, so that not the difference but the similarity with sin remains in everything, which gives rise to figurative ways of speaking and makes the word common. But they treat the word sin in such a way that its four kinds are more unequal than heaven and earth. By this inequality the mind is dulled, the soul is confused, and the whole grace is ruined, both in word and in substance. In this way Paul speaks, where he speaks of sin in Rom. 8, 3. "And he condemned sin in the flesh by sin," that is, by that sin for which he made Christ; since our sin was transferred to him, he condemned our sin; about which we will now see.
We say, then, that the sophists do not in truth know what sin is according to the language of Scripture. For in calling it a punishment, they imagine it to be something quite different from sin, which the Scriptures do not do; for, as has been said, Christ was like sin in everything, except that he did not commit sin. For all the evil that is in us after the deed of sin, namely fear of death and hell, Christ felt and bore; but that little sin of theirs of an accusation (reatus) and imputation to punishment they themselves do not understand. For Christ felt that imputation and was like the one who is imputed in this way, although without guilt. But what is this imputation that should not be felt? It is nothing. Therefore, Christ (as said) at that time was not different in anything from the very last sinner who had already received the sentence of death and hell and was now to be condemned. That imputation was in force, the only thing missing was that he did not deserve such imputation and, without having done anything, was handed over to it for us; although this matter must be dealt with and grasped more by feeling than by words. Yes, we say still further, the Sophists grasp well to some extent.
1132 L. V. k. V, 462 f. 47. refutation of Latomus. W. xvm, 1392-1395. 1133
what the essence of sin is, namely offense against God and transgression of the law of God; but how it is constituted, according to the category 1) of size, nature, relationship, activity and suffering, of this they know nothing here. Therefore, I will deal with it here in such a way that I will only answer once to everything that Latomus has brought forward, so that the booklet will not become excessively large if I go through everything in detail; for one must spare the reader.
So, to speak very roughly for the sophists, let us deal with sin according to their categories, whether they might follow us. Sin without metaphor, wherever it may be found, is in truth sin according to its nature, and the one is not more sin than the other, according to the peculiarity of the being, which does not tolerate more and less. But one may be greater and stronger than the other, just as one being is greater than the other; for the fly is not less a being than man, the weak man not less than the strong. Furthermore, lest they catch me in words, I take "being" here not according to the custom of Aristotle, but according to that of Quintilian, in such a way that of every thing in the world one can first say what it is, then how great, then how it is constituted, and so on; as Aristotle also always observes, as often as he discusses something; but the Sophists also assign to each category its essence (quidditatem). For thus, if one wants to deal with justice, one must arrange the main points (locos) of speech according to the categories, first, what it is, according to its essence; then, how great it is, how it is constituted, to whom it belongs, what it deals with, what it suffers, where it is, at what time it is, what it has, how it behaves. For this understanding of the categories would, in my opinion, be immensely useful for eloquence, for memory, for the mind, and for the knowledge of things, if it were properly practiced; but it is completely unknown to the sophistical schools.
1) The philosophers distinguish different types of statement, which they call categories. Aristotle has ten of them: essence, size, nature, relation, place, time, circumstances, ability, activity, suffering.
This essential sin (as said before) the sophists understand to some extent; but after baptism and after the infusion of God's power, it is such that it is not yet completely nothing, but it is broken and subdued, so that it is no longer able to do what it was able to do. But what was it able to do? It made us guilty before God, plagued the conscience tyrannically and dragged it from day to day into greater evil. It was powerful in size, nature and activity, it ruled in place and time, because everywhere and at all times, in all powers, at every hour it kept the upper hand. In the category of suffering, however, it was nothing, for it did not bear the punishment of the law; it did not even want to be touched. Then she had knocked out her seat in the heart, turned her face downward and hurried toward hell. Furthermore, her relationship was the very worst, because she opposed grace, an object of God's wrath and anger. Thus she ruled; we served her.
But when the kingdom of God had come, this kingdom was divided, the prince of the world was cast out, and the head of the serpent was trampled down except for the yeast and a few remnants, which are to be exterminated. Thus, after the children of Israel entered the land of Canaan, all the kings were killed and their power was trampled underfoot, but the remnant of the Jebusites, Cananites and Amorites remained (as Judges, Cap. 1, is written), a natural and genuine part of those extirpated peoples, but in such a way that they were servants, but did not rule or equal the children of Israel, whom later David, when the kingdom was established, completely exterminated. Thus, having been called into the kingdom of faith through the grace of baptism, we too attain dominion over sin, all its powers having been crushed. Only in the members there still remain remnants that murmur unwillingly and have the kind and nature of their exterminated race about them, which we must eliminate by our own struggle. But this will happen when our David will sit on the throne of his majesty after the fortification of the kingdom.
Around this leftover sin revolves
the question between me and the sophists, whether it is in truth to be considered sin or not? And, as it is said, they cannot deny that it is called sin by the apostle, as they would like, therefore they take refuge in the interpretations and distinctions of the fathers, so that they have even brought it about that the word of Paul is silenced in the whole world and there is no one left who calls this sin by the name as Paul calls it; making this out to be an inconsistent and dangerous name, as if the Holy Spirit had not been careful enough, or had not known the right words with which to speak of his own things without danger, and to teach us to speak.
Therefore, in order to reintroduce the use of the Pauline word, let us here deny all the sayings of all the fathers in one heap, they may call this remnant evil desire, weakness, punishment, imperfection, error or whatever else they want. We hold up to them our apostle Paul, that is, the apostle of the Gentiles, the so fruitful writer, who calls it not only sin in one place, but sin at all times, and never punishment, never imperfection, never weakness. Even Augustine, although he is the highest of all, was not allowed to change Paul's word and invent another one for it.
So we say: If they prove, whether from the inconsistency of the opinion, or from the context, that this sin is not truly sin, then we will yield and admit that sin in this place does not mean sin, but punishment, but otherwise we will not yield even to an angel from heaven who would say otherwise. What more do you want, you sophists? And I certainly consider the fathers excused, who, partly in temptation, partly forced by necessity, firmly denied that sin remained after baptism, because they argued with those who downright denied grace. Therefore, in order to emphasize it [grace], they claimed that all sins were taken away. And their speech was very fine and puffing with the subject of which they were dealing, for
the opponents argued with regard to the prevailing sin and denied that it is taken away, which is ungodly; for in truth the whole sin is erased, that it now absolutely no longer prevails. Yet Augustine himself in many places calls it plainly, both error and sin, e.g. in the Epistle to Jerome, wherein he says that no one has so great a love in this life that it should not increase. "And that which is lacking underneath is a defect," he says, and then goes on to say, "For the sake of this defect no living person is justified before God. For the sake of this defect, if we would say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. For this fault there is no righteous man on earth who does good and does not find." So much for Augustine. Here you see that Augustine also understood this scriptural saying in such a way that the one who does good sins because he works in the love that is not yet sufficiently established, which he calls error, by explaining that nothing else is lacking in such a work than complete love. Is this not clear enough?
But also Latomus cites some of the same, where he always refers to the same opinion as an error; although I, as I said, do not absolutely believe Augustine, so that the opponent does not say that I only rely on him, where he is in my favor. For my sake, he may contradict himself, as Latomus enforces, that does not deprive me of anything. However, since Latomus was struck on the head by these thunderbolts, so that he was out of his mind and not with himself for a long time, and saw that he had condemned Augustine in Luther, which all the sophists could not see before the presumption 1), he thought when he finally came to himself again: What shall I do? It is a shame to be defeated. This is what I want to do; I want to imagine that the Latin language, together with the Greek and Hebrew, has been wiped out by the power of my dialogue 2) on the entire globe, or, if there are still some surplus languages, that they have been destroyed.
1) ante tsiEi-itatsm, i.e. before they vermefsentlich burned Luther's books.
2) This refers to Latomus' writing published in 1519: vs trinru UnZnarnm, 6t studli tÜ6oloZIoi ration6 äialoZnL.
I will say: just as I say of this sin that it is not sin, so that is not a language; for the pope has approved of our deed; so it will be easy for me to force all the rest of the world to get the meanings of the words from the theological faculty of Louvain. Therefore, because the word "error" occurs so frequently in Augustine that it is even more hostile than the word "sin" in Paul, we have decreed and commanded by virtue of our faculty that it should mean an error as we want it to mean, namely, an imperfection, not something that is lacking and yet need not be lacking, or something that would go against the law of God. But if anyone should say otherwise, let him know that he will fall into the disfavor of the bull and into its tail 1). Given under the seal 2c
I ask you, my dear reader, who are astonished that I thus play my game against these sophists, whether my grief is not justified at such outrageous presumption and insolent intrigues? Should I not mock them? since they are not satisfied to have the Scriptures of God, the sayings of the Fathers, the convincing reasons for mockery, but also continue to muzzle the whole world and virtually turn all men into beasts, as if we did not even understand our language. All centuries, the whole world calls "fault" also that which is contrary to moral virtues, and the expression is quite common of vices and virtues, even their Aristotle calls sins no other than "faults". And yet they dare to step out, want to deny our, their, divine and all things, and speak to the face of all that "error" is not only not said against virtues, but also not against grace. Then behold, lions, your murderers, the enemies of languages and of truth; and you, Roman Antichrist, behold, your planters!
Therefore, let us despise these whores and join Augustine with Paul; what the latter calls sin, the latter calls
1) I.e. that he will incur the wrath of the Bull's adherents.
Fault. But error, we know, is something that has guilt and reproach and is worthy of punishment, even in bodily things. This is what the whole Latin language says. Let us therefore hear Paul on sin, who Rom. 8, 3. f. thus speaks: "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemning sin in the flesh by sin, that righteousness, required by the law, might be fulfilled in us, who now walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." What does this mean: sin is condemned by sin? We have said that Christ was made sin for us, as it is said in 2 Cor. 5:21: "He made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become in him the righteousness that is before God." Here he puts both kinds of sin in both places: the metaphorical or allegorical is Christ; a sin by which he condemned our real sin. For that our sin is taken away, to whom do we owe this but to Christ, who was made sin for us; not at all to our powers or merits, but to the sin of God, that is, to Him whom God made sin? I ask now, why did he not say, "he destroyed sin," but carefully puts, "he condemned sin"? Because we do not believe with the Louvain sophists that Paul lacked the words, who was to be a chosen armor, foreseen to speak also in chosen and proper words. Who then is condemned? Then he adds, "in the flesh," by which he virtually asserts that it is sin in the flesh, but damned. He is condemned who has not only been caught in the act of highway robbery or committed a serious crime, who has not only been caught and imprisoned, but who has been judged and led to execution after a death sentence has been passed, so that nothing more can happen to him than that he be put to death, even if he has not yet been executed. What virtue has such a murderer?
So also through baptism sin is caught in us, judged, and completely debilitated, so that it is powerless, and is given over to complete destruction. But whoever consents to this damned [sin], he perishes
John 16:8, 11: "The Spirit will punish the world for the judgment that the ruler of this world is judged. We must believe that sin is condemned and that this judgment is right, and carry it out. But what are the bonds of this captivity? Is. 11, 5: "Righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faith the girdle of his kidneys." So it is said in Ps. 68, 19: "Thou hast ascended on high, and hast caught the captivity; thou hast received gifts for men." But who does not know that a robber, when he is free, is a robber in the same way as when he is a prisoner? But his power is extinguished, so that nothing is weaker than he, since death is very near to him, he only cannot do what a robber would like to do; he is therefore miserable, but still a robber, for if he were let go, he would do what a robber does. So also sin in us after baptism is really sin, according to its nature, but only in its essence, not in its extension, not in its nature, not in its activity, but in suffering completely. For there is absolutely the same impulse to anger and to pleasure in the godly and the godless, the same before grace and after grace; but in grace it does nothing, apart from grace it reigns. Therefore Paul saith Rom. 8:2, "The law of the Spirit, which maketh alive in Christ JEsu, hath made me free from the law of sin and death." Why did he not say, "has made me free from sin and death"? Has not Christ made us free at the same time from sin and death? But he [Paul] is talking about the actual work of the law of the Spirit, which is to accomplish what Christ deserved. Christ, however, has absolved and freed all at once from sin and death, earning for us "the law of the Spirit which quickeneth." So what has this Spirit of life done? He has not yet set us free from death, he has not yet set us free from sin; but he will set us free from it one day; for we must still die, still labor in sins. But from the law of sin and death he has set us free, that is, from the kingdom and tyranny of sin and death, so that sin does exist.
but has lost its dominion and is unable to do anything; and death is still imminent, but since it has lost its sting, it can no longer harm or frighten. See already two passages in which Paul calls the evil that remains after baptism sin.
Therefore Paul commands Rom. 8, 13. and Col. 3, 5. to kill the members that are on earth, anger, shameful lust, avarice and the like, using clear words and calling them no longer just sin but by their own names: Wrath, shameful lust, avarice. But these new linguists will persuade us that these are not names of vices and sins; for the apostle writes to the saints and believers. They may therefore imagine that shameful rutting is not a vice in this place, but a punishment of sin and a certain imperfection, not against the law of God. Was it not also a punishment of sin before baptism? Why was it sin then? Or did the imputation alone change the matter and the essence? Therefore, you will have to fill almost the entire Paul with new words and scratch out the old original ones. Thus Rom. 6:12: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to render unto it obedience in the lusts thereof." What could have been said more clearly? Sin is in the body, and the lust for it, but one should see to it that it does not reign. Here is already the third passage. The fourth is there [v. 14]: "For sin shall not have dominion over you, because ye are not under the law, but under grace." Behold, he writes to such as live under grace, saying that sin shall not have dominion over them; which must be understood worse, not of the outward, but of the inward. For who can resist the outward and prevent another from sinning? The fifth passage there [v. 6]: "Our old man is crucified together with him [Christ], that the sinful body might cease." Our man, he says, is crucified, and yet the sinful body must cease in the same people, in us. In no way does he mean to say that he [Christ] destroys the imperfect body or the sinful body. Behold, there we have five clear-
There are only a few passages in which Paul mentions sin, not counting those which we have not yet listed, where he uses individual names of sins. And these smoke-selling, miserable people want to force all these heavenly thunderbolts to give way to them, on an invented, miserable explanation, which they have put forward from their own head and which has not even been proved with a single scripture. For of the seventh chapter, which belongs entirely here, we will deal below.
What now? Are we sinners? Rather, we are justified, but by grace. Righteousness is not based on the forms of condition, but on the mercy of God. For indeed, if you take away mercy from the pious, they are sinners and have true sin; but because they believe and are under the realm of mercy, and sin is condemned and continually killed in them, it is not imputed to them. Such is this exceeding glorious forgiveness through baptism; and certainly, if the matter be considered attentively, it is almost greater to count him righteous who is still afflicted with sins than he who is altogether pure. May it not be said, then, that baptism does not take away all sins? In truth, it takes away all, not according to the essence, but only mostly according to the essence and the whole [sin] according to its powers, at the same time it also takes away the same daily according to the essence, so that it may be destroyed. And I am not the only one or the first among men after the apostles who says this. The words of Augustine are: "In baptism all sin is remitted, not that it is not, but that it is not imputed." Do you hear? There is still sin after forgiveness, but it is not imputed. Is it not enough for you that this unspeakable mercy of God justifies you completely from all sin and keeps you as if you were without sin, only that you should continue to kill what is already condemned by Him and set near death? Latomus, then, shows an inconsistency, and forces that the apostle is not to be understood of true sin in the proper sense of the word. But, you will say, the "not
To be imputed" is as much as no sin. This is what I want, that it should not be attributed to the nature of the work, but to mercy, which does not impute it. But Latomus sets aside the pardon of mercy altogether, and wills that it be not sin according to its nature; but this is a robbery of God.
Hereby, I believe, it is defended that every good work is sin, if mercy does not forgive. For even they themselves cannot deny that the fruit bears the nature of the tree. But of the tree it is already proved that it is not without sin, though it is already condemned and forgiven; therefore also its work is not without sin, though it is condemned and forgiven. Here also Augustine says in the first book of his Retractations, Cap. 19, where he discusses whether the commandments of God are fulfilled in this life, and concludes, "All the commandments of God are fulfilled, if that which is not done is forgiven." Does he not clearly say here, not by the works done, but by the forgiving mercy of God would the commandments be fulfilled? But what is forgiven if not sin? So it is clear that the sophists hang on to mere sophistical twisting of words when they say it is not sin, and yet admit that it is called sin by Paul, so that according to them you can say: the good work is not sin and yet is that which is called sin. In the same way before from the impossibility: The commandment of God is not impossible and yet is that which is called impossible; as if you imitated Demodocus in Aristotle and said: The lions are not fools, but they do what fools do, namely, they make such a game that they do not allow the words "sin" and "impossible" to be used publicly in any sense at all, for no other reason than because they have contradicted, lest our magisters should be disgraced by the truth.
And because we have talked about sin here, I want to remind the reader in advance, so that he may have something to answer briefly to all the objections of Latomus. First of all, notice how Latomus goes along in everything-
as if the sin I claim is nothing and as if it has long since been overcome, as is the way of the sophists to triumph before victory and to assume in the most erroneous way that which is first to be proven as proven. Therefore, whatever he can gather from the Scriptures and the Fathers, in which it is denied that the faithful sin, that, he believes, belongs here, so that he may refer me. So you use Paul's word to Romans 6:12: "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body", so that you know that it is something else, sin reigns, and something else, sin is reigned. Do you understand? For so you can also say, after the manner of Latomus, that it is something else, wanting sin, and something else, performing sin, while it is the same sin, such as theft or murder. Say, then, when he comes with clouds of testimonies: Lord Counter and not Hunter of Testimonies, you prove very well that there is not sin ruling in the saints or their works, but you do not prove that ruled sin is not there, like the one to which Paul points when he says: "Do you not render obedience in their 1) lusts"; their, their, do you hear it, Mr. Latomus? Theirs, that is, sin, which shall not reign in the body, and yet is in the body with its lusts. For Luther never said of the reigning sin that it was in the saints; so you do not do right that you promise something different than you deliver; you want to refute Luther and refute some dream image that you have made.
Z. For example, when Paul says, 1 Cor. 7, 28: "If a virgin is free, she does not sin; and if you are free, you do not sin." This is what Ew. Glory states against Luther, and you do not prove that it is the same with: "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body"; consequently he speaks of reigning sin, which the whole context proves, because he speaks of the saints,
1) According to the Vulgate. In some editions of the German Bible, e.g. the Weimar of 1686 and the Hirschberg, Rom. 6, 12: "in their lusts" refers to "sin" as it is taken here; while other editions have: "in his lusts" referring to "body".
in which there is no sin. Did not Luther also say, much stronger than you, according to 1 John 3:9: "Whoever is born of God does not sin and cannot sin"? For being born of God and sinning contradict each other. "The virgin freeth and sinneth not" is less than "she cannot sin". Paul expresses this in Rom. 6, 14: "Sin will not be able to reign over you," that is, you cannot sin, "because you are not under the law, but under grace."
For even Latomus, who says, "If a virgin is free, she does not sin," and Luther, who says, "If a virgin is free, she cannot sin," cannot deny that a free virgin sins in the performance of the duty of the flesh, as all unanimously declare, and Ps. 51:7. proves, "Behold, I am begotten of sinful seed, and, my mother conceived me in sins." How, then, does the freewoman sin and yet not sin? Or does Latomus mean to limit the word "free" to mean that it is only used in betrothal before the conjugal meeting? I do not believe that he wants to practice his sophistries so openly, but he may do so. What then does he want to say to the commandment that he [Paul] sends there before [v. 3]: "The husband owes the wife friendship, likewise the wife to the husband"? Does he not here teach the work of generation in sins of which David speaks? But the free man surrenders to this work from the heart. But also Latomus says that the saints sin more often, so also a virgin can be free, that a venial sin runs along; consequently, a virgin who frees, contrary to the apostle's teaching, must sin.
But behold the bold apostle, who, without seeking the consent of the theological faculty at Louvain, goes on to say [v. 5.], "Withdraw not one from another, except by the consent of both for a season, that ye may have leisure to pray; and come together again, lest Satan tempt you for your unchastity." What are you doing, Paul? Without the letter and seal of the theological faculty of Louvain, you dare to assume unchastity in the saints, and
even in those whom you teach that they should have leisure for prayer? Truly, you are a Tatian, defender of the Cataphrygians 1) that you entangle marriage with sin, yes, not only marriage, but the saints of God. And all the ballast that Latomus cites in inconsistencies against Luther now falls on you, and it will come to such a point that your books will be burned, then afterwards a terrible bull will prove those faithful cultivators of the Lord's field right, and Latomus will stand up and prove in a detailed justification that that unchastity is not unchastity, but weakness and punishment. And when Satan tempts them, he tempts them not to unchastity, but to weakness. Then if by any chance they have consented to unchastity, they have consented not to sin but to weakness and punishment, and therefore if they sin, they will not sin. Behold what a shameful heretic you will be.
Moreover, it must happen hereafter that all divine commandments have not forbidden sin, but the weakness and punishment of sin; and a new theology will come into the world, that it is sin to consent not to sin, but to weakness and punishment. And God will not have forbidden to shun sin, but the weaknesses and punishments of sin; and the meaning of Paul Rom. 6, 12. will be: Therefore do not let the punishment of sin reign in your mortal body, or: Therefore do not let weakness reign in your body, to obey it in its lusts. Again, sin must consent to that which is not sinful and condemned. Truly, a whole new reason for sin! The weakness is neither sin, nor condemned, and yet, if you consent to a thing that is neither condemned, nor establishes guilt, you have sinned!
Therefore, if these sophists had wanted the pious souls to be counseled, they would have left aside all twisting of words and would have simply explained the matter as they did.
1) Perhaps this refers to the "encratites" who abstained from marriage as a work of the evil spirit. Cf. Guericke's Kirchengeschgesch, 7th ed.
is presented something like this: Behold, my dear brethren, we confess that good works please God, and that we are altogether saved by them; but they are not so good that they are without sin, but that they are done in strife against sin. For in this very thing the whole good work consists, that sin is in us, and we contend with ourselves, that it reign not, and we render not obedience to its lusts. For although the severity of God's law might also require this, that this struggle not be in us, because He did not create us this way from the beginning, for "God made man righteous; but they seek many arts" (saith the wise man [Eccl. 7:30.), for through this evil we are hindered from being completely in His law, and that part of us which contends with us is contrary to His law: yet He has promised mercy and forgiveness to all who at least do not agree with this part, but fight against it and seek to destroy it. This endeavor pleases God, not because it is worthy of him, but because he has had mercy on us and promised to accept us.
Therefore, do not puff yourself up or become arrogant; you have cause in yourself to fear judgment and severity and to take refuge in mercy alone. For by their mercy, not by your running, your works are good. You must therefore judge yourself differently according to the severity of God's judgment than according to the gentleness of His mercy. And you will not separate these two points of view in this life. According to the former, all your works are stained and impure because of the part of you that is hostile to God; but according to the latter, you are completely pure and righteous. And that thou mayest be so, thou hast the sign of baptism for a witness, wherein all sins are forgiven thee in the fullest truth; forgiven, I say, wholly, but not yet all taken away. For we believe without a doubt that in it there has been a forgiveness of all sins; but we act and expect daily that there will also be a remission and a complete destruction of all sins in every respect; and those who work toward this end do good works. Behold, this is my faith, well this
is the Catholic faith. But the sophists, who combat this, deal with it by setting up for us a confidence in works, and by weakening both the work of divine mercy and of divine judgment, as it is said of them in the 10th Psalm [v. 5.], "Thy judgments are far from him." And therefore they also pervert the fear of God and our trust; otherwise they would still be to suffer and to bear, if they did not seek to destroy and desolate this our fallen lot and chief bulwark of blessedness, and in lesser things do their antics or be senseless.
But, you will object to me, this is your and a new distinction between a ruling and dominated sin, which is set up according to your arbitrariness. I answer: If it is so, then despise it, I do not want to argue about words, you make yourself another one; at least the word "ruling sin" is not my invention, but a saying of Paul. Call thou that which reigneth not by what name thou wilt, though for me also the saying speaks, Gen. 4:7: "But leave not thou her will, but reign over her." Here, certainly, sin is described as a subject. But even the sophists are forced to admit that venial sin is something different from mortal sin. And while they claim that the venial sin does not harm, does not rule, does not condemn, they nevertheless call it a very real and actually so called sin. They do not make it a sin of a different kind or nature because the former is mortal, the latter venial, but claim of each that it is a deviation from the law of God and contrary to the law of God. And I ask nothing more than that they permit me to call that remnant after baptism sin in the same way as they call the venial, namely, that this [remnant] is in need of mercy and is by its nature evil and a fault; if you consent to this, you have also made it [the sinner] a ruling one and have served it and sinned mortally. In this I have Paul in the already enough mentioned passage Rom. 6, 12. for me, from which I do not want to be torn away.
I say they cannot deny that after baptism two evils remain, sin and the lust for it. Paul's words are clear, sin, the tinder itself, is the natural evil, and lust is its impulse. This, he says, must not be obeyed, that must be destroyed, "that the sinful body," saith he, [v. 6.], "may cease." So they may call those two as they please, but they are not to deny that Paul says such things. Killed and destroyed Paul wants them to be, because they are condemned to death, consequently they are evil faults and sins. For infirmities, perishable things (mortalitates) and punishments do not fall under a commandment, nor can they be placed in our free will. For who could kill death and punishments but God alone without us? But commandments are given about sins and that which makes us guilty. So when He commands us to kill, not to obey them, He certainly does not understand punishments, not things subject to corruption, not weaknesses, but sins. For what kind of a law would that be: You shall not obey weakness; you shall not obey fever; you shall not obey hunger and thirst; you shall not obey nakedness and bonds, or the evil desire for any of these things? are these not also weaknesses, punishments, transitory things? but sin, the sinner, and their whispers, which are also sin, shall not be obeyed.
But it is foolish for us to labor with so many words in a matter so completely obvious, since we have the apostle who asserts it in clear, explicit words as sin and evil desire. He who is not reassured by Paul's words, will he be persuaded by ours? Rather, what would they have done if Paul had spoken darkly, and had put for sin evil or weakness? or instead of obeying and not ruling, had said watch or abstain? just as Peter speaks [1 Ep. 2, 11.], "Abstain from fleshly lusts," how sure, how glad triumphs would they have celebrated here? But now, since they cannot resist the light and the day, they seek to cover clouds over it, and at the
The fathers were not to create darkness in the light of day, so that sin would not be sin and so that it would appear as if Paul had lied. And even if the fathers seemed to be in favor of this, one must not adhere to them, but rather to Paul, even if they had spoken the truth, because they speak darker and more ineffectually than Paul. Paul's words are too clear to need any interpretation; indeed, they are darkened by every interpretation. However, although, as I said, the Fathers also sometimes call this sin and error, they speak more often of the prevailing sin.
Therefore I would like to answer our sophists, who fight me with the sayings of the fathers, thus: You prove quite clear words with dark ones and discuss divine with human. Therefore, because even your Aristotle has forbidden this, to prove the unknown with the unknown, the dark with the dark, let alone the clear with the dark, I convict you as clumsy disputants, who in the whole trade and at all times do nothing but set up as proof in the most erroneous way what is still to be proved. The summa of Luther's answer and refutation against Latomus' reasoning is this: If in the cited passages of the Apostle Paul it can be proved that the word sin is not sin in the true and proper sense of the word, Luther falls; if it cannot be proved, Latomus falls. But it cannot be proved except by certain sayings of the fathers, which contradict each other, and which, moreover, are human, even if they do not contradict each other; divine sayings must be preferred to them, without whose testimony nothing may be asserted as certain: consequently Latomus and all his things fall, and Luther stands with all his things.
However, I praise Latomus' loyalty and constancy. Once he had taken it upon himself to defend the cause of the stubborn sophists, he does nothing that would be unworthy of the wisdom and stubbornness of a sophist, but pulls, corrupts, twists, forces everything divine and human that is against them wherever he pleases. We have already seen this above, since so many testimonies of the Scriptures prove that it is unworthy of us.
possible to fulfill the commandment of God, that there can be nothing clearer. But, like the deaf vipers, they block their ears against it [Ps. 58, 5.] and turn away their eyes, only to keep this their only decree before the people, which they once brought forward: "Cursed be he who says that God has commanded us impossible things." This human word must prevail, this must be approved by all, this must not be shaken with any explanation. But the divine thunderbolts must be concealed and left lying around, yes, even arbitrary interpretations of any jack must be allowed. A man's word is holy and venerable, but God's word is exposed to desecration.
So also here; while so many holy thunderbolts testify that sin and evil desire still remained after baptism, as they e.g. also call anger, pleasure, avarice, indifference with such names. While so many holy thunderbolts testify that there is still sin and evil desire left after baptism, as, for example, they call anger, lust, avarice, and indifference by such names with which, according to the conception of all men, sins and faults are called in every language, these insolent foreheads nevertheless rise up, cover their ears, close their eyes, and turn away their hearts, only so that this human word of theirs may fill all ears, that this alone may claim the place against which no one may even complain, namely, that only punishment and weakness remain after baptism. In the face of this, divine revelations must remain silent, Paul must give way to this, our daily experience and that of all the saints must also give way to this. If they do not do this, then they should put on a mask and under the term sin imagine an imperfection and weakness, and be careful that they do not make themselves comfortable with our interpretations. For this also Latomus has confessed above, that the saints many times sin (in his meaning of sin) unawares, out of ignorance, and in other ways, what Paul calls "the lusts of sin in the mortal body," to which we are not to obey, that is, not to consent. For one cannot give assent to anything ignorantly, or in haste, or contrary to his will; for indeed he said that they sin contrary to their will. But because Paul calls this sin, he is forced to understand sin as punishment,
and that for no other reason than because the spirit and not a man has said it, so that it is entirely at the discretion of the sophists what must be sin and what must be punishment. Dear, whom should such more than Moabite impudence not inflame?
But you will object: Do you then not believe the sayings of the fathers? I answer: I shall believe? Who commanded that one should believe them? Where is a commandment of God concerning this faith? Why then did they themselves not believe their fathers? especially Augustine, who wished to be free and commanded that all should be free with respect to the writings of all men? Because the Sophists have imposed on us such a tyranny and captivity of our liberty, until they have even forced us not to contradict the twice accursed Aristotle, but to submit to him: should we therefore remain forever in this slavery, and not breathe a sigh of Christian liberty at last, and sigh for our Scriptures after returning from this Babel? But they were saints and put the Scriptures in the right light, you say. Who then has proved that the Scripture was made light by them? how, if they had darkened it? On what grounds do you prove that they have made the Scripture light? Do you want to say in Löwenisch or Kölnisch: It seems so to me, and so they say? For my sake it may seem so to them and they may say so, but let them prove it to me or stop forcing their vain words on me. I am not commanded to believe their dreams, but the words of God. Only One is the Master, Christ, and the fathers are to be tested according to the guide of divine Scripture, that it may be known which they have made light, and which they have made dark; as Paul commanded [1 Thess. 5, 21.], "Test all things, and keep that which is good"; and 1 Cor. 14, 29. "But let the diviners speak, two or three, and let the others judge." He who commanded all things to be tested did not exempt any man, not Augustine, not Jerome, not Origen, not even the Antichrist, the pope.
But the dark writing needs explanation.
Leave it where it is dark; keep it where it is clear. And who has proved that the fathers are not dark? Again, your "It seems so" and that "They say"? For what do the fathers also but seek and bring forward the clearest and plainest testimonies of Scripture? Poor Christians, whose word and faith are still based on interpretations of men and expect enlightenment from them; this is frivolous and godless. The Scriptures are common to all, clear enough, as far as it is necessary for salvation, also dark enough for spirits who want to search [rashly]. Let each one follow his calling in this rich and common word of God; but let us either reject the words of men or read them with judgment. This is enough on this saying, and left more than enough.
Third.
He turns to Paul, Rom. 7. Here Latomus confirms my opinion most strongly and reveals how he did not write this book out of zeal for the truth, but with the intention of corrupting and deceiving the world, only to turn away from himself the disgrace of murdering and robbing God. For no matter how defiant and stiff-necked he is in other respects, he goes through Paul's words so pale and trembling, silent and cautious, as if he feared with every little bag that some abyss might open up and swallow the poor little sophist. But after he had survived these dangers and come into his field, where he had free play, there he gathers together the sayings of the fathers, as if he thought it a miracle that a reader who is persevering and idle while sitting can patch together and pile up much that does not belong to the matter, perhaps hoping and intending to scare me off by the quantity, that I would not write again, since a book of quite infinite size would be needed to answer his individual points. But this hope will deceive him, because since my scriptural passages have been proven, he is just thereby thrown down, so that a special answer to all individual points is not necessary. The sum of Latomus' evasion is therefore this: That,
What is said here by Paul proves nothing else than that after baptism there still remains a weakness, which may be called sin; but that nevertheless the Spirit, when he governs this weakness, works the good in such a way that it is not to be regarded as a sin worthy of condemnation, nor that therefore man sins in a good work, or serves sin.
Here you see, first of all, how Latomus only wants to drag the matter out, to distract the reader from it, and to waste time by treating a completely different question than the one he is talking about. For he has taken upon himself to treat the question of sin pardonable by mercy; for that I speak of this, he himself has testified in more than one place. And with all and after all this clamor of testimonies he comes to the following conclusion: Behold, it is not a damnable sin; whereas he should have concluded thus: Behold, it is not a sin, not even a pardonable one, not even one for which mercy would be necessary. Just as if you had rebuked me for calling laughter a venial sin, and then, after you had spewed out all your zeal and wasted your sweat, you would finally say to me with a sigh of relief: Behold, laughter is not a mortal sin. In this way also Elihu disputed against Job [Cap. 18]. But do you consider it a small test of patience to endure such unworthiness, deceitful plots and artifices from those who set themselves up as teachers of the whole world in such a holy and necessary matter? I do not complain now that they do not know what sin is, but that they so maliciously dissemble and say that they know it very well, and with their insolent lie deceive so many godly hearts.
But the frightened and fleeting sophist gives me confidence. I will set Paul before his face, so that he cannot escape; I will chase after him and seize him, and will not turn back until he perishes [Ps. 18, 38]. Either Latomus shall kill Paul, or Paul shall kill Latomus, who leans in vain on human help. I ask first of all: Am I, as a Christian confessor of the gospel, allowed to
To call sin what the apostle Paul calls sin? I am not discussing what the meaning of sin is, I will come to that later. I simply want to be answered whether I am allowed to use this Pauline word? If it is not permitted, eradicate Paul; but if it is permitted, why do the sophists shout against me with such cruel words because I have called a good work sin? Is it not also lawful for them to call a good work imperfect and weak? What now? Are they going to force me to use their words? Or why don't they want to be forced to use my words and Paul's words? They will not call it sin; well! and I will not call it weakness and imperfection. "But yet the holy fathers took sin for imperfection and weakness." Well! but who will compel me to use the words of the fathers? who will compel me to let Paul's word go? Or perhaps they want to say, because it is inconsistent and dangerous? But this is not against me, Luther, but against Paul and the Spirit of Christ.
But you don't need the word sin the way Paul did. Who told you that? The comparison of the fathers with you. Who made this comparison? Us! Who are you? Who has made you sure that you are not mistaken? Perhaps because the bull approved of you? Yes, who made you sure that the fathers interpreted the word of Paul correctly? Do you hear, what are you murmuring? So you see that everything the sophists have put forward so far comes from their own head; but with you Latomus, as the leader of the sophists, I have to speak especially. The cause weighs on your shoulders, for you lead such and such a great cause as neither Cicero nor Demosthenes led. I accuse you before God and men as murderers, robbers of God, murderers and violators of Christian divinity. So do not think that you can still argue and play your game; it is a serious matter that we are conducting.
Because you are seized in disgrace (because in the beginning you were seeking glory,
This is the reason why you roar, thunder, rage, and with your ears closed you do not want to hear anyone, but with nonsensical shouting you only raise this: There is no sin, there is no sin, there is no sin in a good work. Therefore, all that I bring up, interpret and expound is nothing. Only against such a word you rage so, for no other reason than because you have condemned it and fear that it would be resurrected by Paul to your shame, so that Latomus with unbelievable impudence interprets just this word set by me in all places for damnable and mortal sin. What is supposed to mean only a weakness in Paul, he interprets everywhere with suppression of my own interpretation as badly and spitefully as possible, since he even confessed that I speak of a forgivable one, in that he wants the world to believe that I call sin what he himself wants to be considered sin, this honorable and truth-loving man. Again, in Paul, he interprets it so weakly as to nullify the word altogether. What a powerful writer Latomus is, who has the right to sharpen and suppress the words, not according to the intention of the scribes, but according to his will! But I promise thee and all the world that I will not use the word otherwise than Paul, for which I invoke the name of the Lord to resist me if I should use it otherwise. What more do you want? But I will keep the word itself, but I will not keep your words and the words of the fathers, you must know that. I will, I say, call sin what you call lack or imperfection; will you force me otherwise? I do not care for your clamor, however boisterous, which I see you make not without cause, lest you be defeated and be found to have wantonly plunged yourselves into so great a disgrace; but this you should have considered before.
Let us now come to the meaning of this word. Paul calls sin that which remains after baptism; the Fathers do not call it sin, but weakness and imperfection. Here we stand at
a crossroads; I will follow Paul, you will follow the fathers. I exclude Augustine because he really calls it a mistake and injustice with round words.
We now come on to the main point of the dispute, namely, whether such sin, or, as you will, such weakness, by its nature, or by the forgiving mercy alone, is not contrary to God and His law. Is this not the short epitome of our argument? I have Paul's expression for me. Everyone knows what the denotes, namely, that which by its nature is against God (if it is not forgiven). You have, as it seems to you, the fathers for you, who are to claim that it is not contrary to God and His law by its nature. First, you do not prove that this is the opinion of the fathers, but all that you introduce can easily be rejected by me when I say they speak of sin [not] 1) except mercy. For they say quite rightly: this sin under mercy (so I would say according to my way of thinking) accuses absolutely no one, does not condemn, does not harm, has absolutely nothing in common with sin apart from mercy. Do I not also say so, Latomus? What kind of theft from God is there with me, since we have come together at the goal, that each of us claims, I: this sin has no evil in it, you (as you call it): this weakness has no evil in it. Why do you rage so against me and accuse me so harshly, since you cannot prove anything from the fathers other than what I have said? Is it because I do not follow your head, since you condemned and burned me without judgment? But I am neither frightened nor made flexible by audacity and fire, dear Latomus.
But after all, there may be among the Fathers some one whom I have not yet seen, for I know Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Gregory and Bernard, so that you hold so many clouds 2) before me in vain. But it may be one who claims that what is left [after baptism] belongs to his
1) Walch has correctly noted here: It seems that the little word "not" is missing.
2) I.e. pile of testimonies.
nature is not against God, nor against His law, and who denies that it is not against God and His law by the forgiving mercy of God alone. If you were to find such a one (but I hope you will find him in that which gives birth to a mule), what did you promote? What aligned? What conquered? Who will make me certain that this is Paul's opinion? Or will I not be at liberty to doubt his [the church father's] opinion? May I not murmur thus to myself: The man is indeed holy, but how if he were a man, and were here putting forward human things? Who knows if there is not something else hidden in the apostle, which he does not see? Especially since Paul calls it sin so freely and openly, who, if he had wanted to, could have spoken just as he speaks. Who gave him the right to interpret a law to us [and to demand] that it should be understood in this way? Let no man among you lay down a law, saith Christ [Luc. 11:46; Matt. 23:4]. Would you, O Latomus, with your sophists condemn this thought of a godly heart to fire or rope? How, if he could not do otherwise, and just cause were there, because he is certain that God speaks in Paul, whose words are to be reverenced, but not to be violated? With that [church father] he is not sure whether God or a man is speaking.
What shall we do here? You will say: We want to go to reason and common sense. I thank you for that. So we are rid of the reputation of all men in this matter. Your reason will therefore be such that it boasts of flowing from an article of faith, namely, that we believe that in baptism forgiveness of all sins is given to us, as Paul teaches in many places. For this is the reason which your fathers also have, and it pleases me. But what is it that Paul cared so little about this reason that he called what is left after the forgiveness of all sins sin? But the fathers he is said to have induced to deny sin, as you say. You have invented a distinction of sin to save that reason and the word of Paul, since you have
you could in no way bring these two into agreement with each other, and yet you cannot prove this very distinction with any passage of Scripture, but it is a human finding, as you cannot deny, but (as it seems to you) a necessary one because of the reason given before. Is it not so? Do I not understand your things? and against them I have set up nothing by mistake or ignorance, so that I would not have needed you at all as a master.
If now, through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, I should have found a way that both the conscience against the articles of faith would remain unharmed, and Paul at the same time would remain unharmed, and would not need to make any violent and outrageous change with his word, but to take it simply, actually, and in the right way in the meaning that it can have elsewhere, thereby also satisfying the reason that urges you to take away the right meaning of the word in this passage alone, that is, in Paul, and nowhere else in Scripture: would you deny it to me? And if you would not accept it, would you also deprive me of my joy, since we would agree beautifully in the epitome of things? But I would not be dissuaded from the simple understanding of the words of God; if I could understand them in a good sense, without detracting from the faith, I would not give way to your little human fist.
But thou sayest, If we agree in the main, why dost thou bring up unholy innovations in words, and art not agreed with us without vexation? I answer: Because I would rather drink from the spring than from the brooks; will you deny me this? For there are two things that concern me. First, that I want the Scriptures pure in their power, undefiled by all men's touch, even the saints', unmixed with all earthly addition. For it is you who have not avoided unholy innovations in the words, as Paul says [1 Cor. 1, 10.], but have mixed these holy delights of God with earthly additions.
that want to season. But my soul is disgusted with Ezekiel [Cap. 4, 12. 14.] to eat bread covered with man's dung; do you know what that means? Secondly, that you also have not been able to treat this mystery of grace and sin with clear words and clear, nor to understand it, nor to love it, and so you have become chalky, pale, sad and sluggish in praising and loving God. For a human word added to the divine is a cover for the pure truth, yes, as I have already said, it is human dung by which it is covered, as the Lord illustrates in Ezekiel. It is the manna that must be kept in the golden jar, not thrown around in the hands of men and touched with it.
You will say, "What is this way of yours? I will share it, although I suspect that it will not please you, who pine for garlic and arrow and already suffer from a spoiled taste. But it is enough for me that you cannot refute this way, but it can convict you of twisting God's words to such an opinion that they have no other place. Everyone knows how shameful it is to hear this from Christians, let alone from theologians.
The Divine Scriptures deal with our sin in two ways, one according to the Law of God, the other according to the Gospel of God. These are the two testaments of God ordained for our blessedness, so that we may be freed from sin. The law does not deal with sin in any other way than by revealing it, as Paul says Rom. 3:20: "Through the law comes knowledge of sin." This knowledge teaches two things, the corruption of nature and the wrath of God. Of the former [Scripture] says Rom. 7, 7: "I did not know sin without the law. For I knew nothing of lust, where the law had not said, Let not thy lust be." For that shameful tickling it called not sin by nature, but its evil use of another body, as profanation, adultery, fornication; so it calls anger and avarice not sin,
but its use in theft, deceit, reviling, murder, and likewise in other things. And I do not know that sin is ever taken in Scripture for these works which we call sin. For it seems almost only to call the underlying leaven so, which brings forth the evil works and words as its fruits. For this sin reveals the law quite actually, since it was unknown and dead before, as Rom. 5, 13. says; it also lies very much hidden alive under the apparent works of the hypocrites. For Paul says [Rom. 11, 32.] that by the Scriptures all men are resolved under this sin, though it can never remain hidden, lest it bring forth its fruits, in one in this way, in another in another. But you cannot indicate an evil work, under which you could decide all men. More about this elsewhere. Of the other (namely the wrath of God) Rom. 4, 15. says: "The law only causes wrath", because Gal. 3, 10. says: "Cursed be every man that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them"; and Rom. 5, 12.: "Death through sin"; and Rom. 6, 23.: "Death is the wages of sins." So far, then, does the light of the law instruct us, and teach us that we are under corruption and under wrath, and decree every man to be both a liar and a child of wrath. But we might have despised corruption and been pleased in our evil, if the other evil of wrath had not driven away this foolishness, and increased with terror and danger of death and hell, that we had no peace in the former evil. And anger is by far a greater evil for us than corruption, because we hate punishment more than guilt.
Therefore, the law reveals a twofold evil, an inward and an outward one; the one that we put on ourselves, sin or corruption of nature, the other that God puts on us, wrath, death and curse. Let these two be, if you will. Guilt and punishment. But under these terms, we have treated guilt and punishment all too weakly and coldly, and I know
not what relations and imputations are invented. According to the Scriptures, we call gross and full of sin, or guilt, or inward evil, the whole corruption of nature, in all its members, which is evil and inclined to evil from youth, as Genesis 6:5 and 8:21 are written. And this wrath is so great that what seems to be good is of no use, e.g. arts, gifts, prudence, bravery, chastity, and whatever other natural, moral, and intellectual gifts there are, in which the common sense of man could not perceive any fault, so much so that today even our theologians count these things among the good, and ascribe nothing evil to them. Only that which is done apart from grace does not deserve the kingdom of heaven, but neither does it deserve hell or punishment. They would be ready to assert outright that such things could also deserve heaven if they had not heard a certain sound about the necessity of grace, for they think that there is nothing lacking in it that the law requires, but only that which grace insists upon. They teach that the law has been done enough, but not the gospel.
They add that this good is so great that it deserves grace according to equity (de congruo), and infallibly, and thus becomes a completely good thing, even if not actually deserved, yet by its own merit. 1) To this is added that God himself does not deny that these things are good, as this cannot be denied in truth, but he rewards them and adorns them with temporal benefits, as dominion, fortune, fame, good reputation, dignity, honor, pleasure and the like, in such a way that not only the cover of one's own appearance, but also of divine retribution is added to the natural blindness, which does not know the truly good, so that it insists certainly and most stubbornly that these things are good. This is what the prophetic ministry has mainly worked on, and all prophets have been killed because they rebuked these things and demanded a truer good. Because the prophecy has been nothing else than the
1) si non xropno merito, tarnen xer xroxriurn raeritum.
refined exposition (expolitio) and (that I say so) practice and application of the law or, as it is called in the concluding speeches ([syllogismis), the subordinate (subsumptio), which should pronounce how every good work occurred, whether it was truly good or not quite good. Therefore, we read that in the ancient books many things are rejected that we marvel at. With this, God warned them not to follow their opinion, but to listen to His voice. That is why he always raised up prophets for them, who in these good things (that I say so) would bring the law into practice and show, as it were by examples, what the law would be.
The law alone, therefore, shows, of course, not that these things are evil in themselves, for they are God's gifts, but that they are in evil use because of the very hidden root sin (radicale peccatum), by which they trusted in these things, and boasted in the imperceptible evil, as this most inward evil of sin still does and always will do, since one should trust in God alone, please Him and boast in Him, as it is said in Jeremiah 9:23. It says: "Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, let not a strong man boast of his strength, let not a rich man boast of his wealth." For all these things are good, scattered in vain, more often over evil than over good, so that the 73rd Psalm [v. 2.] complains that because of them he almost stumbled, and his tread almost slipped. But all this (as I have said) is decided under anger and cursing, and it is of no use, and so does not prepare for grace according to what is due (de congruo), that it rather hardens the heart, so that it does not desire grace or consider it necessary. As the 119th Psalm [v. 70.] says: "Her heart is curdled like milk" [Vulg.]. Better in Hebrew, "Their heart is thick as sea." This people is actually accused in Scripture of ungodliness, of unbelief, of being hard-necked, because they did not humble their untamed minds in these respectable good things, could not recognize either the law or their sin in them, but always thought that they were doing God a service in them above all other truly righteous people. To these will be in vain
These are "the bloodthirsty and the false" [Ps. 5:7; 55:24]. In short, they think they have fulfilled the law and they have no need of grace (as I said), except for a certain superfluous thing that God demands. To these Moses is veiled, they do not bear his shining face (ooroutavi luoism) [2 Mos. 34, 29. 30. 35J; in so great wisdom, goodness, righteousness, godliness they do not want to be evil, nor can they recognize that they are, because they do not hear. So you see how incomparably higher the law is than natural reason, and how deep sin is, the knowledge of which the law teaches. These, then, are all under wrath, because they are all under sin.
The gospel, on the other hand, treats sin in such a way as to take it away, and in this way follows the law very nicely. For the law introduces sin and overwhelms us with it through knowledge of it. In this way it has caused us to desire to be freed from it and to desire grace. For the gospel preaches and teaches two things, righteousness and the grace of God. Through righteousness it heals the corruption of nature, namely through righteousness, which is a gift of God, namely faith in Christ, as Rom. 3, 21. says: "Now without the law is the righteousness that is valid before God"; and again Rom. 5, 1.: "Now that we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God" 2c and Cap. 3, 28: "So then we hold that a man is justified by faith alone." And this righteousness, which is opposed to sin, is generally taken in Scripture for the innermost root, the fruit of which is good works. The companion in this faith and righteousness is grace or mercy, the favor of God, against wrath, which is the companion of sin, so that everyone who believes in Christ has a gracious God. For we would not be quite joyful in this good of righteousness, nor would we esteem this His gift great, if it were alone and did not make us a gracious God. I actually take mercy here to mean the favor of God, as it is due, not the favor of God.
a quality of the mind, as our moderns teach. But this grace finally works true peace of heart, so that man, healed of his corruption, also feels that he has a gracious God. This is what makes the bones fat and the conscience happy, secure, undaunted, that it dares everything, can do everything, so that it even mocks death in this trust in the grace of God.
Therefore, as wrath is a greater evil than the corruption of sin, so grace is a greater good than the health of righteousness, which we have said comes from faith. For everyone (if it were possible) would rather lack the health of righteousness than the grace of God. For forgiveness of sins and peace are actually attributed to the grace of God, but the healing of corruption to faith. For faith is an inward gift and good, which is opposed to sin, which purifies, and the leaven in the Gospel [Matth. 13, 33.], which is hidden under three bushels of flour. But the grace of God is an external good, the favor of God, opposed to wrath. These two things are distinguished in Rom. 5:17: "For if because of one man's sin death reigned through One, much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through One, JEsum Christ." The gift in the grace of One he calls faith in Christ (which he also more often calls a gift), which is given to us in the grace of Christ, that is, because he, as the only one pleasing and acceptable among all men, had a gracious and kind God, so that he could earn for us this gift and also this grace.
In the first chapter of St. John [v. 17] John the Baptist says: "The law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ;" and before that [v. 14]: "Full of grace and truth." Thus the truth which flows from Christ to us is faith, but grace accompanies faith because of the grace of Christ, as he prefaced [v. 16], "Of His fullness have
we all took grace for grace." What grace? For what grace? Our grace, that God would be favorable to us, for the grace of Christ, by which He is favorable to Him. For, he says, the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. So we have two goods of the gospel against two evils of the law, the gift instead of sin, grace instead of wrath. From this it follows that these two, wrath and grace, behave in such a way (since they are apart from us) that they are poured out wholly, so that whoever is under wrath is wholly under all wrath, whoever is under grace is wholly under all grace, because wrath and grace concern persons. For whom God receives into grace, He receives wholly, and whom He is favorable to, He is wholly favorable to; again, whom He is angry with, He is wholly angry with. For he does not divide this grace as he divides the gifts; he does not love the head and hate the feet, nor is he favorable to the soul and hates the body. And yet he gives to the soul what he does not give to the body, he gives to the head what he does not give to the feet. So also in the whole church, which stands in the same grace of God, as Rom. 5, 2. says: "Through whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand" 2c He is diverse and manifold in His gifts. So also vice versa, to whom He is not favorable He is not favorable at all, and yet He does not punish him completely, yes, one remains completely under wrath through One sin of a member, but another remains completely under grace through One gift of a work, so that grace, as said, may be widely separated from gifts, because the grace of God alone is eternal life [according to the Vulgate], Rom. 6, 23, and wrath alone is eternal death.
Now let us come to the point. The righteous and the believer undoubtedly have grace and gift; the grace that makes him completely comfortable, that the person is thoroughly pleasing, and wrath no longer takes place in him; but the gift that heals him from sin and all his ruin in soul and body. It is therefore exceedingly ungodly to say that a baptized person is still in sins, or that all sins have not been completely forgiven.
be given. For what sin is there, if God is favorable and does not want to know any sin, and if He completely accepts and sanctifies the whole person? But this is not due to our purity, as you see, but only to the grace of God, who is favorable. Everything is forgiven by grace, but not yet everything is made whole by the gift. The gift is also poured in, the leaven is mixed, works to expel the sin that is already forgiven the person, and to expel the evil guest that he has permission to expel. However, while this is happening, it is called sin, and is really sin in its nature, but already a sin without wrath, without law, a dead sin, a harmless sin, only one must persevere in its grace and gift. Sin is not different from itself, according to its essence, before grace and after grace, but there is a difference in its treatment. For it is treated differently now than before. How was it treated before? That it was there, and was recognized, and burdened us; now it is treated that it is not, and is cast out. But for its sake it is and remains sin, really and by nature. Yes, it is ingratitude and insult to the grace and gift of God to deny that it is really sin. Grace, of course, has no sin because the whole person is pleasing, but the gift has sin because it sweeps out and fights. But also the person is not pleasing, nor does he have grace, except for the sake of the gift, which strives to sweep out sin in this way. God does not make imaginary sinners blessed, but true sinners; he does not teach imaginary sin to kill, but true sin.
Behold, this simple and Pauline way of understanding and speaking is what I seek and want in the treatment of sin and grace. It is pure and clear, is understood without any difficulty, does not require any distinctions, and is wondrously sweet and clear, opening up the whole of Scripture. Here it is not necessary to say that sin is taken for weakness in Paul, yes, it is necessary that it is taken for true sin, so that the grace and gift of God are presented purely and according to the truth.
can. If anyone denies that it is really sin, he blasphemes the gift of God and is ungrateful. Thus I say and teach that every man know that he has in every work as much sin as sin is not yet cast out in him; as the tree, so the fruit, so that he may not boast before God of his purity in himself, but boast in the grace and gift of God that he has a favorable God, who does not impute this sin and has given the gift above by which he casts it out. Therefore, he confesses the truth that if he were to be judged according to the nature of the work, without grace, he could not stand before His [God's] face, but now, because he leans on grace, there is nothing to accuse him of. Is this then as dark as the immense volumes of the sophists compiled on sin and grace? Or do not already Paul's word and godly faith and reason, which seemed to enforce that sin must be taken for punishment, agree beautifully? What is easier than to say that sin is treated either according to the law or according to the gospel? If it is treated according to the law alone, it is death and wrath; if according to the gospel alone, it is grace and life, but it remains really and essentially sin under both. Therefore, the sayings of the fathers, which deny that there is sin in a righteous person, are all to be understood according to grace, but not according to the nature of sin, or according to the law, for Christ has made us free, that we are already no longer under the law, but under grace.
But you will say that the holy fathers deny sin and you do not prove that sin must be taken here in this way. I answer: First, I do not understand and teach anything ungodly and what does not rhyme with faith. Do you not admit this? And I will prove it in more detail. Furthermore, I prove that sin is taken everywhere in Scripture as I take it, therefore I prove strongly that it must be taken this way, since without the example of Scripture nothing may be asserted in matters of faith. Then you prove
in two ways nothing. First, you do not prove that the fathers say that sin should not be taken or cannot be taken as I take it, because they call it weakness and deny sin. Sin, but one can assume that they did this by not having the essence of sin in mind, but the grace of God, and you have nothing to oppose here. Yea, if they deny even from the bottom of their hearts that it is sin according to its nature, yet they do not prove it, nor is it an article of faith what they mean or say; yea, they speak dangerously when they speak without the example of Scripture.
So that sin means only guilt 1), you neither prove that they want this, nor do they prove that it must be so. You have invented the very dark word guilt (reatus) here, and want it to mean sin in essence. But the Scriptures are simpler, and have in easy and clear speech only: corruption and wrath. Thus you do not prove that forgiveness of all sins, washing away of sins, and what else they rightly say of the glory of baptism, is the same as that no sin remains in their nature, nor do they themselves prove it. But all this is opposed by Paul, and also by Peter. The latter says [1 Pet. 2:11], "Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;" but the former [Gal. 5:17], "that sin in the mortal body lusteth against the spirit;" and they enforce that the sayings of the fathers have their reference to grace, which is favorable to the baptized, and to the gift, which is opposed to sin, not to the nature of sin or to the law. And so, dear Latomus, all that you have put forward is void and refuted, scattered like dust before the face of the wind. Since in my opinion the godly doctrine is favorable, the words of Scripture agree with it, and in it there is simplicity and integrity in words and things, I will not let the word sin be taken away from me in all men and all their works in this life, although I confess that according to the grace of God they have no sin and no law.
1) reatus, actually: state of accusation.
nor have any evil work. Whoever does not want to follow me, let him leave it and follow others, but let him know that his thing is based on human grounds, not on divine testimonies. I will not suffer that people believe Augustine, who explains the apostle, more than the apostle himself, who repeats sin so often.
Now let us see how the Scriptures agree with this opinion. In the last [24, 47] Christ says that repentance and forgiveness of sins are preached in his name. Why was forgiveness of sins not enough? Does it not agree that repentance is the change of corruption and constant renewal from sin, which faith works, the gift of God and forgiveness? The gift of grace is that there remains no sin of wrath. For he does not teach that the fabricated repentance of the sophists should be preached, which lasts only for an hour. As long as preaching lasts, as long as one lives, one must repent and be renewed, so that sin may be cast out. Can you adapt these two things of weakness and punishment in the same way? Who would repent of his weakness? Who would renew the punishment? The same says the word of John the Baptist, which Christ repeated [Matth. 3, 2.; 4, 17.]: "Repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." What is this but changing one's life, which faith does, which sweeps out sin, and being in the kingdom of God, which brings about the forgiving grace? For this is what John calls [Matth. 3, 8.] "righteous fruits of repentance", when sin is swept out and not outward works are pretended. The simile Matth. 13, 33. of the leaven and the three bushels of flour agrees so well with this that nothing could be more appropriate. But it is not so, if you call sin only weakness and punishment, yes, then you have already made it dark with these words, that you can neither see nor understand the simile. Here also belongs the parable of the half-dead man who was healed by the Samaritan, completely and in the first place. He was not healed all at once, but he was healed all at once.
The Levite and the priest, the servants of the law, saw him but did not help him. The law (as I have said) brings knowledge of sin, but Christ makes well through faith and brings again to the grace of God.
Joh. 13, 10. belongs to this: "He who is washed is completely clean", namely by grace, and yet he washes the feet of the remaining sin by faith, which is active. Here also belongs that we are branches in Christ [Joh. 15, 2.], who is the vine, because we bring forth fruit as pure in everything, and yet the heavenly vinedresser cleanses the pure, so that he may bring forth more fruit.
Of all this, you cannot rhyme anything with punishment and weakness, because immediately the sense of washing, cleansing, healing is lost, only that one could draw here the indefinite venial sins. But this is a superficial sense that prunes the leaves but does not cut out the root. And, as the simile gives, which Latomus introduced, such a way of healing is like cutting off the hair, where it grows again anew. But it is not the gift of God that tries to kill the roots and not the deeds, but it purifies the person himself, so that these venial sins cease, or at least sprout in a lesser degree. You resist the venial sins in vain if you do not extinguish the sin that is the tinder for them, from which they sprout. Sin always desires, but you resist its desire if you not only resist its impulses, but also kill it yourself, which happens through the gift of faith, which kills, crucifies, and exercises with various sufferings the old man of sin, as the apostle calls him. Here also fits the image I used above, that the children of Israel, after they came into possession of the land of Canaan, did not exterminate the remnants of the Amorites, Jebusites and Cananites. These remnants had no other nature than the nations themselves. But these our [opponents] teach that the weakness and the punishment are not evil either, much-
more useful and to be endured, just as if it were not to be swept out.
So I conclude, since Paul Rom. 6, 12. "sin in your mortal body", [v. 14.] "sin will not be able to reign", [v. 6.] "the sinful body cease", Rom. 8, 2. "hath made me free from the law of sin," Rom. 7, 13. "sin worketh," [v. 23.] "sin opposeth," "sin taketh captive," [v. 25.] "serveeth the law of sin," 1 Cor. 7, 5. "unchastity," 1 Cor. 5, 8. "the old leaven of malice and mischievousness," Eph. 4, 22. "the old man," Col. 3, 5. 8. "wrath, evil desire, covetousness," Heb. 12, 1. "the sin so ever clinging to us,"-in short, since Paul everywhere calls it by the name sin and error, yet even if he had called it sin only ONCE, I would not yield to any angel. For, since he constantly asserts the same thing in so many places, who are those people that they should force me to put their interpretations into the text and eradicate Paul's words? I do not want their opinions, and confidently say that sin is in us and in all our works as long as we live here. So if my lions had heard me before and had paid more attention to God's word than to the word of men, they would certainly have recognized the truth more purely, which would have saved them from such a horrible blasphemy, desecration of the sanctuary, crime and shameful deed that they would not have burned Paul's word so boldly. But I still give them the choice that they go into themselves, acknowledge their error, give God the glory, confess their follies, which they cannot protect with any reason, and behold, everything shall be forgiven them. For I will very gladly have fellowship with them, and never remember their evil, as I do not want God to remember mine. But if they persist in what I desire, I will surely consider them accursed. The Lord will see whether my banishment is more or less than the tasteless, bloodthirsty, God-abusing, in short, the most worthy bulls of the Pope and Rome. Amen. Herewith, I believe, it is duly stated, defended and justified what I have said.
in relation to this article in my resolutione, which Latomus challenges, and that all things of Latomus are nothing but ignorance in Scripture, then also mere speculations and proofs from what is to be proven.
One more thing I want to add, so that I help this matter with reason and experience. I disputire with sophists. We want to come from the rule to the example, so that we are not stoics, who described such a man as a wise man, as they had never seen him, as also Quintilian condemns such an orator. I ask whether they dare to provide such a man who can say of a good work he has done, this is without sin, even in the way they themselves speak of sin. I do not believe that they themselves, or any man, would dare to have this opinion of his work. If they say that no one can, what do they accuse me of so horribly, since they themselves hold the same, nay, say more, than I? For I have not spoken of venial sin. What then is inconsistent in saying that in every good work there is sin, since they themselves admit that in most there is certainly sin, and in a few there is no sin, even since they speak without example, according to the rule alone? If it is not inconsistent in one or many, how can it be inconsistent or impossible in all? Are we not then beautiful doctors, since we teach the rule without example? But they will say: It is uncertain whose work is good without sin, but we do not doubt that it is without sin. So what do we do? Do we lead people into uncertainty with our teachings? Or is it not unreasonable to teach the uncertain in the church? When will there be peace in our hearts? What should we do in the meantime? Should we pray for forgiveness of sin in a good work, or should we praise it before God? There is danger if it is sin and one does not ask for forgiveness. Again, there is danger if one asks for forgiveness where there is no guilt, or if one does not believe that there is guilt. For one would lie and ask for what one believes should not be prayed for.
The author must confess that the work is in need of forgiveness and thereby do him an injustice. Should one put it in doubt? So one should also pray uncertain things, not only do them? Give thanks, Magistri nostri, for leaving everything uncertain 1) and not even making certain whether everything is uncertain.
But that may go by. An example of this rule: A good work is without sin. This is entirely lacking in this life, because Paul (as we have said) does not dare to claim this of his works, since he says [1 Cor. 4, 4.]: "I am well aware of nothing, but in this I am not justified." But we must be certain; therefore God in His grace has provided us with a man in whom we should trust, and not in our works. For although he has justified us through the gift of faith, and through his grace has made us inclined, yet he has willed that we should lean on Christ, lest we should be without steadfastness in ourselves and in his gifts; lest even this righteousness which we have begun should fail us, unless it hang on the righteousness of Christ and flow from him; Lest any incomprehensible man, having once received the gift, should already be satisfied and secure; but he willed that we should be drawn to him [Christ] more and more every day, that we should not stop at what we have received, but should be completely transfigured into Christ. For his righteousness is sure and steadfast; there is no wavering, there is no falling away; he is the Lord of all things.
Therefore, as often as Paul preaches faith in Christ, he preaches it with wonderful care, so that righteousness is not only through him and from him, but also to him, that he brings us into himself and glorifies us, and as it were puts us into hiding until the wrath passes. Thus Rom. 5:1: "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Behold, faith is not enough, but the faith that hides itself under the wings of Christ and submits itself to His
1) In the original: nihil incertura. Instead, we have followed the reading of the Jena edition: nihil nisi incertum.
Righteousness; and again [v. 2.], "By whom also we have access by faith into this grace." Again, he so teaches faith as to cast it under the wings of Christ; also Col. 1:19, 20: "For it was well pleased that all things through him should be reconciled unto himself." See: Through him to him. And again [v. 20.], "In that he made peace through himself by the blood of his cross." Behold: By the blood of his cross through himself. What else does the apostle mean by these words than that the vague faith of the sophists is not enough, which is thought to work according to the gift received? But this is the faith that makes you a chick, and Christ a mother hen, that you may have hope under his wings. "For salvation is under his wings," says Malachi [Cap. 4:2], so that you do not lean on the faith you have received, for that is fornicating; but you should know that this is faith when you cling to it, being presumptuous of it, because it is holy and righteous for you. Behold, this faith is the gift of God, which obtains for us the grace of God, and blots out that sin, and makes us blessed and sure, not by our works, but by Christ's, that we may stand and abide for ever, as it is written [2 Cor. 9:9.], "His righteousness abideth for ever."
But you may say: You seem to be at loggerheads, since you agree on the main point, and neither of you claims that the remnant after baptism is condemnable, whether it be sin or punishment. I answer: As to the purpose we agree, namely, that it is harmless; but by no means as to the thing itself. For they ascribe to nature what is God's grace; this must not be suffered. Furthermore, they make men sure that they do not sweep out sin. They also diminish the knowledge of the mystery of Christ, and thereby also the praise and love of God, by not considering the goodness that is spread over sinners, that grace is poured out on them most abundantly, but they make nature innocent. If there is nothing else to the contrary, they speak without the Scriptures, they do not understand.
They also destroy the integrity of Scripture without cause and obscure the understanding of things. That is why it loses its simplicity and becomes an annoyance that leads us far away from it. This is what happened when we first accepted the interpretations of men, as if they were godly and clearer than Scripture. Finally, for this interpretation, too, another interpretation was given, so that there was already no measure nor goal to increase the interpretations of the interpretations, and to draw us into the greatest confusion of words, until at last we knew absolutely nothing more of Christian things and even believed that pagan folly was equal and useful to our things.
These aversions and heights must be removed, and the paths of Zion, which have mourned long enough, must finally be trodden again, and we must be fed with the pure wheat of the simple and pure Scriptures. You see that Latomus here also makes everything uncertain with human interpretations, except what men and philosophers have otherwise already brought up, to such an extent that he believes he may also interpret this passage of Paul in a twofold way, both from the man under the law and from the man under grace. But this is not teaching, but confusing the souls. The opinion of those who claim that Paul is speaking of the man under the law, since the words are clear and bright [Rom. 7:22, 25], that he delights in God's law and serves God's law with his mind, is to be rejected and rejected altogether. This cannot apply to an ungodly person who resists the law of God with all his strength, as he taught in the 3rd and 5th chapters. My advice would be, whoever cannot hold the holy scripture in a certain sense, stay away from it. It is safer not to know the Scriptures with the laity than to have them uncertain. It is unbelievable how great discomfort Satan causes a dying man by having it ambiguous, so that I believe that the sophists are instigated by the devil to make it uncertain by their ambiguities and games.
So we ask here: Where is that hunter of testimonies who wanted to give a reason for our holders of the master's degree at Louvain? Does he not himself assert nothing but uncertainties? Does he not deal with it alone, that Luther's opinion is contrary to his doubtful opinion? But those who condemned and burned were quite different people, namely those who wanted it to be their pronounced, certain and infallible opinion that not only this could be said, but that also this must be said. And for these poor Latomus speaks nothing, although he promised to speak for them alone, and was so confident that he boasted that one should be ashamed to desire reason and cause in such a certain matter. But, as I have said, they did not rely on their reason, but on the bull, that they dared to come forth, and when they came forth, sought nothing but to mangle the Scripture and smear the mouth of the whole world with theirs: One can say so. If only they had had this opinion also in regard to their raging action and had said: It can be condemned and burned in this way, but we do not yet say 1) that it must be condemned and burned in this way, their work would correspond to their words. Who does not see what they declare themselves to be? who have condemned as certain that about which they themselves still confess that they are uncertain. For although the holy fathers sometimes doubted and differed in the sense of Scripture, yet they never added this frenzy, that they asserted that, and condemned and burned that which differed. Therefore the reasoning has not yet come to light, which is promised by this hunter. For by mocking Luther and his opinion, he does not prove his own, nor does he refute mine, but makes both uncertain, since the twofold argument he presents cannot be true. Therefore, I conclude that our magisters were mad when they condemned me and did not know what they were doing.
1) Instead of: 86ä non, dnrn äieirnns in the original Will probably read nonäuin äloirnus.
did. This is witnessed by their lawyer Latomus, who wrote this book for the sake of it, so that this would no longer remain hidden from the world.
Since I had said that opposing the law is nothing other than sinning; not doing good is against the law, he answers: That Augustine dares to claim that it is not sin if there is not consent. Then he adds: There is also nothing damning in them, because they do not sin. See the worthless sophist, how he falsifies everything! Who does not see that Augustine is speaking here of mortal sin, which is committed by consenting to the desire to sin, but he does not deny that these impulses are venial sins. However, Latomus invents that this is against Luther, not because he does not know that I speak of such sin, which is not mortal or venial, but because he, excited by malice, wishes that my thing be so understood. And now what a dialectic of Latomus is this: there is nothing damnable because they do not sin, so also from the antithesis of the consequence follows the antithesis of the antecedent. Those who sin commit sins, so there is something damnable about them. This means to interpret the apostle Paul in a Louvain way. They claim that a venial sin is without condemnation, but they make my sin [of which I speak] a condemnable one.
Nor do they think it worth the trouble to remember how often I have introduced what Paul says, that there is nothing damnable, even if there is some sin, because he had sent so much of sin beforehand; but therefore there is nothing damnable, not because there is no sin, as Latomus lies, but because they are in Christ JEsu, as Paul says, that is, the little chicks rest under the hen and under the shadow of his righteousness, or, as Paul Rom. 5, 15. more clearly, they have grace and gift in his grace. Then they also do not walk after sin or after the sinful flesh, that is, they do not consent to sin, which they really have. For God has provided them with two very strong and firm foundations so that this sin will not bring them to condemnation, first Christ Himself as a mercy seat (as Rom. 3:25 says),
that they may be secure under his grace, not because they believe and have faith or the gift, but because they have it in the grace of Christ. For no one's faith would stand unless it were based on Christ's own righteousness and sustained by His protection. For this is true faith (as I have said), not an unlimited (absoluta) or rather obsolete (obsoleta 1)) (absoluta) or rather obsolete (obsoleta 1)) quality in the soul, as those who invent, but who does not allow himself to be torn away from the grace of Christ, nor does he rely on anything else than that he knows that he [Christ] is with God in grace and cannot be condemned, nor anyone who relies on him in this way. Of course, this remaining sin is something so great, such an unbearable judgment of God, that you cannot stand unless you oppose Him for yourself, whom you know to be without all sin; this is what true faith does.
The other is that after receiving the gift, they do not walk according to the flesh and do not obey sin. But the first is the main and strongest foundation, although the other is also something, but in strength of the former. For God has made a covenant with those who are in Christ in this way, that when they contend against themselves and their sin, there shall be nothing condemnable about them. It is not because there is nothing damnable, as Latomus contends, that they do not sin, or that there is no sin in a good work. This the sophist, without and against the clear text of Paul, invents from his own head. But he says [Rom. 8, 1.]: because they are in Christ JEsu and do not walk according to the flesh, obviously speaking of mortal sin. The sophists deal only with the weakening of this sin, which God makes so great that He wants His Son to be held up to Him, and urge and drive all men to Christ by this exceedingly severe judgment, so that they trembling, despairing and sighing give themselves under His wings. But those who deny this sin make sleepy and secure people who rely on the good they have received; thereby they also make Christ's grace worthless.
1) Absoluta - obsolsta a play on words.
and the mercy of God small, whereupon must inevitably follow coldness in love, sloth in praise, and lukewarmness in gratitude. They know absolutely nothing of Christ.
Therefore, beware of those most pernicious people and learn that the works of God are great, wonderful and glorious. Therefore, know that you cannot make this sin great enough, for no man has ever been able to fully comprehend or understand the evil of it, since it is infinite and eternal, so that you may know again that the works of God done for you in Christ are immeasurable, since he has predestined for you in Christ such a mighty grace that does not allow you to be corrupted by such a great evil. And even though you are worthy of such a great evil, through the grace of this man you shall not only not be corrupted by it, but also finally be delivered from it. The glory of grace must be exalted, and it cannot be praised highly enough, so that Paul exclaims [2 Cor. 9:15]: "But thanks be to God for his unspeakable grace." Do not listen, then, to the cold and dull hissing of the sophists about good works without sin, about infused faith, about acquired faith, about free will; these are dreams and antics against this serious matter. You must let yourself be drawn to Christ, as Isa. 2, 10. says: "Go into the rock, and hide yourself in the earth, from the fear of the Lord and from his glorious majesty"; and in the Song of Songs, Cap. 2, 14: "My dove in the holes of the rock, in the clefts of the stone." Do not be mistaken. The greatness of the protection shows sufficiently how great this sin is, if you do not think that Christ, the Son of God, is a wooden image. All the saints tremble before this judgment, and if they do not have Christ as their protector, they are lost. And we still argue and play,' whether there is sin in good works. Of course, we are so wise in regard to the terrifying eternal majesty that when we speak of it, we speak of it as of a man.
After that, the discerner goes on and says: "From two causes, the error that is
seems to be against the law of God, not sin: first, when the use of reason is absent, as in the case of madmen, sleepers, children; second, when one does not agree with him, as in the case of virgins 2c Who does not see here, again, that not the lions are defended, who have condemned' Luther because of the sin in the saints, which is enslaved by the grace of God, but some fictitious dream gods, who have condemned him, as if he had taught that there is a mortal sin in a good work. Up to now no sophist has made me so completely weary as this Latomus, such unworthiness is in this man and such nonsense in gimmicks. For he is not so stupid that he does not understand that I am not talking about such a sin, in regard to which he cites the sayings of the Fathers and babbles about it himself, since he often testifies that he knows it, but it is pure impiety that he boasts against his own testimony that I have talked about the damnable sin, and makes the world believe this (as I have said).
It is of this kind that he does not call the inclination to evil a hindrance to virtue, nor something evil, nor sin, but (he says) it has even benefited the martyrs for good. What do I hear? It benefited them for good, so it is not sin. You see how excellently the sophists would like to blaspheme the grace of God. For what is due to the grace of God, they most impudently attribute to sin. The devil, as a tempter, uses the saints for good, so his temptations are neither evil nor sins. One must overcome the evil of inclination, so it is not evil. I beg you, how much this sophist tests my patience! Really, if I have sinned a little in the booklet which I published against their verdict of condemnation, I atone for it abundantly here by having to bear their unbelievable stupidity, ignorance and malice. For the inclination [to evil] is sin for its own sake, because it resists the martyrs and makes them suffer, although the power of grace shines out more through it.
one looks at the judgment of God. It is mercy that spares; it is God's gift that overcomes. But you, dear reader, see what an outrageous deed I have been guilty of, that I have portrayed these people as those who are more stupid than the blocks.
And he adds that sin is only voluntary, especially the sin of the deed, so there is no sin in a good work. The conclusion applies from Latomus to Latomus; especially because Gregory says: God would never destroy the vessels of wrath if voluntary sin were not found in them. And why does he give ruin as a reward to children and the ignorant? But Gregory also speaks here of vessels of wrath and of their sins, which Latomus understands of the sins of the saints in a good work, how else could he introduce it against me? How else would he speak to the matter? For he attacks the sin which I have named, and proves through Gregory that this is no sin, because it can be done by will alone. But I am tired of it. Away with the exceedingly tasteless intriguer, who understands neither me, nor himself, nor the Fathers, nor the Scriptures even a hair's breadth, and if he understood them, would not want to understand them. In this whole book, nothing has been done right, except that the murderers of Louvain and the antichrist bull are given a worthy advocate.
Now let us look at the apostle himself, and consider their interpretations, set beside them, that we may learn how many new words immediately arise. "We know" (he says [Rom. 7:14. ff.]) "that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin," that is, as those say, I am weak and punished, sold under punishment. Then "spiritual," because it is said in contrast, will be the same as sound, redeemed from punishment without punishment. Further, "For I know not what I do" (that is, I suffer punishment), "for I do not do that which is good" (that is, freedom from punishment), "that which I will, but that which is evil" (that is, punishment), "that which I haste, that I do. But if I do that which I do not want, I consent" (that is, I am free from punishment), "that the law may be good" (that is,
that it fei impunity). "Therefore I do not do the same, but the sin" (that is, the punishment) "that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" (that is, freedom from punishment). "I may want to, but I do not find the good to accomplish. For the good" (that is, freedom from punishment), "that I want, I do not do, but the evil" (that is, punishment), "that I do not want, I do. But if I do what I do not want, I do not do it, but sin" (that is, the punishment), "which dwells in me. So then I find in myself a law, which I will do that which is good" (that is, freedom from punishment) "that evil" (that is, punishment) "may cling to me. For I delight in the law of God" (that is, I am unpunished) "according to the inward man. But I see another law" (that is, punishment) "in my members, which contradicts" (that is, punishes) "the law in my mind" (that is, my impunity) "and takes me captive" (that is, drags me to punishment) "in the law of sin" (that is, in the punishment), "which is in my members. I wretched man, who will deliver me from the body of this death?" (that is, this punishment) "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with my mind I serve the law of God" (that is, I am placed under impunity), "but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" (that is, I am placed under punishment). "So then there is nothing condemnable" and so on.
Does that mean to explain Paul, if I also admit that it is well and rightly said this way? But the fathers spoke in this way. But did they order or command that one must speak in this way? Is it not necessary to obey God more than men? Paul commands and had the right to command [1 Tim. 6, 20.]: "Avoid unspiritual loose talk" (novitates), and that you should speak as He Himself speaks, and stick to the holy, traditional words. For what is unspiritual? Is it not that which is not holy? But human things are not holy, but then they are also new, 1) because they do not come from the
1) "New" refers to novitatss in the Vulgate.
Apostles is set. Neither can you argue with me that the word homousios 1) was accepted against the Arians. It has not been accepted by many, and indeed by very famous people, that Jerome also wished it to be abolished, and so little did they escape the danger through this newly raised word that Jerome complains, 2) he does not know what poison is hidden in the syllables and letters. For the Arians are much more concerned with this word than with the Scriptures. And also Hilarius could not answer anything else than that by this word exactly that was expressed which was the [right] thing, and the whole Scripture contained this. But this does not happen in the present case. For in no place does Scripture use the word sin for this punishment, but on the contrary everywhere for evil, which is contrary to the law of God, so that even the similarity (according to which Latomus alone is a theologian) does not hold here.
Yes, even if there were a similarity and the example applied, one would not have to refer to it, but credit the fathers for having once used an unspiritual word without Scripture. Otherwise, if one introduces the example, one might change the whole Scripture into other words, as the Sophists have done. Now if my soul hated the word homousios, and I did not want to use it, I would not be a heretic. For who could force me to use [this word], if I only hold the thing which was established from Scripture at the Concilium? Although the Arians have had evil opinions in matters of faith, yet this demand of theirs has been very good, may it have sprung from evil or good sense, that in articles of faith no unspiritual (profanam) and new word may be introduced. For the integrity of the Scriptures must be preserved, and a man must not be so presumptuous as to begin with
1) Inadvertently written by Luther instead of Cf. our introduction to this paper.
2) Cf. Jena edition, 3rd ed., vol. VII, 243 b.; Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2702.
3) Speak more clearly and more loudly with his mouth than God has spoken with his mouth. He who does not preside over the words of God, who speaks for himself in divine things, only do not think that he will understand the words of a man who speaks of strange things. No one speaks better than he who understands best; but who could understand things better than God Himself? Yes, how much is it that man understands about divine things?
Rather, let the wretched man give glory to God, and either confess that he does not understand His words or refrain from desecrating them with his own new and own words, so that the lovable wisdom of God may remain for us in real form. Therefore, let the fathers say what they can; I want the words of this Paul in this passage to mean what they say, and I despise their inventions of accusation (reatibus) and guilt and such gimmicks, which darken the understanding more than help it. Light, manifest, and faithful are the words of the apostle; those burning and strong shining suns have no need of human torches. You say that there is no accusation, there is no guilt, therefore there is no sin, and you feel as if you have spoken beautifully, since you speak in the darkest and, as Nehemiah says [Cap. 13, 24], Asdodian 4) and according to the language of any people and have already forgotten the holy and fatherly language. Therefore, away with the foreign languages and let us reintroduce the native and genuine one.
For why do you not say much more purely and lightly: There is not wrath, but grace? Therefore the sin there does not condemn, although it is real sin. The evangelist John drank right poison, but it did not kill him, because the power of faith was there, which did not make the right poison something other than right poison, or punishment, or weakness, but prevented it from harming. If another had drunk it,
3) The reading of the Jena edition sincerius seems to us better than that of the original securius.
4) Incorrect in the original Asotiee. In the Vulgate XMtiee, in Hebrew rvnwVyr.
he would have truly died. Christ says [Marc. 16, 18.], "If they drink something deadly, it will not harm them." He did not say, so it will no longer be deadly, but, it will not harm, because they will drink in my name. Otherwise, what glory would there be in the miracle if it ceased to be deadly when drunk? The Chaldean fire was indeed fire and remained so, but it did not injure the three men [Dan. Cap. 3.], not because it could not burn and scorch, but because it could not do so to them, while it utterly consumed the others before the furnace.
Thus this sin is true sin, because it subjects all others to wrath [Rom. 5:9], but these do not, because they have the antidote, but these do not, namely the gift of God in the grace of the One Man Jesus Christ, with which they do not walk according to the flesh. Is this not so clear and easy that no one can be so clumsy as not to grasp it very easily? On the other hand, those subtleties of accusation, guilt, of the form and essence of sin, of deprivation, of skill, of deed, of expulsion, of infusion, of forgiveness, of qualities, of forms, of objects, of inward and outward goodness, of inward and outward wickedness, of charge, of merit, of the nature of good, of pleasant, of unpleasant (deacceptati), - who can hear all the voices of these frogs and flies, much less pattern them? Even those who are the teachers (magistri) of the others do not yet grasp it in harmony, let alone that the poor people could receive from them a correct knowledge of what sin and grace are, for here one must have swallowed even the utmost filth of philosophy and ten times shit before one can understand what accusation (reatus) or guilt is. These inconsistencies and monstrosities of the sophists may pass away.
Therefore Paul rightly says [Rom. 7:14]: "But I am carnal" (he does not say I was carnal), "sold under sin." Prove to me, then, that "carnal" in Scripture means subject to penalties and infirmities. But he calls himself carnal, not
because he is entirely carnal, but according to the mind he is spiritual, according to the flesh carnal, as according to the mind free from sin, according to the flesh sold under sin, as he says [v. 25]: "So then with the mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin." Here do not be misled by Latomus, who sets two wills. It is one man Paul who confesses both of himself in one and the other relation; under grace he is spiritual, but under the law carnal; it is the same, even the same Paul in both positions. The gift makes him spiritual and under grace, in the grace of the One Man Jesus Christ. Sin makes him carnal, but not under wrath, because grace and wrath do not agree, nor fight each other, nor rule over each other, as the gift and sin do. So also [Rom. 7, 15.], "For what I do I know not," as a carnal man, but I know it as a spiritual man. How else could he say of himself that he does not know what he is doing? Then he calls what he does evil; thus he understands the evil he does, but according to the flesh he does not know what he knows according to the spirit. For he really believes that sin, which rages in the flesh, is something good, which he desires, and makes it appear so to man, and does not see how evil it is. [V. 15. 19.:] "For I do not do the good that I desire, but the evil that I hate, that I do." Behold, he understands the good and the evil, but the spiritual Paul so understands, and wills, and hates. But the carnal one does not understand the good, and does and loves the evil instead of the good.
Now let Latomus bring forward scripture proving that carnal means something different here than in other passages, and as grammar and plain meaning requires. He proves that evil and good mean something different in this passage than in other passages. He proves that to want, not to want, to hate, to do means something different here than in other places. Since he cannot do this, and since their meaning in this place is not contrary to godliness, he must prove that they are different.
Why should we be moved by human interpretations? For just as he who is only partly fleshly, as I have said, is actually called fleshly, so is he a man who is a frail or small man. If a man's head is wounded, we also rightly say that the man is wounded. And he that smiteth the foot of a dog, of him it is rightly said, he smiteth the dog. So Paul does not know because he does not know according to the flesh; and he works because he works according to the flesh; and he does evil because he does according to the flesh. And it is evil because it is against the spirit and good. But for this reason one can quite well say that he works, he does, he is evil, he understands completely, even though he does not work completely, does not do completely, does not accomplish all evil, or understands only in part. Just as a man is not unwounded because he is not wounded and killed in every part, and you have beaten a dog just as well if you have not beaten and killed it in every part, you have wounded, beaten, if you have wounded even the smallest member of it, according to the true and real meaning of the word. Therefore here is also quite actually sin, although it does not kill, condemn, subject the whole man to wrath. For grace and the gift preserve man so that he cannot sin, that is, consent to this sin and be lost.
You will say: But you do not prove that sin is taken in this way elsewhere, namely, that it does not condemn. I answer: This is also not necessary and I have not undertaken it. I have only to do with the fact that sin in this place means the same as everywhere else. But that I say that sin is treated differently here is none of the business of the meaning of "sin," for Scripture takes sin everywhere in the same way, but it does not everywhere treat it in the same way or describe in the same way how it is treated. Here it says sin happens, elsewhere it is forgiven, elsewhere it is punished, elsewhere [the punishment of sin] is postponed, elsewhere it is concealed, elsewhere it is confessed, an
derswo, it is denied. And who could enumerate the actions, the suffering and the accidental of sin? Thus, in this passage, what sin does and suffers under grace is described. It is not denied that it is sin; indeed, this passage assumes that sin has happened and is there. Here it is said that, being conquered, it rebels against the Holy Spirit, of which elsewhere it is written that it reigns as the victor. It is absolutely the same sin everywhere, but not everywhere it is able, does and suffers the same. But that the Scriptures elsewhere take sin in the same way, as far as the meaning is concerned, I have proved above from Paul, who takes it Rom. 6 and 8 in this way; also Rom. 7, Gal. 5, 1 Cor. 5., Eph. 4th, 1 Cor. 7th, Col. 3rd, Ebr. 13th, as he calls them unchastity, pleasure, wrath 2c, and 1 John 1:8: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." But the adversaries cannot even muster a jot for their meaning.
Now let us follow Paul further [Rom. 7, 16.]: "But if I do that which I do not want, I consent that the law be good." A wonderful composition; he consents to the good law, but not he whole (totus), because he does not do as a whole [man] what he does not will as a whole [man]; here also it is not the whole [man] who consents, who does, who wills not; but the same who consents to the good law, does what he wills not, that is, contrary to the good law which he wills; [v. 17.:] "I therefore do not the same." Who is the "I" who does not do this now, of whom it is soon said that he does? Certainly the "I" who am spiritual, who am now regarded according to this "I" in grace, which does not permit me to be estimated according to sin, according to which I am carnal. All is washed away, and now there is another "I" than before grace, where after sin I was esteemed wholly carnal. [V. 17.:] "But the sin that dwelleth in me." Thou dost not, and yet that which is in thee doth? Your hand strikes me, and you do not strike me? It is true, because it does it against my will, and after that I am esteemed.
But I really do it, because a part of me does it, but I am not judged by it. The hand does evil, and it would be imputed to me if my mind were not innocent. But therefore it is evil what the hand does, only that it is not imputed. But it is not imputed because of the innocent mind. So sin is truly sin, but because the gift and grace are in me, it is not imputed, not because of its innocence, as if it did no harm, but because the gift and grace reign in me.
[V. 18: "For I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." Because it is my flesh, not another's, therefore that which dwells in it is said to dwell in me. How Paul moves most sweetly between the flesh and the spirit, alternating between the two in the most pleasing way with the most impertinent synecdoche! For sin dwells in the flesh and is truly sin. For the Jebusite dwells within our borders, and will be a mote in our eyes, and a stumblingblock by our side, if we do not seek to cut him off. What is the mote in the eye but a timber before the face, whereon thou mayest stumble if thou walkest carelessly? Thus sin has its daily activity before us and confronts us on the way and also tempts us to the side; if it is not swept out manfully, we push ourselves and are brought into trouble by it. It is a very evil guest, and yet it dwells in the flesh, in us, in our land, in our borders. Therefore, there is nothing good in the flesh, I truly say, nothing good, not only punishment, but sin.
[V. 18: "I will, but I do not find the good to do. He explains himself more clearly, how the spiritual man in sin does not do evil, but wills the good, and yet he does not accomplish this willing because of the sin that dwells in the flesh. But this willing is not nothing for its own sake, because he does not accomplish it, just as, on the other hand, sin is not to be regarded as nothing evil, because it dwells in the flesh, although my "I" does not do it, but sin itself. Both
I say, an evil thing happens and yet it does not happen. It happens because sin does it; it does not happen because my mind does not do it, does not want to do it, but would not do it because sin does it. I ask you, would he describe such a great struggle between the punishment and the spirit with such great care? But this again argues against the sophists. They may say, where in Scripture is ever punishment (by which they intend to turn out that they do not wish to be forced to call it sin) taught as such a thing as must be fled, resisted, condemned with so great zeal? It is not the punishment that Scripture commands not to be borne, and therefore all this evasion is of no avail. Both their interpretation and their text, their things and their words, are all contrary to the use of all Scripture, contrary to the opinion of all the godly, so that from their interpretation follows an inconsistency no less than that from which they tried to escape in the text. For it is inconsistent to assert what you can nowhere find or prove, but are forced to hear all that is contrary to it as one alone.
[V. 19: "For the good that I want I do not do, but the evil that I do not want I do. But if I do that which I would not, I do not do the same, but the sin that dwelleth in me." Behold the faithful herald of faith! He repeats and carefully inculcates, pointing as it were with his finger to that word, "But if I do that which I will not," because it seemed too obscurely said above, where, having similarly said, "But if I do that which I will not," before concluding, "So then I do not do the same," he interposed, "So then I consent that the law be good." Here, however, he soon concludes, "If I do it, since I do not will it, this unwillingness certainly proves that I do not do it after all, and yet it happens in me, so it necessarily does the sin that dwells in me, so that no one can understand this passage other than the spiritual man, nor even those who practice evil works. For he says here that one is hindered by the other, but still in such a way that
the spirit prevails and is attributed to him that he does not do evil, does not want it. For he does not reverse the sentence, that he should say: For not the evil which I will, that do I; but the good which I will not, that do I; but if I do the good which I will not, now I do it not, but the grace that dwelleth in me. For this is what the flesh would have to say if it ruled over the spirit that resists it. But now that the Spirit complains and accuses the flesh, it is evident that it is not the flesh that reigns, but that it is burdensome and unruly to the reigning Spirit. For nothing speaks for the flesh, but against the flesh; but this a carnal man does not do, who stands apart from grace. Therefore, the grace of God does not impute this work of sin, because he really does not do it, and yet it is in him, and he himself really does it, as has been sufficiently said.
[V. 21: "So now I find in me, who will do good, that evil clings to me." For it is not another who wants to do good than the one to whom evil clings. The spiritual man wants to do good as a whole man (totus), but the carnal man clings to him as not even a whole man (minus totus). [V. 22. 23. "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, which is contrary to the law in my mind, and takes me captive to the law of sin, which is in my members." Here he explains himself most clearly. For delighting in God's law takes place only in a godly and righteous man; he who is not righteous does not resist the law in his members, nor is it in him to resist. But he does not call the law of the spirit a natural law, as they say, but he opposes it to the law in the members, rather he calls the will of the spirit that delights in the law of God; to this he opposes the law in the members, which delights in the law of sin, so that the law in the members is also the will that opposes the will of the spirit. But he calls it contrary, and thereby certainly indicates evil, not the
Punishment, but Her guilt; for evil is to resist the law of God. Now he does not say, 'not obeying, but resisting, which is more grievous, lest you should slight the sin that remains after baptism, which is great and is taken away by a great gift of God, and is forgiven by a great grace, for the sake of the spirit that does not resist, but delights in the law of God.
And that last one is even more terrible, "that it takes captive". Behold, I beseech thee, with how great centner-loads and power of words he magnifies this sin, which so mitigates and abolishes that one. It is not alone, does not live alone, does not want alone, does not do alone, does not resist alone, but even rages and takes captive. I ask you for God's sake, are these trivial things? And who does not feel that this happens in him? Who has not ever felt the raging thoughts and impulses of pleasure and anger, however unwillingly and unwillingly? Their rage is untamed, yes, about which one will be surprised, it does not rage so in the ungodly, because they do not withstand its onslaught, they yield and obey it and therefore they never experience how great work, how great complaint it is to wrestle against sin and to rule over it. This attack requires a severe military service, therefore Christ is also called the Lord of hosts and a king mighty in battle, because he not only endures these great attempts by his gift, but also overcomes them.
Behold, therefore, the greatness of the gift and grace of God, that so great an evil is not condemnable to the godly; the evil thoughts of the godly are stronger than those of the ungodly, and yet they do not stain, do not condemn them, but those [the ungodly] stain and condemn them. Why is this? Is not the same sin on both sides? Really the same sin, but the godly have the antidote, those do not. Therefore, the godly do not sin in their [sin's] stronger attack, while those sin in the lesser, not because there is no sin on either side, but this is the glory of God's grace, not of their wickedness.
Nature. When grace ceases, it really condemns; now grace hinders, that it may not condemn the evil nature. [Ps. 115:1:] "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory." It is not, as the sophists rave, that such a raging adversary of the law of God is not a sin, it is not punishment, it is not weakness, but a great sin, as the 19th Psalm laments, saying [v. 14.], "I will remain innocent of great iniquity." Let this glory be far from our purity. But he says "take captive," not because the spiritual man is taken captive, but because nothing is omitted by the part that 1) belongs to sin, so that the spiritual man is taken captive, as he himself says Gal. 1, 13: "I disturbed the church of God," since it is impossible that the church should be disturbed. But he did not omit anything, as much as it was in him, that she would be disturbed. Therefore he does not say here, she resists and I am taken captive; she takes captive and I am not taken captive. For if he had said this also, the sense would compel to understand, according to the flesh, as he said, that he was sold and carnal, according to the flesh; in such a manner he says, he is taken captive according to the flesh, and this meaning, as the simpler, pleases me better.
[V. 24.:] "I wretched man, who will deliver me from the body of this death?" Here he calls sin death, that is, the greatest complaint, figuratively, and speaks like the 2nd Book of Moses, Cap. 10, 17th, where Pharaoh asked that the locusts might be taken away: "Ask the Lord your God, that yet only he will take away this death from me." For he calls sin by its most hateful name, as he also calls locusts, because of its urgent, ungodly, incessant, indomitable raging, by which it leaves us with no peace in this life, but constantly forces us to stand in the battle line. For Paul does not fear Latomus's sleeping and
1) In the original: yuoä sx parts pseeati sst. In the Jena edition: yuoä sx parte Mod xseeati sst. We have followed the latter reading.
dormant types of behavior. 2) Augustine also did not want what Latomus interprets for him. It is true that we do not always rage in one passion; anger does not always burn, lust does not always rage, envy does not always torment, but one follows the other. And when all are asleep, lukewarmness and sloth do not sleep. Even when you are hard at work, pride is awake. And as I have said most truly: As we are not without the flesh, so we do not work without the flesh, so we are not without the defects of the flesh, nor do we work without them, as Latomus so foolishly concludes from the particular or individual: At times the passion rests, so there is not sin in every good work, when he should have said: At times all rest, and all sin sleeps, which is impossible. For the flesh is a living thing and is in constant motion, changing as the objects change.
But that there is no sin in sleep is also due to God's grace, not to nature. Admittedly, there is no damnable sin, [but the fact that there is sin] does not stand in the way of the fact that the use of reason cannot be there. But it is sin that we cannot sleep purely. Why have we not remained in a right condition, in which we could have slept purely and done all things purely? The drunkard's drunkenness does not excuse him if he sins something through it; why did he not remain sober? Therefore, for our sake nothing is held to our credit, nothing of us is pure, but only by the grace and gift of God. What excuses the children who are not baptized from being eternally damned? 3)
[V. 25: "I give thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Paul gives thanks, not to his righteousness, but to the merciful God, and that through JEsum Chri-
2) habitus. What is to be understood by it, results from the following at the end of this paragraph.
3) We have followed the reading of the Jena edition, pure instead of pura.
4) Walch: This is also still an error of the first times from the Pabstthum.
stum, our Lord. For he always holds this up to God, under whose wings he hides himself, in whose grace he rejoices and boasts of God's grace and gift. But he desires to be delivered from this body. For he does not say, who will deliver me from the death of this body, but from the body of this death. Because he sees that in this life the purity of the Leo saints is not possible, and yet he desires to be pure, therefore he desires to die. An ungodly man does not say this word, or if he says it, he does not say it for 'this reason. For because of the punishment he would not cry out like this, would not call for death like this, but sin weighs him down too much. So you see that this passage applies to the most holy ones, and that they suffer the unruly and raging sin, so that we learn not to weaken God's grace by weakening our evil, by denying that this is sin, by human interpretations; but by magnifying and exalting it as much as we can, so that it may come to light that such confession and magnification is the work of God, who is marvelous in his saints and does all his will in them, since we seem to have sin, and really have sin. For His will is not the sin that is in us, but our sanctification [1 Thess. 4:3] from that very sin.
So Paul summarizes how the life of a godly man is in this temporality by saying [v. 25]: "So then I serve the law of God with my mind, but the law of sin with my flesh." "I" is one and the same man. And this is not hindered by the objection of Latomus, who thinks that this may be understood like that above, "There dwelleth in me, that is, in my flesh, no good thing." Paul himself interprets this in this way, since he says, "I serve with the flesh the law of sin"; if you would not, as a dainty interpreter, still add and say: My flesh serves with the flesh the law of sin. For what should be said by this? The words are too clear to suffer a sophistical distortion. I myself, he says, no other. After that he says, I
serve; not merely that I have sin, but I serve it, or, which is just as much, my flesh serves it. But what does it mean to serve sin? Is it not doing her will? Is it not doing against the law of God? But this is what the flesh does when it opposes, when it captures, when it rages. For so it serves sin, but because the spirit does not obey, nor is defeated by its raging, therefore it does not condemn. The service of sin becomes void, all its efforts are thwarted, but therefore it is not that it is nothing, or that this service is not evil, or that the flesh does not sin through this evil service, even though it serves in vain and its master, sin, does not have the upper hand; rather, for this reason it deserves to be crucified and killed itself, so that it may stop serving in this way. [Rom. 8, 1.:] "There is therefore nothing condemnable in them which are in Christ JEsu, who walk not after the flesh." Truly, nothing condemnable, but not: nothing sinful (peccati), but some sin is there, not of that which Latomus alone imagines he knows, by which the Spirit ministers to sin, apart from grace, but to sin, which would be such if grace and the gift were not supreme in the grace of one man. The nature of sin is really in them, but it is now unable to do what it was able to do otherwise.
Latomus must therefore bring such a passage of Scripture that to resist the law of God is not sin, but a punishment or a weakness. For enough has been said of what he says from Augustine, that man therefore does not sin, as it must be taken, namely, he speaks of sin apart from grace. This is what the clumsy dialectician introduces against me, who speaks of sin within grace, as he does everywhere and in all things, and asserts in the usual way what he should prove, as if he had conquered, that sin within grace does not exist among men. If he does not bring a scripture, we will force him to be satisfied with the simple and proper meaning of the words, that to resist the law of God is truly to sin. Thus he must prove,
that "to be taken captive under the law of sin, and to be a slave to the law of sin" is as much as to be weak and not to sin, otherwise, taking the words as they are, we have proved that it is the same as sinning, everywhere, in everyone who is said to serve sin or its law. As Christ says John 8:34, "He that committeth sin is the servant of sin," and 2 Peter 2:19, "For of whomsoever a man is overcome, of him is he a servant," and Paul himself Romans 6:17, 18, "Ye were the servants of sin;" "now that ye are made free from sin, ye are become the servants of righteousness." So here Paul himself is a servant of sin, but because he adds "with the flesh," he obviously distinguishes between "serving the simple sin" (which Latomus alone wants and which he imagines he knows) and between "serving sin with the flesh."
It is not true what Latomus teaches, that sometimes sin is not served, and this is not true, either simply in the service of sin, or in the service of sin with the flesh. For all that he does who is a servant of sin is sin. It is the master of his person, and the service is a name, not of a work, but of a state, which sums up all the endeavors of the whole life, just as it is something else simply to serve God than with the flesh. The righteous simply serve God, for that concerns the person, but the hypocrites serve Him only with the flesh, because they serve only with works, not with the faith of the heart. And as these are damnable hypocrites, so are those (that I say so) wholesome hypocrites, who serve sin with the flesh, and they are evil in appearance, but good in truth. But even the outward works of the hypocrites are not nothing, but really useful and good, because they are useful to the creature of God; so also the sins of the righteous are really evil and harmful, because they are works of sin, and as the good works are of no use to the hypocrites, so their sins do no harm to the righteous. Because, therefore, I have said: How can he work without the flesh or the will of the flesh, who cannot be without the same? holds.
For does not Latomus counter Paul's saying [2 Cor. 10:3], "Though in the flesh, we do not walk according to the flesh"? 1) As if this were walking according to the flesh, since we do not work without the flesh. By this he means to have nullified the likeness I have given of a rusty instrument, so nothing at all sees this sophistical way. Paul serves sin with the flesh and yet he does not walk according to the flesh. However, this persecutor of the testimonies does not lead Paul correctly either, because Paul says 2 Cor. 10, 3: "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not walk after the flesh" [i.e. carnal way]. But the meaning is the same.
But what is it necessary to go through all the things of Latomus one by one, since from all these statements all his is abundantly refuted and confirms mine? For I have shown sufficiently that Latomus places himself entirely on the assertion of what he should prove (petitio principii), since he does not want sin to be taken by me differently than he takes it himself. With deliberate malice he perverts both my sayings and those of all the fathers, since, where they speak simply of sin, he draws them to mean that it is said against sin in grace, or he applies what is said of the sin of the whole (that I say so) to the sin of the part. He does this because he and his sophists have never known what grace and sin are, what law and gospel are, what Christ and a man are.
For whoever wants to speak of sin and grace, of law and gospel, of Christ and man in a Christian way, must speak almost in the same way as of God and man in Christ. He must be very careful that he expresses both natures of the whole person, with all its characteristics, and yet be careful not to ascribe to it what simply belongs to God, or simply to man. For it is something else to speak of the incarnate God or of the man made into God, and something else to speak simply of God.
1) According to the Vulgate, not correctly cited by Latomus, as Luther immediately notes.
and to speak to man. Thus, sin apart from grace is something different from that in grace, so that you might imagine that grace or the gift of God is veiled in sin 1) and sin is taken up in grace as long as we live here, that sin should now no longer be sin because of the gift and grace.
But this is a consideration which must be treated with more leisure. Therefore, I will leave it here until I have more time and can also refute the other things. For what he claims about penance and indulgences is worthless, since he proves everything from human writings. For neither Gregory nor any angel has had power to establish or teach anything in the church that cannot be proved from Scripture. And at the same time, I believe that the above sufficiently proves that scholastic theology is nothing other than ignorance of the truth and a nuisance that is set beside Scripture. It is also indifferent to me that Latomus accuses me of ingratitude and insults against St. Thomas, Alexander and others. For they have done badly for me. Nor do I think that I lack sense, even Latomus will admit that, and my diligence is certainly not hidden. But I have said to my counsel that a young man should avoid scholastic philosophy and theology as the death of his soul.
The Gospels are not so obscure that they cannot be understood by children. How then were the Christians taught at the time of the martyrs, where this philosophy and theology did not exist? How did Christ himself teach? Saint Agnes was a theologian at the age of 13, as were Lucia and Anastasia, from what did they learn? For the studies of the universities have not, to this day, produced any martyr or saint, in so many centuries, from so great a number, who proved that their way of teaching was pleasing and right to God, as those from private schools have produced multitudes of saints. The
1) imxsooatiLealuni, actually: ignited.
philosophical and scholastic theology is recognized by its fruits. For in regard to Thomas Aquinas, I doubt very much whether he is damned or blessed; I would rather believe that Bonaventure is blessed. Thomas has written many heretical things and he is the author that Aristotle reigns as the destroyer of the divine doctrine. Why am I deceived that the bishop of the bull has elevated him among the saints?
I therefore believe that I too have a not entirely unskillful judgment in these matters, because I have been educated in them, have investigated the opinion of the most learned contemporaries, have thought through the best writings of this kind, am at least somewhat learned in the holy Scriptures, and have been tested to some extent by experience in these spiritual matters, which, as I clearly see, was lacking in Thomas and all those who write and teach similar things. Therefore let everyone who wants to accept it be warned by my counsel; I do what I have to do and remind again with the apostle [Col. 2, 8.]: "See to it that no one deprives you through philosophy and loose seduction" (I interpret this confidently and confidently from the scholastic philosophy) "according to the doctrine of men, and according to the statutes of the world" (these are the rights of the bulls and what else is instituted in the church without the Scriptures), "and not according to Christ." Here it is clear that Paul wants Christ alone to be taught and heard here. But who does not see how the high schools read the Bible? Compare those who have read and written about the opinions of teachers (sententias) and about philosophy with those who have written about the Bible, or teach the same (since it should have flourished and reigned as the chiefest of all), and you will see how the high schools respect the word of God.
But I return to you, my dear Jonas, and send this Latomus away from me to you, so that he may no longer be a burden to me, since I have already begun to interpret the Epistles and Gospels in German; that is the cause that it has been a nuisance to me to read and answer his filth. If it seems good to me, I will answer everything at another time; only, as a banished person
Lack of books and carry the judgment of the heretic magistrates, 1) by which they wanted to force the Jews onto the mere Bible. For the Bible alone is with me. Not as if much depended on my having books, but [for this they would be useful to me] because I must see whether the sayings of the fathers are also honestly attracted by the opponent. For he cites Dionysius for the fact that one should "ask" God for the departed, since the latter writes of "praising", as I remember very well. And why does not one of you answer the rest? either you or Andreas Carlstadt? Why doesn't Amsdorf come forward? Don't you all have to defend the honor of the gospel as well? I have crushed the head of the serpent, why can't you crush the body?
For example, as he interprets the word, Job 9, 28.: "So I fear all my pains": "I fear", that is, I observe; and the word, Ps. 143, 2.: "Do not go into judgment with your servant" 2c, where the prophet prays against the judgment of God, which he interprets thus: The whole life of God is without sin, and the whole life of no man is without sin, therefore he does not want to be judged according to the
1) This brings Luther back to what he said towards the end of his answer to Latomus' preface about the burning of books by the sophists. According to Luther's intention, the above expression is ambiguous, namely: magisters who condemn others as heretics and yet are themselves the worst heretics.
To be judged by the life of God. Therefore, he makes the judgment of God, or the face of God [before which one must appear], the life of God. But where is it taken this way in Scripture? So any part of our life that could say: Go to judgment; 2) it would certainly have to belong to a different number than those who are called all living. But does he not introduce the fathers? But were not the fathers also men? Couldn't any of you easily refute these and similar antics? The judgment of God is the work of God, by which He does not compare His life with us, but tests ours. Otherwise, what kind of inconsistency would it be that eternal life should be compared to that which lasts only a moment? Much and almost everything is of this kind. For I would like you to do something for the word, too, so that I could have leisure and finally serve the poor people. You recruits must also be trained, and that would be best done while I am still alive, where I can perhaps still help a little. But, I beg you, there is the book, take it. How happy I am that I no longer have to keep it with me! Farewell. From my Patmos, June 22, 1521.
2) According to the above words of Latomus, not the whole life, but a part of it is without sin.