55 Martin Luther's Defense Against the Malicious Judgment of Johann Eck

about some articles imposed on him by some brothers.

Attached to these are 24 heretical articles, drawn from Eck's and the brothers' sentences. *)

September 1519.

Newly translated from the Latin of the Weimar edition.

Martin Luther the godly reader Heil!

We read in the Gospel [Matth. 26, 59] that the Jews, since they wanted to destroy Christ and did not know what to accuse him of, lurked on his words and distorted them and brought accusations against him through their lies. For example, when he had taught [Matth. 22, 21] that one should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, this murderous rabble interpreted it differently [Luc. 23, 2] and accused him as if he had forbidden to give interest to Caesar. Likewise, when he proclaimed as a sign [John 2:19] that they would break his temple, they interpreted it [Matt. 26:61] as if he would break down the temple of God and rebuild it in three days, and accused him as a blasphemer. I too, my dear reader, have recently encountered such new saints, who, out of the very enmity, since they cannot resist Christ's words that I had interpreted, have begun to pin on me some false articles that they had invented, so that they might also condemn the true ones. And that you may know about the whole game, some brothers from our neighborhood 1) have called my listeners to them, with whom they have met in

1) I.e. the Guardian of the Franciscans at Jüterbock and their Lector Bernhard Dappen.

2) and argued about my doctrine (for as they are people who despair of God, so they fear that they would die of hunger, if they did not draw the people to themselves with their lappishness and antics, which they, or brothers of their ilk, think up). And since they could neither convict them nor resist their teaching, they brought together articles that they did not quite understand in such a conversation, and scattered them where they could, and handed them over to the powerful under my name, and also carried me out among the rabble.

I, out of pity for their unlearned nature, did not respect it at first, because I knew that they would undertake such things not only without, but also against the will, both of their superiors and of all who are of the same order. But I wrote to them 3) and only warned them benevolently that they should not do it.

2) In Dappen's letter to Gropper (cf. the introduction): inter eoüationanäurn; in the letter ün the bishop: In Huackarn ckisputatione privata.

3) By this Luther means the letter to the monks at Jüterbock that immediately precedes this writing. The remark made by the Weim. Bd. II, 625, that this letter's content "admittedly does not completely agree with his statement here," is to be understood in such a way that it does not seem to the editors of the Weim. Edition, because of some harsh expressions that occur in the letter, it does not seem as if the letter was written "benevolently.

1520 Mense llulio, p. 336; WiteberZ. (1545), Mun. I, toi. 356"; llen., lom. I, col. 226" and Erlanger, opp. var. arZ., vol. II, p. 472; Löscher, Reformations-Acta. Vol. III, p. 856; and Weimar edition, Vol. II, p. 625.

so that they do not stir up a new fire over themselves. Or, if they defy their wit and science, let them come to Wittenberg, which they have so close, and there dispute against my errors and refute them. I also added which ones were wrong and how one would like to understand some of them. The brethren, however, who did not seek how they might know the truth, but how they might suppress me by slander and blasphemy, hoped that by Eck's reputation they might make truth out of lies, and adorn with his name what they had wickedly and wantonly done. But Eck, according to his modesty, very gladly seized the opportunity to rage against me, and drooled (informationes effutivit) report about these [articles], rejoicing and congratulating himself, as it were, that he could bring me down surreptitiously and without prior recollection or interrogation (cognitum). For his disfavor has always been directed to this from the very beginning, as soon as my name became known. For he had already played the same game earlier with his poisonous remarks (obeliscis); if I had not overlooked this for a long time out of heartfelt benevolence, the world would probably regard the corner in such a way that my Silvester, in comparison with him, would be regarded as fundamentally learned and respectable. For it is easy for me to paint Eck and Eck's science with their proper colors, because I know man from the inside and outside, that he is, as the wolf said to the nightingale, an [empty] voice and nothing more. Although I am not worthy to be conformed to Christ my Lord in these temptations, since I have deserved hell a thousand times over, I will not throw away His grace because it is pleasing in the eyes of His mercy, and I will gladly deal with envy and envious and evil-minded blasphemers, and defend the truth against lies as confidently as they have presumed to bring up lies against the truth.

Therefore I beg you, beloved reader, that in this matter you be favorable neither to me, nor to the corner, nor to the brethren, but to pure

and simple truth: give heed with a pure and impartial heart, and look only at it, not how much they or I have put on, but how appropriate and how suitable, either according to the holy Scriptures, or according to the right opinion of reason. For this reason I ask you so earnestly, because it is my way, not so much, but everything only suitable and, as far as it is possible, what serves the cause. Eck, on the other hand, has the one purpose of advancing many things, either foreign or contradictory, that he only salivate and spew much, without seeing whence, in what way, what or whither that which he speaks applies: for there is nothing more annoying to me in such sophists than that they wilfully flee from the words of holy Scripture. For they have but one habit of saying, thus spake the saints [John 8:53], "Art thou more than our father Abraham?" But you, my reader, will let Augustine's very true word be accepted on both sides, when he says: "I alone have learned to give credit to the books that are called canonical, that I believe most firmly that no writer of them has erred; but the others, no matter how holy and learned they may be, I read in such a way that I consider nothing to be true because they have held it so, but if they can prove it to me either with testimonies from the canonical books, or with some credible reason. This is what St. Paul also says [1 Thess. 5:21], "Test everything, and what is good, keep." These rules of the Holy Spirit have also always been perfectly despised by my corner and the words of the text in the Holy Scriptures have been taken for mere fairy tales. Thus it happens that he can neither understand nor apply the Scriptures themselves, nor the sayings of the fathers, which he throws out, but with such boldness fulfills the word of Paul 1 Tim. 1, 7: since they want to be teachers of the law, they do not know either what they speak, nor what they say anything about. Whether I have rightly said all this about Eck, you will soon, my reader, see clearly. Incidentally, although I would now have a favorable opportunity to attack Eck, because he himself first denounced the agreement, which he wrung from us at Leipzig with such great noise, with this vituperative

I will be satisfied that I am forced to answer this covenant-breaking and vituperative slanderer, and I am glad that he will be forced to blame the breach of the covenant not on me, but on his iniquity. Farewell, dear reader.

1st article.

He does not think much of the general church assemblies (conciliis) because they do not represent (repraesentant) the general church.

That it is not mine, I hope everyone will see who reads my discussions and the conversation against Silvester: since I alone lament this and sigh over the fact that we are not worthy to see a legitimate concilium. I will remain silent about the fact that the brothers' way of writing in Latin, which has nothing at all to do with my way of writing, indicates sufficiently that it [the article] is merely a spiteful fiction. But Eck, if he had wanted to be an honest man, should have held back the brothers or the busy servants of the brothers (Mercurios) and indicated to them my right opinion (which he knew well). But now, in order to show how he takes pleasure in another's plague, he helps to increase the pain of the wounds, and strengthens the poisonous lies of the brothers just by not resisting them, especially since the other part has not been heard. For I am sure that he would not want what he does to me to be done to him by me. And I will not tolerate him excusing himself by saying that he did not report my person. For it cannot be believed that he has included my name among his fundamental antics (larvis) for any other reason than that he would like to pin such monstrosities on me: man has such a severe disease of envy from the cursed ambition.

But I believe that my listeners have said that a general concilium has often erred and can err, and that such legitimate general conciliums are rare, as the Nicene one was; for if they have said this, they have spoken rightly.

But they, according to their clumsiness, have immediately made a general out of what is true only of some, and have taken it to mean that all conciliarities are rejected. I believe this all the more easily, because I have been charged with many such things by them: for when I taught that some good works were done in an evil way, they immediately accused me of denying all good works. And since I had taught that it was not Christian to call on the saints for money and temporal things, they immediately said, since envy was their teacher, that I denied the veneration of the saints with the Picards. So much do these Eck theologians like the error and the seduction of Christianity that they are not ashamed to argue against the obvious truth for the sake of their own belly. So they also lie that I deny all conciliarities, since I have said that any one of them has either erred or could err. Right worthy disciples of their master Eck!

2nd and 3rd articles.

He denies that the pope is Christ's governor.

He denies that Peter is the chief among the apostles.

Here see, I ask you, dear reader, whether you should consider my Eck a theologian or a sophist.

First, fraternal envy has not set the articles in their entirety, but has omitted this piece "out of divine right"; for if this is added, the articles are catholic. But let us see Eck's invaluable and quite Eckian erudition.

For since he undertakes to refute the articles from divine right, he spews forth a heap of drunken proofs, and treats the passages of Scripture and of the Fathers in such a way that he seems to have drunkenly broken all this from himself after a meal or carousing.

First, he proves it with the promise given to Peter, Matth. 16,18: You are Peter and on this rock I will build 2c, which is according to Eck: "You are Christ's governor and the apostle's chief"; because this is Eck's way of interpreting the Scriptures. For otherwise it does not befit him who interprets the

He hates the art of language so much that he calls those who do not revere his antics in Scripture grammatistas and teachers of dusty schools. But let us look at the sophist's ungodly counterfeits of the words of Christ.

First of all, the word of Christ: "You are Peter" 2c must have one, first, main and proper sense, in which Christ put it forward; but this is either that by rock Christ himself is understood, or the apostle Peter. Both cannot be the main sense, for nothing can be proved from two senses. If Eck admits both, he proves nothing at all: for as easily as he understands Peter by petram [rock], so easily can I understand Christ by it. Indeed, one may not even ascribe the word of Scripture, which is spoken of Christ, to another, unless with good moderation, of which I will say below. But if he only sticks to the one that petra is Peter, and does not at the same time accept another, then Eck is already a shameful falsifier of Scripture, which I prove:

First of all, because Peter is never called a rock in the Holy Scriptures, but Christ, as 1 Cor. 10:4: "But the rock was Christ." And Matth. 7,25.: "He will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock." And below: "For it was built on a rock." So Eck may bring up just one single passage from Scripture where Peter is called a rock. To me, there is one single passage of Scripture more than all the teachers that Eck draws on, even though he has not even drawn on it properly, as we shall see.

Secondly. Also in this saying he clearly separates Peter from petra. For if by rock he had meant Peter, he would have said, "You are Peter, and on you I will build my church": but since he repeats rock, he obviously indicates that another is Peter, but another is rock, which he separates, shows and expresses by the pronoun baue 1) [this] from Peter. And so I want to make out of the present-

1) If it were said by Peter, it would have to be bune.

He easily resists the text that Eck cannot show that Peter is the rock. But he himself, being aware of nothing good, flees from this text; therefore, because he realizes that it is against him and that he cannot do anything with it, he takes refuge in the teachers.

Third, I ask: is Peter a part of the church? If he is a part of the church, he cannot be the rock here; for Christ says, "upon this rock I will build my church." Therefore Peter is built with the church on the rock, and is not the rock itself; unless you want to interpret it according to Eck's way, that he is built on himself. Do you see, then, what it is to abandon the words of Scripture and to read the sayings of the fathers without understanding? So Peter is either not the rock on which the church is built, or not a part of the church that is built on the rock.

Fourthly, the word "to be built" is a word of the Spirit and means to be incorporated by faith and to grow in Christ. Therefore it cannot be applied without malice to the power to govern the church, since this [power] can well be wielded without faith: for both the pope and the subject can be evil. Therefore this whole passage is not at all appropriate to the matter, since it does not speak of the sovereignty or power of rule that can be had without faith, but only of faith in Christ; as also Matth. 7, 25. says: "it was built on a rock", where it speaks of persecutions. It is known, however, that the power of rule, on which Eck bases the church, is of no avail in persecutions (because it also suffers there), but the foundation of faith in the Spirit sustains on Christ. Thus Peter teaches in 1 Peter 2:5 that we are built on Christ as a spiritual house. So I demand of Eck that he show me a single passage of Scripture where "building" refers to his dream of dominion. If he does not do this, it is of no help to him that he brings forward the sayings of the fathers without text and without understanding: for one cannot contradict a clear text with all teachers' respect. But I would also like to know from what inference he draws this conclusion.

I have learned. "The church is built on something (for example Peter), therefore this something is the governor of Christ and the chief of the apostles. So, if it is built on faith (as it is the truth), then faith is the governor of Christ. But who can see this governor? So Peter is not promised the reign here, as the blind distortionist errs, but the building of the church in the spirit of faith is described, in whose person Peter confesses the rock and receives the keys, as the holy fathers unanimously say.

Secondly, he proves that Peter is Christ's governor by divine right with a reason just as worthy of Eck's wisdom, namely from the enumeration of names, because he is mentioned first among the apostles. Matth. 10, 2.

Do you not think that the fearful sophist would have been very happy if he could have found that Peter was called first to the apostleship? For with the same glory with which Eck ascribes supremacy to Peter from the order of names, another can ascribe it to Andrew from the order of calling, since he, according to calling, is earlier than Peter [John 1:35 ff]; especially since the word of the apostle Paul [Galatians 1:17] serves for this, who calls them his predecessors and great apostles for their sake, because they were called before him. If someone could appear as an advocate of Andrew, like Eck for Peter, and oppose the Petrine order of names with the calling of Andrew, it will be seen that it is obvious that Andrew is the first. It grieves me that the glorious name of theology must lower itself to such ridiculous fictions and old wives' tales, as if one had more power because he was named first, for then every thing in the world would have to be greater than the other because it can be named first. Has not [one] among the cardinals, bishops, yes, that we remain with the Scriptures, Reuben been called first among the patriarchs, and yet has not by divine right been their superior? And Stephen is named first among the deacons, so by divine right he would have been their

Ruler; and Lucas is named in the gospels before John, but Marcus before Lucas, so he is his ruler. But also Jacobus is named after Peter before John, so Jacobus of John will be regent by divine right. And the last of the apostles will be ruled by the last but one, because as the first is related to the second, so is the second to the third. See the great confusion of the question: Peter, James and John are often mentioned in their order. On the other hand, Andrew is in the second place (Matth. 10, 2), Philip in the third, Bartholomew in the fourth. 1) But I am annoyed and ashamed of Eck's great inference, who concludes from the first place in the order a power of dominion. What then will he say to Paul, G,al. 2, 9, whom Peter places behind Jacob the Less, bishop of Jerusalem? Will now Jacobus, because he is called so, become regent? Yes, the conclusion is good, based on Eck's reputation, according to his new inference. But also Joh. 1, 40. Andrew is first named and called before Peter. Therefore, you see how Eck plays with the holy scripture and seeks everything else in it, but not the truth.

Thirdly, the excellent Eck proves this supremacy from the payment of the interest, Matth. 17, 24. If he were not aware of the error and the lack of truth, do you think that he would seek support so anxiously and in such a ridiculous way? How much does not the lie need to appear as truth? This timidity is certainly a strong proof that he has taken it upon himself to defend the lies according to the testimony of his conscience; for the exceedingly simple and obvious truth does not need such forced and violent aids, but is self-sufficient.

But to the point!

Thanks be to Eck that he says Peter alone became like Christ in paying the interest;

1) The Weim. Ausg. vol. II, 630 notes here: "According to the Latin translation of the Bible." In the Vulgate, which is available to us, printed at Tournah (Nornuai Nsrviornna) in 1885, the same order is found as in our German Bible.

For now we learn that Peter is like Christ, of whom we learned earlier that he is his subordinate and governor; so it is up to Eck to make of Peter whatever he wants.

Dear, why did he not see, or forgot, that equality in suffering, equality in miracles, equality in words and many other things did not make Peter prince, since each of these things is far more than equality in paying the interest? But all men are equal in humanity, which is the highest and most wonderful equality, from which comes all the sovereignty of men, and yet from this follows for no one a priority in the rule.

But how, if the equality in interest made Peter even smaller, that because the other apostles were free from interest, as also the text indicates that giving interest does not belong to royal children, but to servants and inferiors, so Christ subjected himself with Peter to lower ones, which he did not command the other apostles to do. But also the other apostles, since they concluded in the same way as Eck, and thought that Peter would be the chief for this reason, began to ask: who would be the greatest? But they received the resolution of this conclusion by the interpretation in the following chapter [Matt. 18], since they were forbidden that no one should desire to be the greatest among them. And the apostles put up with the resolution; but Eck, who is perhaps greater than the apostles, even than Christ, is not content with Christ's argument; but throws the question round again, and closes on the side opposite to Christ, after the laudable manner of the scholastics, and with his lying sophists invents a new way of mocking (meant to say, of distinguishing) the sacred Scriptures, and says: It is not being greater that is forbidden, but the desire for it; in the same way one would have to say that it is not servitude, but the desire for servitude that is commanded, when Christ says [Matth. 23, 11]: "The greatest among you shall be your servant," for that is the way of these ungodly twisters of the Scriptures. Therefore, according to Eck's advice, it is not necessary that we serve one another, but it is enough,

that we desire to serve as it is necessary, that one does not strive for greatness or majesty, but can nevertheless accept it. But let such witchcraft and night ghosts Ecks leave. Christ has cut off the opportunity for ambition, by putting away majesty itself, and gives cause for humility, since he lays out servitude. He, then, is the greater in the church, not he who reigns far, but he who serves in much humility. This is the fair mind of the gospel, when one puts away the poison of Eck, whose way is to imitate Abimelech [Judges 9:48], and to make fire with cut branches from the forest of Zalmon, or, as Isa. 44:15 says, to make an idol for himself out of the wood of the Scriptures, by taking one place and completely despising what precedes and follows. But who does not laugh when master and servant are caught together by chance, and at the same time give interest to each other, that this servant should immediately become master over all his fellow servants by this chance? But this mendaciousness of the evidence indicates that Eck's cause is very bad.

Fourth, he proves this supremacy from the strengthening that he was commanded to have and the faith that should not cease, Luc. 22:32: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not cease, and when you are converted, strengthen your brothers. And it is not necessary for Eck to consider these words, what they mean, but that he, according to his inference, immediately brings out what he wants, because something arbitrary follows the necessary. That is why he also concludes here: strengthen your brothers; thus Peter is the chief of the apostles. The first part is necessary, therefore also something arbitrary follows, through the new art of conclusion (as said).

Dear one, what does this do to the supremacy of the Roman church, that Peter's faith will not cease? Are then the faith and the authority of the rule the same with Eck? So those who have the faith of Peter are all princes, governors of Christ? But all have the faith of Peter, for all believe what Peter believes; as Paul says Eph. 4:5, "One faith. "2c For Christ did not speak of Peter's personal faith,

because he fell, but from the faith of the church, which Peter held: for I also have Peter's faith, and, as 2 Cor. 4:13 says, we all have the same spirit of faith. This faith, I say, falls and never perishes, because it went out in the thief, as it ceased in Peter.

So also the "strengthen" (confirmare) is taken in two ways (that I also use a distinction): once, that it means the confirmation of power, as nowadays bishops, deeds and words are publicly confirmed: so it is taken here by Eck's spook. In another way, however, it stands for "to admonish and comfort the afflicted and afflicted"; so Christ takes it here, as is clear from his words: "And when you have converted," 2c, namely, that he was to strengthen the fallen by the word. Here it is clear that no authority is given, but that brotherly duty and [the duty of] love are praised - which, however, no one seeks among them, since they only want to have supremacy - which, nevertheless, can be fulfilled without supremacy, both against inferiors and superiors and our equals. Thus we are all instructed by a general saying in One Peter, to exhort the weak and to comfort the fallen.

But let's go back to the author of his tasteless antics.

If Peter is given the supremacy by the word "strengthen" [Luc. 22, 32], then no one is a successor of Peter but the one who strengthens his brothers after he has first converted and has a faith that does not cease. Thus, either faith will be necessary for the pope along with the duty of exhortation, or he cannot enjoy these words at all, nor can he be considered the successor of Peter. And where will the popes remain, who for so many years have not strengthened, but, empty of word and faith, have merely crushed with lightning, and have brought through the brethren's fortunes with war, cunning and banishment more than tyrants? Of these, Eck must necessarily confess that they were not successors, and consequently also not popes. Thus it comes that Eck and his disciples are blinded by God's righteous judgment; while they do not understand the divine Scriptures, which were written by the spirit of God.

If they do not want to deny the words of Christ, they must confess that the evil popes were not popes, nor followers of Peter.

So let the despiser of the art of language prick up his ears: here Christ imposes on Peter, only after he has converted, only since he believes with unceasing faith, in clear words, not to "strengthen" a dignity, but the office. Do we have to learn by a new linguistic art of Eck that the faith that does not cease means so much as the power of rule? Therefore he will not be a successor of Peter, if he is not converted, and in faith excellently strengthens the fallen ones. But what man should not flee from such discomfort?

Therefore, this useless supremacy and authority must be established by other words; for these words require Peter's faith and performance of his office, which, if they belong to Peter, must also belong to his successor, or they do not concern him at all. But who will assure us who is converted in faith? Therefore, according to these words, nothing else remains but that a general teaching is given to all, but that Peter is not charged with anything of external sovereignty and rule. Therefore, one must look for a text that does not speak of faith or of the conversion of the prelates, but of mere authority, which may be without faith; as Rom. 13, 1. is: "There is no authority without from God" 2c

In the same way we also want to say about the interest that he is not Peter's successor who does not give interest to the emperor and prince of the world in the same way as Christ and Peter [Matth. 17, 24]. But where are the privileges of the churches? Do you see what kind of door the ungodly glosses of Eck open for the lay authorities? For if the equality of interest proves a supremacy for Peter, it must also prove the same for his successor, so that he does not become unequal to Christ, nor unlike Peter; but what else do we learn from such wisdom of Eck, but that all popes are godless and heretics?

who have made decrees about the inalienable goods of the church, that they are to be free from interest, customs and treasury. Yes, this Eck's mind tears the whole spiritual right over the house; or he must confess that the Roman popes are unequal to Peter, and therefore neither Peter's nor Christ's, but rather other apostles' successors, who have paid nothing.

Thus it happens that if one claims that the imposition of interest was an honor and sovereignty of Christ and Peter, the succession of Peter cannot exist, unless all ecclesiastics are subject to the temporal authorities, especially the Roman pope, to whom it belongs before others to shine forth in the same honor and sovereignty with Peter, namely, that he is subject before all others in such temporal impositions. O a true protector of the Roman Church, dear Eck! With what dread would he persecute me if I had attacked this great heap of evils against the liberties of the Roman Church! Come then, ye princes of the earth, need your right; the Gospel gives you, according to Eck's process, that the popes cannot be Peter's successors if they do not give you interest. So help to increase their majesty and honor by your actions, that is, that they may be more like Christ and Peter than others, and pay more than all others.

But this is how he must be turned around who wants to twist the words of the Holy Spirit to his antics. So you see that Eck has taught and defended all the articles of Wiclef and Hus and all the Bohemians in this way, has nullified the decrees and all the decrees, has condemned the Concilium at Costnitz, the head of all the condemned articles, and by a miraculous turn has come to the point that, since he fights for the church against the Bohemians, he triumphs as a nonsensical man for the Bohemians against the church.

Thirdly, the word [Matth.16, 18.]: "you are Peter" 2c, because the words of Christ are clear, is not said to everyone, but it is said to the blessed Simon BarJona, who by revelation of the Father had known and confessed Christ, "You are Peter, to you will

I give." I will not allow my corner to interpret this word to anyone other than one who is like Peter, who has Christ's revelation and the Holy Spirit. For these words demand such a successor, and do not concern a successor without the faith of Peter, which must be ordered by other words than these. Therefore, the Donatist and Picardian corner must say again that the evil popes are not popes, or that this text does not concern the evil ones, but only the good ones: but surely no man knows the good ones. Therefore, what Peter said must be understood in the person of the Church.

And here, Eck cannot argue against it, except for some annoying foolishness. For since the supreme authority of the pope is a middle thing, and can be administered by both good and evil; but the text here does not speak of a middle thing, but of something necessary, namely, of faith; furthermore, since the supreme authority is also something temporal and external, but faith is something spiritual and internal: so I think it is clear to everyone how pompous Eck's outrage explains these words about supreme authority. But he himself notices that Chrysostom is opposed to him, and therefore adds that Peter answered instead of the apostles; yet he is called the apostles' mouth and head. This is what I wanted, that Peter is the apostle's mouth and answers instead of the apostles, which Jerome also says in this passage; thus he does not speak in his own person, but in the name of all. Is Eck not great that he cites this for Peter's person against me, of which he himself confesses that it is for me, in that it occurred with Peter in the apostle's person. But Eck, as I said, did not care how well, but how much he would like to say, and it is not uncommon for him to speak for himself and against himself at the same time.

Fifth, he proves from St. Bernard that St. John at the last [21:7] understood the whole world to be subject to Peter who walked on the sea [Matth. 14:29].

What do I hear? "The sea means the world,

and Peter walks on the sea, so he is prince of the apostles and governor of Christ, yes," so that the consequence of this new art of conclusion sounds even more neat, "Peter walks on the sea, so the successor of Peter is a lord of the world."

First of all, Eck must be instructed from Augustine that a picture (figura) proves nothing: therefore, even if the sea means the world or heaven, the word world must be put explicitly according to the letter and prove in its place that Peter walks on the world, unless perhaps the despiser of language art teachers wants to understand everything under everything according to his liking.

Secondly. Assuming that the sea means so much as the world, look at the magnificent final artist. Peter walks on the world, so he is the chief among the apostles! From this it must follow that the apostles are the sea and the world, because Peter walks on them, that is, he is their superior. This is what Eck wants. But if the apostles are the sea and the world, what 'is Peter? Dear, is the whore's forehead not yet ashamed of his so tasteless madness?

Thirdly. But how if, which is more correct, by world is meant vicious impulses by which we are troubled, as it were a sea? But this world, this sea, every Christian treads under himself, and walks with careful faith over it to Christ, who stands on the shore of glory: so it must follow that every Christian is a pope. And Eck will once again donate and picardise that he is not a pope who does not trample the sea underfoot, that is, who does not control worldly emotions, because otherwise he does not imitate Peter, nor does he follow him.

But if treading the sea is nothing else than ruling over men, without dominion over its lusts, only flaunting with outward glory; what also prevented the emperor from being a temporal successor of Peter, since he also walks on this sea with ruling power? Such is subject to Eck's sacrilege, which seems to be born to corrupt the Scriptures.

Sixth, he proves it with the commanded sheep, Joh. 21, 17. where he says that the

It is according to the ghosts and dreams of Eck, because otherwise one will hardly find the name of the pope in Chrysostom and Gregory. But let us consider the passage properly, because it is the last testimony of Eck, which he corrupts (wanted to say, "brings forward") from the holy scripture.

His inference is this: Christ said to Peter: "Feed my sheep", therefore Peter is chief of the apostles and governor of Christ: for such abbreviated conclusions (ontb^msmatL) resound with Eck more than all right proofs. I have endured the Silvester and the unlearned Silvestrians, but Eck makes them learned people by his quite excellent ignorance. I say accordingly: "To feed sheep" sometimes means as much as to rule, to preside, to reign securely in idleness, and to ask nothing of the sheep: so Eck, the master of the new art of language, takes it. When it is thus stated, there is no one who should not desire to feed all Christ's sheep, as we see in the Roman court, that they should be exercised in this with marvelous arts. Sometimes, however, and much more often, it means to teach the word of God, to pray for the sheep, to set a good example, to give one's life for them, and to sacrifice oneself completely so that the sheep will be well taken care of. In this way, there is no one today who would not want as many as possible to be appointed for the greatest part of such care, even for the whole care, and would like to give up the whole sovereignty in this way. No one disputes about this sovereignty, no one applies for it, which we all gladly grant to everyone, but we find no one who asks anything about our granting. Whoever writes against this [sovereignty] would probably have peace before the ban and judgment of the murderous Roman flatterers; indeed, we are not capable of so much that they would deign to accept the transfer of this sovereignty over only three souls. Why then do they persecute us? We teach a supreme authority, wish and ask that the Roman pope may feed all the sheep; so far is it from us that we want to deny him the least bit of this authority, that we rather complain only and only,

that they do not accept it one nail's breadth at will, since it is offered to them. Therefore, Eck again perverts God's words, or if he leaves them completely, he rehashes the heresy of the Donatists, and holds that a pope who does not pastor is not a pope, because these words. of Christ, if they are kept unadulterated, impose an office (truly the very greatest and most dangerous, that of teaching God's word and dying for souls), or help the pope nothing. For Peter was already what he was, namely an apostle and the first when he heard that he was commanded to pasture the office.

Finally Eck adds the conclusion to these words and says: "Thus sings the holy mother, the church: You are the shepherd of the sheep, the apostle prince, to you God has given all the kingdoms of the world." The first part, namely: "You are the shepherd of the sheep", Eck quite persistently respects for nothing, as well as those whom he flatters; for if they held that and respected it, then, as I said, everyone would concede the supremacy over all. But no pope desires either such pasture or dominion, nor that the kingdoms of the world should be thus commanded to him, but all shrink from it. Therefore, as the words of Christ are spiritual, so are those of the Church. All the kingdoms of the world are given to Peter to teach. To whom Peter? Not to one person, but [to the person of] the church and the apostles, in whose person, as has been said, he heard [Matt. 16:19.], "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." But Eck thinks that the kingdoms of the world are given to rule, not to serve.

After that he cites the fathers' proverbs 1) (because in this he lets it get very sour).

First of all, he quotes Cyprian "von der Prälaten Einfalt" 2) very wrongly, so that Eck shows more his malice than his ignorance. Cyprian speaks against the heretics, the Novatians, where Eck viciously picks out what seems to serve for him, and the other

1) Here begins the second part of this section (2nd and 3rd Art.). The first, corresponding part begins from Col. 1375 with: "First".

2) ve simplioitate praelatorurn; now usually titled De unitute ecdeÄae.

omits. The words of Cyprian are these: Although he gives equal authority to all the apostles after his resurrection, saying [John 20:21], "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them"; yet, revealing the unity, he ordered by his power the origin of that unity, which begins from one. The other apostles were indisputably what Peter was, of equal fellowship of honor and power; but the beginning nevertheless proceeds from unity, so that One One Church might be displayed. Where is Peter here made chief of the apostles, as the unhappy distortionist prates and forces his words upon us for those of Cyprian? Cyprian evidently teaches equal grace of honor and power; but because unity comes from One, therefore, he says, this equality of power was approached with One Petro, since he said, "Thou art Peter"; so that the unity of the Church might be indicated thereby. I have seen almost no equal and more beautiful interpretation. For it is clear that this is the meaning of the holy martyr, not that Peter is the chief of the apostles in dominion, because he clearly says: "The other apostles were just what Peter was"; but that this power, equal to all, was first given to Peter, so that from the One Peter not Peter's power (as Eck enthuses), but the unity of the Church would be signified. He does not want the origin of the power to come from Peter to the apostles, but as the unity of many comes from One, so the beginning should come from Peter, although everything was given to all in the same way. It is therefore a mere and miserable poem of Eck's, that all the apostles may well have been equal in apostleship, but not in dominion. For then the other apostles would not have been what Peter was, nor would they have had equal honor and authority, as Cyprian says. Or is it not another to rule, and another to be ruled? Is not the honor and power of him that reigneth and him that reigneth unequal? It is also erroneous that the apostleship is something other than rule; for the apostleship is by all means an office of rule. This kind of distinction has come about because honor and office began to be distinguished from

to separate one from another, which is juridical, not theological. Otherwise Cyprian would have been a heretic, who made bishops without power from the Roman pope, held church meetings (concilia), and prescribed rules to ordain bishops. All this Eck conceals out of mischievousness, in order to set up his lies against the truth. Accordingly, this is Cyprian's opinion: Beware of heretics who separate the unity of the church, not of the Roman one, but of each one in which they arise: for each one is one, and the whole general one is one. This unity of the general and of each particular, as he says, was shown in Peter's unity, who with his unity was to be, as it were, the origin of each unity and of the whole unity. This he did not order by his power, but (he says) by Christ's power he so ordered it.

But if the inclined reader reads Cyprianus, he will see that Eck is against Cyprianus in everything. So Cyprianus does not speak against the rupturers of supremacy, but of church unity, which can be ruptured or preserved in every church. Or, if Eck understands by unity supremacy, then that blind man Joh. 9. will also be pope, because with his unity he has also presented the unity of the church, and all others, as much as they have been healed individually by Christ.

Secondly, he cites Augustine about John 1): Which church person Peter, the apostle, had on him because of the primacy of his apostleship. Dear, how stupid is Eck! Augustinus speaks (as I have always thought): Peter represented the person of the church, which Eck understands by the supremacy over the church. For who denies that Peter was the first apostle, had the most distinguished position of the apostleship, and was also the prince [most distinguished] among the apostles? What does this matter? From this it is not proved that he had authority over those of whom Cyprian says that they had the same authority. Was Augustine himself ordained by the Roman bishop?

1) Eck introduced it incorrectly. The passage is in the writing äs asons cbristiano v. 30. Weim. edition, vol.II, 637.

Augustine must be a heretic if he meant the supreme sovereignty of authority and yet acted in life in such a way as to give only the preference of honor to the Roman pope.

Eck diligently perverts both the Scriptures and the sayings of the fathers; where they attribute to Peter the privilege of honor and order, he immediately does violence to it on the inspiration of his Leviathan, and interprets it from that, and cannot see before his stupid head that the holy fathers never acknowledged such violence.

At the same time, it should be noted that many things are said in praise of St. Peter that are not at all appropriate for any of his successors. Thus, some holy fathers attribute the saying: "You are Peter" 2c and "to you I will give" 2c to Peter, because it was certain that he was holy; therefore, these words can be applied to him, but therefore they do not belong equally to his successors; nor did any of the fathers understand them of his successors, as the latest falsifiers of Scripture do, who draw everything without understanding to the Roman popes, which they can only read of Peter. Thus Peter can be called a rock, as Augustine and Ambrose do once, because in fact what is said of Christ himself can also soon be said of every true and proper member who belongs to him. Thus every Christian is a lamb, righteous, holy, a rock, a foundation 2c, but because these are words of the Spirit, they need not be immediately applied to the successor or the Roman church, because it is not known of Peter's successor whether he is a member of Christ. But this understanding is not the first and main understanding, because everything must be said of Christ first and foremost, but not at all of the others, unless by a godly digression and modest abuse, according to which latter it does not apply in the dispute, nor does it agree with what follows, but is nevertheless understood that way without danger to the faith.

It is therefore a mistake for our flatterers to interpret everything that the saints [the Fathers] have said about Peter as a saint immediately to Peter's successor. Although, according to the truth of the matter, not only the Roman

1392 v-n. E-493. 55. L.'s defense against Eck's verdict. W. xvm, 1706-1708. 1393

The Roman Pontiff is not Peter's successor, but all the bishops whom he has ordered, and therefore St. Peter's successor is not so much as Peter himself. And it does not follow, if it were also true: Peter has been over the whole world, therefore also the Roman pope is over the whole world. For Peter was not able to leave behind in the Roman church his apostleship, which he had received from Christ, but his bishopric, which he himself had founded; consequently the Roman pope has no more from Peter than any other bishop, whom the same Peter had appointed.

And this can be proved from the fact that Chrysostom, Augustine, Ambrose and all the other holy fathers, who elevate St. Peter above all others, give him the prize of honor, but do not grant him authority over all. They themselves have not been subject to the Roman Pontiff in their lives, nor have they ever thought of the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff, which Eck tries to bring out with his shameful flatteries and perversions.

Third, he cites Jerome against the Pelagians: What have Plato and Peter to do with each other? As the former was the prince among the philosophers, so was the latter among the apostles, on whom the church of the Lord is founded as on a solid structure. I answer: The same may be true: but did Plato, the prince of the philosophers, immediately rule over the philosophers by right of authority? No, but by excellence of doctrine and honor. So also Peter as prince not by force, but by honor of the first place. And that he says: the church is built on him' is true in the secondary sense, as I said above, because otherwise Peter himself, in the primary sense, is built as a part of the church on the rock, but not on himself. Jerome has here misapplied the word of the gospel, since he says the opposite in other places, where he explains the gospel in all seriousness.

Fourth, Chrysostom on Matthew 16: What then did Peter, the mouth of all the apostles and the head of the whole community? He gave him a higher mind and made him the shepherd of his future church. And in the following: he has

Christ set over the whole world. If he wants to understand this about the right of authority, it is said without scriptural testimony, because Christ's words do not contain this in themselves, as I have said above; secondly, because Chrysostom himself did not hold it, since Theophilus of Alexandria, but not the Roman bishop, appointed him bishop; thirdly, because, although Peter would be such, the Roman pope would not therefore be exactly the same, partly because the former is an apostle, and the latter a bishop; the latter holy, but the latter perhaps a sinner. Therefore I approve the reasoning of Chrysostom, and so that it does not conflict with the preceding, I allow it to be valid in this way: that Peter was the mouth of the apostles, and therefore did not speak and hear in his person: "To you I will give" 2c [Matth. 16, 19.] Thus he was set over the whole world according to the honor and in the person of the church, which is the mother of us all.

Fifth, he cites Leo, c. Beatissimus: Peter received the primacy from the Lord. It is true, but that does not make him Peter's successor. I have nothing to do with the decrees, because they treat the word of God very coldly. Beda speaks more for us, since he confesses that Peter acted in the apostle's person; therefore, Eck cunningly put on only his name, fearing that it would harm his opinion. A theologian acts so schemingly! Now he also cites Dionysius c. 3. De divinis Nominibus, as if he spoke of the pope, the governor of Christ, and of Peter, who was set over all churches, since nowhere in Dionysius does anything of this appear. Such Eck's audacity displeases me, which so disdains all people's wit and learning that he hopes he can abuse them altogether as foolish and stupid fools by attracting what is nowhere written and taking everything out of mere courage. If he is only interested in gathering a bunch of names, I would advise him to take a book of martyrs or a calendar of saints, and not to sully the words of the Fathers and the Holy Scriptures with so many lies.

Sixth, Cyprian's post, which he took to Leip-.

zig has not been able to indicate, and also now does not dare to name rightly, except that he attracts Lib. I. epistolarum. So certainly he has not read the writers himself, but he takes sayings out of what others have collected, which can serve his misconception with some semblance. However, I reply that it is the third letter Lib. I. to Cornelius, of which he dreamt in Leipzig that it should be written, I do not know to whom. After all this (he says), since a false bishop has been set over them by heretics, they dare to sail to the chair of Peter and the main church, from where the priestly unity has come 2c Then Eck concludes: Therefore the Roman pope is higher than all by right of power. For so he always raves, and puts into the writings of the Fathers what he will. Cyprian here asserts the unity of the church against the heretics, not the power of the Roman pope; he calls it a main church, and rightly so! because the first of the apostles, Peter, was there, and from there the priestly unity (he says) came over the other churches. From where? From Peter, of course, according to the above passage of the same Cyprian; not that Peter made all the priests, but because Christ, who gives equal authority to the apostles, starts from the one Peter and wanted to show the unity of the churches through it. So Eck is mistaken who thinks that by this word all priests came from the city of Rome and had to be fetched, because in such a way no apostles would have ordered bishops. And Cyprian himself did not have his priesthood from the city [Rome], nor did any bishop in Africa or the Orient. This Eck bravely ignores, and with sophistical defiance only hangs on letters and syllables, that he makes Cyprian a heretic, whose words he twists against the life of Cyprian according to his divine right.

Seventh. Jerome to Evagrius: And it is not to be held that there is another church at Rome, and another in the whole world. Just look at the bold and godless impostor! In the letter, St. Jerome intends to show that all the bishops are equal among themselves, and that

the presbyters as much as the bishops. In short, this letter alone fundamentally destroys Eck's flattering doctrine of the supremacy of the pope according to divine right, so that when I held this [letter] up to him in Leipzig, he had to invent a distinction between the apostleship and the dominion. For Jerome clearly says there: "One bishop can become higher than another through the power of wealth, but not through the dignity of the priesthood. He says: The bishop of Rome or Eugubium 2c is one as much as the other. Consequently, it is clear that Eck sought nothing more with such deception than to ape the souls of the simple and unlearned, and to pin his ungodly distortions on St. Jerome, since he attracts that which most disputes him. But I also cannot guess what he wants when he says: The church of the city of Rome is no other than the church of the whole world. Jerome's saying is clear: the world is greater than the city, as he says there, so one believes in Rome what one believes in the whole world, because one church, and Rome is not separated from the general church. Eck, however, who follows his conclusion art and carries a disgust before the dusty schools of the language art teachers, wants to bring out this: The Roman Church and the Church of the whole world is one, therefore the pope is governor of Christ and prince of the bishops (for this he wanted to prove). And the consequence is clear, if one may only rave and draw conclusions with sick brain. Or he has wanted to say about this: This is not to be called a church which is not under the Roman church. But this does not say Jerome, but Eck; indeed, Jerome says the opposite. See the letter.

What wonder, then, if the sophists, the cutters of writings of this kind, understand neither their own nor foreign things, since they adapt everything they seize to their dreams and sully it with their antics?

He also refers to Jerome "to Damasus", but only by name, wanting to arouse the simple-minded reader's suspicions about a thing that is not contained in Jerome. For Eck seeks only that, that he, through every possible art-

The text of the book is not a book, but a book. Jerome says: he speaks with the fisherman's successor, and praises the Roman church that it has never been tainted with heretical error, and that it is built on the rock according to Christ's words. To these quite true words of Jerome, Eck adds the word Only, that one should think that this is only due to the Roman church, since Christ promises [Matth. 16, 18.] that he will build his whole church (which is not the Roman church alone) on the rock. But what do Eck and Christ have to do with each other?

Eighthly, he cites Ambrose from the decrees, because he does not have time to read him himself (since he says): They do not have Peter's heritage who do not have Peter's faith. Dear! Who has ever denied this? Is then the faith of Peter and Paul and all the apostles different from one another? or has the Roman church a different faith from the whole world? The whole world has the faith of Peter and the Roman church; indeed, Eck would be surprised to learn that the Roman church has my faith. How now? It has the faith of Peter, so Peter is a lord over all, according to the rules of this new concluding artist. But the prophets in the Old Testament also had the faith of Peter, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:3, they ate the same food; therefore they were under the obedience of Peter, or they were heretics, according to our great master Eck.

Now if having the faith of Peter is as much as being under Peter, what kind of faith does Peter himself have? or under which Peter will he himself stand? So, if having the faith of the Roman church is as much as being under the Roman church, under which church is she herself? Is it under itself, because it has its own faith?

I believe, my dear reader, that you have long since grown tired of Eck's insipid foolish antics, which, as you see, Eck could have nullified by the mere art of language, but which he ridicules when it is said that it is more useful to writing than his wretched dazzling work.

He puts it on again, namely in the words: We follow the example of the Roman Church in everything. We also, as much as the

faith. For in other matters Ambrose did not adhere to it, for he did not fast on the Sabbath with the Roman Church, and the same Milanese Church still to this day has a different manner in its customs than the Roman Church. So there is nothing with the smoke of Eck's gossip: We follow the example of the Roman church, therefore the Roman church is above all churches. But it is enough that this is proved to Eck, who is also not worthy to be guided by better reasons, because he wilfully follows error.

Ninth, again Augustine: In the Roman church there has always been the supremacy of the apostolic see. Do I find you there, dear Eck? 1) Augustine says that the Roman church has the supremacy of the apostolic see, as he also says elsewhere, as L. 2. doctr. christ. c. 8, he prefers the apostolic churches to the others. Eck, however, who adds his own, understands the sovereignty of the general church, by the chair he understands the church, by the apostolic one the catholic one, namely by means of the despised language art.

Then he says: He leaves out the decrees. He does well, because they contradict themselves. For those which are patched together by dirty notaries speak for Eck; but those by learned popes, such as Pelagius, Gregory, are for me; as I have shown in my last discussion.

But he also counts the names of the Conciliar, because in them nothing is fixed for his opinion, except in the Costnitz, which he however conceals here, because he knows that it is also doubtful, yes, against him. I have for myself the Nicene and African, yes, the six first and most famous, as will be seen in my Leipzig disputation. 2) Thus, Eck seeks nothing else with the heap of such names than to dupe and ape ignorant and unlearned readers.

1) In the original: Manku (Ex. 16, 15.)? Heel. For the translation, compare the Tischreden. St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, cap. 3, H15. Accordingly, it could also have been translated: "You are right for me!

2) The Acts of the Leipzig Disputation were not published until December 1519. Weim. Vol. II, 642.

The rest, which belongs to this matter, you will find, my reader, in my last discussion, as I said, and in the disputation at Leipzig.

4th article.

He speaks of the canons: they would have been ordered because of the avarice of the Roman pope and other bishops, because according to divine law no case would be reserved.

Since Eck wants to prove this article to be erroneous, he has patched together much from the decrees. For with Eck, divine law is contained in human decrees, but with us it is found in the holy Scriptures: therefore I pass over everything he prattles on about. I know very well that one should not despise the apostolic commandments and statutes of the superiors. But this is the question: whether according to divine right any case is reserved? Eck will never prove this. For it has been proved above that all bishops are equal by divine right, therefore none can except a case from the other according to divine right, not even the bishop from a village priest (plebano); hence Cyprianus, Inb. I. 6P. 3.He says: "Since we have all decided, and it is also just and right, that each person's case should be heard where the offense was committed, and that each shepherd should be assigned his part of the flock, which each one should govern and lead: Those over whom we are set must by no means roam about and seek to disturb the bishops' firm harmony by their treacherous and deceitful iniquity, but act their cause where they can have both accusers and witnesses of their offense. So far he! There you say that every shepherd has his assigned part of the herd, but now every herd has ten, yes, a hundred shepherds (pastores) or rather pastors (de- pastores). You see that no case is reserved, but that each one should repent in his church. If this is contrary to divine right, Cyprian is a heretic in this doctrine, which the Nicene Concilium also established.

And it is nothing that Eck chatters, through this

Opinion, church discipline would be overturned. For why do Cyprian and the Nicene Concilium not overturn it? Rather, discipline is overturned by the Roman court and the reservation of cases. If this provision of Cyprian and the Nicene Concilium were kept, licentiousness in sinning would not go so unpunished today. The common clergy have no power, the bishops a little more, but the Roman court has all of it. But there no one is kept in discipline, but all sins are sold for money, where the city is only full of indulgences, that is, of the evasion of discipline so full that it cries out to heaven.

But I am surprised that Eck has left out the first part of this article; whether he believes it to be true, I do not know, namely that the canons are ordered out of avarice. For this is what these brothers, the disciples of Eck, have added; for in truth they do not take care of their order, nor of themselves, but of others, so that they may belittle and accuse them. But it has been said that the canons and the reservations of the cases of this day are nothing else than ropes of avarice, not through their fault, but through the fault of the Roman tyrants. For the avarice of the Roman court is the most impudent: if one gives money, then canons and everything are for sale; if not, then it is a reserved case, although one should be ready to fulfill all canons and bear all Christian discipline. These reserved cases, these canons, are the ones that overturn Christian discipline and serve avarice.

After that, the excellent doctor, master of law, theology and dialectics, enumerates the articles that have been condemned at Costnitz, and assures that they are full of error, namely these:

The pope is not an immediate governor of Christ and the apostles.

The Decretal Letters have no divine validity (sunt apocryphas).

It is not necessary for blessedness to believe that the Roman Church is above others.

Peter has not been the head of the holy Catholic Church, nor is he now.

Without revelation, no one would want to say with reason about himself or another that he is the head of a single holy church, let alone the Roman pope the head of the Roman church.

The obedience of the Church is an obedience according to the invention of the priests of the Church, without a clear testimony of the Holy Scriptures.

They call Eck all full of error, as a master of the Concilium and the Holy Church: since the Concilium has not recognized all of them for error, which I want to prove from the words of the Concilium itself, and have already proven at Leipzig.

At the end he says: "For Peter has been entrusted with the fullness of authority which his successor has; others are called to the fellowship of pastoral care, as the holy and very humble Gregory says. I answer, "So he has his authority by divine right." The conclusion applies according to the testimony of Gregory, whose word with Eck is as much as divine right. But with what clumsy mischievousness does Eck conceal that the same Gregory, with respect to what he says only once here, says the opposite ten times in other places. Is it right for us to believe Eck, who excepts a single doubtful passage, and ten others deny certain passages of the same? But of this in my discussion. But how much better will this single passage, which is said without any particular intention, be explained after ten others, than that we give ear to Eck's dreams? Gregory says in the Epistles: the supreme office was offered to the Roman popes by the Council of Chalcedon, and yet was not accepted by any of them. If this supremacy came from divine right, then both acted ungodly, the former by offering what was not theirs to offer but only to restore, the latter by not accepting it; for divine right must be accepted even if it would bring death, and must not be given up for the sake of any cause. But, as I said, Eck, who has to work in the high schools of light, is more concerned about everything else than about learning the art of speech. Therefore, one must forgive his ignorance that he neither knows what divine right is nor how it must be observed.

5th and 6th articles.

He says that there are no evangelical counsels, but all that is written in the Gospel, he says, are commandments.

He also speaks that God demands the highest perfection from every Christian, and the attitude of the whole Gospel.

The brothers, who had heard from me 1) that this article is not spoken by anyone, have at least invented the first part. But I would have forgiven Eck for having been seduced by a foreign lie, if I had not seen that he showed by his antics how he knew nothing about neither commandments nor councils. Accordingly, I want to make the whole article. Thus it has been said: The evangelical counsels are not above but below the commandments; that is, the counsels are certain ways and more convenient means to fulfill the commandment of God more easily and skillfully. Therefore, when the counsels have been kept, the commandments of God have not yet been fulfilled. For the apostle says in Rom. 7, 25. 18. that he served the law of sin and had sin in his flesh (which is undoubtedly against God's commandment); and yet he lived in the highest echelon of the counsels. So there is no difference between the counsel and the commandment, that the counsel is more than the commandment; for so theologians err and deceive: but that they [the counsel] are more convenient means to the commandment. For he is more easily chaste who is a widower or a bachelor, and abstains from the female sex, than he who is bound to it, who indulges in lust.

Therefore, Eck, who attracts the apostle who spoke wisdom among the perfect, knows neither what the apostle there understands by wisdom, nor what he understands by perfect. He is just as clever with regard to the state of perfection, and concludes quite ridiculously that all people would have to become monks and single people (virgines) if we were to be urged to the highest perfection.

1) From these words one has concluded that the Franciscans had oral conversations with Luther. Franciscans had oral conversations with Luther, but such never took place. These words refer to what Luther wrote to the Franciscans in the previous writing ß 6.

If the state of perfection, that is, the word perfection, made monks and virgins perfect. I will therefore ask the corner: to whom is this commandment given: Do not be lusted after? Is it only to virgins [that is, single people]? or to all people? And if the latter, then all are bound to the highest perfection: for not to covet is the highest chastity, which even the apostle Paul does not say he has, and which even virgins do not have; and yet it is commanded to all in the ten commandments, which are common to all. What does he want to do here? Does he want to abolish marriage, because it cannot exist without lust? But lust is against the commandment of God. Bull theologian! Listen to this: God demands of all that they not covet; widows and virgins come closest to this, but no one achieves this completely. But He forgives all because of the groaning with which they complain that they cannot attain it, saying [Rom. 7:24], "Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" Where then art thou, my corner, who hast dared to cry out these articles for sacrilegious and seductive? Do you see that you have not even come so far as to understand a single one of the ten commandments?

7. article.

He also says that the ear confession was not by divine right, but by appointment of Innocent III.

Our excellent Eck calls this an error of the Greeks and Hebrews, and proves it from Augustine, Ambrose, Origen, Peter Alexandrinus. Dear! if a pagan asked for a divine right, and you pointed him to human word, would he consider you a madman or a reasonable man? Eck has been a theologian for so many years, and at once ready to trouble the whole world, and does not even know what divine right is. I am surprised that he has left out Cyprianus, who is the most confessional of all; but perhaps his compiler, 1)

1) I.e. the one who compiled the sayings from the Fathers for Eck.

The author, who does not care for the art of language, did not understand the Greek word exomoIogesin, for example, that it means as much as confessio in Latin.

I say, therefore, that confession, which is now made secretly in the ear, cannot be proved by any divine right; and it did not happen so at first, but only the public, of which Christ says Matt. 18:15, "If thy brother sin against thee." And Paul [1 Tim. 5, 19.], "Against an elder receive no accusation. "2c For in those days offenses were examined by witnesses and accusers, as I have quoted above from Cyprian, until the one convicted confessed it. This confession, I say, is divine right, held by the apostles and their successors, of which the fathers write, which Eck put on, who understands nothing. But I do not condemn the secret confession, except that I deplore that it has been made a torture, that men must confess and make scruples about things in which there is no sin, or only a venial sin.

Now let us see our Scotist, how he proves confession by divine right, John 20:23: "Whom ye remit sins. "2c Then, saith he, Christ hath set the apostles and their successors to be judges in loosing and binding: but now the judge cannot make a judgment, except he have known the matter; which is by confession. Behold! how the dull sophist creeps along.

His fable is this: no sin can be forgiven unless it is made known through confession. But since no man can know all sins, it will happen that he will be bound to an impossible thing. For this is where the torture of consciences came from, that there is no end to the investigations and the application of care in confession; this is where the confessionalia come from, with grandchildren, daughters, kinds, and generations of sins, so that one must also struggle too much with keeping them, since one should only consult conscience in this matter.

Christ did not say: "Whose sins you have

not remit them, they are not remitted to them, and to whom you do not retain them, they are not retained." God forgives and retains more than the priest can retain or forgive, although what he forgives is truly forgiven. It does not follow: I forgive you all that you have done evil to me; therefore, God has forgiven you everything. So it does not follow: the church has forgiven you what you confess, therefore all is forgiven; but it still remains according to that word [Ps. 19, 13.]: "Who can notice how often he falls short?" and according to Job's saying [9, 28.] 1): I shrink from all my works. There is no trade in the church so much in need of improvement as that of confession and penance. For here all laws, profit, violence, tyranny, error, danger and innumerable evils of all souls and of the whole church rage with full impetuosity, but the popes do not ask anything about it, but leave it to the tormentors of souls, the sophists. But this, together with Eck's ignorance, may be postponed to another time.

8th article.

He says: the Canons teach avarice, piety, indulgence.

It is clear that these brothers are lying. For who would be so foolish as to want to say this? if it were not said that the law is the power of sin, and sin is increased by the law. And if the brethren had put the word "teach" in this way for "cause", this would be true, because by the increase of the law sins also become much. Therefore this is the most unfortunate way to govern, to burden the completely free church of Christ with such overflowing laws. For the Roman court has harmed the church of Christ by nothing so much as by the quantity and variety of its laws, which seems to me to be the last and greatest persecution, since in it so many consciences are entangled and irretrievably lost; not to mention the exceedingly shameful profit that is brought about by such laws.

1) According to the Vulgate.

9th article.

He speaks: man has no free will.

This is what Eck calls the heresy of the Manichaete. But I abhor Eck's envy with all my heart, in whom there is not so much honesty that he [envy] would let him teach the truth purely and openly, although he knows it; but he seeks to hide it, and delights that others remain in error, so that he may have disciples of both kinds of contradiction. Woe unto thee, thou cursed fame, and let all creatures curse thee!

Know therefore, my reader, and be assured, that Eck does not hold any differently in this matter than I do, except according to mere word and appearance. And that you recognize this, then pay attention. Eck admitted at Leipzig that free will is not capable of anything before grace, but only of sinning. That is why it can do nothing good, but only evil. Where then is his freedom? For every man, at least an unlearned man, when he hears of free will, thinks that he can do as much good as evil, and by no means thinks that he can do only evil. Therefore, he walks along trusting in himself, and misses the fact that he can convert to God by his own efforts.

Eck knows well that this is ungodly, and yet he does not instruct the brothers, but helps ungodly to their error. I therefore say that man has a free will, not that he is still as he was in paradise (Sirach 15:14 speaks of this, which Eck refers to), but because he was free and can become free again through grace; otherwise it is a true servile will. It is therefore called a free will, not only of what it does, but also of what it is obliged to do. Therefore Augustinus Lib 2. contra Julianum calls it a servant will. And Christ (Joh. 8, 34.]: "He that committeth sin is the servant of sin." And again, "A man can take nothing, except it be given him from heaven." Joh. 3, 27. How then a desolate city or a fallen house may have the name and title they had before and will have in the future.

but still cannot do the same as before, so also free will. But what shall I do with the exceedingly unlearned brothers? Eck may answer. If free will is free, why was it not in the power of Paul, Rom. 7, 15. ff, to do what he wanted? Why did he serve the sin he hated? Behold, the apostle calls himself, in the state of grace, imprisoned in the law of sin, and you give a still sinful man a free will? And again, if the will is free, why do we pray, "Hallowed be thy name; thy will be done"? Is it to make things easier for us, as the Pelagians said? When we pray, it is impossible [by our own power] why we ask, and consequently not at all in our freedom. In short, Augustine says that one should despise those who oppose the truth out of malice, but one should teach those who do it out of ignorance. Eck knows this well, as I said. When the holy fathers, on the other hand, defend free will, they speak only of its capacity for freedom, namely, that it can be turned to the good by the grace of God, and thus become truly free, for which it was created.

10th article.

[Similarly, he teaches that many canons are contrary to sacred Scripture and misinterpret it.

This article, says Eck, is disrespectful to the popes and erroneous; and by subverting my name, he punishes me for having written such things in the Actis Augustensibus 1) and for having judged there most wrongly. Afterwards, since he wants to refute my story (Acta.) and defend the Canons, he says: St. Cyprianus explained the saying [Matth. 16, 18.]: "You are Peter" 2c as Pelagius äi8t. 21 Similarly, St. Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Bernard, Beda,

1) This writing is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 740 ff, under the title: Handlungen des ehrwürdigen Vaters D. Martin Luther 2c zu Augsburg, and Vol. XV, 746 ff: Lutheri hinten angefügt nachdrückliche Beschlußrede 2c The passage to which Luther refers here is especially Col. 747, § 2.

the common gloss, all would have understood Peter under the rock. Enough has already been said about this above, article 2. 3.Enough has been said that most of the holy fathers say that Peter had the person of the church and apostles on himself, and that Peter is misunderstood to be the rock, and that consequently the words of the gospel cannot stand such an interpretation, because it is inconsistent for Peter to be built on himself: therefore, one must primarily follow those fathers who follow the actual main understanding of the gospel, as Augustine, Jerome, Beda, Origen. I have therefore rightly said that Pelagius interprets the Gospel violently, not because he understands Peter to be the rock (petram), as Eck argues here, who cites something that does not belong here at all; but because he does not understand the person of Peter there to be the person of the apostles (for that was the question I had to deal with, not whether Peter was the rock), according to which he has assumed power over the whole church through the rock, which the words of the Gospel do not suffer. Eck should have refuted this, and not extinguished the fire where none burns; only that Eck, as I said, was pleased to talk a lot; but how rightly and skillfully he knew this would not be necessary for stupid readers. For he who seeks only the mob's judgment and fame will easily get it, if he also raves (if he only chats a lot).

And in the same way, as theologically, he also refutes the passage in the Decretal, which has Paul's word [Hebr. 7, 12.]: "if the priesthood is changed, the law must [necessarily] also be changed"! He says, I would rather have rejected the gloss than the text (which would be Augustine's and Paul's). The ridiculous head! as if I had rejected the text, if I rejected Pelagius in the previous point, and not rather the abuse of the text and the forced interpretation. For, do I then reject the text in this whole trade, if I challenge Eck's ungodly distortion? It was not my opinion here to reject the text; but this, that the popes applied this text quite maliciously to their priesthood and their laws.

1408 v>"- n. 506-508. 55. L. 's defense against Eck's verdict. W. xvm, 1726-1729. 1409

as anyone who reads it can see. For otherwise no reason can be given why in this passage, which deals with statutes, they have drawn on this passage of Pauli, if they had not done so for their laws, as the gloss says. Eck is a doctor of law, and does not know so much as to discern from the title the ultimate purpose of the law which is placed under that title. Perhaps he is more a doctor of the soup that can be swallowed than of the law that must be understood. 1)

11. article.

One must believe a layman who guides the Scriptures more than the pope or a concilium if they do not guide the Scriptures.

This sentence, says Eck (although Gerson lehr opposes him), is audacious, conducive to heresy, it increases obstinacy, produces separation (singularitas ----- Einzelnsein), disobedience and indignation against the pope and the holy conciliarities, and [he brings] even more such beautiful Latin ornaments 2) from the art of language (despised by him).

But you, my reader, pay attention to Eck here (that I also mock him in Eck's manner), whether he is not full of the greatest heretical error with his disciples, the brothers [monks], from inside and outside, from head to foot. What good do you think he can teach who says that one should not believe the Holy Scriptures? Of which heretic has it ever been heard that he dared to teach that one should not believe the word of God? Thus must fall those who, corrupted by envy against the brother and by mad flattery, seek nothing but the mischief of both the church and the truth for the sake of their accursed honor. What will he do here? The holy scripture is God's word, and if a donkey said that, it should be heard even before all the angels, if they came without the word of God, let alone before the pope and an

1) Jus means both "soup" and "law". This play on words cannot be reproduced in German. Therefore, Luther also calls the lawyers "soup eaters". Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, Cap. 66, 817.

2) This refers to the non-Latin expressions used by Eck: xromotivarn, arlAmentativam, Mnsrutivam, and so on.

Concil, if they act without the word of God. O madness! One should not believe God's words, but man's words, teaches Eck, a doctor of sacred theology (that is, of God's word). The same teaches his disciples, this adder snake-breed. Go now, Eck, and teach that hearing the word of God and believing him who guides the Scriptures is as much as promoting heresy, division, disobedience and indignation. Dear, where is here the zeal of the Roman court, where princes, where popes? Can you suffer such atrocious things? I have to suffer so many enemies because I do not respect human opinions; but here an enemy of the Word of God, a denier of the Holy Scripture has honor and prestige.

12th article.

He says that good works are not necessary.

Eck declares this sentence to be heretical and proves it quite well. But does he not betray his envy and malice? since he knows that I do not have this opinion, and yet willingly allows himself to be persuaded of this by the malicious brothers, and thus indicates that he would rather have me be so exceptionally wrong, so that he has something to boast about against me, than that I recognize the truth. How beautiful Eck's modesty would have been if he had resisted such brothers and said: you speak falsely, I have read Luther's writings, he does not have the opinion, but that of Bernhard. So much for Eck.

By the way, I believe that this sentence originated because I have often taught that good works done apart from grace are nothing. Furthermore, according to Paul, I have attributed righteousness to faith alone, without works of the law. Then those brethren who do not understand either what works of the law are, or what good works are, have put good works instead of works of the law, which are not necessary, and are even harmful. For what can they know of the law or of the works of the law, whose order entails not wanting to learn anything, not knowing anything, but only for the sake of a handful of barley and a morsel of bread, to use Ezekiel's words [Ezek 13:19], to drive the dreams of their brain into the people.

So this remains the opinion: The works of every law are not necessary, yes, rather harmful, but all good works 1) are necessary and salutary.

13th article.

[He teaches:] God has commanded impossible things to man.

There he brings together many passages of Scripture in which it says: Christ's yoke is easy, Matth. 11, 30, his commandments are not heavy, 1 Joh. 5, 3. I will be dead if he does not only put himself in this way, or does not know the least bit about where they are aiming. I said above: Eck be one with me, that free will without grace can do nothing but sin. Dear, what great and poisonous envy is this, that one hides this knowledge of our misery and incapacity from his brothers? If man can do nothing but sin, how can it be otherwise than that the commandments of God are impossible for him? That the cursed hypocrisy and dissimulation of the sophists, who do nothing but say one thing here and another thing there to seduce the souls of the simple, may perish! I say, therefore, that the commandments of God, even the least and easiest, are impossible to man by his own power; but with the grace of God they are quite easy, as the apostle says [Phil. 4:13.], "I can do all things in him that maketh me mighty"; and elsewhere he says [2 Cor. 3:5.], "We are not able to think anything of ourselves but of ourselves." For why else do we pray, "Thy will be done," if they are possible to us? Jerome therefore rightly says: let him be accursed who says that the commandments of God are impossible; but he has not denied that they are impossible for us. Everything is possible for God, but nothing is possible for us. As the 139th Psalm, v. 4, says: "There is no word in my tongue", how much less a work in my hand!

Eck could have given this explanation, but he did not want to, so that he could only give some

1) I.e.: Works of free love, which does good without constraint, but according to God's word.

with which he would like to accuse and slander me. For he has more desire to arouse enmity against me than to teach the truth to those who are closest to him, and would rather that all men perish in error than that he should not be able to vent his foul [tabidum] envy.

I pass over the saying Deut. 30, 13: "It is not beyond the sea" 2c, which he interprets so clumsily that it seems that he speaks more in madness than in common sense. But of that in his time.

14th article.

Christ earned nothing for Himself, but only for us.

With this sentence I am still in doubt myself; because everything was Christ's from the first moment of his conception, therefore "merit" must be taken ambiguously here. But I do not know whether I have ever said this. This much I know, that everything Christ did or acquired, he did and acquired for us, to fulfill his Father's will, because he did not seek anything for himself. And if any of my hearers have said it in this sense, they have said it rightly. For I am sure that I have preached in this way. So it is the mind of this: Christ by his earning served not himself but us, as he says Isa. 43, 24. 2): "Thou hast made me to serve in thy sins."

But this sentence annoys the brethren of ignorance, because they use to seduce the people and exhort them to accumulate great merits, especially with the works they teach and choose; thus they cause people to get used to seeking their own from God and to serve God merely for the sake of benefit; since, according to Christ's example, who did everything for our salvation, not for the sake of any profit or benefit that he derived from it, but only for the sake of God's will, we should also not serve God for the sake of any benefit, but should consider not how much we deserve, but how well we do God's will.

2) According to the Vulgate.

This sound doctrine is not understood by the nonsensical brothers and false prophets, but they fill the world with errors and hell with damned souls, by teaching people the names and words of merit rather than being mindful of the will of God. I have said that Christ deserves nothing for himself, but they have never understood what deserving is, nor have they been able to understand it. For to deserve is not so much as to do good with the intention of earning (for this is how these deceivers of souls use to ape the people of God), but to obey the divine will in simplicity of heart, without regard to merit or reward, merely out of pure inclination, without seeking a profit, in vain. For love does not seek its own [1 Cor. 13:5]; but merits and rewards follow of their own accord, without our asking, on obedience to the divine will.

15th article.

That the Bohemians are better Christians than we are.

Eck calls this sentence a protector of heresy, which is an entry to the holy Costnitz Concilium. The lumpy and hungry theological bungler knows nothing else to brag about than the Costnitz Concilium, of which I have said enough elsewhere that it partly erred, partly did not consider many things heretical or erroneous, which Eck from his own brain, according to sheer willpower, claims to be heretical and erroneous.

Here we must listen to the apostle who says [Rom. 14:4], "Who art thou to judge a strange servant? He stands or falls by his Lord."

In the end, he did not express clearly enough the article about the canonization of the saints [de canoni- satione sanctorum], so I cannot say anything about it. He only says: it is annoying and detrimental to the power of the pope, which has been handed over to him. I would like to know from which passage of Scripture the pope has received the power to declare the saints blessed and holy? Furthermore, what need is there to place people among the saints? Finally, what is the use of making saints? But since he himself had said this

I will let it go, and only say: I do not particularly like such canonization of the saints, as we have seen many declared saints, who would have made themselves saints best, although I do not condemn them. It canonisire everyone, as much as he wants!

So you have seen, I say, my dear reader, how unreasonably and maliciously Eck and the brothers have sought me out, that, since they cannot slander what is mine, they have laid their fiction on me, so that they might in some way atone for their desire to slander: about this, if the Christian name did not hold me back, I could play along with both of them very whimsically. But so that they do not think me so stupid, as if I could not notice their bad tricks, I will try to present not my but their own poison to them and to reveal their thoughts, so that these so idle blasphemers have something to occupy themselves with. So I will put here the heretical articles and errors in order, which I have collected from their previously mentioned calumnies, and you will see how much more difficult it is to defend one's own than to blame the foreign.

24 heretical articles of Johann Eck and some brothers, from what they claim and what they deny, extracted by Martin Luther.

The first: The Nicene Concilium with the four following is heretical.

The second: The African Concilium is heretical.

This is proved by Eck's words, because they decided against the Costnitz Concilium that the Roman pope is not the general bishop over all churches, and that the bishops do not have to be confirmed from the city of Rome.

The third: The Oriental Church has been heretical for more than a thousand years.

This is evident from the fact that she lived according to the conclusions of the Nicene Concilium, contrary to the Costnitz Concilium.

The fourth: The African churches have been heretical with the martyr Cyprian.

For they have lived in the very point according to the Nicene Concilium.

The fifth: St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Martin, St. Nicolas are heretics.

For they were not consecrated by the Roman Pontiff, contrary to the Costnitz Concilium.

The sixth: Gregorius Nazianzenus, Athanasius, Basilius Magnus were heretics,

because they acted according to the Nicene Concilium, contrary to the Costnitz.

The seventh: The Roman popes to this day are heretics,

because they recognized the decisions of the Nicene Concilium as good, against the Costnitz Concilium.

The eighth: St. Gregorius Magnus has been a heretic with his predecessors,

because they refused the supremacy (primatum) offered by the Concilium of Chalcedon, and thus set themselves against divine right, in opposition to the Concilium of Costnitz.

The ninth: The whole general church in all the world is heretical, except Eck and the brethren, because it considers the Nicene Concilium equal to the Gospel.

The tenth: Most of the decrees of the popes of Rome are heretical.

For they state that the Nicene Concilium is to be compared to the Gospels, contrary to the Costnitz Concilium.

The eleventh: An evil pope is not a pope.

For the word of Christ [Matt. 16:18], "Thou art Peter," does not rhyme with him, because he is not a rock, except when he gives the pe

trus is the same: because according to Eck's words, violence is proven from this saying of the pope. This is an article of the Donatists and Picards.

The twelfth: A pope who does not preach the gospel is not a pope,

because he does not keep the word of Christ [Joh. 21,17.]: "feed my sheep", by which according to Eck the pope is appointed. Likewise [he is not a pope] [Luc. 22, 32.] if he does not strengthen his fallen and frightened brothers, as Eck also teaches.

The thirteenth: A pope who does not love Christ is not a pope, because according to Eck Peter is appointed as pope by the saying [Joh. 21, 17.]: "feed my sheep", where love is first demanded from Christ.

The fourteenth: The Ten Commandments are given only to those who are in the state of perfection,

because the commandment: do not be lusted after, is not due to anyone but in the state of perfection, much less other more difficult ones.

The fifteenth: Sins cannot be forgiven unless they are recognized and confessed.

This is evident from Joh. 20, 23: "to whom you remit sin" 2c, and from the gloss of Eck: but this is erroneous and heretical, because there are also secret sins and those that have been forgotten.

The sixteenth: That free will without grace is free and not servile,

against Paul Rom. 6, 17.: "You have been servants of sin" 2c

The seventeenth: That the Roman pope was a heretic,

because according to Christ's and Peter's example [Matth. 17, 24.] (to which he is equal), he does not give interest.

The eighteenth: The whole clergy is heretical:

because he does not give interest to the secular princes, which is clear from the foregoing.

1416 D- a. ii. si3 f. 55. L. 's Vertheidigung Wider das Urtheil Eck. W. xvm, 1735-1737. 1417

The nineteenth: The rights of the privileges and liberties of churches, things and persons are heretical:

because they are against Christ and Peter, who paid the interest, and they are to be equal to them; for from such equality Eck proved the power of the Roman Pontiff.

The twentieth: The kings and princes obeyed the Gospel when they took higher taxes from the pope and the clergy than from the laity.

This is clear from the foregoing.

The one and twentieth: One must believe not the word of God, but the word of men, because Eck says it is a tinder of heresy to believe a layman who led the Scriptures.

The twenty-second: A Concilium is about the Scriptures and the Word of God,

because, according to Eck's teaching, they are to be believed more, even without Scripture, than the layman with Scripture.

The twenty-third: The pope is worse than Lucifer and the Antichrist,

because Lucifer and the Antichrist only want to be like God, but Eck ascribes to the pope such sovereignty over God that he accepts him more than the word of God.

The twenty-fourth: The commandments of God are possible for man, and consequently he does not need the grace of God, as the Pelagians teach.

These most harmful and blasphemous errors, Martin Luther assures, are contained in the articles of Eck and the brethren with their explanations, and he promises that he will convict them of them and prove all of this if they do not recant what they have said so badly.

But this, my dear reader, I have gathered together without much care, and would find far more if I wanted to examine their things, as they say, down to the living flesh after Eck's and the brothers' manner, which they have smeared on the paper. But I reserve the right to refute all this in due time, for I have not yet treated Eck as he always treats me. But he will probably tease the sleeping dog and pay for the abuse of my patience one day.

Farewell, dear reader, and pray that my corner may be healed and delivered from the misery of his mad flattery and glory-seeking. Amen.