Saxon court preacher,
in which he responds to the silliness of the Minorites that they put forward in the previous writing. *)
December 11, 1522. **)
Newly translated from the Latin.
1. grace and peace. In all my life I have never seen anything more foolish or foolish than the silliness of which only the Minorites are capable [minoritioissimss], so that you have no need of help to refute them; however, so that I do not leave you without all answer, I will lose words and time.
2) Your first article, namely, that one may not add anything to the word of God, therefore the mass is not to be called a sacrifice, because in the word of God there is nothing about it, they counter with three, which, however, only come down to the one: The Church has this opinion, therefore in this one must be in agreement with the
Church hold. But let us go through the pieces according to the order.
3 First of all, if they say that you have added something to the word of God by saying that the mass is not a sacrifice because it is not called a sacrifice in sacred Scripture, the silly people do not see that they want to prove a negative proposition, since lawyers also say in secular matters: the negative proposition is not proved. It is therefore sufficient for a Christian to refute any error if he can say: there is nothing about it in Scripture. But he who has an affirmative proposition is also obliged to prove it; he who asserts something must prove it.
*This letter of Luther is first found in Aurifaber's collection of letters, vol. II, 95, and printed from it by De Wette, vol. II, p. 258. Our translation is made according to De Wette.
**The day of Nicolai, December 6, fell on a Saturday in 1522. Therefore seria quinta p. Hwolui is December II. De Wette, II, 258, erroneously has December 12. Seidemann in the register of the sixth volume, p. 622, has already corrected this error.
or it is overcome by the simple denial to the contrary. But now you deny, and they affirm, that the mass is a sacrifice, therefore not you, but they must prove their opinion from the Scriptures. Otherwise, if this were not held, consider what abominable things would come out; for example, Jeroboam could have said to the holy prophets, who told him not to do his calf service: You cannot prove to me that there is nothing in the Scriptures about these calves, therefore they are not to be rejected. In the same way, Ahab, Ahaz, and all the others could have spoken, since nothing of what they did was written in the Scriptures, and yet they were condemned solely because nothing of it was in the Scriptures. Thus these foolish brethren boast that it is not written, that the mass is not a sacrifice, although this their own confession disgraces and convicts them, because they assert something that is neither affirmatively nor negatively found in Scripture, and thus in truth they add something to the words of God. But he who denies something, adds nothing; but only draws on the Scripture that denies it. By this alone the denying proposition is amply proved, because the Scripture denies it, saying, "Thou shalt add nothing to it." Likewise, if the negative sentence were to be proved in Jeremiah, Cap. 7, 31, when the Lord said through him, "I have never commanded it, I have never thought it, or taken it into consideration"; where he alone condemned it by denying it, saying, "One has added something that he did not command;" the Jews could have said: But you do not prove that it is not commanded, because nothing is written about our actions, therefore they are not to be condemned, since God condemns the ungodly precisely because nothing can be proved about their actions. And so you can convict these fools with their own words that they are to be condemned because their doctrine is neither negative nor affirmative in the Bible. If there is neither no nor yes, then there is nothing, so there is nothing to be held. Because they now confess the no,
they should prove the yes, if they want to have something there. So about this foolishness of theirs, according to Jerome about Matth. 23, 35, it could be said: "This has no scriptural statement for itself, therefore it is just as easily rejected as accepted", because that should already be enough that it has no scriptural statement against itself, so it must be asserted. I ask you, what then cannot be asserted, if it is enough to say only this in articles of faith. There is not one contrary example given in Scripture in particular, since the Lord wants everything to be confirmed to us by his certain word, but nothing without his word. In worldly things this way may well be chastened, but not in regard to articles of faith. Thus we endure the power and authority of our emperor and princes and lords, and do well by them, although the Scripture says nothing about him and us. It is not so with the articles of faith, in which one must prove the affirmative opinion, so that one deviates neither to the right nor to the left; in short, all brothers [fathers?] would have taught in vain in such a way, if they had not wanted everything to be proved from Scripture. As Augustine wrote to Jerome Epist. 8: "Only to the books that are called canonical do I attach this honor, that I firmly believe that no author of them has erred. But the other writers, no matter how excellent they may be in doctrine and holiness, I do not read in such a way that I believe it to be the truth because they have held so, but rather when they have been able to convince me by Scripture or probable reasons of reason.
4 Of course, the Minorites might say: For this reason you must believe, because they do not prove it to you by Scripture or reason; it is enough that they have nothing for it and nothing against it. What do you think Augustine would answer then? In short, corner them with this: a negative proposition is not proved, but an affirmative one must be proved; and demand Scripture from them, which they have not yet produced, or condemn them, as you began when you said: it is not necessary to assert anything 2c
5. as for the other point, that you can
But whether this is the church, which they call bishops and fathers, you must deny and demand proof. The church alone is the one that has and teaches God's word and does nothing about it, John 10: "My sheep hear my voice, but they do not hear a stranger, but turn away from him." This church alone must be heard, 1 Cor. 14: "When a revelation is made to one who sits there. "2c But those who adduce the Minorites have either been godless, as they still are; or if they attract the saints, they must first prove that the saints have not erred in the point, since they have otherwise erred many times. In short, according to the above-mentioned saying of Augustine: "No one must be heard to prove his proposition from the canonical books, no matter how holy and learned he may be. As Paul also says [1 Cor. 3, 21.], "Let no man boast." For if that were enough, that their church has hitherto had this opinion and taught in this way, then one may well fornicate, rob and steal and practice all ungodliness, because the greatest part of this church of theirs has been ungodly and has always practiced the most shameful sins. Therefore, without God's word there is no church, nor is the church believed.
The third thing is that they say that you are adding to the word of God, because you claim that their church is not the church. Of course, this is foolish, and the people themselves do not have to know what they are saying. It does not mean to add something if one does not accept a certain doctrine of a church; rather, it means to detract from it. Therefore, as long as they do not prove that their church is the church and that the word of their church is the word of God, they do not make a difference: they do not assert the affirmative proposition, and your 1) negative one remains.
(7) But that they say that the mass is a sacrifice offered in remembrance of Christ, and that if the masses ceased, the remembrance of his passion would also cease, and the like: we well know that the mass is a remembrance of the
1) Instead of sua, it would be better to read tua. Cf. below 89.
It is only a sacrifice that is received by men through the word of the Gospel. But what does this serve to prove that the mass is a sacrifice? Rather, they have eradicated the memory of Christ's suffering by making the mass a sacrifice and concealing the gospel.
But that they triumph over the passage Ps 110: "You are a priest forever", and Gen 14: "He was a priest of God, the Most High, and brought forth bread and wine", and in Malachi, Cap 1: "In all places a pure sacrifice shall be offered", as if the mass were implied by it, is a conceit of the exceedingly ass-like Minorites. First, in the Epistle to the Eberians, the passage from the Psalm and the first book of Moses is sufficiently explained. What the sacrifice of our Melchizedek had been, has its proper seat in the whole epistle. Furthermore, the blurred way of speaking proves nothing if he had also sacrificed bread and wine. But there is not even a figurative way of speaking; but it is said in the Hebrew: protulit panem et vinum, that is: he offered bread and wine to feed Abraham and his servants who had come back from the battle; but nothing is mentioned there about the sacrifice, not even with a syllable.
The pure sacrifice in Malachi is the sacrifice of our body, which is mentioned in Romans 12, 1 Peter 2, and the sacrifice of praise, Psalm 50, Ebr. 13, and elsewhere. They themselves cannot prove that Malachi speaks of the sacrifice, as little as Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, but they dream and interpret the Scriptures according to their own inventions. Therefore, just as you cite the scriptural passages Rom. 12, 1 Pet. 2 for your sacrifice, you must insist that they also present a clear proof of their sacrifice. But they will not be able to do so; therefore your negative opinion will stand and their affirmative opinion will fall over. See, I would not have had to write this for your sake, since you could have said all this yourself. Well now, bring it into the form of a disputation and oppose these church thieves and nonsensical people.
This week I will finish the translation of the books of Moses; however, to please you and the prince, I will finish the Sermon 1). Recommend me to the through-
1) This refers to the sermon (Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 374 ff.) "on the power of the sword", which Luther also mentions in his letter to Spalatin. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, annex no. 96.
lukewarm princes and pray for me. Philip sends you his greetings, wondering at the wonderfully ridiculous cowl-bearers with the proof of their negating sentence. Farewell. At Wittenberg 1522 on Thursday after Nicolai [Dec. 11] in haste.
Your Martin Luther.