Late September or early October 1533.
1. My ungracious lord, Duke George, has now sent out his answer to my letter of comfort to the exiles at Leipzig, and has signed such answer with his name and sign by heart, and yet has had the same book's master called Doctor Cochläus, 1) whom I use to call Doctor Rotzlöffel, or Doctor Gauch, which is his right name, so that one may know him best, and Duke George is so very angry that he is not content to send me through his envoys 2) to Altenburg before my most gracious lord, Duke Johann Friedrich, Elector of Saxony 2c., and the entire court to publicly accuse and condemn me verbally; but also has me reproached in writing or literally before all the world through his little gossip and foolishness. If I were now unaccustomed to the devil's and the world's wrath, something should have escaped me before such great seriousness.
(2) Well, it is said: Lords want to have advantage; and they shall have it. The day has just fallen (so I am told) to
1) Cochläus was actually called Johann Dobeneck and called himself from his birthplace Wendelstein (eoedieu - the snail) Cochläus. Because eoeükeur means spoon, Luther sometimes called him Kochlöffel or Rotzlöffel. - Gauch is an old name of the cuckoo, but then also designation of a stupid person, fool, Thoren.
2) These envoys were Heinrich von Schleinitz zum Sathan, Doctor Georg von Breitenbach, Ordinarius, and Hans Pflug zu Frauenhayn, who were sent to Weimar with an original instruction from Duke Georg, issued in Dresden on August 1, 1533, according to which the envoys were to request from John Frederick that they be allowed to present their advertisement to the Elector in the presence of all the councilors and the entire court staff. They were to sue Luthern for "responsibility". This happened on August 10 in Altenburg. The Elector had Dr. Brück give them a good answer.
Simonis and Jude 3) on which one should act for a treaty and peace between princes on both sides. So that I will not be considered as wanting to hinder such a peace or treaty (which I should also promote out of the duty of my conscience) with my angry letter, I will hold my sharpened pen until after such a treaty, in honor of peace, and in the meantime lay down the inkwell and wait to see what that day will bring, by God's grace or disgrace. If the treaty turns out well and God gives a lasting peace, I will (whether God wills it) know how to keep it; if not, then I will also certainly denounce my ungracious lord (who now, for the sake of such a treaty, retains the last word and has the advantage) again and, as clearly as I always can, gloss over what it means to direct the splinter in one's neighbor's eye and forget the beam in one's own eye, or will never again be called D. Martinus Luther, as far as God grants me life.
3) However, so that one can also read my new newspaper at this Leipzig market 4) in addition to his book, D. Rotzlöffel's, I will, as a preface to the future book, answer a little and neatly to the complaint brought against me in Altenburg, and not vainly blaspheme and scold, but also bring forward something useful and good for our people. For vain scolding and lying (as all Doctor Rotzlöffel's books do) is unfunny (silent unfruitful) to read for pious and good hearts.
3) d. i. the 28th of October.
4) i.e. the Michaelmas Mass.
*This writing appeared at the end of September or beginning of October 1533 (cf. Luther's letter to Hausmann of September 24, 1533, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1408 f.) in Wittenberg with Hans Luft under the title: "Die kleine Antwort auff H. Georgen nehestes Buch, D. Marti. Luther. Wittemberg", and in the same year again with the same. In the collections: Wittenberger (1559), vol. XII, p. 253; Jenaer (1568), vol. VI, p. 19d; Altenburger, vol. VI, p. 19; Leipziger, vol. XXI, p. 20 and Erlanger, vol. 31, p. 270. We bring the text after 'the Jenaer edition under comparison of the Erlanger.
First of all, Duke George's embassy in Altenburg accused me of being untruthful, then of being a perjurer, and finally of being a lost monk, whom the Elector of Saxony should not believe in other matters either, and also of thinking of the princely alliance, to my chagrin 2c. These are five articles. It is true that the last four he has otherwise hunted down and had hunted down on me, as the writings on both parts show; but the first one shall therefore be a new one, that I myself have invented the false oath he should have taken on the exiles in Leipzig and have attributed it to him with untruth 2c. Now (as I said) I want to keep the peace with the splinter judge. But this no one will bring upon me, that I have written in my letter of consolation, that such an oath is reproached or laid upon the chased ones at Leipzig; for they have willingly and Christianly avoided wrath from their eyes. What should they swear, or how should they swear, so willingly yielding for the sake of their conscience?
5 To the outside. How can I have invented such an oath (I am speaking now neatly and gently), because Doctor Rotzlöffel under Duke George's sign and name lets such an oath's form and word go out through the printing itself? Duke George must be my witness that I did not invent such things. For he has certainly not received such a form or note from me, which I have probably received three from such people, who are certainly to be believed. Summa, because I now want to be Mrs. Leisentritt, this is the one truth, that I did not make up such an oath, as is imposed on me, and for this reason I am unfairly scolded for being a liar or untruthful. The other truth will be found together with such a false condition of my telling the truth, when I come back to Simonis and Judea and show my causes.
But if I suppose that such an oath is false or (as its highest defiance is) not executed (of which further after Simonis and Judas), then should I be scolded and considered false and untruthful in all respects? truly, that would be judged too harshly by such high wise people. For neither Duke George nor any
I do not want my lord to be so pious nor holy that he would suffer such sharpness of the atrocious law, where he once stumbled or lacked, that he should therefore be called a villain or a lying man in all other aspects of his whole life and being; especially where he would not have invented such a mistake himself. Otherwise I would ask my ungracious lord, Duke George, most humbly: Oh, dear lord, let us drink a pot of beer together, although you would be stronger to drink more pots than I would in such a case. Men are frail (dear God!), and one more than the other; but more of this, after which Simon and Judas will snow. I am now writing with a feather pen.
7 He perjuredly scolds me for not having kept my monastic vows 2c. Here I can truly do nothing else for this time, but thank my ungracious lord very kindly that he calls me so honest. For I would rather that Master Hans push me onto a wheel or burn me to powder, neither that Duke George should praise me as a pious, faithful monk. True, I was a pious monk and kept my order so strictly that I may say: if ever a monk went to heaven through monasticism, then I also wanted to enter; all my monastic companions who knew me will testify to that. For I would have martyred myself to death (if it had lasted longer) with watching, praying, reading and other work 2c.
8 Who ordered Duke George or gave him the power (even if it were true) that he should accuse me of perjury in matters that he was not ordered to do? I have never sworn an oath to Duke George, nor do I know how I can be perjurious against him. If I am perjurious, I am not perjurious to Duke George, but to a Lord, who is the Lord and God of us all, Jesus Christ. If he will reproach me with perjury, then I will and must be so; but if the same Lord would not reproach me with perjury, and we should speak against each other before his judgment seat, what would Duke George answer, even if Pope and all the world stood by him? I think it is certain that Duke George still has so much sense left that
No master should condemn or punish another master's servant. And he would not suffer it himself if it happened to him, as St. Paul also says Rom. 14, 4: "Who are you who judge another master's servant? Now in this case of monasticism (God knows this, even Duke George himself) I have not been his servant nor subject with some duty, let alone with an oath, therefore he reproaches me before the world with all untruthfulness.
(9) But if he thinks he can reproach me before God for perjury, then Duke George should prove beforehand from Scripture or by the word of God that I am perjurious, and then call me such a one; otherwise he certainly knows: Whoever reproaches another publicly for perjury and does not prove with a right reason that the same may be justly reproached in turn as an insolent liar also in public. The right reason, however, is not that Duke George, as a secular prince, would judge according to human law [the people], called secular or spiritual, in such divine matters; for that is to interfere with God's own judgment, and to fall into his office with blasphemous thurst and iniquity; because divine matters are to be judged and acted upon according to God's word, and not otherwise. Earthly things have their earthly rights; heavenly things have their heavenly rights, which are to remain unsworn by earthly law.
(10) If he will bring up such a just cause against me, I will praise him and thank him that he has reminded me of my perjury and reported it; if he will not, I will give him his right name after Simonis and Jude, and show his high wisdom how he should reproach me for perjury. I did not take an oath for this in the monastery, or since I was a monk. For the monks are not made to swear or take oaths, but it is called vowed: votum, vovere, promittere or profession do, so that it is clear where one wants to speak right German, the word perjured alone belongs to secular (since one takes and demands oaths) and not to spiritual or divine matters and law. The monastics call it Apoststas. But I do not fence hard for the words, but for the matter; if
The truth that is certain is not so great in the words, even if they are mistaken.
Because I have 1) just come to apostasy (or, as our ungracious lord calls it, perjury), I will let go of his disgrace a little, and for my sake and mine, speak something comforting and for the betterment of the matter, and then come out again. For Duke George and I are of one mind on the matter; he wants to be right, so I also want to be right. He will neither see nor hear me teach my gospel, so I will neither see nor hear his popery; that is decided, and in this we are of the same mind and let the right judge speak about it. But this is too much of him, and in this we cannot remain one, when he opens his mouth and fist and publicly blasphemes and persecutes our doctrine, so that he will not suffer if we do not praise such blasphemy and persecution or remain silent about it; if, however, he does not remain silent nor praise us when we reproach and condemn his popery. Just as it happened in the present case with those in Leipzig, "since he does not suffer," I wanted to write a letter of comfort to those who did not praise his popery and had to suffer his persecution, and for this I scolded myself as a rebel.
12. No, Duke George would have to find another way; It does not do that he wants to have five corners of the sack, not only otherwise and against our will (which we are well satisfied and let him answer for), but also, if he publicly blasphemes our doctrine and name, he may even defiantly demand of us that we keep quiet about it and approve of his blasphemy with silence, and deny ourselves, or want to pretend to be angry and throb, and is not satisfied with that, nor wants us to teach against his popery on our conscience.
(13) Now then, I will show here, and prove with a right reason, which are the true perjurers or apostates. First, tell me, is it not true that we are all redeemed from sins and death, and made righteous and saved by the grace of God alone?
1) Erlanger: but.
tes? Without any work or merit on our part, can the devil or the papacy deny that Christ was born for us, died for us, and shed his blood to purchase such grace for us and to distribute it among us through baptism and the Word? This foundation and rock will stand even the infernal gates. This is one.
14 Secondly, such suffering and blood of Christ, sacrificed for our sin, cannot be compared to the work or life of any saint, if it were the work and life of the Virgin Mary, all prophets, apostles and martyrs. For they, as well as we, are redeemed from sins and death by Christ's suffering and blood (and not by their own works). Can even the devil or the pope deny or overthrow this? I hope they will let it stand. That is the other thing.
Thirdly, if the work and life of the Virgin and Mother of God Mary, the apostles, prophets and martyrs (who are certainly and undoubtedly holy) are not to be compared to Christ's suffering and blood, much less are the work and life of the monasteries and monks to be compared to him, which they themselves hold uncertain and in doubt as to whether they are holy. For no monastic has ever been able to make himself remember that he himself or his work, certainly and without doubt, is holy.
These three things are certainly established in Scripture in many places, especially Rom. 3:23, 24: "They are all sinners, and are justified without merit through the blood of Christ" 2c. And Rom. 11, 32: "God has decreed all things among unbelievers, that He might have mercy on all." Apost. 4, 12: "There is no other name under heaven given unto us, whereby we may be saved." Here is our reason, that the suffering and blood of Christ cannot be equal to the works of any saint, which are certainly holy, but much more to the works of any monk.
17 Here I speak now (not with Duke George, because he wants to have the snot and snood 1) of the snot spoon) with myself and ours, to comfort us. How shall we (I say) now call such people, who compare the suffering and blood of Christ, 2) not to the certain Hei-
1) i.e., simple separation.
2) d. i. equate.
How can they be called other than not only perjured Christians, but also denied and apostate Christians; yes, not only denied and apostate Christians, but also blasphemers and apostate Christians; yes, not only denied and apostate Christians, but also blasphemers and apostates. How else can they be called than not only perjurers, but also denied and apostate Christians; yes, not only denied and apostate Christians, but also blasphemers and new crucifiers (as Paul speaks [Hebr. 6, 6. and 10, 29.]) of their Savior JEsu Christ and desecrators of His suffering and blood, and certainly vain martyrs and saints of the devil in hell?
If I now escape from such a devil's cave, and from such monasticism, and Duke George or Pope peeled me therefore perjured or [a] lost monk; how, do you think, that they would speak to my honor and frighten me? Just as if a Mameluk were converted back to Christianity by the Turks, or a sorcerer were to turn from the devil's alliance to repentance in Christ: they would also be apostates, lost and perjured, it is true; but blessed apostates, blessed lost ones, blessed perjurers, who do not believe the devil and become apostates before him.
(19) I am such an apostate and a departed monk, and I want to be, and my highest glory is one before God and in my conscience. For you must be accustomed, when you hear the word monk, that it is as much as if you hear the word denied Christian, apostate from the faith of Christ, a confederate of the devil or sorcerer. For we monks have also been the real sorcerers and jugglers of the devil, who have bewitched and blinded all the world with our false illusion, so that they, together with us, have fallen away from Christ, have become apostates and denied Christians, and have even forgotten the dear Savior with His suffering and blood.
20 That such abominations follow from the above-mentioned reason (namely, that Christ's suffering and blood are compared to the work of monasticism) must be confessed by every Christian and all reason, and cannot be denied. For Christ's suffering and blood can have nothing equal to them, nor can any saints.
1850 Eri. 3i, 278-sso. Threefold appendix of some of Luther's controversial writings. W. xix. 2305-2307. 1851
Works (as said). Or if it should have other works like it beside it, it must perish and be denied. For it alone should be the highest above all; and if it does not remain the highest alone, but gets an equal next to it, then it is no longer the true suffering and blood of Christ, which alone should be the highest above all.
21 But here they may cry out and say no, that they have not compared the work of monasticism to the suffering and blood of Christ; but I will honestly convince them with their own words and works, and I shall not fail. And not only that, but I will prove that they have held monasticism higher than Christ's suffering and blood, and thus have completely annihilated and buried the dear Christ. This I do recently: whoever compares monasticism to the holy baptism of Christ certainly compares it to the suffering and blood of Christ; is this not true? For he who is baptized in Christ is baptized by his suffering and blood, or, to put it more plainly, by baptism he is bathed in the blood of Christ and cleansed from sins. Therefore St. Paul calls it a bath of regeneration [Tit. 3, 5.], as also the Christians say and paint that the sacraments flow from the wounds of Christ; and is rightly spoken and painted.
22 But that the monks have compared the baptism of Christ to their monasticism, they cannot deny. For they have taught and used it throughout the world in this way; and I was also wished happiness, since I had done the profession, by the prior, convent and confessor, that I would now be as an innocent child, who would now come purely from baptism. And indeed, I would have gladly rejoiced in the glorious deed, that I had become such an excellent man at once, who had made himself so beautiful and holy by his own work, without Christ's blood, so easily and so soon. But, although I gladly heard such sweet praise and glorious words of my own works, and thus let myself be taken for a miracle worker, who could make himself holy in such a dissolute 1) way and eat death along with the
1) licentious - easy.
Devil 2c., it still would not hold the sting. For where only a small challenge came from death or sin, I fell and found neither baptism nor monasticism to help me; so I had long since lost Christ and his baptism. Then I was the most miserable person on earth; day and night there was all weeping and despair, so that no one could control me. So I was bathed and baptized in my monasticism, and had the right sweat addiction. Praise be to God that I did not sweat myself to death, otherwise I would have long since been in the abyss of hell with my baptism as a monk. For I knew Christ no more than as a severe judge from whom I wanted to flee, and yet could not escape.
23 Such shameful, blasphemous doctrine of perjured, faithless, apostate monastic baptism they first got from St. Thoma of the Order of Preachers, who himself despaired at his end and had to say against the devil: I believe what is written in this book (meaning the Biblia). From it they have driven it into all orders, into all monasteries and into all monks' hearts, and have tortured many a fine soul throughout its life and finally pushed it through despair into the abyss of hell, so that I may well call monasticism (as an experienced monk who wanted to be a monk with great seriousness) a hellish poisonous cake coated with sugar. For it was sweet to hear, and tasted delicious to reason, such a comforting promise: that a man could make himself pious, alive and blessed, before Christ and his Holy Spirit came. Yes, we would ascend to heaven for him, and obtain the kingdom before he should know it. Such was the sugar that lured us into monasticism and its baptism. After that, when we had swallowed the little cake, the poison was found that Christ was lost, and now no longer a savior nor comforter, but an angry judge, yes, executioner and devil was in our hearts, and vain fear, trembling, terror, restlessness tortured us day and night. Summa, a monastery is a hell, where the devil is abbot and prior, monks and nuns the damned souls.
24. such monastic baptism they have after that
I was once in Arnstadt in the Barefoot Monastery, where D. Heinricus Küne, a Barefoot, was sitting over the table. Heinricus Küne, a Barefoot, whom they considered a special man, was sitting over the table, and he praised us, therefore, how delicious the order was before other orders, because of this baptism there was such a benefit in it, if one had already regretted that he had become a monk, and thus lost all his previous good works and life, If he still had that before, where he repented and made a new resolution, where he was not a monk, he still wanted to become a monk, then this new resolution would be just as good as the first entrance was, and would again be as pure as if he came out of baptism, and would want to renew such a resolution as often as he wanted; so he would always have a new baptism and innocence 2c. We young monks sat and opened our mouths and noses, smacking with devotion against such comforting talk of our holy monasticism. And so this opinion has been common among the monks.
(25) This is what the true Anabaptists mean to me. Where Christians have only one baptism, they can make it as often and as much as they want from their own works, which are nevertheless all the same as the Christians' baptism, and may destroy sin, make pious, strangle death and give life. Who would not rather be such a blessed monk, than a poor wretched Christian? So let faith and comfort in Christ be overthrown and destroyed. This is called making holy people, which are sweet and splendid words, of which St. Paul writes Rom. 16, 18, by which the innocent hearts are seduced, and sectarianism and trouble are caused beside the wholesome doctrine. Here it would have been time, since I, like the others, lived in such cursed faith and had taken my vow on such doctrine, to call myself a wicked and faithless, perjured, lost Christian. What is it that I am now so reproached, if I have come back to my right and denied baptism from such a devilish vow?
1) Erlanger: the.
(26) No denial will help here. Because their books (as said) are present, which teach such. So we also still live, who have experienced it and know it. And who would have wanted to become a monk more and more, if they had not presented such sweet, splendid promises and baptism and attracted people with them? After all, all their teachings were that all other lay ranks had to be called worldly and dangerous; and only their monasticism spiritual and holy, so much so that even worldly priests (who were supposed to be called spiritual) left their rank and ran into monasticism. In addition, the monks themselves ran from one order to another, which wanted to be even more holy. As from the Order of the Barefoot into a Carthaus; so that great disputations arose (indeed sharp and necessary ones), from which order or not a monk should run into another, until the pope had to judge the matter himself.
27) But if it had been preached that a Christian, layman or priest, was in the highest and most spiritual state, for the sake of the suffering and blood of Christ, that he might be washed and baptized, and for the sake of the Holy Spirit, that he might be sealed and anointed, no stone would ever have been laid or wood erected for any monastery; as now, praise God! when such preaching arises again, all such spiritual monasteries and convents begin to fall, and must at last be exterminated. And now the truth is found that monasticism is the real slave monkey country, since everything is full for the lazy brothers; in addition also the bath of disciples; that is their fictitious baptism.
(28) You cannot say that the baptism of a monk gives Christ's blood and spirit, as does true baptism and the Word of God. But since this is certain, no one will henceforth be so mad and foolish as to be baptized a monk, since neither Christ's blood nor Spirit is given, and step out of the [Christian] state in which he may be a Christian, and be endowed with Christ's blood and Spirit for the remission of sins and eternal life; and all this not from human thought and pretense, as monasticism, but from divine command and promise; not from our work and life.
1854 Iri. SI, rsr--84. triple appendix of some of Luther's controversial writings. W. XIX, "IO-2ZI2. 1855
like monasticism, but from God's power and work; not in the land of the sleeping monkeys, like monasticism, but in the true kingdom of heaven. For what God speaks is the truth, what men invent is a vain lie. What God does is certain and endures; what men do is uncertain and falls. What God baptizes is rightly baptized, what men and monks baptize is false, and the invented bath of disciples in the land of the sleeping monkeys. Now it has been proven many times before that monasticism without God's command and word can only be accomplished by man's ignorance and conceit, therefore it is a public blasphemy to compare such false and vain monasticism to the baptism of Christ. And whoever has vowed it is guilty of apostatizing, falling away and escaping from the same blasphemy, if he loses his soul.
29 I say this to you, my brother, to comfort you, whether you are a monk or a monk of the flesh, inside or outside, and do not turn away from the cries and blasphemies of Duke George and his servants, for they know nothing in this matter, and (as St. Paul says [1 Tim. 1:7]) "do not know what they say or do. I have learned the Scriptures over twenty years with all diligence, praying and watching. I have taught them over twelve years with great hard labor, writing, reading, preaching," printing, writing poetry 2c. In addition, I have tried and rehearsed it daily with unspeakable trials, persecution, anguish and hardship, and yet, alas, I can say all too little of it, and often cannot say my lesson (like a child).
30 But they have not learned them, they have not yet learned them, they are untrained, inexperienced people in these things; they are still fools, and think that when they look at the book, they are Doctores Doctorum. They want to judge and master all things, and, which is the worst, they bring with them a nasty bitter heart, poisonous eyes and hateful ears, and then interpret the Scriptures according to their taste, 1) poison and hatred. Just as the Pharisees did to Christ in his words and deeds, so they will do and cry out with lusts and desecrations. Just as that mother did to her
1) i.e. malice.
Son taught: Son, if you cannot win, enter into conflict. What good can such people think, speak or judge? Do you know what painters call such doctors? They call them the donkey with the bagpipe. For since there are so many of these donkeys and fools that they cannot all be "counted or named," the painters act as clever people, and put all their names into one picture, and say with the brush: "This one is called Donkey with the Bagpipe. After that, you may interpret the same name further to the venerable, highly learned Doctor Duke Georgen and his emergency spoon. For as the donkey on the bagpipe is learned and skillful, so they are skillful in the holy scriptures.
This is a small part, namely, that they compare their monastic baptism and works of men, from which we have departed, to the divine baptism and work, by which we remain and are certain that we cannot be condemned or challenged by them. Furthermore, they have not only compared their blasphemous monastic baptism to the divine heavenly baptism of Christ, but also (as said) praised it higher and much holier. For a poor Christian of mine has accomplished nothing more with his divine baptism than that he has thereby become holy and blessed for himself and for his own person, and cannot help anyone else through his baptism and subsequent works, nor can he share it with them, as the five wise virgins say in Matth. 25:9, they cannot share their oil with the foolish virgins, but must have it for themselves. And St. Paul Gal. 6, 5. also says: "Every man shall bear his own burden." No one will enjoy another's.
But the holy baptism of monks is so holy and spiritual that an Anabaptist (meaning a newly baptized monk) is not only holy and blessed for himself, but may share, sell, forgive, give, live, advance and present all his subsequent works and "lives" as a superfluous treasure of his heavenly goods to all poor miserable Christians who have been washed in Christ's blood and sanctified with his Spirit. Also to the poor souls in purgatory, who (as they confess) are certain of their blessedness, and much more certain than the monks of their own
Holiness, as they themselves confess in all their books; and yet here, the uncertain saints of works on earth, help the certain saints of faith in purgatory, with their works, and not with Christ's graces.
33 May Duke George's bellies and his own erudition deny that this is not so? No: it cannot be denied so easily as the princely alliance and the oath at Leipzig. There are monasteries and convents, there are books and writings, there are seals and letters, by which one can convince them how they, as secular merchants, have rightly and honestly sold their monastic baptism, works, masses, vigils, fasting, praying, vigils, mortification. No snotting, no coughing, no licking, no spitting, no stinking, no stinking will help, let it be done by Duke George and all his monks, and whoever will not let it be done. We know that in all such fair Christ was never named, but before our great holiness and excess of our works, which we sold, we could not remember his holy blood and suffering. Oh that Duke George, the highly learned man, has become patron and mother of such saints. How right he was: to such children belongs such a mother.
34 Now counsel Räther well! What have I vowed, since I vowed my monasticism? Of course, I have to vow this opinion: Eternal God, I vow such a life to you, in which I am not only like your dear Son's baptism, blood and suffering, and thus henceforth do not need his blood and suffering, and I will henceforth make my own way to you through my works; he must not be my way, and has shamefully lied when he says: "No one comes to the Father, but through me" [John 14, 6. 14:6], but I will also bring other Christians, whom your Son should have brought to you by his blood, to you by my works (which I share with them and sell for a bushel of grain) and make them blessed. And I will be the way by which your poor Christians and saints come to you. No Christian heart can deny that this was the meaning of my vow, for it is the evident truth that we held our monastic baptism for our holiness and our good works for the common good.
Christian man and have sold it. This is in broad daylight, and the stones must say yes to it.
(35) Let every devout Christian know from what causes this crude, unreasonable man reproaches me for perjury, because I have forsaken such blasphemous vows, and what a shameful mother he himself is of such blasphemous monasticism and perjured evildoers, who not only fall away from Christ, but also have raised their monastic baptism and foolish work equal to and above Christ's baptism, blood and suffering, and sold them to the world. He should take himself by the nose, and consider his blasphemous, perjurious foes, if he protects them and makes himself a party to all their blasphemy and perjury, to be the most shameful, perjured, disowned, apostate Christians. In this way, he would be doing the right thing, and he would be telling the truth.
Again, listen, my dear brother! Now when they have persuaded a poor man with their splendid words of monastic baptism and holy orders that he is thereby as pure as an innocent child coming out of baptism, they afterwards turn the page and have another doctrine, which is called, sunt justi, et tamen nescit homo, an odio vel amore dignus sit. Ecclesiastes 9:1, which means that even if a man is righteous and just, he does not know whether he is in favor or disfavor before God, but everything remains uncertain until the future (hear), the last judgment. This sentence has passed through the papacy, and has frightened and saddened all consciences. For he has ruled over all monasteries, convents, schools, and all that is called Christian; as their books and writings everywhere testify, and I, together with my peers, have experienced misery, and have also seen many who have languished over it, and finally died in despair, as the insane. For, oh dear Lord God, if a sorrowful conscience would like to have peace of mind and a merciful God, and would like to be blessed in earnest, and this saying Ecclesiastes 9 is in its heart, what else can it do but despair? And because it thinks, "Who knows whether I am in grace or not?" the devil is there in a flash, and gives the infernal murderous blow, and says, "O you are in disgrace!
1858 Erl. 31.28S-S8S. Triplicate appendix of some of Luther's controversial writings. W. XIX. 2315-2317. 1859
and lost; as he pushed Eve when she began to doubt and dispute. This is how the poor soul passes away; one may thank the dear holy monk's baptism for that.
(37) St. Bernard, the most pious monk, had to despair of all his monasticism. St. Bernard, the most pious monk, having lived a long time in monastic baptism, and having once been fatally ill, despaired of all his monasticism, and again became a Christian, and thus said (as Gerson also indicates): I have lived damnably and lost my life; but this is my consolation, that my Lord Jesus Christ has the kingdom of heaven by two rights; one is that he is naturally the Son of God, therefore he is not only blessed, but also Lord of all blessedness; the other, he is also the Son of Mary and man, who by his suffering has earned and rightly acquired the kingdom of heaven, and has given such merit and right (for he did not need it) to me 2c. These words and opinions testify that St. Bernard would gladly be an apostate, perjured and perishing monk, where Duke George and his chambers are supposed to be judges; yes, he is, like myself, in truth a right apostate and perjured, perishing monk. For even if he has not thrown off his cap, nor run away from the monastery, nor taken a wife, his heart still says: he may and will not be saved on his monasticism, but only on Christ's merit and right. Now it is well known that God does not judge according to outward appearance, but according to the heart. Because St. Bernard falls away from his monasticism with his heart and despairs of it, he is a true apostate, perjured and lost monk before God.
38 For if it were true, and if he had believed that his monastic baptism had been enough, and had made him pure as an innocent child from baptism, he should have remained on it, confessed it, and not fallen from it, but said thus: Well, dear God, I must die now! Here I come with my monastic baptism and religious sanctity; I am pure and innocent; open all the gates of heaven, I have well deserved it 2c. For he who is pure is rightly entitled to heaven, and God condemns neither the righteous nor the saints, that is well known. But St. Bernard does not want to go there;
He falls back, abandons monasticism and takes hold of the suffering and blood of Jesus Christ. In this way, all monks had to apostatize, leave their monastic baptism and become perjurers, or they all went to the devil with caps and plates. For (as St. Bernard also confesses the truth here) apart from the one man Jesus Christ, there is no help, comfort or life, whether monk, priest or layman.
39 Similar sayings are found much more in the holy fathers; as St. Augustine says in suis Confessionibus: Woe to all men's lives, however praiseworthy they may be, if they are judged apart from mercy 2c. I think this also means apostatized. For here St. Augustine does not want to leave any man pure nor holy; where is the holy pure monastic baptism here? Where are the other good works that a monk can communicate and sell to the laity, so that no man's own, whole life and all works are enough before God? Here St. Augustine himself escapes from his monasticism and flees to Christ under his wings, as under the umbrella of grace, before the judgment of God. What then have we monks vowed, who through our monasticism have wanted to bring not only ourselves but also all others straight to God? We have vowed lies and blasphemy, or, as the Germans say, 1) the devil and hellish fire on our heads. What is Duke George scolding me for, when he scolds me for perjury, that I have run away from monasticism? He scolds me for not wanting to go with him and his damned monks into the abyss of hell. If I did that, I would be a pious monk; but that is what the devil and Duke George do instead of me, and he is called however pious and holy he wants.
St. Gregory has many sayings in Moralibus, but they are short in the sayings of David; as he says now and then in the Psalter: "Lord, do not enter into judgment with your servant; for before you no living man is righteous" [Ps. 143, 2.]. Item:
1) The words: "and blasphemy - talk" are missing in the Erlangen edition.
"O Lord, if thou wilt impute sin, who can remain?" [Ps. 130, 3. 4.] and the like. But I consider David to be such a saint, whom all monks should not easily cast out of heaven; nor does he want to be holy or pure, nor does he know full of such purity as the monks boast of, has no other good works (the poor bungler) to sell to others, so that they may be saved, but also remains under the wings of grace and forgiveness to the dear hen (who is called Jesus Christ, Matth. 23, '37.) under the wings of grace and forgiveness; and we nasty, lousy, brute monks want to be holy by our works and monasticism, and in addition make others blessed by our sold remaining works, or shall be called perjured; fie your mouth 1) on!
41) God has protected the worldly state, as it is authority and conjugal life 2c., so that no one has made it a baptism for salvation (as from monasticism). For even the heathen and the wicked Christians have such a state, and are much better in this respect than monasticism, 2) that they may say thus: Although we cannot be saved by such a state, but only by Christ, we have the advantage that we have not made it a baptism of the faith, like the monks, and are free from such blasphemy; God wants our work and ministry to be created and founded by Himself and confirmed by His Word, and not invented and fabricated by human fancy or devotion, without need or cause; and where we also believe in Jesus Christ, they are dear and pleasing to Him, and He also wants to reward them here temporally and there eternally in particular. But the monks and their works do not have to wait for this, because they have thereby established their own blasphemous holiness apart from Christ.
42 And that we come back to the saying Ecclesiastes 9:1; there are two pieces. One, that I or St. Bernard are pure and innocent through monastic baptism, that is certainly as much as God's children and true saints. For to be without sin and pure, that is true holiness; therefore have
1) In the Wittenberg and Jena: times.
2) Wittenberg and Jena: are much better in the piece of monasticism.
They taught us, we vowed, and so we became monks. For what devil would have wanted to become a monk, if he had not thought to become holy and blessed in it (as their promised monastic baptism lured us to flee from the world)? The other piece is: Now that I have become such a holy and baptized monk and angel, this doctrine, Ecclesiastes 9, condemns me and makes me a sinner and a devil. For I am to be holy, and yet not know whether God is gracious to me; that is, I am to be holy and damned before God, God is to be gracious and ungracious to me at the same time, giving me heaven and hell at the same time; where will I stay here, if I cannot be in both places? No cavillation 3) or gossip applies here, that we are blessed according to the spirit, damned according to the flesh. For this lasts here on this earth in this life. But now we speak of the whole being, how we are to remain eternally, blessed or damned. For monasticism wants to make us blessed, so it condemns us Ecclesiastes 9. The two do not suffer with each other.
(43) Now let him who can rhyme rhyme rhyme here, so that these two pieces may rhyme, or else monasticism will lose both bung and soil with staves and hoops. I do not speak here with Duke Georgen and his fools and nincompoops, for they do not think to speak anything that is useful or necessary for the truth and instruction of consciences, but how they only avenge their nasty poisonous envy and hatred with blasphemies and lies. Let all reason judge here, let all devils judge themselves. How can St. Bernard be pure and innocent at the same time, as their monastic baptism teaches, and yet uncertain whether God is gracious or ungracious to him, as they teach from Ecclesiastes 9? No evasion helps here, whether they want to say: A baptized monk may well fall again in the future, because the righteous (Prov. 24, 16.) 4) falls seven times a day 2c.For I now take the baptized monk before such a fall, as St. Bernard in the hour when he is pure and his monastic baptism still stands: the same St. Bernard, now pure and holy, is not forgiven.
3) i.e. sophistry, evasion.
4) In the editions: Ecclestast. 7.
He himself freely confesses that he is in disgrace and must despair of his purity before the future fall comes, and seize Christ (as said). How is it then that a monk is pure and innocent through his monastic baptism, and yet not in God's grace, or ever uncertain (which is as much) whether he is in grace? Whistle, he who can whistle, let him hear!
44 And whether they want to pretend that the baptism of monks is certain ex parte Dei, sed non ex parte nostra, this is said: The baptism of monks is certain with God, but with us it is uncertain. If this were true, I would seek another God and say to this God: Dear God! I know well beforehand that everything is certain with you, and you should not teach me anything about it; I did not become a monk for the reason that it should be certain with you whether I am pure or impure, but I would like to be certain and to know whether I am in grace or not; that is what I seek in my monastic baptism, and if I do not find it, what does it help me that you are certain and I nevertheless remain uncertain? What good was the Word of God and the holy Christian sacraments themselves, if they did not make me certain of God's graces? God does not need them to make him certain; but if they did not make me certain, I would say: Dear God, keep your word and sacraments to yourself, for I must not go anywhere to them if they make me uncertain or let me remain uncertain. I will seek another God, who will not make Himself certain with His words and sacraments, but will make me certain that I am in grace.
45 Now behold what a strange, strange animal a monk is. First of all, he must forget his first Christian baptism, by which he can no longer be considered pure, because with the following sins he has nullified and lost it 1) (as they teach), and for this reason he must now seek another and new monastic baptism, so that he may again become pure and holy from his sins. He must now also forget this new monastic baptism.
1) In the editions: the same.
and leave (as I and all monks have done), because Ecclesiastes 9:1 teaches us that no man knows whether he is worthy of grace or gracelessness, and if he denies his monastic baptism a hundred thousand times by new resolution and repentance (as reported above), this saying of Ecclesiastes 9 still remains: No man knows whether he is worthy of grace or gracelessness, even in the midst of baptism, when he should be most pure. Where is the poor monk with his holiness and purity? There he hangs and struggles between heaven and earth, boasting that he is pure and holy through his monastic baptism, and yet his heart and conscience must never know it.
46 What did St. Bernard, I, and many a fine man vow in monasticism? If one looks at it in the light, and in essence, such a vow has been so much: Dear God! I have hitherto been certain, through your dear son's baptism and word, that you are my gracious God, as through your (and not my own) word and work; but from this I will now fall away and accept a new monastic baptism of my own works, in which I will become pure and innocent; so that I will not know whether it pleases you or not, and now lead such a life, since no man knows, even if he is pious, whether he is in grace or in disgrace. How do you like the vow? Here, of course, all the angels in heaven will rejoice over such a strange new saint, yes, all the devils in hell.
47 Such clumsy and unchristian blasphemy comes from the fact that under the papacy holy baptism and the kingdom of Christ, with all its glorious grace, were unknown and not understood; therefore they had to turn to works and their own merit. For they consider baptism to be a temporal work, now long past and lost through subsequent sin, and not an eternal, permanent promise of grace, under and in which we remain without interruption and, whether we fall, come to it again. But no pope can understand this, it is called Verbum Spiritus et gratiae [Zech. 12, 10.]; but the animal man does not understand divine things, 1 Cor. 2, 14.
48. Such shameful teaching, namely, that we have not only compared our self-chosen monastic baptism to holy Christian baptism, but have also held it higher and more glorious and praised it; For the monastic state is held higher, as no one can deny, neither the common state of all other believers and Christians (which, after all, is a state of God's grace, as far above the state of one's own works as heaven is above earth and can have no equal), and if one had come from Christian baptism right now, he would still have to give precedence and honor to the monastic state, as a common lay state, to the perfect state of holy monasticism; Nevertheless, such monasticism is still uncertain whether it is in grace or not.
(49) These three great abominations, since one lie always eats another, are not the most serious and unpleasant thing in such blasphemous vows of monasticism; but this is the main abomination, that we must deny the grace of God and place our comfort and hope in our holy monasticism and not in the pure mercy and grace of Christ, as we vowed and began to do in Christian baptism. For that is actually denying God's grace, whoever relies on works as a means of becoming righteous and holy, as St. Paul clearly says in Gal. 5:4: "You have lost Christ, who wanted to be justified by the law, and have fallen from grace." And Christ Himself Matth. 15, 9. 6.: "You serve Me in vain with the doctrine of men"; item, "you have abrogated God's commandment by your own essays."
(50) Now it is evident that if one takes away comfort and confidence from monasticism, so that one does not become righteous or earn grace through it, then its head is cut off and it is over; for they have taught and vowed it as a life by which they want to become righteous and blessed, and for this purpose share and sell their other merits to other Christians. Who else would have become a monk, if he knew that he should do such works in vain, and not thereby earn and acquire grace and blessedness? All this cannot be denied. And whether it
the papists neither want nor are able to understand and oppose it, 1) without the reason of the Scriptures: so we must still always drive and persist to comfort our conscience and to strengthen the faith against their devilish blasphemy, until the right judge comes and separates the matters; because for the sake of their stupid mind or devilish blasphemy we must not keep silent about our truth, but the more unpleasantly they hear it, the more we must praise it, just as they do not cease with their blustering.
(51) Yes, they have puffed up their lies (the papists, the pious) even further and taught that a man could keep God's commandments by his own efforts, without God's grace. And my master Occam writes: it is nowhere founded in Scripture that a special grace or gift is necessary to fulfill God's commandment, and they boast with the saying of St. Jerome Whoever says that God has given impossible commandments, let him be accursed. Here we were at first good fellows, since we heard that our free will was so fresh and healthy that we could keep God's commandments without God's grace, quoad substantiam facti, as much as belongs to the work; but that they had to be kept in grace, that was a supererogation and an essay, so that God would weigh us down and plunder us about His commandments. The most pious among them taught, including Gerson and John Nider, two pious, comforting teachers, that one must have God's grace to fulfill divine commandments; but one could still obtain such grace from one's own works, if one did as much as was in him.
All this is undeniable, there are too many books. Tell me, where is Christ our Savior and constant mediator before God? Where is forgiveness of sins? Is this not a right Jewish, Turkish and Pelagian faith? For both Jews and Turks come so far with their free will that they think they can obtain God's grace with it. Whoever now runs away from such doctrine and faith, and comes back to Christ's grace, would he not be a perjured, lost saint? Of course, this is twofold. First of all, that he would run away from his
1) i.e. scream, squawk.
1866 Erl. 31, 295-297. triple appendix of some of Luther's controversial writings. W. XIX, 2325-2327. 1867
Christian baptism, and God's grace had run to such abominable teachings and life; on the other hand, that he again runs from such lies and error to the truth of grace and his baptism.
In order that their lies might be fully shaken, pressed in, and made superfluous, they taught and vowed to obey not only God's commandments (for these are a bad thing in such strong saints), but also the consilia, that is, the counsels far, far more than God had commanded. - That is why monasticism was called a perfect state, that the commandments of God were far too few in their holiness and easy for the common Christian man to keep, and they hovered higher than God's commandment in the consiliis. In this cursed piece there are probably three greater lies and blasphemies.
The first is that they teach that their monasticism keeps more and more than God has commanded, but all saints must have Christ to represent them, because they cannot keep the commandments; and must be made new ones by His Spirit, so that they keep what they keep. The other is that they, out of devilish blindness, make twelve consilium out of God's commandments, thus dissolving the commandments of God, as Christ says here Matth. 5. For there is no consilium in the Gospel without the Juugfrauschaft, 1 Cor. 7, 26. and Matth. 19, 12. 19, 12. The third, that they teach people such an abominable error that they should not consider it a sin, but right and well done, if they do not keep the commandments, when they are not commandments, but commandments. This is called justificare impium, et confortare manus impiorum, when one teaches people and lets them do and live contrary to God's commandment, and says: it is not sin, they are not otherwise obliged to do 2c. Nor can it be denied that they have taught and lived in this way.
(55) I will be silent here as to how they have kept the consilium of chastity. What is this high estate above common Christianity, that they have vowed to help poverty? And interpret poverty non habere proprium. Yes, it is well interpreted! Poverty means possessing nothing of one's own, scilicet, ut possiderent aliena in toto mundo. Now is this not a
great obvious, palpable lie, that they boast their life for a poverty, and in addition for a perfection over God's commandment, which they communicate to the poor Christians? I often wonder, when I think behind me, how the devil is such a powerful spirit that he has been able to catch so many learned, sensible people with such thick blindness that none of us has been able to see that monastic poverty is not poverty, nor can it be called poverty, but a real abundance, avarice and mammon, the like of which even those who are called rich in the eyes of the world do not have. But what is obedience but a true hypocrisy and lie? For they vow to be obedient neither to one person, as abbot and prior, nor to anything else (as St. Bernard himself says) that their rule contains. Apart from their rule they vow nothing and are no longer indebted to their own abbot or prior.
(56) With such false, lying obedience they withdraw from the common Christian hearing, of which St. Peter teaches: "Young men, be subject to the elders. All of you, be subject to one another." But the monks have turned away, first from the obedience of the parents, then of the secular authorities; item from the obedience to the unruly lord and from the service and obedience that one neighbor owes to another, to the sick, the poor, widows, orphans, abandoned neighbors. Then they come with a bit of unnecessary obedience to their prior and want to prove a perfection higher than God's commandment, and share and sell their remaining obedience to others. Have we not all been mad and foolish, that we leave divine obedience and the right commanded obedience, and vow instead an unbidden, unnecessary, invented obedience, and boast and sell the same for a perfection to others who live in the right divine obedience?
57. Now what have I vowed with my chastity? I have pledged marriage. For what is unchastity apart from marriage, as adultery, fornication, impurity 2c., I may not betroth in the monastery, God has forbidden it to me before, to the laity as well as to the monks.
For God Himself calls the marriage state chastity, sanctification and purity, 1 Thess. 4, 3. 4. 5.: "This is God's will, your sanctification, that you avoid fornication, and that each one of you know how to keep his barrel in sanctification and honor: not in lust as the heathen do", and Hebr. 13, 4.: "Marriage should be kept honest and the marriage bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Now such sanctification, purity and honest chastity I have engaged, as if it were vain unchastity and could not be chaste, I then engage in such chastity, praised by God and commanded to be kept honest.
Therefore, a monk who cannot pledge anything more in his chastity than the marriage state, must, because of necessity, pledge the marriage state as an unchastity. What else may he pledge to chastity? But because he does this, he first blasphemes and lies against God, his creature and his word, who praises such a state as honest, chaste, pure and holy. Then he defiles all the world in marital status, and according to his vow (if it is right) father and mother status must be unchastity, and all children born in marriage must be and be called children of unchastity, as if they were whore children; for what else can a child of unchastity be and be called, neither a whore child. Is this not a blasphemous, lying, shameful vow made? Does it not mean blindness? Is this keeping the marriage honest? And whoever lets go of such a blasphemous vow shall be called perjured and shall die by death, as the revered Doctor Duke George rightly says.
So what does a monk vow with his poverty? He does not vow poverty, but vows to possess something of his own. For what is not one's own property, as theft, robbery, I may not vow, it is forbidden beforehand; so to suffer poverty and misery is also commanded in the Gospel, Matth. 5, 3: "Blessed are the spiritually poor." Yes, with just such a vow he vows to practice theft and robbery, for God has commanded and praised the ownership and possession of goods, Ps. 128, 2: "You will feed on the work of your hands." And St. Paul teaches the Thessalonians, "they are to be quiet and work, and their own
Eat bread" [1 Thess. 4, 11]. Item: "He who will not work, neither shall he eat" [2 Thess. 3, 10.]. And in the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," he means to let each man have his own and his own property. Against such divine commandments they betroth property and call such poverty, as the high perfection. In the meantime they devour other people's goods and sell them the rest of their poverty, chastity and obedience.
60 Master Klügel will pretend here: You blaspheme the apostles, who in the beginning did not have anything of their own, and distributed what was there according to each man's need, Acts 4, 35. 4, 35. No one can deny this 2c. I also advise that we make the apostles monks; and what harm is it to say that they also left their wives for the sake of chastity, and shared and sold their perfect poverty, chastity and obedience to those who gave them something, and then quickly made a plate and put on caps and tied a rope around the body and said: Welcome, dear St. Peter, you holy Gardian! St. Lucas writes (if the blind could see) that the apostles and disciples did not gather the goods of others, but their own goods, and therefore no one thought that such was the case. Even if three or four citizens were so pious and faithful in a time of trouble, or for any other reason, and one of them took their goods for the benefit of the other, and fed on them as long as they wanted or could. For the apostles did not keep it this way forever, or as one gathers together in a tavern, where one may give or lay up for the other.
Here these citizens feed on their own property and not on other people's property, but divide it amicably among themselves, and such property is now a common property, but brought together from their own property, since one puts in more than the other, and when that is up, they in turn seek and acquire more of their own. But they make no worship out of it, much less sell such work as a remaining perfection to the others. But the monks feed on other people's goods and bring them together with lies, selling their good and other works for it.
The apostles' work was a society and not an order of poverty, which they vowed to become holy and pious by, as monks do; but it was a good example to men to help them, and not a service to God to become holy with it and to share and sell their perfect other merits to others. Therefore, monasticism is not at all like the history of the apostles. There they divide their own goods and do not give good works for them; the monks take other people's goods and divide their merit and holiness from others, who are better and holier than they are.
So, what does a monk vow when he vows his obedience? He vows vain disobedience to all the estates in the world, ordered by God, and thereby becomes a nobleman, free from church care, from civic burden, from household care, and becomes an idle, slothful brother in the goods, acquired by other people's sweat, and thereafter adorns such bad virtue with some childish unnecessary obedience to his prior, makes a high perfect service of God out of it, thereby doing enough for other people and bringing them to heaven. Are these not fine happy saints to me?
63. If they lived chastely or unchastely (I wanted to say without marriage), freely as the holy fathers did, also as Christ himself did, they would not make a special holiness or divine service out of it, which should be shared and sold to others; item, they would nourish themselves with their work, as a priest and preacher do, or, if something was given to them, they would accept it with gratitude as a gift and gift given for free, and would not sell their remaining holiness for it; that would be a fine being. But there would remain few monks, and the slothful bellies would become thin; for their nourishment does not stand on their own work, nor on foreign gifts, but on the fair, that they should help their benefactors and daily helpers again with their holy life out of hell, out of purgatory, out of sins to heaven, as their seals and letters, their books testify, have in custom and say; Beneficium propter officium.
Because such a spiritual life, kept in such a way, is full of blasphemy and denial of Christ, and in addition is vain imaginary, lying hypocrisy (as heard), therefore St. Paul also calls it 1 Tim. 4. Such rat's nests, the monasteries, where such boys live inside wantonly and obdurately, would be well worth building and maintaining so that not one stone would lie on another, and would be destroyed in eternal oblivion. And although the peasants did wrong in the uprising by storming the monasteries (for it was not their duty, and they had no command to do so), no injustice was done to these monasteries, except that some stones and landmarks remained standing there and were not eradicated. It is said that a king Josiah destroyed such altars and churches of Bethel 1) as it is read in the 2nd book of Kings [23, 15].
I want to report this again (although I wrote more than enough about it earlier) in thanksgiving and honor to the blessed name, so that George thinks he has reviled me greatly, that he calls me a perjurer and a lost monk. He scolds me as he pleases, only do not scold me as a faithful pious monk; for I do not want to be nor be called such, as little as I want to be and be called a pious tramp, a faithful highwayman, a chaste whoremonger, a chaste adulterer, or a holy devil. Let him call his monks by such an honest name and consider them his helpers in need, and, if that is not enough, let him put on a holy cap himself at his deathbed and die inside, and he will surely go to heaven, where he belongs, namely, which is prepared for the devil and his angels.
66 He is also interested in the princely alliance, 2) and would like to rub off his evil grudge on me, and become pure and beautiful through me. What a tremendous thing it is to have an evil conscience. How angry and raging it is, how restless it is and always worried that it has not apologized enough. And although I have written and it is true that
1) i.e. made into dust.
2) i.e., the Pack Alliance.
1872 Erl. 31, 301-303. d. Wider Herzog Georg und Cardinal Albrecht. W. XIX, WW-LWS. 1873
I do not want to take the world's good and believe that he is certainly innocent of it. But because he is so well and would like to be tickled in this play, I will try something, if I now answer correctly, and, if not drive away the tickle, at least soften and quiet it a little. That is enough of an answer to Duke George's accusation at Altenburg this time.
Now I want to come back to Duke George's next book, in which he has certainly pulled a good prank on me. If it were not a prince, I would call it a great mischievousness; for I have not read any of the snotty spoon's books since the time when he so honestly displayed his cleverness at Worms. He offered me to recite the escort, so that he would dispute with me. One would have laughed oneself to death at the Gauch, so foolishly he talked; and since it came to a meeting before the bishop of Trier, and should now Doctor Rotzlöffel prove his art, he struck with a finger on the table, and spoke: O Martine, Martine, Tu loqueris per talenta. That was the art. After that I answered him on a book in print. I am sorry that I put his name in my books; for the little belly can do nothing, understands nothing, and his own papists consider him to be a mere belly, as they did in Augsburg, and still do. Because he now felt that he had been so disgraced at Worms, and must still be a ghoul, he has since then wanted to regain honor with many books. But I want to know all of his books by heart; because he understands nothing of the matter (that I know), so it must be vain gossip, lies or blasphemy what he writes.
S. George will have known nothing about the fact that the book is so despised by me, and perhaps he wanted to teach me the fool's book under his name and coat of arms, so that I would have to read it; but he has not yet succeeded. For when I received it, and saw the diamond wreath with H. George's name printed on the front, I truly thought it was H. George the Master. But when I threw it around, I just hit the letters and the rotel of the oath; and threw a quatern around,
and find the hundred thousand florins, so through it are 2c. Then it occurs to me, Duke George will not write such a fool's play, and I look for the preface in front: so I find the title of my dear snot spoon. Then I put it down and said: Yes, such a master belongs to such a book; and I shall still read it. And I will read it no further until I see what will become. For no one may wait for me to answer the brat. He may write as little for my sake as I write for his.
I have enough of the two pieces, of the oath's rotel and of the hundred thousand florins. In each of these, Duke George has given me enough for the book; how much will he give me if I am to read it in its entirety? And I don't want to deal with Snotty, but with the one who had the diamond wreath and his name printed on it. I have written above about the oath and the notel, how Duke George is hitting himself in the cheeks quite viciously, that he scolds me an untruthful man, who has invented such an oath; and he himself lets the notel of such an oath go out under his name and coat of arms. I am worried that George's conscience has become so misguided that he does not know what he is saying or doing.
For I have certainly taken S. George for a hopeful, angry man; but I have not taken him to be so rude and imprudent that he should have his fatherly coat of arms, the noble, valuable diamond wreath, his highest honor on earth, printed on the fool's snot and dumplings, and thus led around the country. Greater dishonor has never happened to the noble diamond wreath, which so many laudable emperors, princes and lords have so long held in the highest honor, and still do, and so many high deeds and virtues under its ensign, both in war and peace, have shown in the empire; and the same shall now (so to reckon) be subjected to the lying, poisonous smoke, that he may throw in his lies and blasphemy, and his stink and filth before princes and lords under the same presentation, as if it were a frivolous knave's signet, and not a princely coat of arms. God plagues the man with a
1874 Erl. 31, 303-305.' Threefold appendix of some of Luther's controversial writings. W. XIX, 2335-2338. 1875
He does not yet feel, just as the stubborn Pharaoh could not feel, until God directed his wrath against him. Oh, if Duke Albrecht, the noble hero, should live and see that his son would have turned out this way! Alas! he is rather dead.
71 Truly, Duke Georgen reminds me in this, like the right fools, who, if they are forced, they beat around with the pistons, or throw around with snot and dumplings, hitting the innocent as hard as the right. He should answer me, Doctor Luther; so he scolds the praiseworthy pious prince, Duke John of blessed memory, who now lies in peace in God's court, and accuses him of the hundred thousand florins, wrested from the bishops 1) 2c. It has also been forbidden among the pagans, as a damned vice, to speak ill of the deceased, especially by name. But my ungracious lord, wanting to be a Christian prince and the patron of Christians, therefore goes and rebukes the pious prince, as well as his dear cousin, after his death, whom God (without doubt) has forgiven all his sins. And even if one wanted to doubt much, it is certain that he is not publicly condemned by God before the world, like Judas and Herod and the like, that Duke George should cry him out after his death, because he is not different in any public vice (which would have a semblance and cause to reprove him), but in the confession of Christ, which he made at Augsburg before the emperor. Solomon says that after death love and hatred cease. For one does neither good nor evil to the dead, because they cannot feel it. But Duke George is such a wicked soul that he must also cool his hatred of the dead, whom he tortured and tormented more than too much during his life.
He truly knows that everything is a lie and does violence and injustice to the pious prince, even after his death. For Duke John has not received a penny of the hundred thousand florins, much less a penny of the money.
1) This refers to the war indemnity which Churmainz and the bishops of Bamberg and Würzburg had to pay to the occasion of Pack's alliance.
I say that Duke George certainly knows that. Nor does he let such impudent public lies against the deceased man go out under his name and coat of arms. Who could have provided such a thing to Duke George?
Why doesn't he give such a hundred thousand florins to the one who is still alive 2) and knows well about it, and would certainly give him enough of an answer? He leaves that alone, he fears that he would see Ram 3). Therefore he hangs on to the innocent deceased man and cools his troubles on him with untruth. Such a man should be called a real death eater. May you (golden friend) do to your dear cousin after his death what you should not have done gladly during his life!
74) And even if one should speak strictly about it, it is still unproven that Duke Johannes Churfürst seliger 2c. and his relatives have done such an unjust thing at that time. For since everyone knew that Duke George, above all others, almost grunted very much, 4) and boasted of such an enemy of our doctrine, who could think otherwise than that he intended, as much as he always could, to eradicate them (as he has so far done with his subjects)? To such thoughts suggested that Duke George of Dessau helped to make a farewell, namely, that the rebellion could not be quenched, unless Luther and the Lutherans were exterminated first. That meant the rifle loaded, which failed him in the end (praise God!). The same farewell was followed by the very presumptive and still today not completely purified notel 5) of the princely alliance and various speeches, which almost rhymed with his grunt; besides, many other more circumstances and indications were heard.
75 Now, dear God, if I were not a nobleman, a citizen, or a peasant who had something of my own; nor, if I were in front of the house, there
2) d. i. the Landgrave Philip of Hesse.
3) i.e. overburden, dirt.
4) So the Wittenbergers and the Erlangers. Jenaer: gruntzelt.
I lived in, heard a rumbling and knocking with a great clamor, as if they wanted to break into me, I could no longer, so I would at least take stick, block, stone and wood in hand with my servants and what I could get, and asked what would be there, whether we were friend or foe? Who can justly blame the laudable, pious prince and his people? who, being obliged to save his own and his subjects, in such a case also showed such prudence and emergency, because, under Duke George's name, there was such a clamor and shouting in front of his house that he stepped behind the door with his spear and sword and asked: "Who wants to come in? Is it friend or foe? What shall we do to you? 2c. For a sovereign must sit in his armor, especially when there is a clamor, as a landlord must look when there is a tumult at his door.
Some of the bishops, who (as Duke George says) have been deprived of the florins, have not only excused Duke John, but have also pledged and been quite satisfied with him, and have not blamed him for the florins brought through, as Duke George interprets his dear dead cousin. If the bishops have suffered damage to the money (which has not been a damage to them, but a gain), they may thank Duke George, their patron, for whose sake they may have had to give such protection money, because they have relied so heavily on his protection and help.
In sum, no prince should be blamed if he notices that his neighbor wants to smoke, whether he desires peace and security before the fire starts. The world is full of deceit and cunning and does its deceitfulness by denial. Where it does not know what evil it has done.
she says no to it, she did not want to do it. But if she does, she will have done right and well. (I am now speaking to Duke George alone in his conscience and before God.) In time, I will continue to speak of this in my book, so that Duke George will realize that I understand his heart. For I believe that Duke George should also deny the parting at Dessau (where it would be secretly), and if it were held against him, as he dispatched his advisors with an instruction at Esslingen, that he would not know how to give advice for his own person on how to resist the Turk, Unless the Lutheran sect was eradicated and exterminated, the Christian prince should deny this and not want to suffer the speech that emanated from Esslingen, he would like to be prince, the Turk and Christians stay where they can. (I am speaking now as a suspiciously lost monk).
Item 78: If it were not known that Duke George has comforted and preserved the Barefoot Monks at Steinlaußig, located in the Electorate, and who, against the Elector's will, have abstained from Weimar for several years, with grain, wine, and writings, against the Elector's will, then he should deny it. And he is very angry that I have comforted some citizens of Leipzig with a letter of comfort alone; and the Elector has never strengthened anyone under Duke George with grain or help against him 2c. He is a scarpex jurist: tibi non deficit1 ) jus, sed probatio juris. No one shall understand such high art, rely on. But in that answer he shall (whether God wills) find it differently; there I will strike out such beautiful things. Now I want to write briefly and not sharply.
1) Jenaer: defsoit.